There is a spectrum haunting C-SPAM. I, on the contrary,

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > There is a spectrum haunting C-SPAM. I, on the contrary,

«‹›4 »

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Please bear in mind the withering away of the state is understood on the basis of the Marxist theory of the state, which does not envision it as something somehow disconnected from the economy or class struggle — an impartial apparatus for giving all members of society a voice, or the like. Rather, the state supervenes upon the economic base, and represents above all else the interests of different factions of the ruling class. Hence descriptions such as "a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie"; "an organization of violence for the suppression of some class"; "political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another"; etc.

there's more to the theory — taking into account degrees of domain autonomy and so on — but this much should suffice to make it clear that, in turn (and with the same provisions), the socialist state's primary function is to suppress the bourgeoisie. if the state completes this task, it will have eliminated the basis of its own existence in these terms; that is, if the material basis for the reappearance of the capitalist mode of production has been removed, and everyone belongs to the ruling class, then "class" itself ceases to exist. thus, the state "loses its political character" in the sense Marx is discussing

Note: this does not mean it ceases to exist as an administrative organ; that conclusion would require switching, mid-discussion, to an altogether different theoretical delimitation. I can see how people might make this error at a glance, and thus the theory might indeed come across as utopian, but fear not: the administration of services, as far as we can figure, probably won't ever stop being a good thing

# ¿ Sep 12, 2016 06:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 15:32

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

yeah, gotta meet people where they're at. i almost never use the word in this sense in day-to-day political chitchat, though if the discussion is explicitly about marxist theory qua theory then of course it makes sense to do so

# ¿ Sep 12, 2016 07:18

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Badger of Basra posted:

How have you been an anticapitalist for 8 years and are only now hearing about the Russian revolution

# ¿ Sep 28, 2016 18:02

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Deimus posted:

where did the USSR go wrong, on a theoretical basis

Typo posted:

Purging of the bureaucracy wasn't the problem: it was the failure to reform the planned economy towards a more market oriented one once the plan exhausted its own potential for growth, in that regard the strength of the bureaucracy was the problem

China is the counter-example to this

I'd argue the opposite; that its stagnation and ultimate collapse were rooted in being too market-oriented.

The short version of the argument goes like this: Soviet enterprises always maintained accounts reflecting their profitability, but rather than being the primary indicator of health, it was a mere datum of secondary importance, after production quotas. Such a schema was supported by a system of subsidies that primarily targeted heavy industry, but also R&D and new/innovative products that are initially less profitable to produce. However, beginning in the 1950's, major price reforms were passed that gave greater importance to profit indicators and de-emphasized or in many cases eliminated subsidized production. New products soon thereafter were less profitable and more costly to produce, so why bother innovating when you can meet your quotas with the old stuff? This problem was not especially pronounced in the 50's and early 60's, but this compounded over time and led to much more visible stagnation in the 70's and 80's.

A capitalist system, for all its severe and world-threatening faults, nevertheless has within it an internal drive for technical innovation, creating its own system of incentives through the interactions of capitalists who take control of the process of valorization, insist on procuring labor-saving technology to gain a competitive advantage, etc. In this case, government subsidies are effectively a bonus (e.g., the Pentagon system of the postwar period). One cannot adopt this same mindset with a socialist economy, a system that gives the driver's seat to conscious decision-making rather than market stimuli. In this case, the government must take on an active role in fostering new technologies, better products, etc. Fail to do so, and in the best case you're standing in your own way, since the goal is to revolutionize production such that necessary labor time is reduced to a bare minimum (and, in turn, leisure eventually increased to the maximum); in the worst case, capitalist rivals leave you in the dust.

The long version of the argument can be found, e.g., in this paper that garnered some discussion maybe 2-3 D&D Marx threads ago. I disagree with the author on a couple things but I think the thrust of the paper is persuasive. There are also some useful supplemental thoughts on the USSR "not [being] socialist enough" here.

Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:

On the contrary, you can reduce literally everything to "material forces." We live in a mostly deterministic universe. Given the initial conditions within our solar system a hundred thousand years ago, there was only one way things could have possibly unfolded, which is exactly as they have. Free will simply does not exist; you were always going to make this post, and I was always going to reply to it in this manner.

(OK, this isn't exactly true, since we can now, for instance, use such things as quantum random number generators. Free will still doesn't exist though.)

This has the seeds of a much more interesting discussion in it, since the combined critiques of both absolute idealism and fundamentalist materialism are what yielded dialectical materialism. I don't have the time to dive in on it right now, but if there's any light left in the ember when I get back, I may have to blow on it.

Aeolius fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Sep 30, 2016

# ¿ Sep 30, 2016 15:43

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

rudatron posted:

I'm pretty sure I cut into this argument the last time you used it,

I don't believe so, or at least I can't find the remark in question.

rudatron posted:

but that's not a sufficient explanation. You've moved the cause into the territory of strict policy, leaving the area of power and governmental structure that create that policy untouched - ie, the 'stagnant bureaucracy' argument still works, simply by reincorporating your data ("Why didn't they accurately diagnose and correct this problem? Why was the bureaucracy incapable of actively fostering innovation"). It's those failures of structure that are the more troubling questions, that have to be answered, and that are not by your sources.

It's a sufficient explanation for its scope. Asking what structures kept the problem from being corrected is a valid and important line of inquiry; in fact, the essay even devotes a small space to discussing that, though there are other works by other authors that do a better job of it (e.g., Keeran & Kenny). But the central question in Ball concerns stagnation purely in economic terms, and therefore focuses rightly on the socialist mode of production in context.

JeffersonClay posted:

Seems to me all people exist on some continuum of altruism and self-interest, and socialization and education can maybe shift the bell curve around a bit. Eliminating self-interest entirely sounds like an extraordinary claim requiring substantial evidence.

I don't think anyone has suggested the elimination of self-interest as a possibility, let alone an immediate goal. The very ontological status of an individual human being entails certain requirements and tendencies; the point is to gradually work towards structuring society so as to eliminate (or at least minimize) the contradictions between individual and group needs.

but if you should happen to see someone say something like "I believe there should be no self-interest" in a Marxist discussion, gently remind them how Marx felt about idealism.

Constant Hamprince posted:

Most of the 'inherent systemic flaws of capitalism' you guys keep citing are only inherent to laisses-faire, ayn-rand-boner libertarian capitalism

in your own words, please spell out these scarequote systemic flaws. wanna see what you think socialists are saying

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 15:17

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 00:01

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

so aside from the usual warning about communicating with asdf32 — e.g., has not made an intelligent post since at least may 14, 2010 — peeps should be aware that he's explicitly stated on several occasions (once in this very thread) that his engagement is predicated on the belief that socialist ideology is a pathological condition that he hopes to "figur[e] out how to prevent"

in other words, he's basically taken up the mantle of Forums Antonio Vallejo-N�jera. over the years his quest to rain smug, dishonest incomprehension upon every thread with even a flicker of red to it has gone from annoying to downright creepy

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 01:05

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

JeffersonClay posted:

Do you think the great depression was a global capitalist conspiracy to fire a bunch of people?

no. glad we could clear up at least this one small datum.

JeffersonClay posted:

The economy crashed because it was run by morons

so after subjecting more than 200 years of history illustrating the dynamics of capitalist economies to exacting scrutiny, your conclusion is that economic crises happen because the total IQ of the capital class has yet to hit some still-unspecified threshold?

how much longer you think we'll need to find people smart enough to own capital?

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 04:57

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

People weren't making "dumb" investments in the late 20s, they were trying to make sound investments based on the data they had available at the time,

and even then, it's not enough to just say "shocks, therefore depression"; investments (not even necessarily dumb ones) catastrophically backfire all the time without causing a black thursday situation, let alone a subsequent debt-deflationary spiral and a mass destruction of capital. we might point to a stock market dip as one of the first dominos to fall (though that also begs the question — why not whatever business failure(s) resulted in underperforming or failing assets? why not whatever conditions led to the failure? etc), but the point is to figure out just what keeps systematically and repeatedly lining them all up just so.

an actual crisis theory might examine the financial system, to study how it led to a much more interconnected economy such that one failure affected all. details like aggregate private-sector indebtedness might come into play as an indicator of systemic vulnerability. a theory even better, still, would inquire as to the causes of that growth of debt, and the aggregate dynamics of investment. and a superlative theory would finally investigate what real relations form the ultimate ground of said phenomena, and how they reproduce themselves (and their outcomes) over time

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 15:50

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

hardly unprecedented:

quote:

There were twelve programs under COINTELPRO covering different sets of organizations, including the Puerto Rican Independence Movement, the New Left, the American Indian Movement, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), and almost needless to say, the Communist Party, which had been an FBI target for decades. ... Following a lawsuit by the SWP, it was revealed that an organization with 2,500 members had been infiltrated by 1,600 informers�thus actually strengthening the group for a time, one could reasonably suppose.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2016 00:37

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Arri posted:

Oh, I'm sorry, did I stumble into the Marxist-Leninist thread instead of the socialism and liberation thread?

Arri posted:

Everyone who supports vanguard parties thinks they're going to be part of the vanguard

i've seen this line before, sort of a pithy "fox news"-style aphorism that betrays confusion about the term.

a vanguard is not a group of "leaders" so much as "ideologists." it's literally just people engaged in active pedagogy and organizing to help improve class consciousness among the mass of workers. the point is inclusiveness, not exclusiveness

case in point: if you want in on a revolutionary vanguard, get in on it. organizing is hard work and it can be a huge hassle to find motivated individuals keen on it, so if you think that describes you, the best way to show it is to step up without having to be prompted as I am presently prompting you

# ¿ Oct 15, 2016 20:40

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Doorknob Slobber posted:

also just be a body in a crowd in a protest

sup guys

just got home from this bad boy:

quote:

A massive protest erupted in Manhattan over Donald Trump's victory in the presidential election on Tuesday.

The throng of thousands began the protest at Union Square and marched up Broadway toward Trump Tower, halting rush hour traffic in its place. The mass of people spanned more than 40 city blocks.

pretty solid attendance for such short notice (bonus: there was a separate gathering at columbus circle, too), and radical politics was front and center at the gathering before the crowd started moving, likely due to ANSWER's role in organizing it. it never felt like a gaggle of democratic party partisans, for sure. (i did see one dude trying to scold someone else for disrespecting the flag lol)

felt bad for the cars stuck sitting there in an endless flood of bodies for who knows how long, but they were good sports about it, never heard an angry honk that i can recall. kept seeing cabs whose fares decided to stick it out inside, which leads me to believe either they switched off the meters or the passengers were using a company amex and didn't care

# ¿ Nov 10, 2016 04:21

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

That point about identity politics seems odd to me because if we understand the phrase broadly, then it would be fair to consider Marx a proponent of the development of a strong politics around proletarian identity. If anything, drawing a line between "class" and "identity" (what then of class identity?) strikes as less intelligible than drawing a line between an identity politics derived from materialism and emphasizing social structure (i.e., Marxism) and the idealist forms of identity politics that have sprouted from the soil of postmodernism — the sort Reed describes, individualistic and driven to negation without a clear positive program.

maybe this is just semantics, though.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2016 16:26

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

yeah i saw that. and i commented on it ("the sort Reed describes...")

again, i'm just getting nitpicky about a phrase, as is my wont

# ¿ Nov 10, 2016 16:46

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

resar posted:

can anyone recommend some good sources on whats happening in venezuela that isn't "lol socialism just doesn't work"?

this just came out at the beginning of the month and people i deem trustworthy are speaking highly of it. haven't started it myself yet.

# ¿ Nov 11, 2016 01:43

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Deimus posted:

And join an org, if one is in your area.

it can't be said enough. here's Kwame Ture (a.k.a. Stokely Carmichael) in a 1988 interview discussing it in the context of the 60's, though he might as well be talking about the lessons of Occupy in this very decade:

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Nov 16, 2016 15:41

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Minty posted:

ethical consumerism exists more to assuage liberal's guilt than to actually affect change

well said.

the same goes for all the other avenues of "how can you be against capitalism if you [are saving for retirement, etc]." completely divesting oneself of the trappings of the world won't help to understand or change it.

even Engels was a textile magnate; far from harming the cause, the knowledge he brought to the table on the structure and content of capitalist accounts wound up being critical to the development of Marx's economic writing.

Aeolius fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Nov 16, 2016

# ¿ Nov 16, 2016 20:17

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:

Allusions to Marx and half-baked attempts to imitate his methods of analysis do not suffice.

There is an element of truth to your criticism; class is so consistently overlooked in bourgeois ideology, that once people realize its importance, they sometimes get overeager and let it eclipse other struggles in a kind of economic determinism. There's even a term for this: "vulgar Marxism." It's generally a phase, and a contingent one at that; I don't think I've ever seen it manifest outside of white people, for example.

That said, your smugness remains entirely unearned.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2016 22:33

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:

What thread do you think you're posting in?

I don't see "threads"; just a spiraling continuum of garbage opinions.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2016 23:21

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

If you're trying to take me to task for letting rococo off easy I understand, but I'm trying to be nice since they said they are getting involved

# ¿ Nov 20, 2016 03:57

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Fututor Magnus posted:

does anyone know a good, open-access, criticism of neoclassical economics from a marxian perspective?

explicitly marxian is tricky to find compared to, say, post-keynesian. wolff actually wrote a comparative text or two, but it should probably be read critically due to what i understand are some questionably deployed philosophical categories. steve keen is a post-keynesian with an asinine reading of marx, but he dispatches well enough with various tropes of undergraduate economics pedagogy. i also haven't had the chance to vet this essay but Ben Fine generally lives up to or otherwise outperforms his name, so there's probably no harm in linking it (he's actually got a couple new books out this year on micro and macro respectively)

either way, while a marxian perspective might give one a vantage point that might not have otherwise occurred, the best critiques are immanent critiques, taking the theory on its own terms and finding contradictions, inconsistencies, etc. external critique is more about making a case for which theory better fits the observable facts, but usually that's still a correlative process and the problem of underdetermination can and often will leave things far from definitive

but if you come upon any more specific questions, never hurts to ask.

Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:

My local PSL has gotten through the backlog and emailed me to come sit down with them and "discuss moving forward to build a revolutionary socialist organization." Do I need to pretend to be a Marxist, or can I admit to being a soc dem who just wants to hoist the red flag and start slitting throats?

just tell them you killed rosa luxemburg but you're sorry and want to turn over a new leaf

Aeolius fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Nov 24, 2016

# ¿ Nov 24, 2016 05:18

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

asdf32 posted:

"When critiquing Marx don't worry about real life too much"

Just a quick check-in: Does anyone actually need me to respond to this, or are we good on reading comprehension here?

# ¿ Nov 24, 2016 18:07

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

asdf32 posted:

Heh.

It's a holiday, asdf32; go be a father to your daughters. Do some good somewhere.

# ¿ Nov 24, 2016 20:33

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

this is good, though i can't find it on youtube (only a less interesting clip that I initially mistook for this one)

BBC interview with Helen Yaffe on the relationship between Castro & Che, Cuban democracy, etc.: https://www.facebook.com/helen.yaffe.9/posts/1780349142229357

# ¿ Nov 28, 2016 16:22

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Monthly Review published an essay on Cuba in 2010 called "How to Visit a Socialist Country" that y'all should read. It covers a lot of ground, but its final section is particularly noteworthy here because not only does it focus on the democratic process in Cuba, but it even discusses criticisms of it that are far more considered, nuanced, and based on the concrete reality of Cuba than virtually anything else you'll see in the stateside press. Critically, it even takes time at the coda to spell out some "prerequisites for meaningful, revolutionary criticism."

I figured something like this might appeal to TAR in light of his earlier remarks on the importance of "in-depth, subtle, and deeply insightful" criticism, so far absent from his own discourse on Cuba.

# ¿ Nov 28, 2016 16:57

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:

Then some idiot goes and declares Cuba a democracy. Oh, really. So that's what we're in for, then, when the revolution comes?

As far as I can see, all anyone is asking you to consider is:

The word "democracy" isn't univocal.
There can be multiple ways of structuring socialism, just like there are multiple ways of structuring capitalism.
One cannot meaningfully consider the "authoritarian" aspects of Cuban life (or, indeed, authoritarianism writ large) outside the context of the challenges and threats facing or otherwise perceived by that society. In Cuba's case, these are real and ongoing.

# ¿ Nov 28, 2016 17:31

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Homework Explainer posted:

liberal democracy, or bourgeois democracy, is a system by which...

i'm really glad someone took the time to break the cycle of peeps talking past one another.

i was planning to attempt it myself by focusing on (and extensively excerpting) this article I linked earlier, but my commute is many hours long in each direction because [capitalism lol]

the article's title is, to its detriment, incredibly misleading; one might get the impression that Levins is setting up to talk about etiquette and sightseeing on a visit to Cuba. one would be dead wrong, though; what results is a long but incredibly insightful and fruitful meditation on the particularities and generalities of building a revolutionary democratic society — primarily focused on cuba but with occasional reference to other examples. its scope is broad, but with due deference to specifics; his eye is both to the structure and to the human. (at a fair few points, I might add, it almost seems like it was written to respond specifically to someone thinking along the lines of Rococo)

like, i'm a big fan of MR on the whole and have read a lot of what they've put out over some years, and this article definitely makes my short list for overall reading recommendations from it

# ¿ Nov 29, 2016 04:17

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Woozy posted:

liberals who insist this amounts to some inherent flaw in ideology are full of poo poo

Case A: "starve the beast" market fundamentalists campaign on the inefficiencies of government, throw a wrench into every aspect of it they can, and then use this to prove their original point and argue for more privatization.

Case B: imperialist powerhouses subvert and overthrow every socialist project unprepared to defend itself, create a world-system that thereby selects for more authoritarian strains of socialism, and then use this as evidence of the inherent undesirability of socialism.

the right-wing rhetorical strategy is similar, but the liberal responses could not be more different

# ¿ Dec 5, 2016 00:49

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

so, people think communists are not trustworthy because they are forthright and open about their biases, whereas the bourgeois press does not attest to any bias and therefore can be safely assumed to have none � something that is totally real & possible. QED.

pro heuristic: lend greater weight to someone who can identify and state clearly their biases; nobody is without them. if they think they are, it just means they haven't interrogated them, and may not even realize the presuppositions they're bringing to bear

if someone doesn't consider that a for-profit press run by corporate titans who dine in the halls of power MIGHT express certain interests and biases related to its concrete existence and those of the shot-callers, then i expect this hypothetical person hasn't given it much thought. or, also possible but somewhat more depressing, they've wholeheartedly swallowed the idea that capitalism is a "natural" and trans-historical world system, and therefore its biases are actually objectively correct norms intrinsic to all of humanity forever, and bourgeois democracy is the greatest realization of eudaimonia to which we as a species can aspire.

fortunately, there's a wealth of examples of times in human history where the capitalist market has not been the totalizing principle of human society, times the fourth estate has failed utterly to do more than act as stenography or PR for the imperial state and its constituents, and so on. some standard recommended readings on this include Chomsky's famous Manufacturing Consent, or Parenti's (tragically) less-well-known Inventing Reality.

i like to think that if you can get people to key into such details, then the house of cards will begin to fall. unfortunately, people are also extremely good at compartmentalizing the things they learn. consilience is hard, and ideology is hideously strong when consistently reinforced. but, that said, I honestly can't blame people for basic lack of exposure to such ideas, because they're not taught well outside of certain dissident circles or underfunded corners of academia. it's an uphill battle, but what else is new? "the cause of communism is the most arduous undertaking in all history," etc etc

anyway, enough outta me. here's a talk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-SK8bUsshQ

Aeolius fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Dec 8, 2016

# ¿ Dec 8, 2016 05:05

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

i'm not a specialist of the period so i'm not in the best position to give it a proper critical evaluation, but the chapters i've read were brisk and lively and definitely stuck with me. here's an overall positive review tempered with some criticisms

# ¿ Dec 8, 2016 05:35

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Minge Binge posted:

Nobody cares about the 19th century is what he's saying

bonus irony when he then tries to land burns via a Victorian-era understanding of "religion" as a category

# ¿ Dec 10, 2016 04:25

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

plato

wait so which is it, are we anachronistic or contemporary

# ¿ Dec 10, 2016 04:34

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Homework Explainer posted:

Darkman Fanpage posted:

what's wrong with chompsky?

Here's a good essay discussing this

# ¿ Dec 11, 2016 08:41

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Rated PG-34 posted:

How much of this goes hand in hand with anarchism vs Marxism?

Not much that I can recall. Certainly not on the analytical end, since the main line drawn there pertains to whether analysis stops before it hits class, and that's not really a bone of contention between Marxists and anarchists.

In the later sections maybe there's an echo of it, but it's not an explicit framing, if memory serves.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2016 10:28

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:

What a meandering defense of conspiracy theorizing.

on the other hand, an admirably terse dog-bites-man post

edit: apropos of nothing i found this thing

Aeolius fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Dec 11, 2016

# ¿ Dec 11, 2016 20:49

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

it's not airtight, but I'm not sure how it's "strange," considering the broader discussion. what example would you have chosen in its place?

Aeolius fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Dec 11, 2016

# ¿ Dec 11, 2016 21:38

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

in that case, more images

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Dec 11, 2016 21:43

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Homework Explainer posted:

divided world divided class kicks major rear end and that clause rhymed so you know it's true

seconding this recommendation

also Capital (vol 1 at the least) is a good read, is basically the birth of the modern social sciences, and contrary to some of the allegations in here it's still relevant; the relations of production haven't changed so radically as technology itself has. but if you're just aiming to get its content in less space, there are definitely other options — especially from the last couple decades.

# ¿ Dec 20, 2016 16:44

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Larry Parrish posted:

I think it's pretty easy to see how serfs might have been better off than early wage workers and indentured servants

You could definitely argue that it's still true today, at least for people making minimum wage

i'm reminded of the observed behavior of workers back in the colonies: people who had no inducement or land claim on arrival would typically work for a year or so, buy themselves a couple hundred acres with the proceeds, and then leave the workforce to become self-sufficient farmers.

incidentally, this kept the workforce small and wages high, and reinforced the central roles of slavery (to actually get poo poo built) and genocide (to shore up "uninhabited" land). see, e.g., chapter 1 of Settlers, a good book everyone should read

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

Medieval serfs also got tons of holidays.

i noticed last month a bunch of outlets spontaneously reprinted a thing on this subject originally published like three years ago. not sure what prompted it, but nor am i complaining; it's neat stuff

# ¿ Dec 21, 2016 15:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 15:32

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Odobenidae posted:

I'm serious in that you should not take some random goon's word dismissing the book off-hand. What usually happens is that someone gleans a very tenuous criticism from the tone of the book and then extrapolates that to some wacky hyperbole which everyone else assumes is true and then runs with. When someone suggested the book in the Bernie Sanders thread they concluded that it was pro-hillary agitprop designed to shame them into thinking socialism is racist. I am not joking.

yeah it's pretty much the book to dismiss on purely tonal grounds. lot of useful research and all, but some people just can't get past a rhetorical device that's fallen out of favor over the intervening decades. (fortunately it's dead easy to just set a word replace entry in one's browser)

edit: i checked, in the interview you can't hear the "k"

Aeolius fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Dec 22, 2016

# ¿ Dec 22, 2016 15:45

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > There is a spectrum haunting C-SPAM. I, on the contrary,

«‹›4 »