|
Despera posted:Its 2019 and some people still think communism still works Thread is about socialism not communism. There will be a chapter on the difference later.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 06:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:05 |
|
|
Despera posted:Its 2019 and some people still think capitalism still works FTFY
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 06:25
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Thread is about socialism not communism. There will be a chapter on the difference later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 08:11
|
|
|
Despera posted:Your opinion is so out of the political mainstream that you might as well not have it. You'll never convince any substantial group of people that this is true, which is what you kind of need to enact change in a democracy. lol go back to shitposting in the afc north thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 08:51
|
|
|
Despera posted:Your opinion is so out of the political mainstream that you might as well not have it. You'll never convince any substantial group of people that this is true, which is what you kind of need to enact change in a democracy. Which is why extreme ideology and democracy are effectively incompatible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Which is why extreme ideology and democracy are effectively incompatible. remember when we elected a guy who proceeded to get you to agree unconditionally funding concentration camps was good
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 01:28
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:remember when we elected a guy who proceeded to get you to agree unconditionally funding concentration camps was good No.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No. there was an election in 2016. it was a thing. there was a demand from the Republican Party, in late June of this year, for Democrats to unconditionally fund their concentration camps. where over 1400 children had "gone missing" as of last year, the last point where they issued any reports on the subject. all we have heard since is why the American people should feel no need to avoid the deaths of the vermin polluting the nation-body with their Hispanic blood. we shouldn't give them blankets. we shouldn't give them soap. we shouldn't treat their illnesses. The official, expressed opinion of the Republican Party on the subject is that we should just let the filth die. guess what the response of the Rational Centrists was, asdf. did you guess "incited a round of racial hatred against the socialists who said 'lets not do that', then gave the Republicans everything they asked for" it was illustrative, imo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 03:28
|
|
|
The Proletariat and Socialism The opposition to the bourgeois principle comes from the proletariat. Socialism is one of the expressions of this opposition, is “bound up with” the existence of the proletariat. But it also seeks to eliminate the proletariat (if there are no classes, there is no proletariat). This negation of class transcends, it is the universal aspect of socialism. So socialism has a particular origin (in the proletariat of a given society) and a universal character (the negation of class). Tillich asserts these things cannot be separated. With only the universal, class negation, there is no group to advocate for socialism. Without the universal the proletariat can be reduced to only the “resentment of a suppressed class” Tillich sees socialism as the consciousness of the proletariat. He asserts that the proletariat is an existential concept. What this means is that it can only be understood from the inside and arises from the experience of the proletarian struggle. It may be useful here to look to the idea of “existence precedes essence” The concept of the proletariat arises from the existence of the proletariat, but its self consciousness, its essence is socialism. So to understand socialism one has to start with the experience and existence of the proletarian struggle, but to talk about that experience with symbols and language socialism is necessary. Here Tillich talks about the relationship between greek thought, jewish prophetism and Christianity with socialism. He asserts that socialism has elements from all three. An analogous assertion is Zizek’s statement that one must “pass through Christianity” to get to socialism. Think of the assertion this way: one doesn’t have to be any of those things to be in socialism, but socialism cannot escape that parts of it come from those things. It “carries the religious and secular history that formed it.” But, this means for Tillich that socialism’s expectation of “classless society” grows from the demands that were within Christianity and secular humanism! The universal (Sein) element and the particular (Dasein). Tillich asserts that both elements are necessary. The particular cannot be ignored or socialism becomes intellectualized. The universal ( classless society) is necessary because without it, the opposing elements in society cannot be brought over to socialism. This is what Tillich sees as the challenge: developing the universal of a classless society in a particular context of a given proletariat. Here I depart from the text, regarding Tillich’s challenge one could talk about another pair of two ontological inverted but structurally identical ideas, the concrete universal and the Word made Flesh. After he fled Germany to the US Tillich didn’t use the word socialism much. But I now think all his work in the US should be considered in light of the project he identifies in this chapter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
I hate to say it, but if you are trying to convince people to support socialism in a democracy you will need to couch it not in arguing over who the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie are but in terms of "how will this benefit me, the person who might vote for it?" If I go to some dude on the street and start jabbering about the ancient Greeks and that's why you should vote for Bernie he is rightfully going to tell me to gently caress right off. When we say socialism in this thread, what exactly do we mean? I don't mean to poo poo all over the interesting analysis of the book, but the OP promised a way to convince people to be socialist and I don't think we're quite there yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 10:18
|
|
|
convincing people of socialism is, in principle, easy: you appeal to class interests. this is how socialism became a mass ideology in the first place. high theory like this is useful for explaining why this doesn't always work and which basic human interests are being appealed to - when someone simply rejects the idea of solidarity, what are they actually saying? it is not obvious that scabbing is against my self-interest, and yet it is on a slightly longer term
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 12:36
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:there was an election in 2016. it was a thing. Let's take a moment, close to the end of the year, to remember Will Van Spronsen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
Despera posted:Your opinion is so out of the political mainstream that you might as well not have it. You'll never convince any substantial group of people that this is true, which is what you kind of need to enact change in a democracy. Try to understand the conversation we are having because what I said was not a particularly controversial statement. We are comparing the contemporary politics of the United States with the politics of the Weimar Republic. The Reichstag contained parties of the far left and right who were openly working toward either a revolution of a coup to overthrow the existing system. Significant parts of the civil service, judiciary and military were fundamentally opposed to the existence of the Republic and wanted a return to authoritarian government and many of the large capitalists feared a revolution. America by contrast has one of the oldest constitutions and governments in the world and a very tightly managed two party system. The range of ideological positions in the American congress or expressed within the primaries of the two big parties are far far narrower than the range of ideological positions in Weimar Germany, which literally had fascist and communist political parties fighting in the streets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
Despera posted:Your opinion is so out of the political mainstream that you might as well not have it. You'll never convince any substantial group of people that this is true, which is what you kind of need to enact change in a democracy. He's pretty right though. There are differences in social policy but the bipartisan forign policy consensus is a well eatablished fact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
I think I know how to explain the difference between revolutionary romantics and conservative romantics to you Helsing. My grandfather was in the Marines during WWII. He went in, in 39 and was in the First ( he had stories about Chesty Puller and was in Johnny Basilone's squad on Guadalcanal.) For about the last two decades of his life (died in 05 if my memory isn't faulty) he wore a hat with a big red one patch and his insignia pins. That is authentic culture and a connection to an origin that a conserative romantic would attempt to preserve. For Christmas this year my parents gave me that hat in a shadow box. What I was struck by was its color. It was red, not just any red, that red. Therein lies the difference, the maga hats are appealing to culture that they are not connected to authentically and that is manufactured rather arising from existence. They are attempting to create a new origin from appropriated symbols. One of those two things, is potentially salvable. My grandfather was conservative, racist, republican. But( and I saw this happen) he could be swayed and even moved to set aside all his beliefs, by shared existential experience. This racist man (and I also saw that) would do anything in the world for a black or latino veteran (and did so many times). That is not the case for the revolutionary romantics. Their connection to origin is broken and it replacement is a fabrication. The appeal to humanity to shared existence doesn’t work. This difference is lethal. This is also the root of why years ago you were right and I was wrong about the GOP. My lived experience had mostly been with the former, and ones from the tail end of the WWII generation. They’ve been damned for a while. You saw and I didn't. But you also don’t see the difference now. Perhaps I should use other language. Capitalism causes alienation, conservative romantics attempt to conserve to protect what is not alienated. Revolutionary romantics attempt to fabricate anew, what they are alienated from. Anyway, a digression here could be to Heidegger and his approach and how it is related to facism and political romanticism. We could talk about why the Nazi is a Nazi. But Tillich is not Heidegger, despite all the Being, Being-itself and nothingness. He is a parallel track not a branch. Tillich retains something rather important that Heidegger discards. Tillich's existentialism retains the principle of contradiction. Which will be a topic in the next chapter when his analysis of socialism starts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
Lowbrow post: Is there any particular reason y'all insist on a clear division between two classes, instead of using something more modern like a status hierarchy, which may be a function of economics or other factors? It feels like the bipartite class discussion doesn't really fit the current reality at all, nor does it seem useful to understand (intuitively) the failure of socialist countries (insofar as you see some failing and don't insist it was all due to international "competition"). So for example, some system may order people according to economic status, some system may order differently. There may be some distribution with two peaks and therefore, broadly, two classes, but there may also be some other distribution. On a more micro level, people order themselves and their environment according to perception. If you think that economic class is what counts right now, even then there seem to be much more accurate descriptions of contemporary "classes" than what Marx used. Best of all, as far as I know, sociologists have worked out a poo poo ton of theory regarding all that. Also, a wide array of science suggest that the enjoyment or value of virtually all things is almost always colored or distorted by relative comparisons i.e. status. After all, a "classless" society with an undesirable status hierarchy is just as bad as any other system, since people seem to be very flexible in how they compare themselves and gain enjoyment or pain thereof. Neither opportunity, power, contribution, reward nor freedom would be distributed ideally until that problem is overcome. And that exists both in capitalist and socialist systems, or may contribute to explaining why the latter fail in reality. Self-propagation of status advantages, say, as driver of nepotism and elitism in the later years of Eastern-bloc countries. Focus on ownership of means of production is historically relevant, sure, but it seems rather arbitrary. Like the millionaire heir who doesn't own any means of production or assets at all, or the low-class owner who owns those with no current perceived value. If you think of factual resources and advantages afforded by relative status, as example, the description of this situation is much less convoluted. imo. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Dec 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 02:09
|
|
|
status hierarchies are trivial to subvert by the liberal-conservative continuum, as seen by the mobilisation of antisemitism charges against the british labour party or just reactionary idpol in general. a materialist view of things - I.e. the core struggle is the struggle between property and labour - is absolutely necessary to keep a coherent narrative. the abandonment of such a grand narrative in favour of more modern ideologies have resulted in complete routs of the left all over the western world, and there's a great many indications that the conservatives do have a clear central class loyalty to the owners of capital and property
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
What I mean is that a class hierarchy brought on by materialistic conditions (which is already broader than a two-class view of the world) is but a special case of a hierarchical ordering that leads to a grouping into classes. Hence, that grouping may be subject to change even if the materialistic conditions - in principle - are still important. The contention being that holding on to terminology and class definitions for ideological reason ("Marx said so") seems to weaken the argument of the left, c.f. the discussion about what proletariat vs. burgs actually are in today's world. Insofar that the left has been routed all over the world, wouldn't it also be the case that the traditional narrative has been routed? As far as I am aware, traditional left-wing and Marxist parties are essentially dead or shrunk to irrelevance all over Europe - in an environment that should have led to a large resurgence. In my country, the election posters with the traditional Marxists slogans seemed to capture no attention by anyone. I mean, the impoverished proles are often not laborers, or involved in any labor movement, or have any intellectual and emotional connection to the leftist discussion in the tradition of the labor movement. Labor vs. ownership is simply not a reflection of societal struggle they face. Similarly, the middle class and the somewhat well-off people do not own means of production, and insofar as their well-being relies on strengthening labor, the leftist discourse does not seem to target or concern them. More often, they seem to fall into the category of "them", even though they would and should be the beneficiaries of the leftist agenda (as they are wage laborers and not owners, by and large). So in effect, you reach no one with that categorization. Is this a good strategy? Yes, a convoluted narrative has been less than successful, but so has the dogmatic discourse presented for example itt. People live in today's society. Someone living off welfare or Harz or whatever cares very little that he doesn't own means of production, if in reality the hierarchically comparable people also do not. If the beggar meets the dev-ops engineer in the supermarket parking lot, THEN a hierarchical class division becomes obvious. But both of those people do not own means of production. Its a status difference that simply does not exist in traditional Marxist ideology. Explaining society in terms of the "core struggle" - even if it IS the underlying reason - is itself convoluted. In contrast, the far right also has catchy narratives based on "us" and "them", and the proletariat - in my country at least - seems to find them extremely appealing. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Dec 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
bourgeois conservativism is increasingly in the thrall of the incredibly toxic and increasingly fluid financial capital. western europe went the way of national unity and class compromise, and what is left is the movements that granted them the power to make such compromises has been completely eroded. 'let us not talk about class' is literally what brought us to the present nadir of left-wing politics. we are simply not going to be able to escape the fundamental conflict between labour and capital, between the interests of those who would see property accumulate value amd those who would not. of course, one can talk about the finer points - as, indeed, the orthodox marxists did to the point of tedium - but we simply have to have that relationship as the central one in our politics, and drat the homeowners
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
'those guys are the pawns of those douchebags at the stock exchange' is a perfectly fine populist message and if we can't make it work we're hosed anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
I dunno I still feel that needing a translation key to talk to any cohesive part of society demands a reformulation of the leftist discourse. Ownership is so god drat opaque nowadays. I am still not clear who precisely is the bad guy here. Because if it is being beholden to financial markets, it's certainly every god drat laborer in this country. And then the actual proletariat still doesn't believe you, because their day-to-day class enemies don't own poo poo, they just make more money by being actual wage laborers, some perhaps own a stock or two. Maybe if the middle-class is gone entirely there's something there. But what if it ain't? Meanwhile, all the fash has to do is to blame it on brown people coming with boats. Hell, the right was even more successful in attacking super rich people than the left. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:In contrast, the far right also has catchy narratives based on "us" and "them", and the proletariat - in my country at least - seems to find them extremely appealing. Yeah that is part of the problem the proletariat can come to align with the political romantics as democracy falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:I dunno I still feel that needing a translation key to talk to any cohesive part of society demands a reformulation of the leftist discourse. Ownership is so god drat opaque nowadays. your proposal to save socialism is to stop being socialist. this has been tried, and it was a miserable failure. in contrast, i propose that there's a real road forwards for, you know, actual socialist policy and a willingness to get down and dirty, but it necessitates moving away from stupid poo poo like honesty or moral standing and just being completely and ruthlessly filthy in our politics. dig up every suspect connection and every inside trade, and be different. the centre-left has been collapsing because there's no point in it anymore, and people have cottoned onto it. the actual proletariat is everyone living off a wage. the conservatives have been clever in tying so much of our everyday consumption into debt and encouraging individual homeownership, but that's going to fail very soon. glooming about "oh but those types are all racists and xenophobes" is the worst sort of liberal hand-wringing - they fell in line when we offered them something and had a movement. building a movement and building trust is a loving slog and takes a lot of time and a lot of failure, but you're a very far way from your initial thesis about "status hierarchies" and have moved onto griping that the right are better at populism than we are. this is true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the primacy of class politics, and rather the reverse V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Dec 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
Then the issue is that the status hierarchy within the actual proletariat is so pervasive and defining, that the proletariat in its entirety is divided enough such that the core narrative of socialism has no effect anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
I think it is starting to again. An example would be to browse the retail thread, but we can also see it in several other D&D threads especially when healthcare comes up. There is a growing anger and it is visible elsewhere too, particularly in anyone younger than 35. The real question is, is that real? Is it not just anecdotal observation? Five, ten, years ago yeah you are absolutely correct. Now, five years from now, I think class narratives hold a lot more water.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Then the issue is that the status hierarchy within the actual proletariat is so pervasive and defining, that the proletariat in its entirety is divided enough such that the core narrative of socialism has no effect anymore. again though what is 'the actual proletariat' and what the devil are you proposing rather than a basically class-based discourse which isn't exactly what brought us into this mess in the first place proposing the new labour shift in 2019 when that whole ideology is clearly totally moribound is seriously dodgy politics V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Dec 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
While I'm not really paying as much attention as I should to this conversation as I should before I jump in, it seems that the working class could be most broadly defined as the non-capitalist class, that is, those whose income comes from their wealth. Now, obviously people who work own homes, and stocks and cars and what not, but what really matters is whether that capital grows in comparison to inflation. If it is higher, then they will inevitably approach the bourgeoisie so long as that remains so. For all capital with returns lower than inflation, it will inevitably lose value until a sudden expense takes it from the owner of it entirely. As the returning capital of the middle class (pensions, social security, and any other public assets which help them) lessens due to being raided by the rich, the less they will have in common with the rich. The discontent with capitalism will only grow so long as capitalists continue to distance more of the population from their lifestyle. They could probably go on forever if they were cautious enough to give people a bone or two every once and a while, and not take what they've already given, but that would go against their very nature.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:again though what is 'the actual proletariat' and what the devil are you proposing rather than a basically class-based discourse which isn't exactly what brought us into this mess in the first place I was quoting you here, the actual proletariat being wage laborers? Like say, I am Elon McScrooge, super rich capitalist. I have all politicans in my pocket, and as avid Marx reader, I know I only need to fear a proletarian revolution. Because I agree that otherwise, material advantages of the capital I own will propagate. But I also read on psychological and sociological research, so I know that people care about, in fact define themselves, via relative status hierarchies. And I also know that this proceeds mainly along the dimension of material wealth, and some other status cues such as skin color, heritage etc. But let's say what ultimately counts is wealth. So then, the only thing I really need to do is to ensure the status hierarchy is sufficiently differentiated. I can not have inequality bisect society entirely, but I am completely fine if every social class finds some other, smaller and relatively superior counterpart. Bonus points for some other differentiating dimensions, like nationality and race. As a consequence, any rethoric targeting the "proletariat" as entirety of wage labor will probably fail outright, because no one will identify with it. I'll be an upstanding social democrat, not a super capitalist, because that keeps me rich and the keeps the revolution from happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
Sure, if you can hand them some scraps to keep them placated. Does it seem like that is the case though? Edit: I mean, racism doesn't put food in your stomach, and the spoils of exploitation of a disliked class of people Garner's less substinance every decade, and what it does provide is more and more taken by the wealthy. Not even fascism can stop the rate of profits tendancy to fall. thechosenone fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Dec 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
I guess in consequence it's the same ol' problems that have been discussed many times. It would be nevertheless interesting what the left strategy is to unite wage laborers, seeing as the category seems so ill fitting in its current form.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
I don't see why you would say it doesn't fit, considering anyone whose capital does not grow while providing their income isnt really much of a capitalist. As far as who or how people will organize, I'd say I don't know, but that the current organizations won't last in their current form. Good or bad, change will come, as will new kings. thechosenone fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Dec 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:bourgeois conservativism is increasingly in the thrall of the incredibly toxic and increasingly fluid financial capital. western europe went the way of national unity and class compromise, and what is left is the movements that granted them the power to make such compromises has been completely eroded. No you don’t. There is no “one weird trick” to solve the problems of human society. There is no single relationship or ingredient that can be added or removed to do it. Capitalist power is simply not that interesting or unique compared to how power manifests in any other form of society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Capitalist power is simply not that interesting or unique compared to how power manifests in any other form of society. Good thing previously discussed was the prebourgeois powers and the powers of origin and why bourgeois is interesting and unique in that context.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Even without capitalists, people as we know them would manifest status hierarchies among themselves and we know these can be as binding and propagate unequal power as capital. But to be fair that's not what this thread is about at all so I'll let it go. @thechosenone: Like I said above, the people who are and will be in the near future wage laborers do not see themselves as proles. They see themselves as almost capitalist, just one good idea way from "making it". And the large group of poor and marginalized folks have, as far as I can tell, no real connection to the labor movement and its traditional narrative about capital. Case in point, over here, the young voters of this group voted very little for the left party, and Marxist votes among them are essentially a rounding error. The right, however, has no trouble whatsoever sweeping them up in droves. The question of whether y'all would want to change the narrative to appeal to those groups has been answered above (it being seen as a bad idea of giving up socialism). So my question is answered. I just don't think it'll work. Another issue is that the framing may come across as patronizing, even if well meant - you'd need to teach essentially all groups of proles that they are proles, and why that matters. Because nobody today considers themselves part of the labor proletariat. The fash, on the other hand, can pretend to take the current concerns seriously and offer immediate solutions based on primal instincts (if one is cynical). Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Dec 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
if a non-capitalist group perceives itself as having reasonable common cause with capital in today's society, they are simply wrong and must be convinced of this by any means. the petit-bourgeois etc are probably not reachable, because they genuinely do have some measure of common cause with capital. we may need the former group, but we cannot and should not chase the latter. this is materially different from even ten years ago, when tripartism was still working under neoliberal auspices. now, it is clear that there can be no common cause between almost all wage-earners and the owners. other conflicts, such as the consumer-worker axis which has become very important since the eighties, must be seen as subordinate to this central conflict. the message is clear and simple: earning by work is superior to earning by ownership
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
People will always organize themselves socially that's how humanity works, what socialism strives for is voluntary hierarchy and an end of material hierarchy/inequality. Who gives a gently caress if my neighbor has more clout than me if I have my needs met and can pursue my desires freely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 01:37
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Even without capitalists, people as we know them would manifest status hierarchies among themselves and we know these can be as binding and propagate unequal power as capital. But to be fair that's not what this thread is about at all so I'll let it go. That's on topic, go for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Who gives a gently caress if my neighbor has more clout than me if I have my needs met and can pursue my desires freely. So you may disagree because capitalism, but everything we know indicates that people care a whole lot. Sociologists would also chuckle at the notion that social hierarchies are voluntary. That is, even if you don't care, you are beholden to it. One of the most pervasive features of social status is that it allows for continuous access to resources and information and therefore, power (the Matthew Effect). The synopsis is that even these social systems that do not have anything to do with material conditions, may feature a hierarchy that is not only individually binding, but also decoupled from any underlying quality. Here's a paper that I reviewed a while back, and which I liked because it has some clever experiments. I am not a sociologist tho, so don't ask me how it fits in the wider research agenda etc. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/its-conventional-thought-counts-how-third-order-inference-produces Edit: non paywall here https://www.eui.eu/Documents/MWP/ProgramActivities/2017-2018/master-classes/RidgewayStatusAdvantage-2017ASR.pdf Again, I stress that this has nothing to do with the above discussion, but it's certainly something that isn't "solved" by socialism, not that y'all claimed that. edit: in sociology, status stands for any social hierarchy Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Dec 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No you don’t. There is no “one weird trick” to solve the problems of human society. There is no single relationship or ingredient that can be added or removed to do it. pay your maid
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:05 |
|
|
The Inner Conflict of Socialism Introduction First Tillich differentiates conflict and contradiction. This is an important thing to note as it is going to be an important difference in how Tillich thinks . Contradiction occurs when there is an arbitrary, subjective, or arbitrary element. It demands the surrender of the contradictory element and compels a decision in terms of either or. Romanticism is contradictory. Contradiction is “rooted in the knowing subject, in the accidental and arbitrary”. Conflict comes from the thing-itself. It is “inner” it arises from the existence of things and cannot be a contradiction, it is “antimony”. Socialism has an inner conflict, one that arises from its relationship with the bourgeois principle ( see the previous chapters regarding democracy vs the dictatorship of the proletariat). For Tillich resolving the inner conflict can only be accomplished by transforming proletarian existence. His reasoning follows: The proletariat is nothing but a product of bourgeois society. It results from the objectification and domination of the bourgeois principle. This breaks bonds to origin and leaves individuals on their own unsupported by origin. The bourgeois instead of suffering the same fate ally with the pre bourgeois powers, and feudal structures start to reassert themselves. The pre bourgeois structures support bourgeois class rule, the situation is unchanged for the proletariat ( Here I must look at Pete, and see this is what Shortest way Home is or be contradictory) Instead this reinforces class rule and “ intensifies the situation of the proletariat” It forces the proletariat to choose between being against the pre bourgeois powers or the bourgeois. But the proletariat is an object, not a subject and arises from bourgeois society and thus must fight against the pre bourgeois powers to continue to exist. But socialism presupposes that the proletariat can overcome the bourgeois principle. Socialism must then have in itself elements of the powers of origin, if it is possible that socialism can overcome the bourgeois principle. The radicalization of the bourgeois principle cannot succeed because of class struggle and disharmony. So the bourgeois principle has to be rejected. But it is supported by some pre bourgeois powers of origin to prevent this rejection. So socialism must fight against those as well. The Socialist Decision is then is the choice as to which powers of origin can be used to support socialism and which must be opposed because of their support for the bourgeois principle and romanticism. Here I am going to depart from the text. From the rest of Tillich’s body of work his eventual choice can be determined. It is the “I am” Being. That my choice too. But remember structurally identical ontologically inverted, another choice is possible, nothing ( hence my choice to use Zizek as a comparative). Zizek’s choice is nothing. And here this intersects with the question of grand narratives. All grand historical narratives can be deconstructed. All the stories of origin can be broken apart because they are myths, they’re all constructed by humans and they can be deconstructed by humans. Viable choices of narrative must either avoid this fact or successfully incorporate their own negation. Moreover viable choices must be able to do this: caps on caps on caps posted:Another issue is that the framing may come across as patronizing, even if well meant - you'd need to teach essentially all groups of proles that they are proles, and why that matters. Because nobody today considers themselves part of the labor proletariat. So the narrative must be in language that is understood by the audience that isn’t patronizing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 02:57
|
|