Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 158

Thread: the barbarian ideal

  1. #16

    Default

    my name is luka
    i live on the second floor
    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    It says bless the lads and it means bless the lads.
    Quote Originally Posted by sadmanbarty View Post
    i don't know, probably some marxist cultural theory or something
    https://manifestacionesoterica.bandcamp.com/

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    17,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    But why approach these things as a sensible telegraph reader tea? I don't see the point. Treat it as a system of logic. Take the arguments seriously. On the abstract plane. Don't think about the sausage casserole. Abstract out into realm of the eternal forms!
    The line I highlighted just doesn't work on any level, concrete or abstract. To the extent that it even makes a claim definite enough to be agreed with or refuted. Does it mean socialism - socialist parties and movements - in Western countries were responsible for alleviating the risk of MAD? Seems unlikely, seeing as the GOP and Tories were in power when the USSR collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions and general malaise.

    I mean, if I'm failing to get something that's obvious to you, you could always explain what you're thinking rather doing the old



    routine.
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    17,088

    Default

    I wonder why this thread is so conducive to clips from Arnie films?
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,438

    Default

    I guess I just don't understand you.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    17,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    I guess I just don't understand you.
    OPEN YOUR MIIIND TOOO MEEEEE!!!!!!
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  6. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    It says bless the lads and it means bless the lads.
    Quote Originally Posted by sadmanbarty View Post
    i don't know, probably some marxist cultural theory or something
    https://manifestacionesoterica.bandcamp.com/

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to other_life For This Useful Post:


  8. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Tea View Post
    Is this written in all seriousness?

    I mean, in a sense it's correct, if "thanks to socialism" can be taken to mean "thanks to the end of Soviet socialism".

    that article was saying *socialism was state capitalism from the point of view of the proletariat*

    I mean, sure, disagree with it, but read the damn thing before pulling out random quotes without realising that it was a diss of 20th C socialism there. It was saying that socialism completed the civilising tasks of the victorian enlightenment. now we have to go beyond the enlightenment without succumbing to reactionary anti-enlightenment.
    Last edited by thirdform; 07-07-2019 at 12:20 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    I respect islamists

  9. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,311

    Default

    it's like tea says marxists aren't critical enough of their own failures. all well and good. i completely agree. noone's a closetted stalinist here (if only for the fact that there is no more need for super-industrialisation.) maybe some former posters were closetted stalinists, but we are all women of knowledge here and have no need for the putrid stink of that provocateur Zizek.

    Then when there are articles quite critical of soviet orthodoxy in much more incisive form than a telegraph commentator like Alastair shitspitter Campbell tea is up in arms ready to bad faith it.

    so which one is it? do you wanna just say the free market will solve our troubles, or are you gonna not get indignant. there is no middle ground. you can still be part of the lads if you're a free marketeer.
    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    I respect islamists

  10. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,311

    Default

    two more articles:

    http://www.mediationsjournal.org/art...ological-break

    http://libcom.org/library/communism-...-bordiga-today

    read the second one first if you're confused because the first one is quite abstract.
    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    I respect islamists

  11. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goldner
    On one level, this seemed a perfectly coherent explanation of the world into the mid-1970′s. Had not the highest expression of the revolutionary workers’ movement taken place in Germany and Russia? Had not everything since been disaster and bureaucratic nightmare? Bordiga anticipated this attitude when he wrote, sometime in the 1950′s, that “just because social evolution in one zone (by which he meant Europe and the U.S.) has come to the next to the last phase does not mean that what happens on the rest of the planet is socially of no interest”. For this worldview, (shared in that period by the author) what was happening on the rest of the planet was precisely socially of no interest. Who could seriously propose China or North Korea or Albania, or the national liberation movements and their states, as models for American or European workers? But such a view, while correct, was not adequate.
    Why not?
    Because it ignored two realities already well underway in the mid-1970′s: the double movement of Third World industrialization and technology-intensive (“high-tech”) development in the advanced sector that were about to crash down around the Western working class movement, upon which the whole earlier perspective rested. In 1970, in the midst of Stalinist, Maoist and Third World euphoria over peasant-bureaucratic revolutions, it was right and revolutionary to look to the Western working class as the only class that could actually end class society. It was necessary to reject that Third Worldist hogwash then, as it is necessary to reject its (quite enfeebled) remnants today. But what has changed since then is of course that de-industrialization in the West and industrialization in the Third World (two sides of the same coin) have created real workers’ movements in the Third World itself, South Korea being the most recent important instance. Into the mid-70′s the world looked pretty much like what could be extrapolated from the early, heroic Comintern view sketched above. The countries that were the core of world industry in 1914 (Western Europe, the U.S. and Japan), were still the core. In terms of the earlier discussion, if a country had not been “internally reorganized” by the 1860′s it wasn’t going to be in the “industrial club” in 1914 and still wouldn’t be circa 1975. Further, the percentage of workers in manufacture in the advanced industrial counties, which had peaked at circa 45% in Germany and England circa 1900-1914, was still close to that figure for the advanced capitalist zone as a whole in the early 70′s. What had changed in the interim? Clearly, the advanced capitalist world had gone from a (very rough) breakdown of its work force, in 1900-1914 of 45% in industry, 45% in agriculture, 10% in white-collar services, to 40-45% in industry, 5-10% in agriculture, and 40-45% in white-collar services (not to mention the creation of a large arms sector that had only barely come into existence around the turn of the century). What did this indicate? It indicated that the “story” of capitalist development was as follows. In 1815-1914 the phase of “classic” or “competitive” capitalism, the system had primarily transformed peasants into workers, atleast in England, the U.S., France and Germany. In the post-1914 period (in reality beginning circa 1890) the new phase of “organized” capitalism, “monopoly” capitalism, the “epoch of imperialist decay” continued to deplete the rural populations of the Western world (and Latin America, the Caribbean, southern Europe and Africa), but to accomplish what? Instead of continuing to expand the industrial work force, it used the greatly increased productivity of a stagnant percentage of the work force to support an ever-growing white collar “service sector” (and arms production). But to return to the basic theme, Communist Parties start to erode and be super by integrated Social Democratic type parties precisely when the agrarian population of the country in question is reduced to a trivial (5-10%) of the work force. This is what has happened, for example, in France and Spain in the last 15 years.
    This is what has not happened in Portugal, precisely because small producer agriculture remains a very significant percentage of the Portuguese work force. This is the backdrop to the transformation of the PCI. It is what happened long ago in northern Europe and the United States. It is, finally, the strict parallel to the problems encountered in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union when the “extensive” phase of accumulation is completed and it is time to move to the intensive phase which the West arrived at through the crisis of 1914-1945. In short, from enlightened absolutism in the 17th century to Communist Parties in the 20th century, the problematic is that of the extensive phase of accumulation – the transformation of peasants into workers. The ultimate implication of this is that a society is only fully capitalist when a trivial percentage of the work force is employed in agriculture, i.e. that a society is only fully capitalist when it has moved from the extensive/formal to the intensive/real phase of accumulation.
    This was written in 95 so consider that in mind.
    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    I respect islamists

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to thirdform For This Useful Post:


  13. #26

    Default

    communism is not necessarily antagonistic towards civilisation. there's a sense in which it arises out of (intellectual) currents and tendencies characteristic of european civilisation, in particular (zizek's "european toilets" of german philosophical idealism, french political radicalism and british classical economics). it also positions itself as the concluding part of a civilisational process (going from feudalism to communism via capitalism). so although the "barbarian ideal" has a certain relatable romantic appeal, idk how much it has to do with communism

  14. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,311

    Default

    zizek is an idiot. I have far greater (grudging) respect for my class enemy Burke than I do Zizek.
    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    I respect islamists

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to thirdform For This Useful Post:


  16. #28

    Default

    maybe. still I don't think communism conforms much to a "barbarian ideal", in the main. it's actually quite congruent to european civilisation, both in self-conception and practice.

  17. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    On the bus
    Posts
    1,136

    Default

    Zizek ist wunderbat
    Took a rest stop that wasn't on the schedule

  18. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    17,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thirdform View Post
    that article was saying *socialism was state capitalism from the point of view of the proletariat*

    I mean, sure, disagree with it, but read the damn thing before pulling out random quotes without realising that it was a diss of 20th C socialism there. It was saying that socialism completed the civilising tasks of the victorian enlightenment. now we have to go beyond the enlightenment without succumbing to reactionary anti-enlightenment.
    OK, I've read the whole thing now. Some of it makes a good deal of sense (while other bits, to me, certainly don't). Might write some more later. But it still hasn't remotely convinced me that "communists are barbarians". My knowledge of communist theory is fairly scant but I believe vimothy is right in saying that Marx regarded communism teleologically, as the most advanced and complete form that society will take, after *starting* with barbarism (or perhaps hunter-gatherer 'savagery' even before that), before passing through feudal monarchy and bourgeois capitalism en route to this perfect future state.

    Of course people have thought and written a great deal about communism since Marx's time, but I would have a hard time accepting a statement about it that apparently flatly contradicts Marx's own thought on the subject.
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •