Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 121 to 132 of 132

Thread: The next generation

  1. #121
    nomadologist Guest

    Default

    btw I'm more a fan of democratic socialism myself, but I'm so so sick of the idea that because it's difficult to set up a communist government that all communist governments are ipso facto authoritarian regimes.

    some people point to the early christian church in the first 20-100 years after christ as an early form of communism.

  2. #122
    nomadologist Guest

    Default

    oh wait, i forgot, "economics" dictates that you can't set up a government with a set of elected officials that redistributes wealth in order to ensure all humans live up to a certain standard

    nope only Stalins want to do things like this. evil evil evil.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nomadologist View Post
    A "post-modernist" philosophy professor? Do we have to waste threadspace going over why "post-modernism" is not a set of precepts to which one either subscribes or does not, and is instead a state of cultural being after modernism again? Please let's not.
    Have never been overly enamored of lumping contemporary phenomena under the exclusive heading of one 'post-modernism.' Also, I'd cast suspicion over any notion of "after modernism," as most thinkers since Nietzsche or whomever (take your pick) have repeatedly shown in numerous ways that absolute breaks or ruptures often come to look fallacious anyway, for a number of reasons.

    Tho I do hear what you're saying.

    To my eyes and ears, though, we've got many, many competing post-modernisms, modernisms, and maybe even a few medievalisms floating around, viciously intertwined (among others, no doubt). If we really want to take the bull by the horns and try to get clear on where we are historically, I'm always on the side of locating the complexity first and then setting to work on analysing it (and maybe even effecting change, imagine!), rather than grouping all under one 'post' heading and risk the appearance of laboring under one smug panoptic grasp of the situation (am not attributing that position to nomadlogist, please note).

    If anything I'd say we're in the FFT age already, where the digital recording, re-presentation, sampling, sequencing, re-production, and digitized dissemination of the life world is fully underway, and the ontological consequences already visible ...
    Last edited by aMinadaB; 04-04-2008 at 08:00 AM.

  4. #124
    nomadologist Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aMinadaB View Post
    Have never been overly enamored of lumping contemporary phenomena under the exclusive heading of one 'post-modernism.' Also, I'd cast suspicion over any notion of "after modernism," as most thinkers since Nietzsche or whomever (take your pick) have repeatedly shown in numerous ways that absolute breaks or ruptures often come to look fallacious anyway, for a number of reasons.

    Tho I do hear what you're saying.

    To my eyes and ears, though, we've got many, many competing post-modernisms, modernisms, and maybe even a few medievalisms floating around, viciously intertwined (among others, no doubt). If we really want to take the bull by the horns and try to get clear on where we are historically, I'm always on the side of locating the complexity first and then setting to work on analysing it (and maybe even effecting change, imagine!), rather than grouping all under one 'post' heading and risking the appearance of laboring under one smug panoptic grasp of the situation (am not attributing that position to nomadlogist, please note, just sayin').

    If anything I'd say we're in the FFT age already, where the digital recording, re-presentation, sampling, sequencing, re-production, and digitized dissemination of the life world is fully underway, and the ontological consequences already visible here and there in pockets ...

    Historically speaking, we're only minutes away from redescribing consciousness as feedback circuits and sampling rates. David Tudor and hip-hop looking at itself in a DAW, lol.
    Agreed agreed. Thanks for putting this in the eloquent words that I was too impatient and preoccupied to reach for.

    I just get so sick of having to rehash all this (the fact that post-modernism is not a concrete set of precepts, but rather, broadly, and differing substantially of course in various definitions, a socio-historical ontological condition that as such manifests itself in everything that exists under its auspices but applies adjectivally to precious few specific people in any meaningful way--I prefer Lyotard's definition obvs) and it comes up here quite frequently. I absolutely despise the use of "post-modernIST" as an adjective, especially when applied to individuals who have read critical theory and psychoanalysis. Some people are interested in theories about culture, psychology, art, etc. Get over it.

    Some people say "post-modernist" the way I imagine others might say "leper."
    Last edited by nomadologist; 04-04-2008 at 08:13 AM.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nomadologist View Post
    I just get so sick of having to rehash all this (the fact that post-modernism is not a concrete set of precepts, but rather, broadly, and differing substantially of course in various definitions, a socio-historical ontological condition that as such manifests itself in everything that exists under its auspices but applies adjectivally to precious few specific people in any meaningful way--I prefer Lyotard's definition obvs) and it comes up here quite frequently. I absolutely despise the use of "post-modernIST" as an adjective, especially when applied to individuals who have read critical theory and psychoanalysis. Some people are interested in theories about culture, psychology, art, etc. Get over it.

    Some people say "post-modernist" the way I imagine others might say "leper."
    Yep yep, agreed, feel pretty much the same way as you do.
    Last edited by aMinadaB; 04-04-2008 at 08:18 AM.

  6. #126

    Default

    *sighs*

    Maybe this will help -- How to Disagree, Paul Graham

    Where to start...? There's probably little point in doing this, because I guess that if it's not obvious now, it never will be. Nevertheless...

    I wrote my "treatise-length post" because someone asked a question earlier in the thread. That question was, basically, "Is there a reason communism failed beyond the fact that its leaders were destructive tyrants?" Or to put it another way, "Could communism work with competent, elected leaders?" It has nothing to do with being fashionable (?), or wanting you to bow down to the almighty dollar (not so almighty anyway), or trying to prove humans incapable of acting beyond a narrowly defined sphere of self-interest. I said nothing about about these disparate subjects. None of these things are essential to capitalism or communism. They are beside the point I was trying to make.

    "You reduce everything to economics!" The debate I was having, or trying to have, was about economics. Asking what stops communism from working is a question about economics. All the other stuff -- wanting to live non-greedy lives of poetry, passion and organic yoghurt weaving -- is fine by me, but I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion. It's pretty simple (though there is some interaction between the following points):
    • Rational economic planning on a nation-wide scale is very, very difficult, if not impossible, because knowledge is tacit, temporal and dispersed.
    • Rational economic calculation is impossible on a nation-wide scale if you don't have a price system.

    Or you can just attempt my thought experiment: On what basis or according to what criterea would you manufacture capital goods, that is, the seccond, third, and so on, order goods that are used in the production of other goods, in a Communist system?

    Ironically, nomadologist, you also gave a pretty good description of the invisible hand:
    I don't think you have to be *book smart* to make good decisions about how to live or even how to allocate resources. Most people will do the "smart thing" that benefits as many people as possible if they have enough accurate information to use in charting the way.
    That's my point. That's why it makes more sense to make your own decisions than have a government make them for you.

    btw I'm more a fan of democratic socialism myself, but I'm so so sick of the idea that because it's difficult to set up a communist government that all communist governments are ipso facto authoritarian regimes.
    Bully for you, but the whole point of communism is mutual ownership of the means of production, i.e. to bring the mechanisms of production under the aegis of the proletariat, i.e. under the control of the central government body, which acts on behalf of the proletariat.

    oh wait, i forgot, "economics" dictates that you can't set up a government with a set of elected officials that redistributes wealth in order to ensure all humans live up to a certain standard
    I never said that, and I don't think anyone else did either.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,079

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nomadologist View Post
    A third of Americans don't have health insurance either. Plenty of Americans have to work three jobs to pay their cancer treatment bills or whichever. Sounds like AMERICA.
    Um, yeah, that's exactly my point.
    Quote Originally Posted by nomadologist View Post
    Regardless, this doesn't mean that their economy couldn't do well and eventually do better than some others in the first world.
    Yes, but it doesn't exactly chime very well with "To each according to his need", does it?
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  8. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IdleRich View Post
    I like the definition in the fashionable dictionary:

    Marxism
    1. Probably not true, but it should be.
    2. Useful for understanding dialectical biology

    http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/dictionary.php
    Fnar -- that dictonary is great! I particularly like,

    Empiricism
    Absurd notion that observation and measurement are useful in getting to know about things (see positivism).

    Enlightenment
    Sinister, destructive period of history which had a 'project' to dominate nature, prefer reason to superstition, and stop going to church. All a big mistake, but postmodernism will fix it.

    Evidence
    1. Something that can be tailored to the requirements of my arguments.
    2. A tiresome thing that may conflict with something that I believe.

    Evolution
    Something to do with a snail called Burgess. Occurred only during the Cambrian period. Punctuated.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aMinadaB View Post
    If anything I'd say we're in the FFT age already
    FFS age more like.

  10. #130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
    There is also the question of why Communism seems to go with the mechanisms of the police state in every instance where the Communists took power. (It makes nomadologist's statement that, "Not at communists are Stalinists, or Leninists, or whatever you want to pigeonhole them as" look rather amusing. Communists are never authoritarians until they get into power). As I said upthread, Communism must be imposed and capitalism (trading for personal profit) must be suppressed. I think it's that simple. Communists have no other choice.
    Whilst you can advance an economic argument for the tendency of command economies towards economic stagnation or failure to adequately meet the material needs of their citizens, I don't think the trend towards tyranny is necessarily so straightforwardly an economic matter. Instead, I think a better assessment can be achieved by looking at the way the ideas that inspire communism work. Communism provides a vision of a single conception of the ideal, ordered society that is the inevitable conclusion of human history. If you believe you know where history is heading, then surely you are justified in helping it along its way, and if other people are obstructing the march of history you are doing nothing wrong in removing such obstacles. Therefore, I would say the historical path of Soviet or Chinese communism was aimed far more at stamping out dissent (from all quarters: religious, political and economic), rather than simply removing trading for personal profit.

    This is a dynamic that is latent within any political ideology that believes it has access to the true ends of human purpose. It could, for instance, be suggested that the neo-conservative notion that the correct form of societal organisation (free trade economics coupled with liberal democratic political apparatus) can be advanced by means of military action also opens up the possibility of barbarous acts being committed in the name of human progress. The extent to which this dynamic becomes apparent is obviously going to be different depending upon the nature of the political system through which the ideology operates: a single party state apparatus with a high degree of central control and a paranoid head of state will be far more prone to tyranny than a system with full democratic accountability and a free press, for instance...

  11. #131

    Default

    Francis Fukuyama famously described himself as "Marxist", in contradistinction to the "Leninist" neoconservatives.

    Anyway, good post! I basically agree with what you say about Soviet totalitarianism: it wasn't simply a function of an economic system, but also the expression and the domination of an ideology across all categories of social existance. I would perhaps argue that the Hegelian heritage of Communism is of less importance than the psychological, atavistic desires that totalitarian politics satisfies. And I would also reiterate that what I was trying to get at in the above post is that the mechanics of the command economy necessitate a degree of authoritarianism, because a command economy necessarily entails the suppression of natural forms of trade and exchange. Even if our hypothetical is realised ("nice communists"), society must still be made to bend to ideology's will.
    Last edited by vimothy; 11-04-2008 at 04:42 PM.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Hoboken
    Posts
    3,170

    Default

    thought this was an interesting perspective, imagine a number of dissensians are from this generation (i'm an old geezer tail-end boomer myself...)

    Why Generation X Might Be Our Last, Best Hope
    Caught between vast, self-regarding waves of boomers and millennials, Generation X is steeped in irony, detachment, and a sense of dread. One of their rank argues that this attitude makes it the best suited to preserve American tradition in these dark new days.

    https://www.vanityfair.com/style/201...last-best-hope

Posting Permissions

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