Ironicwarcriminal posted:agreed and i think it's a great tool for that but one of it's major assumptions, that marxism will inevitably replace capitalism as the next stage of civilization, seems dramatically wrong given that every communist society on earth has reverted to capitalism.
that's a great opinion *tussles your hair*
this discussion is a bit fruitless because what marxism are we talking about? The marxist critique of capitalism or the marxist blueprint for a new future? I can read Harvey and believe that pretty much everything he says is correct but it doesn't make me any more convinced that communism is on the way or that we'll ever have a JDPON
Ironicwarcriminal posted:i wish it was an opinion but unfortunately it's an inconvenient truth
that's great man *continues to pat you on the head*
Ironicwarcriminal posted:discipline posted:marxism is a dialectic, this is like saying that physics is a historical dead end
the difference is that physics generally behaves like the theory says it will
hahahah okay now thats a bad bluff
Ironicwarcriminal posted:agreed and i think it's a great tool for that but one of it's major assumptions, that marxism will inevitably replace capitalism as the next stage of civilization, seems dramatically wrong given that every communist society on earth has reverted to capitalism.
but they haven't 'reverted' to capitalism, since most of the 'marxist' (maybe you mean socialist?) countries weren't the sort of capitalist modernity you are talking about before the fact, and are different permutations of modernity than any other places on earth. if we just calculate some simple trolls here: without socialism we can't talk meaningful at all about the achievements of social democracy or 20th century capitalism. concurrently, according to my troll calculations, Your a bad boy, a naughty boy
just like falling off the wagon is a failure of the addict, not of sobriety
If you think Marxism hasn't affected Canadian lives then you are in the-nile.
At least half of Marx's 10 planks put forth in the Manifesto have been implemented, somewhat implemented or at least discussed in Canada.
Check (implemented)...
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
10. Free education for all children in public schools.
Implemented to a certain degree...and now on the processed of being reversed:
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. (Air Canada, Via Rail, CBC)
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Discussed (recently)
3. Abolition of rights of inheritance
lmbo
getfiscal posted:no particular style of analysis of a situation implies a certain desirable outcome in the absence of the ethical judgments. just because a logical tension exists between capital and labour doesn't mean it must be resolved. all human relationships are based on tensions, the idea of a frictionless society is just a fantasy. we should still try to solve problems in the same way that if we are hungry we should eat something, but we shouldn't make it into a spirit quest to redeem humanity. unless you want to. really it's up to you, chaos reigns.
An attack on the picture of the human self that enters culture by repressing ‘natural’ desires for the maternal origin—frees desire and life from such supposedly fixed instinct. We are repressed by the very idea that we have a natural object—the mother or the origin—that we must renounce to become human. In telling us that we must not desire our mothers, western culture presents desire as that which was first directed towards the mother. The prohibition produces the person. This means that before there is lack there is an event of creative force: the prohibition or idea that we must repress desire for our mothers—an act of force—produces us as repressed and desiring subjects. Thus prohibition, force or punishment is productive. Describing desire in terms of persons and incest, as psychoanalysis does, represses desire by organising it into human terms. Further, the mother as an extended term from which all relations are explained is produced through the fantasy of prohibition. It is in being told not to desire one’s mother that desire is objectified, socialised and humanised. It is only by telling us that incest is prohibited that the social machine (and psychoanalysis) produces an image of desire as familial. The oedipal story of a desire that emerges from the family reduces desire to a personal and private complex of extended terms.
babyfinland posted:An attack on the picture of the human self that enters culture by repressing ‘natural’ desires for the maternal origin—frees desire and life from such supposedly fixed instinct. We are repressed by the very idea that we have a natural object—the mother or the origin—that we must renounce to become human. In telling us that we must not desire our mothers, western culture presents desire as that which was first directed towards the mother. The prohibition produces the person. This means that before there is lack there is an event of creative force: the prohibition or idea that we must repress desire for our mothers—an act of force—produces us as repressed and desiring subjects. Thus prohibition, force or punishment is productive. Describing desire in terms of persons and incest, as psychoanalysis does, represses desire by organising it into human terms. Further, the mother as an extended term from which all relations are explained is produced through the fantasy of prohibition. It is in being told not to desire one’s mother that desire is objectified, socialised and humanised. It is only by telling us that incest is prohibited that the social machine (and psychoanalysis) produces an image of desire as familial. The oedipal story of a desire that emerges from the family reduces desire to a personal and private complex of extended terms.
did not read
getfiscal posted:no particular style of analysis of a situation implies a certain desirable outcome in the absence of the ethical judgments. just because a logical tension exists between capital and labour doesn't mean it must be resolved. all human relationships are based on tensions, the idea of a frictionless society is just a fantasy. we should still try to solve problems in the same way that if we are hungry we should eat something, but we shouldn't make it into a spirit quest to redeem humanity. unless you want to. really it's up to you, chaos reigns.
amen to that gf, you might make a solid christian one day.
"He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" declares the LORD"
2. Spread The Wealth
3. Party On, Dudes
getfiscal posted:people seem to forget that marxists believed that capitalism was restraining growth to an incredible degree. like the argument in the 1930s and such was oh well with a planned economy we could have huge rates of growth forever. so a bunch of countries tried that out and not so much. like yeah if you have a bunch of lazy farmers maybe you can threaten to kill them, force them into cities, and hold a gun to their heads while they crank out a few huge slabs of steel. but it turns out that's not a great model if you want things like a toaster or some chicken.
*looks at toaster* "Made In China"
Superabound posted:did i say pathos? sorry i meant "dubstep"
euuuuurgh you suck
getfiscal posted:people seem to forget that marxists believed that capitalism was restraining growth to an incredible degree. like the argument in the 1930s and such was oh well with a planned economy we could have huge rates of growth forever. so a bunch of countries tried that out and not so much. like yeah if you have a bunch of lazy farmers maybe you can threaten to kill them, force them into cities, and hold a gun to their heads while they crank out a few huge slabs of steel. but it turns out that's not a great model if you want things like a toaster or some chicken.
what if i dont want a toaster or some chicken but do want immense quantities of steel, three hundred grams of black bread, and full communism
getfiscal posted:but we shouldn't make it into a spirit quest to redeem humanity. unless you want to. really it's up to you, chaos reigns.
i want to. i want romance
deadken posted:what if i dont want a toaster or some chicken but do want immense quantities of steel, three hundred grams of black bread, and full communism
that might be because you don't value other people's lives that much, maybe because you don't have kids or even a wife, which makes communism seem like a fun game or art project instead of a game of russian roullete.
getfiscal posted:china is a thoroughly capitalist economy. and it became one because the last decade of maoism basically paralyzed the economy so badly that even mao ended up promoting deng xiaoping back because he realized maoism was a complete fuck up.
you didnt say socialism tho you said "planned economy" which China definitely is. its state capitalism
getfiscal knows this and said so in the past.
getfiscal posted:enough food was produced in china during the great leap famine to feed everyone. the problem was one of coordination, largely because powerful local officials in sichuan province (where most of the deaths happened) refused to follow orders from mao and hid much of the truth from the national economic people. now the fact that that can happen is a problem associated with the system mao presided over, but he can hardly be blamed for most of the deaths. moreover, the deaths were only excess compared to the high levels of health in the previous years, which were achieved because of maoist health programs. amartya sen believes that 100 million indians "died" as a result of not following maoist health policies in india (roughly). but no one says that nehru was the world's worst killer.
getfiscal posted:people seem to forget that marxists believed that capitalism was restraining growth to an incredible degree. like the argument in the 1930s and such was oh well with a planned economy we could have huge rates of growth forever. so a bunch of countries tried that out and not so much. like yeah if you have a bunch of lazy farmers maybe you can threaten to kill them, force them into cities, and hold a gun to their heads while they crank out a few huge slabs of steel. but it turns out that's not a great model if you want things like a toaster or some chicken.
they were complaining about market inefficiency in production, and they were right then and they're right now. the relative failure of the soviet light industry is neither here nor there.