DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on April 12, 2010, 12:12:22 PM
-
Marxist Andy Stern's Compensation Would Have
Karl Marx Spinning in His Grave
by Kyle Olson
SEIU heavy Andy Stern has often been quoted saying, "Workers of the world unite"
it's not just a slogan anymore. It's the way we're gonna have to do our work."
According to the latest LM-2 financial report filed with the federal Department of Labor,
Stern's 2009 compensation totaled $306,388. By comparison, the Executive Secretary
to the President, Doris Butler, received a paltry $48,666.
Another strong proponent of Marxist principles in fact, the co-chair of the
Democratic Socialists of America SEIU Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina
took home a cool $242,286. Fellow frequent White House visitor and SEIU
Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger $252,724.
Perhaps SEIU's new motto should be: "Socialism For Thee, Not Me"
So Andy, if you aren't willing to run your organization based on the beliefs you
publicly espouse, please don't impose them on us via government policy.
The government, incidentally, your organization spent more than $60 million to elect.
(http://biggovernment.com/files/2010/04/marxstern1-244x300.jpg)
-
rules apply to people differently.
-
Last time I looked, the guy was a union head, not a spokesman for a political party. As long as you gotta earn a living in a capitalist world, there's no point to being a sucker and getting paid less than you're worth. Had he been the head of a socialist political party, I could understand the feigned outrage.
-
Ahh, you gotta love this out. So, unless a Government is run by a declared Socialist or Communist regime, then any demonstrative hypocrisy by those advocating such a policy, while raking in the big bucks, is merely someone getting "paid for what their worth"
Gotta love it
-
From what I have read about Stern, he is neither a socialist nor a communist. Quoting a portion of the final sentence of The Communist Manifesto hardly makes one a Marxist. Moreover, Stern is a major donor to the Democratic Party in the United States, which can best be described as center-left with a left-liberal wing. To answer half of the question posted in the title, Karl Marx cannot possibly be pissed since he is deceased. Were he alive I doubt that he would be angry as much as disappointed in those who would mistake bourgeoisie liberalism for actual scientific socialism. He might refer you to The Critique of the Gotha Program so that you may begin to learn some of the difference.
Now to look at Sirs statement:
Ahh, you gotta love this out. So, unless a Government is run by a declared Socialist or Communist regime, then any demonstrative hypocrisy by those advocating such a policy, while raking in the big bucks, is merely someone getting "paid for what their worth"
The issue is not about a government being run by a nominal regime of one sort or another. The problem here is a lack of understanding of historical materialism. We live in an era dominated by one class which has in itself a dominant economic, political, and philosophical form:
1. Capitalism
2. Liberal Democracy
3. Postmodernism
Clearly this has not always been the case. Prior to the domination of the bourgeoisie class there was a domination of the elite who ruled through feudalism. At one time the plight of the bourgeoisie certainly seemed as hopeless as the plight of the proletariat today (think about the Thirty Year's War). Regardless, one cannot overcome his or her dominant economic, political, and philosophical movements.
In other words, yes I am a Marxist, but I live in a bourgeoisie time. I have a job that deals with a capitalist world. I exist in a liberal democracy, whether I dislike it matters little. I am surrounded by postmodern thought, again, whether I dislike that matters little. Trying to go through life pretending that those three things are irrelevant would be similar to learning Syriac and only speaking it in the United States in all my interactions.
Luckily, a modern Marxist has great recourse to capitalism, liberal democracy, and postmodernism.
Capitalism offers the opportunity to accumulate vast capital, which funds an endless number of possibilities from charity to education to direct action. Liberalism offers freedom of press, assembly, religion, right to bear arms, and numerous other possibilities which makes revolutionary action possible. Postmodernism offers a life of alienation, destructive individualism, selfishness, and crass consumerism pushing us further towards the collapse of bourgeoisie societies.
-
Nice rationalization effort, but good to see you none the less, Js. The liberal bullpen has been taking a shelling, and needed a fresh arm
-
Thank you and nice touch with the baseball metaphor.
I am as big a fan of Philistine replies as the next guy, but why not try to reply in a more meaningful manner?
Besides, I don't play for the Liberals or the Conservatives. I think of myself as playing for the men and women who actually do some work for a living. ;)
-
Capitalism offers the opportunity to accumulate vast capital, which funds an endless number of possibilities from charity to education to direct action.
And we need to end that because...?
Liberalism offers freedom of press, assembly, religion, right to bear arms, and numerous other possibilities which makes revolutionary action possible.
Classical liberalism, yes. What is commonly labeled liberalism in the U.S. I'm not so sure about.
Postmodernism offers a life of alienation, destructive individualism, selfishness, and crass consumerism pushing us further towards the collapse of bourgeoisie societies.
It does? Upon what is that conclusion based?
-
We need to end it for more numerous reasons than I can list right now. Economic equality springs quickly to mind along with a classless society. The truth is that it will be ended regardless of whether you wish it or not. The bourgeoisie were once a revolutionary class, but no longer. The proletariat is the only revolutionary class remaining and just as the bourgeoisie removed feudalism (and this took quite some time!) the proletariat will remove the bourgeoisie.
I'll have to answer your question on postmodernism at a different time. I'm surprised though, do you find many works showing that postmodernism has led to less depression, less anxiety, less alienation? That crass consumerism has led to fulfillment?
Interesting.
-
You forgot Collectivism
Posted: April 15, 2010
"I'm not exaggerating," said President Barack Obama. "Leaders of the Republican Party ... called the passage of (the health-care reform bill) 'Armageddon.' Armageddon! 'End of freedom as we know it.' So after I signed the bill, I looked around to see if there were any asteroids falling or some cracks opening up in the earth. Turned out it was a nice day. Birds were chirping. Folks were strolling down the Mall."
Post-Obamacare the sun indeed rose in the east, Denny's remained open, and California stayed attached to the mainland. Therefore, according to Obama, Obamacare opponents engaged in baseless fear-mongering. This is an interesting definition of success: Government tax-spend-spread-the-wealth works if, come morning, our cars start.
The corrosion caused by the relentless expansion of the welfare state doesn't work that way. The costs are harder to see, the damage more difficult to discern ? especially given our leftist media/commentary class, which doesn't know Milton Friedman from Milton Berle.
Government, for example, again and again extends unemployment compensation ? oblivious to or unconcerned about its hidden costs. Last December, the then-chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., chortled on his website: "I have great news to share with you. The House passed an extension of unemployment insurance and COBRA health benefits last night. Had we not acted, 1 million workers would have lost these benefits at the end of the year."
Lawrence Summers, former treasury secretary under Bill Clinton and current Obama economics adviser, wrote in 1999: "(One) way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. ... Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs (cause) an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer." Had "we not acted," how many people would have taken action and found work?
Similarly, banks and financial firms engaged in "reckless" behavior in part because they assumed ? correctly so ? that government considered them too important or too big to fail. Encouraged by government policy to increase lending to those unable to meet usual criteria, banks made loans to otherwise non-creditworthy borrowers. And "government-sponsored entities," Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, bought these loans with an implicit understanding ? true, it turned out ? that the government would not let Freddie and Fannie fail. What stops bailouts from promoting future counterproductive behavior?
Obamacare guarantees medical insurance to nearly all Americans ? regardless of economic status, willingness to pay or health. But achieving the goal of "universal coverage" ? while supposedly restraining costs ? will require government rationing. A recent front-page New York Times article admits: "From an economic perspective, health reform will fail if we can't sometimes push back against the try-anything instinct. The new agencies will be hounded by accusations of rationing, and Medicare's long-term budget deficit will grow. So figuring out how we can say no may be the single toughest and most important task facing the people who will be in charge of carrying out reform. 'Being able to say no,' Dr. Alan Garber of Stanford says, 'is the heart of the issue.'"
Leftists want to take from the "rich" to "level the playing field" and "close the gap between the rich and the poor." But higher taxes discourage people from taking risks. This in turn creates a disincentive to hire, which means fewer jobs for the non-rich.
The first thing you learn in economics is simple: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
The second thing you learn is this: A lot of people don't believe the first thing.
Things cost money. Government action to deliver them involves trade-offs. Leftists want bigger social programs and greater government regulation over everything from financial services to manufacturing to student loans. But they refuse to see, admit or care about trade-offs.
An economics professor asked his class which of these two scenarios the students preferred.
First scenario: Japan grows at an annual rate of 7 percent, and the Unites States grows at 4 percent.
Second scenario: Japan and the United States both grow at 3 percent. Overwhelmingly, the students chose the second option. In other words, the students accepted their own lower domestic growth rather than allow Japan ? a friendly nation ? to outpace us. In exchange for "equality," they chose an otherwise lower standard of living. They, at least, acknowledged the existence ? and accepted the price ? of the trade-off. If people understood the damage done when government takes from A and gives to B, how many would sign on?
So, is it "Armageddon"?
Collectivism is a bargain that most people ? if they knew the real price tag ? would reject. These trade-offs include lower productivity, diminished initiative, fewer jobs, rewarding reckless behavior and poor choices, a lower-than-otherwise standard of living, less economic freedom, greater government dependency, and fewer resources to spend on national security and to secure our borders.
By that definition, then, yes, Armageddon is already here.
Collectivism's Armageddon (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=140781)
-
Government, for example, again and again extends unemployment compensation oblivious to or unconcerned about its hidden costs.
SIRS this extending and extending and extending unemployment crap is a disgrace....in my business we had to let two people go in the last 60 days.....they both had jobs within ten days....another guy we let go about 2 years ago still claims "he cant find work". Another guy I know was the manager of a small insurance agency and he got fired 1.5 years ago...and he claims "he still cant find work" either. He sits at home watching Oprah, goes to the horse track, and surfs the web. If I lost my job there is no question I would have a job within 72 hours....I mean not a question...nada...not a 1% chance that I would not have a job within 72 hours....many of these people on unemployment are just lazy....they could find work....but they just dont wanna take the jobs that are available. If the gvt would stop rewarding laziness many of these people would get off their ass!
-
I know.....I know, Cu4. This enabling philosophy by the left is cloaked with "good intentions" & "compassion", but facilitates the same behavior, which then begets the need for more "compassionate good intentions", by our Government. With of course more & more of other people's money & resources, because, as we all know, the left is so more smarter than the rest of us serf. They obviously know better how to spend our hard earned money.
And the viscious cycle is perpetuated
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/301a6e25.jpg)
-
Last time I looked, the guy was a union head, not a spokesman for a political party. As long as you gotta earn a living in a capitalist world, there's no point to being a sucker and getting paid less than you're worth. Had he been the head of a socialist political party, I could understand the feigned outrage.
Is a worker being paid what he is worth a good thing ?
Is a manager being paid what he is worth a good thing?
I would have said yes and yes though I would also need to define a means of determination for "worth".
A worker ought to be paid a large fraction of the value he produces , on a ratio that is hlow when the worker is easy to replace and high when the workers skill is hard to find.
Almost the same for a manager , the worth of a manager can be very high or nothing , when a manager is in a position such that is no need for management(no less effeciency without him) his value is negative.
-
Capitalism offers the opportunity to accumulate vast capital, which funds an endless number of possibilities from charity to education to direct action.
On behalf of Capitolism , thank you .
Or your welcome , perhaps , if you are indeed accumulating vast capitol and putting it to pleasing use.
-
That crass consumerism has led to fulfillment?
Interesting.
Oh yes , If I may quote an expert I have recently read;(Capitalism offers the opportunity to accumulate vast capital, which funds an endless number of possibilities from charity to education to direct action.)
What other system has humanity ever had that allows for this result (for persons not born to the nobility)?
-
We need to end it for more numerous reasons than I can list right now. Economic equality springs quickly to mind along with a classless society.
Reasons that require specific definitions of 'economic equality' and 'classless society'.
The truth is that it will be ended regardless of whether you wish it or not.
Perhaps so, though I think that would be a tragedy rather than a benefit for humanity.
I'll have to answer your question on postmodernism at a different time. I'm surprised though, do you find many works showing that postmodernism has led to less depression, less anxiety, less alienation? That crass consumerism has led to fulfillment?
Interesting.
What I have found is that postmodernism is a broadly, and therefore in the overall vaguely, defined term that has been applied mostly to art in various forms. I have not ever seen an explanation that postmodernism offers or is responsible for "a life of alienation, destructive individualism, selfishness, and crass consumerism". I have not seen an explanation that postmodernism offers or is responsible for "less depression, less anxiety, less alienation". But then, I have not seen argued that modernism or any other generalized and broad artistic movement creates, mitigates or negates any of those things to any great degree in society as a whole. They may reflect society or parts of society, but that is not the same thing.
But your complaint about postmodernism seems like the complaint of every era. "Back in my day, young fella, people respected one another, and we helped our neighbors. We got along without all those fancy gadgets you youngsters have nowadays. We might have been poor, but we were happy." You know, the good old days spiel. So again, I am left wondering upon what are you basing your conclusion.
-
I find it very peculiar that you've heard of postmodernism only in relation to art, but not to philosophy, literature, or religion - perhaps the three areas where it has had the most profound effects. Yet, postmodernism is not something that exists separately from capitalism or liberal democracy. The three are very much related to one another and dominant in the times in which we live. Does postmodernism contribute to alienation? Yes, but only insomuch as it is caused by capitalism. Does postmodernism enhance the notions of fulfillment in crass consumerism? Of course, but only through capitalism separating us from what we produce.
Perhaps so, though I think that would be a tragedy rather than a benefit for humanity.
Yes, just as those who clung to feudalism were certain that the bourgeoisie were leading us to our demise. People often believe that history ends with them, that no further advancement in economics or governance can be made. This has been especially true of the bourgeoisie and capitalism, peculiar for such a short reign. Unfortunately for capitalists, history does not stop and the proletariat will remove the bourgeoisie and the class struggle will be ended.
-
I find it very peculiar that you've heard of postmodernism only in relation to art, but not to philosophy, literature, or religion
I said mostly to art in various forms, a category I would in which I would place literature. I have heard of postmodern philosophy, but the term 'postmodern' is so vague that it seems a sort of catch-all into which people seem to throw anything that seems contemporary. I once heard Entertainment Weekly referred to as the "postmodern Farmer's Almanac." I still have no idea what that means. I've heard that a movie about making movies or making a movie is by definition postmodern. So is "The Bad and the Beautiful" a 1952 postmodern film? Most research I've seen says postmodernism started in the late 1970s or early 1980s. That I am not familiar with the notion of postmodern religion is true, but again, the term 'postmodern' leaves me no clue as to what a postmodern religion might be. Of course, I have also heard that postmodernism is coming to an end. Given the time frame, that sounds about right to me.
Yet, postmodernism is not something that exists separately from capitalism or liberal democracy.
Little in our society does.
The three are very much related to one another and dominant in the times in which we live. Does postmodernism contribute to alienation? Yes, but only insomuch as it is caused by capitalism. Does postmodernism enhance the notions of fulfillment in crass consumerism? Of course, but only through capitalism separating us from what we produce.
For that to make any sense at all, you need to define precisely what you mean by postmodernism. You say postmodernism contributes to alienation. How? Perhaps you should also define what you mean by alienation. Capitalism separating us from what we produce... because most people work for others?
Perhaps so, though I think that would be a tragedy rather than a benefit for humanity.
Yes, just as those who clung to feudalism were certain that the bourgeoisie were leading us to our demise. People often believe that history ends with them, that no further advancement in economics or governance can be made.
Have you been away so long that you have forgotten to whom you are talking? You are making some obvious assumptions there. For one, that ending capitalism is an advancement, and apparently the only economic advancement. For another, that I am somehow reacting and/or advocating against advancements in economics or governance. Both assumptions are wrong.
This has been especially true of the bourgeoisie and capitalism, peculiar for such a short reign. Unfortunately for capitalists, history does not stop and the proletariat will remove the bourgeoisie and the class struggle will be ended.
I have serious doubts about that, but let's deal with the issue of "postmodernism" first.
-
Unfortunately for capitalists, history does not stop and the proletariat will remove the bourgeoisie and the class struggle will be ended.
There you go again , you like many people, often believe that history ends with them, that no further advancement in economics or governance can be made. That your favoriate theme is the most ultimate development and that nothing further will ever be found to advance the meme any further.
Struggle will most certainly not end with Communism , in fact communism has already had its day in the sun and is being abandoned as a tried and failed dead end . Reactionarys are always around , just as those who clung to feudalism were certain that the enlighenment was leading us to our demise. Nostalgia for the times when Marxism encompassed half the planet will last a while but will continue to shrink in the manner that Monarchists do , because the more workable systems and the more successfull systems have better appeal than systems of proven failure.
Fairy tales still harken back to Kings , they are a legacy of an earlyer age , I guess that there will always be a remnant of Marxism in the same sort of vein.
-
Struggle will most certainly not end with Communism
Certainly not Plane, class struggle will end with communism, yes. History will most certainly not. The simple fact is that we do not know what will follow communism because the written history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. So no, you accuse me of violating a rule of history to which I most certainly do not contravene.
Has communism had its day, the Soviet Union, blah, blah...of course not. Feudal lords were certainly celebrating the first failures of bourgeoisie revolution. Yet, in the end the sheer inertia of the bourgeoisie class was enough to topple the Feudal system. It took a great deal of bloodshed and horrific brutality, but the dominant class can (and will) be overturned.
-
Here's my problem UP:
I can go through and define what are rather vast concepts, which require more than a mere definition, but a full explanation. Then what will you do with that?
If I am going to spend the time, and I do mean a considerable amount of time, will this exchange of knowledge be rewarded with a useful discussion or are you going to search for holes and semantics to argue a definitional, legalese style debate from which nothing fruitful can possibly come?
As you've already gathered, I cannot define these concepts with a simple dictionary definition. I have no intention spending this time discussing postmodernism, alienation, or any other Marxist concepts only to be given some semantic bullshit in return. I'm not accusing you of anything, but if you are planning to make some minor point, please just make it without putting me through a lot of extra effort.
-
I'm not an academic. I'm not an economist. I'm a graphic designer with a lot of opinions. I'm also reasonably intelligent. I get that this "if you are planning to make some minor point" bit is the debate version of a sh-- test. Am I worth your time? I am very tempted not to answer this and tell you just forget it. But I'm in a generous mood.
You don't want to waste your time here. I understand that. I don't want to waste my time either. Which is why I refuse to make some sort of guarantee that you're going to like my reply. My rudder for my discussions here, and discussions in general with people who disagree with me, is understanding. I try to understand. Once I get some measure of understanding, my tendency is to express my opinion. That may be to agree or to explain why I do not agree. I'm just crazy enough to think that by talking about your ideas and mine, I, at least, will gain more understanding. Sometimes my arrogance leads me off course, but I'm only human.
I don't know how to discuss the concepts with you if there is no clear understanding of the terms. I will not tell you I'm not to going to discuss the meaning of your definitions, because I very well may do just that. But I will not do so for the sake of a semantic nit-picking. I may do so for the sake of clarity. If you're going to make a broad explanation and then get upset if I seek further clarification, then perhaps we are both better off ending things now. If you're going to do what Michael Tee does and get upset at me for not reading some meaning you have not clearly expressed into your statements, some meaning that I'm just supposed to understand you meant because supposedly thinking people know what you mean, then feel free to call this off.
If I did not want to discuss the ideas with you, then I would not have asked you to explain them. Think of that as my debate sh-- test. I want to know if you've actually got something to say, or if you're just throwing out words to posture yourself as superior to the people who don't agree with you. In other words, do you have some idea that is worth my time to try to understand, or is it all just blowing smoke? If already thought you were, I wouldn't have bothered to have asked for the explanation in the first place. At the same time, if your explanation doesn't measure up, I feel no obligation to do more than say so.
Either 'postmodern alienation' means something significant and should be discussed, or it doesn't and shouldn't. If you give me some long explanation, and I think it's excrement, I'll say so with no apology. I would expect no less from you if I gave a long explanation you thought was excrement. If you use a word or a phrase, and my understanding of that word or phrase leads me to think you're incorrect in something you say, I'm probably going to express that. If that bothers you, then say so, and we'll end this now.
And if I think you're wrong, I generally have no problem saying so. I don't believe that has been a problem for you in the past. But while I'm willing to explain myself, I am not going to apologize if I challenge the ideas you express in some way you don't like. And I'm not going to make promises about how I'm going to respond to something you say when I don't know what you're going to say.
So, say what you have to say, or don't.
-
Has communism had its day, the Soviet Union, blah, blah...of course not.
Of course ...Not?
I would have said, Of course.
Having been given one century and half of the planet to prove itself it has been found wanting in a big way.
It deserves a bigger test ?
I don't see any point .
Everythign about Marxism can be studyed for discovery , as one would conduct an autopsy.
But you can't conduct an autopsy to discover why the subject is bursting with health and success now can you ?
If Marxism really had an advantage in effeciency , or the love of the people subject to it , or any other feature of significance , it would not be moribund and thrashing with its death throws right now.
-
Fair enough UP, I will get to it a bit later when I have ample time.
-
I thought about putting a lot of extra research into this, but I thought it would be more genuine if I wrote this without any notes, so to speak.
What is postmodernism?
The easy answer is that it is the dominant intellectual school of thought after modernism. Of course, that is a definition of little value. It is important though to remember that postmodernism is not necessarily in opposition to modernism, though it can be on some points. I think the best way to understand postmodernism is going to be to contrast it with modernism.
What time period are we talking about?
1. Modernism: Late 18th century to the mid 20th century, the peak was around early 1900's
2. Post-Modernism: Roughly began in the 1920's to the Present, especially flourished post WW2
How can there be an overlap?
We're talking about dominant intellectual schools of thought, these things don't just stop and start in small periods of time.
Let's get to the point.
Yes, let's.
Modernism was a time of optimism. Science, reason, and rational thought could conquer anything. The world was filled with objective truth. History was a progressive movement forward for mankind. This was a common belief among most thinkers, whether they be on the political right or left. Think of Hegel here, he inspired many with his view of history as an ever-progressive guided movement.
Modernism also held to hierarchies and ordered society. Monarchs still reigned, and where they did not, even elected leaders were considered to be of "higher stock" than those they governed. Aristocrats still held power in many countries and hierarchies prevailed amongst the higher classes where women and "lesser" races tended to be dominated (and this was generally accepted by an imperialist society as being good for all involved).
This was the age of the "Great Narratives": liberating the workers across the world, finding a "theory of everything", the theory of evolution, preparing God's Kingdom on Earth, even determining the subconscious meaning of dreams.
What Happened?
First came World War I. There was still a sense of Modernist optimism in World War I, some thought that it could be the "war to end war." It was truly horrific, unlike any war fought in the many centuries preceding it. Yet, in some ways World War I simply sloughed off the dead skin of long dying empires that were never much respected by modernists anyway - Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empires, along with the Czarist Russians had long been in need of changes. Perhaps this was a good thing?
Then came World War II. The scale of horrors involved in World War II is stunning. The systematic murder of Jews and Roma in the death camps of Auschwitz, Dachau and many other locations throughout Nazi territory brought the world a sense of collective terror. More than that, there was a blitzed London, a superheated Dresden, an atomic-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Add to that the millions of dead civilians and military. Add to that the policies of the United States, Britain, and Soviet Union that left WW2 survivors baffled. Nazis, not mere functionaries, but true Nazis were placed right back in power in the newly formed West Germany. Newly formed South Korea was put in the hands of a nasty dictatorship led by Japanese-collaborators who had committed horrid war crimes. Khrushchev released the crimes of Stalinists, so appalling, so abhorrent as to shock the entire eastern bloc. And still...nuclear weapons kept being built, perfected, constructed in a dual annihilation policy that bordered on insanity.
Yeah, so wtf is postmodernism?
With the aforementioned history, modernism no longer seemed to make sense. Optimism? Progressive history? God? Where was the progression of history when millions were dying? Where was God when Jews and Roma were being gassed? You can take optimism and shove it you know where (sorry, got into the spirit there). Once can see where postmodernists were a bit turned off.
Cynicism replaced optimism. A healthy dose of relativism was added into science and reason to ensure that we didn't put too much faith into it. History was no longer seen as progressive, but just existing and relative. Individualism was stressed over hierarchies and disorder was given more of a break compared to order. The great narratives were discarded for fragmentation and "think global, act local."
-
Okay, I have done a little more research into postmodernism. While it may be the dominant school of thought after modernism, I'm not convinced it's dominant right now. It seems at the very least on the wane, giving way to (for lack of a better term) a post-postmodernism.
The presentation of postmodernism seems to largely be as a sort degradation away from social order and the "Great Narratives". This is a presentation I am not convinced is accurate. For instance, the Green Revolution seems a great narrative to me, but it seems to be a postmodern event. Nor am I convinced we have moved away from social order as much as we have moved away from hierarchical social order, which is to say the structure of social may have changed, but there is no less order than existed before.
I keep seeing individualism as presented as a negative thing. As a libertarian, I have to question this. Individualism seems to be considered individualist anarchism, as if somehow people are exiting or rebelling against society, and yet this is clearly not the world I see around me. If anything, people are finding more ways to connect to one another, not less. Subcultures are growing in size and number, and even those subcultures who might be considered countercultures by the more traditional, are only marginally so. There is even plenty of overlap from one subculture to another. Goths can be and often are also computer geeks. Members of the SCA can be sci-fi fans. A philosophy academic wrote one of the longest and most famous BDSM novel series ever published. And all that doesn't even begin to account for the internet.
You said, "Postmodernism offers a life of alienation, destructive individualism, selfishness, and crass consumerism pushing us further towards the collapse of bourgeoisie societies." I don't agree. I believe I am beginning to grasp why some people think so, but what I find is not a society of people living alienated lives, rejecting society and engaging in self-destructive behavior. Yes, some people have some of these problems, but that is not unique to postmodern times. There have always been such people. What I find in society overall is an increase in individual expression that does far more to strengthen society than to weaken it. What is weakening us as a society are the actions of those who seek to cling to an authoritarian, hierarchical, top-down, modernist model of societal control.
One of the more common complaints about postmodernism is people being cynical. The most cynicism I found in looking into postmodernism seemed to come from the critics of postmodernism. They criticized individualism, capitalism, deconstruction (in various forms), entertainment, and on and on. Where I see people more free to define themselves and pursue happiness, the critics of postmodernism seem to see fragmentation and decay. Which seems to bring me back to a point I made before. The criticism of postmodernism sounds a lot like the good old days spiel. And this notion you have that postmodernism is some how a road to "the collapse of bourgeoisie societies" seems a close cousin to the cry of the crotchety old man who insists the kids of today are ruining society.
I know you think the end of bourgeoisie societies will lead to some sort of Marxist/communist society rising up, and you think that is a good thing. But I don't agree that we are heading for a societal collapse. Societal change, yes. But then, society is always changing. I think the folks who want to try to direct the change by imposing socialist ideas or by trying to tightly control immigration or this or that scheme to mold society into something better are never going to achieve the betterment they say they want. The closest society will get to communism is the break down of top-down hierarchies as solutions to large-scale problems. The change will be gradual, and society will not collapse. It will simply keep evolving set by step. Capitalism will not vanish, it will simply be modified by the evolving society to meet society's needs.
(And for that matter, socialism/communism/Marxism would not, imo, result in a classless society. There would always be some sort of class, even it was ruling and non-ruling, or the people and the "enemies of the people". Or academic and worker. There would always be a justification for stratification, because there would never be the consensus of thought necessary for there to be none.)
And in any case, I think we are moving to something past postmodernism, due in large part to the expansion of the internet and computer technologies, and in 10-20 years, someone will be explaining that whatever they end up calling post-postmodernism will be "pushing us further towards the collapse of bourgeoisie societies." Though I doubt we will be any closer then than we are now.
-
I thought about putting a lot of extra research into this, but I thought it would be more genuine if I wrote this without any notes, so to speak.
What is postmodernism?
And why would Postmodernism last so long?
The Civil War was shocking to the public for its huge losses , but it seems that only a thirty years later everyone could be full of "modernist " optimism .
Ronald Reagan proclaimed "Morning in America" and the public embraced his optimism rejecting the mild pessimism and vanilla flavored depression that seemed to have gripped the nation after the debacle of Watergate and the weary war in Vietnam.
So depending on low often one looks one could find long and short cycles of optimism - pessimism , trying to caricterise any period longer than a decade with a single theme underestimates the speed at which society digests and understands itself severely.
How can there be an overlap?
We're talking about dominant intellectual schools of thought, these things don't just stop and start in small periods of time.
Why would one say this? These are things that often can be seen stopping and starting or becomeing the lead and looseing the leadership frequently during the course of election cycles of two , four and six years.
It has been observed that President Obama (like some previous Presidents) would like to accomplish something that is contriversial as early as possible to maximise the time for the public to be chilled out and forgetfull, the hot anger engendered by the uglyness of the Health care bill is likely to have ebbed signifigantly in the course of the comeing year and by November other equally important things may have happened.
Did you ever hear the one about the guy who asked his buddy whether his turn signal was on? The guy stood behind the car and said No , Yes , Yes, No ,No , Yes , Yes, No ,No , Yes , Yes, No ,No , Yes , Yes, No . The period of times that one looks at a reoccuring phenominon can influence strongly the accuracy of the observation.
So I say to ask if the present dominant philosophy is modernism or post modernism is like asking whether the tide is come in this month.
-
Struggle will most certainly not end with Communism
Certainly not Plane, class struggle will end with communism, yes. History will most certainly not.
Why would class struggle end with Communism?
Will there not be a ruleing class , an educated class , urbanites and rural , I can't even see why there shouldn't be haves and have nots within and without national borders .
I for one would energeticly do good works during times of Communism (If they ever reoccur)by raiseing the consciousness of the classes , especially where it can devide the ruling from the ruled.
-
Struggle will most certainly not end with Communism
Has communism had its day, the Soviet Union, blah, blah...of course not.
Of course ....NOt?
Where were you during the seventy years that Marxism was taught as the orthodoxy in every school of the Soviet Union or the fourty years that it was the theme of University education in China?
What more trial is required?
Do you wish to try the same thing again hopeing for a diffrent result?
Communism didn't just come in second in a race , it was rejected by generations raised to it.
-
Perhaps post-modernism is on the wane, that seems a bit difficult to ascertain right now. I would not doubt it, but until a clear successor emerges, it is too nebulous to really proclaim a new dominant school of thought. Also, post-modernism has really had a rather short-reign as dominant philosophies go. I'd be surprised to see it pass so quickly.
I don't really see the Green Revolution as a "Great Narrative" as much as a reaction to surface events. For example, no one created a systematic philosophy in the same manner as Kant, Hegel, or Marx did in their works. Can you see the difference? This is not a value judgment, I'm not arguing one is a better form over another, but there is no overarching systematic philosophy, painstakingly and methodically derived in the Green Revolution (or any other postmodern event).
Actually, I think that the shift from a hierarchical social order to a more decentralized social order is probably for the best. Please keep in mind that while I believe postmodernism has tendencies that lead to destructive behavior when intertwined with capitalism, that does not mean there are not positives aspects of both.
Individualism does not equate directly to rebellion. In fact, coupled with capitalism, even rebellion in postmodern times is nothing more than making specific consumer purchases (i.e. wearing the right shirt and getting the right haircut or tattoo). The problem, of course, comes from the notion of fulfillment in consumerism and the pursuit of individual selfishness, even at the expense of others. We then have the situation of an individual who accumulates massive capital while others cannot meet basic needs. A cynical postmodern attitude (Lady Thatcher summed this attitude well) is to simply say, "fuck society, I earned my accumulated capital."
You keep bringing up "critics of postmodernism" and then reference me. I suppose I am somewhat a critic, but also a fan. As I said earlier, it has both pros and cons (as most man-made systems do). If people who are critical of postmodernism are cynical then you'll have to excuse them, as they only know a postmodern method of critique. ;) And again, is cynicism bad? Yes and no. It is good in that it prevents tyranny and the simple acceptance of people like Stalin. It is bad because sometimes we, as humans, tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. We were burned (collectively) by the nastiness of World War II and the Cold War. Perhaps we are overcautious now to the point that we are completely resistant to anything but incremental change.
I respect your difference in views. I see it much as the bourgeoisie must have seen it when it looked as though feudalism was showing serious weak spots, but still holding together - like a dam struggling to hold back a reservoir. I sincerely don't believe that the masses of workers on the Earth can tolerate the existence eeked out to them for much longer. Consider that 80% of the proletariat lives outside of Europe and the United States in 2010.
-
Consider that 80% of the proletariat lives outside of Europe and the United States in 2010.
What?
-
I respect your difference in views. I see it much as the bourgeoisie must have seen it when it looked as though feudalism was showing serious weak spots, but still holding together - like a dam struggling to hold back a reservoir. I sincerely don't believe that the masses of workers on the Earth can tolerate the existence eeked out to them for much longer. Consider that 80% of the proletariat lives outside of Europe and the United States in 2010.
You seem to be assuming they will all turn to Marxism in some form. I am sure some will. I don't believe they all will. And I am not sure current experiments in socialism outside of the U.S. and Europe are actually selling the idea well. And the longer they go on, the less attractive they will become, imo. And once again, you seem to think I am defending the status quo. I am not. I want to see all sorts of economic and political change. But I do not believe Marxism/socialism is the best plan or an inevitable destination. People are already figuring out that what natives of poor nations in Africa and Latin America need is not more massive aid programs, but property rights and entrepreneurship. Technology, barring some apocalyptic return to agrarianism, will make individual liberty and individualism more attractive and achievable.
Individualism does not equate directly to rebellion. In fact, coupled with capitalism, even rebellion in postmodern times is nothing more than making specific consumer purchases (i.e. wearing the right shirt and getting the right haircut or tattoo). The problem, of course, comes from the notion of fulfillment in consumerism and the pursuit of individual selfishness, even at the expense of others. We then have the situation of an individual who accumulates massive capital while others cannot meet basic needs. A cynical postmodern attitude (Lady Thatcher summed this attitude well) is to simply say, "fuck society, I earned my accumulated capital."
I am not convinced that "the notion of fulfillment in consumerism and the pursuit of individual selfishness" is as widespread as you think. That some or many people find a measure of happiness in owning toys like iPads, 42" flat panel television sets, a certain pair of shoes or a new fly fishing rod does not mean they are finding or think they are finding fulfillment in consumerism. And there are a wide variety of charities and non-profit groups that many if not most people support. If anything, the selfish, cynical attitude comes from people who would rather see the government take from other people than to give of themselves. I'm not saying consumerism doesn't exist or that there isn't a problem. But I do also think it would be an exaggeration to say that someone who has an objection to, say, government run welfare or government run health care, holds a "fuck society" attitude. And does seem to be what you're implying.
-
(And for that matter, socialism/communism/Marxism would not, imo, result in a classless society. There would always be some sort of class, even it was ruling and non-ruling, or the people and the "enemies of the people". Or academic and worker. There would always be a justification for stratification, because there would never be the consensus of thought necessary for there to be none.)
A 3 tier society - the elites ("the party leaders"), the workers / drones ("the people"), and the outcasts ("the enemies of the people" - as defined by the party leaders). The latter would be essentially non-persons, and could be treated in any way seen fit.
-
You seem to be assuming they will all turn to Marxism in some form. I am sure some will. I don't believe they all will. And I am not sure current experiments in socialism outside of the U.S. and Europe are actually selling the idea well. And the longer they go on, the less attractive they will become, imo. And once again, you seem to think I am defending the status quo. I am not. I want to see all sorts of economic and political change. But I do not believe Marxism/socialism is the best plan or an inevitable destination. People are already figuring out that what natives of poor nations in Africa and Latin America need is not more massive aid programs, but property rights and entrepreneurship. Technology, barring some apocalyptic return to agrarianism, will make individual liberty and individualism more attractive and achievable.
I do not think you defend the status quo UP. I am simply conveying the realities of capitalism as it is. What has property rights really achieved? What has consumerism really achieved?
You seem to assume that I do not want a liberated people. I do, in fact that is the ultimate goal. I simply have no use for any false sense of liberation. he truth is that we cannot be a liberated people without discarding the chains of class - and yes, that will include property rights and some of the bourgeoisie structures the middle class holds so dear.
I am not convinced that "the notion of fulfillment in consumerism and the pursuit of individual selfishness" is as widespread as you think. That some or many people find a measure of happiness in owning toys like iPads, 42" flat panel television sets, a certain pair of shoes or a new fly fishing rod does not mean they are finding or think they are finding fulfillment in consumerism. And there are a wide variety of charities and non-profit groups that many if not most people support. If anything, the selfish, cynical attitude comes from people who would rather see the government take from other people than to give of themselves. I'm not saying consumerism doesn't exist or that there isn't a problem. But I do also think it would be an exaggeration to say that someone who has an objection to, say, government run welfare or government run health care, holds a "fuck society" attitude. And does seem to be what you're implying.
Now you are assuming. Government-run welfare and healthcare are bourgeoisie notions as well. The proletariat will take the reigns through revolution, not reform. Please don't confuse me with a social democrat. There are numerous non-profit and charitable groups and in the end they cannot make any significant change because there is no possible way they can overcome bourgeoisie structures put in place to keep workers exactly where they are.
I'm implying that as we travel down the road of postmodern-capitalism people are becoming more and more absorbed into finding happiness from their consumerism. If everyone was the rational economic man, then there is no possible reason for flooding the market with products. And many of those products would be substantitally different from one another - but they are not. In fact, a great number of products are simply re-packaged and sold again at a different price after a different marketing campaign.
-
I am simply conveying the realities of capitalism as it is. What has property rights really achieved? What has consumerism really achieved?
Are you? Property rights, properly protected, serve as a protection against governments and corporations. What happens when property rights are not protected. Again, see New London and the Atlantic Yards. Or for something more dramatic, see the poorer parts of Africa and Latin America where people get moved and dispersed because they have no property rights. Consumerism has its faults. But it has, or at least it has via capitalism, helped to raise the standard of living for many people. It is no longer a sign of wealth to have more than one television. No longer is one confined to three television stations received by antenna. Hundreds of channels are available, many serving niche markets. Grocery stores are commonly stocked with huge varieties and brands of food. Some foods made by huge corporations and some by smaller companies. Some grocery stores themselves intentionally serve a niche market. Resulting in more choices and generally less expensive food for everyone. Do I need to continue?
You seem to assume that I do not want a liberated people. I do, in fact that is the ultimate goal.
I am sure that is what you want. I do not doubt your intention. I doubt the ability of Marxism/socialism/communism to achieve that goal.
I simply have no use for any false sense of liberation. he truth is that we cannot be a liberated people without discarding the chains of class - and yes, that will include property rights and some of the bourgeoisie structures the middle class holds so dear.
I don't believe we can be liberated without property rights being protected as among the sacrosanct human rights. You know, life, liberty and property.
Now you are assuming.
That is possible. I have done it before.
I'm implying that as we travel down the road of postmodern-capitalism people are becoming more and more absorbed into finding happiness from their consumerism. If everyone was the rational economic man, then there is no possible reason for flooding the market with products. And many of those products would be substantitally different from one another - but they are not. In fact, a great number of products are simply re-packaged and sold again at a different price after a different marketing campaign.
Whoa. Hold on there. "If everyone was the rational economic man..." That requires a definition. What do you think a rational economic man is? "...then there is no possible reason for flooding the market with products." What, according to you, is "flooding" in this context? And what about people being rational economic choice makers would preclude the market from being "flooded" with product? "And many of those products would be substantitally different from one another - but they are not. In fact, a great number of products are simply re-packaged and sold again at a different price after a different marketing campaign." Partly false, partly true. Yes, many products are similar. But many are substantially different from one another. The marinara sauce one finds for $12 at the Fresh Market is substantially different from the $2.50 jar of spaghetti one may find at Wal-Mart.
-
A 3 tier society - the elites ("the party leaders"), the workers / drones ("the people"), and the outcasts ("the enemies of the people" - as defined by the party leaders). The latter would be essentially non-persons, and could be treated in any way seen fit.
Yes, that seems a correct assessment.