Are Michael Tee and Karl Marx pissed about this?

[_JS]

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.

[Plane]

Consider that 80% of the proletariat lives outside of Europe and the United States in 2010.

What?

[Universe Prince]

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.

[Amianthus]

(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.

[_JS]

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.

[Universe Prince]

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.

[Universe Prince]

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.