Alternative to capitalism?

[rmcrobertson]

Nope. You might want to look up a good discussion of the topic--something like Kaja Silverman's "The Subject of Semiotics."

In their clear form, the cultural constructivist arguments insist that nothing about people and the world is a priori--we made it all, one way or another. I must say, too, that I really don't buy these, "at their extremes the one side turns into the other side," arguments.

There is a version of this, I suppose, available in Derrida's, "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences." His argument is that--and this would apply to Marx among others--these, "decentered," theories have a habit of relying upon some unanalyzed category kept "outdie," the structure being analyzed, and therefore beyond analysis--the classic example, for him, would be the idea of what you might call the producing subject, hidden away in Marx.

But the question isn't one of one turning into the other. It's a question of cheating on the analysis.

 

[heretic888]

Sorry, Rob, but I don't buy the double-standards.

In their clear form, the cultural constructivist arguments insist that nothing about people and the world is a priori--we made it all, one way or another.

And therein lays the performative contradiction.

They claim that nothing about people and the world is a priori --- except for the principles of cultural constructivism. The principles by which they claim we "create" the world are themselves a priori concepts that they use to judge all and sundry by. A performative contradiction.

I mean, your statement that I quoted above if flatly hypocritical --- it claims that nothing is a priori, but then goes on to say that the idea of "we making it one way or another" applies universally.

The simple, raw truth is that the Universal Principle of Cultural Construction is an a priori archetype by any other name --- which just really means that they have a supposedly universal, timeless principle outside of the constraints of history and time that they use to judge everything by. They're just a tad disingeous for claiming otherwise.

And I don't buy that for a second.

There is a version of this, I suppose, available in Derrida's, "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences." His argument is that--and this would apply to Marx among others--these, "decentered," theories have a habit of relying upon some unanalyzed category kept "outdie," the structure being analyzed, and therefore beyond analysis--the classic example, for him, would be the idea of what you might call the producing subject, hidden away in Marx.

Which is all well and good, but the problem is confounded when these guys are just as guilty as the "decentrists" that they indict.

Its basically put this way: there is no principle outside of time and history by which to judge all others EXCEPT for the principle that there is no principle outside of time and history by to which to judge all others. There is no universal archetypal truth by which to view history EXCEPT for the universal archetypal truth that no such archetype exists. There is no privileged view by which to judge all others, EXCEPT for the view that claims this is so.

Its subtle, its tricky, but its there nonethless. Hypocrisy. The performative contradiction. Call it what you will. Its there.

And, once again, I don't buy that for a second.

But, hey, I'm sure you've got all your sources in order --- the same sources that are guilty of this stuff over and over, that just prove the points above in their own writings. I'm sure Derrida explains how he can indict history's philosophers for having a "privileged position", but never explains why his position isn't just as privileged. I'm sure the constructivists can explain why their own philosophies aren't just "social constructions" subject to the same criteria they indict all others by. I'm sure it is explained why these sentiments of "anti-essentalism" are themselves not essentalistic (since they are making claims for supposedly timeless, universal rules that govern reality).

I'm sure they do all that --- when hell freezes over.

As before, both essentalism and constructivism are true. But partially true, nonetheless. Don't mistake the trees for the forest, man.

Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

See trees, see forest, quite well. Stop. Avoid logic-chopping at all costs stop. "Animal House," level heretical discovery that we all are like atoms in a giant hand not helpful in regard stop. You not understand argument stop.

From "Encarta," which basically has it right:

"Derrida's work focuses on language. He contends that the traditional, or metaphysical way of reading makes a number of false assumptions about the nature of texts. A traditional reader believes that language is capable of expressing ideas without changing them, that in the hierarchy of language writing is secondary to speech, and that the author of a text is the source of its meaning. Derrida's deconstructive style of reading subverts these assumptions and challenges the idea that a text has an unchanging, unified meaning. Western culture has tended to assume that speech is a clear and direct way to communicate. Drawing on psychoanalysis and linguistics, Derrida questions this assumption. As a result, the author's intentions in speaking cannot be unconditionally accepted. This multiplies the number of legitimate interpretations of a text.

Deconstruction shows the multiple layers of meaning at work in language. By deconstructing the works of previous scholars, Derrida attempts to show that language is constantly shifting. Although Derrida's thought is sometimes portrayed by critics as destructive of philosophy, deconstruction can be better understood as showing the unavoidable tensions between the ideals of clarity and coherence that govern philosophy and the inevitable shortcomings that accompany its production."

The whole point is that attempts at asserting one's absolute authority over meaning are inevitably going to fail, WHATEVER that assertion happens to be, because the "origins," of one's attempts are always already elsewehere, and one cannot catch up. This includes the idea that "one," and, "asserting," and every other proposition in what I just wrote represents another failed attempt at complete assertion of authority.

If you want to claim that this locates absolute authority in the denial of absolute authority, be me guest. But that's kind of really, really sophomoric--like sitting around, stoned, and arguing that, like, we could all be atoms in a giant fingernail, and did you ever think about are we a man dreaming he's a butterfly, or...

Yes, there are arrogant deconstruction types. Sure, gosh, college professors can be dicks, never knew that before. Wow.

The point of citing Derrida, here, was pretty ordinary: it was to point out that one of the difficulties of political change is that the reasons for your assertions, demands, whatever, "slides beneath," your consciousness in the moment you make the assertions, which a) helps open up the buried relations of power (for example, Karl pontificated about capitalism while Jenny washed his shirts, which helps explain why the revolutions guys start are perhaps doomed from before the start), b) serves as a warning to wanna-be revolutionaries (the revolution has an unconscious to which you will never have full access, so watch out, and a little modesty wouldn't hoit).

Even if you had a point, the important thing is to try and locate--in particular rather than general terms--just where the "unconscious," went in the case of Derrida's hypocrisy, and just what the conditions were that sent it there.

These "Gotchas!" simply ain't much....especially when what you are really doing (CATCH that sliding signifier!) is trying to assert the primacy of your own authority over the, "simple, raw truth."

Personally, I'm just trying to assert my authority over slippery words and elusive ideas, and I know damn well that the attempt is doomed.

 

[StraightRazor]

WOW what a number of overeducated (and proud of it) blowhards there are here!! Where does an inconsequential little peon (read US Citizen) like me fit into all your grand plans? Apparently if I havent read a buch of books by guys Ive never heard of my opinion dont "mean squat roun hea".

 

[rmcrobertson]

I might suggest that you take a look through this thread and see what actually got said, though I certainly understand how you would've gotten this idea.

Nothing I wrote is beyond your reach: not the ideas, not the books, none of it.

In point of fact, I'd argue, the way that ordinary citizens react to books, ideas, etc., is a good sign of the mess we're in. One name for that is, "functional illiteracy:" people can read, so the system can announce that everybody can read; but people don't read, so the system doesn't have to worry about producing any understanding.

It's not so long ago--when I was a kid, in fact--that while there were a lot of names like, "egghead," around, regular folks wanted their kids to be educated, and valued education when they saw it. It didn't mean kowtowing before every schmuck with a few fancy words and a degree (in fact, part of American beliefs have always included telling rude jokes at such people's expense), because ordinary Americans used to have a lot more well-grounded faith in the power of their own ideas, and even their own wisdom. But that came out of an agrarian society, in which people's values often derived from their work on farms where they could see that what they did and thought mattered; it came out of skilled work, in which people often got screwed but in which they could actually take some justifiable pride; it came out of immigrant experience, which led folks to value education and to fight for it.

Because of Don Trump and his ilk, that's pretty much evaporated for too many people. And regrettably, the eggheads have helped, by providing intellectual support for crap like the Vietnam War, and ideological support mechanisms for the middle class.

But all this stuff is within your--and pretty much anybody's--reach. If it weren't, I couldn't get cussed out by anonymous posters for being too high-falutin' and elitist and ignert about Real Life, which is pretty damn funny given my background. (There was that time me and Tom Joad was a-walkin' through the dusty roads of West Texas, and...but I digress.) It's too bad, but as I mentioned, it's one of the signs of the mess we're in, that real books, and serious ideas, and honest intellectual discussion--which you used to hear all the time when I was a kid--has been replaced by various forms of warmongering crap. (Is a perfessor allowed to say, "crap?")


Hell, there's people now think Rush Limbaugh, Savage, and the rest of those idiots on, "Crossfire," are intellectuals.

 

[StraightRazor]

Soooo.....Does that mean

"by all means son, your opinion is welcome here."
-or-
"By all means you CAN read up on all these topics, then come back and your opinion will be welcome here."

 

[rmcrobertson]

Both. And, it means that once upon a time Americans did not automatically take references to a few books, and intellectual complexity, as a reason for either kowtowing or automatic rejection.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

so anybody who notices this must be biased, indeed even (weirdly) just like racists. The problem with this is, of course, that racisms keep certain groups down; social criticism recognizes that our society's professions of, "equal opportunity," are nonsensical, given the fact of capitalism.

I said hates, not notices. I said that those who HATE the wealthy simply for having money think the same as those who HATE other races simply for having different skin color.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yes, I know what you wrote.

And again, it is odd--or would be, if not for the "backlash," that Naomi Wolf among others discusses, in which men, white men, rich guys, whatever, weirdly somehow become the Real Victims.

The difference is that the way that being wealthy rests upon the explotiation of others is a historical fact, verifiable in all sorts of ways. The notion that, say, black people are somehow inferior is a racist fantasy, one which has had, unfortunately, all sorts of effects. Similarly, the notion that women are now oppressing men is a fantasy, one with some unhappy effects.

Fantasy...fact. Fact...fantasy. They're different.

The other point was that despising wealth doesn't have much to do with the individuals involved, except for what sure look like the de-moralizing effects of wealth upon many of the wealthy. It has to do with the fact that many suffer so that a few can become wealthy.

You really must stop echoing these...well, let's just call them, "notions," from the Michael Savages of the world. It's exactly like the argument I had with a neighbor, about eight years ago, who cranked up Zeppelin as loud as he could, about 4 AM on early Thursday morn..when I asked him to turn it down, he cussed me out and told me that I Had Problems, or a little music wouldn't bother me. So I ate his liver, with a big Amarone.

And I miss the days when, at least in books and songs and cartoons, ordinary Americans did not kowtow to the wealthy, or believe fervently that Only Money Mattered, or act blind to where money comes from (when a boy dollar bill loves a commodity very much, he...), or provide excuses for people who look down on them.

 

[loki09789]

The other point was that despising wealth doesn't have much to do with the individuals involved, except for what sure look like the de-moralizing effects of wealth upon many of the wealthy. It has to do with the fact that many suffer so that a few can become wealthy.

And I miss the days when, at least in books and songs and cartoons, ordinary Americans did not kowtow to the wealthy, or believe fervently that Only Money Mattered, or act blind to where money comes from (when a boy dollar bill loves a commodity very much, he...), or provide excuses for people who look down on them.

So are you demonizing the entire strata of 'rich' and refusing to recognize the individuals for what they are, individuals? Heretic made the point about Meritocracy... I think it is a valid one.

I don't know if there has ever been a time in any country that status, either through title or money wasn't pursued, envied or somehow associated with priviledge status.

What possible solution to the woes do you offer? What would be better than what is according to your perspective?

 

[Don Roley]

WOW what a number of overeducated (and proud of it) blowhards there are here!! Where does an inconsequential little peon (read US Citizen) like me fit into all your grand plans? Apparently if I havent read a buch of books by guys Ive never heard of my opinion dont "mean squat roun hea".

Hee hee, reminds me of a quote from Poor Richard's almanac,

A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one.

Ben had a way with words, eh?

And of course, when those learned individuals are deceptive, it gets worse. I point to the fact that Ayn Rand has been accused of promoting Aryan racial ideals and such in her novels. I read them and can tell you that the despcriptions of the contents are very distorted. But of course, if you have not read her stuff for yourself, you have to take someone's word.

Except that a simple internet web search will come up with the fact that this supposed champion of Aryan racial ideals was born Jewish.

Oops!

Of course, I am sure there will be some snappy comeback, some lame explination, maybe even an insincere apology. But this point really is just the part of the iceberg that we can see. Why was Rand brought up in the first place except to demonize anyone that may share the same side of the debate with her? And also to divert the attention of those arguming the same points she might into defending her.

Go ahead and debate Robert if you want. I am sure he has some snappy patter and more of the same of his tactics so far to dish out. But after learning through a few examples that when he says one of his sources says XXX, it may not be even slightly close to that, and all the deceptive tactics and demonizing of those that hold different opinions, I doubt there can be an honest debate. For that, both sides have to be honest and in this case one side has tried to portray an author who would have died in Hitler's gas chambers by saying that the charecters and philosophies in her novels represented Aryan facist ideals.

 

[loki09789]

Don,

Tried sending you a PM, your folder is full. Please contact me via email if you like (accessible via my profile) or PM me when your folder has more room.

 

[MisterMike]

I think there are many ways of becoming wealthy. So THE way to become wealthy does not always necessitate exploitation. Look at Oprah.

 

[Makalakumu]

Well, you are being polite and attempting to engage in a logical conversation. But I do not think my statements of how people who do nothing, no work of any type, tend to starve to death as being a natural law that Capitalism in based on. If I had to look for a natural law that something is based on, then I have to go back to your insistence that there is some sort of social contract that brings us into this world owing something. THAT seems to be a classic case of saying that because this is the way nature/reality is, we must do a certain thing. You may be totally convinced of it, but so were the guys 500 years ago who looked at the wonders of the world and declared that there MUST be a god, and so we should follow the orders of the guys in the funny hats.

They were just as convinced that they were right as you are, they had just as much proof, and they also tended to believe that the guys 500 years before them were idiots for believing the silly ideas that no one did when they were in power. I do not believe there is a power like that, you cannot poke, prod or measure it, and there is no more proof for it than there is for God. Guess what? We were wrong before, we could be wrong now. I dare say, we you probably are wrong. So when people talk about these natural states of affairs that we all owe society, I just see a new group of high priests telling us what is needed.

And until you can prove that such a natural law exists (i.e. hard, cold scientific method) and I owe something to the world, you can not convince me that there is anything we should do in the name of this greater power. We have seen that road time and time again.

Our understanding of the universe has certainly changed from Aristotle to Gallileo to Einstien. And the current picture may also be wrong. But, I need to ask this question, why has it changed? And to answer it...evidence. I think your call for evidence is extremely valid and poignant. If you believe in social responsability, what makes you do so? Hopefully, by answering this question, we can cull out the high priests...

And now, to the evidence. Before I lay down anything, I want to know what you expect. You have stated that you need cold hard scientific method, if this is true, then we won't have any problems. If this is also true, then you must be prepared to accept evidence that goes contrary to your beliefs. If you are not prepared to do this, then the entire following paragraph is a waste of time.

First off, I want to refer you to the concept of interactive populations. When ecologists study these populations, they find it very difficult because there are connections upon connections and small changes sometimes do nothing and sometimes blow up disproportionately. Humans live in an interactive society, one that is based upon balancing individuality and sociality. Take a look at the works of some anthropologists like Margaret Mead and you'll find the science behind this statement. Some people have confused this with the hive mentality (eurosociality) where the individual literally does not exist in a sense and every action is determined by a rigid genetic structure that supports the whole. We, on the other hand, are free to make decisions regardless of our peers. Yet we, to a certain extent, are unable to completely free ourselves from the consequences of those decisions or other individual's decisons dependent upon those other individuals for our survival. Therefore our society developed in order to provide a social framework, containing individuality in a net of sociality so that your individual decisions, adaptive or maladaptive, have a dampening effect on the whole. The rules and the laws of our society all point to this ecologic concept, where every individual is linked loosely, doing their own thing and at the same time helping each other out.

This argument is a great example of people acting out individually by denying social responsability, but I think that when we turn off our computers and put our kids to sleep we see the contrary.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. I still haven't seen the slightest response to the fact that Ayn Rand's (and just as an aside--why'd she change her name so radically?) novels revolve around the notions that a) only Great Men are important; b) the GMs are opposed by a howling mass of inferior whiners and parasites; c) the GMs are white, white white and the whiners--are the opposite; d) women enjoy being beaten and raped...etc. etc., etc. Still waiting, still waiting to hear how there's nothing Fascist here. I guess it's a lot simpler to attack me personally--and I agree; doing the reading, thinking about what you've read, facts n' quotes, are a lot harder.

2. I see that, still, ya ain't reading the writing. Or thinking about what you're writing yourself: for example, this, "demonizing the rich," claptrap doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote. It's a simple way out of dealing with the fact of what wealth is, and the methods by which one acquires it. And by the way, arguing that societies always have their elites hardly helps matters. This is America. They taught me back in Mr. Pritts' sixth grade class, 1963, small-town USA that we're better than that. Why suck up to the wealthy? Why value wealth so much? Where I come from, money didn't make you better. Back in Bible School, they taught me that Jesus didn't value money. Funny how nobody wants to discuss that little issue.

3. I continue to find it depressing that Americans have got to a point where they no longer value education. It's bad enough, in fact, that apparently when you cite Encarta you become a terminal egghead, a pointy-head intellectual. And again, I see that nobody wants to tangle with the idea that intellectuals--like the wealthy!--are neither to be venerated nor ignored...mainly because the whole system of public education, back when I was a kid in that traditional America we're always hearing so much about, tried to teach kids that they could be just as knowledgeable as anybody else.

4. I see that as far as this demonizing goes, the very folks busy making such accusations (good thing I didn't discuss Nazis, or I'd get accused of demonizing them, too) cheerfully demonize intellectuals, liberals, and leftists as much as they possibly can. They cheerfully demonize politicians they don't like. But boy, let some fool note that Dan Quayle has never done a lick of work in his life, that the children of the rich don't always deserve their positions, and by gum, it's demonization.

5. These are some of the reasons that capitalism sucks.

6. Oh yes. Oprah has made her billion exploiting the loneliness and desperation of badly-educated, unhappy people--like Jerry, and Montel, and Dr. Phil, and all the rest of 'em. And Margaret Mead's observations of Samoa--as good as that book is--were wack.

 

[MisterMike]

6. Oh yes. Oprah has made her billion exploiting the loneliness and desperation of badly-educated, unhappy people--like Jerry, and Montel, and Dr. Phil, and all the rest of 'em. And Margaret Mead's observations of Samoa--as good as that book is--were wack.

There are no victims due to her show. And you'd have a tough time proving (at least to me, maybe not yourself) she produces that show for selfish reasons.

Oh, and what color is she? I thought all this evil capitalism was the work of Rich White Male Heirs?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, if you don't find the spectacle of a talk show host sucking the tears of some poor family--with the aid of a "psychiatrist," whose primary job is to make sure that the poor bastards keep exposing themselves on the air!--a problem, what can I say?

However, more interesting is the assertion that she's not doing the show for selfish reasons, perish forbid. I'd have thought that an advocate of capitalism would be all in favor of her making money, first and foremost...

And again, please show me where it was that I wrote that all capitalists were white and male. I simply noted that that's what they usually are, in this country. Do you have facts to the contrary?

 

[MisterMike]

Well, if you don't find the spectacle of a talk show host sucking the tears of some poor family--with the aid of a "psychiatrist," whose primary job is to make sure that the poor bastards keep exposing themselves on the air!--a problem, what can I say?

That I might, but you don't describe Oprah.

However, more interesting is the assertion that she's not doing the show for selfish reasons, perish forbid. I'd have thought that an advocate of capitalism would be all in favor of her making money, first and foremost...

Not every one who makes a lot of money is selfish. Is there a cut-off point where she should say, "Gee, ya know..I think I've made enough. Who else want's to take over now?"

And again, please show me where it was that I wrote that all capitalists were white and male. I simply noted that that's what they usually are, in this country. Do you have facts to the contrary?

Simply noted? And for what reason I wonder? One needn't look far to find where you mention the rich come from the rich. Whites rule the country by oppressing the blacks, yadda yadda yadda..we today owe them and all the Indians..blah blah blah...(OK I'm stretching it here). And my quote to you was "all evil capitalism".

 

[Makalakumu]

Perhaps its a measure of integration where I can have the wool pulled over my eyes by Condoleeza Rice...a very intelligent and successful black woman.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Mike--what you don't seem to get is that in capitalism--the system you are advocating so strongly--there is no point at which one says that enough is enough. And if you don't think that Oprah's show exploits misery--OK, fine, what is that show all about?