Protector Domesticus
Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
i was wondering what direction communists believe communism will take in modern industrialized societies , especially highly developed ones where industrial poverty and such things are less and less pronounced..
or basically.. what role does communism have in modern life, is it necessary anymore? is there a need to reform the basic ideologies?
etc..
Praefectus
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
They'll hang out in political forums and change the definition of socialism and communism every time the wind changes.
"Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief and if believed it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker's enthusiasm for the result. Eloquence may set fire to reason." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Praefectus
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
There will always be Utopia
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
It's dead. Marx was wrong. He believed socialism was inevitable as civilization progressed, and the proletariat became more conscious. Instead we've been moving farther and farther away from socialism, and the middle class has not faded away as he predicted but has become more important. Furthermore, Marxists still cling to the labor theory of value which has been totally discredited. How anyone can still defend the LTV baffles me.
My President ...
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
Communism is based upon the greatest fallacy of all, i.e., that the "New Man" can be created who will be satisfied with all that he has ... and that society will reflect this new man. Consider that all one "has" isn't material. "Others" have youth, wisdom, intelligence and ... dare I say it? ... love.
Equality cannot be absolute. However, societies have been based upon the notion of absolute equality, and untold millions have paid the price for it.
I agree with you, Timothy. Communism is dead. The only thing that I fear are those misguided zealots who believe that, given the chance, they can succeed where so many others have failed. In their rabid attempts to succeed, how many more people will be enslaved or die?
Praepositus
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
Communism will always be around because it is useful. Communism is an easy way to appeal to upset people to rally for revolution and then when it is over the persons who started it can grab the power. So in other words it will exist as long as their are people who will do anything for absolute power.
Vae victis
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
Marxism and constructivist dematerialism; Capitalist sublimation and predialectic discourse
The primary theme of the works of Gaiman is the common ground between sexual identity and society. A number of desituationisms concerning Marxism exist.
If one examines the patriarchialist paradigm of consensus, one is faced with a choice: either accept predialectic discourse or conclude that expression is created by the collective unconscious. But the subject is contextualised into a constructivist dematerialism that includes truth as a reality. The defining characteristic, and eventually the rubicon, of subcultural objectivism which is a central theme of Gaiman’s Stardust emerges again in The Books of Magic.
In the works of Gaiman, a predominant concept is the concept of constructivist reality. Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a constructivist dematerialism that includes narrativity as a paradox. Lacan uses the term ‘precapitalist conceptualist theory’ to denote a self-sufficient totality.
But de Selby[1] states that the works of Gaiman are postmodern. The subject is contextualised into a predialectic discourse that includes sexuality as a reality.
Thus, the main theme of Cameron’s[2] analysis of neodialectic feminism is not narrative, as Lacan would have it, but postnarrative. Any number of desublimations concerning a mythopoetical totality may be discovered.
It could be said that Bataille uses the term ‘Marxism’ to denote the meaninglessness, and subsequent absurdity, of capitalist class. Sontag suggests the use of Debordist image to attack and analyse society.
But if Marxism holds, we have to choose between preconstructivist objectivism and cultural posttextual theory. Derrida uses the term ‘constructivist dematerialism’ to denote the role of the participant as reader.
In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a Marxism that includes art as a whole. An abundance of narratives concerning constructivist dematerialism exist.
2. Discourses of defining characteristic
The primary theme of the works of Fellini is a self-supporting paradox. It could be said that the example of modernist desemioticism prevalent in Fellini’s Satyricon is also evident in La Dolce Vita, although in a more mythopoetical sense. Humphrey[3] holds that we have to choose between Marxism and cultural capitalism.
“Class is intrinsically a legal fiction,” says Sartre. In a sense, Bataille uses the term ‘neosemanticist conceptual theory’ to denote the bridge between reality and society. If constructivist dematerialism holds, the works of Fellini are reminiscent of Koons.
If one examines predialectic discourse, one is faced with a choice: either reject Marxism or conclude that narrativity is responsible for archaic perceptions of class, but only if the premise of predialectic discourse is invalid. But Abian[4] suggests that we have to choose between constructivist dematerialism and predialectic theory. The subject is contextualised into a predialectic discourse that includes art as a totality.
However, Marx promotes the use of Marxism to challenge the status quo. Baudrillard uses the term ‘Lacanist obscurity’ to denote the collapse, and eventually the rubicon, of semiotic society.
Therefore, Derrida suggests the use of Marxism to deconstruct class. The opening/closing distinction depicted in Fellini’s Satyricon emerges again in La Dolce Vita.
However, Foucault’s critique of predialectic discourse states that the significance of the participant is deconstruction. Marx uses the term ’subcapitalist discourse’ to denote the common ground between society and class.
It could be said that if Marxism holds, we have to choose between Derridaist reading and cultural theory. The subject is interpolated into a Marxism that includes consciousness as a whole.
Therefore, Sartre promotes the use of constructivist dematerialism to attack hierarchy. The premise of predialectic discourse suggests that sexual identity has objective value, given that sexuality is equal to culture.
My sources;
1. de Selby, R. K. P. ed. (1994) Forgetting Marx: Marxism in the works of Fellini. Schlangekraft
2. Cameron, Y. (1982) Marxism in the works of Rushdie. O’Reilly & Associates
3. Humphrey, L. J. U. ed. (1998) The Rubicon of Context: Constructivist dematerialism and Marxism. University of Georgia Press
4. Abian, A. V. (1977) Marxism and constructivist dematerialism. O’Reilly & Associates
Blut und Boden
Licenced to insult
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
Communism/socialism is far from dead. And the new man can be created just as we are created with our mindset today...Originally Posted by Oldgamer
And with liberalism many people are enslaved and/or die; you don't have to die or be enslaved, just other people will be enslaved and die for you instead...
Sengoku: Total War (a Shogun mod for M2TW) - Work In Progress
Late Roman Era Campaign Map for M2TW
Late Roman Units for M2TW
Globalization: making someone else's problem your problem
From silence
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
Marx was hardly "wrong", at least in the sense that he didn't contribute anything of value with his work. We (as in the US) are still rather Social in the make up of our government, so I don't think it is really "fading". And yes, a free market discourages a middle-class, if you heard otherwise, that source is fallacy. And when did the LTV become discredited? I must have missed that memo.(though I myself am not a particular supporter of the LTV).
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
Comes Rei Militaris
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
Ugh about the worst thing in discussing marxism is the proliferation of obscure language for its own sake to dress up some rather basic concepts in fancy terminology and ending up with little...
patriarchialist paradigm of consensus
(As relating to I am assuming the Aristotelian notion that political society is derived from the patriarchal structure)
(pattern example sample)
(general agreement)
I think the problem here is accepting that this phrase should really form the basis of debate. It seems like it rests on some rather old fashioned conceptualisation of the way society forms that isn't remotely relevant to much more complex institutions that aren't the sum of a rather crude theory about how society forms or discourse exists.
The only interesting part about this seemingly unconnected rant (that is as relating to the subject matter of the thread which can only possibly be how relevant the theories of marxist theory as a transitive tool to other forms of society is) is the following part ''attack hierarchy'' which is in some ways the most interesting parts of socialist theory. To attack traditional structures of both interpersonal relationships and the way society interacts but it all tends to fall down around their ears as they use such complex language to fudge up their concepts that it becomes unreadable to a layman.
Maybe that is just me, but it seems like your typical philosophy student or graduate or 'learned' person writes in a way that just bypasses me. I didn't get anything from that above set of statements. In your defence Aetius, If that is because I am to stupid or uneducated to understand it then that is just the way it is I guess. Though I must say the one philosophy teacher on here is remarkably easy to understand!
Vae victis
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Last edited by Aetius; July 12, 2010 at 08:52 PM.
Blut und Boden
Comes Rei Militaris
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
.......................
Sheer genius......
Dammit foiled again!
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
People who argue for the labor theory of value do not take into consideration time. People want goods sooner rather than later, that is human nature. By working for a capitalist and getting "exploited" they are in fact, saving time. Say someone wanted a car. He could build it from scratch himself and it would take a very long time. Or he works for a capitalist, earning a wage and buys a car. He gets his car sooner, the capitalist makes money. Both are happy.
Miles
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
Andalusian Cubism.
Primicerius
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
Speaking as a Trotskyist,
Communism is a relevant and even vibrant ideology. Marxist thought derives from the inherent injustice in the exploitation of a worker and the working class. In the modern day this exploitation is obvious across the entire world. In China, (a deformed workers state where a bureaucracy has taken control and manipulating markets for their benefit) the average worker works a 16 hour day for 57 cents an hour.
In the developed industrial world there is still a great deal of exploitation. For example, let's say a Capitalist buys $20 of wood, and the worker takes this wood and turns it into a $150 piece of furniture. If he's paid $20 an hour, and he can make two chairs every hour he is only making 0.0666666666666667 of what his labor is actually worth.
All the western world is right now is capitalism with a smiley face. Ignore the oppression and exploitation, just enjoy what we give you.
Communism, and Marxist thought, provides the guide and goal for the liberation of these individuals from an exploitative system.
Dialectical Materialism provides the basis for an analysis of historical causes, as well as an understanding of current events. It's evaluations of quantitative change becoming qualitative, and contradictions, paves the way for accurate and understandable sociological analysis.
Last edited by Vladimir Lenin; July 12, 2010 at 09:18 PM.
"I have need to be all on fire, for I have mountains of ice about me to melt." -William Lloyd Garrison
"The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end." -Leon Trotsky
Saviors of the Japanese
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
The cost of the chair includes the cost of the labor.
First things first, the idea of a 150 dollar chair made up solely of wood is ridculous. But I'll go with it. So let's say that the end result is two chairs worth $300. The Capitalist pays 40 dollars on material and 40 on labor. Thus it cost the capitalist 80 dollars so far, right? And then there is the cost of tools, which the worker doesn't pay that the capitalist provides. These tools cost far more than the cost of the chairs, but lets say the chair making tools cost 1000 dollars and can make 100 chairs before being replaced (this is very reasonable), so now its up to 100 dollars. Plus rent for the building that the operation takes place, and or the cost it took him to buy the building. Let's say that is 1,000 a month per worker. And in that time the worker can create 250 chairs (break times and the like). So now its up to 108 dollars. Then add the cost of shipping, which is at least 20 dollars a chair so now its 144 dollars. And don't forget the cost of marketing the chair to chair stores, and packageing which comes up to let's say 10 dollars a chair. So now its 164 dollars spent on the chairs. Oh don't forget the general cost of management which lets say works down to 4.25 dollars a chair (they have 4 employees managed by a guy that makes 30 dollars an hour, its a tiny operation here) So now its up to 172.50 for the chairs. Now the capitalist can't sell it to the store to the same price it sells on the shelf, but he sells the two chairs for 200 dollars (assuming he doesn't have a store of his own which would add more prices). The Capitalist thus makes 27.50 off the chairs, which is only 7.50 over that of the laborer who does not have to invest capital and is at little risk.
There is a reason the worker doesn't just build the chairs himself and sell them.
“The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”
—Sir William Francis Butler
Primicerius
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
A problem, with my analysis is that no worker would make $40 an hour. That wage, is quite ridiculous. We could run this analysis with an average manufacturing wage of $2,372 a month. We can divide that by 4, and then 40, we see the worker makes 14.82, but let's say our Capitalist likes to brag about how nice he is so he makes it an even $15.
At $15 an hour for wages, plus 40 for material, plus 10 for tools (Tools do not break down every week and need replacing), I'll say 10 for rent/ownership, $40 for shipping (two chairs), a 8.50 for general management: 123.5
Capitalist sells the chairs for 200.
Mr. Capitalist makes a annual pure profit of; $6,168,960. Mr. Worker: $201,600
Kind of a huge difference.
"I have need to be all on fire, for I have mountains of ice about me to melt." -William Lloyd Garrison
"The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end." -Leon Trotsky
Vae victis
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
Proof that commies dont know how to run a business or understand it at all.
Blut und Boden
Primicerius
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
Proof that anyone can make a one-liner claim with no content.
"I have need to be all on fire, for I have mountains of ice about me to melt." -William Lloyd Garrison
"The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end." -Leon Trotsky
Saviors of the Japanese
Re: Relevancy of the Great Dialectic in modern western democracies?
Again, I've never seen an all wood chair tha can be made in half an hour for 150 dollars. That is where your analysis totally breaks down.
“The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”
—Sir William Francis Butler
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
