Do not exalt the worthy,
so that people will not compete.
Do not value rare treasure,
so that people will not steal.
Do not display objects of desire,
so that people's hearts will not be disturbed.
Therefore the wise lead by keeping their hearts pure, their bellies full,
their ambitions weak, and their bones strong,
so that the people may be purified
of their thoughts and desires;
and the cunning ones will not interfere.
By acting without interfering, all may live in peace.
Basically, this justifies why shit is lauded as great in America. (Musicians and artists are hardly "worthy" -- any moron can and should play a musical instrument or know how to paint.)
And it justifies a fat and stupid populace.
(Haven't read past the first paragraph of your post yet... just had to bring the Lao Tzu saying forward.)
Edit: no need to reply to the rest of your post... nothing to disagree with :)
Thanx Trevor. gotta love Lao Tzu.
When I was young, I thot it odd that Sparta banned the ownership of gold and silver. But later learned that armies were motivated by the promise of loot.
There wasnt any at Sparta. So- even tho it lacked a city wall, it set the record of ancient cities by going for 600 years without a foreign soldier setting a boot in the place. A modern Sane Asylum would bear that in mind, investing in the fertility of the soil and the durability of the architecture, or whatever else could only be enjoyed on site.
Unidian wrote:For all the talk of gender around here, one would think it would be quite obvious that men and women have different priorities. That doesn't mean they can't be together in a useful sense.
Dude, the problem is you've already lost yourself and already lost her by thinking like this. You've lost yourself by giving up on your individuality to become emotionally involved and dependent on another. If this weren't the case I doubt you would be able to stand her for any length of time. You've lost her because the moment she saw that she could make you emotional, she knew that you were not the man for her. She might keep you around as a nice safety net, and give you maintanance sex to keep you happy, and you're right in that sense its useful for both of you. But someday this relationship will come to an end, likely when she wants it to, and she will be resilient in finding another fuck partner, and you will again be alone with yourself, twisted in confusion. Maybe on that day you'll learn the lesson of why not to give away your heart.
Unidian wrote:That makes a considerable amount of sense.
It's not practicable, though. We'd have to give up technology to do it, and the hell with that.
We would not have to give up technology, just take advantage of appropriate technology. None of the utopian models have access to the scientific data we now have on the nature of hominids.
Altho- the sheer volume of the data- human genome, epigenetics, the effect of dietary deficit and contamination on neurological development, and social interaction studies like Milgram's work on obedience, or Zimbardo on the effect of authority- create an information overload.
Then too, there's new hazards, like the MRSA infection that looks like it could turn into a pandemic and raise hell with all the social and economic models. And again, we hear experts, in this case medical professionals, who are telling people to wash their hands. As if people will listen. And this, after the expert tells us it is spreading by skin to skin contact. Are people going to stop touching each other? And if they dont, is hand washing really going to be an effective response?
Classic neurosis, to focus on what is acceptable rather than what is effective.
None of the utopian models have access to the scientific data we now have on the nature of hominids.
A utopia will be built on what we call "marketing". For instance, there are already two fully-artificial cities in America -- shrines to Walt Disney's imagination.
None of the utopian models have access to the scientific data we now have on the nature of hominids.
A utopia will be built on what we call "marketing". For instance, there are already two fully-artificial cities in America -- shrines to Walt Disney's imagination.
I dont think marketing is gonna cut it for long. Any realistic design would factor in the decline off Hubbard's peak oil, which Walt didnt know about. There also new, more virulent, and contagious diseases. Then too, monogamy is obsolete, and young women are figuring that out despite the marketing.
Victor wrote:Marx also stood for the idea that everything in history is moved by economics [snip]
"All past history, with the exception of the primitive stages, was the history of class struggle, that these warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of production and exchange in the economic conditions of their time"
--Engels
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.â€
--The Communist Manifesto
…in a single direction, that economics is the only real force of history,
See above.
…and he stood for the labor theory of value, an absolutely stupid and destructive misconception if there ever was one.
Only an idealist viewpoint would see it that way. Marx never saw anything as standing for an idea or theory. Rather, he saw ideas and theories as:
"…nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought."
What is your argument?
~
Ataraxia wrote:You've posed some pretty hairy questions.
Wow. They said it would put hairs on my chest, not my questions…
"All past history, with the exception of the primitive stages, was the history of class struggle, that these warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of production and exchange in the economic conditions of their time"
--Engels
My object is not to display an encyclopedic grasp of history, but to show that when you read enuf of it, you come across obscure examples that show you can replace the initial "all" in the above with "most". The Mosou of SW China are still with us, and they are not like this, nor are they primitive.
The Tocharians of NW China were not like it either. The Swedes today are a lot less exploitive of their people, and if you read Gibbon, you find out how they fit with the Tocharians and the Mosou. The latter were both ruled by women, and the ancestors of the Swedes were the Sitonnes, who Gibbon says were ruled by women.
And the Tocharians, at the East end of the Silk Road, were among the most civilized and enlightened peoples in all history. Part of the American neurosis is denial of the fact that whether we like it or not, women are taking over, and the long exciting rule by the alpha male warrior class is about over. George W. Bush is the end of the line. Whether he's going out with a bang or not, he's going out, and the only question is how chaotic economic conditions will get during the transition.
daybrown wrote:My object is not to display an encyclopedic grasp of history, but to show that when you read enuf of it, you come across obscure examples that show you can replace the initial "all" in the above with "most".
There's a more general point there, which is that when you get an explanation of the form "everything is because of..." then you very likely have greatly oversimplified the situation.
Marx saying "everything is caused by class struggle" was as simplistic as saying "everything is genetic" or "everything is cultural" or trying to reduce all of economics or social structure to any one single factor (race, sex, climate, whatever).
A more recent example might be Lloyd deMause who essentially tries to reduce all of history to the history of child abuse.
I'm not saying that all the problems have been caused by alpha male rule, or child abuse, or whatever. I'm saying that there are exceptions to the way things have been done that have different results. With regard to sexual abuse, the matriarchic standard is that if there's no orgasm, its abuse.
Age is not the relevant factor. Dont matter what the age is, if the guy cant get it up because he is too young or too old, then he dont belong in sacred ritual, With females, it was a real big deal whether "the waters of life" can be produced, which in normal development, happens at puberty, not age 18.
18th century Brits were appalled at the sets of dildos used in Kali's temples, which ranged down to 10cm. Interestingly, such small dildos have been found in Transylvania, and sit in obscure museums labeled as "phallic wands". But if you've seen porn flix, you know what they are. Another point to consider is that when girls have used a set of progressively larger dildos, by the time she has sex with a man... there's no blood. No gratifying sign of alpha male dominance. She dont add to his "score". That DeMause, or anyone else can criticize the sexual practices of primitives, while ignoring the neurosis, PTSD, and trauma that goes on in what passes for western civilization reeks of hypocrisy.
DeMause, if he is any kind of a scientist rather than a PC hack, would know that anecdotal reports are not all that useful. Every group, no matter what the social values are, has nutcases who abuse others. Among the Mosou, abuse seems far less possible because all the kids are raised together in a communal house under the watchful eyes of the grandmothers. Private spaces that are so convenient to perverts, are hard to come by. But every nuclear family home is a private space.
Before birth control, when there were large families, by the time the eldest girl matured enuf to be sexually useful, there were also several other kids in the house watching what was going on. But with only 1-2 kids in the house, that 'security system' is no more. The Mosou, who always had a low birth rate, solved that problem with a communal house that naturally evolved the same kind of sibling protection.
Victor wrote:Marx also stood for the idea that everything in history is moved by economics [snip]
"All past history, with the exception of the primitive stages, was the history of class struggle, that these warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of production and exchange in the economic conditions of their time"
--Engels
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.â€
--The Communist Manifesto
You do realize that class struggle is a function of political economics in marxist theory, right?..
…and he stood for the labor theory of value, an absolutely stupid and destructive misconception if there ever was one.
Only an idealist viewpoint would see it that way. Marx never saw anything as standing for an idea or theory.[/quote]Are you addressing my statement, or something you randomly dreamt up? I am asking because i fail to see how your response actually addresses what i had said.
What is your argument?
That Marx was out in la-la-land -- something you missed, obviously...
daybrown wrote:"All past history, with the exception of the primitive stages, was the history of class struggle, that these warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of production and exchange in the economic conditions of their time"
--Engels
My object is not to display an encyclopedic grasp of history, but to show that when you read enuf of it, you come across obscure examples that show you can replace the initial "all" in the above with "most". The Mosou of SW China are still with us, and they are not like this, nor are they primitive.
I guess it depends on how one understands “primitive.†In this context, I see it as referring to a condition of technological development; more precisely, simplistic or elementary technology. For instance, compare natural remedies to Western medical science; the difference between primitive and modern weapons and space technology; even agricultural. That, I think, is the appropriate context for an understanding of Marx, and would be why he would consider the Mosou primitive; relative to technological, and therefore socio-economic, development.
~
Victor wrote:Are you addressing my statement, or something you randomly dreamt up? I am asking because i fail to see how your response actually addresses what i had said.
Then you seem to be having the same problem with me that I am having with you.
That Marx was out in la-la-land -- something you missed, obviously...
Under the wonderfully omniscient light shining out of your arse, apparently. Having said that, I am still reading his philosophical writings and have not yet reviewed his economic theories, which I have managed to remember remain incomplete.
None of the utopian models have access to the scientific data we now have on the nature of hominids.
A utopia will be built on what we call "marketing". For instance, there are already two fully-artificial cities in America -- shrines to Walt Disney's imagination.
-tomas-
Brother Walt, a 33rd Degree Free Mason
Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason
vicdan wrote:Which ones? labor theory of value goes against the very fundamental precepts of the free market.
Marx inherited the labor theory of value from Adam Smith. Smith may have got it from Aristotle (yeah, it goes that far back), who passed it down to Aquinas, but of course neither of them were economists. Or he may gotten it from Locke. There are books written about this.
LTV is what led to Aquinas and Aristotle (and lots of other classical (i.e. Hellenic / Roman) and neo-classical philosophers) to condemn practices like moneylending, because they "don't produce anything of value."
Purely for the purpose of avoiding misconceptions i confess to not reading much of Dan's essay.
The way i see it white America and Australia are similarly conscious. America has approximately fifteen times more population and therefore leads the world and has a larger collective ego. I suspect that a careful analysis of innovation, for example, would reveal approximately fifteen times more occuring in America than Australia. If American's are neurotic, it is because of this larger ego, and the pressures of being and staying at the front. Those that are emotionally disinclined towards America are typically hating this larger collective consciousness and ego. It shows in them an unwillingness to expand themself, which is important to spiritual growth.
I realise there are many complicating factors. One example is there are elements of American culture that are not desirable to some, and due to the magnitude of America's influence they more vociferously rail against it. But i don't see this as negating my main point. I see it as a sideline.
Philosophaster wrote:Marx inherited the labor theory of value from Adam Smith.
Not really. Smith advocated a hybrid of labor and subjective theory of value -- he thought that the worth of labor determines the price, but the worth of labor is in turn determined by its exchange value. This has very little to do with how Marx viewed value -- the real difference is that Smith thought that in modern society the value is ultimately contextual and subjective, and Marx thought it was intrinsic. That's where the real divide is -- whether one sees value as magic fairy dust, or simply a function of exchange worth.
It may have been Ricardo, who I think advocated LTV for at least a bit.
I'll admit to not being familiar with the original works of the classical economists, though. I've just read summaries / interpretations of them.
The biggest prototype for Marx, though, was John Locke, with his idea that mixing labor with something entitles a person to ownership. And I've actually read some of Locke's works on the topic. :-)
vicdan wrote:The notion of right to ownership is not the same as the notion of value of that which is owned though.
That's true. But Locke was basically a mercantilist, so he shared with Marx the basic idea that value was not subjective, i.e. "one man's gain is another man's loss."
But Locke was also not an economist, and didn't pretend to be one. Ascribing economic theories to him seems to me to be an attempt to hijack a respectable name as a beard for marxism.
vicdan wrote:But Locke was also not an economist, and didn't pretend to be one. Ascribing economic theories to him seems to me to be an attempt to hijack a respectable name as a beard for marxism.
As opposed to people like Hegel and Feuerbach? ;-)
Look, if historians tried to legitimize some socialist Dr. Humperdink's theories by drawing his intellectual lineage to Einstein (who was a brilliant man and a socialist, but not a brilliant socialist theorist), we would rightly see this as an attempt as hagiography, right?..
Hm. Perhaps soon I will figure out exactly what your objection to Marx is...
Victor wrote:…the real difference is that Smith thought that in modern society the value is ultimately contextual and subjective, and Marx thought it was intrinsic.
Marx distinguished between use-value (the needs an object fulfils) and the exchange value on the (capitalist) market (represented ultimately by money), which hides (or, abstracts) the labour involved in producing the product. Thus, he concludes, in Capitalism labour becomes itself a commodity owned by the capitalist.
That you can produce a pair of runners in China for much less than in a Western nation surely represents the hidden/abstract nature intrinsic in capital. Is that the fairy dust you were talking about?
There is a bigger Marx, bigger than the Marxs you have here - so big, it doesn't even need Marx and his dialectical materialism. This bigger Marx understood existence as a concrete matter of things-in-exchange - the real living things we mine and sow and harvest; the real nature of the beds we lay upon mating with the quality of our sleep; His is existentially grounded cause-and-effect, and he yanks the essence of things down from the workings of Hegel's Absolute Mind to our work, and the direct, intimate exchange we are in with the other materials around us. material one and all. in constant dialectical transformation which in turn, will produce the attitudes that form around our relative access to and value placed upon these things.
Hence, the lack of class consciousness on the part of those whose resources are easy and abundant, for they uptake the whole spectrum of it, these owners. hence all people's experiences and subsequent ideologies are grounded in this immediacy in materials moving in exchange.
Hence as well the sense of alienation from knowing a much more direct route in our dialectical exchange with food, shelter, and pleasure, the materials of our lives - our daily cause and effect immediacy - but being confounded into one obscure corner of it in the working world, rewarded with abstract tokens, meaningless in the dialectical/material immediate.
And hence the further alienation in an economic system that puts profit over people, further confounds their access and relationship to the materials of living with an abstraction strong enough to withhold for its own reasons.
I'd want to read Marx down to this point, myself. It's where everything else about him springs forth, even if his actual economic science is not so well-envisioned. He also erred in thinking that resultant social class would unite persons in revolt across national lines, and this is still not a realized thing. I think in his enthusiasm and haste, he posited a force of meta-physical proportions (dialectical materialism) and then made the mistake of thinking one stage of it could be consciously overturned (revolt of the proletariat) - in my estimation, capitalism hasn't even reach its explosive maturity worldwide.
. . . but Marx's existential concretism - his cause and effect understanding of the immediate material foundation of exchange for all our subsequent beliefs - this is his way of clipping the wings from the Hegelian World Spirit thought to be realizing itself through us; this way another way to fight philosophic abstraction, which left a bad taste in Marx's mouth always, and which had reached a fevered pitch in the all-encompassing Phenomenology of Spirit. The hegelian dialectic was part-right, such a description of how the world moved. Marx had to take note, but then ground it in our hands and head where it belongs. That's the best thing to take away from Marx, in my estimation.
