Re: A contradiction in certain Marxist circles
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:37 pm
That's not what I was doing.Leyla Shen wrote:You can't compare a class-conscious proletarian with bourgeois capitalists. Apples and oranges.
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/
That's not what I was doing.Leyla Shen wrote:You can't compare a class-conscious proletarian with bourgeois capitalists. Apples and oranges.
Otherwise, to whom or what do you refer when you say "class consciousness and control over the means of production"?If it is ever implied that class consciousness and control over the means of production will lead, in a deeply meaningful sense, to a more thoughtful, intelligent, wiser, and conscious individual, I would say look at the capitalist class we have right now.
No, I was not; I was implying the exact opposite actually.Leyla Shen wrote:Well, it can be inferred from this, I think:
Otherwise, to whom or what do you refer when you say "class consciousness and control over the means of production"?If it is ever implied that class consciousness and control over the means of production will lead, in a deeply meaningful sense, to a more thoughtful, intelligent, wiser, and conscious individual, I would say look at the capitalist class we have right now.
Surely you weren't implying they are tools of wisdom in themselves?
In what sense can't you compare them?Leyla Shen wrote:You can't compare a class-conscious proletarian with bourgeois capitalists. Apples and oranges.
Yes, I know that's what you intended... :)No, I was not; I was implying the exact opposite actually.
To prove that, you would have to show that the bourgeoisie are, in fact, class conscious. I disagree that they are. On what grounds and precisely what definition do you assert this?I said this because it seems like the implication within certain "marxist-circles" is that class consciousness and control over the means of production by the proletariat will lead to an "enlightened society" of sorts. To counter this, I'm pointing to the capitalist class which happens to be very class conscious, and has great control over the means of production, but are far from what I would call enlightened.
If you eliminate that distinction, you eliminate communism altogether (at least in your own mind :)). You also disregard the historical basis upon which those distinctions were made.In what sense can't you compare [the class conscious proletarian with bourgeois capitalists]?
I think that when you have direct control the means of production, and you see how the workers do not, you can't help but gain a sense of the class division/conflict. The capitalist may not call it this, and he may not want to see it like this, but ultimately his role directly arises out of the conflict itself. The capitalist knows he has control over things and he also knows he's not a worker. Not to mention he has greater access to what goes on behind the scenes as far as who gets paid what, what everyone does top to bottom, and where all the profit is going. So the capitalist, because of his circumstances, and almost by necessity, is essentially class conscious. Or like you pointed out, his material conditions are distinct from that of the worker, material conditions that I believe lead to a greater understanding of class division, inevitably leading to class consciousness.Leyla Shen wrote:To prove that, you would have to show that the bourgeoisie are, in fact, class conscious. I disagree that they are. On what grounds and precisely what definition do you assert this?I said this because it seems like the implication within certain "marxist-circles" is that class consciousness and control over the means of production by the proletariat will lead to an "enlightened society" of sorts. To counter this, I'm pointing to the capitalist class which happens to be very class conscious, and has great control over the means of production, but are far from what I would call enlightened.
These excerpts from it resonated the most with me.Leyla Shen wrote:Nick, I thought you might appreciate this rather brilliant exposition. :)
Thanks for that, Leyla."whose [the policeman] job it is to ensure that a given product of human labor remains a commodity, with the magical property of having to be paid for, instead of becoming a mere refrigerator or rifle - a passive, inanimate object, subject to anyone who comes along to make use of it".
"Shoplifting is a refusal of the exchange economy. It is a denial that people deserve to eat, live, and die based on how effectively they are able to exchange their labor and capital with others. It is a denial that a monetary value can be ascribed to everything, that having a piece of delicious chocolate in your mouth is worth exactly fifty cents or that an hour of one person's life can really be worth ten dollars more than that of another person. It is a refusal to accept the capitalist system, in which workers have to buy back the products of their own labor at a profit to the owners of capital".
These excerpts from it resonated the most with me.Leyla Shen wrote:Nick, I thought you might appreciate this rather brilliant exposition.
Thanks for that, Leyla."What is a policeman? He is the active servant of the commodity, the man in complete submission to the commodity, whose job it is to ensure that a given product of human labor remains a commodity, with the magical property of having to be paid for, instead of becoming a mere refrigerator or rifle - a passive, inanimate object, subject to anyone who comes along to make use of it".
"Shoplifting is a refusal of the exchange economy. It is a denial that people deserve to eat, live, and die based on how effectively they are able to exchange their labor and capital with others. It is a denial that a monetary value can be ascribed to everything, that having a piece of delicious chocolate in your mouth is worth exactly fifty cents or that an hour of one person's life can really be worth ten dollars more than that of another person. It is a refusal to accept the capitalist system, in which workers have to buy back the products of their own labor at a profit to the owners of capital".
Interesting quotes, Nick. I've researched Einstein in the past, but had never seen those particular quotes before, so thank you for posting those.Nick Treklis wrote:"What need is there for responsibility? I believe that the horrifying deterioration in the ethical conduct of people today stems from the mechanisation and dehumanisation of our lives. A disastrous by-product of the development of the scientific and technical mentality. We are guilty. Man grows cold faster then the planet he inhabits." ~ Albert Einstein
Thought this was an interesting quote in how it relates to dialectical materialism and the shaping of people's minds.
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." ~ Albert Einstein
Another good quote I thought I'd toss in.
I think there's a rather obviously discernible difference in the notion that the "horrifying deterioration in the ethical conduct of people today stems form the mechanisation and dehumanisation of our lives. A disastrous by-product of the development of the scientific and technical mentality," and "The technical or scientific mentality is itself restrictive and stops a human being from perceiving his true existence."Kelly Jones wrote:The technical or scientific mentality isn't itself restrictive, and certainly doesn't stop a human being from perceiving his true existence - but one needs to be a genius before being a scientist. Einstein clearly wasn't.
So drop it already.The real great disaster is any belief that actual reality is being discovered, established, measured, handled or addressed by religious imagery, scientific theory or measurement, recording or description. It's a form of getting away with murder. A murder which is committed out of our psychological desire to exist, to have reality at the expense of the real, which is not. The crime is not a by-product, but more a disease, an "alien virus" that sometimes is called "delusion" or to worship idols, with an idol being anything eclipsing reality. It's nothing but a parasitic idea than needs to be dropped one time or another.
Sometimes the greatest embrace is called love.Einstein: "Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
Diebert: This is where the atomic bomb came in handy, I suppose. The greatest embrace has always been called death.
Well, that doesn't make any sense to me since mechanisation empirically and by definition requires at least some part of the scientific mindset in order to exist. It is the material (real) condition for the posited dehumanisation.It would be more insightful to at least reverse this and state that science and technology came out of the disasters of mechanization and dehumanization, way, way back in the depths of our psyche.
Only if one posits consciousness as a kind of first cause, or primary material condition from which the material itself springs rather than the other way round. I'd like to see any reasonable suggestion you may have for the latter position. :) Certainly, the conception "science and technology" is such a by-product.Because one could just as easily call science and technology a by-product of being conscious,
Right.and we could conclude that mechanization and dehumanization is a consequence of self-consciousness and other-consciousness. The ability to separate anything at all. Then again, so is love (unification and peace-making), which is a by-product of separation...
But this doesn't lead us anywhere beyond superficial concerns and tiny shivers of philosophical insight and could easily lead toward increased passivity and acceptance of the philosophical dilemma.
Actual reality is necessarily inclusive of all these things, including cognitive human limitations, by definition. I am convinced, here, you are positing a noumenal reality rather than something in accord with the notion of emptiness. In this case, you might as well subscribe to the school of absolute nihilism and not do anything at all! But you can't help yourself, can you? You must at least argue..... :)The real great disaster is any belief that actual reality is being discovered, established, measured, handled or addressed by religious imagery, scientific theory or measurement, recording or description. It's a form of getting away with murder. A murder which is committed out of our psychological desire to exist, to have reality at the expense of the real, which is not. The crime is not a by-product, but more a disease, an "alien virus" that sometimes is called "delusion" or to worship idols, with an idol being anything eclipsing reality. It's nothing but a parasitic idea than needs to be dropped one time or another.
He said "delusion" not illusion. (Reminds me here of Lacan's Mirror Stage.) It is deluded to consider oneself, one's thoughts and feelings, as separated from the rest, unless you're an idealist who believes in an immortal soul (some noumenal reality) separated from some material (phenomenal) reality.It's not an illusion, the experience of seperation is this very consciousness. But with a bit of greater effort this too can be realized, hence: self-realization.
And in that sleep what dreams may come...This is where the atomic bomb came in handy, I suppose. The greatest embrace has always been called death.