3 ms·

>Also Posmodernism and Nihilism create this context in mass making narrative and hysteria be the new source of life meaning Have you read anything by Adorno, a

by ue_ 9y ago

>Also Posmodernism and Nihilism create this context in mass making narrative and hysteria be the new source of life meaning Have you read anything by Adorno, and Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle? This kind of thing is taken from a different direction, looking from the perspective of how the capitalist mode of production has shaped society. >so the psyche is desperately set to seek political meaning externally Nihilism doesn't mean you have no goals, or that you can't make your own meaning. It only purports that there is no meaning to our lives in general. Perhaps the only forces contrary to this are religions (and to be clear, by no stretch do I think religion is a Bad Thing). Your meaning can come internally, or perhaps some people just find they don't need a meaning. Your claim doesn't really fit that well with others, as in the past (and still in the present) non-nihilists sought meaning outside their own lives, such as by having children to "leave something behind". Although what you say may seem true, I don't think it is all that much, and I think you're overstating the effect that postmodern thought has had. The "fight for social justice" is not about reaching a utopia, it is about improving conditions; arguably most political ideologies are fights for some kind of social justice. If you really want to relate this to Marxism as you have, I must note that Marx considered Communism in the same way in The German Ideology: Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established , an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence. >Simultaneously, posmodern techniques erode values and logic so reality becomes "maleable" What's wrong with this? It seems that you are attaching a cultural connection to postmodern thought, one which need not necessarily exist. The "erosion" you speak of happens through deconstruction (to my knowledge), which I think can be used as a powerful tool. The state of things, if it is worthwhile, ought to stand up to the test in my opinion. >This way people is set in a downward spiral of all kinds of marxist self-victimisms This is an uncharitable and frankly incorrect vision of Marxism. It's not about blaming your miseries on others, it's about looking to see the functioning of the system we live in. Marxism is a method of analysis (having spread from its birth in political economy right round to literature to geography) and as such it doesn't imply certain conclusions from the outset. If it were as self-victimising as you claim, it would have to start from that position. But it doesn't; Marx's analysis starts with political economy in general. Through analysis, Marx claims to have found interesting facts: the functioning of value, the theory of surplus value, and from this the exploitation of the proletariat. You misunderstand the Marxian structure model; he does not present the base and superstructure to be things to blame, but rather as any person would see, the explanation of how our relationship to our means of sustenance (i.e how we are able to live, literally) shapes all other aspects of our lives in what we see as culture in general. One last point: Marx was not really a utopian socialist (like Robert Owen was), and you'll find no shortage of Socialist thinkers who will re-iterate that Socialism is not some pill that you swallow and everything is fine. As I'm sure you'd agree with me, it's worth arguing against such ideologies. But Marxism is not one.

chongli 9y ago
Marx was not really a utopian socialist The issue is not with Marx himself but all of the utopians who follow in his wake. The same goes for Derrida. It's fine to be a critic of society. It's another thing entirely to have the hubris to propose a societal reboot. For some reason, so many people take the successes they have with the former as evidence that they're smart enough to achieve the latter.
- ue_ 9y ago
  Is it really hubris to propose a radical change in social organisation? Were the abolitionists acting out of hubris?
  - vonmoltke 9y ago
    To me, "radical change in social organisation" is far milder than "societal reboot". Also, opposition to slavery great organically over centuries, not from the proposals of one person. Also, by the time abolitionists were most active slavery had already been removed from large portions of world society. What the radicals of the 19th Century proposed was completely unprecendneted and untested.
    - ue_ 9y ago
      >Also, opposition to slavery great organically over centuries, not from the proposals of one person. Why would that matter? And even if it did, is it true? Opposition to worker exploitation has been happening for centuries too, and in the larger sense, the tradition which the Communists continue, the opposition to the class system, fits in with opposition to slavery. >To me, "radical change in social organisation" is far milder than "societal reboot" A radical change in social organisation is a societal reboot by any definition of reboot. It is to change the very nature of how people are able to live, how they can obtain sustenance and how they can enjoy themselves. I would very much describe the transition from pre-capitalist society to capiatalism a radical change in social organisation, yet it is every bit a reboot. Granted, Communism goes further not only by abolishing one class system and replacing it with the next, but rather to abolish the class system in general. "The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general." — Freidrich Engels And the idea that a movement needs to have made headway to be considered worthy or lacking in hubris, is as I'm sure you'll agree contradictory. The radicals of the 19th century were writing in direct opposition to this relatively new mode of organisation and indeed its strengthening in the Industrial Revolution. In fact, Marx himself dedicates a few chapters in Capital to detailing exactly how capitalism originated, with what laws passed in England and how this helped secure the position of the bourgeoisie.

by ue_ 9y ago

chongli 9y ago

Marx was not really a utopian socialist The issue is not with Marx himself but all of the utopians who follow in his wake. The same goes for Derrida. It's fine to be a critic of society. It's another thing entirely to have the hubris to propose a societal reboot. For some reason, so many people take the successes they have with the former as evidence that they're smart enough to achieve the latter.

ue_ 9y ago
Is it really hubris to propose a radical change in social organisation? Were the abolitionists acting out of hubris?
- vonmoltke 9y ago
  To me, "radical change in social organisation" is far milder than "societal reboot". Also, opposition to slavery great organically over centuries, not from the proposals of one person. Also, by the time abolitionists were most active slavery had already been removed from large portions of world society. What the radicals of the 19th Century proposed was completely unprecendneted and untested.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    >Also, opposition to slavery great organically over centuries, not from the proposals of one person. Why would that matter? And even if it did, is it true? Opposition to worker exploitation has been happening for centuries too, and in the larger sense, the tradition which the Communists continue, the opposition to the class system, fits in with opposition to slavery. >To me, "radical change in social organisation" is far milder than "societal reboot" A radical change in social organisation is a societal reboot by any definition of reboot. It is to change the very nature of how people are able to live, how they can obtain sustenance and how they can enjoy themselves. I would very much describe the transition from pre-capitalist society to capiatalism a radical change in social organisation, yet it is every bit a reboot. Granted, Communism goes further not only by abolishing one class system and replacing it with the next, but rather to abolish the class system in general. "The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general." — Freidrich Engels And the idea that a movement needs to have made headway to be considered worthy or lacking in hubris, is as I'm sure you'll agree contradictory. The radicals of the 19th century were writing in direct opposition to this relatively new mode of organisation and indeed its strengthening in the Industrial Revolution. In fact, Marx himself dedicates a few chapters in Capital to detailing exactly how capitalism originated, with what laws passed in England and how this helped secure the position of the bourgeoisie.