Originally posted by Don Smith: "Political obfuscation" seems a gentle term, for the sake of the season?...
The folks in the middle will vote and act against their better interests when they percieve the language of conflict as "shrill", or too combative... most specially when it runs contrary to a lifetime of indoctrination. Remember the sudden wave of conservative pundits and leaders with their "be nice, we're all in this together" rhetoric? It played well to the bleachers.
Posts: 18 | Location: Eugene,Oregon | Registered: 02 September 2006
A society with no need for duress might simplify communications, that's for sure. Words can be violent, assuring that an open mind will driven away. Seems we agree about political obfuscation, denial is a river in Egypt, (RIM SHOT!).
" Government is the entertainment arm of the Military-Industrial-Complex."- Frank Zappa
Posts: 261 | Location: Erehwon | Registered: 09 March 2006
This could be it's own thread, what to do about capitalism, has been an underlying theme of many threads with titles sometimes expressing surrender, hopelessness, or 'what problem?'. While I don't like to post or paste whole articles, this snippet, [I could edit it with the list feature] expresses a litany of choices and should be short enough
quote:
Resistance Is Surrender Slavoj Žižek
One of the clearest lessons of the last few decades is that capitalism is indestructible. Marx compared it to a vampire, and one of the salient points of comparison now appears to be that vampires always rise up again after being stabbed to death. Even Mao’s attempt, in the Cultural Revolution, to wipe out the traces of capitalism, ended up in its triumphant return.
Today’s Left reacts in a wide variety of ways to the hegemony of global capitalism and its political supplement, liberal democracy. It might, for example, accept the hegemony, but continue to fight for reform within its rules (this is Third Way social democracy).
Or, it accepts that the hegemony is here to stay, but should nonetheless be resisted from its ‘interstices’.
Or, it accepts the futility of all struggle, since the hegemony is so all-encompassing that nothing can really be done except wait for an outburst of ‘divine violence’ – a revolutionary version of Heidegger’s ‘only God can save us.’
Or, it recognises the temporary futility of the struggle. In today’s triumph of global capitalism, the argument goes, true resistance is not possible, so all we can do till the revolutionary spirit of the global working class is renewed is defend what remains of the welfare state, confronting those in power with demands we know they cannot fulfil, and otherwise withdraw into cultural studies, where one can quietly pursue the work of criticism.
Or, it emphasises the fact that the problem is a more fundamental one, that global capitalism is ultimately an effect of the underlying principles of technology or ‘instrumental reason’.
Or, it posits that one can undermine global capitalism and state power, not by directly attacking them, but by refocusing the field of struggle on everyday practices, where one can ‘build a new world’; in this way, the foundations of the power of capital and the state will be gradually undermined, and, at some point, the state will collapse (the exemplar of this approach is the Zapatista movement).
Or, it takes the ‘postmodern’ route, shifting the accent from anti-capitalist struggle to the multiple forms of politico-ideological struggle for hegemony, emphasising the importance of discursive re-articulation.
Or, it wagers that one can repeat at the postmodern level the classical Marxist gesture of enacting the ‘determinate negation’ of capitalism: with today’s rise of ‘cognitive work’, the contradiction between social production and capitalist relations has become starker than ever, rendering possible for the first time ‘absolute democracy’ (this would be Hardt and Negri’s position).
These positions are not presented as a way of avoiding some ‘true’ radical Left politics – what they are trying to get around is, indeed, the lack of such a position. This defeat of the Left is not the whole story of the last thirty years, however. There is another, no less surprising, lesson to be learned from the Chinese Communists’ presiding over arguably the most explosive development of capitalism in history, and from the growth of West European Third Way social democracy. It is, in short: we can do it better.
the list is the 'or' pretext in each choice. The rest of the article offers more....
Blaise Pascal Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. Pensees
Posts: 2917 | Location: Sverige | Registered: 21 June 2005
Simon Critchley’s recent book, Infinitely Demanding, is an almost perfect embodiment of this position.
For Critchley, the liberal-democratic state is here to stay. Attempts to abolish the state failed miserably; consequently, the new politics has to be located at a distance from it: anti-war movements, ecological organisations, groups protesting against racist or sexist abuses, and other forms of local self-organisation. It must be a politics of resistance to the state, of bombarding the state with impossible demands, of denouncing the limitations of state mechanisms. The main argument for conducting the politics of resistance at a distance from the state hinges on the ethical dimension of the ‘infinitely demanding’ call for justice: no state can heed this call, since its ultimate goal is the ‘real-political’ one of ensuring its own reproduction (its economic growth, public safety, etc). ‘Of course,’ Critchley writes,
history is habitually written by the people with the guns and sticks and one cannot expect to defeat them with mocking satire and feather dusters. Yet, as the history of ultra-leftist active nihilism eloquently shows, one is lost the moment one picks up the guns and sticks. Anarchic political resistance should not seek to mimic and mirror the archic violent sovereignty it opposes.
So what should, say, the US Democrats do? Stop competing for state power and withdraw to the interstices of the state, leaving state power to the Republicans and start a campaign of anarchic resistance to it? And what would Critchley do if he were facing an adversary like Hitler? Surely in such a case one should ‘mimic and mirror the archic violent sovereignty’ one opposes?
mocking satire and feather dusters....btw, never heard of , Simon, but he understands humour, quotes Pascal, I must read more
Blaise Pascal Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. Pensees
Posts: 2917 | Location: Sverige | Registered: 21 June 2005
Should a worker be paid more than the revenue he generates?
Would you pay nine dollars for a Whopper?
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Should a worker be paid more than the revenue he generates?
I might refer you to a place like Egypt, where there is no government, no work, no revenue and no economy. Every man for himself. They could easily be mistaken for conservatives.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
I might refer you to a place like Egypt, where there is no government, no work, no revenue and no economy. Every man for himself. They could easily be mistaken for conservatives.
But they'd never be confused with capitalists.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Should a worker be paid more than the revenue he generates?
Should he be paid less? That was the question posed by Marx, I believe. I'm not a real historian of economic theory, but I believe that's the basis of his "Excess Value of Labor" theory.
The better question, though, is how the heck do you determine how much revenue a particular worker generates? How much revenue does the janitor or the secretary generate? How much does the manager generate? How much does the shareholder generate?
In point of fact, the only worker that directly generates revenue is the salesperson. So if he or she generates a million in sales is he owed a million in salary? Of course not. If he generates a million sales with a net profit of $100K, is he due $100K in commissions? Maybe, but what would be the point of the business?
quote:
Would you pay nine dollars for a Whopper?
Sure. If a Big Mac cost eight bucks (the Whopper's better IMO), and a sit down meal at a family restaurant went for $30 or so per person. You just wouldn't do it as often.
The fact is that any business that doesn't pay a living wage is being indirectly subsidized by the rest of society. There is certainly room for cheaper wages for teenagers, etc., but the only reason you can get away with that is because the kid still lives at home with the folks and doesn't have to pay his own full freight.
Multi-million dollar CEOs and higher share prices do not create prosperity. Rather, prosperity creates multi-million dollar CEOs and higher share prices --- and more a--holes!
Posts: 50 | Location: Kansas | Registered: 17 October 2007
Oh yes they would. That is the ideal environment for exploitation. There are people there with piles of money, and it all stays in their hands. less that 1% of the population is well off. Those are the "caoitalists", but it doesn't do the average citizen any good.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Big Mac Index shows prices around the world, and in some [actually many] the workers serving the meal earn a living wage, and the businesses survive, the owners [corporate or franchise] make money, are busy, friendly, and clean. The employees are not all teenagers.
Blaise Pascal Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. Pensees
Posts: 2917 | Location: Sverige | Registered: 21 June 2005
The cost of goods in this society are not often a reflection of the social cost. The "cheap" burger is made from stock which ate subsidized grain, transported over a road net paid for by public monies, using petrochemicals the cost of which is yet to be reflected in health, environment, and foreign policy decisions. The myth of the risk takers in capitalism applies in small business, not in the elites at the top, who seldom take a big fall. If things become too precarious, they get a bail out from the fed.
" Government is the entertainment arm of the Military-Industrial-Complex."- Frank Zappa
Posts: 261 | Location: Erehwon | Registered: 09 March 2006
Should he be paid less? That was the question posed by Marx, I believe.
If Burger King didn't make a profit, why would they bother to be Burger King?
quote:
If things become too precarious, they get a bail out from the fed.
That's a hasty generalization, the size of the sample is too small to support your conclusion. The Fed did bail out Chrysler and the Airlines but there have been lots of public companies that have failed.
quote:
There are people there with piles of money, and it all stays in their hands. less that 1% of the population is well off. Those are the "capitalists", but it doesn't do the average citizen any good.
Nonsense. They might be people with connection to the government, but that's not the goal of capitalism. Capitalism is just an economic system that puts the means of production and trade in the hands of people, not the government. It's fair to judge how governments apply capital, influence, and relationships but in the end it's up to people how they use the system.
quote:
Sure. If a Big Mac cost eight bucks (the Whopper's better IMO), and a sit down meal at a family restaurant went for $30 or so per person.
I wouldn't. A Whopper isn't worth nine bucks. Of coarse that's relative. The inflationary pressure of instantly raising everyone's salary to the so called "living wage" what ever that is would probably make a nine dollar Whopper worth about three bucks in today's money so if guess the jury is still out on that one.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
A Whopper isn't worth nine bucks. Of coarse that's relative.
In the transition to the Euro, there was mention of the price of bread and how its relative value increased as the fiat money lost some of its value.
Merry Christmas to you, Sawdust.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Thanks Kate, same to you. Happy New Year as well, I'm taking a trip between Christmas and New Years and probably won't be able to extend those wishes.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Thanks to Thom for setting us up with a gathering spot.
Enjoy your trip, Sawdust. And Happy New Year to you.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Originally posted by Sawdust: Capitalism is just an economic system that puts the means of production and trade in the hands of people, not the government.
I realize this. In my Egypt example, the government has no part in production or trade. That would be socialism.
The government also has no role in regulating "capitalism", which is why they are a poverty-stricken country.
Well, it would probably help if they had a work ethic. But my point is show the role of government in national prosperity.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.
Read-Only Topic
