Post modernism-Marxism
Here we go, an uber super duper short briefing on post modernism, so that we can all become better persons.
Everything post but cereal.
Post modernism is often mistakenly thought of as one big theory, however in reality, it is a large collection of various 20th century theories dealing with identity and power. The theories to be briefed today include marxism, post-structuralism, feminism, post-colonialism, and queer/gender theories. Another large theory not to be covered is race theories but those tend to be loaded guns and full of dense/diverse info.
Foundations of post modernism
A. Dialectical idealism. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (could you imagine having that name?!?) wrote the Phenomenology of Spirit, Science of Logic, Philosophy of Right. Basically, the dialectical idealism is the idea that the world is governed by ideas and naturally moving towards the Truth. Capital T. An thus, thesis leads to antithesis which leads to synthesis.
B. MARXISM. My favorite. Karl Marx -dialectal materialism; breaking down capitalism. He thought the world and ideals are governed by the means of production. He believed that production was the product of a system consisting of two parts: Substructure, and superstructure. Substructure was the means of production. Superstructure was religion, politics, ethics, and human nature (the opiate of the people). The substructure was the inner core, and it dictated the superstructure to trick people into working the capitalistic system. While the real engine was the substructure, people followed the rules of society and behaved as they did because of the superstructure. The superstructure is like a veil to the capitalistic system i suppose. Thesis=ruling class (status quo)>antihesis = working class>synthesis = progress.
Marx thought that history was the record of class struggle and naturally moved toward a communist utopia. His historical example included lords and serfs of feudal society, where the serfs rebeled to change the feudal system to mercantilism. His criticism of capitalism was of profit; he had a labor-added theory of value. Normally, material + labor = value. However, in capitalism, material + labor + profit = price. Profit, was an artificial ingredient that further benefitted the bourgeois; profit had no inherent value.
The definition of bourgeois owned the means of production while the proletariet sold their labor to the bourgeois. Thus the class society. David Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages stated that factory owners should only pay their workers enough to get them to come back the next day. Any more payment would be a waste and result only in proletariat unnecessary luxuries such as warm bread and blankets. Bastard.
Anyways, the boom and bust cycles of capitalism are pretty consistent. WHen in the boom cycle, proletariat live on their wages, and during the bust cycles, they live on nothing. The bourgeois have savings during bust periods. The Law of Increased Misery thus states: After enough bust cycles the proletariat will see part the superstructure and realize that is problems are caused by the capitalist system. After a revolt, the a communist utopia would be worked towards.
A government would then control the transition to utopia but then wither away. From then on: To each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.
And that, is Marxism in a nutshell.
The main critics of marxism complain about how human nature would prevent people from living by the mandate stated two lines above. Really , though, I think the checks on that are sufficient. First off, human nature is malleable. It really is, you can teach someone communitarian values through childhood and they'd growup perfect for this utopianism. Another critic is that people wouldn't work hard for nothing when they can not work for something. However, think about societal norms. Even if your human nature wasn't reared to be communitarian, a glutton who doesnt work in in this utopia and takes 10 ferraris would look pretty stupid. He can only drive 1 ferrari at a time and if all his neighbors also have ferarris, he just sticks out as the dumbass. Hence he is shamed and has a deterrant from taking advantage of this utopia. While most insist its still too idealistic, i think there's hope.
Well, that concludes this first part. I shall continuing posting more later. If anybody wants a particular order or to skip any topics, please say so! if not, I shall write to my whim.
Everything post but cereal.
Post modernism is often mistakenly thought of as one big theory, however in reality, it is a large collection of various 20th century theories dealing with identity and power. The theories to be briefed today include marxism, post-structuralism, feminism, post-colonialism, and queer/gender theories. Another large theory not to be covered is race theories but those tend to be loaded guns and full of dense/diverse info.
Foundations of post modernism
A. Dialectical idealism. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (could you imagine having that name?!?) wrote the Phenomenology of Spirit, Science of Logic, Philosophy of Right. Basically, the dialectical idealism is the idea that the world is governed by ideas and naturally moving towards the Truth. Capital T. An thus, thesis leads to antithesis which leads to synthesis.
B. MARXISM. My favorite. Karl Marx -dialectal materialism; breaking down capitalism. He thought the world and ideals are governed by the means of production. He believed that production was the product of a system consisting of two parts: Substructure, and superstructure. Substructure was the means of production. Superstructure was religion, politics, ethics, and human nature (the opiate of the people). The substructure was the inner core, and it dictated the superstructure to trick people into working the capitalistic system. While the real engine was the substructure, people followed the rules of society and behaved as they did because of the superstructure. The superstructure is like a veil to the capitalistic system i suppose. Thesis=ruling class (status quo)>antihesis = working class>synthesis = progress.
Marx thought that history was the record of class struggle and naturally moved toward a communist utopia. His historical example included lords and serfs of feudal society, where the serfs rebeled to change the feudal system to mercantilism. His criticism of capitalism was of profit; he had a labor-added theory of value. Normally, material + labor = value. However, in capitalism, material + labor + profit = price. Profit, was an artificial ingredient that further benefitted the bourgeois; profit had no inherent value.
The definition of bourgeois owned the means of production while the proletariet sold their labor to the bourgeois. Thus the class society. David Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages stated that factory owners should only pay their workers enough to get them to come back the next day. Any more payment would be a waste and result only in proletariat unnecessary luxuries such as warm bread and blankets. Bastard.
Anyways, the boom and bust cycles of capitalism are pretty consistent. WHen in the boom cycle, proletariat live on their wages, and during the bust cycles, they live on nothing. The bourgeois have savings during bust periods. The Law of Increased Misery thus states: After enough bust cycles the proletariat will see part the superstructure and realize that is problems are caused by the capitalist system. After a revolt, the a communist utopia would be worked towards.
A government would then control the transition to utopia but then wither away. From then on: To each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.
And that, is Marxism in a nutshell.
The main critics of marxism complain about how human nature would prevent people from living by the mandate stated two lines above. Really , though, I think the checks on that are sufficient. First off, human nature is malleable. It really is, you can teach someone communitarian values through childhood and they'd growup perfect for this utopianism. Another critic is that people wouldn't work hard for nothing when they can not work for something. However, think about societal norms. Even if your human nature wasn't reared to be communitarian, a glutton who doesnt work in in this utopia and takes 10 ferraris would look pretty stupid. He can only drive 1 ferrari at a time and if all his neighbors also have ferarris, he just sticks out as the dumbass. Hence he is shamed and has a deterrant from taking advantage of this utopia. While most insist its still too idealistic, i think there's hope.
Well, that concludes this first part. I shall continuing posting more later. If anybody wants a particular order or to skip any topics, please say so! if not, I shall write to my whim.
posted by Anonymous at 8:21 PM
2 Comments:
Wow, your statement that nature of humans is malleable according to societal norms completely dismisses 70 years of communism in the soviet union, 50 years in eastern europe and soon as many in cuba. And north korea is thriving, i'm sure. china has given in to the fact that capitalism is the only way to stay afloat, and has revised its communism to now include capitalism. You seem to be interested more in people than in economics... in that case, please read on what people were reduced to and subjected to in those societies that criminalized profit. Don't only see what you want to see. Thats dangerous.
I guess I should have called them chomsky.zinn.marx whores...
Post a Comment
<< Home