tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post1049055260024244504..comments2023-10-24T11:03:41.388-05:00Comments on ladypoverty: Struggling in an age of anxietyJ.R. Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09076895859826581960noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-33605522073441593512010-07-23T18:47:26.480-05:002010-07-23T18:47:26.480-05:00Fair enough.Fair enough.Coldtypehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509152474515164151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-931236286318808112010-07-23T18:35:22.465-05:002010-07-23T18:35:22.465-05:00Coldtype:
CFO I'm curious about the source wh...Coldtype:<br /><br /><i>CFO I'm curious about the source which gives you the confidence to presume you're qualified to tell me (or anyone else here) what resources are appropriate for helping make some sense society's current arrangements.</i><br /><br />I am not doing what you say I am doing, I am not presuming what you say I am presuming. <br /><br />I am saying you can see what Marx saw if you want. Or you can use him as a guide, a Cliffs Notes of sorts. It's really up to you. The peril of using Marx is that you can become intellectually obeisant to Marx, which can create its own religion in some cases. In fact, my travels in the InterWebToobz suggest that Marxism is a stronger religion than Four-Square or Pentecostal Christianity -- and those are some whacky, strident, fundamentalist variants on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth!<br /><br />I'm saying this:<br /><br />You can read Marx and say, "Yep, I agree with him, that's how it looks to me."<br /><br />Or...<br /><br />You can read Marx and say, "What? I never saw that before. Is he correct? If so, that's a sea-change in thinking for me!"<br /><br />To insist that everyone must fall into the second group -- that overstates things. But I'm not presuming to tell you whether you fall into the first or second group. I'm simply saying, watch out for religious conversion. Whether you become an acolyte or simply someone who agrees really depends on your own individual intellectual temperament and your sense of intellectual independence. And only you know how to grade those things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-62704979346769683012010-07-23T18:03:36.594-05:002010-07-23T18:03:36.594-05:00Charles F.:
I'm with you in the cause, and I&...Charles F.:<br /><br />I'm with you in the cause, and I'm glad you make the point. It deserves to be made from time to time, lest we forget!<br /><br />I have a feeling that three of us are agreed on Marx in exactly the sense that you say Picador's argument "has heft." What surprises me is how much of Marx <i>still</i> sets the most useful standard in the sociological and economic arenas. I understand you have some Fromm titles to recommend to me; please do!<br /><br />Now let's not misinterpret each other's intentions. Charles F. has a colorful style and you have pay close attention to what he is saying. On the other hand, sir, you probably could have assumed that Picador meant what he said in just the sense that you admit "has heft" -- i.e., not as "life in general."JRBhttp://ladypoverty.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-8100051126663638582010-07-23T17:52:59.881-05:002010-07-23T17:52:59.881-05:00CFO I'm curious about the source which gives y...CFO I'm curious about the source which gives you the confidence to presume you're qualified to tell me (or anyone else here) what resources are appropriate for helping make some sense society's current arrangements. For me personally, thinkers such as Marx and Chomsky have helped me to an enormous degree in this regard and to imply that I would have come around to my current understanding "on my own" strikes me as comically absurd.Coldtypehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509152474515164151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-39427002344415672702010-07-23T17:28:46.860-05:002010-07-23T17:28:46.860-05:00JRB --
I was merely provoking thought. As my abov...JRB --<br /><br />I was merely provoking thought. As my above post suggests, Picador's read on my intent is mistaken, but I've encountered Picador-like sentiments for many years. The Temple of Marx has a lot of acolytes, many true believers, who cannot conceive of life on Earth without the spectre of Glossy Karl floating above us all, smiling as he gets referenced in blogtopia, in cocktail party chatter, in the halls of academia.<br /><br />I'm simply saying that if we are going to suggest finding a sense of self-reliance and self-confidence, the types that are required to have the temerity to question what we're told, we can do so without reference to Marx -- and to some of us who came to the same realizations that Marx did without Marx's help or input, the need to avoid referring to him is even more important, since the truths are self-evident and not filtered through the lens of Das Kapital.<br /><br />To those who need to have the interpretation of life as given by Marx, and who come to realize how things actually work thereafter, I think Marx can be useful. However, I think it should be obvious to most that "useful" is different from "essential," and that's basically the point I'm making.<br /><br />Liberate the intellect from all filters!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-30948964470124274962010-07-23T17:26:21.235-05:002010-07-23T17:26:21.235-05:00Picador, "tremendously influential" is a...Picador, "tremendously influential" is a subjective term of puffery. I'm glad Glossy Karl has you as a cheerleader, and I'm sure his spectre, wherever it may lurk, is doubly glad.<br /><br />If you can't see what Marx saw, that's not my fault, and I don't see why you would get petulant about it, and then ironically accuse me of being a cocky teenager.<br /><br />The idea that Marx "permeates everything" of an intellectual nature strikes me as overbroad and perhaps even naive, albeit a worshipful naivete based on reverence for Karl Marx. <br /><br />Let me give an example. I am a serious alpine skier of probably more than average skill, and I am a student of skiing technique working toward instructor/coach status.<br /><br />In alpine skiing there have been many influential coaches and schools of thought. Modern technique changed radically with the advent of exaggerated sidecut (previously called "shaped") skis in the late 80s and early 90s, and ski technique underwent a massive overhaul. Those of us who learned to ski pre-shaped-skis ("pencil" skis) had to re-learn skiing because the most refined, racing-oriented alpine techniques changed significantly. What worked on pencil skis is now counter-productive and, in some situations, potentially dangerous. <br /><br />The most influential ski racing coaches of the pencil ski era could be argued as still inescapably influential today (much as you are suggesting Karl Marx has influenced me without my knowing it), because modern technique is derived from old technique, tweaked and changed to account for modern ski design. <br /><br />However, modern skis also enable a skier with strong body awareness and coordination to self-teach the proper technique. The skier only needs to ski from the feet up, and pay attention to what the ski does with various inputs at the foot level. <br /><br />In this way, a modern alpine skier on modern skis can learn solid skiing technique without ever considering or encountering the old masters of the pencil ski technique. And so, for example, for someone to suggest that Stein Ericksen's tactics of the 1940s (which were very influential and many would say "revolutionary") have inescapably caused a modern auto-didactic skier's "eureka" moments of learning... well that's just overstating things.<br /><br />Your argument has heft if we limit ourselves to an academic study of human social organization from the sociological (labor/work) or economic perspectives. But not everyone learns about how human societies work through academic studies. So not everyone has come to a present understanding through Marxian thought or influence.<br /><br />Perhaps this bothers or insults you somehow. That's definitely how your criticism of me comes across -- as though my position being free of Marxian influence somehow has insulted or injured you personally.<br /><br />I find that ironically petulant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-37507856771953907872010-07-23T17:07:20.025-05:002010-07-23T17:07:20.025-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-38925339248880813202010-07-23T13:20:15.999-05:002010-07-23T13:20:15.999-05:00That's the spirit, Charles F.!
However, just ...That's the spirit, Charles F.!<br /><br />However, just as you may not see any necessity in Marx, is there some necessity in avoiding him? I think the appropriate thing to do is to try to learn from Marx if that's what interests you.<br /><br />Picador touches on the point you make about how "any of us can see what Marx saw." <br /><br />That's not clear to me at all. For my part, I can't claim to "see" what anybody saw unless I know what their argument is. And one of the reasons why I am reading <i>Capital</i> and writing about Marx in the meantime is to come to my own interpretation about "what he saw." Because I don't know that beforehand.<br /><br />Another important reason why this blog is so Marx-heavy is because that is overwhelmingly what readers have responded to here. That just further indicates to me that people are interested in "what he saw."<br /><br />Nevertheless, I take your point, and share your concerns; I just don't see any necessity in the assumption that they are required here.JRBhttp://ladypoverty.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-9962836528589464802010-07-23T12:56:55.991-05:002010-07-23T12:56:55.991-05:00CFO, these anti-Marx diatribes of yours strike me ...CFO, these anti-Marx diatribes of yours strike me as a bit naive. Marx has been tremendously influential -- everyone who talks about these issues today does so in the intellectual space he created.<br /><br />Accordingly, it's incoherent to talk about grappling with these issues without the foundation laid by Marx, just like it would be incoherent to talk about understanding physics without Newton -- yes, it all seems so obvious in retrospect, because his findings permeated your entire education.<br /><br />This obviously doesn't mean that we should all be "Marxists" in the sense of believing that Marx had it all sorted out and the rest is commentary -- any more than we should all be "Newtonians" who think that physics starts and ends with classical mechanics, or even that Newtonian physical theory is strictly correct. But your lack of appreciation for the people whose ideas you're building on top of makes you come off like an embarassingly cocky teenager.Picadorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01244353406711565712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-44741515410872982122010-07-23T11:52:47.353-05:002010-07-23T11:52:47.353-05:00Good thoughts.
However, I don't get the refer...Good thoughts.<br /><br />However, I don't get the reference to Marx. He was not the first, not the last, and surely not the most original, thinker to observe that people struggle with hierarchical systems of social organization.<br /><br />Ironically, by pointing toward Marx, you're not being very different from those who say they won't think about something because they're not educated in it and not paid to do it. That perspective is all about thinking one's self ignorant and powerless.<br /><br />I'm suggesting that we don't need Marx because any of us can see what Marx saw, and make our own thoughts on what he saw. <br /><br />Dependence on Marx is another form of enslavement. Liberate yourself from obedience to Glossy Karl!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-8784767265691625042010-07-23T11:06:12.151-05:002010-07-23T11:06:12.151-05:00Let's put it this way: It used to be that som...Let's put it this way: It <i>used</i> to be that some guy with a club would show up and take whatever portion of your product was "his." Now it gets taken all along the road to a "successful career."<br /><br />Something tells me we are much more prone to believing our own bullshit than the Mayans ever were!JRBhttp://ladypoverty.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-65426794767571190252010-07-23T10:30:53.324-05:002010-07-23T10:30:53.324-05:00Your response triggered an interesting thought. I ...Your response triggered an interesting thought. I have a hard time imagining an Incan revolutionary -- not that it would be impossible. It's just hard to imagine having any sort of context to judge society when the concept of history is religious/mythical rather than ostensibly empirical. The Mayans did have some type of literature but not general literacy. I guess we can take some comfort from the fact that it's a great deal easier today to see how screwed-up society is. Still not easy, but easier.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-70458976829519794182010-07-23T09:54:05.298-05:002010-07-23T09:54:05.298-05:00I think class struggle in that case is the relatio...I think class struggle in that case is the relationship that common Mayans had with whoever administered the "despotic religious social structure," as you describe it. "Class struggle" is an acknowledgment of that relationship, which expressed itself in different ways.<br /><br />If you were a Mayan revolutionary, presumably you would attribute many of life's hardships to this relationship, rather than to divine will or fate or however Mayan culture sought to justify class divisions.JRBhttp://ladypoverty.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-39406831427076580422010-07-23T09:28:49.722-05:002010-07-23T09:28:49.722-05:00I largely agree with your esay. However, was a com...I largely agree with your esay. However, was a common Mayan or Incan more free than a common american citizen? I would say no -- that person was a cog in a despotic religious social structure. Where does class struggle fit into this type of society? I think that large societies tend to gravitate towards master slave relationships where the few exploit the many. If the society is commerce based it will be like ours -- if it's primarily religious it will be like ancient Egypt or the Incans..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com