Session 14: What is Orthodox Marxism?

“That is to say, [Engels] contrasts the ways in which concepts are formed in dialectics as opposed to ‘metaphysics’; he stresses the fact that in dialectics the definite contours of concepts (and the objects the represent) are dissolved. Dialectics, he argues, is a continuous process of transition from one definition to the other. In consequence, a one sided and rigid causality must be replaced by interaction. But he does not even mention the most vital interaction, namely the dialectical relation between subject and object in the historical process, let alone give it the prominence it deserves…For the dialectical method the central problem is to change reality”(3)

Lukac’s main point is that Marxism is defined by totality rather than economic determinism. Reification, of the solidification of relationships between things and people as a thing itself, leads to alienation in the form of a restrictive sort of contemplation that analyzes established orders within their own context – this contemplation, arising exclusively from reality, it powerless to change it. Lukacs proposes dialectics as a solution to this alienation; as a metaphysical construct, the subject and object of contemplation remain separate. Hence dialectics is able to concern itself with changing realities rather than analyzing a given reality from the instantaneous perspective that this reality generates. Consequently, dialectics is not a ‘science’ in the conventional sense: it does not seek to eliminate contradiction, but contain to contradictions within a certain thought process to understand the role of things in a larger context. Totality is based on interaction, or the ability to understand not the definition of a thing, but the thing itself through interactions that lead to “a continuous process of transition from one definition to the other.”

Lukacs emphasizes that “attempts to deepen the dialectical method with the aid of ‘criticism’ inevitably lead to a more superficial view. “ He justifies the necessity of totality in Orthodox  Marxism, quoting (from A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy ) “ In the study of economic categories, as in the case of every historical and social science, it must be born in  mind that categories are therefore but forms of being, conditions of existence…” If the dialectical method is obscured by making it subject to criticism in the same way scientific analysis is subject to criticism, dialectics begins to look like a “superfluous additive.”

Questions:

(1) How is it possible that any thought process should be immune from criticism? Is Lukac actually suggesting this, or is he claiming criticism should take a different form? How would one undertake an examination of the validity of a dialectical method?

(2) “But we maintain that in the case of social reality, these contradictions are not a sign of the imperfect understanding of society; On the contrary, they belong to the nature of reality itself and to the nature of capitalism. When totality is known they will not be transcended and cease to be contradictions. Quite the reverse, they will be seen as necessary contradictions arising out of the antagonisms of this system of production.” (11) Lucaks claims that contradictions between theories show that these theories have reached their limits, and must be transformed and subsumed under larger theories under which these contradictions are no longer present. Does it follow that reality in the form of concrete totality is composed exclusively of these contradictions? Is it even possible to analyze this sort of reality without it falling apart at its contradictions? Does this make materialist dialectic incompatible with other forms of analysis?

Lukacs (First Half of Reading)

Lukacs wants to base his theory on Marx's economic points and use them to talk about fetishism related to commodities in subjective and objective forms. He thinks this is the only way we can see the issues within capitalism. Lukacs disagrees with Marx about the effect commodities have on a society in that he thinks that they are not the basis for the structure of society. Instead he believes that commodities have a negative effect on the structure, but do not control everything about it. Lukacs believes commodities are only a concern when their effects reach a universal scale. He thinks that once commodities effects become concrete within the development of society, then they become something that needs to be focused on. Lukacs said "it [(rationalism in perdicting results of broken down complexes and laws of protection)] must declare war on the traditional amalgam of empirical experiences of work: rationalisation is unthinkable without specialisation" (88). He explains that there can only be beliefs through reason if there is expertise in those areas.

Lukacs later defines time as space when referring to society for he feels the laborer is a machine and when thinking about him in performance, he merely takes up space. This statement lacks sense, does Lukacs feel that the reified version of time is space and therefore the reification of society converts time into space? He also sees alienation in mechanical societies and believes that the worker becomes separated.

Lukacs views the capitalism as the producer of its own harmony throughout the state and its laws, but how can it bring harmony to the state if the state is supported by its society that is alienated because of its work?Lukacs agrees that there are indeed faults to the system of laws; "can be flexible and irrational in character" (97). He knows to some extent that the older judicial system was faulty in reason but was also versatile, whereas the current and more modern system is more fixed.

Lukacs believes that competition could be eliminated from globalism about trade. The way he sees this happening is through a better reasoned calculation that functions beginning with the commodity owner. He makes clear, "if a rational calculation is to be possible the commodity owner must be in possession of the laws regulating every detail of his production" (102). This is basically suggesting a system in which the vendor of the people's resources controls the laws, but what would this mean to the laborers?

Science is a distant concept to Lukacs in relation to individuals ability. He sees that it is not problem of the individuals that they cannot understand every aspect but that it is solely the essence of science. He says, "It must be identified that this inability to penetrate to the real material substratum of science is not the fault of individuals. It is rather something that becomes all the more apparent the more science has advanced and the more consistently it functions--from the point of view of its own premises" (107). He finds progress as the only responsibility of the individual in science. This relates to what we discussed on Monday, the constructiveness of science is a never-ending objective and within the science of human societies Lukacs seems to also believe that society is constantly changing.

Calculating Life

Weber begins "Science as a Vocation" by describing the difficulties and uncertainties of becoming a successful lecturer. He believes such a goal is a "matter of luck" and claims that "chance, rather than ability, plays an important role" (4). Weber states that chance is such a strong, deciding factor, not because of "defects of collective decision-making as a part of the selection process," but because in order to have a vocation as a scholar, one must not only be an apt scholar, but also an apt teacher, and he believes the possession of these two talents is an "utter gamble."
 Weber also explains the significance of inspiration. He affirms that inspiration does not abolish the need for work, and work cannot take the place of inspiration or force its existence, any more than passion can; but together, work and passion can create an idea (9). I viewed this as something positive, and agreed that ideas flourish when they're thought of in comfortable, relaxing environment. However, he reaffirms the presence of chance, and states "However that may be, the scholar must resign himself to the element of chance that is involved in every kind of scientific endeavor" (9).
Focusing on the significance of chance, Weber then switches to calculation and asserts that "we are not ruled by mysterious, unpredictable forces, but that, on the contrary, we can in principle control everything by means of calculation" (13). This idea confuses me, because if we can control, and calculate the things in our lives, why can't these aspiring lecturers calculate or account for the attributes that would make them successful? Is the calculations Weber speaks about purely scientific calculations such as those found in a Physics or Chemistry textbook, or could there be a way to calculate/systematically influence other areas of life?

Social Security: demographics or politics?

I think the economist Dean Baker has some very good arguments for why social security is not in "objective" trouble, but faces stiff political problems.

The most basic point is that social security is not actually in trouble (he gives a few pieces of evidence: trustee reports that insist on full payment at least for the next 40 years, the fact that the program makes a surplus, and the fact that it is always lumped together with Medicare - and burgeoning health care costs are the real problem that demographics poses - although even this is not precisely a demographic problem, but is mediated through the structure of the U.S. healthcare system)

The deeper point is that the productivity of the American economy is plenty to provide an adequate safety net. The greater elimination of social protections (especially important for the working class) is not natural law, but political decision.

Please feel free to offer opposing evidence.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/time-is-on-our-side-the-survival-of-social-security


http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/035468oped.html


http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/035468.html

Weber + Chaplin

36. “...organizational discipline in the factory is founded upon a completely rational basis. With the help of appropriate methods of measurement, the optimum profitability of the individual worker is calculated like that of any material means of production....The individual is shorn of his natural rhythm as determined by the structure of his organism; his psycho-physical apparatus is atuned to a new rhythm through a methodical specialization of separately functioning muscles, and an optimal economy of forces is established responding to the conditions of work. The whole process of rationalization, in the factory as elsewhere, and especially in the bureaucratic state machine, parallels the centralization of the material implements of organization in the discretionary power of the overlord.” (262)
    
    [The first 20 minutes are all too relevant to much of what we've read - and gorgeous, and funny, to boot. Until about 1:30 in the third video.]
    

Patrimonialism & Modern Politics

In "Politics as a Vocation", Weber says "Like the political organizations that preceded it historically, the state represents a relationship in which people rule over other people. This relationship is based on the legitimate use of force (that is to say, force that is perceived as legitimate). If the state is to survive, those who are ruled over must always acquiesce in the authority that is claimed by the rulers of the day. When do they do so and why (34)?" I think that Weber's discussion of patrimonialism and sultanism highlights the most unbelievable and difficult to understand examples of acquiescence. He says that such situations "arise wherever the ruler develops an administration and a military force that, however, are purely the personal instruments of the master" (37). While I find such methods - which are so firmly dependent on loyalty and seem to leave little room for change/improvement - troubling, it is almost more so that they are so similar to our own modern day governmental structures. Some of these qualifications - such as personal militaries - have been left behind, but the general structure of these systems has remained. In our country many administrative and bureaucratic institutions in government and business are similarly set up, with a strong basis in tradition and custom. But as we have seen, they leave little room for oversight/regulation and adaptation. As society has changed, people have seemingly become less willing to accept leaders based upon tradition and loyalty, instead turning to personal gain through almost any means necessary. So how have these models not been abandoned by now? How much do we value comfort and tradition that we have been unable to come up with another option? Is this just another sign of the stronghold of capitalism (as Weber seems to argue, capitalism, bureaucracy and these models are closely intertwined) that these models are still keeping hold of our politics?

Weber's Conclusion

In the “Religious Foundations of Innerworldly Asceticism”, Weber writes, “In its extreme inhumanity this doctrine must above all have had one consequence for the life of a generation which surrendered to its magnificent consistency. That was a feeling of unprecedented loneliness”.

Calvinists rejected all sensual elements in their lifestyle in the pursuit of salvation. And their belief in predestination led to an isolated existence, in which one solely followed their path. To Weber, this religion represents the height of rationality.  To me, Calvinism seemed like a overly strict existence which would lead to the disillusioned individuals of the capitalist age. What did other people think of the doctrines of Calvinism? Furthermore, last class we discussed the different definitions of rationality. In the context of religion, how does one define and understand Calvinism to be the paragon of rationality?

In “Asceticism and the Capitalist Spirit”, Weber attempts to like the ascetic Protestants with the spirit of capitalism. He draws the similarities between the values of the two, such over-spending which was disrespectful to God and went against the capitalistic spirit. Weber goes on to say that capitalism no longer needs the Protestant values to maintain itself and the values become the “capitalistic spirit”. But he does not specify how this shift occurred or by what method the Protestant values were replaced with something else. How did religion fade if the people needed those values to form capitalism in the first place? Did anyone else see this as a problem in his argument? 

Weber's Universal History and Capitalist "Spirit"

1. When Weber began his Prefatory Remarks section he was inclined to give a lot of innovative credit to Western society, summed up in his term universal history. From art to technology to the sciences, other cultures were (to Weber) idealistically backwards compared to Europe -- without empirical thought and scientific deduction. But many of Europe's advancements started in other regions and the West only adopted Eastern thought and improved upon it. So is Western thought really the ultimate vehicle for innovation or was it merely the one that prevailed? Could the East, if given more time away from European hegemony, have devised a completely different but equally effective method or thought or are we at the structural peak of theorizing?
2. Looking back at Marx's example of the early capitalist and how pay effects their magnitude of productivity (more equals less), does Weber's definition of the capitalist “spirit” supplant this thought as an unsound representation of a capitalist worker. Marx's example was of a Jamaican man just released from his role as a forced laborer and given the opportunity to work merely for sustainability; of course, as a pre-capitalist living in a capitalist world he would have no incentive to do more than the barest minimum it takes to survive -- but this argument is a fallacy because a pre-capitalist (especially one who was enslaved) would have no reason to adhere to a system he was never before involved in. In contrast, Weber's “spirit” worked past necessity so as to maximize his capital intake. So, really, if you paid a capitalist more how would that be a detriment to his productivity and not a greater incentive to want to keep the well paying job and extract even more income?

Jimmy Carter's "Malaise" speech

For anyone who is dying to see the rest, or review the highlights.

Here is the transcript: http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3402

(The full speech, with worse audio, is below)

Kant on Rousseau

I thought of this quote from an essay by Kant called "A Universal History with Cosmopolitan Intent" when reflecting on Durkheim and his sense that we have yet to develop fully the morality proper to our age (and Kyle's gloss on this in his quiz). Kant remarks on how our "civilizational" development has thus far outstripped our moral development and looks forward to universal peace.

Until this last step…is taken, which is the halfway mark in the development of mankind, human nature must suffer the cruelest hardships under the guise of external well-being; and Rousseau was not far wrong in preferring the state of savages, so long, that is, as the last stage to which the human race must climb is not attained.

What is the real root of class struggles?

What I found extremely interesting about one of Durkheim's arguments was that he did not blame poverty for the growing animosity between the classes beginning in the 17th century; he pegged the reason for the conflict on something profoundly different.  Durkheim says that conflict was rare before the seventeenth century due to the smaller size of the industrial firms; "The workman everywhere lived side by side with his master, sharing in his work 'in the same shop, on the same bench'... Both were almost equal to each other; he who had completed his apprenticeship could, at least in many trades, set up on his own, if he had the wherewithal." The implication here is that the workman, though with less material means than his master, was content because he felt like an integral part of the company.

The problem came in the seventeenth century, when an increase in the size of most firms meant that "the workman became even more separated from his boss."  With increasing specialization, it was harder for the worker to see exactly what his work was for i.e. the outcome or final product, and therefore his work became far less meaningful.  Durkheim puts this in a very morose light: "Each individual has his function, and the system of the division of labour makes some progress." Yet, the workers's "work was completely distinct" from the object of the firm at large.  It is this incongruity then that Durkheim blames for the growing worker dissatisfaction.

Relating this to today's world, I was reading a very interesting article in the WSJ this weekend about how modern companies "tend to herd customers as if they were cattle."  In essence, customers are generally viewed as an unintelligent mass to be exploited.  However, this is quickly changing thanks in part to the rise of the smartphone.  Users are now empowered because they can scan a barcode for a product and find ten different prices for it, and if one store is overcharging significantly, customers may flock away from that store because they feel disrespected.  This is bringing about a shift of focus in marketing campaigns to view the customers as real people, able to call your bluff if you treat them unfairly and hurt your business.

This in a sense is very similar to the source of the discontent of the workers of large industry starting in the seventeenth century.  The workers wanted to be seen as people, not as cogs in a machine to manufacture something, the details of which they were completely left in the dark on.  This logic works backwards from "At the same time as specialization becomes greater, revolts become more frequent"; as personal empowerment, or in this case feeling like you are a significant part of the end product brings greater harmony.

So do you guys agree with Durkheim?  Is it not poverty that brings about the discontent and conflict with the upper classes, but being treated as less important inferiors?  Or is this simply nonsense, and do you believe that poor people are naturally better as an intrinsic part of being poor, and so these conflicts would arise no matter what because of a discrepancy in the spread of wealth?


I have included the link to the article I mentioned below.  It is a very fascinating read, so definitely take a look at it if you have some time.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444873204577535352521092154.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Durkheim: Healing Pathological Developments

Durkheim on page 294 begins to explain some of the consequences of the Division of Labor, citing bank crises and hostility between labor and capitol. He says that, "What makes these facts serious is that sometimes they have been seen to be a necessary consequence of the division of labor, as soon as it has passed a certain state in its development. In that case, it has been said, the individual, ben low over his task,  will isolate himself in his own special activity. He will no longer be aware of the collaborators who work at his side on the same task, he has even no longer any idea at all of what the common task consists. The division of labor cannot therefore be pushed too far without being a source of disintegration." There will always be good and bad consequences, do you think disintegration is necessarily a bad thing? And, when is that certain state in development?

On pages 338 and 339, Durkheim concludes the Division of Labor in Society. He mentions how the existence of rules is not sufficient and that they should be just. That they are "...more human, and consequently more rational about it...We seek to understand them and are less afraid to change them." What is it about morals, rules and societies that make these things transcendent to us as human beings. Durkheim also mentions that morality is "in the throes of an appalling crisis. What we have expounded on can help us to understand the causes and nature of this sickness." What is the sickness Durkheim is referring to, the Division of Labor or morality?

Whitman and Baudelaire (from class)

One's Self I Sing by Walt Whitman from Leaves of Grass ONE’S-SELF I sing—a simple, separate Person;
Yet utter the word Democratic, the word En-masse. Of Physiology from top to toe I sing;   Not physiognomy alone, nor brain alone, is worthy for the muse—I say the Form complete is worthier far;   The Female equally with the male I sing.
Of Life immense in passion, pulse, and power,
Cheerful—for freest action form’d, under the laws divine,
The Modern Man I sing. www.bartleby.com/142/1.html Crowds by Charles Baudelaire from Paris Spleen      Not everyone is capable of taking a bath of multitude: enjoying crowds is an art. And only he who can go on a binge of vitality, at the expense of the human species, is he into whom in his cradle a fairy breathed a craving for disguises and masks, hatred of home, and a passion for traveling.      Multitude, solitude: equal and interchangeable terms for the active and fertile poet. He who does not know how to populate his solitude, does not know either how to be alone in a busy crowd.      The poet enjoys the incomparable privilege of being able, at will, to be himself and an other. Like those wandering souls seeking a body, he enters, when he wants, into everyone's character. For him alone, everything is empty. And if certain places seem to exclude him, it is because he considers them not worth the bother of being visited.      The solitary and thoughtful stroller draws a unique intoxication from this universal communion. He who easily espouses crowds knows feverish delights, of which the selfish will be eternally deprived, locked up like a chest, and the lazy, confined like a mollusk. He adopts as his every profession, every joy and every misery circumstances place before him.      What people call love is awfully small, awfully restricted, and awfully weak, compared with that ineffable orgy, that holy prostitution of the soul which gives itself totally, poetry and charity, to the unexpected which appears, to the unknown which passes by.      It is sometimes right to teach the world's happy ones, if only to humiliate their stupid pride for an instant, that there are forms of happiness superior to theirs, more vast and more refined. Founders of colonies, shepherds of peoples, missionary priests exiled to the ends of the earth, probably know something of these mysterious intoxications. And, in the bosom of the vast family created by their genius, they must sometimes laugh at those who pity their fortunes and their lives so chaste.

wiki.brown.edu/confluence/download/attachments/18022830/Baudelaire+Crowds.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1221971554000

Another set of chains

Two sections of this second Durkheim reading have really stuck with me. The first, when Durkheim says “Likewise, among primitive tribes the conquered enemy is put to death; where industrial functions are separated from military functions, he continues to exist beside the conqueror as a slave” (213). At first this reminded me primarily of Marx and Rousseau, but it also tied in strongly with a later quote of Durkheims and how I have been viewing his idea of the division of labour while we’ve been reading.   The second is when Durkheim says, “We see how different our view of the division of labour appears from that of the economists. For them it consists essentially in producing more. For use this greater productivity is merely a necessary consequence, a side-effect of the phenomenon. If we specialise it is not so as to produce more, but to enable us to live in the new conditions of existence created for us” (217). Here I think I disagree with Durkheim (although it’s possible I’m just being pessimistic). Instead of “to enable us to live” I think it’s to enable us to thrive. If we are just trying to live, couldn’t we just find some role or niche at which we were not particularly talented, but merely adequate? It seems to me that many people do adapt their skills and talents to compete in a particular society, but not for mere survival. Durkheim says that now more than ever people can survive who would have almost certainly been weeded out for weakness or lack of skill in earlier, less progressive societies with less divisive labour. I think the division of labour is less necessary if it’s only in order to survive, but today many people wants jobs that pay more money, that give more incentives that perhaps keep them in supply of our newly created and devised demands, but not ones that are actually necessary. Durkheim even says, “it is very likely that fairly often the needs take shape because we have acquire a habit for the object to which they relate? (216). It seems like an inescapable cycle in which we decide upon new needs that require fulfillment (through the division of labour), so we must work for more money only to come up with new demands that must be met and carried out by others in our society. Those people who are in fact working and adapting just to be able to live don’t seem to be the same ones coming up with new specializations. The rich and powerful who have seen and tasted these new demands and who have the means to test whether they are in fact necessary enough to be successful are the ones who create these roles. Those attempting to just survive work in these roles because they are appearing more quickly, not because the specializations fit their skills. If anything, they have to learn new skills often and repeatedly to satisfy the oft-changing specializations in our ever changing world. In this capacity are we not, again, slaves existing “beside the conquerors”?

Durkheim: Session 9

In “The Increasing Preponderance of Organic Solidarity,” Durkheim repeatedly emphasizes the paradoxical unity that is brought about through differentiation.  It is no longer feasible for society to resolve conflicts by simply by splitting into different factions. “In lower societies, where solidarity through similarities is the only , or almost the only one, these breaks are most frequent and the easiest.” In higher societies, “the different parts of the aggregate, since they fulfill different functions, cannot be easily separated.”  However, couldn’t these splits also be interpreted as further differentiation that would eventually become beneficial to a society already held together by organic solidarity? Where do we draw the distinction between a harmful division and beneficial differentiation, and how does organic solidarity arise from mechanical solidarity except through a series of divisions?

Durkheim also identifies assaults to the common consciousness as the basis of punishment and law in mechanical solidarity: “Strong, well defined states of the common consciousness are at the root of penal law.” He further implies that the common consciousness steadily withdraws as societies progress and become differentiated, and laws are no longer based on the preservation of similarity. Does the division of labor truly do away with the common consciousness, or is it simply transmuted? The maintenance of a differentiated society requires the recognition of more universal standards of behavior, and it might be more adequate to say that the individual consciousness has absorbed the common consciousness rather than become separate from it.

Division of Labour: The New Religion?

Hey guys, so does anyone else feel like the division of labour can be described as a new religion? As Durkheim states, the collective consciousness and a moral/penal system based on religious principles and doctrines has shifted into man serving 'capital.' Durkheim states that our society went from one based in mechanical solidarity to one based in the system of labour. "The more we evolve, the more societies develop a profound feeling of themselves and their unity" (122). Do we not 'serve' the bourgeois, the higher class, in hopes of 'ascending' to a higher state? Do we not ascribe to a set of given values, laws, and practices because a higher power states that it is, essentially, 'right?' Even if Durkheim states that by emphasizing labour instead of Christianity in society, we are moving away from religion, aren't we just replacing Christianity with the same model of religiosity? 

Session 7 Discussion Topics

After describing how the "inherited evils oppress us" (296) through the times of production, Marx concludes, "We suffer not only from the living but from the dead. Le mort saisit le vif!" (296) The French translating: the dead man seize the living man. What does he mean by this and how is it related to the production. Does the proletariat represent the "dead" and the bourgeois represent the "living"? If so who/what are the evils?

Marx also speaks about how it is impossible to describe the class system as something definite for it is ever-changing. In relation to this, he later brings up values of commodities. The "use-value" and "exchange-value" differ as terms in relation to quality and quantity. The "use-value" of a commodity relates to the quality, but "exchange-value" only relates to quantity. Marx connected their relation by stating, "their exchange-value manifests itself as something totally independent of their use value." (305) Seeing these types of values as separate still doesn't change that the overall value of the commodity is measured by the amount of labor. Marx finalizes his ideas on commodities and says, "The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labor incorporated in it." (307) His beliefs on value based dependently on the productiveness of laborers supports his claims stating the bourgeois relies on the proletariat to obtain profits.

Labor becomes defined as a social form and Marx shows the social connection it makes between the producers and the laborers. This social relation comes from the products made by the labor making them commodities. Marx believes these are social things because their "qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the senses." (321) Marx believes that commodities are related socially but the laborers who make the commodities relate materialistically. Are the laborers suppressed to such an extent that they can no longer relate to others in social terms? Marx mentions, "the relations connecting the labor of one individual with that of the rest appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at work, but as what they really are, material relations between persons and social relations between things." (321) Is he trying to say that the society has evolved to prioritize commodities over the laborers to the extent that laborers cannot even be described as connected socially? 

The Division of Labor & Society

Topics of Discussion

Durkheim begins to discuss the context of crime and the bond of social solidarity. On page 33, he states, "Even where the criminal act is certainly harmful to society, the degree of damage it causes is far from being regularly in proportion to the intensity of repression it incurs. In the penal law of most civilized peoples murer is universally regarded as the greatest of crimes. Yet an economic crisis,  a crash on the stock market, even a bankruptcy, can disorganize the the body social much more seriously than the isolated case of homicide..." What is the greatest evil? and can crime ever be rid of?

Durkheim also states on the division of labor, "It is because the division of labor is accompanied by an increase in fatigue that man is constrained to seek after, as a compensatory increase, those goods of civilization that otherwise would present no interest for him" (15). Do you agree? After our readings on Marx and our discussions of capitalism and the proletariat, and commodity fetishism, is it the labor or the commodity that we find ourselves occupied with our goods? 

"Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells."

http://www.has.vcu.edu/for/goethe/zauber_dual.html

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

---

That old sorcerer has vanished And for once has gone away! Spirits called by him, now banished, My commands shall soon obey. Every step and saying That he used, I know, And with sprites obeying My arts I will show. Flow, flow onward Stretches many Spare not any Water rushing, Ever streaming fully downward Toward the pool in current gushing. Come, old broomstick, you are needed, Take these rags and wrap them round you! Long my orders you have heeded, By my wishes now I've bound you. Have two legs and stand, And a head for you. Run, and in your hand Hold a bucket too. Flow, flow onward Stretches many, Spare not any Water rushing, Ever streaming fully downward Toward the pool in current gushing. See him, toward the shore he's racing There, he's at the stream already, Back like lightning he is chasing, Pouring water fast and steady. Once again he hastens! How the water spills, How the water basins Brimming full he fills! Stop now, hear me! Ample measure Of your treasure We have gotten! Ah, I see it, dear me, dear me. Master's word I have forgotten! Ah, the word with which the master Makes the broom a broom once more! Ah, he runs and fetches faster! Be a broomstick as before! Ever new the torrents That by him are fed, Ah, a hundred currents Pour upon my head! No, no longer Can I please him, I will seize him! That is spiteful! My misgivings grow the stronger. What a mien, his eyes how frightful! Brood of hell, you're not a mortal! Shall the entire house go under? Over threshold over portal Streams of water rush and thunder. Broom accurst and mean, Who will have his will, Stick that you have been, Once again stand still! Can I never, Broom, appease you? I will seize you, Hold and whack you, And your ancient wood I'll sever, With a whetted axe I'll crack you. He returns, more water dragging! Now I'll throw myself upon you! Soon, 0 goblin, you'll be sagging. Crash! The sharp axe has undone you. What a good blow, truly! There, he's split, I see. Hope now rises newly, And my breathing's free. Woe betide me! Both halves scurry In a hurry, Rise like towers There beside me. Help me, help, eternal powers! Off they run, till wet and wetter Hall and steps immersed are Iying. What a flood that naught can fetter! Lord and master, hear me crying! - Ah, he comes excited. Sir, my need is sore. Spirits that I've cited My commands ignore. "To the lonely Corner, broom! Hear your doom. As a spirit When he wills, your master only Calls you, then 'tis time to hear it."

1779, translation by Edwin Zeydel, 1955      

Which Side Are You On?

Pete Seeger's recording of the union song "Which Side Are You On?"

There is a fantastic movie on mining workers and their struggles, in Harlan County, Kentucky, called "Harlan County, USA." It is a documentary I cannot recommend enough.

This song originated out of miner's struggles against the bosses, in the 30s, in Harlan County. The exploitation and the fighting did not end in the 30s. In 1973, the conditions there - and the opposition to a union - were shocking. [I've always found this a fine rejoinder to the claim that we are somehow "past" unions, because everything is nicer now] The union was famously corrupt and the film recounts the campaign of Miners for Democracy after the murder of Jock Yablonski, his wife, and his daughter.

Perfect continuation of todays discussion?

This is absolutely perfect for our discussion earlier;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2012/07/12/the-dog-eat-dog-welfare-state-is-lose-lose/

Who is John Galt?

Ken Robinson's TED talks on education

The end of history?

Marx claims, in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, that history is defined by a series of conflicts between classes. During his lifetime, the opposing classes were the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat; the former being the capitalist who controlled the latter, the working majority. He asserts that the Proletariat will revolt against the Bourgeoisie, ending the institution of classes. Therefore, if there are no more classes, there will no longer be class conflicts; and if there aren't any class conflicts, based on Marx's definition of history, there will be no more history...What does the end to history mean?
Also, Marx affirms that Communism will be successful because it eliminates the idea of private property, to which he believes defines social classes. However, is private property the only indicator of social classes? It could be argued that specific ideologies (political, religous) are stronger driving forces than the posession of property. Could this be the reason Communism was not as successful as Marx predicted?

Adorno, on sociology

"This aim [of sociology], finally, is the need to make sense of the world, to understand what holds our very peculiar society together despite its peculiarity, to understand the law which rules anonymously over us....I would say that sociology has the role of a kind of intellectual medium through which we hope to deal with alienation."

- Theodor Adorno, Introduction to Sociology, Lecture 1

Bread and Circuses

… Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses

[...] iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli / uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim / imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se / continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, / panem et circenses. [...] (Juvenal, Satire 10.77–81)

Marx: Alienation - Session 5

"All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice." -Marx, Thesis 8.

Is all social life practical? According to Aristotle in Book VIII of Nichomeachean Ethics people may have any of three types of friends in their social life: friendships of utility, friendships of pleasure and friendships of the good (based on mutual respect and common admiration). Do these two ideas necessarily agree with each other? Are all friendships necessarily practical?

"Money - the common form into which all commodities as exchange values are transformed, i.e. the universal commodity - must itself exist as a particular commodity alongside others, since what is required is not only that they can be measured against it in the head, but that they can be changed and exchanged for it in the actual exchange process." -Marx, Grundrisse 165.

Marx hereby promotes the idea of money becoming a commodity unto itself, serving no purpose other than to be used as a useless commodity, soon to be exchanged for "useful" commodities and to allow a universal value to be placed on things. He goes on implying that it is simply an ephemeral means upon which to exchange goods over a longer period of times. Does this idea necessarily agree with the others that he presents in Grundrisse? How does this idea affect his stance on social relations?

Marx i

"The relationship of the worker to labour engenders the relation to it of the capitalist, or whatever one chooses to call the master of labour. Private property is thus the product, the result, the necessary consequence of alienated labour, of the external relation of the worker to nature and to himself" (79) Do you agree that private property is the direct result of alienated labor?

"Communism as the positive transcendence of private property, or human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being - a return become conscious, and accomplished within the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully-developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully-developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully-developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between nature and man" (84) Do you agree that communism equals humanism, which equals naturalism? How does this create conflict between man and nature?

"an attempt at new and unprecedented commingling with the cosmic powers."

"It is an scene of almost apocalyptic proportions."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2170185/Apocalypse-Dam-Chinas-giant-man-waterfall-floodgates-opened-send-millions-tons-silt-downstream.html#ixzz20B07Z7C5

Rousseau's Social Contract

1) Rousseau talks about the ideal community under a social contract like it was a human body, where each member is equally powerful and each act to nourish each other and, in effect, the whole. However, ordinary citizens aren't always out to benefit the body; sometimes because of a crisis or shortsightedness, a nation can be gridlocked in too many clashing opinions. Votes are rarely unanimous and the outcome isn't always fair to everyone or even morally right. So in an instance of national tension (basically everything that isn't a utopia), how is it possible for his sovereign/government system to function without everyone eventually leaving to lead their own Robinson Caruso kingship?

2) In Hegel's The Encyclopedia Logic truths about ideas and objects are composed of their innate state and how people subjectively view them. This works for gauging validity against natural occurrences like animals and behavior (for example: a dog we can imagine being any number of colors but if we see a purple dog we would assume that it isn't a "true" dog). These same "truths", however, don't apply to human ideas and institutions.  The issue here is that Hegel's thesis requires something definitively existing so we can conclude with a solid classification. Things that don't exist are immune to being classified because one can argue "that only exists because someone attributed it with an arbitrary value, so really it can be whatever I want". Art is a great example, because everyone perceives art differently and relies on people agreeing that it even has meaning; this means art is inherently subjective and there is no true interpretation of it. Because true art and true dogs are two different concepts how should they be classified, or should ideas even be classified as true?

*Concerning my second question: I only thought of this when Hegel brought up religion and it made me think that because different cultures believe in different things there isn't a rational way to prove or disprove anyone's truth -- not a problem for things that exist in a corporeal sense.

Rousseau's Social Contract:

It may not be all encompassing or very central to the text, 

but the question i had in my head after reading it was regarding the notion of slavery

If, as was said, slaves loose their desire to escape, and they learn to love their chains,

And, as  Rousseau says : "Force has produced the first slaves; their cowardice has perpetuated them",

 

1) Why consider a social contract when those in a position of slavery (physical, circumstantial, or psychological) are likely to fight to maintain the status quo? [Concerning the relationship between government and the masses]

2) We often dismiss sexism because "it was a different time" or "thats just how it was back then",

but when dealing with someone as profound and intelligent as rousseau, that excuse seems lacking:

how is this systematic refusal to even acknowledge women logically resolved? (consider the family as a basis for society, and how Rousseau sees the family as merely the father and son relationship)

Nietzsche, "Human, All Too Human" documentary

Talking about Nietzsche with Alex in our meeting today, I thought I'd post this little BBC documentary on him for those who wanted more context for him and his work.  He will come up again, especially when we discuss Weber in a few weeks. I recommend any and all of his books; this video may help you in starting to investigate him.

Inequality statistics

The statistics from class yesterday:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html?ref=sunday

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html

I think you guys will love this article on recent Immigration trends

Hey guys, I know we don't get to spend that much time on the modern era in class, but I found an extremely interesting article on the rise and contributions of Asian Americans in our society: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577494831767983326.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories It's a great read; please let me know if you enjoyed it as well.

Thoughts on 'Discourse on Inequality'

Rousseau discusses the genesis of language. He states that "all individual things presented themselves to their minds in isolation, as they are in the spectacle of nature. If one oak tree was called A, another was called B. <For the first idea one draws from two things is that they are not the same; and it often requires quite some time to observe what they have in common.> The difficulty inherent in all this nomenclature could not easily be alleviated, for in order to group beings under various common and generic dominations, it was necessary to know their properties and their differences" (58).
-This notion reminded me of our discussion on the necessity for historical insight and sociological study. Man's natural inclination is to be ignorant of groupings, or of the knowledge that two things may be similar enough to assign it the same label. In terms of the formation of civil society and its abundance in efforts made to make as much as possible homogenous and similar, don't these efforts appear to be in direct opposition to what is "natural?" I found it interesting that we have done away with the need for a variety of definitions, that we emphasize and even prefer boxing and categorizing when it is not the natural state of man to do so. 

On the Origins of Inequality

"The citizen is always active and in a sweat, always agitated, and unceasingly tormenting himself in order to seek still more laborious occupations. He works until he dies; he even runs to his death in order to be in a position to live, or renounces life in order to acquire immortality." (Pg 80) Are religion and the pursuit of wealth really the suicidal cocktail that Rousseau describes? Would the direction of his writings have changed if he dropped this pessimistic outlook on the Modern age?

"The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society." Do you agree that the genesis of the concept of ownership  is the root of society? What other reasons explain the origin of civilized society?

"Paul Goodman Changed My Life" trailer

For those who liked Paul Goodman -- I believe this movie is on Netflix instant play, also on youtube.

Introduction / On Reason

Please use this site as a sort of other limb - for thoughts, links, video, art, reflections, questions, what have you.

A quote that made me think of many of the themes we'll be talking about in the course, and that we touched on today a bit:

 "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw

When you read Kant, think carefully about what he means by "Reason" and "Knowing." Did the "Enlightened Age" ever arrive?