|
|
Post by Seger on Apr 15, 2020 9:33:15 GMT
It is the social and structural ill that literary theorists of Marxism try to expose and undermine Are you talking about the social inequality? The you can get the best healthcare and education if you have the money attitude? |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Apr 15, 2020 9:38:58 GMT
Well I guess not everyone reads literary texts widely, for Capitalism is inherently more than just an economic structure  I will immediately admit that I didn’t read many books about capitalism and I’m certainly not qualified to define what capitalism is. I’m just saying that a free market with regulation is the best economic system Current affairs and political discourses can supplement the literal definition of Capitalism. But to understand capitalism as a social notion one must refer to critical theory, especially Althusser |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Apr 15, 2020 9:41:32 GMT
It is the social and structural ill that literary theorists of Marxism try to expose and undermine Are you talking about the social inequality? The you can get the best healthcare and education if you have the money attitude? its not that simple, that's merely worrying about the structure. If one sticks to scrambling for the material, such actions of the unknowing subject will be ultimately contained as the subject's preconditioned mentality will still remain unchanged, leaving him vulnerable to further systemic exploitation where he even insidiously believes in core values (and ideologies) that drive his actions and acceptance of oppression. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Apr 15, 2020 9:43:27 GMT
Simply put, for an effective subversion one must change the superstructure instead of changing what's in it (the literal capital, just by acknowledging capital ensnares the subject in the capitalist exploitative system), i.e. the material or language
|
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Apr 15, 2020 9:44:42 GMT
To this whole thing: I live in Western Washington, the most northwestern non-Alaskan state, and I'm very politically active. The problem here in the US is more than the surface: 1. Donald Trump is a populist president who depends on votes from those with a keen eye in economics and from those who are disenfranchised by big government in their states. His platform advertised this; needless to say, he has done the opposite and made the government bigger while failing to strong-arm industrial companies, who just decided to move elsewhere. 2. His administration is basically a political echo chamber. He's put those who support his ideas in cabinet, and he's shown that he's going to fire anyone who dissents. 3. His supporters are very strongly and arrogantly opinionated -- his opposition are also very arrogantly opinionated. This can explain his actions: 1. The lack of industry in the US has severely hurt the people. 2. His supporters were pushing the hoax idea and so he adopted it to avoid alienating them, as not doing so is politically unsound; as well as this, this rallies people against an enemy -- the most effective dictatorial tactic, ever. 3. He's pressed to open back the economy as fast as possible as the people who want the economy reopened are the ones who determine who gets elected 4. He's got fundamentalist Christian influences all over him. 5. This whole thing could've been used to increase the power of the federal government and reduce state autonomy - this has backfired and has since inspired a new wave of municipal and state (no, I'm talking about the 50 states, not the Federal Government) nationalism/desire for increased self-governance. Given current trends, this will lead up to a landslide election against him. Why do I think this? Here's my projections. www.270towin.com/maps/yynAnThe environment severely disfavors incumbents (people seeking re-election) and Wisconsin, a very very important state, has recently elected progressives in their courts. Florida's got a lot of old people who'd be split between Biden and Trump instead of being in sharp favor of Trump; their conservative wing will be less effective at nullifying the moderate and progressive wings. Rust belt states saw a lack of care by the US President and I expect it to be easier for any challenger, let alone a blue-collar-like moderate candidate such as Joseph Biden who seems to not favor expanding the size of the government. Edit: This is practically the only place where I've ever had a civil discussion about politics. That's a really good reflection on this community. I will review your statements one by one. Although not all you wrote has direct correlation with capitalism, rather Trump's implementation of capitalism, but I am a Trumper as well (although I'm not American). I will answer those point-by-point in order: "The problem here in the US is more than the surface:" 1) Trump depends on votes from those who keep a keen eye on economics, and he WAS elected. It means there are many people who keep an eye on economics and eventually voted for him. In fact economic growth benefits everyone, every class, and every other groups of people in the US. Trump's voters are benefitting from less business taxes from the government, because more taxes = less profit = less economic growth (not beneficial for anyone). If it really ended up the opposite like you stated (big governments, huge business taxes and regulations) his supporters (who are keen on economics) would definitely stop supporting nor vote for him. If what you said as "companies not benefitting and moved elsewhere" are communist PRC's companies, then yes, because they are mostly cancers to American economy. America has seen an economic growth faster and stronger than it ever had. Lowest unemployment rate in American history (also, lowest black unemployment rate). In fact, those who decided to move elsewhere because of HUGE tax regulations are Californians which is very 'liberal' (leftists to be precise) and moved to Texas (a very conservative state, and Trump is conservative). 2) It is very normal to put those who support his ideas and share his values in his cabinet. In fact it is what any president would do. It would be ridiculous to see [if elected] Sanders put Shapiro in his cabinet, and vice versa. It is not dictatorial to fire 'anyone who disagrees with him' as long as he use the legal procedure and constitution. 3) Whoa, you are doing a personal attack here, dude. Attack the idea, not the people who hold the idea. Let's stick to the proper debate rules, shall we? "This can explain his actions:" 1) Which lack of industry which hurt who? Please be more specific. Because I have never heard any such kind of statement from any workers nor business owners. What I hear from them is the exact opposite, strong economy and industry, low unemployment rate, less business taxes and regulations. If what you are saying is lack of communist PRC industries which severely hurt the PRC dictators, then you are absolutely right. 2) You proposed that his supporters were pushing 'hoax ideas' (which doesn't sound right, there are bad ideas but not hoax ideas as hoax is for fake news) and he follows his supporters' will in order not to alienate them. Firstly, you must state which idea is the 'hoax idea'. Secondly, adopting his supporters' ideas is actually good, because that's how democracy works! And it is not rallying people against an enemy which you proposed as a 'dictatorial tactics'. Disagreements in a democracy state is very normal. And disagreeing to ones political view is neither hate speech nor demonization. In fact, most dictators' tactics is rallying everyone to agree on everything like you can see in German's National Socialism (Nazi), Mussolini's fascist Italy, PRC, North Korea, and the Soviet Union. They always start by uniting every citizens under the same political party, same political views and agreements, not allowing any differences in opinion in order not to be fractioned. In a healthy state there are disagreements, different views, and sometimes a debate. That's democracy and freedom of speech. 3) Yes, he pressed the economy to reopen ASAP as the people who want the economy to reopen are the ones determining his election. Yes, the American people! One vote of a poor peasant is as valuable as one vote of a top business owner. After all, economic growths benefit everyone. 4) What the hell is wrong with having Christian influences? Do you want to make Christianity an illegal religion in America? As long as it doesn't violate the constitution it is legal. Besides, Christianity is the major religion of America and the basic principles of the founding of USA and its constitutions. 5) Trump makes the government smaller and has less control on people's personal lives as he lower taxes, support personal firearms ownership, etc. In fact, decentralization is good. Extreme centralization makes federal gevernments and regions act like a colony to the capital city and the main central regions. Each states having bigger autonomy is good, again, as long as it doesn't violate the constitution. From your statements, I can say that you are proposing a very terrible and monstrous system and implementation of government. I'll sum it up: You don't accept the election result that Donald Trump is elected as the American people wants a strong economy. You are proposing that a president (Trump specifically) should not accept his followers' ideas and aspirations. You are also proposing that Trump's supporters can not have disagreements with another political party or view as it makes the country 'divided'. You don't accept the American people's decision to strengthen the US economy by pushing it ASAP. You hate Christian influences in the US and even hated Trump for having it. Yet you also want to centralize and increase the government's size which makes the federal government a dictator and stricken its grip to federal governments. No personal feeling, dude. I just responded to your ideas. I hope we can still be friends in these games. The only way to a diverse state were everyone can believe what he or she wants is a secular state. Nobody wants to make Christianity illegal, the problem in the USA is the that a group of hardcore Christians is forcing their believes on the rest of the population. And small government is sometimes good for the economy but the wealth only goes to the top 1%. The rest of the population doesn’t get anything that’s why you need a fair distributions of wealth like we have in Europe and a good social structure who will help you in times of poverty. Millions of people have lost their job in the first weeks of the lockdown while in Europe people are still getting paid even though they can’t go to work. That’s the result of a good social structure. |
|
|
|
Post by Naveen Hanza on Apr 15, 2020 9:51:00 GMT
That is huge
|
|
|
|
Post by Sun Li-jen of the Glorious RoC on Apr 15, 2020 9:58:07 GMT
It is the social and structural ill that literary theorists of Marxism try to expose and undermine Precisely, Marxism is the source of all these capitalism-hating people. Karl Marx's books are just trashed 'theories' and has no successful implementations. He is very good at deceiving and provoking people. But he is the worst at giving examples of his proposed ideas. Don't worry, I have friend who was a Marxist. He read Karl's books and became immediately decieved and trusted communism. After a few minutes of discussion (online chat) I had been able to neutralize his radical Marxist views and he was back to believe in free market capitalism as the best economic system available. If you say it is an ill social and economic system, give evidence and example |
|
|
|
Post by Sun Li-jen of the Glorious RoC on Apr 15, 2020 10:44:51 GMT
I will review your statements one by one. Although not all you wrote has direct correlation with capitalism, rather Trump's implementation of capitalism, but I am a Trumper as well (although I'm not American). I will answer those point-by-point in order: "The problem here in the US is more than the surface:" 1) Trump depends on votes from those who keep a keen eye on economics, and he WAS elected. It means there are many people who keep an eye on economics and eventually voted for him. In fact economic growth benefits everyone, every class, and every other groups of people in the US. Trump's voters are benefitting from less business taxes from the government, because more taxes = less profit = less economic growth (not beneficial for anyone). If it really ended up the opposite like you stated (big governments, huge business taxes and regulations) his supporters (who are keen on economics) would definitely stop supporting nor vote for him. If what you said as "companies not benefitting and moved elsewhere" are communist PRC's companies, then yes, because they are mostly cancers to American economy. America has seen an economic growth faster and stronger than it ever had. Lowest unemployment rate in American history (also, lowest black unemployment rate). In fact, those who decided to move elsewhere because of HUGE tax regulations are Californians which is very 'liberal' (leftists to be precise) and moved to Texas (a very conservative state, and Trump is conservative). 2) It is very normal to put those who support his ideas and share his values in his cabinet. In fact it is what any president would do. It would be ridiculous to see [if elected] Sanders put Shapiro in his cabinet, and vice versa. It is not dictatorial to fire 'anyone who disagrees with him' as long as he use the legal procedure and constitution. 3) Whoa, you are doing a personal attack here, dude. Attack the idea, not the people who hold the idea. Let's stick to the proper debate rules, shall we? "This can explain his actions:" 1) Which lack of industry which hurt who? Please be more specific. Because I have never heard any such kind of statement from any workers nor business owners. What I hear from them is the exact opposite, strong economy and industry, low unemployment rate, less business taxes and regulations. If what you are saying is lack of communist PRC industries which severely hurt the PRC dictators, then you are absolutely right. 2) You proposed that his supporters were pushing 'hoax ideas' (which doesn't sound right, there are bad ideas but not hoax ideas as hoax is for fake news) and he follows his supporters' will in order not to alienate them. Firstly, you must state which idea is the 'hoax idea'. Secondly, adopting his supporters' ideas is actually good, because that's how democracy works! And it is not rallying people against an enemy which you proposed as a 'dictatorial tactics'. Disagreements in a democracy state is very normal. And disagreeing to ones political view is neither hate speech nor demonization. In fact, most dictators' tactics is rallying everyone to agree on everything like you can see in German's National Socialism (Nazi), Mussolini's fascist Italy, PRC, North Korea, and the Soviet Union. They always start by uniting every citizens under the same political party, same political views and agreements, not allowing any differences in opinion in order not to be fractioned. In a healthy state there are disagreements, different views, and sometimes a debate. That's democracy and freedom of speech. 3) Yes, he pressed the economy to reopen ASAP as the people who want the economy to reopen are the ones determining his election. Yes, the American people! One vote of a poor peasant is as valuable as one vote of a top business owner. After all, economic growths benefit everyone. 4) What the hell is wrong with having Christian influences? Do you want to make Christianity an illegal religion in America? As long as it doesn't violate the constitution it is legal. Besides, Christianity is the major religion of America and the basic principles of the founding of USA and its constitutions. 5) Trump makes the government smaller and has less control on people's personal lives as he lower taxes, support personal firearms ownership, etc. In fact, decentralization is good. Extreme centralization makes federal gevernments and regions act like a colony to the capital city and the main central regions. Each states having bigger autonomy is good, again, as long as it doesn't violate the constitution. From your statements, I can say that you are proposing a very terrible and monstrous system and implementation of government. I'll sum it up: You don't accept the election result that Donald Trump is elected as the American people wants a strong economy. You are proposing that a president (Trump specifically) should not accept his followers' ideas and aspirations. You are also proposing that Trump's supporters can not have disagreements with another political party or view as it makes the country 'divided'. You don't accept the American people's decision to strengthen the US economy by pushing it ASAP. You hate Christian influences in the US and even hated Trump for having it. Yet you also want to centralize and increase the government's size which makes the federal government a dictator and stricken its grip to federal governments. No personal feeling, dude. I just responded to your ideas. I hope we can still be friends in these games. The only way to a diverse state were everyone can believe what he or she wants is a secular state. Nobody wants to make Christianity illegal, the problem in the USA is the that a group of hardcore Christians is forcing their believes on the rest of the population. And small government is sometimes good for the economy but the wealth only goes to the top 1%. The rest of the population doesn’t get anything that’s why you need a fair distributions of wealth like we have in Europe and a good social structure who will help you in times of poverty. Millions of people have lost their job in the first weeks of the lockdown while in Europe people are still getting paid even though they can’t go to work. That’s the result of a good social structure. Which group is a 'hardcore' Christian group and what believe are they trying to force and by what means are they doing that? About the distribution of wealth you are talking about, it is absurd to force the rich to pay for the poor. They are rich because they provided the people's needs. When someone makes a transaction it means both sides are agreeing to make the deal and it benefits both sides. Why are some people rich and other don't? Because those rich people worked hard and served the people's needs. Money don't just come from heavens. If you feel a transaction is not beneficial for you, just don't do the transaction and the seller will be automatically poor. No one forces you to do a transaction, it is by your own will. If you don't like rich people, don't buy their things and they'll be poor. About the virus crisis, do you know that rich people are suffering too? Their businesses (which provides the people's needs) are dying, therefore they fire their workers in order to cut the production cost and keep their businesses to serve the country's need. They earn their money by blood and sweat, but now the do-nothing people each want a piece of the hardworking people's property. The country doesn't have to (in fact, it should not) forcefully distribute the rich people's money to maintain the others' lives. I as a Chinese, we have the tradition of saving 50% of our incomes. So if we have worked for 5 years, we would be able to survive 5 years also without working. And we invest our money instead of spending it for unneeded things. You see, rich people work hard on their sweat and tears, their money didn't fall from heavens. |
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Apr 15, 2020 11:14:18 GMT
The only way to a diverse state were everyone can believe what he or she wants is a secular state. Nobody wants to make Christianity illegal, the problem in the USA is the that a group of hardcore Christians is forcing their believes on the rest of the population. And small government is sometimes good for the economy but the wealth only goes to the top 1%. The rest of the population doesn’t get anything that’s why you need a fair distributions of wealth like we have in Europe and a good social structure who will help you in times of poverty. Millions of people have lost their job in the first weeks of the lockdown while in Europe people are still getting paid even though they can’t go to work. That’s the result of a good social structure. Which group is a 'hardcore' Christian group and what believe are they trying to force and by what means are they doing that? About the distribution of wealth you are talking about, it is absurd to force the rich to pay for the poor. They are rich because they provided the people's needs. When someone makes a transaction it means both sides are agreeing to make the deal and it benefits both sides. Why are some people rich and other don't? Because those rich people worked hard and served the people's needs. Money don't just come from heavens. If you feel a transaction is not beneficial for you, just don't do the transaction and the seller will be automatically poor. No one forces you to do a transaction, it is by your own will. If you don't like rich people, don't buy their things and they'll be poor. About the virus crisis, do you know that rich people are suffering too? Their businesses (which provides the people's needs) are dying, therefore they fire their workers in order to cut the production cost and keep their businesses to serve the country's need. They earn their money by blood and sweat, but now the do-nothing people each want a piece of the hardworking people's property. The country doesn't have to (in fact, it should not) forcefully distribute the rich people's money to maintain the others' lives. I as a Chinese, we have the tradition of saving 50% of our incomes. So if we have worked for 5 years, we would be able to survive 5 years also without working. And we invest our money instead of spending it for unneeded things. You see, rich people work hard on their sweat and tears, their money didn't fall from heavens. Which Cristians? Mostly Christians from the Deep South. What are they forcing on me? Banning abortus, banning softdrugs, discriminating LGBTQ’s, dehumanising muslims, death sentence, guns etc.How do they force things on me? Via congres. Tbh they don’t force it on me since I as mentioned before do not live in the USA but this is something I’m seeing from across the Atlantic. The story that rich people work the hardest is utter *Auto Corrected*. The poorest people do the worst jobs because nobody else wants them. Saying to just save 50% is easy if you make a decent income as a doctor or other high educated job, but if you’re barely surviving on your normal income, Working 12 hours a day and 7 days a week? And don’t say that’s impossible it is reality. In the Netherlands everyone gives a large portion of their income to the government from which the government can provide healthcare for all, good education and can give you money to live on when you lose your job and you can rent an appartement for less money if you don’t make a lot of money. Everyone profits from this, the Netherlands is a very save country, real poverty barely exists and everyone can get good education. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Apr 15, 2020 11:28:33 GMT
It is the social and structural ill that literary theorists of Marxism try to expose and undermine Precisely, Marxism is the source of all these capitalism-hating people. Karl Marx's books are just trashed 'theories' and has no successful implementations. He is very good at deceiving and provoking people. But he is the worst at giving examples of his proposed ideas. Don't worry, I have friend who was a Marxist. He read Karl's books and became immediately decieved and trusted communism. After a few minutes of discussion (online chat) I had been able to neutralize his radical Marxist views and he was back to believe in free market capitalism as the best economic system available. If you say it is an ill social and economic system, give evidence and example That's extremely basic and naive lol. Marxism is not just an immature concept that you can childishly throw around, thats so literal. What I am trying to say is that Marxism isnt just about reductive communism and socialism. I am trying to introduce it and capitalism in the literary lens; how it affects our society on a structural scale, and how literature (which you do not accept) seeks to address and expose them. As for an evidence, the illusion of meritocracy in a Capitalist system can be seen as an apt example. Meritocracy is the illusion of success, where ideological subjects, through various ideological state apparatuses, are made to believe that they will be able to attain more rewards (basically social/economic capital) in a Capitalist system, and that they all have the liberty to do so out of their own free will, and have equal opportunities to do so as well. Nothing too politically or economically dense for anyone to understand here, so my logic and critical theory is starkly in the open. Such material life conditions, as Karl Marx explains, are forms of social existence that determines Man's consciousness. Conversely it is not Man who chooses reality, but it is that reality coerces mankind to believe that the way of seeing themselves and explaining the world is natural. Back to meritocracy, which is very apparent in many educational systems, students are made to believe that the more effort they put in, the more rewards they will reap in the future. That is why so much resources are spent into tutors, materials, pre-education classes, camps, workshops and so on. Then again, meritocracy disillusions subjects to believe that despite the inequality that they face in their access to capital (tuition, textbooks, internet access etc.), if they put in the same level, if not even more work and determination they are able to securely stay ahead in the rat-race. In reality, that is not the case. If you claim that I am wrong and atrociously ignorant, I can safely say that you are basing your assumptions not only on popular success stories (quote me 100 in detail, and they still peripheral among the world's population), which is very biased and reductive, but also based on a state of false consciousness. You do not realize the social exploitation that takes place, where people with pre-determined capital and placed at obviously a much better position then those who have not and are disenfranchised, but instead focus on the individual's agency and power (i.e. subscribing to meritocracy) and blame them for their situation. I am sorry if you are vexed by this, but in reality if you believe that Marxism is mere political extremism and that Capitalism is the pure and effective framework (well it is the MOST effective, but that doesnt dictate that it itself is EFFECTIVE as well. Catch is that neither you nor I nor any intellectual can come up with a better system), you are in reality deceived and captivated by the myth of success. By insisting on the very ideology that enslaves you and dominates your thoughts, beliefs on equality, justice, integrity, diligence etc, you fervently deny the "unseeable", things that defy your definitions and beliefs. Insidiously you think you CHOOSE these beliefs, but they are really pre-conditioned and influenced onto you the minute you appeared in this dominantly Capitalist society. Thus you are determined to defend your beliefs, and cannot imagine how the disadvantaged are at a much lower base than the ones in hold of capital. You, make up most of the world and their actions, and thus these individuals are overshadowed even more. It is the duty and means of Literature that reveals and exposes these naive notions that the world has, and elevates or conflates reality with the "unimaginable" plight of the voiceless sub-alterns, which are represented or done justice for (representation itself has problems, but back to +literary+ Capitalism and Marxism since no one can accept it as real) The Capitalist ideology and myth of success and power are hidden from us by ideology itself. It is not that ideology is unreal and that Marx is a deranged lunatic. It is because ideology is in places you cannot access and see clearly, even though it pervades your entire life, and society. You can never act out of free will, or think out of personal choice, intuition or even genius that you think you have. It is all contained, more so by the material existence of ideology. What does Marxism argue? Basically the need for a classless society, free from capitalist exploitation for profit making by the ones with capital and power. Marxist critical theory argues, additionally, that the exploited (you and I, even the exploiters are exploited by the system they conform to) are alienated from themselves, identifying themselves as mere products to run the Capitalist system, cogs in the machine. You asked me once, what does materialism have to do with capitalism? Very simply put, capitalism creates the illusion of power, and subjects that want to ascend the social ladder and appear powerful obsess on the material goods (clothing, gadgets, property). On a deeper level, materialism ties in with Marxist Literature where the objectification of mankind, based on the indifferent, emotionless materialism that they indulge mindlessly in, is an effect of capitalism, again the self-suppression of identity. Perhaps when I talk about these literary concepts, you might recall some books that you have read that support the opposite, and use that as evidence to refute my points. There are many branches of literature, the first being Liberal Humanism (nothing to do with political spheres), where the literary canon believes that human autonomy triumphs over the system. This empowering idea is an illusionist reality that is common in many publications, as well as non-fiction discourses. A Marxist critical lens states that the capitalist system dominates and controls all subjects in it (unless you are in an extremist socialist state, that is an ideal state of Communism, which is impossible, in layman terms due to globalization, you can escape this and automatically throw shade on my argument). Althusser suggests that this is coerced, while Gramsci states that this is a form of spontaneous consent by society (Hegemony), caused by the prestige that the ones in power enjoy, and that individuals can choose to break free from hegemony, which again Foucault knocks down in his subversion-containment model. Critics and theorists aside, Capitalism is at the end of the day multiple things. Commonly, you guys have given it a literal definition, which is not wrong since it has been supported and argued by so many other systemic subjects that it now constitutes the new hyper-reality that we believe in. I am trying to reveal that on another literary level, it can mean a lot as a reflection on our current ideological society. Nothing is free from ideology, and whatever we do, no matter where in our daily lives, buying health products (where healthcare should be an intrinsic human right, but it is commodified as a marketable good) or in intellectual, economic or political discourse, if we do not realize our positions we are doubly oppressed by ideology and continue to be exploited by it, and it is even worse when we believe in its merits and ignore its faultlines (cultural materialism, but ill stop here) You demanded an example, I gave you meritocracy. It does not have to be so apparent and specific, for even in this discussion you have proven to be a docile subject |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Apr 15, 2020 11:33:08 GMT
Which group is a 'hardcore' Christian group and what believe are they trying to force and by what means are they doing that? About the distribution of wealth you are talking about, it is absurd to force the rich to pay for the poor. They are rich because they provided the people's needs. When someone makes a transaction it means both sides are agreeing to make the deal and it benefits both sides. Why are some people rich and other don't? Because those rich people worked hard and served the people's needs. Money don't just come from heavens. If you feel a transaction is not beneficial for you, just don't do the transaction and the seller will be automatically poor. No one forces you to do a transaction, it is by your own will. If you don't like rich people, don't buy their things and they'll be poor. About the virus crisis, do you know that rich people are suffering too? Their businesses (which provides the people's needs) are dying, therefore they fire their workers in order to cut the production cost and keep their businesses to serve the country's need. They earn their money by blood and sweat, but now the do-nothing people each want a piece of the hardworking people's property. The country doesn't have to (in fact, it should not) forcefully distribute the rich people's money to maintain the others' lives. I as a Chinese, we have the tradition of saving 50% of our incomes. So if we have worked for 5 years, we would be able to survive 5 years also without working. And we invest our money instead of spending it for unneeded things. You see, rich people work hard on their sweat and tears, their money didn't fall from heavens. Which Cristians? Mostly Christians from the Deep South. What are they forcing on me? Banning abortus, banning softdrugs, discriminating LGBTQ’s, dehumanising muslims, death sentence, guns etc.How do they force things on me? Via congres. Tbh they don’t force it on me since I as mentioned before do not live in the USA but this is something I’m seeing from across the Atlantic. The story that rich people work the hardest is utter *Auto Corrected*. The poorest people do the worst jobs because nobody else wants them. Saying to just save 50% is easy if you make a decent income as a doctor or other high educated job, but if you’re barely surviving on your normal income, Working 12 hours a day and 7 days a week? And don’t say that’s impossible it is reality. In the Netherlands everyone gives a large portion of their income to the government from which the government can provide healthcare for all, good education and can give you money to live on when you lose your job and you can rent an appartement for less money if you don’t make a lot of money. Everyone profits from this, the Netherlands is a very save country, real poverty barely exists and everyone can get good education. Im not following this discussion since im responding to sun's first (rather outrageous, that is to me, not that his point is in logic and to others  ) argument, but I can say that although the ideas that you guys are discussing are also contained, your second paragraph holds true, in my opinion. Again, the illusion of meritocracy, more often that not the ones with capital are pre-determined by the RNG gods. It is always this dichotomy of the inspirational, self-made man, and the individuals who are born into the higher strata right from the get go, and again are able to retain their hegemonic power due to their possession of capital that matters so much in this filtered society |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Apr 15, 2020 11:35:12 GMT
Looking back im amazed at how this thread is titled: Corona Virus, but the topics of this thread revolve so much around politics that ideology has to be brought in at some point, either by me or by some other ppl I know read widely, like good ol' stoic haha (quoting him so that he can fulfill his intellectual exercise and indulge in this logocentric swimming pool, that is if he's online) |
|
|
|
Post by Sun Li-jen of the Glorious RoC on Apr 15, 2020 11:54:19 GMT
Which group is a 'hardcore' Christian group and what believe are they trying to force and by what means are they doing that? About the distribution of wealth you are talking about, it is absurd to force the rich to pay for the poor. They are rich because they provided the people's needs. When someone makes a transaction it means both sides are agreeing to make the deal and it benefits both sides. Why are some people rich and other don't? Because those rich people worked hard and served the people's needs. Money don't just come from heavens. If you feel a transaction is not beneficial for you, just don't do the transaction and the seller will be automatically poor. No one forces you to do a transaction, it is by your own will. If you don't like rich people, don't buy their things and they'll be poor. About the virus crisis, do you know that rich people are suffering too? Their businesses (which provides the people's needs) are dying, therefore they fire their workers in order to cut the production cost and keep their businesses to serve the country's need. They earn their money by blood and sweat, but now the do-nothing people each want a piece of the hardworking people's property. The country doesn't have to (in fact, it should not) forcefully distribute the rich people's money to maintain the others' lives. I as a Chinese, we have the tradition of saving 50% of our incomes. So if we have worked for 5 years, we would be able to survive 5 years also without working. And we invest our money instead of spending it for unneeded things. You see, rich people work hard on their sweat and tears, their money didn't fall from heavens. Which Cristians? Mostly Christians from the Deep South. What are they forcing on me? Banning abortus, banning softdrugs, discriminating LGBTQ’s, dehumanising muslims, death sentence, guns etc.How do they force things on me? Via congres. Tbh they don’t force it on me since I as mentioned before do not live in the USA but this is something I’m seeing from across the Atlantic. The story that rich people work the hardest is utter *Auto Corrected*. The poorest people do the worst jobs because nobody else wants them. Saying to just save 50% is easy if you make a decent income as a doctor or other high educated job, but if you’re barely surviving on your normal income, Working 12 hours a day and 7 days a week? And don’t say that’s impossible it is reality. In the Netherlands everyone gives a large portion of their income to the government from which the government can provide healthcare for all, good education and can give you money to live on when you lose your job and you can rent an appartement for less money if you don’t make a lot of money. Everyone profits from this, the Netherlands is a very save country, real poverty barely exists and everyone can get good education. Banning abortions is banning muders. Banning softdrugs is to save USA from being Mexico. They dehumanize muslims? With what? Paying taxes to keep the country's border from illegal immigrations? If you force the country to take away their guns, you are the one forcing your believe. As long as they don't do any crimes with their guns, they are protected by the second amendment, and you're being unconstitutional if you violate their rights to bare arms. About the LGBTQs, the conservatives don't discriminate or dehumanize them, there are many LGBT conservatives as well. If you want a real example of LGBT discriminations, you can take a look at the Arab states. The LGBTs are hanged publicly in there. Those are the Arab countries of which the illegal American immigrants are from. So where do you think rich people's money come from? Did descend from heaven? Your wealth is measured by how much the society needs you, not how much you feel tired or exhausted. One could do very hard works, but if the society doesn't feel the need of his/her work, he/she wouldn't receive much money. The society decides and pays you based on how much they need your work. Who is the 'society'? It is you, your friends, your family, and eveyone else in your country. It is not true however that rich people don't start from the bottom. My grandparents were dirt poor with barely any rice to eat. They started from hard labor works day by days for years. But now, our family is successful. That's it, money doesn't come from heavens, kid. And it seems that you need to learn basic economy about supply and demand. |
|
|
|
Post by Sun Li-jen of the Glorious RoC on Apr 15, 2020 12:02:56 GMT
Precisely, Marxism is the source of all these capitalism-hating people. Karl Marx's books are just trashed 'theories' and has no successful implementations. He is very good at deceiving and provoking people. But he is the worst at giving examples of his proposed ideas. Don't worry, I have friend who was a Marxist. He read Karl's books and became immediately decieved and trusted communism. After a few minutes of discussion (online chat) I had been able to neutralize his radical Marxist views and he was back to believe in free market capitalism as the best economic system available. If you say it is an ill social and economic system, give evidence and example That's extremely basic and naive lol. Marxism is not just an immature concept that you can childishly throw around, thats so literal. What I am trying to say is that Marxism isnt just about reductive communism and socialism. I am trying to introduce it and capitalism in the literary lens; how it affects our society on a structural scale, and how literature (which you do not accept) seeks to address and expose them. As for an evidence, the illusion of meritocracy in a Capitalist system can be seen as an apt example. Meritocracy is the illusion of success, where ideological subjects, through various ideological state apparatuses, are made to believe that they will be able to attain more rewards (basically social/economic capital) in a Capitalist system, and that they all have the liberty to do so out of their own free will, and have equal opportunities to do so as well. Nothing too politically or economically dense for anyone to understand here, so my logic and critical theory is starkly in the open. Such material life conditions, as Karl Marx explains, are forms of social existence that determines Man's consciousness. Conversely it is not Man who chooses reality, but it is that reality coerces mankind to believe that the way of seeing themselves and explaining the world is natural. Back to meritocracy, which is very apparent in many educational systems, students are made to believe that the more effort they put in, the more rewards they will reap in the future. That is why so much resources are spent into tutors, materials, pre-education classes, camps, workshops and so on. Then again, meritocracy disillusions subjects to believe that despite the inequality that they face in their access to capital (tuition, textbooks, internet access etc.), if they put in the same level, if not even more work and determination they are able to securely stay ahead in the rat-race. In reality, that is not the case. If you claim that I am wrong and atrociously ignorant, I can safely say that you are basing your assumptions not only on popular success stories (quote me 100 in detail, and they still peripheral among the world's population), which is very biased and reductive, but also based on a state of false consciousness. You do not realize the social exploitation that takes place, where people with pre-determined capital and placed at obviously a much better position then those who have not and are disenfranchised, but instead focus on the individual's agency and power (i.e. subscribing to meritocracy) and blame them for their situation. I am sorry if you are vexed by this, but in reality if you believe that Marxism is mere political extremism and that Capitalism is the pure and effective framework (well it is the MOST effective, but that doesnt dictate that it itself is EFFECTIVE as well. Catch is that neither you nor I nor any intellectual can come up with a better system), you are in reality deceived and captivated by the myth of success. By insisting on the very ideology that enslaves you and dominates your thoughts, beliefs on equality, justice, integrity, diligence etc, you fervently deny the "unseeable", things that defy your definitions and beliefs. Insidiously you think you CHOOSE these beliefs, but they are really pre-conditioned and influenced onto you the minute you appeared in this dominantly Capitalist society. Thus you are determined to defend your beliefs, and cannot imagine how the disadvantaged are at a much lower base than the ones in hold of capital. You, make up most of the world and their actions, and thus these individuals are overshadowed even more. It is the duty and means of Literature that reveals and exposes these naive notions that the world has, and elevates or conflates reality with the "unimaginable" plight of the voiceless sub-alterns, which are represented or done justice for (representation itself has problems, but back to +literary+ Capitalism and Marxism since no one can accept it as real) The Capitalist ideology and myth of success and power are hidden from us by ideology itself. It is not that ideology is unreal and that Marx is a deranged lunatic. It is because ideology is in places you cannot access and see clearly, even though it pervades your entire life, and society. You can never act out of free will, or think out of personal choice, intuition or even genius that you think you have. It is all contained, more so by the material existence of ideology. What does Marxism argue? Basically the need for a classless society, free from capitalist exploitation for profit making by the ones with capital and power. Marxist critical theory argues, additionally, that the exploited (you and I, even the exploiters are exploited by the system they conform to) are alienated from themselves, identifying themselves as mere products to run the Capitalist system, cogs in the machine. You asked me once, what does materialism have to do with capitalism? Very simply put, capitalism creates the illusion of power, and subjects that want to ascend the social ladder and appear powerful obsess on the material goods (clothing, gadgets, property). On a deeper level, materialism ties in with Marxist Literature where the objectification of mankind, based on the indifferent, emotionless materialism that they indulge mindlessly in, is an effect of capitalism, again the self-suppression of identity. Perhaps when I talk about these literary concepts, you might recall some books that you have read that support the opposite, and use that as evidence to refute my points. There are many branches of literature, the first being Liberal Humanism (nothing to do with political spheres), where the literary canon believes that human autonomy triumphs over the system. This empowering idea is an illusionist reality that is common in many publications, as well as non-fiction discourses. A Marxist critical lens states that the capitalist system dominates and controls all subjects in it (unless you are in an extremist socialist state, that is an ideal state of Communism, which is impossible, in layman terms due to globalization, you can escape this and automatically throw shade on my argument). Althusser suggests that this is coerced, while Gramsci states that this is a form of spontaneous consent by society (Hegemony), caused by the prestige that the ones in power enjoy, and that individuals can choose to break free from hegemony, which again Foucault knocks down in his subversion-containment model. Critics and theorists aside, Capitalism is at the end of the day multiple things. Commonly, you guys have given it a literal definition, which is not wrong since it has been supported and argued by so many other systemic subjects that it now constitutes the new hyper-reality that we believe in. I am trying to reveal that on another literary level, it can mean a lot as a reflection on our current ideological society. Nothing is free from ideology, and whatever we do, no matter where in our daily lives, buying health products (where healthcare should be an intrinsic human right, but it is commodified as a marketable good) or in intellectual, economic or political discourse, if we do not realize our positions we are doubly oppressed by ideology and continue to be exploited by it, and it is even worse when we believe in its merits and ignore its faultlines (cultural materialism, but ill stop here) You demanded an example, I gave you meritocracy. It does not have to be so apparent and specific, for even in this discussion you have proven to be a docile subject I asked you an example in REAL life. Not Marx's long but meaningless 'poetries'. Give me examole of a country which suffers because of capitalism, and a country which prosper as Marx's ideas are implemented. If it's really that great, wouldn't it be implemented by everyone and everyone who implement it be prosperous? Even PRC has implemented lots of capitalistic policies. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Apr 15, 2020 12:09:12 GMT
Sun Li-jen of the Glorious RoC , you still dont get it. Ok firstly meritocracy is a real-life example, I do not know why you classify it as fantasy. Secondly, this is not poetry. This is the revelation of the human condition, which you dismiss as meaningless. I do not say that socialism/communism is good, and I do not again say that Marxism is tangible in society. I am saying that Capitalism is the most effective, thought it is not effective at all (I mentioned this point, wondered if you read what I wrote?). I hate online tiffs the most, and I dont wish to continue any longer, for it will always be fruitless and barbed. Let's keep this to the political; I dont think we are ready for an ideological dialogue
|
|
) argument, but I can say that although the ideas that you guys are discussing are also contained, your second paragraph holds true, in my opinion. Again, the illusion of meritocracy, more often that not the ones with capital are pre-determined by the RNG gods. It is always this dichotomy of the inspirational, self-made man, and the individuals who are born into the higher strata right from the get go, and again are able to retain their hegemonic power due to their possession of capital that matters so much in this filtered society
