Obama mocks McCain's call to fire SEC chairman
- Thread starter EasyEJL
- Start date
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Obama is very liberal and/or progressive and/or whichever label one chooses to connote him with; that being said, he is not a Socialist.
This term is so engrained as a derogatory term within the American Collective Consciousness, that in your particular country the meaning truly has been lost. In Canada - an actual Social Democracy - Obama would still be 'to the right' of our Conservative Party. As an individual who lives under a Social Democracy, and with a degree in Sociology/Philosophy, I am most definitely assuring you he is not a Socialist.
He may very well have studied at a school which emphasized exploitation and class consciousness, but these are concepts which now pervade social equity studies beyond a purely Socialist light. I also think it is using circulus in probando to suggest that Obama is as such, merely because of an endorsement. If McCain were endorsed by the Aryan Nation, would he be racist?
I am not saying I disagree that he potentially holds such beliefs, but his policies, the actual 'substance' of his campaign, are not Socialist. They are Liberal beyond a doubt, but they simply are not Socialist by the simple function of which country he is running in.
This term is so engrained as a derogatory term within the American Collective Consciousness, that in your particular country the meaning truly has been lost. In Canada - an actual Social Democracy - Obama would still be 'to the right' of our Conservative Party. As an individual who lives under a Social Democracy, and with a degree in Sociology/Philosophy, I am most definitely assuring you he is not a Socialist.
He may very well have studied at a school which emphasized exploitation and class consciousness, but these are concepts which now pervade social equity studies beyond a purely Socialist light. I also think it is using circulus in probando to suggest that Obama is as such, merely because of an endorsement. If McCain were endorsed by the Aryan Nation, would he be racist?
I am not saying I disagree that he potentially holds such beliefs, but his policies, the actual 'substance' of his campaign, are not Socialist. They are Liberal beyond a doubt, but they simply are not Socialist by the simple function of which country he is running in.
RobInKuwait
Registered User
Correct me if I'm wrong Mullet, but Socialism has two ways of being integrated into a Society. One being through revolution, and the other being through change within the framework of a society.
If someone were to come into power and say..."ok the US is now Socialist" they would be met with serious resistance. However, a more practical way of integrating Socialism would be to use a foot in the door technique, starting off small with Socialized Healthcare and a taxation system that focused on redistributing income, then gradually changing the entire government and economy.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
You are most definitely right! That being said, without the Revolutionary stage (Dictatorship of the Proletariat) the predominant Collective Consciousness (Liberal Democratic Capitalism) would still pervade; in that sense, Obama would be: a) impeached, if Congress felt him trying to extend his powers, or ostensibly introduce a Socialist regime; b) be voted out in the next election by the constituents of the United States.
Socialism requires an alteration in the consciousness of the nation as a whole - in this sense, a 'foot in the door' approach is met by a 'kick in the ass' approach by the American public. At least from my interpretations and readings of primary Marxist documents (and, obviously, Neo-Marxian, Neo-Socialist theses) Obama is not a Socialist. He may be on the verge of being a Social Democrat, but that is still bluntly removed from Socialism (it is as much Capitalistic as it is Communistic).
strategicmove
Legend
I could not agree more. I cringe when I see such terms thrown around here with relative abandon to suggest powerful, but false, connotations. I insisted on a definition of "Socialist" and "Marxist" for exactly this reason. Having had the opportunity to study Hegel, Marx, Engels, and their dialectics (and the Marxian-Engelian philosophy of dialectical materialism), like many others here, no doubt, I find it upsetting that such concepts are intentionally misapplied.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
As an aside Ike, I wrote my 4th Year Honors Thesis on exactly the above subjects! It was an exposition of Racism mediated through Material Dialectical development; that being said, I posited that the State - and not Capital - is the function through which Racial Oppression is propagated.
"The Transcendent Nature of the State: Racism Through Dialectical Self-Estrangement".
I had the very amazing opportunity to study under one of North America's foremost Hegelian Marxists: Dr. Murray Smith!
RobInKuwait
Registered User
Interesting point.
It seems to me, large nations that have adopted Socialism...USSR, China, had people that were historically beaten down by their government and in the habit of taking all direction them.
The US has generally experienced exactly the opposite through its history, with a self starting populace that does not typically rely on the government. The way to turn the US people away from Socialism is to "kick in the ass". Change in people's mentality will come through terms such as "we all are our brother's keeper", teaching people that something intuitively good such as making money is actually truly evil, and by making serving the poor to be the highest ideal.
I'm not sure if you've read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, but I feel we're reaching a stage in our country's development where events in that book are not outside the realm of possibilities. The phrase "brother's keeper" that I mentioned was all over that book as a Socialist bromide and now Obama is making it a theme in his campaign.
strategicmove
Legend
Awesome, K!
I believe Karl Marx's Manifesto of the Communist Party and/or Marx/Engels Selected Works should be a solid starting point for some of us, so we can sort out some of this obfuscation, and argue more crisply about some of these ideas and concepts.
RobInKuwait
Registered User
Interesting thesis topic. You're saying state welfare programs, policing, and school busing propagates racial oppression and not poverty?
strategicmove
Legend
A much earlier use was by Jesus in the New Testament!
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
To clarify, though, Marx never states that Capital, or generating Capital, is "evil"; in fact, Marx would postulate that Capital is merely a relation - the abstract phenomenological form of man's self-determination - and therefore has no innate qualities or characteristics. Taken out of such relations, Capital has as little value as Gold removed from a capital exchange and necessarily cannot predicate. Nor did he insinuate that Capitalists are "evil", as that was far too idealistic a tone for Marx; he merely attempted to elucidate Capital as a whole for its inner-relations, its 'Geist'.
We must also remember that in true Historical Materialist fashion, Marx was a product of his times: A determination of the Industrial Revolution, the ostentatious and unabated consumption of the time, and the truly exploitative labor conditions of global production. As such, he created his doctrine as a revolutionary means through which such exploitation and disparity could be overcome. While the disparity has remained contemporarily, the labor conditions have improved - if only in a Western sense. In that respect, if Marx wrote today, his theories would no doubt be altered.
RobInKuwait
Registered User
Nice. Guess my biblical ignorance is exposed. However, it doesn't change the meaning. Historically the US has never about taking responsibility for everyone else, its been about ensuring that those with the ability to can take care of themselves, aka enlightened self interest. The fundamental value of Socialism is ensuring everyone is financially taken care of, to do this everyone, especially the gifted, must be their "brother's keeper". This is a fundamental change in the US psyche.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Not necessarily, as those are merely institutional mechanisms in a larger economy of power, driven by a much more Constructionist ontology. In Marx's original works (primarily, Wage Labor and Capital, On the Jewish Question and Ireland and the Irish Question) Marx reflects on the role of 'race' in respects to Capital: As merely another function through which the dominant class differentiates and thereby expropriates the working class - in other words, 'Race' is merely another vehicle of Capital utility; merely another relation of System to Capital.
This, then, is achieved through a similar objectification mechanism as self-estrangement of political Capital: Man-as-himself alienates himself into the objective (Private Property), as a function to subsist. In more Layman's terms, man must create for himself a determination of his own form in order to survive in a capital economy - that form being labor. Marx feels Capital is nothing more than the abstract phenomenological form of Labor, and therefore man in fact objectifies himself into private property, through the means of selling his labor power (pheww).
In my theses, I disagree. I state that this process of self-estrangement and objectification occurs, but not for the purpose of Capital function. I argue that the natural man objectifies himself as a prerequisite of acceptance into member society. In this respect, the political individual (member of a nation-state, equipped with adjacent ideologies and so on) replaces Capital as man's objectified form, and therefore, the functions of Politics replace the functions of Capital in man's alienation.
From this position, I argue that historically, it has been the Nation-State and not Capital which has perpetuated racial inequities.
RobInKuwait
Registered User
Wow, read that 4 times and I think I understand Marx's belief....and scarily I think I agree with him. However, I'm not sure I understand your thesis. Can you go a little more layman on me with yours?
Are you saying man works to fit in into society and not for money?
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Yeah, bingo! And from that perspective, the Nation-State itself, and not Capital, is both the impetus and perpetuator of racist ideology. It creates this through differentiating us from the other, and thereby all acts committed on and to the other are justified as necessary to subsist the Mother State.
To simplify, Marx stated the following in Wage Labor and Capital:
In this respect, he is stating the impetus for racial oppression via slavery is explicitly economic; as I stated, merely a vehicle for Capital utility (the Capitalist only enslaved the Negro in order to objectify him/her into variable capital [i.e., another form of labor]). I disagree, and trace Racial Oppression through history as means through which 'We' (herein not referring to modern times, but using the term ambiguously as a philosophical concept) subjugate and justify atrocities against 'the other'.
RobInKuwait
Registered User
Right....my initial reaction was total disagreement, but upon further thought I think you may be right on.
Man, this is a lot harder stuff to think about then generic political debates.....
EasyEJL
Never enough
to me it is reasonable in use as part of a religious philosophy, however in my opinion it has no part in the basis of government.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Most definitely! Here is more clear explanation of the terms and concepts I am using; hopefully, this further clarifies your opinions on this subject!
Objectification:
Objectification simply means to make from something an object to be manipulated in a certain relation. For example, a woman taken out of social relations is merely a human: She has psychologisms, emotions, thoughts, morals and ideals; not necessarily a sexual being. In this sense, it is hard to conceptualize her as a variable in a passionate, intimate relationship. In order to do so, we must make from this romantic, subjective being an object - specifically, an object of our desire. In this respect, most acts committed to this woman are justifiable, as she is a manipulatable object in our social relation.
When you conceptualize this, literally conceptualize object as just that: A physical object. As a reference, think of the woman in the first explanation as an aura. One cannot necessarily manipulate an aura, so it is useless in function (in our model); in order to make use of it, we must make from it an object (still thinking of a physical object). In this sense, we may now manipulate it as we please in our relation(s).
So, in Marx's model, man must make an object for himself, from himself. As his natural species-state, he poses no value in a relation of Capital exchange (think: aura - he is a complex of moralities, emotions, psychologies and so on; while important, useless in a relation of capitals). Therefore, he must make himself into an object, in order to subsist. This object is his labor; he objectifies himself into labor in order to be manipulated into a system of Capital exchange, in the assumption that his Employer values his object more than the wage he purchases is it for.
So:
Man (as an aura) --> Objectification --> Man-as-Labor (and therefore Private Property) --> Capital --> Capital is the abstract phenomenological objective form of man.
strategicmove
Legend
Fine! Your opinion. How about the concept of a "free rider"?
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
RobInKuwait
Registered User
Wow, very interesting. Almost like Descartes view of self being independent from one's body. From that perspective I have a have a better understanding as to why I have such a fundamental disagreement with Marx.
I don't believe man has to objectify himself to work, anymore than a lion has to objectify itself to kill an antelope. Hell, I don't think man has to objectify himself. I am a firm believer in "it is what it is" or "A is A".
I constantly get a feeling that Marx also presupposes a dicotomy between man's intelligence and man's work. Man has opposable thumbs for a reason! Man was made to work. Men use their brains to work smarter. If man had to run down its prey, man would have died out millions of years ago. Luckily man used his brain thought of a snares, bows, and guns. Man's intelligent work is what industrialists bring to a capitalist society which in turn provides opportunities for non-alpha male humans to provide for themselves.
EasyEJL
Never enough
you mean as per a socialist welfare state where a person has no need to work or participate in society in a meaningful way yet lives off the state like in canada or much of europe? i find that to have no place either in government. the us government provides for equal opportunity, a persons individual choice to not take advantage of the opportunity doesnt give them a right to anything.
strategicmove
Legend
No! Again, this is an interesting stretch of a neutral Economics construct. The concept of a free rider has nothing to do with a socialist welfare state! It is a concept from a branch of Economics known as Welfare Economics, and does not suggest a socialist context! Even in the US, there are free riders, and it has nothing to do with equal opportunity, or the absence of it. In any case, the concept of a free rider has similarities with the idea of brother's keeper. The major difference is that the brother's keeper is aware of his act a priori, whereas the agents providing free-riding opportunities are not necessarily aware of the full implication of their action.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
A few points, Rob! Man does not need to objectify himself to work, but rather to make himself Capital in relations of work (again, man is only Capital in certain relations). It is exactly this innate capacity of man to labor that underlays this process.
In this respect, Marx does not oppose labor in any form, but simply how the labor of his day was being objectified! Nor does Marx separate man's labor from his intelligence; in fact, man's collective capacities - including his intellect - are products of Capital!
EasyEJL
Never enough
im not exactly sure how 'the state taking income from those who produce to cover the living expenses of those that dont produce' isnt a form of socialism.
i have no problem with volunteer organizations providing any level of aid, and both my wife and i volunteer for some, but it has no place in government.
look at the economy elsewhere in the world. the EU hasnt managed to get its unemployment rate within 2 percent of the US.... so i as well as many others have the belief that by providing for basic living for all citizens, you in effect encourage some amount of them to just accept that as their standard of living and thus have no motivation or desire to be a productive member of the workforce
i have no problem with volunteer organizations providing any level of aid, and both my wife and i volunteer for some, but it has no place in government.
look at the economy elsewhere in the world. the EU hasnt managed to get its unemployment rate within 2 percent of the US.... so i as well as many others have the belief that by providing for basic living for all citizens, you in effect encourage some amount of them to just accept that as their standard of living and thus have no motivation or desire to be a productive member of the workforce
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Definitely agree! If anything, Obama's policies are strikingly Neo-Keynesian, rather than Socialist; and, as you know Ike, Keynes was anything but a Socialist apologist!
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
This is most definitely true in terms of the unemployment rate Easy; that being said, such inflated levels of unemployment are common in Social Democracies/Welfare States, and are known as "frictional unemployment". In fact, the productivity levels of many EU countries surpass that of the United States, though the output per capita is lessened. This stems from lower employment hours per capita, and other more Social Democracy tuned factors - obviously, though, this would disagree with your point that a Welfare State and/or Social Democracy removes the motivation to work! I would in fact postulate the exact opposite.
RobInKuwait
Registered User
Why is man only capital in certain relations? Seems to me that man can always use work/capital to produce, whether there are other people around or not. So therefore isn't man innately capital?
Isn't a theme of Marx that the State controls the fruits of your labor on behalf of the people? How can he justify that if he believes man's work and therefore the fruits of his labor belong to the state?
I had the same problem studying Nietchze in college as I am trying to learn Marx....I just couldn't understand where they were coming from.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Now you are begging the fundamental question: What is Capital? Capital, as Marx states, has no 'innate' quality - it has no value beyond that which we impart to it. Therefore, I would reverse your sentence:
"So therefore, isn't Capital innately man?"
That sentence clearly reveals the nature of Capital itself: As nothing more than a phenomenological determination of labor power; it is only abstract, and has no concrete value (remembering that man = labor = private property = Capital).
Therefore, man can only be Capital in relations in which Capital exists; for example, in early Tribal societies, Capital was non-existent, and subsequently man was most definitely not Capital. As Marx would suggest, and I am suggesting now, one must strip away the infallibility and permanence of Capital and see it as nothing more than a relation of production.
He does not! In fact, the actual Governmental form that Socialism would take was never written about in earnest by Marx; hence much of the Socialist Ilk claiming USSR had little-to-nothing to do with Marx himself. The values you are expounding above are explicitly Leninist in nature.
Marx believed as little in the innateness of the 'State' and nationality as he did in Capital; this is why staunchly nationalistic regimes are fundamentally non-Marxist.
RobInKuwait
Registered User
I disagree with the premise that capital did not exists in early tribal societies. As long has man has hungered, he has always sought food, which is capital. I would agree with capital is man.
I know Marx said the worker's revolution was supposed to spontaneously happen....well, if that was the case, who would bring the revolution out of chaos if not some form of government?
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Food is a commodity, and not Capital; they are not synonymous. The purpose of Capital is to mediate the exchange between commodities that are not directly relative - for example, in an early commodity-trading society, how would the Fisher trade 12 Salmon to the Hunter for 2 Deer? The answer is by creating a system (Capital Exchange) which relativizes commodities in order to facilitate their exchange through a single mechanism (currency).
Exactly right! However, my point was that the exact form of that government, its inception, and subsequent actions were never expounded by Marx.
RobInKuwait
Registered User
It seems that capital and currency would not be mutually exclusively. I know in economic terms capital refers to machinery and real estate as well as hard currency. It seems to me that on the most basic level, human beings are their own capital because it is a tool of exchange, be it for labor, prostitution, or violence.
How convenient for Marx....leave the most difficult question of his theory unanswered for all the USSRs and Chinas to answer themselves. :hammer:
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
On the most basic level, humans interact as a species; not necessarily for the accumulation of any purpose but for interaction and subsistence. Capital seeks to enlarge itself via accumulation. Humans do not 'accumulate' as they are, only in certain relations through objectification into Capital.
However, from your view (the prostitution, labor and so on in early societies) human-as-himself would therefore be a commodity, as opposed to Capital itself.
(confusing, but the differences are nuanced though distinct!)
Unfortunately he did! And as such, Historical Materialism is best viewed as an intellectual experiment, and its most pertinent lessons to be taken away in that context as well!
RobInKuwait
Registered User
Interesting conversation. You actually de-villified Marx in my head. I actually just think of him as another silly 19th century philosopher now.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Interesting conversation. You actually de-villified Marx in my head. I actually just think of him as another silly 19th century philosopher now.
Um, thanks. I think?
:icon_lol:
EasyEJL
Never enough
it was interesting to see something mullet was happily excited about for a change 
however i'm still of the mindset that the distinction between capital and commodity in terms of socialism is approximately as valuable in a practical sense as 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'
however i'm still of the mindset that the distinction between capital and commodity in terms of socialism is approximately as valuable in a practical sense as 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
it was interesting to see something mullet was happily excited about for a change
however i'm still of the mindset that the distinction between capital and commodity in terms of socialism is approximately as valuable in a practical sense as 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'
Yes, most definitely, haha. Depending on your mindset, the distinction can amount to little more than "So what?".
RobInKuwait
Registered User
it was interesting to see something mullet was happily excited about for a change
however i'm still of the mindset that the distinction between capital and commodity in terms of socialism is approximately as valuable in a practical sense as 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'
That conversation might be considered a tangent.
It was interesting though....if you're a dork whose into epistemology. :woohoo: