Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

I don't think the origin of the word really matters much in this case, since it's clearly been divorced from it's roots for hundreds (if not thousand?) of years.

Neuroscience might be able to help us understand how people create their subjective valuations. Off the top of my head I'm not sure what that really changes (practically speaking) though.

I'm more concerned on the ability to manipulate being enhanced for those [in the know] by advances in neuroscience, akin to the effect people like Bernays has had. IE, if we [poke] this part of the brain, we can make people do this.

Neuroscience is uncovering numerous discrepancies in traditional cognitive thought: that we make decisions consciously, that we act toward a single goal (thus performing only one action at a time), that our consciousness is an evolutionarily superior genetic mutation, etc. Even framing the discussion within "how people create their subjective evaluations" is risky, because it's questionable that people actually do "create" their own subjective evaluations.

The manipulative processes of neuroscience are no more dangerous than the manipulative processes of any major scientific or philosophical revolution to have come before it. The act of someone "in the know" going into another individual's brain and programming them to do something or feel a certain way is analogous to any coercive action in history. Simply because it involves the invasion of the physical body and manipulation of biological response makes little (if any) difference; it only appears more dangerous if we draw an arbitrary line at poking the brain with sticks. As you've said in the past, coercion is coercion.

Modern capitalism and individualist philosophy altered the way human beings think of themselves in the world; neuroscience is another step on the "enlightenment" ladder (a poor analogy, since there is no ultimate end to this ladder, and stepping up doesn't mean getting better). Both have had (and will have) positive and negative effects; but that doesn't mean we can't learn from them as cultural phenomena/institutions. The Copernican Revolution didn't usher in a better era; it simply altered the way humans looked at the universe.

Stress it but how? Just saying "it was really bad" is not the same thing as saying "Look at how horrible it was vs what it could have been because of these evil [blank]. Frankly the living conditions of the feudal peasant couldn't have been much improved even with a "nice overlord" due to the system. The living conditions of peasants are generally mentioned matter of fact rather than as a fault.

Obviously the rise in living standards has not been ignored in general, what I mean is the rightful causal connections are either not made, or glossed over.

In the textbook I taught out of for my humanities courses, it clearly stated that medieval peasants lived in squalor and eked out a bare subsistence, or something along those lines.

If you're pointing out a discrepancy between how bad textbooks say it was for the medieval peasantry as opposed to how bad it was for the industrial worker, I think there's a clear reason for this imbalance. Peasants didn't leave behind accounts of their existence since an overwhelming majority of them couldn't read or write. On the other hand, once we get to industrialism, you have writers such as Dickens, Gaskell, Carlyle, etc. leaving behind first-hand descriptions of the conditions. Personally, it's my belief that by the time industrialism reaches a productive peak in the 19th century, the wealth and technology exists to significantly improve the conditions of the working class. It's fairly clear that factory owners chose not to because to do so would mean less capital for themselves/their enterprise.

Industrialism/capitalism created a surplus of goods that allowed more individuals to survive; what it did not do was make any widespread effort to improve the conditions of the working class relative to the increase in technology and production that the culture witnessed. It provided enough to sustain a large working class in order to ensure that there was a surplus of potential employees. There may have been certain cases where factory owners took pains to improve the conditions of their employees, or paid them more; but on average no such efforts were made.

It's not that quality of living didn't improve overall; it certainly did, and I don't think historians would refute this. Despite this, however, living conditions didn't improve or increase to the same degree that production and accumulation of capital increased for business owners.

 

[Dak]

Neuroscience is uncovering numerous discrepancies in traditional cognitive thought: that we make decisions consciously, that we act toward a single goal (thus performing only one action at a time), that our consciousness is an evolutionarily superior genetic mutation, etc. Even framing the discussion within "how people create their subjective evaluations" is risky, because it's questionable that people actually do "create" their own subjective evaluations.

The manipulative processes of neuroscience are no more dangerous than the manipulative processes of any major scientific or philosophical revolution to have come before it. The act of someone "in the know" going into another individual's brain and programming them to do something or feel a certain way is analogous to any coercive action in history. Simply because it involves the invasion of the physical body and manipulation of biological response makes little (if any) difference; it only appears more dangerous if we draw an arbitrary line at poking the brain with sticks. As you've said in the past, coercion is coercion.

Modern capitalism and individualist philosophy altered the way human beings think of themselves in the world; neuroscience is another step on the "enlightenment" ladder (a poor analogy, since there is no ultimate end to this ladder, and stepping up doesn't mean getting better). Both have had (and will have) positive and negative effects; but that doesn't mean we can't learn from them as cultural phenomena/institutions. The Copernican Revolution didn't usher in a better era; it simply altered the way humans looked at the universe.

Well I can certainly agree that knowledge or technology, in the ambiguous sense, is not a panacea. As much damage as good can be done, respective to the different "advances".

I would hesitate to make an objective value judgement on the (evolutionary) beneficiality of consciousness.

There are of course a plethora of external factors that influence individual subjective valuations, external factors that range from limited and controllable to what might possibly be categorized as coercive. This does not change that the experience and processing is individual. Two people can grow up in the same environment and have the same experiences and react differently/create different value rankings.

In the textbook I taught out of for my humanities courses, it clearly stated that medieval peasants lived in squalor and eked out a bare subsistence, or something along those lines.

If you're pointing out a discrepancy between how bad textbooks say it was for the medieval peasantry as opposed to how bad it was for the industrial worker, I think there's a clear reason for this imbalance. Peasants didn't leave behind accounts of their existence since an overwhelming majority of them couldn't read or write. On the other hand, once we get to industrialism, you have writers such as Dickens, Gaskell, Carlyle, etc. leaving behind first-hand descriptions of the conditions. Personally, it's my belief that by the time industrialism reaches a productive peak in the 19th century, the wealth and technology exists to significantly improve the conditions of the working class. It's fairly clear that factory owners chose not to because to do so would mean less capital for themselves/their enterprise.

Industrialism/capitalism created a surplus of goods that allowed more individuals to survive; what it did not do was make any widespread effort to improve the conditions of the working class relative to the increase in technology and production that the culture witnessed. It provided enough to sustain a large working class in order to ensure that there was a surplus of potential employees. There may have been certain cases where factory owners took pains to improve the conditions of their employees, or paid them more; but on average no such efforts were made.

It's not that quality of living didn't improve overall; it certainly did, and I don't think historians would refute this. Despite this, however, living conditions didn't improve or increase to the same degree that production and accumulation of capital increased for business owners.

Two things here:

Again, what I said was that peasant squalor is treated as a matter of fact, and not a matter of fault. Dickens and the like made much of the massive amount of production which did not seem to go back directly to the worker, and this "travesty" was faulted onto the employer.

Conversely, fault is not searched for regarding pre-industrial society, other than perhaps land monopolies. There simply wasn't much to go around anyway, even if the peasants were allowed to be freemen on the land etc.

The second thing is regarding the lag in improvement of living conditions for the general population. For capital to work it must be accumulated (saved), and then reinvested. Not all reinvestments pan out. The return even when it does is delayed, and may not return in the form expected.

The perception of people like Dickens focuses only on what is seen, and not on what is not seen. This is not to defend a stereotypical miser, although I think the stereotype is probably quite overblown. Instead what I mean is, that wages paid subtract from potential saving for reinvestment. Separately, savings and investment have the ability to grow exponentially depending on success. So while the working poor of the 1800s may not have enjoyed the full "fruits of their labor" (some of that having to do more with government policy/taxation/etc), only a short 200 years later some of the poorest people in industrialized nations live better materially than kings of that time.

You simply cannot fully enjoy the fruit of your labor in the present and expect to increase returns in the future.

 

[Einherjar86]

Two things here:

Again, what I said was that peasant squalor is treated as a matter of fact, and not a matter of fault. Dickens and the like made much of the massive amount of production which did not seem to go back directly to the worker, and this "travesty" was faulted onto the employer.

Conversely, fault is not searched for regarding pre-industrial society, other than perhaps land monopolies. There simply wasn't much to go around anyway, even if the peasants were allowed to be freemen on the land etc.

I'm going to suggest something that will probably be controversial, and that is that fault is less of an issue pre-industrialism than post-industrialism.

Pre-industrialism, when we are still in the height of medieval feudalism and social hierarchies, it was believed that society could be reflected in the Great Chain, or Ladder, of Being. In the Middle Ages, one was a king because one was inherently a king, and a peasant was inherently a peasant. Social mobility was impossible because the qualities that made people peasants prevented them from becoming a lord, or knight, or king. Just as angels could not be God, lords and peasants couldn't be kings (of course, I'm explaining the theory of the Great Chain; lords and such ascended to kingship all the time, but they required very complex and eloquent explanations in order to do so) Essentially, one's station in life was inscribed into the universe itself.

It's clear from popular medieval literature that the aristocracy believed this and appealed to this argument to justify and rationalize their perceived superiority. If we read chivalric tales, they always deal with knights and lords; never peasants. If we read tales that portray a lowborn serf rising to lordship or some aristocratic office, it must be justified in the end by the revelation that the purportedly lowborn peasant is actually descended from some ancient line of kings or rulers. The rationale behind the peasant's striving for higher social status is that it was in his nature all along, since he has "royal blood."

Narratives that portray actual peasants moving up the social ladder are modern narratives; modern philosophies of individuality and opportunity projected into a medieval setting. One doesn't see Horatio Alger stories or Dickens novels in the Middle Ages because they couldn't be subjectively conceived. Essentially, whereas the Middle Ages were encompassed by a rationale of inherent essence (kingship, lordship, serfdom, etc.), modern capitalism espoused the valor of individual capability and liberty. The first capitalists and industrialists weren't members of the feudal aristocracy; they were successful merchants who had made significant fortunes for themselves in the Middle Ages but couldn't ascend the social ladder due to the feudal ethos.

What we have with the onset of capitalism/industrialism is a worldview that projects individualism and liberty - anti-authoritarianism; people have rights to make their own way, to own property, to remain free of social bonds, etc. The actual manifestation of this system, however, elided the rights of the working class. The very philosophy on which they constructed their economic system ignored that philosophy regarding those for whom it wasn't immediately lucrative to assist. The consciousness of subjectivity changed radically with the onset of modern capitalism, and this should assign more responsibility to those individuals who perpetuated and espoused it.

I'm not saying feudal lords are free of guilt or fault in certain matters, and I'm not trying to say they were decent people who were ignorant of some greater truth. I simply mean that ideology is powerful, and when we compare the ethics of feudalism and modern capitalism, the latter should illuminate the misgivings and contradictions as they emerge; but these are quickly dismissed by the very people who appeal to capitalist ethics.

The second thing is regarding the lag in improvement of living conditions for the general population. For capital to work it must be accumulated (saved), and then reinvested. Not all reinvestments pan out. The return even when it does is delayed, and may not return in the form expected.

The perception of people like Dickens focuses only on what is seen, and not on what is not seen. This is not to defend a stereotypical miser, although I think the stereotype is probably quite overblown. Instead what I mean is, that wages paid subtract from potential saving for reinvestment. Separately, savings and investment have the ability to grow exponentially depending on success. So while the working poor of the 1800s may not have enjoyed the full "fruits of their labor" (some of that having to do more with government policy/taxation/etc), only a short 200 years later some of the poorest people in industrialized nations live better materially than kings of that time.

You simply cannot fully enjoy the fruit of your labor in the present and expect to increase returns in the future.

The vast majority of the working class of early industrial capitalism was entirely cut off from the possibility to enjoy any returns in the future. They owned no stakes in the means of production, they made enough to survive on and not enough to save, and considering the difficult living conditions it's no wonder many of them turned to drinking, gambling, etc. None of these issues concerned the upper classes who enjoyed a plethora of potential employees to choose from and were making money. For this return system to work, a large number of people have to be sacrificed.

 

[Dak]

I'm going to suggest something that will probably be controversial, and that is that fault is less of an issue pre-industrialism than post-industrialism.

Pre-industrialism, when we are still in the height of medieval feudalism and social hierarchies, it was believed that society could be reflected in the Great Chain, or Ladder, of Being. In the Middle Ages, one was a king because one was inherently a king, and a peasant was inherently a peasant. Social mobility was impossible because the qualities that made people peasants prevented them from becoming a lord, or knight, or king. Just as angels could not be God, lords and peasants couldn't be kings (of course, I'm explaining the theory of the Great Chain; lords and such ascended to kingship all the time, but they required very complex and eloquent explanations in order to do so) Essentially, one's station in life was inscribed into the universe itself.

It's clear from popular medieval literature that the aristocracy believed this and appealed to this argument to justify and rationalize their perceived superiority. If we read chivalric tales, they always deal with knights and lords; never peasants. If we read tales that portray a lowborn serf rising to lordship or some aristocratic office, it must be justified in the end by the revelation that the purportedly lowborn peasant is actually descended from some ancient line of kings or rulers. The rationale behind the peasant's striving for higher social status is that it was in his nature all along, since he has "royal blood."

Narratives that portray actual peasants moving up the social ladder are modern narratives; modern philosophies of individuality and opportunity projected into a medieval setting. One doesn't see Horatio Alger stories or Dickens novels in the Middle Ages because they couldn't be subjectively conceived. Essentially, whereas the Middle Ages were encompassed by a rationale of inherent essence (kingship, lordship, serfdom, etc.), modern capitalism espoused the valor of individual capability and liberty. The first capitalists and industrialists weren't members of the feudal aristocracy; they were successful merchants who had made significant fortunes for themselves in the Middle Ages but couldn't ascend the social ladder due to the feudal ethos.

What we have with the onset of capitalism/industrialism is a worldview that projects individualism and liberty - anti-authoritarianism; people have rights to make their own way, to own property, to remain free of social bonds, etc. The actual manifestation of this system, however, elided the rights of the working class. The very philosophy on which they constructed their economic system ignored that philosophy regarding those for whom it wasn't immediately lucrative to assist. The consciousness of subjectivity changed radically with the onset of modern capitalism, and this should assign more responsibility to those individuals who perpetuated and espoused it.

I'm not saying feudal lords are free of guilt or fault in certain matters, and I'm not trying to say they were decent people who were ignorant of some greater truth. I simply mean that ideology is powerful, and when we compare the ethics of feudalism and modern capitalism, the latter should illuminate the misgivings and contradictions as they emerge; but these are quickly dismissed by the very people who appeal to capitalist ethics.

We've talked about this and I can't agree in whole. Prior to the printing press, writing was tightly controlled by the ruling party. Of course nothing or next to nothing was going to be written in respective areas that countermanded the status quo, or it simply wouldn't be copied (nor would the author probably live long). This view of history that the views of the kings were the views of the peasants simply because we have no accounts from the peasants is shortsighted to say the least. What we have is the shift in power to a broader base. Over time the base got wider and wider. While that base is receding now in the west I think the overall ebb is still wider.

The vast majority of the working class of early industrial capitalism was entirely cut off from the possibility to enjoy any returns in the future. They owned no stakes in the means of production, they made enough to survive on and not enough to save, and considering the difficult living conditions it's no wonder many of them turned to drinking, gambling, etc. None of these issues concerned the upper classes who enjoyed a plethora of potential employees to choose from and were making money. For this return system to work, a large number of people have to be sacrificed.

Because owning capital was still controlled via state mechanisms (And still is). Freeing the slaves didn't happen overnight, and freeing the masses still hasn't happened imo. People didn't have to be sacrificed, and it certainly slowed things down comparable to what was possible. This is a similar argument that slave owners made. Slave owning [looks] profitable on the whole, and certainly for the slave owner, when the unseen opportunity cost is not considered.

 

[Einherjar86]

We've talked about this and I can't agree in whole. Prior to the printing press, writing was tightly controlled by the ruling party. Of course nothing or next to nothing was going to be written in respective areas that countermanded the status quo, or it simply wouldn't be copied (nor would the author probably live long). This view of history that the views of the kings were the views of the peasants simply because we have no accounts from the peasants is shortsighted to say the least. What we have is the shift in power to a broader base. Over time the base got wider and wider. While that base is receding now in the west I think the overall ebb is still wider.

I really can't go along with this dismissal. It's far more likely that the view perpetuated by medieval texts was the common view throughout the populace, not just the aristocracy. If anything, textual production represented a far more complicated view of the world; and the peasantry likely adopted a similar, albeit simplified, view. They absorbed the views perpetuated by the clergy, who expressed the same view as the aristocracy.

If we're talking seriously, there's no reason to assume that the aristocracy perpetuated one view while the peasantry secretly had some more modern view of themselves as exploited. The reason why this is unlikely is that if they had harbored this heretical opinion, then they would have become the rebellious proletariat that emerged during industrial capitalism. But they didn't.

The closest the peasantry came to a genuine revolutionary form of thought and action wasn't until the Peasants' Revolt of 1381, and that was late Middle Ages. Furthermore, it was isolated to England. It's often interpreted as the beginning of the end of feudal serfdom, but it's unlikely the peasants were harboring a secret mentality to rebel since the Carolingians or Alfred the Great.

Because owning capital was still controlled via state mechanisms (And still is). Freeing the slaves didn't happen overnight, and freeing the masses still hasn't happened imo. People didn't have to be sacrificed, and it certainly slowed things down comparable to what was possible. This is a similar argument that slave owners made. Slave owning [looks] profitable on the whole, and certainly for the slave owner, when the unseen opportunity cost is not considered.

If this is the case, then it would seem (to me) to be difficult to determine whether the successful production of industrialism is the result of true capitalism or state mechanisms.

 

[Dak]

I really can't go along with this dismissal. It's far more likely that the view perpetuated by medieval texts was the common view throughout the populace, not just the aristocracy. If anything, textual production represented a far more complicated view of the world; and the peasantry likely adopted a similar, albeit simplified, view. They absorbed the views perpetuated by the clergy, who expressed the same view as the aristocracy.

If we're talking seriously, there's no reason to assume that the aristocracy perpetuated one view while the peasantry secretly had some more modern view of themselves as exploited. The reason why this is unlikely is that if they had harbored this heretical opinion, then they would have become the rebellious proletariat that emerged during industrial capitalism. But they didn't.

The closest the peasantry came to a genuine revolutionary form of thought and action wasn't until the Peasants' Revolt of 1381, and that was late Middle Ages. Furthermore, it was isolated to England. It's often interpreted as the beginning of the end of feudal serfdom, but it's unlikely the peasants were harboring a secret mentality to rebel since the Carolingians or Alfred the Great.

So no uprising = no dissent? Come on. There is a mountain of other things to consider as to why no uprising occurred, not the least of which was the relative separation between groups of peasants.

Another thing to consider is that even when a population is extremely unhappy and disgruntled, food shortages are usually the lynch pin. This was less of a worry for peasants, in fact, to rebel could lead to mounted riders torching everything, as the local castle had food reserves, a tactic which the peasants would be defenseless against. Another fact is the very setup of the castle/peasants vs tightly packed populations in town and a relatively exposed aristocracy/merchant class.

If this is the case, then it would seem (to me) to be difficult to determine whether the successful production of industrialism is the result of true capitalism or state mechanisms.

Well, if we ignore any sort of economic knowledge and merely draw blind parallels and causations, we might suggest that it was the high level of smog that caused economic expansion, or maybe that by creating high population densities, wages go up. The only way state mechanisms can be included as part of the positive side of the equation is their withdrawal from previous interference.

 

[Einherjar86]

So no uprising = no dissent? Come on. There is a mountain of other things to consider as to why no uprising occurred, not the least of which was the relative separation between groups of peasants.

Another thing to consider is that even when a population is extremely unhappy and disgruntled, food shortages are usually the lynch pin. This was less of a worry for peasants, in fact, to rebel could lead to mounted riders torching everything, as the local castle had food reserves, a tactic which the peasants would be defenseless against. Another fact is the very setup of the castle/peasants vs tightly packed populations in town and a relatively exposed aristocracy/merchant class.

I'm not drawing mathematical equations, I'm making inferences. People can have a shitty life and not believe they are being exploited. I don't mean to knock Christianity, but it was the large cause of deterministic beliefs in the Middle Ages. Augustine distinguished the Worldly City from the Heavenly, and delineated the mortal's duty: to abandon earthly pleasures and pursue the Heavenly City. This concept went a long way in perpetuating the exploitation of the peasantry without them being consciously aware of any "exploiting class."

I think you're trying very hard to attribute blame - thus projecting a subjective exploiting agent - where there is none. I've discussed this with you before. You paint puppet masters pulling the strings on the submissive masses. I don't necessarily see things this way, even under global capitalism/corporatism. It isn't an individual that oppresses (although oppression usually takes this form in cultural narratives), it's the system itself.

Well, if we ignore any sort of economic knowledge and merely draw blind parallels and causations, we might suggest that it was the high level of smog that caused economic expansion, or maybe that by creating high population densities, wages go up. The only way state mechanisms can be included as part of the positive side of the equation is their withdrawal from previous interference.

No; that's just the explanation that fits into your theoretical model.

I'm of the opinion that a combination of factors leads to the statistics we're faced with. This is not to say that the capitalist components of the system created a surplus of goods and improved living conditions, while state mechanisms prevented the working class from making enough money to reinvest. Rather, it's a fault of both capitalism and state mechanisms that caused the disparity of industrial Europe.

 

[Dak]

I'm not drawing mathematical equations, I'm making inferences. People can have a shitty life and not believe they are being exploited. I don't mean to knock Christianity, but it was the large cause of deterministic beliefs in the Middle Ages. Augustine distinguished the Worldly City from the Heavenly, and delineated the mortal's duty: to abandon earthly pleasures and pursue the Heavenly City. This concept went a long way in perpetuating the exploitation of the peasantry without them being consciously aware of any "exploiting class."

I think you're trying very hard to attribute blame - thus projecting a subjective exploiting agent - where there is none. I've discussed this with you before. You paint puppet masters pulling the strings on the submissive masses. I don't necessarily see things this way, even under global capitalism/corporatism. It isn't an individual that oppresses (although oppression usually takes this form in cultural narratives), it's the system itself.

Submission is one of those words that doesn't always get used properly. You can submit to something and not consent.

I do agree that the marriage of church and state probably did the most damage, and I am sure the majority of peoples more or less went along with what the Church said, regardless of their occasional disagreements, just like people do now. However, that doesn't mean there weren't always vocal dissenters etc that might have been able to spread their message and organize etc were they to be able to reach large masses at once or have access to a press, etc.

No; that's just the explanation that fits into your theoretical model.

I'm of the opinion that a combination of factors leads to the statistics we're faced with. This is not to say that the capitalist components of the system created a surplus of goods and improved living conditions, while state mechanisms prevented the working class from making enough money to reinvest. Rather, it's a fault of both capitalism and state mechanisms that caused the disparity of industrial Europe.

Well of course a combination of factors leads to the statistics. Understanding where the contributions come from, the upward and downward pressures etc. is what is the contention is. Again, "disparity" itself is not a problem. I'm sure you and I have "disparities" in all sorts of materialistic, intellectual, and other categories, and yet I don't see this as a problem at all and I doubt you do either.

 

[Dak]

To expand on the economic side of the argument:

http://mises.org/daily/6271/A-Chinese-Story

Yes, various industries were certainly aided by State mechanisms. But this aid came at the expense of growth in other areas. Overall, with decentralization of capital accumulation relative to feudalism, growth was more [organic] and greater than before. But there was still plenty of room for improvement, as there still is.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-15/guest-post-nearly-free-university

More on Neofeudalism, etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

Submission is one of those words that doesn't always get used properly. You can submit to something and not consent.

I do agree that the marriage of church and state probably did the most damage, and I am sure the majority of peoples more or less went along with what the Church said, regardless of their occasional disagreements, just like people do now. However, that doesn't mean there weren't always vocal dissenters etc that might have been able to spread their message and organize etc were they to be able to reach large masses at once or have access to a press, etc.

A few dissenters doesn't contribute much to efforts to alter the medieval cosmology. And historical conditions remain the same: prior to the printing press, there was no way for any revolutionary form of thought to reach mass numbers of people. As Marx wrote, it's the social conditions that determine human consciousness.

Well of course a combination of factors leads to the statistics. Understanding where the contributions come from, the upward and downward pressures etc. is what is the contention is. Again, "disparity" itself is not a problem. I'm sure you and I have "disparities" in all sorts of materialistic, intellectual, and other categories, and yet I don't see this as a problem at all and I doubt you do either.

Disparity between classes causes serious problems when those at the bottom of the barrel begin to question why they aren't climbing the social ladder, although economic liberty and individualism suggests that this should be possible.

To expand on the economic side of the argument:

http://mises.org/daily/6271/A-Chinese-Story

Yes, various industries were certainly aided by State mechanisms. But this aid came at the expense of growth in other areas. Overall, with decentralization of capital accumulation relative to feudalism, growth was more [organic] and greater than before. But there was still plenty of room for improvement, as there still is.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-15/guest-post-nearly-free-university

More on Neofeudalism, etc.

I will look forward to these, possibly over Thanksgiving.

I recently came across this interview with China Miéville. It's primary focus is Marxism's influence on science fiction and fantasy, but he has very interesting points.

Capitalism's early embracing of scientific thought was progressive compared to what went before, and on that basis it projects a claim that it is the triumph of systemic rationality, and that any forces which oppose it are therefore irrational or 'anti-rational'. But we also know that capitalism throws up, absolutely inevitably, forces which can and must oppose it. It represses just about every human impulse you can mention, which are going to resurface in various forms. Most fundamentally it throws up and represses the working class, and its emancipatory political project. It pretends class conflict is inimical to it, but it's actually integral. Monleon says, 'The spectre of revolution, then, seems to be at the base of this reappearance of unreason in general, and of the fantastic in particular.' So the 'unreason' of fantasy is a kind of neurotic counterpoint to capitalism's 'rationality'. Capitalism's 'reason' produces its own monsters.

With that framework, he makes sense of the particular shape of the fantastic at different times. So Gothic fears of the ancient and pre-modern (old castles, forests, graveyards, etc) is a reflection of the fact that, at the high point of Gothic in the late 18th century, the revolts spawned by capitalism were those of a working class still often rural or newly urbanised, whose revolts (like Luddism) were directed in an unclear way against the 'modern'. Later on in the 19th century, when working class protest became more programmatic, the fantastic often located its 'monsters' in the heart of the city, or as a result of the scientific mindset (Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is an excellent example).

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj88/newsinger.htm

 

[Dak]

A few dissenters doesn't contribute much to efforts to alter the medieval cosmology. And historical conditions remain the same: prior to the printing press, there was no way for any revolutionary form of thought to reach mass numbers of people.

Yes. Feudal isolation combined with a lack of "dessiminatory" technology. Of course, my point was that even if each feudal enclave harbored peoples harboring dissent, there was no way to meet and organize en masse, and due to the influence of the church, most likely even mentioning dissent harbored internally was unlikely, for fear of retribution.

As Marx wrote, it's the social conditions that determine human consciousness.

Sort of. I find both of those terms too vague/ambiguous to be truly useful. In fact, the term "human consciousness" is probably completely useless without subscribing to the aforementioned "world soul/spirit", which I do not.

Disparity between classes causes serious problems when those at the bottom of the barrel begin to question why they aren't climbing the social ladder, although economic liberty and individualism suggests that this should be possible.

http://mises.org/daily/6277/Socialism

What does this mean? When Karl Marx — in the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto, that small pamphlet which inaugurated his socialist movement — claimed that there was an irreconcilable conflict between classes, he could not illustrate his thesis by any examples other than those drawn from the conditions of precapitalistic society. In precapitalistic ages, society was divided into hereditary status groups, which in India are called "castes." In a status society a man was not, for example, born a Frenchman; he was born as a member of the French aristocracy or of the French bourgeoisie or of the French peasantry. In the greater part of the Middle Ages, he was simply a serf.

Here Mises uses "precapitalist" in the way that you used it earlier. I don't really like using it in this manner because it acts as if capital itself didn't exist (an unfortunate outcome of using Marx's labeling).

The point drawn stands though, and some will always ask these questions no matter what the system in place is. Even were there to be a system of perfect material equality, some would still wonder why others were more talented at any number of things, or more happy with the limitations placed upon them, etc.

I will look forward to these, possibly over Thanksgiving.

I recently came across this interview with China Miéville. It's primary focus is Marxism's influence on science fiction and fantasy, but he has very interesting points.

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj88/newsinger.htm

Interesting, but I take issue with the following statement and required assumptions:

It represses just about every human impulse you can mention, which are going to resurface in various forms. Most fundamentally it throws up and represses the working class, and its emancipatory political project. It pretends class conflict is inimical to it, but it's actually integral.

My default response is "lolwut?", particularly at the first portion. What impulses are repressed? Apparently most of them, whatever they are. "Emancipatory political project?"

There most certainly can be class conflict, but the author has unwittingly hinted at the battleground, and it is not the market, but in politics, the state, the holdover from the [precapitalist] times in which castes and classes were very real.

 

[Dak]

On a divergent note:



This is a shot in the face of all socialist and protectionist arguments. This is the market bringing power to the people, not "displacing workers" or "stealing intellectual rights" etc.

Combine this with the rapidly decreasing costs associated with 3d printing and the possibilities just explode.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I love the decentralized nature of open-source technology.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

On a divergent note:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S63Cy64p2lQ

This is a shot in the face of all socialist and protectionist arguments. This is the market bringing power to the people, not "displacing workers" or "stealing intellectual rights" etc.

Combine this with the rapidly decreasing costs associated with 3d printing and the possibilities just explode.

But what about safety standards? Who will protect the consumer?

 

[Dak]

WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS??

 

[Einherjar86]

On a divergent note:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S63Cy64p2lQ

This is a shot in the face of all socialist and protectionist arguments. This is the market bringing power to the people, not "displacing workers" or "stealing intellectual rights" etc.

Combine this with the rapidly decreasing costs associated with 3d printing and the possibilities just explode.

The budget for farming instruments has to be drastically lower than larger-scale industrial development. Farming practice lends itself to DIY kits and processes. Maybe if we all become farmers this would work.

I don't mean to criticize this, because I think it's great. My only concern is that this level of accessibility would not be the same for many contemporary large-scale industrial/technological processes.

 

[Dak]

The budget for farming instruments has to be drastically lower than larger-scale industrial development. Farming practice lends itself to DIY kits and processes. Maybe if we all become farmers this would work.

I don't mean to criticize this, because I think it's great. My only concern is that this level of accessibility would not be the same for many contemporary large-scale industrial/technological processes.

As technology progresses, mass-scale production generally finds itself to be inefficient. I don't think farming is the only aspect where decentralization and open sourcing are going to free productivity and progress.

On site, on demand manufacturing based on the free exchange of ideas and free association is the future, if the state and it's supportive oligarchy doesn't take us all down with it.

edit: Gary North: Gold Bugs vs Anti Gold Bugs

In political democracy, your party can get its way if it gets 50 percent plus one vote, and the counting is not rigged. You get one vote, but it is diluted.

In gold-coin currency democracy, where the government is not in the money business, you get as many votes as you have gold coins on deposit at a commercial bank. You can withdraw your coins or deposit new ones. Your vote counts for you 100 percent. There is no dilution of your vote.

If 10 percent of the depositors vote "no" by withdrawing gold coins, the bank must change its lending policies. It must reduce lending and build up coins in the vault. The process of withdrawing gold coins does not take 50 percent plus one for concerned depositors to get their way. The more fractionally reserved the bank, the fewer withdrawals that it takes to effect a change of lending policy: higher reserves, fewer loans.

The defenders of the Federal Reserve System want highly concentrated voting: a majority on the Federal Open Market Committee. This is 12 people. Seven are appointed by the president and must be confirmed by the Senate. After this, he has no authority over them. Five are members of the 12 regional, privately owned Federal Reserve Banks. One of the five is the president of the New York Fed, whose membership does not rotate.

Compare this arrangement with the US Supreme Court, which has nine members.

In theory, seven FOMC members and five justices run the United States of America. They determine policies. The FOMC determines monetary policy. It has a veto over the US government. The Supreme Court determines politics, justice, and almost everything else. It has a veto over Congress and the president.

The Court operates through the various executive bureaucracies. Its decisions can be resisted, but not overcome in the long run. The Court possesses legitimacy in the eyes of the voters. It will get its way.

The FOMC operates through commercial banks. But, when push comes to shove, seven people set policy. In theory, Congress or the president can tell the FOMC what to do. In practice, neither ever does this.

The independence of the Federal Reserve from the political system is hailed by defenders of democracy as necessary to reliable money. The independence of the Supreme Court from the political system is hailed by defenders of democracy as necessary to reliable laws.

In short, democracy is window dressing for elite control over the United States.

This is why control over the curriculum materials and methodology of a dozen law schools and a dozen business schools is the heart of rule by oligarchy.

In terms of the 6,000 people who shape policies internationally, control over two dozen universities in the world, most of which are in the United States, is basic to shaping the outlook of this elite. Read David Rothkopf's book, Superclass. About one-third of the 6,000 people who run the institutions that run the world attended one of these two dozen universities. If we take the top 40, about 50 percent of the elite attended.

 

[Einherjar86]

Good post.

Here Mises uses "precapitalist" in the way that you used it earlier. I don't really like using it in this manner because it acts as if capital itself didn't exist (an unfortunate outcome of using Marx's labeling).

The point drawn stands though, and some will always ask these questions no matter what the system in place is. Even were there to be a system of perfect material equality, some would still wonder why others were more talented at any number of things, or more happy with the limitations placed upon them, etc.

I'm really at a disadvantage because I don't have enough time for reading my assignments as it is, and I'm also trying to wade through these articles. Thanksgiving break allowed me to catch up on my reading for school, and little else.

That said, even if capital did exist, I think the common mentality when speaking of medieval cosmology is that capital didn't matter as much. It wasn't until industrialism, the rise of the merchant class, i.e. capitalism that money displaced aristocratic authority. The response of the Legitimists that I mentioned a while back was specifically directed at the rising influence of capital itself. Prior to this, inheritance/title/blood was seen as more important than capital.

My default response is "lolwut?", particularly at the first portion. What impulses are repressed? Apparently most of them, whatever they are. "Emancipatory political project?"

There most certainly can be class conflict, but the author has unwittingly hinted at the battleground, and it is not the market, but in politics, the state, the holdover from the [precapitalist] times in which castes and classes were very real.

Good response. He isn't primarily concerned with audience here, so he's just regurgitating Marxist terminology without really explaining it much. That said, an argument like this in an academic paper wouldn't hold up. A lot more explication would be required.

Marxists often lump capitalism and politics together, primarily because its history has seen the irreconcilable combination of the two. There's a reason the subtitle of Capital was "A Critique of Political Economy." The difference is that Marxists see the capitalist economy not as subservient, or subject, to political authority; but the political apparatus, rather, is subservient to economic authority. Even governments need money. I don't think anyone would say that Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie were subject to McKinley's political will.

EDIT: Aeon has been publishing some great stuff lately:

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/adam-roberts-atheist-christianity/

In fact, that’s the whole point of the Gospels. To reread these primary Christian documents is to remind yourself how radically concerned the Gospels are with the excluded, the non-chosen people, the scum, the chavs. And from this insight, I hew and plane a major plank of my own argument. Now that Christianity has gone from being a small-time sect to being the dominant religion on the planet, the key category of excluded has become precisely the unbelievers. Indeed, I want to try to develop the strong form of this argument: that Christianity can find a place for all kinds of sin, heresy and doctrinal otherness except atheism. Which is to say, I want to argue that since Christianity is both the world’s numerically dominant faith and, in important ways, the religion of the socially and spiritually abject, the key category here becomes: those abjected from the body of the faithful.

And...

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/nature-and-cosmos/vlatko-vedral-evolution-quantum-physics/

Take the theory of evolution. Imagine that we start with some primitive living being, capable of reproduction. Its offspring display a certain rate of random mutations, and certain environmental features cause some of those mutations to fare better than others. Taken together, these conditions lead us to expect ever more complex organisms to spring up (though the simplest ones are still likely to predominate). Darwin’s idea is without doubt the best explanation for all the complexity of life we see around us. We know that species change through genetic mutations, and that new species survive because they are better adapted to their habitat than their rivals. But does the ‘law’ of the survival of the fittest follow, like chemistry, from the basic laws of quantum physics?

 

[Einherjar86]

"We are chemicals and electricity."

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP636p5mWwc

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=1_mAMDLB6uI&NR=1

Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=xmOcd6wj27g&NR=1

Part 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=6JJ4B1OU-dw&NR=1

Figured I'd post all parts since I watched them.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

So when is this thread getting renamed the "Neo-Austrian Amateur Economists' Symposium"?