Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

There needs to be the consideration that the "nuclear family" shouldn't be the privileged form of household organization. Sowell assumes that the nuclear family is some sort of secret formula that ensures survival or success. The racist assumption being made, even on Sowell's part (and remember, racism in this instance need not be intentional or individual, but is instead cultural and collective), is that the Euro-American nuclear-familial institution is the best form of household organization and that blacks should conform to it.

During what portion of history were blacks most in accordance with this household model? Well, during Reconstruction of course, and the decades that followed!

Thus, if slavery provided blacks with the discipline necessary to form nuclear families, and history shows that immediately afterwards they all went out and got married, well then... eureka! It must be that slavery actually did something good for them. Bear in mind, no one is saying this out loud; but it's the implicit assumption as it derives from the other assumption: i.e. that the nuclear family is the privileged institution that should be pursued.

This is how racism works; it's complicated, it's multi-layered.

You're making a couple of unsubstantiated leaps here. It is not stated nor are there any phrases of implication amongst these (not to say it isn't possible they exist within their entire works, but I haven't seen them) works of Sowell or Williams that slavery did anything good. However, this sort of critique is problematic anyway, since slavery in itself is not homogeneous, nor is/was it homogeneous within the US, and we can that some sorts of slavery were/are worse than others - based on judging individual aspects separately from the whole - which in no way justifies the whole absolutely. If forced: would you have rather been at oars in a Roman galley or a house servant in the Deep South? How about a field hand in the Deep South vs a house servant um, mostly anywhere? How about a feudal peasant vs a US Taxpayer? None of these options are good, but some are better than others.

Now, there is significant correlation within at least the western paradigm of nuclear households and positive outcomes. Whether this is simply culturally contingent or not is rather irrelevant in a practical sense. Sure, one could see positive outcomes without the benefit of the nuclear household even in the west, but it becomes less likely. Maybe the some other structure would render different results in a different system, but we aren't in a different system. The world, for the most part, isn't in a different system. So: a systemic assault on a [racially] based grouping regarding factors significantly correlated with success within the system (rather than trying to change the system) is quite easily chargeable with being racist. On the other hand, saying that the system is racist for encouraging success and being open to integration acts as defense tactic for the former, regardless of intent. It might make the speaker feel good to talk of complications and layers, but it doesn't even remotely begin to help the kid in the projects like a positive father role model would. Of course, the people speaking of complications and layers grew up primarily in nuclear households - generally ensuring their successful positions from which to be concerned with the misty arguable abstracts of layers and complications rather than who loves them and what they are going to eat tomorrow. This isn't aimed at you or your defense specifically, these are the stat-ist-ics.

Of course, there are other household structures that might work (Mormons have seen success with polygamy, and some agricultural cultures have seen success with polyandry), but single parents (mostly moms) living on state handouts has not been a recipe for success anywhere - and that is what has been pushed as the alternative by the above. The nuclear family is certainly privileged vs The United States Substitute Daddy System or x_street_gang. Which is all the Coates of the world have to offer.

EDIT: new Aeon piece isn't saying anything I haven't already thought about cool but... it's still a mighty fun read:

http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/logic-of-buddhist-philosophy/

Yes this was an interesting read. Needs re-reading.

 

[Einherjar86]

You're making a couple of unsubstantiated leaps here. It is not stated nor are there any phrases of implication amongst these (not to say it isn't possible they exist within their entire works, but I haven't seen them) works of Sowell or Williams that slavery did anything good. However, this sort of critique is problematic anyway, since slavery in itself is not homogeneous, nor is/was it homogeneous within the US, and we can that some sorts of slavery were/are worse than others - based on judging individual aspects separately from the whole - which in no way justifies the whole absolutely. If forced: would you have rather been at oars in a Roman galley or a house servant in the Deep South? How about a field hand in the Deep South vs a house servant um, mostly anywhere? How about a feudal peasant vs a US Taxpayer? None of these options are good, but some are better than others.

I'm going to use a line of yours: "Better is relative."

This is yet another example of how you choose to generalize and absolutize the statistics you find useful, and relativize those you do not.

Now, don't misconstrue this as me cutting myself off at the knees; I'm only making a point about your argument style. I would actually agree that people are treated quantitatively better and worse in different roles. But I won't agree that private slavery/ownership is a good thing, or that it can provide some substantial benefit that outweighs its grief. Slavery tore families apart. You, at this very moment, are making explicit the argument that Sowell likely has in mind, and it's not even worth considering.

Now, there is significant correlation within at least the western paradigm of nuclear households and positive outcomes. Whether this is simply culturally contingent or not is rather irrelevant in a practical sense. Sure, one could see positive outcomes without the benefit of the nuclear household even in the west, but it becomes less likely. Maybe the some other structure would render different results in a different system, but we aren't in a different system. The world, for the most part, isn't in a different system. So: a systemic assault on a [racially] based grouping regarding factors significantly correlated with success within the system (rather than trying to change the system) is quite easily chargeable with being racist. On the other hand, saying that the system is racist for encouraging success and being open to integration acts as defense tactic for the former, regardless of intent. It might make the speaker feel good to talk of complications and layers, but it doesn't even remotely begin to help the kid in the projects like a positive father role model would. Of course, the people speaking of complications and layers grew up primarily in nuclear households - generally ensuring their successful positions from which to be concerned with the misty arguable abstracts of layers and complications rather than who loves them and what they are going to eat tomorrow. This isn't aimed at you or your defense specifically, these are the stat-ist-ics.

Here's the problem with practicality and common-sense, though: not only is it less likely that those who may not want to be part of a nuclear family will find success, but it also becomes more difficult for others to accept that this could be a possibility.

It doesn't matter that Sowell never says slavery was good. His language implies it, as you eloquently demonstrated above.

Of course, there are other household structures that might work (Mormons have seen success with polygamy, and some agricultural cultures have seen success with polyandry), but single parents (mostly moms) living on state handouts has not been a recipe for success anywhere - and that is what has been pushed as the alternative by the above. The nuclear family is certainly privileged vs The United States Substitute Daddy System or x_street_gang. Which is all the Coates of the world have to offer.

How can you say it hasn't been a recipe for success anywhere? Do you know all single moms? Furthermore, how do you know the blame falls to the mother and not to the culture that makes her success next to impossible? It's fine if we agree that our culture normalizes the nuclear family and qualifies that as the formula of moral excellence and success; but our next step should be to back away from that hegemonic belief to allow for other formulas, not stamp them out because they're "strange."

 

[SentinelSlain]

Does anyone else find it amusing that Sterling obviously changed his name, back in the day, to Anglo-Saxonise his Jewish self? His feelings of "whiteness" and his enjoyment of White privilege derive entirely from his incidental paleness, him being far from a pure Ethnic European. He's not a Christian and is from a different culture to the founders of the nation and to the founders of the KKK, but simply on account of being pale, he manages to ride that feeling of superiority.

 

[Dak]

I'm going to use a line of yours: "Better is relative."

This is yet another example of how you choose to generalize and absolutize the statistics you find useful, and relativize those you do not.

Now, don't misconstrue this as me cutting myself off at the knees; I'm only making a point about your argument style. I would actually agree that people are treated quantitatively better and worse in different roles. But I won't agree that private slavery/ownership is a good thing, or that it can provide some substantial benefit that outweighs its grief. Slavery tore families apart. You, at this very moment, are making explicit the argument that Sowell likely has in mind, and it's not even worth considering.

Here's the problem with practicality and common-sense, though: not only is it less likely that those who may not want to be part of a nuclear family will find success, but it also becomes more difficult for others to accept that this could be a possibility.

It doesn't matter that Sowell never says slavery was good. His language implies it, as you eloquently demonstrated above.

Where is it implied that slavery is/was a good thing? Slavery did tear families apart (although to claim the nuclear family is some sort of a WEIRD construct reduces the seriousness of that accusation), at all levels of relation - just like the welfare state. The two are being equivocated. THAT is the argument made by Sowell and Williams. Where a difference appears is that slavery did/has not destroyed people's ability to succeed in its wake, but the welfare state has/does. A history of slavery (generally speaking) was less damaging than a history of welfarism (to the group as a whole). That might be a contingent truth, but we aren't in some other universe, place, or place in history.

How can you say it hasn't been a recipe for success anywhere? Do you know all single moms? Furthermore, how do you know the blame falls to the mother and not to the culture that makes her success next to impossible? It's fine if we agree that our culture normalizes the nuclear family and qualifies that as the formula of moral excellence and success; but our next step should be to back away from that hegemonic belief to allow for other formulas, not stamp them out because they're "strange."

I probably should have been more precise. I was not saying that no one does/can find success growing up in a single mom (I won't even bother saying single parent since we know it is overwhelmingly mothers left single parenting, another result of the system) household. But it is a negative factorial, all things equal - globally,even if you aren't poor.

Now, on the global study, there were some exceptions in Asia for single parents supported by extended family. But the welfare state breaks up that extended family support as well. Additionally, there was a reduced difference in outcomes in Shanghai and HK, and HK (and Shanghai) is quite capitalist, and not even democratic. Of course that study only looked at immediate scholastic outcomes rather than future economic outcomes. Just because you can read doesn't mean you won't go right on the dole/dope/etc (and v.v.)

 

[Einherjar86]

Where is it implied that slavery is/was a good thing? Slavery did tear families apart (although to claim the nuclear family is some sort of a WEIRD construct reduces the seriousness of that accusation), at all levels of relation - just like the welfare state. The two are being equivocated. THAT is the argument made by Sowell and Williams. Where a difference appears is that slavery did/has not destroyed people's ability to succeed in its wake, but the welfare state has/does. A history of slavery (generally speaking) was less damaging than a history of welfarism (to the group as a whole). That might be a contingent truth, but we aren't in some other universe, place, or place in history.

This is still a shortsighted comment, or argument - either way.

First, they are being equivocated; and "equivocate" means, basically, to lie. It means to deploy ambiguity in order to conceal the truth, or to make a faulty comparison. I'm saying this because I find it an ironically accurate comment: that Sowell and Williams equivocate slavery and welfarism.

Second, claiming that slavery still permitted some form of later success whereas welfare doesn't is to treat those institutions as though they exist in a vacuum. It may not be the welfare state that has led to the lack of success among black families, but the impotency of the welfare program, or the mind-numbing vulgarities coming from conservatives preaching the constancy and universality of the nuclear family, or the free-market drones that insist those black families make it "on their own." They are bombarded every which way by numerous cultural opinions and effects that do not reduce back to "the welfare state."

So you cannot make the indisputable claim that welfarism is destroying black success. That claim is bogus.

I probably should have been more precise. I was not saying that no one does/can find success growing up in a single mom (I won't even bother saying single parent since we know it is overwhelmingly mothers left single parenting, another result of the system) household. But it is a negative factorial, all things equal - globally,even if you aren't poor.

Now, on the global study, there were some exceptions in Asia for single parents supported by extended family. But the welfare state breaks up that extended family support as well. Additionally, there was a reduced difference in outcomes in Shanghai and HK, and HK (and Shanghai) is quite capitalist, and not even democratic. Of course that study only looked at immediate scholastic outcomes rather than future economic outcomes. Just because you can read doesn't mean you won't go right on the dole/dope/etc (and v.v.)

Maybe it is a negative factorial; but that cannot be an absolute condition of single-parent households. If those individuals experience difficulty, it is not because of their own singularity, but because of a culture that berates and chastises them for being "single."

Look at how long homosexuals have had to fight to achieve the right to marry. There's absolutely nothing about such a life that reduces the chances of success, except for the fact that we live in a culture that makes it nearly impossible for them to do so. You're looking at statistics and assuming they would be (for the most part) accurate for all times and all places, but that's incorrect.

 

[Dak]

This is still a shortsighted comment, or argument - either way.

First, they are being equivocated; and "equivocate" means, basically, to lie. It means to deploy ambiguity in order to conceal the truth, or to make a faulty comparison. I'm saying this because I find it an ironically accurate comment: that Sowell and Williams equivocate slavery and welfarism.

Second, claiming that slavery still permitted some form of later success whereas welfare doesn't is to treat those institutions as though they exist in a vacuum. It may not be the welfare state that has led to the lack of success among black families, but the impotency of the welfare program, or the mind-numbing vulgarities coming from conservatives preaching the constancy and universality of the nuclear family, or the free-market drones that insist those black families make it "on their own." They are bombarded every which way by numerous cultural opinions and effects that do not reduce back to "the welfare state."

So you cannot make the indisputable claim that welfarism is destroying black success. That claim is bogus.

Effectually and conceptually, comparing slavery and welfarism is quite legitimate. Further, the historical damage done bother during and following slavery and welfare are available for review.

I do understand that to hold steadfastly to the necessity and goodness of state aid renders any the appearance of any sort of negative comparison either a lie, or conversely that one is suggesting that the slavery is/was actually a positive, since one couldn't possibly be suggesting that welfare is bad. Not that this is considered consciously of course, but this is the only way I can currently see such a misunderstanding of the argument making sense.

As far as Family Values or Randian drones go, I don't have much use for them either, but that doesn't mean some measure of truth isn't there, nor do problems within said droning buttress welfarism in anyway.

Welfarism is inherently impotent, as it exists purely to create state dependency within a very limited economic space. Organizations do not work themselves out of a job, whether bureaucratic or business. In the case of welfarism, this is necessarily a perverse incentive. Further, even were the respective bureaucrats of angelic make, demotism ensures at least some politician or party will make use of this sort of political quid pro quo.

While welfare all by itself is not the sole responsible factor in the economic and social reduction of black America, it most certainly is a major factor, as major as it is for everyone else affected. Nothing is free, and the income from welfare is received in return for: being on welfare, and ensuring welfare exists.

Maybe it is a negative factorial; but that cannot be an absolute condition of single-parent households. If those individuals experience difficulty, it is not because of their own singularity, but because of a culture that berates and chastises them for being "single."
Look at how long homosexuals have had to fight to achieve the right to marry. There's absolutely nothing about such a life that reduces the chances of success, except for the fact that we live in a culture that makes it nearly impossible for them to do so. You're looking at statistics and assuming they would be (for the most part) accurate for all times and all places, but that's incorrect.

Well I would prefer to stick with "two parent" rather than nuclear, but I use them interchangeably given probability, since homosexuals make up such a small percentage of the global/US population, married or not. Understanding the problems of single parent households - even when money is no concern - should be as simple as an exercise in sympathy. There simply isn't enough of one person to go around. To put it in educational terms: Smaller teacher/student ratios vs larger teacher/student ratios.

 

[Einherjar86]

Effectually and conceptually, comparing slavery and welfarism is quite legitimate. Further, the historical damage done bother during and following slavery and welfare are available for review.

Disagree.

I do understand that to hold steadfastly to the necessity and goodness of state aid renders any the appearance of any sort of negative comparison either a lie, or conversely that one is suggesting that the slavery is/was actually a positive, since one couldn't possibly be suggesting that welfare is bad. Not that this is considered consciously of course, but this is the only way I can currently see such a misunderstanding of the argument making sense.

Positives and negatives don't matter. You're just comparing two totally different things. No need to assume I'm being partial to government welfare.

You know what would be a more appropriate comparison to slavery? Donald Sterling as a white slave-owner and the L.A. Clippers team (or most of them) as his "property."

Welfarism is inherently impotent, as it exists purely to create state dependency within a very limited economic space. Organizations do not work themselves out of a job, whether bureaucratic or business. In the case of welfarism, this is necessarily a perverse incentive. Further, even were the respective bureaucrats of angelic make, demotism ensures at least some politician or party will make use of this sort of political quid pro quo.

Give me historical conditions and circumstances. Don't give me "inherents." You're simply incapable of proving them, and the concept of "inherent" impotence will deconstruct itself at every turn. All you reveal when you say this is your predisposition for the market, individual success, etc. You provide nothing substantial.

While welfare all by itself is not the sole responsible factor in the economic and social reduction of black America, it most certainly is a major factor, as major as it is for everyone else affected. Nothing is free, and the income from welfare is received in return for: being on welfare, and ensuring welfare exists.

I'm not saying welfare doesn't contribute to the preservation of the income gap. I'm pretty sure it does. But the comparison to slavery is not only inappropriate, it's idiotic; it isn't only an equivocation, it's an absurdity. The comparison reveals your own assumptions, not anything "inherent" about welfare.

The criticism of the welfare state requires NO comparison to slavery in order to makes its point. Doing so creates more problems than it solves.

 

[SentinelSlain]

What do you heathens think of Noam Chomsky?

 

[Einherjar86]

Chomsky's good. I mean, he's an incredibly influential figure, having founded (or been instrumental in founding) the media theory of propaganda and the linguistic concept of deep grammar.

He's very empiricist, which I don't always take to. Basically, he fails as a cultural critic and/or theorist (for me) because he believes that if you follow the money you can decipher any and all characteristics of cultural ideology. I don't believe this is the case.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Yeah I've nearly finished reading Manufacturing Consent and it's already affected my views a bit, not massively though. The documentary film was good too.

 

[Einherjar86]

That book is really good, and is still an eye-opener even today. I remember watching the documentary in an undergraduate critical thinking class.

Some of Chomsky's more theoretical work can be found in his collection called Chomsky on Anarchism. It provides more of his philosophical approach and foundation.

 

[Dak]

Positives and negatives don't matter. You're just comparing two totally different things. No need to assume I'm being partial to government welfare.

You know what would be a more appropriate comparison to slavery? Donald Sterling as a white slave-owner and the L.A. Clippers team (or most of them) as his "property."

Except that the sort of outrage track that the white-business-owner/black-employee critique runs on is set to loop infinitely based on the logical progression. It would be amusing if not so damaging to watch the social justice train enter the loop of the "P" (or b, whichever). Unless, of course, it only serves as a distraction, or masks the true intent.

Using basketball for the example of what I mean, the progression goes like this:

Whites invent the game. Only whites allowed to play the game.
- Racial discrimination!
Whites and minorities allowed to play game
- Some teams with no minorities - Segregation!
Whites and minorities allowed to play game, desegregated
- Not enough minorities in, selection bias!
Whites and minorities fully integrated, minorities now outnumber whites
- silence on makeup....Not enough minority owners!
Ratio of minority owners improves - sport heavily minority player driven.
- Minorities working for white men, reeks of slavery!

This is the point we are at, and it can't progress from here without violating segregation and discrimination tenets. Only minorities playing for minorities? Only whites playing for whites? To go down that route merely loops through segregation and integration.

Give me historical conditions and circumstances. Don't give me "inherents." You're simply incapable of proving them, and the concept of "inherent" impotence will deconstruct itself at every turn. All you reveal when you say this is your predisposition for the market, individual success, etc. You provide nothing substantial.

Well that is rather unfair, as I can't post whole books of data and theory here. But it doesn't matter, as the data will be dismissed as culturally/historically contingent at best and the theory to explicate it as blind in one way or another. But I could provide a reading list.

I'm not saying welfare doesn't contribute to the preservation of the income gap. I'm pretty sure it does.

In general, or just within the American Historiocultural-economic paradigm (or more broadly but not absolutely)?

But the comparison to slavery is not only inappropriate, it's idiotic; it isn't only an equivocation, it's an absurdity. The comparison reveals your own assumptions, not anything "inherent" about welfare.

The criticism of the welfare state requires NO comparison to slavery in order to makes its point. Doing so creates more problems than it solves.

Well I think it is obvious here that it can create problems. However, in this case as well as the state-citizen relation, there are significant enough similarities to warrant comparing them. That they don't line up absolutely isn't a reason to through the whole comparison out.

The irritation of certain things being compared to slavery appears similar to the irritation some had/have at other groups utilizing "holocaust", as if there was only one event, one people(s), one method of killing.

@SS: Chomsky is a really good example of a "mixed bag".

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't need a reading list to prove to me that welfare is inherently impotent because I know that welfare, which is already an institution prone to variations and modulations, is not inherently impotent. The problem isn't with the data, it's with claiming an essential component of something. I believe that welfare contributes to wealth inequality in this country, but I don't believe that welfare is inherently impotent; these are two entirely different arguments.

And finally, the biggest issue here is simply that people like Sowell, Bundy, et al even feel the need to make the comparison to slavery. What purpose does this serve at all? Why does this need to be made? The pure and simple fact is that if historical precedent and research demonstrates that welfare doesn't have the desired effect, and in fact perhaps perpetuates the income gap (which I believe it does), then why do we need to make the comparison to slavery in order to prove this point?

If this comparison isn't needed (and it isn't), then some other reason must exist for making it.

 

[Dak]

I don't need a reading list to prove to me that welfare is inherently impotent because I know that welfare, which is already an institution prone to variations and modulations, is not inherently impotent. The problem isn't with the data, it's with claiming an essential component of something. I believe that welfare contributes to wealth inequality in this country, but I don't believe that welfare is inherently impotent; these are two entirely different arguments.

Well maybe we need to be clear on what "impotency" would mean for welfare, as well as what "welfare" includes.

And finally, the biggest issue here is simply that people like Sowell, Bundy, et al even feel the need to make the comparison to slavery. What purpose does this serve at all? Why does this need to be made? The pure and simple fact is that if historical precedent and research demonstrates that welfare doesn't have the desired effect, and in fact perhaps perpetuates the income gap (which I believe it does), then why do we need to make the comparison to slavery in order to prove this point?

If this comparison isn't needed (and it isn't), then some other reason must exist for making it.

Which would be? I would immediately turn that around on blanket comparisons of employer/employee relationships to slavery, or feminist charges of "traditional families" as domestic slavery, etc. Whether or not the comparisons are "needed" depends on the audience. Whether or not they are true should depend on the facts.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well maybe we need to be clear on what "impotency" would mean for welfare, as well as what "welfare" includes.

I'd rather not; any definition will be contingent upon this conversation anyway. Any "inherent" impotency will only ever be dictated by the parameters of the definition in play.

Which would be? I would immediately turn that around on blanket comparisons of employer/employee relationships to slavery, or feminist charges of "traditional families" as domestic slavery, etc. Whether or not the comparisons are "needed" depends on the audience. Whether or not they are true should depend on the facts.

I think your "facts" are limited by the breadth of their application. Data on how many black families and/or individuals remain impoverished due to welfare still offers no validity for comparison to slavery because blacks now are not the same as blacks under slavery; and furthermore, other "facts" will likely support the claim that African Americans are still suffering from the effects of slavery. You can't draw a line in history and claim that at that moment slavery stopped being a problem, especially since Reconstruction didn't do all that much.

 

[Dak]

I think your "facts" are limited by the breadth of their application. Data on how many black families and/or individuals remain impoverished due to welfare still offers no validity for comparison to slavery because blacks now are not the same as blacks under slavery; and furthermore, other "facts" will likely support the claim that African Americans are still suffering from the effects of slavery. You can't draw a line in history and claim that at that moment slavery stopped being a problem, especially since Reconstruction didn't do all that much.

Well we can certainly agree on that, at least when meant in the positive sense.

Edit: The Solutions to our problems may be buried in unread PDFs

Not surprising really. Almost as bad as the research "file drawer" problem.

http://recode.net/2014/05/08/the-current-top-free-ios-app-is-an-anticapitalist-spoof-thats-going-viral-with-frat-boys/

Anticapitalist spoofing iOS app is making 50k per day. Irony.

 

[Einherjar86]

http://recode.net/2014/05/08/the-current-top-free-ios-app-is-an-anticapitalist-spoof-thats-going-viral-with-frat-boys/

Anticapitalist spoofing iOS app is making 50k per day. Irony.

I have no dog in this fight, or much interest; but I do want to make a point on your comment.

You clearly mean to criticize this spoof because it's "anti-capitalist" and yet is drawing considerable capital. But any kind of "spoof" is inevitably going to make money, otherwise it wouldn't even register within a society circumscribed by capitalist economics.

This is that whole myth, or illusion, of "exit" or "escape" boiling to the surface again; the idea that those who are truly anti-capitalist should just leave, or anti-capitalist items/ideas shouldn't be allowed to make money. That is, an anti-capitalist spoof app makes money, therefore undercutting its critical purpose; but this is a completely unfair remark.

In order to make criticisms of, and construct oppositions toward, any kind of ideology as firm as capitalism, you have to play by its rules. This is the dialectical relationship between a social ideology and its antithesis: we tend to mistakenly think of them as separately opposed entities, but the truth is that capitalism's antithesis can only arise from within. And that means that those elements which could pose a formidable threat to capitalism are also, themselves, trenchantly capitalist.

So poking fun at an anti-capitalist app because it makes money is completely unjustified, if you truly understand the dynamics of capitalism and its oppositional components. The antithetical elements of capitalism are not simply external, or other; how can they be when capitalism maintains a firm grip (i.e. monopoly) on all available resources and funds?

 

[Dak]

I have no dog in this fight, or much interest; but I do want to make a point on your comment.

You clearly mean to criticize this spoof because it's "anti-capitalist" and yet is drawing considerable capital. But any kind of "spoof" is inevitably going to make money, otherwise it wouldn't even register within a society circumscribed by capitalist economics.

Well it could be a free download and registering an insane number of downloads, like Youtube views. But I think the irony is from all angles, both the creators, the content vs pay-for (kind of like how the Communist Manifesto is one of the old not-free books on Kindle), and the popularity with the public.

Of course, the majority of the content is political rather than economic, and so then I would want to quabble over what "capitalism" is, and if we want to refer to it as this cronyist economy, then I guess there is much less irony.

This is that whole myth, or illusion, of "exit" or "escape" boiling to the surface again; the idea that those who are truly anti-capitalist should just leave, or anti-capitalist items/ideas shouldn't be allowed to make money. That is, an anti-capitalist spoof app makes money, therefore undercutting its critical purpose; but this is a completely unfair remark.

In order to make criticisms of, and construct oppositions toward, any kind of ideology as firm as capitalism, you have to play by its rules. This is the dialectical relationship between a social ideology and its antithesis: we tend to mistakenly think of them as separately opposed entities, but the truth is that capitalism's antithesis can only arise from within. And that means that those elements which could pose a formidable threat to capitalism are also, themselves, trenchantly capitalist.

So poking fun at an anti-capitalist app because it makes money is completely unjustified, if you truly understand the dynamics of capitalism and its oppositional components. The antithetical elements of capitalism are not simply external, or other; how can they be when capitalism maintains a firm grip (i.e. monopoly) on all available resources and funds?

But when I make this same general argument about the state, and in particular the emboldened portion, it is disregarded....

 

[Einherjar86]

How so? I don't disagree with that.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Hey Ein, I remember a while back in another thread you talking about aspects of horror intrinsic to reality or something along those lines. Is there anything you can recommend like an article or a book that expands on the subject?

Ah this is your quote, I'm looking for something to flesh out this idea - "Horror is an objective fact, not a subjective experience. It does not correspond to any specific object, but inheres in the very formal relationship between consciousness and the world."