P Diddy Kong's Post
1. From Marx's own point of view his social and political thoughts were a science, sure. From where we sit and study, Marx's "social science" is merely a political theory. Either way, the views and opinions were never stated to be from/of Marx, rather Charlie.
2. I concede.
3. If you're going to bring in Marx's past, do not leave the juicy bits out. While he eventually encountered his family's wealth (AFTER releasing the Manifesto), he was quite poor and lived on the infamous Dean Street in Soho.
4. There were only ~5 million unemployed workers in China in 1949. Source
5. What's that little ol' nation with the largest population, whose entire transformation of power (to Mao's control--the "inevitable proletariat revolution") started with the small Autumn Harvest Uprising in the slack-jawwed countryside? It may be difficult to believe that the starving, out-of/over work(ed), proletariat can rise up against the oppressive and seemingly in-control, but alienation has a powerful effect.
While this whole comparing to China may seem odd because obviously China is not part of Europe, the ideaolgy of which we are argueing is shared, and therefore entirely related. Marx's theory works because it is from the alienation (which I attempted to show by displaying the mindset, not the universal manner in which people were aliented...lulz) that the proletariat finds himself consumed by, caused by the inevitable social-order split.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yo,
ReplyDeleteSome quick clarifications:
With respect to your first point, political theories are totally distinct from "views and opinions;" the first are impersonal and non-subjective, and the second are whimsical and arbitrary. My point was not that Marx's theories are science (they are anything but), but that it's not a question of perspective. Moreover (we're now on to your third point), I only brought up Marx's past (and I resent the accusation that I left the so-called juicy bits out; I was under the impression I had brought the juicy bit to the surface) as an example of how perspective is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that Charlie or anybody isn't working for minimum wage.
With respect to your next two points about China, I would like to reiterate what I originally said, i.e. that a large number of unemployed alone is not enough to start a revolution. That there were "only" five million unemployed workers in China doesn't matter; we don't reach some sort of danger zone if unemployment passes a certain mark. The fact that there have been more unemployed that did not revolt is proof enough of this. Also, my point was that people who are actually starving do not make for the best soldiers; the best are the pissed-off disenfranchised, not the starving workers.
Secondly, I do not dig your justification for bringing in China. This is above all a question of cultural climate, and China's cultural climate in the dead middle of the twentieth century differs substantially from the cultural climate of the United States in 2009. Marx's idea of alienation is an elegant simplification and a cute idea that only serves to ignore the confounding factors at work today.
1. This initially started with a debate of *if* we think it is possible for their to be an "inevitable proletariat revolution," and as such, OUR perspectives are what makes there be a debate.
ReplyDelete2. By describing Marx as "pretty solidly bourgeois" (when releasing his manifesto), you are most definitely putting a stress on perspective. My point is that he WAS part of the proletariat force while writing his piece. Therefore, in no way did he think he was excluded from understanding the situation because he WAS part of the situation when publishing.
3. You say "10 percent unemployment" (clearly this means you DO believe that there IS a certain "danger zone") "is not enough."
4. The Uprising's rank DID consist of depraved, hunger-driven peasants (they were attacking the landlords initially). Clearly again, they do make for good soldiers.
5. We are not solely arguing if the "inevitable proletariat revolution" is going to happen in the USA...Marx believed it on a world-wide scale. The United States was used as an example and so was China.
http://mehmayhem.blogspot.com/2009/01/c-c-c-c-c-ombo-breaker-p-diddy-kong.html
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the conversation that you and PDK are having on this topic. What I especially like is that you are raising evidence to back your points.
Two nations primarily represent the issues of surfdom and slavery: Russia and the United States. While during the 19th century, both were dealing with the concept of freeing the serfs/slaves, the reality is despite efforts, either government sanctioned or not, produced little results… The reason for this lack of true change, is because both Russia and the United States only changed the laws directly effecting the freedom of the said persons.
http://mehmayhem.blogspot.com/2009/01/surfdom-vs-slavery.html
I think there is some play to be had on the “surf” “serf” distinction that you started to play with (after all, it is “serfdom”). As for the thesis at the end—would adding something about leaving the “economic & social relationships basically unchanged” be helpful? Things are a little underdeveloped in the second para…
The question is: why is France so influential despite having numerous neighbors being both large nations and in control of large armies and large political reaches.
http://mehmayhem.blogspot.com/2009/01/final-thoughts-for-now.html
That is a really good question! What do you think?
http://mehmayhem.blogspot.com/2009/01/delacroix-to-meissonier.html
Enjoyed this analysis
to me it's quite incredible that such hard-nosed dictators really aren't so hard-nosed in the face of a little hustle-n-bustle and hoopin-n-hollerin'.
http://mehmayhem.blogspot.com/2009/01/754-762.html
But why do these things> Haussmann redesigns Paris to make it less friendly to revolutionaries. Does this make him a do-gooder, or a control freak? What about all the folks who used to live in the city, and were now displaced. Urban renewal is one thing, but the purposes to which this was harnessed do not appear all that benign to me, though walking along the Champs-Elysee is really cool at night…