marxism is very old and hapless. There are now much more severe and
data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy-
duddies can muster. Obama is about to try and tell the US public that
not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension
money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success. I doubt we need any
"social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but
rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill
or Westminster. Our problems are moral.
On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-...
>
> The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
> is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
> writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
> a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
> creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
> George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
> argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
> the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
> won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
> we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
> us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
> world.
>
> Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
> reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
> logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
> course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
> produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
> the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
> "reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
> rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
> know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
> critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
> dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
> rationalist fantasy.
>
> The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
> nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
> accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
> over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
> worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
> realise quite what modern reality is.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário