New Atheism feels like jumping the shark. My reaction is always something like, do we really still have to talk about this stuff? New Atheists, famous and not, tend to just make me cringe. I have to tell myself that many vocally atheist atheists have grown up religious or live in countries in which religion does damage. — Jamal

Heh. Being the self-critical sort, I've felt that cringe in spite of basically being a part of the group :D.

Kind of, at least. More just a participant than an organizer (though I did grow up religious, so I fit that part of the description). The one interesting trend that I saw coming out of it all was Atheism+, or something along those lines, where people wanted to say more than "Boo, religion!", but wanted to create ethical secular communities. Those are still around, though definitely not as sexy for the press as "Boo, religion!" :D

But, for me, the political has a deeper pull. I was interested in world-changing philosophies and action, not just acceptance under the norm. (tho that's a worthy goal, too)

And that’s the thing. There’s plenty of bad religion around. Intolerant theism in the US and the Middle East, a whole Christian church in the service of an authoritarian state in Russia. So maybe we need some better New Atheism after all.

But no, I don’t think so (I’m thinking as I write here). I’m an atheist but I don’t think the problem is religion as such, just the bad stuff. Take Islam. It’s stupid for Western atheists to tell Muslims that their whole way of life, in its most important aspects, is not only false and a sham but is also responsible ultimately for some terrible crimes against humanity. This does not help reformers at all. — Jamal

Heh, no worries. I'm also thinking as I write. I think that this would have been a much better approach -- helping reformers, fostering acceptance, that sort of thing. Definitely better than "You're a bunch of dummies and I'm super smart and ethical!" :D

And, yes, I despised the "criticisms" of Islam from the New Atheists -- the so called rationalists couldn't see that where they thought they were being rationally consistent, in that time it was just clear they were talking about it due to geopolitics -- and leaning into Islamophobic talking points to be "part of the conversation". So incredibly stupid.

So when I think fondly of the New Atheism, I guess I think more along the lines of the people who were asking for much less than what I was looking for: the people that just wanted a community, and to not be discriminated against for not believing. I was driven away by the talking heads, but looking back those were the people I'd consider to be the only reason it took off. When you're pissed, angry talking heads can sell books. It's consoling to find a voice for an anger you couldn't express.

The leaders were just stupid enough to really believe they were these rationally enlightened people, which totally killed it for me :D (plus, I remember one of the talks I went to, an organizer trying to explain science, and even as an undergrad I was like "Uhh... you're sort of using these Aristotelian notions which are not applicable at all", but that's just the philosophy nerd in me)

So throw New Atheism in the bin and foster tolerance and understanding for religious people while helping reformers within religions. This is a basis for fighting the bad religion.

It has nothing to do with believing in things without evidence or all that. It’s not about faith. What someone is expected to do for their faith, how far they will go, and exactly how the holy texts should be interpreted, are political and historically specific. — Jamal

Oh yeah, we're on the same page here.

There are many communities of faith that just straight up rock. So there are counter-examples to the atheist screed, at least if you have a political viewpoint. As a for instance, Quakers.

Still... sometimes one wishes that things went different. Could still happen! But I agree, overall, that for me at least, I'm not willing to organize along these lines because I really do want more than the status quo. (even though that is a respectable political goal)

Ahh, OK. Gotcha. And it looks like that's more where the OP was headed, too, so that makes sense.

Interesting that you'd call it a problem. Why is it a problem?

I suppose that's the point I take issue with, then.

Though, if we're just taking that definition as the rule -- then your conclusion does follow. You and everyone else is disingenuous, as they are, in fact, influenced by the things around them.

Only God could claim to be authentic under such a criteria, though.

not quite what I'm getting at here. — Darkneos

No? M'kay. Then my mistake.

"Propaganda" was introduced by me, mostly because it fit, to my mind, with what you were saying about our emotions being the result of cause-and-effect, that we are puppets to society, and that these influences render us disingenuous, and under control. But I'm willing to drop that, only justifying where I was thinking from.

Still -- I'm pointing out that I disagree that these influences make us disingenuous, in my first post. That we feel means we are connected to a world, which is, in fact, where we are. If we do not feel, then while we are in a world we are no longer connected to it.

It's not being under influence which makes us disingenuous. It depends upon more than that. Such as being manipulated in a particular way. (hence why I immediately went for propaganda)

Interesting!

I think I'd prefer to reserve the term "ideology" for something which can be "unseen": basically in the manner I was using it before, where ideology is that which makes propaganda acceptable, uncrude, and functional, and the removal of ideology is the reduction of propaganda to a command (seeing propaganda as propagada)

But if ideology is that which we must have in order to conceive at all -- like a fish out of water, as you say -- then it would be inescapable. You could switch out the water, because it's gone bad, but there'd always be an environment which we're needing...

Something like a social environment? Or a set of beliefs? Or what?

Oh, definitely. What a great flick!

Though I don't think that I'd say that ideology is inescapable -- he does put on the glasses after all, and is able to perceive the subtext as text, and see the aliens that live among them.

***
I think, upon first being able to see subtext, we get this sense that it's inescapable because it's also everywhere. Or, at least, upon first being able to perceive propaganda as propaganda, it is surprising how ubiquitous it is since the very function of ideology is to make the crudeness of propaganda acceptable, a part of the day to day.

So I feel empathy for @Darkneos's thoughts. There's a sense in which it can feel like you're being controlled, that there is no escape, and that the people around you don't even acknowledge the propaganda around them.

But that's actually because the best propaganda doesn't look like propaganda to its target audience -- the crudity of propaganda is only apparent upon being perceived as propaganda, upon being able to reduce it to a command. And if you're just putting the glasses on for the first time, it can seem like nobody else has "figured it out" -- but the truth is, just enough people have "figured it out" that it's still effective. (And, as the movie more or less preaches to us, those alien persons who see the field of desire as a machine to be manipulated for their own ends -- They Live! :D)

Yup.


Another way to look at emotions and manipulation is that this is how we are connected to an environment. Yes, we are deeply influenced by those around us -- they are a part of our environment. While the emotions can be manipulated for a purpose, in the non-malignant form, it's a good thing that our emotions respond to the world -- it's how we act and feel and know.

"brainwashed" isn't the right word, because that would be a programmatic approach -- and on a large scale we're just not that in control of even ourselves to get up to the point of controlling others. Propaganda is much more crude than that. It's flashy -- often times it can be reduced to a command: "AVOID" "FEAR" "BUY" "VOTE". And it's crude because it doesn't need to be sophisticated: it works on emotions that are already there. It's not brainwashing as much as calling attention.

Clever. :)

Now.... what that is.... eh. Usual philosophical wondering stuff... :D

It does!

I'm thinking it does more than that too, though.

Uh... thinking -- on the other side, I'm saying the dry subjects people hate -- logic and such -- not only should but does address itself to everyone. Even if they don't like it.

I'm thinking along the lines of The Forms and the cave. Maybe there's a way of concieving the forms elsewise -- but my thoughts with regards to the mythic, at least, are along those lines: the cave makes sense to me. When Plato writes about the light which you turn to, this is a feeling, at least, that I think I've had.

And yet it is also a myth which orients me, rather than a truth. I'm tempted to say "literal", but I know I mean more than that.... I'm just uncertain how to make more of a differentiation at this point.

Heh.

So -- no! :D

Or, at least, only in part -- the part of philosophy I still have no idea what to do with. (the mythic)

:(

Accessibility is a big issue for philosophy, I think. And not because of those who practice philosophy -- if anything, anyone who is a professional philosopher is usually pretty open to talking philosophy, even though it is their day job. (and willing to use their privileges of access to help)

That is way too high a price. IMO. I've bitten the bullet before, but jeeminy.

Yup.

I have felt the need to ask "Why?", not only to myself, but also to others.

Sometimes the world just feels unfair.

We feel as if it ought not be, but it does feel that way.

What I've found is the world is, in fact, unfair. It's not the universe, though. Just us in our place at a time. Unfortunately, due to there being no cosmic reasons for disparity, it's actually just up to the person who has bad luck to get out of it.

Hrrm!

So if every human has a metaphysic, then should philosophy address itself to every human?




That quote gave me the good feels. :hearts:

Does a person really have to separate themselves of ego and thinking they themselves are important in order to successfully be philosophical? — TiredThinker

Nope!

One of the reasons I love philosophy is its open-ended nature. There are rules as you start to think philosophically, but you are also free. Ala existentialism, at least a certain interpretation of that in a general sense, the only philosophical question is to know yourself. If you know yourself, then you have succeeded, philosophically.

Alas, meaning is use, I understood it -- grammar is post hoc. (thereby confirming the meaningless mess of the cosmos)

That's even worse. Now I have to choose! :D

Cheers!

(trying to adopt the phrase. this is the right time I believe)

I woke up a little early, and realized I had a copy of the book. I'm glad the forum's collective resources did something! See, we're not just goofing off. (we're helping others goof off too)

:D

What can I say, I'm a big softie, and I'm just glad that anyone is following along.

Or, well -- "time to do so" -- sounds annoyed. I don't care if you do chime in. Only noting I won't have all the clever banter I've been putting up :D -- maybe I'll focus more on interpretation, as I ought to.

Hrmm... they did say "next week" in the stream. I'm going to be straight and say, I'm catching up. That's a good opportunity. For thems following along and who have the companion and who want to chime in, that'd be the time to do so.

:D Got a good belly laugh out of me.

Well, after we solve the foundations of analytic Marxism, maybe we can start a reading group ;)

I'm really interested that "species-being" came up. I thought that would drop dead.

My buddy would always made the joke that he's left of Marx because he didn't believe in a species-being, and only believed in freedom.

I've yet to do V3, but my understanding is that's where he tackles that very question and concludes that transit is a part of SNLT. (not read your posts there yet, definitely going to)

I think, in the most abstract sense, it does. If you think about a firm there are people who really just move things to where they need to be, when you think about it abstractly.

I think it gets really confusing because of the obvious conflict between "I drive things over here and back and don't make things, so what?", but then if they didn't do so the market wouldn't be expanded, and capital must expand.

ooo... nice question. "alienated labor -- alienated capital -- what is it they are alienated from?"

I'll admit that alienation is one of the harder concepts of Marx. "that capacity is alienated from the worker by going under the control of capital" -- perfect answer. The worker is there, and while they have capacity to do things, that capacity is owned by someone else. It was bought. And they don't control the process or product, either.

"Now, capital is alienated" -- interesting!

2 reasons -- the coercive laws of competition force capitalists to do things whether they like it or not. If child laborers are acceptable in a market, the other businesses which employ child labor will out-compete you. "in a market system, abstractions rule"

Heyyy... question for you @fdrake -- question about "workers retain past value" -- that wasn't what I was thinking in the question. But yup, I like this too. In a sense I've looked at the Labor Theory of Value, since it uses an SI unit, as being a possible conservation law.

Heh. posted my notes to respond, because I lost them last time when trying to respond.

But, yup! All that responsibility placed on you making so much sense.

Heh. While the reading material became more interesting, I have to say halfway through that makes the conversation less about the text. But that's not bad. I'm glad to hear the class talking and asking questions they're thinking about. If the book doesn't connect to our lives then it's purely academic. And, honestly, the text became more interesting so I don't need Harvey to connect as much in explaining why something is relevant. I'm just noting feelings.

"If you look at the statistics in Marx's times the largest category of labor was domestic service" -- that's interesting. And I like how Harvey is connecting that to how in Marx's time domestic labor was not organized by a firm, so it didn't seem relevant. But Harvey even mentioned the actor quote I posted, and noted how at the moment it didn't make sense where today it does. (hah! though he doesn't want to spend too much time on productive/unproductive... fair enough. It's kind of an "ad hoc" theory, looked at from a certain view, though I always like to note that it didn't take us long to figure out, in practice, what was productive/unproductive during COVID-19, so maybe that's why it's wise to not spend time on it -- it doesn't matter except as a political decision, rather than as theory)

Harvey has a wonderful mastery of Marx in his reading. He's so comfortable with all the texts and concepts he's fielding questions about difficult concepts with ease. And he's not fudging it: there are times I can tell the students in class (as an aside, the students questions have been great, and I admire the work they're putting in) have questions with some kind of hope, but Harvey is straightforward and doesn't mind dampening hopes in the name of a consistent and honest reading.

Very side note, but "labor is purposive activity" reminds me of Kant's aesthetics. I try to de-emphasize the Kant-Marx connection, now, because I've come around to saying their similarities make sense through the common influence of Rousseau. And I think that the angle of Rousseau has gone underemphasized -- no one wants to admit to Romantic influences, it's all about the Enlightenment! :D

That's awesome.

Now, how to intregrate this into a formalization of Hegelian dialectic, and the beginnings of analytic Marxism will be complete! :D

:D

I agree. There's been a lot of bits like that throughout, for me -- where there's been a slog, but then there's something that finally clicks, and it really does change the way I look at things. Like money.

Though for me, I'd actually not want to de-emphasize the numbers as Harvey did. One of the things that would excite me is if I could utilize these to begin to understand a way of setting up formulas, make measurements, etc. -- that is, I'm interested in Marx, in addition to the many ways he's used, but in his original purpose: as a scientific project of economics. It's one of those questions that's always interested me.

But it's worth noting that Marx is a philosopher first, and has been read in many ways. And I like that Harvey says that too :D.

By the way, for 14MAR23, marxists dot org link and final paragraph:

Finally, the result of the process of production and realization is, above all, the reproduction and new production of the relation of capital and labour itself, of capitalist and worker. This social relation, production relation, appears in fact as an even more important result of the process than its material results. And more particularly, within this process the worker produces himself as labour capacity, as well as the capital confronting him, while at the same time the capitalist produces himself as capital as well as the living labour capacity confronting him. Each reproduces itself, by reproducing its other, its negation. The capitalist produces labour as alien; labour produces the product as alien. The capitalist produces the worker, and the worker the capitalist etc.

Yup! that's what I was thinking. (though it being consistent with V2 is pure luck, since I've yet to get that far!)

Page 350 before class started today. Glad to hear some of the comments up front about how this section is when we hit a turning point, because that's what I was thinking -- that it started get interesting at this point.

I'm looking forward to being caught up next week, since it's a skip week.

That's interesting. M-C-C-M is given a directional connotation though right. A big deal's been made about money going the opposite way around the cycle than commodities. I agree with you that both make sense. Though maybe they should not. — fdrake

I agree there's definitely a direction to M-C-C-M -- I interpret it as the second moment in the process of circulation. The C-M-M-C moment is from the one side of the laborer, and the M-C-C-M moment is from the other side as the capitalist.

And maybe they should not -- I'm definitely still playing around, and only sharing thoughts here. I'm not firm on anything yet.

Are the raw materials interpreted as commodities in your view? Are they there "before" this step of circulation? — fdrake

Nope! I agree that the raw materials are a commodity. The means of production (the factory, the spinner) are a commodity, the raw materials (wool) are, and so is the living labor purchased. In order for raw materials, like gold or iron or what have you, to enter into the economic relation, even though they are there beforehand, they must be worked, so they have labor time invested in them.

Another good Grundrisse quote, p 328/329 -- for thems who believe that workers are strictly factory workers making things:

Actors are productive workers, not in so far as they produce a play, but in so far as they increase their employer's wealth

What counts as a commodity can be, say, a Starbucks coffee. Service.

This breakdown is really good. Especially with the interweaving of the quotes.

I have one but: I thought the first "C" in "M-C-C-M" was the purchase of the labor commodity. Fortunately, I think this doesn't really do much against your breakdown. Flip 'em around and it works. The commodity labor is purchased and then does work on raw materials with the instruments(means) to create a commodity to be sold on the market which then yields money, having been sold.

Page 322 -- there are these quotes and times in Marx which crack me up because the arguments he's responding to are old even then, and I hear them today. One such quote in today's reading:

Thus the economists take refuge in this simple process in order to construct a legitimation, an apology for capital by explaining it with the aid of the very process which makes its existence impossible. In order to demonstrate it, they demonstrate it away. You pay me for my labour, you exchange it for its product and deduct from my pay the value of the raw material and instrument which you have furnished. That means we are partners who bring different elements into the process of production and exchange according to their value

"That means we are partners" is what made me smile. Might as well say we're all a family while we're at it :D