Theory Nerds!

[skvorisdeadsorta]

My question(s): Is the radical critique of capitalism indeed a dead letter in today's world, lingering only in a few crusty academic departments?

No, I honestly don't think so and I will tell you why. The system, which it stands today, can not sustain itself forever. For one thing, unlike Tuatha, I believe that unions are quite possibly a great example of what we SHOULD be doing. I disagree with the assertions that unions and worker's rights falls under anti-democratic and anti-capitalist provisions. The great thing about unions is that they gave you the weekend, a fourty hour work week, sick leave, anti-child labor laws, and a slew of other things. As we go toward a more serivice based economy, it frightens me that most companies and state laws prohibit unionization whenever it is these companies that will always look the other way when it comes to labor laws and use financial blackmail against it's employees in the name of profits. In my opinion, our economic values and the way that coporations perform in present global capitalism could use a kick in the ass.

Have all possible alternatives to capitalism been exhausted (or even worse, demonstrated their inherent authoritrarianism?) Is capitalism to be celebrated as the most fair, just, and free economic system possible?

No, not even close. In my opinion there is still the Marxist approach, which I feel as never been used ever since it's inception. Most "marxist" or communist states have always been state sponsored capital losing many of the ideals of Marx along the way, the Soviet example being the largest. I still don't believe that capitalism should be celebrated as the end all and be all of a just society. In my opinion, what we are experiencing is gross matieralism that has manifested itself seperating the classes under the guise or "capitalist freedom".

[chrisfan]

I would never disagree that unions have brought some good things to the work place. No question, they have. But just how long do they get to coast on the good they've done in the past? Is it not appropriate to point to the bad they do as well as the good they did? After all, it is the unions in sports that have protected athlete's steroid use up until this point. On a more important level - take a look at the health of some of the industries in the US where unions are strongest - steel, automotive, the airlines. How can it not be agrgued that in those cases, the unions have pushed beyond protecting workers rights, to the point of weakening the companies they're negotiating with? What good does it do the union members to have a strong union, but no company to employee them?

[skvorisdeadsorta]

nymphofantasia said:

I have a question. What is the real difference between Communism and Fascism and did Nietzsche's philosophy have any influence on the formation of these ideas? Mussolini was a big Nietzsche fan, and he was indeed part of both movements at one time. Its well known that Hitler "used" the philosophy to form his ideology. Did Stalin use it as well?

The way I see it, the cognomen of "communism" comes from the Latin root communis, which means "group" living. Fascism is a derivation of the Italian word fascio, which is translated as "bundle" or "group." Both fascism and communism are forms of coercive group living, or more concisely, collectivism. The only difference between the two is fascism's limited observance of private property rights, which is illusive at best given its susceptibility to rigid government regulation. Nazism is derivative of Marxism. The historical conflicts between communism and fascism was merely a dispute between two socialist totalitarian camps, not two dichotomously related forces. Both substantially represent the Nietzschean concept of the "human herd," a societal paradigm that makes the idividual subordinate to the collective. Nietzschean philosophy comprises an idealogy binding Hitler, Marx, and other socialist totalitarians.

"The whole of National Socialism is based on Marx"

Adolph Hitler speaking to Hermann Rauschning in 1933

This is a great example, in my honest opinion of how Marx and his ideals have been misquoted time and time again, much like many have misquoted the Bible. The fundamentals of Marx are democratic in nature and the only thing, again in my opinion (which I'm sure Mary will school me like a three year old), that should be focused on is the owning the means of your own production.

Now, Communism and Facism as we know them in the 20th century, no there really isn't much of a difference, but then I contend that the examples of Communism that we have are far from the vison of Marx. As far as Nietzsche's influence on Facism, I would say that it was there, but most in the movement, particularly only read what they thought applied to them. I am reading a book right now called "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and the man that wrote it contends that Nietzsche's influence was not as major as one would think and on many levels he surmised that Nietzsche probably would have disliked, even hated, being quoted and used by the Nazi Party. As far as the influence on Stalin, in the books that I have read Stalin was not much of a reader and I doubt that Nietzsche had much of an influence on his thoughts.

Nazism is so far away from Marxism, it couldn't possibly be derivative as far as I see it. For one thing, Hitler hated Marx, marxists, socialists, and those of the left. Hitler was of the FAR RIGHT and the only reason the party used "socialist" in their name was for the purposes of converting the german society into extreme Nationalism. "National socialist" being the society of the national. That's it. As far as Nietsche bringing all of these together in a collective horror under his philosophy, I had always took it that he was more in line with Dionysian gluttony and making FUN of the herd than creating the basis for authoritarianism.

As far as the Russians go, Stalin had learned all he needed to during the Red Terror of Lenin. Much of his drive was a need for power and nothing more. Stalin wasn't an academic and neither was Hitler, which probably explained why they had some extremly crackpot ideas.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

chrisfan said:

I would never disagree that unions have brought some good things to the work place. No question, they have. But just how long do they get to coast on the good they've done in the past? Is it not appropriate to point to the bad they do as well as the good they did? After all, it is the unions in sports that have protected athlete's steroid use up until this point. On a more important level - take a look at the health of some of the industries in the US where unions are strongest - steel, automotive, the airlines. How can it not be argued that in those cases, the unions have pushed beyond protecting workers rights, to the point of weakening the companies they're negotiating with? What good does it do the union members to have a strong union, but no company to employee them?

In my opinion it is sad that unions have been demonized in our modern society due to the media and the albatross of the era of the mafioso teamsters. Sure it's appropriate to point out the bad stuff that has happened in unions, especially if you're argument is anti-union, which I am not accusing you of having that view point, by the way.

As far as using the example of the athlete's union, ho hum, that is not an important union for the need of the people. That is an entertainment union whose sole economy is derived from the demand for being entertained. I personally find the gross capitalism of modern athletics appalling and would do away with it in our academic institutions all together, giving the choice of those wanting to be athletes to joining leagues or starting their own. Being healthy is one thing, making a shit load of money for doing nothing doesn't really do it for me.

For one thing, Chrisfan, unions keep management honest. If I could unionize where I work, I would do it in a heartbeat for a plethora of reasons. Now, having a company like Whole Foods where a union isn't needed because of the honesty of upper management is a great thing, if that were to happen that would be wonderful, but we all know that there will be someone who will not abide by laws, regulations, or good pay so that their profit margins rise. Unions, in my opinion, are as relevant now as ever before.

[Artknocker]

Hey, if the owners are willing to pay the BEST players astronomical salaries, why should that be prevented? It's like an auction; some teams can go higher than others. Life is not fair; you cannot take from the rich and give to the poor. Unless you hit the lottery or inherited your great wealth, chances are you worked for your money and earned it. And you can do whatever you want with it...once the IRS takes their bite.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

I'm not saying otherwise, Art, I'm just saying PERSONALLY, I can't understand being payed an astronomical wage for playing something like Football. It's ridiculous and it doesn't serve a purpose to me. I watch sports, it's nothing against athletes or anything, I just don't see the NEED for it. I was using it as an example of a Union that is WORTHLESS and does no good for the Amercian working man. As far as working for it.........mmmm.......I'll take a sheetmetal or steel worker anyday as far as being a real worker over some guy practicing at spring training for Baseball. Yeah.......hard effing life there, man.

[luke]

Thing about pro sports players is that they actually do work harder than the rest of us. You can't tell me that being on a professional team of any sort isn't harder work than sitting around in a cubicle.

Yeah, they get paid so much because of our society's fixation on entertainment, but the people paying these guys' salary are those of us who buy tickets or tune in.

Maybe these guys aren't as "important" in respects to the "common man," and maybe their unions only serve as ways to prevent even greedier people from making even more money. But I promise you that ANYONE working as hard at ANYTHING as the common pro athlete would probably be making a similar salary.

I mean...there's gotta be a Michael Jordan of, say, accounting out there, and I'm sure he's quite the millionaire.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Truth be told, and I am a musician who would like to do it pro, but I think major artists make too much money. It's work, it's hard work, but man, I'd be happy just making 40,000 forever. That would be fine with me.

[chrisfan]

Skvor, I don't disagree with you that the example of sports unions is not the best example. That's why I followed that up with "On a more important level" and went into concerns over industries which are faltering in this country due in part to the death grip that unions have on them.

[rockysigman]

The thing about professional athletes' salaries is this:

Yes, they are paid obcene salaries. However, with the massive revenue generated by professional sports, that money has to go somewhere. May as well go to the athletes rather than the owners, no? I mean, even though you might not consider what they do to be real work, Skvor, certainly you agree that they're doing more to generate that revenue than the owners?

Also, since athletic careers are so short, large salaries often simply make up for less working years (although, yes, I realize that after retirement, these athletes could, and usually do, start second careers). And no, I'm not referring to A-Rod type salaries here (doesn't matter how short your career is at $26 million a year--you should be set for life). In Major League Baseball, the minimum salary is, I believe, $350,000. I think most people would love to have a job where the minimum was $350,000 a year. But most of the players making that much are guys who aren't going to play for more than a few years, in which case the money they make playing sure isn't going to support them and their families forever. Not that I'm trying to evoke sympathy for any of them or anything--it was their own choice to persue such a risky career--but I just wanted to throw in a few extra things to think about.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Actually Chrisfan, I am of the opinion that the industries (with the exception of the Airlines) that you mentioned are not suffering from Unions, but are suffering from NAFTA, CAFTA, tariffs that Bush chickened out on fighting by saying he was going to challenge the WTO, but backed down at last minute. I find that our industry has much more to be worried about than the driving up of their wages.
Now Airlines, I think they have much to fight for with United screwing people out of their pensions, which weren't that much to begin with all the while the CEO still met his salary requirement. Seems dubious to me that things like this happen all the time and if you really looked at what an airlplane mechanic, pilot, or steward made, you'd probably scratch your head think to yourself, man I thought they made more than that.

[chrisfan]

Of the salaries I've seen for the employees you've listed in the airline industry - no, I have not scratched my head and thought they made more.

[shin]

On the moon, theory nerds get their pants pulled down, and they are spanked with moon rocks.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Really? Man, I think they should make a little more.......just my own personal opinion.

[Mary]

Woah - I posted that question late one night half-asleep and then completely forgot I ever posted it - I only just now noticed it had not only sparked some discussion, but even a priceless old-school jllm-tries-to-goad-mary posting!! When I get one of those, I know I'm doing well

And indeed I will respond to the goading - but first I have to respond to Tuatha's post:


I have a question. What is the real difference between Communism and Fascism and did Nietzsche's philosophy have any influence on the formation of these ideas? Mussolini was a big Nietzsche fan, and he was indeed part of both movements at one time. Its well known that Hitler "used" the philosophy to form his ideology. Did Stalin use it as well?

Couple of things - I'll spare everyone a long and boring exposition of Nietzsche's philosophy (besides, that would be really hard to do, since he's so... anti-systematic) but, suffice to say, while it's true that Nietzsche was a huge inspiration to Hitler, it's also true that Hitler (and nazism more generally) effectively mangled Nietzsche's philosophy, very selectively choosing particular passages, often out of context, to serve their own purposes, while ignoring many other passages which blatantly contradicted nazi ideology. Part of this is due to the woeful influence of Nietzsche's sister, who was indeed a true fascist (she lived an insanely long time and even met Hitler eventually) - after Nietzsche died, she published a large number of his writings, but only after she went through them and systematically deleted passages which were not hospitable to fascism, as well as changed around some sentences and blatantly fabricated things Nietzsche himself never wrote.

That's not to say there wasn't anything disturbing in Nietzsche's writings...to the contrary, there was tons of stuff, and there's a reason why it's Nietzsche and not John Stuart Mill who the fascists latched onto, even if they had to read him very selectively to do it... but I just wanted to absolve nietzsche himself of some kind of pure and direct statement of fascism - he's a lot more complicated than that.

OK - onto the fascism vs. communisim question in the next post...don't want to turn this post into War and Peace..

Cheers,
M