Postcards:

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

d63
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 » Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:02 pm

In reference to string: https://www.facebook.com/groups/filosop ... 208377019/

“So... all this would be useful for what???” –Armand Martin

First of all, Armand: I’m glad you asked. Not only is this a question I’ve spent about the last 40 years of my life trying to answer (a question I’ve built a lot of confidence and comfort with answering), but you’ve pretty much given me the keys to the kingdom in that the question and answer lies at the core of almost every space (every sandbox (I inhabit here: the opportunity for cross pollination here is like… wow!!! Everything coming together….

Alright!!!!! Let’s get started:

I would start with a question for you, Armand: why does everything have to be “useful”? Now I get it. I, myself, have argued throughout these boards that there is a disconnect between theory and day to day life. But why does everything we do have to be useful? The diametrical opposite of Play?

It seems to me that what you are appealing to is the tyranny of the functional which can be unequivocally attributed to the corporate values of producer/consumer Capitalism. And in that context, no form of opposition could be more useful than useless acts of play. I mean how is watching a movie or listening to a song “useful”? One could even ask how engaging in religious rituals are “useful”. Yet people engage in these acts all the time. I, and my respected colleagues, engage in this not because it might lead to the creation of an I-Phone; but because it justifies (makes beautiful (our point A to point B.

And in that context, we see an actual use for seemingly “useless” pursuits of knowledge:

We, as a species, are at an important evolutionary milestone: we either evolve beyond the competitive mode we started with (that which uses our higher cognitive functions for the purposes of our baser impulses (into the cooperative: that which turns to a tit for tat relationship between our baser impulses and our higher cognitive functions (or we end up destroying ourselves as a species. And it may well be (via brain plasticity (our more “useless” forms of Play that get us beyond that very important milestone.

This is important, guys. And Armand’s question is proof positive.

d63
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 » Mon May 01, 2017 9:17 pm

“In his consideration of law and repetition in the introduction to Difference and Repetition, Deleuze is not primarily concerned with laws of nature but with moral laws that are based on acts meant to be independent of laws of nature. His target is not science but a Kantian approach to morality.” -Williams, James. Gilles Deleuze's Difference and Repetition: A Critical Introduction and Guide (pp. 35-36). Edinburgh University Press. Kindle Edition.

Williams then goes on to say:

“However, this focus on morality is also a weakness. It means that, at this stage of his book, Deleuze continues to evade legitimate questions concerning the role that science may have to play in the development of his own concepts. Does it make sense to speak of intensity, of individuals and of their acts without putting these terms to scientific scrutiny, in the form of experiments, and to scientific criticisms, in the form of comparison with what is known about these concepts (Emotions are produced by these chemical reactions. This individual has these properties. The reasons given for these acts are . . . The chemical genetic and physical explanations for them are . . .)?”

And we have to agree with Williams here. There is just no way around science. I recently came up against this with my model of the psychotic and the sociopathic in the context of the nihilistic perspective and the symbolic order. The two people who were responding to it kept responding in terms of the clinical definitions of psychosis and sociopathy while I was working in the metaphorical: I was attempting to describe a cultural phenomenon. To put it another way, I was offering a model that would be of more interest to artists than anyone who wanted a more expositional understanding of the human condition. And I would humbly offer a model that might lead a consolidation between the continental and analytic approaches to philosophy.

I return to my revision of Russell’s description of philosophy: that it lies in that no-man’s land between science and theology. I, however, given the secular times we live in, have revised it to that which lies in that no-man’s land between Science and Literature. Here, for me at least, we get a more delicate understanding of the difference between the analytic and continental approach: while the analytic leans towards the science side of the science/literature spectrum, the continental leans towards the literature side of it.

And both have value: the scientific for seeing the facts in the face of that which resonates and seduces and the literary for posing the resonate and seductive against the operationalism of the scientific that claims to have exclusive access to facts when it, in fact, gets thing wrong from time to time, especially when it comes to the human condition which can’t be isolated in a lab environment.

d63
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 » Sun May 28, 2017 6:40 pm

“Although viewed as political opposites, the two movements had surprising overlap. Contrary to the widespread belief that Occupy Wall Street shilled for the Democratic Party, only 27 percent of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators were Democrats. Seventy percent were Independents. The Tea Party, in turn, was hardly a front for Republicans, as 40 percent of its members were Democrats or Independents; 34 percent were self-described moderates or liberals.” –from Ronald W. Dworkin’s How Karl Marx Can Save American Capitalism –a book I will be immersed in for the next 3 to 4 weeks and that you (unfortunate soul (will be hearing about……

And so the plot thickens –especially for those seeking any type of full understanding (i.e. the intellectuals). Of course (for me at least), there were always hints. Being a progressive in the Midwest, I have seen the overlaps between the concerns of my right-wing friends and mine. It was their focuses and solutions that always concerned me. And through that I have come to see that people are always more complex than the ideologies they embrace or anything they could say at any given time. I even know it from an inside perspective, if you will (you know what I'm talking about, right?).

But do not mistake me for some kind of beautiful soul or saint. I, too, have succumbed (and will likely continue to succumb (will try to articulate on the benefit of it as I go along (to the personal war rally: one that actually goes to the fascist extreme wondering if those people shouldn’t be wiped out of the human gene pool or, at least, quarantined in Texas: a Fed-Free zone where they can carry out their Fed Free fuck fantasies to their ultimate end. But that response is out of the fear that comes from some obtuse, ignorant statement like Ben Carson’s “poverty is a state of mind”. In such moments, I would like take an idiot like that and drop him off in some inner city so he can see, for himself, how much of a “state of mind” it actually is.

And that type of fancy is all fun and fine –as, once again, I will attempt to articulate on later. But as an intellectually and creatively curious person, I(we(you: the other I (am committed to working beyond fancy. And to that end and agenda, I can only quote Alexander Pope:

“A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.”

Walker
Posts: 4337
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Postcards:

Post by Walker » Mon May 29, 2017 12:34 pm

Didn't Carson grow up in poverty, in Detroit?

I do know that some of his autobiographical memories have been questioned.

d63
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 » Wed May 31, 2017 12:07 am

"Didn't Carson grow up in poverty, in Detroit?

I do know that some of his autobiographical memories have been questioned." -Walker, in response to:

"But that response is out of the fear that comes from some obtuse, ignorant statement like Ben Carson’s “poverty is a state of mind”. In such moments, I would like take an idiot like that and drop him off in some inner city so he can see, for himself, how much of a “state of mind” it actually is." -me: a quote from: https://www.facebook.com/groups/6757450 ... 630191402/

First of all, Walker, I apologize for the way I started this. I'm basically setting it up for cross-pollination for other boards I work on. Secondly, despite the gotcha moment you seem to be working for here, and the tone of encounters we've had before, you SEEM to be playing nice. So my hairline trigger is pretty much in check.

That said: nice try. But I've had similar arguments thrown at me as concerns artists like Whoopie Goldberg and Jay-Z. But for every Whoopie Goldberg or Jay-Z or ghetto bred athlete that makes it big, there are thousands of other brothers and sisters trying to make good, only to fail and succumb to the decadence of their environment. However, your point is a little different (and almost effective in that sense (in that you are undermining my implication that Carson is somehow oblivious to the REAL conditions of poverty.

But I would argue that it doesn't really matter if he did grow up in poverty. As the psychological, sociological, and neurological sciences have shown, our acts are never as fully dependent on free will as Capitalism would have us believe. Even if Carson was born in poverty, there were likely a lot of variables at work that were external to him: family, genetics, whatever. And too often, when a person like that rises out of their circumstances (that which results from a kind of flow: things falling into place), they tend to assume that just because they did it, everyone else can too. This is complete nonsense. Failure is built into the system in that Ben Carson's success only has value because not every other person in the ghetto did what he did. If every person in the ghetto did what he did, then the laws of supply and demand would render his effort of little value.

The poetic justice of it lies in the role he has taken on for Trump: that of a kind of house slave -Malcolm X used a much more abrasive term: Trump's fallback if anyone should call him a racist. But he's like the slave that the master takes into the house and gives privileges to so that when the slaves get antsy and think about rebelling or escaping or even question their situation, he can be there telling them not to do it since things could be much worse than what they have. (See Samuel L. Jackson's role in Tarantino's Django Unchained.)

d63
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 » Wed May 31, 2017 1:59 am

“What both Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party railed against, and what stifled Jack and Mindy’s desire to produce, was a modern version of feudalism. Mindy and her Occupy Wall Street comrades called it “corporate welfare”; Jack and his fellow Tea Partiers called it “crony capitalism”; but in essence, what they protested was the economic structure of feudalism.” –from Ronald W. Dworkin’s How Karl Marx Can Save American Capitalism

And I would also note:

“But according to Marx it is not man the frustrated consumer who revolts; it is the frustrated producer.” –ibid

And what I would mainly note, as concerns the second quote, is it’s obliviousness towards the postmodern recognition (a turn from Marx’s emphasis on production (of how we are also exploited as consumers via media.

The thing is when I first got this book in the mail, I was totally cranked: not only because I had earned it by getting my answer to the question of the month published in Philosophy Now, but because it seemed relevant to the answer I gave: my evolutionary model of the competitive and the cooperative. But all it took was a few glances through it before I discovered a point where Dworkin claimed to be seeking a solution that didn’t involve government intervention. And everything I have read so far has supported my initial instincts: that what I’m looking at little more than a common libertarian that was clever enough to treat Marx with enough respect to make the FreeMarketFundamentalist agenda seem more respectable than it really is –that is through a balanced perspective. I would note, for instance, Dworkin’s descriptions of how government regulations (via corporate influence (or that of guilds (have shut out newcomers. And that sounds a lot like the libertarian agenda.

And while I agree those issues have to be addressed; what Dworkin seems to neglecting thus far is the only real role of government: that as check and balance to corporate power which can only be achieved through an expansion of the public economy. So let’s just say I am approaching this book with reservations. But I am committing to a 40 hour immersion in it (to go over and over it and get to know it intimately (for the sake of coming up with a critique of it and expressing it in a Philosophy Now article.

And once again, dear reader, I apologize for the bombardment (the repetition (ahead of time.

Walker
Posts: 4337
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Postcards:

Post by Walker » Wed May 31, 2017 2:39 am

Being a man of science, I suppose Carson thought that since he was born into poverty and raised in poverty, where he witnessed in neighbors and peers the effects of daily attitudes over time, and since he has spent fortunes helping people out of poverty after finding his own way out of poverty, that this conferred an objective, rational measure of authority to his views on poverty.

d63
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:34 pm

"A complete victory for crony capitalism would have broad scope, with ramifications that penetrate deep into society. Not only would millions of Americans continue to be deprived of an opportunity to produce, but also the frontiers of production would close even further to them. For the last half-century, social scientists have observed that Americans increasingly forsake the world of production for the world of consumption. As government and business work together to control the dimensions of public life, including politics and work, Americans shift their attention to private life, dwelling on the small and petty differences between brands and tastes. Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre calls this new state of affairs "bureaucratic individualism." Many Americans no longer build towns out of deserts or drain cities out of swamps, but they do know, for example, ten different kinds of jeans and can speak authoritatively on twenty different kinds of chocolate. Serious people of all political persuasions bemoan this change as a ridiculous and embarrassing end to a great people. As crony capitalism accelerates, people lose the world of production and gain a paltry remainder. The nightmare of a deformed human being who not only does not create but who has no interest in creating, and who consumes but does not produce, becomes more real." -from Ronald Dworkin's How Karl Marx Can Save American Capitalism

I would first note Dworkin's surprising turn from my initial concerns with the book. My initial concern was that he was propping up a libertarian agenda, mainly focused around deregulation that would support the efforts of smaller and newer businesses (something I do support with qualifications), under the guise of a Marxist perspective on Capitalism. But what I've seen thus far is more a focus on the alienation that Capitalism (especially Crony Capitalism (can lead to.

That said, there seems to be lot to unpack here. So I start by focusing on:

“For the last half-century, social scientists have observed that Americans increasingly forsake the world of production for the world of consumption. As government and business work together to control the dimensions of public life, including politics and work, Americans shift their attention to private life, dwelling on the small and petty differences between brands and tastes.”

We’ve all seen this: what I would call the culture of the connoisseur in which the individual’s method of operation lies in not actually creating anything, but rather presumably picking out the best of what others have created. We’ve seen it, for instance, in the intellectual arrogance of the contrarian: the one who, no matter what work you quote, is always there telling you:

“Oh no, silly child; such and such is much better.”

And here we have to make the distinction between contrarian condescension and a friendly recommendation. And most disconcerting here is how this has been normalized through media: most notably reality TV. Here we have people actually being entertained by the discriminate taste of the main actors in shows like American Pickers and Pawn Shop Stars. I mean watching people watching those shows is like watching primates discovering fire:

“Ooh!!!!!! They have things. Cool things!!!”

And in this, we can see the crass materialism that has resulted in a Trump presidency. But the irony gets deeper when you consider how department stores sell us our individualism. It gets pathetic and funny at the same time. One time, in the 90’s, I saw a guy that had that Limp Biscuit look: backwards hat, khaki shorts, and a Le Tiger shirt. But it turned comical when I saw another guy walk up with the exact same wardrobe. The irony lies in the fact they chose the wardrobe to express their individuality (which they associated with Limp Biscuit (and ended up succumbing to marketers who were perfectly aware of Limp Biscuit as well. The corporations sold them their rebellion.

And I would argue that we’re starting to see the same dynamic at work with tattoos. They, once again, are little more than an expression of the individual’s taste for the creativity and production of others. And they are as much a form of consumption as anything else.

d63
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:40 pm

Walker wrote:
Wed May 31, 2017 2:39 am
Being a man of science, I suppose Carson thought that since he was born into poverty and raised in poverty, where he witnessed in neighbors and peers the effects of daily attitudes over time, and since he has spent fortunes helping people out of poverty after finding his own way out of poverty, that this conferred an objective, rational measure of authority to his views on poverty.
Not really, walker. But trying explain that to a moron like you (one who resorts to socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues: "Being a man of science", "and since he has spent fortunes helping people out of poverty after finding his own way out of poverty", and "objective, rational measure of authority" (seems pointless to me.

You're hardly worth the energy. So please: just go away. You're useless to me.

Walker
Posts: 4337
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Postcards:

Post by Walker » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:11 pm

d63 wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:40 pm
Walker wrote:
Wed May 31, 2017 2:39 am
Being a man of science, I suppose Carson thought that since he was born into poverty and raised in poverty, where he witnessed in neighbors and peers the effects of daily attitudes over time, and since he has spent fortunes helping people out of poverty after finding his own way out of poverty, that this conferred an objective, rational measure of authority to his views on poverty.
Not really, walker. But trying explain that to a moron like you (one who resorts to socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues: "Being a man of science", "and since he has spent fortunes helping people out of poverty after finding his own way out of poverty", and "objective, rational measure of authority" (seems pointless to me.

You're hardly worth the energy. So please: just go away. You're useless to me.
:lol:

Those pesky facts do get in the way of a good bullshit, don't they.

d63
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 » Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:09 pm

Walker wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:11 pm
d63 wrote:
Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:40 pm
Walker wrote:
Wed May 31, 2017 2:39 am
Being a man of science, I suppose Carson thought that since he was born into poverty and raised in poverty, where he witnessed in neighbors and peers the effects of daily attitudes over time, and since he has spent fortunes helping people out of poverty after finding his own way out of poverty, that this conferred an objective, rational measure of authority to his views on poverty.
Not really, walker. But trying explain that to a moron like you (one who resorts to socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues: "Being a man of science", "and since he has spent fortunes helping people out of poverty after finding his own way out of poverty", and "objective, rational measure of authority" (seems pointless to me.

You're hardly worth the energy. So please: just go away. You're useless to me.
:lol:

Those pesky facts do get in the way of a good bullshit, don't they.
Yes they do, Walker. In fact, those pesky facts undermine everything you are arguing here. As I found out last night, Carson never went anything near real poverty: it was more like a lower middle class. In fact: he spent time in a white middle class neighborhood.

Walker: you're a moron. That's all there is to it. And if you are what I have deal with to be here, I am no longer interested in it.

So congrats: you chased me from this board. Enjoy sucking your own dick.

Walker
Posts: 4337
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Postcards:

Post by Walker » Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:15 pm

Oh don't be so touchy.

d63
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:49 pm

One of things I want to extract from Dworkin's How Karl Marx Can Save American Capitalism, explore, and comment on are Marx' 4 forms of alienation: alienation from the object of labor; alienation from the activity of labor; alienation from one's human identity; and the alienation of man from man. And it is linear. So I'll start with:


"Alienation from the object of labor constitutes the first form. A worker hired to make an object pours his energy and creativity into doing so, but in the end the employer takes the object away and sells it. This causes the worker to become alienated from the object he produces."


I have to ask here: how many of you actually care about the object you are producing at work? I care about mine. But that is because I work a job (maintenance (that goes from task to task. It should be a cool job. But what fucks that up is the fact that there are too many “knowledge workers” in management attempting to justify their existence by fucking with my life. And, thereby, I am alienated by the object I produce. Still, it still works for me. As anyone who has been with me over the last few years has seen: I find meaning (my way of connecting with the object I produce: my daily rants (through what you are reading right now.

So while I will agree with Dworkin (via Marx (to the extent that the human desire to produce is stifled by over-management and specialization, there are cases where people (even in assembly lines (will use their means of sustenance as a means to a higher end: self actualization as Maslow put it and Dworkin seems to be focused on. I, myself, have stood on such lines and produced poems.

The problem for me, as concerns Dworkin, is that he is using this issue to present the same old nonsense that other neo-liberals and FreeMarketFundamentalists have: that Adam Smith pastoral vision of everyone pursuing their interests and exchanging their goods –something that might have worked when everything was artisans, shopkeepers, craftsmen, and family farms, but could hardly work with the population dynamics we are dealing with now. This is why he keeps trying to make the distinction between “crony Capitalism” and “advanced Capitalism”.

This becomes apparent to me in Dworkin’s hard-on with guilds –think unions here (his understanding of “crony Capitalism” (who shut down outsider approaches to a given market. And this is right out of the Libertarian playbook as described by Andre Marrou in the 1992 independent debate with Lenora Fulani of the New Alliance party. Marrou turned to the sentimentality of a woman in the ghetto who could turn her living room into a hair salon. But as nice as that sounds (and it is worth considering as concerns policy), it’s little more than a diversion from our obligation to take care of the less fortunate among us –that is since anyone of us could end up in a less fortunate situation.

What he is feeling like to me is a FreeMarketFudamentalist who is turning to the novelty of being one who can talk about Marx without expecting psycho shrieks.

d63
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 » Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:21 pm

“Saving Capitalism demands a third way –not rigid Republican conservatism or blind Democratic state interventionism, but a new politics in which the state focuses, laser-like, on advanced capitalism’s unique threats to private life, while leaving much of the free market intact.” –from the summary of Ronald Dworkin’s How Karl Marx Can Save American Capitalism on the back of the book….

I would also extract a quote from one of my earlier posts on this:

“The problem for me, as concerns Dworkin, is that he is using this issue to present the same old nonsense that other neo-liberals and FreeMarketFundamentalists have: that Adam Smith pastoral vision of everyone pursuing their interests and exchanging their goods –something that might have worked when everything was artisans, shopkeepers, craftsmen, and family farms, but could hardly work with the population dynamics we are dealing with now. This is why he keeps trying to make the distinction between “crony Capitalism” and “advanced Capitalism”.
This becomes apparent to me in Dworkin’s hard-on with guilds –think unions here (his understanding of “crony Capitalism” (who shut down outsider approaches to a given market. And this is right out of the Libertarian playbook as described by Andre Marrou in the 1992 independent debate with Lenora Fulani of the New Alliance party. Marrou turned to the sentimentality of a woman in the ghetto who could turn her living room into a hair salon. But as nice as that sounds (and it is worth considering as concerns policy), it’s little more than a diversion from our obligation to take care of the less fortunate among us –that is since anyone of us could end up in a less fortunate situation.
What he is feeling like to me is a FreeMarketFudamentalist who is turning to the novelty of being one who can talk about Marx without expecting psycho shrieks.”

And I think the former quote clearly gets at my concern. I mean you have to ask how “the state” solves any problem that Capitalism presents without “intervention”. And, unfortunately, the conclusion of the book (as of this reading (does not offer any concrete solutions to the problems he is pointing out –that is outside of a section, “The Future of American Conservatism”, in which he seems to be suggesting that conservatism return to its old role as check and balance to progressive excesses while recognizing the very real consequences for individuals: the molecular as compared the molar. As the summary also says earlier:

“In the past, capitalism’s weak spots were obvious: sweatshops, workhouses, and hunger. The twentieth century welfare state saved capitalism by fixing them. Today’s weak spots are less obvious; they don’t even seem related –mass loneliness, a declining birth rate, young people postponing adulthood, and workers using sleep aids to function on the job.”

And I get this -that is in the same postmodern sense that Dworkin seems to be broaching. But Dworkin seems to be dismissing the postmodern approach by failing to recognize the cultural shift from the Marxist emphasis on exploitation through production to the postmodern emphasis on exploitation through consumption. And it seems to me that any attempt to check the latter exploitation will, by its inherent nature, require state intervention via regulation and expansion of the public economy.

d63
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Post by d63 » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:40 pm

"The three forms of alienation [Alienation from the object of labor, Alienation from the activity of labor, and Alienation from one's human identity] have existed for centuries, with some scholars arguing that labor has been alienated since the dawn of man, when the first farmer had to go out in the cold to plant his crop. But Marx's fourth form of alienation -the alienation of man from man- is unique to capitalism, and therefore relatively new. In this form of alienation a worker looks upon his employers as his enemy and other workers as his competitors. People should be close, but capitalism drives them apart. They compete for grades in school; they compete for jobs after graduation. Once in jobs they see each other as exchangeable economic units. Their social relationships dissolve. They grow alien to each other under capitalism. It is this alienation of man from man that has intensified with capitalism's advance, to the point of mass loneliness." -from Ronald Dworkin's How Karl Marx Can Save American Capitalism

Here, my feelings are mixed. On one hand, I fully agree with the spirit of Dworkin's point. And this is where I see the main reason for recommending the book. At the same time, you have to note a certain amount of hyperbole. I, for instance, have never looked at my fellow workers as “competitors” or “competed for grades in school”. I have seen my employer as “the enemy”, but that is only when they’re acting like micromanaging assholes. In fact, what Dworkin seems to be mainly describing is what goes on in middle and upper management. This is because what you’re dealing with there are a growing number of people attempting to justify their jobs by coming up with new policies that generally fuck with the lives of those actually doing the work.

But my experience with my co-workers is that of the only reason worth going to work every day –that is outside of the money. People at the bottom of the ladder tend to bond, if for no other reason, for the complications imposed on them by middle and upper management. Still, Dworkin’s point is justified by the Jack Welch approach in which turmoil is encouraged in order to shake off those who are producing the least.

That said, Dworkin’s emphasis on the alienation between man and man (which includes females (as I’m guessing Dworkin is (am using the term “man” in the metaphorical sense of “mankind” (leads to some interesting results. My concern begins when he diverts the issue to the psychological (that is without offering any real political or social policies to address the issue of alienation (at the neglect of very clear economic issues: The very fact that you cannot have a situation in which you have 1% of the population feasting at the table and the rest of us fighting for the crumbs and not expect the problems we are having.

In that sense, Dworkin’s book feels like little more than a misdirect: the denial of an addict of producer/consumer Capitalism.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests