Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
That's a different keettle of fish entirely: we're discussing not what the catch is, but knowing how it was caught and what it is: we're not discussing the piece of cod that passeth all human understanding. It could turn out the bouregois glue is highly flammable, and we might be able to hurl molotov porpoises back at them…
Or, put another way: if we know the rod, know the river and the time we can accept the fish for our own porpoises. We don't condemn for such choises, that would be foolish, because those choices mean something to us too.
Well, to the extent all utterances are dialogically layered with intersecting significations no ideology is total but always contingent, mediated and contested. The perlocutionary forces of assertives are other focussed, necesarilly so, thus it is otiose to analsyse the deixis of a given utterance rather than it's dialogical position in the language game.It really is that simple.
Quote:For me, reading bourgeois economists like Piketty is a bit like reading a 700 page account by a child about how the tooth-fairy puts a tanner under the pillow. It's full of 'interesting' detail like the wingspan of the fairy, how the pillow is filled with 'magic-down', so that the pillow floats up holding the head of the sleeper whilst the tooth-fairy deposits the 6d…That analogy doesn't hold, though, does it, by your own account. The selectivity of evidence presupposes that there is phenomenal evidence to select from. To return to my natural history theme, it's a bit like those nature documentaries. When it's about seals, it's about how they have to raise their pups, catch fish, and avoid being irritated to death by killer whales. If the doc was about killer whales, it would be how they have to drown seals to feed their young. So, the only point of contention is the extent to which an author:Is aware of their premises/presuppositionsArticulates their premises/presuppositionsConceals or attempts to concceal their premises/presuppositionsIf Piketty does lay out his prmises/presuppositions and general social/ideological deixis then that is not a point of criticism, just a necessary observation, shirley.
Quote:In my ideological opinion, he wrote a book called 'Sharks' and discussed only the eating habits of nice, cuddly pussy cats.Really, your objection hitherto was that he discussed capitalism without discussing exploitation: so the object of his study is capital (or, rather capitalists), aka sharks. Ignoring reproduction, or the contaxt of sharks (that is exploitation) still means he's discussing sharks.Last I checked ideology has twenty seven and a half different meanings, so I'm not sure what you're asking me. I'd say my main leanings come from an acceptance of the full implications of all yorkshiremen being liars…
It seems the towel of overdone metaphor has become mildewed with the spores of redirected analogies. Piketty wrote a book called 'Sharks' in which he discussed the eating habits of sharks. He left out entirely their reproductive habits. Does that disqualify his description of the eating habits of sharks?I employ a team of ideology elves, who hammer at books all night when I'm not looking so I can awaken fresh as a daisy to some ready made conclusions each morning.
Just to damp us all down with the towel of overworked metaphor: would you criticise a book on the hunting methods of sharks because it doesn't discuss their reproductive methods? Criticising works for topiics not covered is a fruitless method. I'm sure Piketty doesn't discuss Hungarian realist cinema in the 1920's, how can we trust a word he says if he doesn't cover Hungarian realist cinema in the 1920's?
Quote:This is an ideological statement, and one that we Communists do not share.Really, I'd have thought that the idea that class power, as expressed through state and social mechanisms to enforce and create the economic mechanisms would be presicely the communist acocunt: a counter to the fetishist idea that 'the economy' or 'the market' is a thing in itself.
Alan,what about a book that provides a deep and interesting account of global warming, showing conclusively and irrefutably that it is happening, and then goes on to advocate ineffective solutions (that it might not even think will work)?The point is that the space opens to discuss solutions, a space that might not have existed before.
I could have swonr Piketty was saying that the only solution to capitalist inequality is the forceful expropriation of capital. He only differs from us by degree. Nonetheless, many of the policy conclusions Charlie M came to we would find obnoxious, that doesn't dent our appreciation of his discoveries.
Oh, and here is a hotstile review from the Telegraph…http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/10816161/Capital-in-the-Twenty-First-Century-by-Thomas-Piketty-review.htmlBy Meryn KingHe seems to take refuge in copmfrotable empiricism:
Quote:Only a detailed, and empirically based, description of differences between people will yield a theory of inequality, not a reliance on an aggregate relationship of dubious relevance.And also some of the old ideological props:
Quote:Also absent from the heart of the analysis is any recognition that the main reason for the average rate of return exceeding the growth rate by a good margin is that savers require a risk premium to compensate for the uncertain nature of the returns on investment. Adjusting for risk, average rates of return have historically been much closer to growth rates.We don't, by the way, get a risk premium on our wages, but we suffer the same risks.
Certainly class consciousness comes from experience, but experience is interpreted, and if we can use arguments, analysis and data to clarify that experience then we are aiding the growth of socialist consciousness. After years of the powers that be riding the efficient markets hypothosis, among others, as a stick with which to beat, it's good to see it broken. If the justifications for capitalism: meritocracy, efficient allocation of goods, reward for effort, can be despatched through the work of non-partisans (i.e. without express allegiances) so much the better. Additional ammunition that demonstrates not only that inquality tends to increase, but why it does so and how that is inherent in the market system are grist to our mill.
http://boingboing.net/2014/06/24/thomas-pikettys-capital-in-t.htmlCory Doctrow gives a solid review, with extensive quotes and an interesting take, IMNSHO. I get the feeling that r > g is going to become famous. Maybe worth a banner?
Well, proof that killer robots are thoroughly moving out of the SF cupboard and into the real world, a UN report on their use:http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A-HRC-23-47_en.pdf(Via the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. Seriously. (http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/%5Dhttp://www.stopkillerrobots.org)).
Quote:Lethal autonomous robotics (LARs) are weapon systems that, once activated, canselect and engage targets without further human intervention. They raise far-reachingconcerns about the protection of life during war and peace. This includes the question of theextent to which they can be programmed to comply with the requirements of internationalhumanitarian law and the standard s protecting life under international human rights law.Beyond this, their deployment may be unacceptable because no adequate system of legalaccountability can be devised, and because robots should not have the power of life anddeath over human beings. The Special Rapporteur recommends that States establishnational moratoria on aspects of LARs, and calls for the establishment of a high levelpanel on LARs to articulate a policy for the international community on the issue.
