The Heisman Trophy, Collegiate Rules, and Capitalism

Tools    





Originally Posted by John McClane
No, they're not complicated arguments. In fact, the argument of the book is one of the simplest arguments you will ever read. The text is just difficult to decipher, as it's heavy on metaphors and allegory.
I can buy that an argument is hard to decipher...but once deciphered, it should either be complicated to explain or not. I don't think you lack the ability to put an argument succintly, unless of course the argument is too complicated for it.

There are a number of objections I can summarize if necessary, but for now let's just focus on the most important one: capitalism does not force you to participate. Being offered money, or a product, doesn't actually force you to accept either, and thus you are still "free." Why is this wrong?



Originally Posted by wintertriangles
Let's say I buy way more movies than I should (true). I can tell you that the only person this hurts is me since I still pay my bills and buy christmas presents etc. Would you categorize this as spoiling myself rather than greed? If so, we know what greed is.
It depends on your reasons for doing it, doesn't it? People can buy things they don't need out of carelessness or boredom or neurotic compulsion. Greed is a bit more sinsister than that, at least the way I normally use it. How does defining it fit into the larger discussion, though?

Anyway, this still begs questions about what we really need, and at what point you've bought "more movies than [you] should." It's pretty nebulous.



Originally Posted by mark f
I'm assuming this is going into its own thread. ???
Yeah, I think it has to at this point. But I might not get around to it tonight, since I'm about to go eat and it'll take a bit of time to go back and pick out all the relevant replies. Tomorrow morning is probably a better ETA.



Originally Posted by Yoda
How does defining it fit into the larger discussion, though?
because greed is the root of the problem.

Anyway, this still begs questions about what we really need, and at what point you've bought "more movies than [you] should." It's pretty nebulous.
But is it a social issue if you happen to have more of something material than your neighbor? I'm not talking about flaunting it, but the point is that having it does no harm to anyone and thus can it even be considered greed? Having more than I need is my own problem I think.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
First off, I haven't read that much of this discussion, so if what I say next is BS, please forgive me (again).

I agree with your last two sentences Chris, but I think some of us may believe that everybody is not created equal in the "free-will, I'm strong enough to do what I really want" area. Therefore the more-easily influenced may not truly be free. They may well be so indoctrinated into a certain way of life that they have no choice. I've got friends over now, so I'll see you later.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
OK YODA. I'll bite. Respond to this (I think this is fairly lucid).

These last few pages IN A [BIG] NUTSHELL (correct me if I'm wrong, Matt):

1) Capitalism always tends towards a standardization of our living space.

1) i. Whenever something is standardized or "boxed off", people are no longer fully free to move about in the ways that they please; only through the channels that are set out for them.

2) The structure of this standardization is for consumption. Everything under Capitalism tends towards this apparatus.

3) Man's nature is for production. Another word for this that Deleuze uses is creativity.

3) i. An obvious example is being an artist. The artist wants to be able to create whatever he sees fit. However, he is forced to consider how his work will be consumed, since this is what Capitalism stresses is the ultimate purpose of his work.

3) ii. His work---a mural meant to inspire others and produce memes and original, creative notions within others---is standardized by the system into mass-produced postcards. These postcards are bought and used and discarded---in other words, consumed.

3) iii. To display a mural in public is pure creativity; pure production. Man wants to create for creations sake (interesting enough, Deleuze applies this same notion to God, defining being as pure creation---you can begin to understand his cohesive system).

4) Capitalism must hunt down and repackage every produced thing into destructable, consumable items---this is its structure.

5) Freedom is being able to create freely without concern for its utilitarian use; to think a thought freed from Capital concerns. Most importantly, it is to BE GIVEN THE OPTION to do this in mainstream society.

6) Capitalism is fluid because of how it is able to envelope everything inside its standardized boxes without fail. It diffuses outwards, seeps through the cracks, and HUNTS for creativity in order to USE IT to move more capital.

7) To bring my example full circle and show that it is a real world phenomenon: the artist I described was Shepard Fairey. He began as a renegade street artist working outside of the system. Now he has a line of T-shirt which can be bought, worn and discarded.



But is it a social issue if you happen to have more of something material than your neighbor? I'm not talking about flaunting it, but the point is that having it does no harm to anyone and thus can it even be considered greed? Having more than I need is my own problem I think.
It would depend entirely on what you mean by "a social issue." It seems to me it's a social issue insofar as people decide it is. If we drum up populist resentment over people who have more, and suggest that having more than someone else is wrong, then yeah, it becomes a social issue. If we resolve ourselves to the idea that what they have is more or less their own business, then it's not much of an issue. Both views have tremendous implications for politics, though, so in a very broad sense it's a "social issue" either way.

To answer your other question, though, yes, I think greed can exist regardless of whether or not it happens to harm anyone, in the same way you can try to hurt someone, fail, and still have done wrong. Intent matters, morally.



You ready? You look ready.
Planet, f***in' A.

Yoda: There are complex arguments because they're just stupid, and then there are complex arguments because they're...well...complex! I mean, for crying out loud, the argument for God is probably one of the most complex arguments every, and you believe it. So I fail to see how you can sit here and say, in a nutshell, "make it simpler or there's really no merit to it."

For starters, the argument is really best understood in its metaphors and allegory. Why? Because I personally believe it's not possible to talk about it in simple everyday language without dulling an understanding of it. Secondly, what we're talking about is greatly removed from what the text discusses. The text is largely concerned with explaining how capitalism arose and why it's fascist, not how to be free. Thirdly, the entire text is based on people willfully subjected themselves to this "fascism." They have a choice to not partake in a capitalistic society, but they don't do it. No, instead, they subject themselves to its control!

You're letting freedom drive the discussion, and that's the last thing we should be discussing. Instead, why do people FREELY choose to be apart of a fascist system? That's what the text goes about trying to answer when it discusses freedom, and only then do we discover our route of escape. Why? Because we are jolted awake. Our willful repression is throw off like a blanket in summer!



You ready? You look ready.
But I can't stay and discuss this anymore, so I would appreciate it if you all saved any replies until Thursday afternoon. Otherwise, this take home exam might not get finished.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
Anti-Oedipus by Deleuze and Guattari.



Re: planet's bullet points. Now we're really getting somewhere. I think that's a helpful summary, and illuminates a lot of the core issues. Such as:

Originally Posted by planet news
1) Capitalism always tends towards a standardization of our living space.

1) i. Whenever something is standardized or "boxed off", people are no longer fully free to move about in the ways that they please; only through the channels that are set out for them.
Assuming this is true, is it a problem if the channels are a direct reflection of what people want to begin with? It's rather like an election: people are only free to move around within the laws that are "set out for them," but they're the ones who choose the people who set the laws to begin with.

Any set of laws or rules will create contours that society is encouraged to flow into. Only anarchy avoids this. The solution is not to try to tear down even the slightest semblance of a social framework, though, but to make sure we get to collectively decide what it should look like. And that's what we have.

Originally Posted by planet news
3) i. An obvious example is being an artist. The artist wants to be able to create whatever he sees fit. However, he is forced to consider how his work will be consumed, since this is what Capitalism stresses is the ultimate purpose of his work.
A very important part of this idea is being left out. It should read "he is forced to consider how his work will be consumed...if he desires to make a living from it." He could just have a day job, use that to sustain himself, and then create whatever art he wants. He has the freedom to create his art, just not the freedom to have society feed and clothe him return.

This sort of thing always seems to get left out of discussions about how capitalism and art. They operate with the unstated assumption that there's no difference between the freedom to create (which we should have, and do) and the right to have your creative process subsidized by everyone else (which we shouldn't, and don't).

Originally Posted by planet news
3) ii. His work---a mural meant to inspire others and produce memes and original, creative notions within others---is standardized by the system into mass-produced postcards. These postcards are bought and used and discarded---in other words, consumed.
At this point it may be helpful to define what you mean by "consumed," because you can't really "consume" a mural the way you can a postcard. Is consumption only good when it's abstract, like looking at a painting, and bad whenever it involves something more tangible? How many times does something have to be repurposed before it avoids this negative label? Many things are repurposed and re-used, after all, even the t-shirts you mention later.

Originally Posted by planet news
4) Capitalism must hunt down and repackage every produced thing into destructable, consumable items---this is its structure.
What a difference phrasing makes. You could just as easily say that capitalism must find and eradicate every need and discomfort that people have, because there's always money in it.

Originally Posted by planet news
5) Freedom is being able to create freely without concern for its utilitarian use; to think a thought freed from Capital concerns. Most importantly, it is to BE GIVEN THE OPTION to do this in mainstream society.
I was mostly with you up until that semicolon. I don't think freedom means being able to think a thought that has nothing to do with capital. No matter what laws we choose (or even if we have none), people will not be free from having to think about their situation, whatever it may be.

Originally Posted by planet news
6) Capitalism is fluid because of how it is able to envelope everything inside its standardized boxes without fail. It diffuses outwards, seeps through the cracks, and HUNTS for creativity in order to USE IT to move more capital.
Capitalism can't be both "fluid" and "standardized." If capitalism is so flexible that it can bend to fit anything, as you say, then how can we say that it constrains or envelopes at all? If it isn't rigid, then it can't really restrict.

Let's extend the liquid analogy: when you put something in water, does the water surround it, or make room for it?

Originally Posted by planet news
7) To bring my example full circle and show that it is a real world phenomenon: the artist I described was Shepard Fairey. He began as a renegade street artist working outside of the system. Now he has a line of T-shirt which can be bought, worn and discarded.
Take it up with Fairey; people can't do that unless he agrees to let them.



Originally Posted by John McClane
Yoda: There are complex arguments because they're just stupid, and then there are complex arguments because they're...well...complex! I mean, for crying out loud, the argument for God is probably one of the most complex arguments every, and you believe it. So I fail to see how you can sit here and say, in a nutshell, "make it simpler or there's really no merit to it."
I don't think the argument for God is particularly complex. At least, it's not so complex that it can't answer simple questions or reconcile direct contradictions. But, as I said, I'm not going to go as far as to suggest it must be wrong if it's complicated...just that it's kind of a red flag.

Originally Posted by John McClane
For starters, the argument is really best understood in its metaphors and allegory. Why? Because I personally believe it's not possible to talk about it in simple everyday language without dulling an understanding of it. Secondly, what we're talking about is greatly removed from what the text discusses. The text is largely concerned with explaining how capitalism arose and why it's fascist, not how to be free. Thirdly, the entire text is based on people willfully subjected themselves to this "fascism." They have a choice to not partake in a capitalistic society, but they don't do it. No, instead, they subject themselves to its control!
What you call its "control" is not one person's arbitrary will, but a reflection of the cumulative choices of individuals. I'm not sure how one can say that we're being controlled by a system whose contours we ourselves determine. How can we have ceded control when we a) chose the situation and b) are capable of changing our minds? Isn't that kind of like saying the shirt you put on this morning is controlling your movements?

Originally Posted by John McClane
You're letting freedom drive the discussion, and that's the last thing we should be discussing.
Well, you kept saying "we're not free," and I took issue with it. And freedom sure seems like a good place to start, seeing as the author you're citing is calling capitalism "fascist," and we can't be both free and fascist.

Originally Posted by John McClane
Instead, why do people FREELY choose to be apart of a fascist system?
I don't know if they ever do. They make elect a leader who turns out to be fascist, but that's different than choosing it continually.

Anyway, I don't see how this is a particularly good question, because it assumes the very thing I'm taking issue with: that capitalism is fascist. It isn't. Facism is marked by a single person having total power and using it to suppress opposition. I think you'll have to define the word (or, more accurately, redefine it) for us to have a meaningful conversation about whether or not capitalism qualifies.



You ready? You look ready.
Alright, I intend on replying to this discussion either tonight or tomorrow. I have a paper I need to finish, but after that I'm free and clear. However, I will make two quick notes.

One, I choose my words poorly when I said capitalism is evil. That is a rather strong word and while the evidence at hand is startling, to say the least, it's not really worthy of the word evil. Granted, as much as my gut wants to say it, it just doesn't fit. Thus, my statement should have read "Capitalism is dangerous/fascist."

Two, the word fascist need not only apply to a human leader. The word fascist in the context of capitalism merely means that the entirety of society is controlled, and its opposition squashed, by one thing: the Oedipus complex (thus Anti-Oedipus). In other words, desire.

Before you respond to this, though, I will be happy to lay out a solid argument that we can then start from, but the above just need to be mentioned first. In short, let us ignore what we've already discussed until after I lay the argument out, as I do have responses to your questions. However, it helps to have the basis of the argument in hand.

EDIT: Of what I've read, so far, very little mention of fascism has been presented in the text, as it largely comes into play in a second volume. However, I believe I can give a fair representation of the argument. So stay tuned!
__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza



Sure, sounds good. I'd obviously strongly suggest that we define some of the terms involved, as well. Particularly the Oedipus complex, which I've never heard used as a placeholder for all desire before (why not just say "desire"?).

Anyway, looking forward to it.



A system of cells interlinked
Oedipus Complex? Capitalism is fascism? Capitalism isn't a system of government, while fascism is. Democracy is a system of government, and no, democracy (our government) is not fascist. By its very nature, a democracy can't be fascist, or it isn't a democracy. It is considered the weakest form of government, classically, though.

As for the Oedipal complex - That word...I don't think it means what you think it means...

Also, **** Freud.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
Single most personally offensive post I've ever read during my relatively brief time at MoFos!
__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."