|
On August 13 2012 08:28 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 08:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:
That can just as easily be blamed on socioeconomic factors as opposed to cultural factors. While your point is valid, the two are inextricable and cannot be fruitfully understood in isolation from one another.
While this is true, I don't think that it's possible to say that a generic culture such as "African-American culture" promotes a certain type of socioeconomic status, and because of this, you can't blame the culture for the SE status of a particular neighborhood.
|
On August 13 2012 08:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 08:28 sam!zdat wrote:On August 13 2012 08:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:
That can just as easily be blamed on socioeconomic factors as opposed to cultural factors. While your point is valid, the two are inextricable and cannot be fruitfully understood in isolation from one another. While this is true, I don't think that it's possible to say that a generic culture such as "African-American culture" promotes a certain type of socioeconomic status, and because of this, you can't blame the culture for the SE status of a particular neighborhood.
If anything, this would the opposite of the polemical thrust of what I am saying.
(I'm much more interested in the ways in which economics produce culture. While there is causation that flows back the other way, this only becomes really theoretically important in (post)modern societies, which we are not talking about at present. We are talking about the problem of pre-modern societies having trouble becoming integrated into postmodern societies)
|
On August 13 2012 08:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 08:28 sam!zdat wrote:On August 13 2012 08:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:
That can just as easily be blamed on socioeconomic factors as opposed to cultural factors. While your point is valid, the two are inextricable and cannot be fruitfully understood in isolation from one another. While this is true, I don't think that it's possible to say that a generic culture such as "African-American culture" promotes a certain type of socioeconomic status, and because of this, you can't blame the culture for the SE status of a particular neighborhood.
If culture means the essential attitudes and outlook of the people in a given region, than doesn't South Korean "culture", which values a degree of individual rights and private property, promote economic growth better than North Korean "culture", which values obedience to their dictator, despite the fact that the people and natural resources are very similar?
|
On August 13 2012 08:42 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 08:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 13 2012 08:28 sam!zdat wrote:On August 13 2012 08:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:
That can just as easily be blamed on socioeconomic factors as opposed to cultural factors. While your point is valid, the two are inextricable and cannot be fruitfully understood in isolation from one another. While this is true, I don't think that it's possible to say that a generic culture such as "African-American culture" promotes a certain type of socioeconomic status, and because of this, you can't blame the culture for the SE status of a particular neighborhood. South Korean "culture", which values a degree of individual rights and private property
Isn't that an import... ?
|
On August 13 2012 08:44 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 08:42 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On August 13 2012 08:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 13 2012 08:28 sam!zdat wrote:On August 13 2012 08:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:
That can just as easily be blamed on socioeconomic factors as opposed to cultural factors. While your point is valid, the two are inextricable and cannot be fruitfully understood in isolation from one another. While this is true, I don't think that it's possible to say that a generic culture such as "African-American culture" promotes a certain type of socioeconomic status, and because of this, you can't blame the culture for the SE status of a particular neighborhood. South Korean "culture", which values a degree of individual rights and private property Isn't that an import... ?
Yes...Just like communism was an import in North Korea (and the USSR)
|
I think maybe I took you seriously when you were being facetious.
(I don't think communism in the USSR can be considered an import in the same way, but that is off topic.)
|
On August 13 2012 09:05 sam!zdat wrote:
I think maybe I took you seriously when you were being facetious.
(I don't think communism in the USSR can be considered an import in the same way, but that is off topic.)
Agreed. Because Marx, despite contrary reports, was born in Moscow.
|
You'd be surprised at how little Marx has to do with soviet communism
(soviet communism is only a german import in the way that american liberalism is a french import)
|
On August 13 2012 09:13 sam!zdat wrote:
You'd be surprised at how little Marx has to do with soviet communism
Again, agreed. Lenin and Trotsky never even read Marx.
|
Do you actually know what you are talking about or are you just trolling me? I'm pretty familiar with the history of Marxism...
|
On August 13 2012 09:13 sam!zdat wrote:
(soviet communism is only a german import in the way that american liberalism is a french import)
Why does the world keep insisting that Locke was English?!?!
|
On August 13 2012 09:17 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 09:13 sam!zdat wrote:
(soviet communism is only a german import in the way that american liberalism is a french import) Why does the world keep insisting that Locke was English?!?!
So you've demonstrated that the whole thing is just an international european culture and such talk of "importation" is facile to begin with...
|
Don't be so eurocentric. ALL talk of importation is facile...including your first post replying to me which mentions imports.
|
The importation of liberal capitalism into South Korea, or the importation of Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism to North Korea, are entirely different phenomena from the original development of these ideas in a european context of relatively porous intellectual cultures. There it is much more relevant to speak of importation.
|
On August 13 2012 09:13 sam!zdat wrote:
You'd be surprised at how little Marx has to do with soviet communism
(soviet communism is only a german import in the way that american liberalism is a french import)
Off topic but this is wrong, early marxist communism does not have a lot to do with Soviet communism (weird word since soviet communism also changed a lot over time) but Marx himself, after traveling through Soviet thought that this was a better alternative.
I'm not saying that this makes either Soviet communism, (marx-leninism I assume?) Marxism or any other sort of communism more "wrong". I'm just saying that you have to at least be historically correct. I call myself an anarchocommunist but I can still admit that Marx wasn't perfect.
|
On August 13 2012 09:22 Slakter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 09:13 sam!zdat wrote:
You'd be surprised at how little Marx has to do with soviet communism
(soviet communism is only a german import in the way that american liberalism is a french import) Off topic but this is wrong, early marxist communism does not have a lot to do with Soviet communism (weird word since soviet communism also changed a lot over time) but Marx himself, after traveling through Soviet thought that this was a better alternative and changed his definition. I'm not saying that this makes either Soviet communism, (marx-leninism I assume?) Marxism or any other sort of communism more "wrong". I'm just saying that you have to at least be historically correct. I call myself an anarchocommunist but I can still admit that Marx wasn't perfect.
|
On August 13 2012 09:22 sam!zdat wrote:
The importation of liberal capitalism into South Korea, or the importation of Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism to North Korea, are entirely different phenomena from the original development of these ideas in a european context of relatively porous intellectual cultures. There it is much more relevant to speak of importation.
The context is different, the process is the same.
|
On August 13 2012 09:22 Slakter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 09:13 sam!zdat wrote:
You'd be surprised at how little Marx has to do with soviet communism
(soviet communism is only a german import in the way that american liberalism is a french import) Off topic but this is wrong, early marxist communism does not have a lot to do with Soviet communism (weird word since soviet communism also changed a lot over time) but Marx himself, after traveling through Soviet thought that this was a better alternative. I'm not saying that this makes either Soviet communism, (marx-leninism I assume?) Marxism or any other sort of communism more "wrong". I'm just saying that you have to at least be historically correct. I call myself an anarchocommunist but I can still admit that Marx wasn't perfect.
In what text would one discover this "Marxist Communism"? Marx spends very little time describing what communism is going to be like.
Marx was appalled at the sort of things that "Marxists" were carrying out in his name.
|
On August 13 2012 09:24 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 09:22 sam!zdat wrote:
The importation of liberal capitalism into South Korea, or the importation of Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism to North Korea, are entirely different phenomena from the original development of these ideas in a european context of relatively porous intellectual cultures. There it is much more relevant to speak of importation. The context is different, the process is the same.
It is not the same process. In this case it is much more about imperialism...
I guess it is the same process if that process is "ideas spreading," but the ways in which this happened are very different (because of the very different context...)
|
On August 13 2012 09:22 Slakter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 09:13 sam!zdat wrote:
You'd be surprised at how little Marx has to do with soviet communism
(soviet communism is only a german import in the way that american liberalism is a french import) Off topic but this is wrong, early marxist communism does not have a lot to do with Soviet communism (weird word since soviet communism also changed a lot over time) but Marx himself, after traveling through Soviet thought that this was a better alternative. I'm not saying that this makes either Soviet communism, (marx-leninism I assume?) Marxism or any other sort of communism more "wrong". I'm just saying that you have to at least be historically correct. I call myself an anarchocommunist but I can still admit that Marx wasn't perfect.
Marx died in like 1884 did he not and the russian revolution was in 1917, how could he have possibly travelled through the soviet union? :o
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
