|
Hong Kong9158 Posts
In the works of Smith, a predominant concept is the concept of subtextual truth. Foucault promotes the use of semiotic socialism to deconstruct outdated perceptions of class.
“Reality is used in the service of class divisions,” says Marx; however, according to Pickett[1] , it is not so much reality that is used in the service of class divisions, but rather the economy, and eventually the fatal flaw, of reality. Therefore, Foucault uses the term ‘the subcapitalist paradigm of consensus’ to denote not narrative per se, but subnarrative. In Chasing Amy, Smith affirms semanticist discourse; in Mallrats, although, he deconstructs Batailleist `powerful communication’.
In a sense, Derrida suggests the use of socialist realism to analyse society. Hamburger[2] implies that we have to choose between the subcapitalist paradigm of consensus and the textual paradigm of consensus.
Thus, Lacan promotes the use of Foucaultist power relations to attack capitalism. Debord uses the term ‘the subcapitalist paradigm of consensus’ to denote the role of the reader as artist.
If one examines patriarchialist theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept socialist realism or conclude that the goal of the participant is social comment, given that sexuality is interchangeable with art. Thus, in Mallrats, Smith affirms the subcapitalist paradigm of consensus; in Chasing Amy he denies socialist realism. The subject is contextualised into a subcapitalist paradigm of consensus that includes sexuality as a paradox.
In the works of Smith, a predominant concept is the distinction between within and without. Therefore, the main theme of Wilson’s[3] essay on semanticist discourse is the bridge between truth and class. Lyotard suggests the use of socialist realism to modify and analyse society.
It could be said that if semanticist discourse holds, the works of Smith are postmodern. The subject is interpolated into a socialist realism that includes narrativity as a totality.
Thus, the premise of the subcapitalist paradigm of consensus holds that language is capable of intention. Many materialisms concerning Derridaist reading exist.
However, in Dogma, Smith examines semanticist discourse; in Clerks, however, he deconstructs the subcapitalist paradigm of consensus. Werther[4] implies that we have to choose between semanticist discourse and capitalist theory.
In a sense, the without/within distinction which is a central theme of Smith’s Dogma is also evident in Chasing Amy. The subject is contextualised into a subcapitalist paradigm of consensus that includes narrativity as a whole.
Mind is opened.
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
|
1. you accept there is a problem
we even fail at this stage !!
2. we think of something new
not the other ones have to convince you, maybe you start thinking up ideas yourself
but here lies the second problem, most people are comfortable as it is right now, so it has to get a lot worse before people actually think, that it cant go on like this.
right now most of the people dont see any sense in what they are working, they just know they HAVE TO, cause .... money !
a system where people have to be scared of other people inventing things that would make them jobless is fucking stupid.
3. changing the system.
|
On June 29 2014 00:30 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2014 00:26 itsjustatank wrote:
How exactly are you going to 'change' the system. I will posit that this article is bullshit worthless ivory tower elitism unless you can articulate a world beyond capitalism and a way to attain it that isn't simply 'rethink the world' or 'change.'
Honestly, I can probably replace the essay with random gibberish generated by the Dada engine and attain the same result. Pretty sure you need to open your mind.
to what? that everything is alright and nothing is to be done ? i dont have to open my mind to it, im living right in it.
dont be scared my friend
|
On June 29 2014 00:18 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2014 22:48 ETisME wrote:
I think the author has a very poor concept of jobs.
What IS the unnecessary job that he is talking about?
If he is talking about finance then he obviously has little knowledge of it.
Technology enabled us to be more productive, it's not meant to make our life easily.
They are tools to assist us.
What's wrong about service sector?
I don't understand where did this unrealistic view of less work means less working hours come from. pretty much this. Technology can make life easier but it doesn't necessarily eliminate the job or anything like that. Also, he's talking about working less time, 15 hours a week and such so that you can pursue your hobbies, dreams etc... Problem is that everything costs money. Working less means less income (unless salary is adjusted) so you are essentially destroying your own dreams as a result.
That's thinking inside the box.
The original idea is: society produces items/energy/food with less and less labor. That's a fact - wouldn't you agree?
Thus, more and more of our workforce is just there to administer the distribution of said goods, inventing financial constructs that get more and more complex, and services that just serve the human made system - money after all is not a natural law, it's just a human invention to distribute goods and services in a fair manner (arguably failing at the fair aspect, but w/e it's the best we have for now).
Is it that far fetched to think about a future, in which our society doesn't feel the need to create those "bull shit jobs"? It's only logical that at some point society will evolve to such a state, barring any catastrophes such as major wars of course. It will not happen in 20 years, probably not in 50 years, likely not even in our life time, but it's bound to happen imho.
|
Hong Kong9158 Posts
On June 29 2014 00:34 phil.ipp wrote:
1. you accept there is a problem
we even fail at this stage !!
2. we think of something new
not the other ones have to convince you, maybe you start thinking up ideas yourself
but here lies the second problem, most people are comfortable as it is right now, so it has to get a lot worse before people actually think, that it cant go on like this.
right now most of the people dont see any sense in what they are working, they just know they HAVE TO, cause .... money !
a system where people have to be scared of other people inventing things that would make them jobless is fucking stupid.
3. changing the system.
You still need to tell me what is beyond capital and how to get it, while remaining dislocated from bullshit ivory tower elitist professor with a bullshit needless job at the LSE that pays enough for him to have a surplus to write stuff like this and who tells me things should 'change.'
|
so you agree there is a problem that needs to be solved?
|
On June 29 2014 00:34 phil.ipp wrote:
1. you accept there is a problem
we even fail at this stage !!
2. we think of something new
not the other ones have to convince you, maybe you start thinking up ideas yourself
but here lies the second problem, most people are comfortable as it is right now, so it has to get a lot worse before people actually think, that it cant go on like this.
right now most of the people dont see any sense in what they are working, they just know they HAVE TO, cause .... money !
a system where people have to be scared of other people inventing things that would make them jobless is fucking stupid.
3. changing the system.
Again, what is your suggestion?
Visionary people are fine and maybe even awesome, but people who just throw out ideas about "how things should be" without telling how to do it are... as in the article.. .worthless. 
|
Hong Kong9158 Posts
On June 29 2014 00:39 phil.ipp wrote:
so you agree there is a problem that needs to be solved?
In a world in which I grant there is a problem that needs to be solved, how do we solve it beyond the academic language of rethinking while we cash checks from the universities that pay us.
|
On June 29 2014 00:40 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2014 00:39 phil.ipp wrote:
so you agree there is a problem that needs to be solved? In a world in which I grant there is a problem that needs to be solved, how do we solve it beyond the academic language of rethinking while we cash checks from the universities that pay us.
That's a hard core conservative attitude. If all humans thought like this, we'd still be in the stone age, because you could argue that way against any invention/change/progress ever made.
Why experiment with planting crops when we can just continue to hunt boar and collect berries to feed us in the now? It's worked for all the generations prior.
|
Insurance verification as computers can already verify health insurance etc on their own and automatically as well. There is a bullshit job. Medical records is going the way of the dodo because of being a bullshit job.
|
Hong Kong9158 Posts
On June 29 2014 00:45 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2014 00:40 itsjustatank wrote:On June 29 2014 00:39 phil.ipp wrote:
so you agree there is a problem that needs to be solved? In a world in which I grant there is a problem that needs to be solved, how do we solve it beyond the academic language of rethinking while we cash checks from the universities that pay us. That's a hard core conservative attitude. If all humans thought like this, we'd still be in the stone age, because you could argue that way against any invention/change/progress ever made. Why experiment with planting crops when we can just continue to hunt boar and collect berries to feed us in the now? It's worked for all the generations prior.
No, it's actually a role play of the attitude of a true radical. I'm tired of people wanting 'the system' to 'change' and then getting co-opted because they actually have zero understanding of anything and think talking about things in academic language and cashing checks from universities solves anything.
|
@itsjustatank
While I'm also not too fond of academic elitism, your academic-bashing is completely out of place here.
You may think of the article whatever you want, the crux that remains is quite clear:
Even though most manual labor has been automated, people are still working the same amount of time as 100 years ago.
Isn't this a little paradoxical?
|
Hong Kong9158 Posts
On June 29 2014 00:50 urboss wrote:
@itsjustatank
While I'm also not too fond of academic elitism, your academic-bashing is completely out of place here.
You may think of the article whatever you want, the crux that remains is quite clear:
Even though most manual labor has been automated, people are still working the same amount of time as 100 years ago.
Isn't this a little paradoxical?
Most manual labor has not been automated. We, in the first world, just shunt it over to the third world so we can pretend it is. There are also way more people existent since a hundred years ago, and we have to (in the current 'system') pay for that somehow.
|
calling the article worthless cause it has no solution to the problem is just wrong
as this thread is evidence, some people are not even aware that there is a problem.
so if that article made some people aware, its done its job.
as i said
1. you making people aware of a problem
2. you can suggest other ways
3. you change it
and no this must not be done all in one from one person - the holy jesus of economics
@itsjustatank
you are funny, you talk about an ivory tower but then telling us that all these people really dont have an understanding of anything and thinking talking in academic language and cashing checks solves anything.
looks very arrogant.
if you dont agree with points made by the article say it, but what you do is "i dont even have to argue anything cause thats all gibberish"
the worth of your posting is near zero
|
Hong Kong9158 Posts
On June 29 2014 00:56 phil.ipp wrote:
calling the article worthless cause it has no solution to the problem is just wrong
as this thread is evidence, some people are not even aware that there is a problem.
so if that article made some people aware, its done its job.
as i said
1. you making people aware of a problem
2. you can suggest other ways
3. you change it
and no this must not be done all in one from one person - the holy jesus of economics
@itsjustatank
you are funny, you talk about an ivory tower but then telling us that all these people really dont have an understanding of anything and thinking talking in academic language and cashing checks solves anything.
looks very arrogant.
if you dont agree with points made by the article say it, but what you do is "i dont even have to argue anything cause thats all gibberish"
the worth of your posting is near zero
If all you have is that you feel good after posting, this thread truly is interpassivity at its finest. Please big Other, please save us from capitalism. There, I felt better. I'll go back to my job on Monday and think the world should be changed.
|
On June 29 2014 00:52 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2014 00:50 urboss wrote:
@itsjustatank
While I'm also not too fond of academic elitism, your academic-bashing is completely out of place here.
You may think of the article whatever you want, the crux that remains is quite clear:
Even though most manual labor has been automated, people are still working the same amount of time as 100 years ago.
Isn't this a little paradoxical? Most manual labor has not been automated. We, in the first world, just shunt it over to the third world so we can pretend it is. There are also way more people existent since a hundred years ago, and we have to (in the current 'system') pay for that somehow.
you are right its not all automated. but it could be, but we dont do it for the obvious reason
the current system doesnt reward us with anything for it, in fact it would lead to even more problems
|
On June 28 2014 22:44 xM(Z wrote:
so you'd rather have billions of people left to their pleasures and ideas?.
i don't know man, right now, i'd fear that.
Yes, that thought also worries me.
I guess the answer would be 24/7 state-controlled entertainment.
Sounds familiar?
|
I wouldn't even bother addressing itsjustatank; he listens to others less than even I, and that's saying something.
|
On June 29 2014 00:58 itsjustatank wrote:
If all you have is that you feel good after posting, this thread truly is interpassivity at its finest. Please big Other, please save us from capitalism. There, I felt better. I'll go back to my job on Monday and think the world should be changed.
why would you say that i feel good after posting?
in fact i feel worse now, cause i have to think about the fact i alone cant do anything to solve the problem, and i have to discuss with people like you who just sulk in their own desperation.
|
Hong Kong9158 Posts
On June 29 2014 01:04 phil.ipp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2014 00:58 itsjustatank wrote:
If all you have is that you feel good after posting, this thread truly is interpassivity at its finest. Please big Other, please save us from capitalism. There, I felt better. I'll go back to my job on Monday and think the world should be changed. why would you say that i feel good after posting? in fact i feel worse now, cause i have to think about the fact i alone cant do anything to solve the problem, and i have to discuss with people like you who just sulk in their own desperation.
When alternatives to capital are framed as just thinking about a world to be, nothing ever happens. There is, however, a cruel sense of pleasure gained by verbally or textually chipping away at this big 'system,' which is why threads like this exist and why people like the professor in the essay do as well (and he gets paid to experience it). Each person involved in it thinks things are changing incrementally, but like others have said in this thread, the 'system' remains as it was a hundred years later. This is the circularity of academic discourse surrounding capitalism and quote-unquote solving it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
