|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Truth Hurts (11/5/2006 9:27:53 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
Social science theorist relabel Marx the way psychologists re-label Freud. Look up cultural materialism and anthropology if you want to know what I am specifically referencing. Which does not totally subscribe to Marxism, but the it is rooted there.. that will give you an introduction into what I am talking about.
I did look up cultural materialism on several sites, including Wikipedia, and read with interest. I'm not sure I'm versed enough in the details, but I had no problem with much of what I read. I'm not sure about the links to Marxist thought, but this is the summary I found on Wiki:
The main premise behind cultural materialism is that sociocultural phenomena do not emerge at random, nor through the interplay of ideas, nor because of particular social stuctures, but rather probabilistically result from pressures in the relationships between a population, its economy, its technology, and its environment. Cultural materialism recognises four universal components of sociocultural systems: - Etic and behavioral Infrastructure, comprising a society's relations to the environment, which includes their etic and behavioral modes of production and reproduction (material relations).
-
- Etic and behavioral Structure, the etic and behavioral domestic and political economies of a society (social relations).
-
- Etic and behavioral Superstructure, the etic and behavioral symbolic and ideational aspects of a society, e.g. the arts, rituals, sports and games, and science (symbolic and ideational relations).
-
- Emic and mental Superstructure, including "conscious and unconscious cognitive goals, categories, rules, plans, values, philosophies, and beliefs" (Harris 1979:54) (meaningful or ideological relations).
Within this division of culture, cultural materialism argues for what is referred to as the principle of probabilistic infrastructural determinism. The essence of its materialist approach is that the infrastructure is in almost all circumstances the most significant force behind the evolution of a culture. Structure and superstructure are not considered "insignificant, epiphenomenal reflexes of infrastructural forces" (Harris 1979:72). The structure and symbolic/ideational aspects act as regulating mechanisms within the system as a whole.
The research strategy predicts that it is more likely that in the long term infrastructure probabilistically determines structure, which probabilistically determines the superstructures, than otherwise. Thus, much as in earlier Marxist thought, material changes (such as in technology or environment) are seen as largely determining patterns of social organization and ideology in turn.
I obviously have a lot of reading and learning to do, but my initial impression is this: I disagree that it is the principle of probabilistic infrastructural determinism that is the key factor that determines societal outcomes.
I've been reading and researching evolutionary psychology, and so far it has lead me to some tenative conclusions that are opposed to this point of view.
I'd really be interested, when you have the time and interest, to hear your thoughts.
quote:
ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
quote:
What struck me about your defense of it, was the close, reverse analogy that I've heard from other Marxist leaning people. I'll assume you fit this mold, but am open to information that you do not.
This analogy is one with Christianity. So many people (especially Marxists) have this thing about Christianity, about how it causes and has caused such terrible atrocities in the world, and that members of Christianity have never lived up to any of the ideals of Jesus.
Where was the reference to Jesus here? I am missing something.
You know when someone proposes something that threatens the status quo people try to bury it in the deep blue sea. Not all Marxists are Atheists. As I said in an earlier post, Marx had several phases he went through, not to mention that his theories were not all about athieism and the proletariat rising up and seizing the means of production.
julia,
It was a comparison of logical arguments based on their structure and apparent similarities in defensive concepts, not a particular observation that Synergey (or anyone else) made an comments about Christianity or Jesus in this thread. Also, no one was called an atheist.
I was simply making the observation that the logical argument that I preceived that Synergy was making, was almost exactly in the same logical format and content I've seen some Christians make when defending the history of Christianity.
I asked him if I had his argument correct, and he said no.
I'm not sure what his logical argument was, therefore, but respect that he knows his own mind and arguments.
quote:
ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
I am much fond of the trusims that Marx saw around him, such as the exploitation of workers for the wealth of a few, the consolidation of wealth, the destruction of lifeways not conducive for Capitalist ecomonies. The destruction of the family in Western society, the taking of surplus wealth from local communities... on and on I could post examples of this... the fact of the matter is we have many small countries South of us that wanted to try leftist governments, such as Chile, and the USA would not allow that.
It is all in what your goal for humanity is if this current system "works" in your mind. I do not see it as workable because it is unsustainable. The markets will sooner or later crash, we have a soaring population based on a fossil fuel economy, and when that goes belly up (and it will), what will be left? For many people in this world capitalist economies just do not work at all, but they are living in the developing world, the third world, the less developed world... or whatever other moniker you would give those who often live in abject poverty.
The wealthy get wealthier and the poor get poorer.... and that is precisely what the Marxist theoretical construct states would happen with unbridled free markets with no regulation. We are controlled by corporations, we fight wars for their profit, send our children to die for them, allow them to outsource industry and to write our laws... I am not making this up.
One day soon I will write about what Marx truly visualized as being the final result of the proletariat rising up and seizing the means of production... and it was not a horror like the ones mentioned in Sinergy's.
I have a logical extention of what I believe may happen in a more just world in which corporations are not viewed as entities that have more rights than individuals, and people got their fair share of the fruits of their labor.. but it is getting late here and you have some googling to do... remember cultural materialism.. that is only the first part of what has formed my Marxist ideas
Lots of stuff here. I don't think I'm ready to rebutt you on every point I disagree with, because I haven't really figured out the system and beliefs behind your assertions above.
Will be an interesting discussion as we go along.
FirmKY
|
|
|
|
