babyfinland posted:AmericanNazbro posted:aerdil posted:
i had to write an essay about baudrillard a couple weeks ago and as far as i can tell his political/philosophical project is "welp we're fucked, capitalism rules everything around us and always will" so im pretty surprised he's not more popular hereit's impossible for capitalism to reign as the dominant social-economic system forever due to global warming and resource scarcity
in america, i think it will revert back to a feudalistic system, where capitalism is gradually edged out, though, i don't think capitalism will ever completely be removed from the governing social-economic systemamerica has never been feudalistic, attempts by the french to transfer feudal political structures failed miserably
i was using the term loosely i guess. a rentier economy where the aristocracy owns the land that is worked by serfs
i don't think it's incorrect to believe america is moving in that direction
discipline posted:AmericanNazbro posted:
it's impossible for capitalism to reign as the dominant social-economic system forever due to global warming and resource scarcitylol
i dunno why you think that's wrong unless you are using a really broad term for capitalism but w/e
AmericanNazbro posted:discipline posted:AmericanNazbro posted:
it's impossible for capitalism to reign as the dominant social-economic system forever due to global warming and resource scarcitylol
i dunno why you think that's wrong unless you are using a really broad term for capitalism but w/e
you're both way braver than i to risk speaking definitively on the subject
thirdplace posted:
feudalism was a lot weirder than i think most people realize
lol
getfiscal posted:
i think predicting the future is a mug's game
That's one mug you don't wanna chug!
thirdplace posted:
feudalism was a lot weirder than i think most people realize
ya it was very peculiar to the historical conditions of the time and place and its even debatable whether or not its coherent to speak about "feudalism" as a consistent mode of production and social organization. its certainly not a 'stage of development' in the marxian sense
jools posted:
why not
because theres no evidence to suggest that that kind of evolutionary trajectory of accumulative development occurs hth
jools posted:
as in the concept that within feudalism there are necessarily the seeds of capitalism?
thats a seperate question; i'm talking more about the alleged universality of feudalism as a 'stage of development' or its surrogate, the 'asiatic mode of production'
Groulxsmith posted:
when you are flying over quebec you can still see a lot of land laid out in seigneuries
heheha hahahhhehehea
thirdplace posted:to me the history of feudalism is mostly proof that nothing is inevitable, that power relations can be mediated through culture in any old way
aerdil posted:
i titled it "mr. baudrillard, we're not that fucked, yet." and the professor said the vulgarity distracted from my essay
fuck the shit out of that cocksucker. imho.
Groulxsmith posted:
i don't see how increasingly abstract finance capitalism leads to that at all
Feudal models are a Literal Thing in Central Oregon.
See how it works is you decimate manufacturing and put smaller farmers against the wall by having them compete in a market overwhelmingly advantaging larger producers. When a few jobs begin to trickle back you cut the wages to $12.50/hr and cut benefits 100% and say with a straight face the economy is in recovery.
While this is going on you inculcate a desire for "Fresh And Local Meats and Produce" in the remaining albeit dwindling and increasingly distressed well-to-do classes.
The natural effect then is to have individuals approach farmers with offers like "my home is underwater and i have nowhere to go please let me build a cabin on your land so i have a job and some food and some shelter, plus at least my commute is small and doesn't burn gas." and the farmer's like "whatever, sure man thanks!"
off the top of my head rainshadow organics and dancing cow farms are two central oregon farms who have taken on hands who live on the land full time b/c they were desperate and had nowhere else to go. the relationship is congenial, but y'know, coercive economic forces etc etc you get it.
Groulxsmith posted:
that sounds a lot like our old friend capitalism if you ask this troper
is it part of the capitalist model to have people forsake wages entirely in order to live on the 40 acres passed down through someone's family in the name of increased security outside the wage system? living on a farm working the land for a hereditary land and title owner?
idk, while it isn't Literal Serfdom (just mostly) it doesn't fit what i've come to recognize as a conception of capitalism.
Groulxsmith posted:
whatever particular niceties are being employed to placate workers is more or less immaterial, even if it has superficial similarities to feudalism (which pretty much end there)
people are cutting themselves out of the system of credit and taxation for the relative freedom of tilling the land in exchange for shelter and subsistence. is the fact that the people are not literally bought and sold as property along with the actual property of the land such a big difference? because fwiw while those farms haven't been sold yet, i don't think the tenants really have anywhere else to go and i can't imagine a new owner not availing themselves of the trained labor already present on the land.
deadken posted:
didnt zizek have a Thing about how the intellectual-property economy is basically organised on feudalistic lines.
yeah. well hardt and negri think that more and more capitalism is about rent rather than profit, like enclosing the commons in various ways rather than productive technologies.
WillieTomg posted:Groulxsmith posted:
whatever particular niceties are being employed to placate workers is more or less immaterial, even if it has superficial similarities to feudalism (which pretty much end there)people are cutting themselves out of the system of credit and taxation for the relative freedom of tilling the land in exchange for shelter and subsistence. is the fact that the people are not literally bought and sold as property along with the actual property of the land such a big difference? because fwiw while those farms haven't been sold yet, i don't think the tenants really have anywhere else to go and i can't imagine a new owner not availing themselves of the trained labor already present on the land.
i would call that something more a superficial similarity but the fact that it is all based on and motivated by selling commodities for profit rather than amassing and maintaining bannermen is pr important
thirdplace posted:WillieTomg posted:Groulxsmith posted:
whatever particular niceties are being employed to placate workers is more or less immaterial, even if it has superficial similarities to feudalism (which pretty much end there)people are cutting themselves out of the system of credit and taxation for the relative freedom of tilling the land in exchange for shelter and subsistence. is the fact that the people are not literally bought and sold as property along with the actual property of the land such a big difference? because fwiw while those farms haven't been sold yet, i don't think the tenants really have anywhere else to go and i can't imagine a new owner not availing themselves of the trained labor already present on the land.
i would call that something more a superficial similarity but the fact that it is all based on and motivated by selling commodities for profit rather than amassing and maintaining bannermen is pr important
that and it's also untenable for the vast majority of capital to function or provide returns that way and even what is described still does not isolate the 'serfs' from broader society clearly shaped by modern capitalism
shennong posted:
it's almost as though transitions between forms dont happen instantly and uniformly across entire societies
KINDLY. LEAVE!
jools posted:discipline posted:jools posted:
shes not postmodern. poststructuralist, perhaps...care to delineate that for me sensei
yeah postmodernism is everything bad, poststructuralism is everything salvageable. so baudrillard goes in one box, foucault goes in the other. its like splitting up.
the the left to the left, everything you wrote, in a box "of The Left"
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:
lol @ the dude talking about hippies living on organic farms as an alternative to capitalism or whatever
well it wasn't an ideolgoical decision for most and most of them you probably wouldn't call "hippies" for all the farms were called rainshadow fucking organics and dancing cow farms.
mostly it was just running out of nonfarming options
