| |
|
I'm saying it, and I'm not an idiot. If it makes any difference to you, I hold a Political Science degree from what is arguably one of the best universities in the world.
What is this?, the playground? I am sure your accolades are very impressive, there is no need to ratify how you gained your intellect, I would have thought such accreditations lay far from where you should be at now as a person.
Russia was never truly feudal. It was - and in many ways, incidentally, remains - an Absolutist state. In Feudalism, there is a web of rights and responsibilities between vassls and overlords. Absolutism, also called Despotism, is rather different. The power of the monarch is unchecked by any constitution or law
This is a debate that has been raging over historians concerned with the Russian economy. In my view, if social organization in which the landlord "appropriates" part of the peasant's output either in the form of labour services or of payments in cash and kind, and is able to do this because the peasant is under his seigniorial jurisdiction. This to me is feudalism, though many Marxist Leninists have problems pinpointing to when this ended in Russia, Feudalism is in effect a hierarchal system yes?, the landlord owns the workers under serfdom, and till later when serfdom was relieved before the revolution the country was still under that form of control. I know what despotism is, that is what came later after fall of the autocracy, your definitions may vary from mine though.
peasant-agricultural state into an industrial one
That’s a damn great leap. The size of Russia alone is enough for this to be a hard task, but the weather and terrain made it all the more impressive. Russia still had a thriving agricultural system far beyond its industrialization. That leap from peasantry to what it became was a large leap. Getting education and science to develop at that pace is monument to what happened in there.
But I do agree it may have been a miracle, but the price the country paid for it is very unjustified.. But would a democratic alternative have worked in mobilizing a country of that size?
that it isn't too blunt for the more bizarre and complex modern world
More complex world? Meta analysing Keynesian theory still suggest that we are apart of what described. Adam smith said that that master is the pensioner of his slave (something along those lines ) when it comes to making profit skill must be profited from, you employ a workforce, whose skill you are exploiting to gain maximum gain, that’s why 500 billionaires command more of the economic landscape than that of many a nations GDP. Even if you look at the FDI upon the 3rd world countries it is apparent that these investments are made so that profit becomes to the nation in a higher percentile than the investments.
I am sure even you will find it hard to argue that hoarding of wealth was created through sufficient and clear moral means, the federal bank does not have what it has now because moral guidelines were adhered too, in VOL III Marx talks of how war is used in economic terms, in that vein it is clear to see the boost to the American economy circa WWI where they could have joined after the sinking of the Lucitania, but no, business interests lay else where. Then even in WW2 they had many chances to join, but economic prosperity was too much of good thing. American wealth is gained through such means of working on and Exploiting situations. Sound familiar..? The arms trade grossed most of American wealth as the slave trade did for the UK. Economic hegemony is one of the key issues in the Marxian doctrine, why is that not relevant when discussing modern economics?
Define 'Proletariat', please
The class of industrial wage earners who, possessing neither capital nor production means, must earn their living by selling their labour
This is a standard definition that sounds okay to me, taken from:- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
In that sense my global description of sweatshops and multinational exploitations still apply, as non of the workers, working for these companies have the means to acquire capital. They (workers for the west) are consuming in what the west are providing to them via consumer good (materials) and gaining profit in a two fold manner, not only are they working for a western company, they are banking, buying and increasing eating western goods. So the Capital (western nations) had wage hegemony not only though underpaid exploitation but through exports.
suspect you mean the rather more tawdry version
I was referring to the Marcuesse’s work, One dimensional man, which stated the notion that material fetishism is fed through not only the progressive nature of wanting more, but it is beginning to encroach upon the time you are spending in leisure, by it falling into this area the consumer is already pre-setting the amount of hours he works to gain the product he has just seen. A continual decapitation from self (explored in eros and civilization) which re-asserts and deconstructs what Freud said, that a society cannot function without work as that is what subverts us from our true nature.
it seems uninterested in offering a theory of individual action or allowing individuals to chose their allegiances; it does not appear to acknowledge moral accountings which have no economic basis
Have you only read the communist manifesto? Exploring his works thus far has lead me to believe that he believes that individuality is sacrificed through a collective subjugation, further more his assertions on there being more leisure time is what he aims for, and many countries now follow his thesis on examples he gave on how over working damaged the individual, another example of his presence is felt in the France where the 35hr a week limit was set by the socialist party. The CM was his earlier work which for the most part was written by Engels, even then Marx was only 30years old, the CM is seen by many as a very incomplete work which was at the beginning of Marx’s exploration into political economy. It is un-fare to think of traditional Marxism as being a clear exploration of today’s economy I agree on that, as it was written at a time when the individual was something not recognized at that time, remember for the most part Schopenhauer, Descartes and the rest of the enlighteners were not read on a mass basis, the elite/bourgeoisie were the only people to have access to this kind of material.
Well saying that, that applies to the majority now, I’d wager that 99% of the world identifies itself through commodity and product than themselves, building their identity through the “art” they are exposed too :roll: People are still as distant from themselves as they were 200 years ago, at least now the opportunities are available to more of the few. Modern Marxism has many followers, I like the optimism they provide like Heidegger children I’d call them:- Hannah Arendt, Karl Lowith, Hans Jonas, and Herbert Marcuse. Of those Marcuse the only one I have read in depth. In short I ascribe to some of the ideas these neo – Marxists exude but I rather like Schopenhauer more 
I respect your ideas, sorry if I was rather brash in my previous post. |
|
|
