Malcolm Dunnachie Thompson wrote:
> The problem with a proposition like "Capitalists intend to create
> wealth rather than cause poverty" is that it is incomplete. By which
> I mean: "Capitalists intend to create wealth FOR WHOM?" Not for the
> general population - for themselves. In addition, a total, gross
> increase in wealth (expressed as a quantity) has nothing whatever to
> do with the actual state of its accumulation and distribution. A gross
> increase in wealth can easily take place in a context of increasing
> impoverishment for the majority (and, importantly, the very majority
> who actually produces the wealth in question).
What is this appeal to the majority doing on this list?
> The rich can get richer
> at a faster rate than the poor get poorer. The result will be an
> increase in wealth, but this does NOT mean that the poor are not
> getting poorer.
This thought experiment is used to reassert Marx's (totaly
false) "contradiction" of capitalism--that it will create more misery
for the masses than it will create positive economic benefits (for those
greedy bastards)--without stepping up to the plate to say that that is
*really* what is happening, and thereby subjecting the position to
possible falsification.
> "When the proletariat takes power, it may be quite possible that the
> proletariat will exert toward the classes over which it has triumphed
> a violent, dictatorial, and even bloody power. I can't see what
> objection one could make to this."
>
> - MF
This quote is troubling for a few reasons. It conflicts with
what Foucault said (sorry, no exact citation: Power/Knowledge, I
believe) about battling the worst evils *within* the "system," not
fighting for and entirely new "system." Also, as a philosopher who
denies human agency, Foulcault seems also to think that the ruling
classes basically have coming to them what they will get from the
proletariat. You can only *deserve* something if you can act
deliberately. Can he have it both ways? Or is pointing out this
contradiction itself a strategy used by the ruling classes to oppress,
what?, a philosopher?!?
Nicholas
> The problem with a proposition like "Capitalists intend to create
> wealth rather than cause poverty" is that it is incomplete. By which
> I mean: "Capitalists intend to create wealth FOR WHOM?" Not for the
> general population - for themselves. In addition, a total, gross
> increase in wealth (expressed as a quantity) has nothing whatever to
> do with the actual state of its accumulation and distribution. A gross
> increase in wealth can easily take place in a context of increasing
> impoverishment for the majority (and, importantly, the very majority
> who actually produces the wealth in question).
What is this appeal to the majority doing on this list?
> The rich can get richer
> at a faster rate than the poor get poorer. The result will be an
> increase in wealth, but this does NOT mean that the poor are not
> getting poorer.
This thought experiment is used to reassert Marx's (totaly
false) "contradiction" of capitalism--that it will create more misery
for the masses than it will create positive economic benefits (for those
greedy bastards)--without stepping up to the plate to say that that is
*really* what is happening, and thereby subjecting the position to
possible falsification.
> "When the proletariat takes power, it may be quite possible that the
> proletariat will exert toward the classes over which it has triumphed
> a violent, dictatorial, and even bloody power. I can't see what
> objection one could make to this."
>
> - MF
This quote is troubling for a few reasons. It conflicts with
what Foucault said (sorry, no exact citation: Power/Knowledge, I
believe) about battling the worst evils *within* the "system," not
fighting for and entirely new "system." Also, as a philosopher who
denies human agency, Foulcault seems also to think that the ruling
classes basically have coming to them what they will get from the
proletariat. You can only *deserve* something if you can act
deliberately. Can he have it both ways? Or is pointing out this
contradiction itself a strategy used by the ruling classes to oppress,
what?, a philosopher?!?
Nicholas