Ideologies

I'm struck by the critique of Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist movement regarding the nature of ideologies: "Any social ideology, specifically economic, which does not directly relate to the resources of the planet in its doctrines explicitly, meaning the attributes of our environment which actually sustain our lives, is an inapplicable and thus irrelevant social ideology (here near 1:06:38)." Thoughts?

I don't know. From this one vague line I don't really have a sense of his argument and I don't want to watch an hour and six minutes to find out -- what do you think he's arguing maybe we can start there or with a basic summary?

1. I think that ideologies are constructions of ruling classes to justify their systems.

2. I think that this argument is reheated Malthusian clap-trap.

Mainstream economics does fit that category.

He is saying that all current economic ideologies are inapplicable to a resource-based economy.

No he's not.

He's saying that any economic ideology that doesn't contain certain criteria regarding the environment and ecology is not worth following.

If accurately quoted, the statement is too broad and vague to expect agreement from me since capitalism generally does take into account its environmental impact. They created the EPA, for chrissake!

The problem with capitalism is not whether it has an environmental policy; It does. It just applies it too late, after the fact, too insufficiently or too subordinate to private property considerations and profit motives.

The correct approach when selecting economic ideologies in regard to the environment is to see how much of the earth it wishes to subordinate to private interests.

In that regard capitalism has proved itself a failure.

Nope, both capitalism and socialism do not recognize that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resources and rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter-productive to our survival.

So you left Free Market capitalism to join the Zeitgeist cult?

I'm not a joiner but I've been persuaded that politics is irrelevant to human survival.

hate to tell you this, but pretty much every act except for breathing is in some way political...saying that politics is irrelevant to human survival is completely absurd.

Your mistake lies with the assumption that human survival itself can pose itself as a valid ends.

It's because, Trivas, you're an Idealist. Of course, what the Zeitgeist movmeent proposes is sounding. However, the problem resides within the fact that the Zeitgeist is Utopian, i.e. It's abstract, in correlation with no existing material forces. When you say that politics are irralivent to human survival, not only is this vague, it's meaningless as a statement. The point is that several different ideologies are seen by their adherers as a way out for humanity, i.e. a solution. But in reality, those existing ideologies are a way out for a class in which this ideology was a reflection of. And Zeitgeist, like any other Utopian cult, blends together several different class interests, or more specifically, the ideologies which are a reflection of said interests, in the end forming a very useless, abstract, and Utopian "solution" to what they perceive as the ills of the current mode of production, etc . Do you think that if convinced, humans are going to join hands, sing songs, and mold material conditions as they please? Do you think that the only problem with humanity is that they lack the right ideas for change? No! The point is, this conception of humanity, as a collective group of interests which must be upheld, is the real illusion. Human survival is of no one's interest, i.e. Because what we call a human itself is contradictory in regards to it's own survival, i.e. the Survival of members of the proletarian class, is antithetical to the survival of the petty bourgeois, and bourgeois classes. All of which are human. History is not "good Ideas" utilized, and the end result of such utilization becomes our judgement of whether those ideas are good or bad. History is men and women seeking to for fill their own ends. What did you think Communism was for us? Did you think that it was some kind of ideology that we use proletarians to for fill? No. Communism is for us not only a process, but a mere embodiment of the interests of the proletarian class (We intellectuals didn't invent communism!), a weapon. Not the other way around.

And since there is no material basis for the Zeitgeist movement, it exists still constrained not only by, of course, Bourgeois-Liberal thought, but by the pressuposions of the capitalist mode of production. Only real existing material forces are capable of pushing the constrain of hte capitalist mode of production further (something no one, none of us can even articulate, since we are constrained), and the unique part is that this can only be done, not because they want to do so, but because it is a result of their own struggle to emancipate themselves.

In other words, the struggle for proletarians to emancipate themselves is at the same time, whether they directly see it fit or not, the destruction of the capitalist mode of production, and the forwarding of it's constraint. This is history, and this is the function and process of change. Classes, individual interests, which can only be for filled by collective class interest, achieving and for filling their own interests. Capitalism didn't exist, because a group of people thought it would be a good Idea, that they visioned a new society similar to the one we saw after the Bourgeois revolutions. Those revolutions were an exemplification of real existing material interests, capitalism, a result of such an exemplification. You've been so arrogant in the past years, dismissing materialism, not even attempting to divulge into what we mean when we say matter precedes thought, that facts precede Ideas.

No, you've just jumped from several different, bizarre and obscure ideologies without even stopping to realize that Marxism isn't an ideology, nor is it a "political doctrine". Marxism is a method, a theoretical structure which allows us to analyze existing political structures, and all forms of human social organization.

And now we return to the "Zeitgeist" movement, a Utopian cult with no material basis, which seeks to relieve humankind of it's "ills", and, as you said, put human survival as a top priority. Splendid! Why? How? Because everyone is just going to agree, if the Idea is of the right quality? That's pure Idealism. No material change occurs through the spreading of Ideas. Especially not Ideas which are neither a direct reflection of material conditions, nor a manifestation of any real class interest beyond the fucked up Petite Bourgeoisie.

If it's about "good Ideas", and the spreading of such, than the solution to everything is simply a stable, regulated form of Welfare capitalism. You can't use Marxian critics, because they pressupose materialism (which you disregard). Like the religious leaders who say "good morals" are the solution. The point is that the material conditions existing necessitate all of the actions of business leaders, and therefore a "good morality" cannot coexist with a system which necessitates the opposite.

See this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/those-want...636/index.html it applies.

Thinking that human survival is a real existing possible priority for any class is in itself even more absurd!

Haven't a clue what you mean to say here.
Why do you respond to meaningless statements? Of course you want to characterize the zeitgeist movement as utopian. Have you forgotten that Marxism itself is rooted in French utopianism?
Only technology can get us beyond capitalism, not social or political ideology (but of course everyone is constrained by the society they live in).
Don't make this thread about me; I fully understand what is meant by philosophical materialism.
Nonsense. Marxism is an interpretation of history that has nothing to do with the scientific method applied to social concern.
Nonsense; even per your lights surely you see that welfare capitalism is merely a variant of an environmentally unsustainable system.

Everytime someone puts some effort into making a decent reply to Trivas, the man childishly dismisses everything, quotes a small portion(disregarding the rest as if it doesn't exist) of it and replies with some pseudo-intellectual bullshit that has nothing to do with the subject.

Look, I'm Trivas:












The Futility of Truth: Neodialectic capitalist theory in the works of Koons

John G. D. Porter
Department of Sociology, Carnegie-Mellon University



1. Madonna and postdeconstructive theory

If one examines neodialectic capitalist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject postdeconstructive theory or conclude that the goal of the participant is significant form. However, Lyotardist narrative states that consensus is created by the masses.

In the works of Madonna, a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. In Erotica, Madonna denies postdeconstructive theory; in Material Girl, however, she affirms Marxist socialism. But several desemioticisms concerning neodialectic capitalist theory exist.

If one examines Marxist socialism, one is faced with a choice: either accept deconstructivist rationalism or conclude that the raison d’etre of the poet is deconstruction, given that Sontag’s essay on neodialectic capitalist theory is valid. Cameron[1] implies that we have to choose between postdeconstructive theory and submaterial cultural theory. Therefore, any number of discourses concerning the common ground between society and narrativity may be discovered.

“Society is unattainable,” says Sartre; however, according to Geoffrey[2] , it is not so much society that is unattainable, but rather the economy, and subsequent stasis, of society. The characteristic theme of Parry’s[3] analysis of Marxist socialism is a self-referential paradox. In a sense, neodialectic capitalist theory suggests that the establishment is capable of intent.

Sontag promotes the use of capitalist neoconceptual theory to deconstruct outmoded perceptions of sexual identity. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a Marxist socialism that includes sexuality as a totality.

Debord uses the term ‘neodialectic capitalist theory’ to denote not materialism per se, but submaterialism. Thus, if postdeconstructive theory holds, we have to choose between Marxist socialism and Sartreist absurdity.

An abundance of theories concerning postdeconstructive theory exist. It could be said that the main theme of the works of Eco is the role of the artist as reader.

The subject is interpolated into a Marxist socialism that includes culture as a reality. However, the characteristic theme of la Fournier’s[4] critique of neodialectic capitalist theory is not dedeconstructivism, but neodedeconstructivism.

Several narratives concerning the difference between class and sexual identity may be found. Therefore, the collapse, and thus the economy, of Marxist socialism prevalent in Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum emerges again in The Limits of Interpretation (Advances in Semiotics), although in a more subdialectic sense.

2. Realities of stasis

“Class is fundamentally responsible for hierarchy,” says Debord. The premise of neodialectic capitalist theory holds that language is impossible, but only if culture is interchangeable with truth; if that is not the case, culture has intrinsic meaning. In a sense, Sontag suggests the use of Marxist socialism to read and attack sexual identity.

If one examines neodialectic capitalist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject postdeconstructive theory or conclude that the State is part of the absurdity of language. An abundance of theories concerning neodialectic capitalist theory exist. But Wilson[5] suggests that the works of Eco are reminiscent of Gaiman.

The main theme of the works of Eco is not dematerialism as such, but neodematerialism. Debord promotes the use of postdeconstructive theory to challenge class divisions. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a Marxist socialism that includes consciousness as a paradox.

“Class is dead,” says Sartre; however, according to Porter[6] , it is not so much class that is dead, but rather the failure, and eventually the dialectic, of class. If neodialectic capitalist theory holds, we have to choose between postdeconstructive theory and Marxist capitalism. However, the subject is interpolated into a dialectic theory that includes narrativity as a reality.

If one examines Marxist socialism, one is faced with a choice: either accept preconstructivist textual theory or conclude that sexual identity, perhaps ironically, has significance. The closing/opening distinction which is a central theme of Eco’s The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas is also evident in Foucault’s Pendulum. Therefore, a number of discourses concerning the role of the artist as reader may be revealed.

The subject is contextualised into a neodialectic capitalist theory that includes consciousness as a totality. However, any number of constructions concerning Marxist socialism exist.

The characteristic theme of von Junz’s[7] analysis of postdeconstructive theory is the bridge between narrativity and class. But Long[8] states that we have to choose between Marxist socialism and the capitalist paradigm of context.

If neodialectic capitalist theory holds, the works of Spelling are an example of self-sufficient capitalism. Therefore, Werther[9] holds that we have to choose between postcultural libertarianism and dialectic submaterial theory.

The example of Marxist socialism intrinsic to Gaiman’s Death: The Time of Your Life emerges again in Death: The High Cost of Living, although in a more cultural sense. Thus, neodialectic capitalist theory suggests that expression must come from communication, but only if the premise of Baudrillardist simulation is invalid; otherwise, we can assume that culture is intrinsically responsible for sexism.

An abundance of theories concerning not, in fact, situationism, but neosituationism may be discovered. In a sense, in Stardust, Gaiman analyses postdeconstructive theory; in Black Orchid he deconstructs neodialectic capitalist theory.

Foucault uses the term ‘the subdialectic paradigm of narrative’ to denote the role of the poet as participant. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a Marxist socialism that includes consciousness as a whole.

Does capitalism "directly relate to the resources of the planet in its doctrines explicitly?" Cuz it certainly is applicable and relevant.

The problem with capitalism is that its attempts to be sustainable are constantly undercut by its requirement to maintain an expanding rate of value. In fact its reliance on this expansion means that its attempts at ecological responsibility are usually a case of retrospective fire-fighting.

And the Zeitgeist guy is wrong. It is not a matter of incorrect ideology but a matter of incorrect material practice.

That the demand for universal human survival is nothing short of cheap, Bourgeois humanism. It means nothing, as virtually every ideology claims for it's own such a virtuous task. It's important to know that this is nothing short of ideological rhetoric, and represents a single class interest. There exists no such of a thing as an interest that surpasses the interests of all classes and "bonds" them. This is precisely what the Fascists presented themselves as doing, whilst at the same time, they were really for filling the interests of the capitalist classes via their respective nations.

What an intellectually atrocious thing to say! Marxism wasn't rooted in French Utopianism, it's "socialist" aspect (Which's existence is quite debatable to begin with) was rooted in a critique of all forms of existing Utopianism. Ever heard of Scientific Socialism?

What a ludicrous declaration. No, neither existing technology, nor "ideology" will destroy capitalism. The point we Marxists stress is simple: It is capitalism that will destroy capitalism, though, the only force capable of surpassing capitalism, is the proletarian class, whose class interest exists, if for filled, would at the same time necessitate the destruction of bourgeois society.

Zeitgeist is an ideology, an obscure form of Utopianism.

Technology, as you pointed out, is constrained by capitalism itself, and at that, so long as existing within the capitalist mode of production, can only be utilized to feed the hunger of capital, not pose as an entity in which, when utilized, would allow us to see all of human kind as some sort of beneficiary.

You're foolish to dismiss it as a philosophy. As a matter of fact, the word "philosophy" has been thrown around quite too often by the opponents of Marxism, and you'd all be mistaken to present yourselves as so foolish.

It's really aggravating when Liberals assert this... Anyway, I've addressed it before: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...6&postcount=90

Well, if it's about us actualizing whatever the fuck Ideas we can come up with, why not an Eco-Friendly welfare capitalist Utopia? Ever heard of the Green party?

(P.s. You can't use Marx's criticism of the capitalist mode of production, nor any other materialist critique to counter my devil's advocate, as you're support for the Zeitgeist movement has it's basis in Idealism).

Why don't you respond to the whole post?

The answer to the ecological crises does not, in any way, lie within the concept of a harmonious coexistence, with the utilization of technology as well, with the natural world around us. Indeed, the answer lies within the demand to utilize technology to surpass and break with the state of being which requires us to be constrained by "nature". I do not think of a clean, functional state of affairs devoid of ecological crises as a Sci Fi jungle, with man made constructs and the products of the natural world coexisting in harmony. This, this is a step backwards. I see a world paved over in concrete and, every inch of the Earth poisoned with the architects of the human species.

What the hell do you mean?

Peter Joseph uses a system analysis in his understanding that there cannot be an us-against-them mentality to get us to a sustainable resource-based economy. The earth is the common heritage of all people and therefore the "inherent contradictions" of all Marxian sociological analysis is avoided. PJ's analysis assumes a reductionistic understanding of science, not an historical understanding of it. If the zeitgeist movement changes nothing the hell with it -- PJ understands that most likely the human race will go the way of the dodo bird at this late stage of the game.

Must be something wrong with your crystal ball.