Me, about moralism (as opposed to simply referring to morality):
>> If it's a dictum sent down from on-high, without any consideration about the
>> humans she's dealing with and the situation they're in, then it's
>> moralistic, trying to impose her ideal on others (or wishing that they
>> would live up to her standards without paying any attention to the
>> constraints they live in).
Awhile back, raghu responded:
> In other words, it is hopelessly subjective what is "moral" and what
> is "moralistic" since I totally and utterly disagree that any of the
> above applies to Arundhati Roy.
Please do not put "other words" in my mouth. I don't know anything
about (and thus have no brief against) Ms. Roy, so I was not talking
about her here, but about your translation of her words into other
terms. On the other hand, I do reject the elitist approach exemplified
by her original "stop eating so much, you dumb shit" comment.
You were asking about whether a phrase (which was not Roy's, but a
translation) was moralistic or merely expressed a moral position. My
response was simple: it depends on the context. Thus, it's not
"hopelessly subjective." Context is not merely a matter of one's
perceptions or mental states. It's part of the objective world that
each of us lives in, the reality that exists outside of our perception
of it.
It should be well-known that the meaning of words depends on the
_context_. This is not just the context within a sentence or
paragraph, but the social context. If I yell "fire" in my house, for
example, that's different from yelling it in a crowded movie theater.
>> In any case, the billions made by the Wall Streeters is nothing but a
>> redistribution (often from industrial capitalists all over the world, who
>> compensate by cutting wages and benefits). Their "productivity" is nothing
>> but an ability to grab a "piece of the action" (sorry, I meant
>> surplus-value). It has nothing to do with the actual creation of goods and
>> services for people or or of surplus-value.<<
> In other words productivity statistics are garbage. Isn't that what I said?
Well, it may be your moral position that productivity statistics are
"garbage," but I wasn't saying that at all. Again, please don't put
words in my mouth.
I was referring instead to the "productivity" of Wall Streeters, a
very specific type of productivity. The fact that this kind of
productivity is a sham and a delusion (propaganda) does not say that
we should dump productivity numbers into the dust-bin of history.
Rather, like with any and all phenomena, we should take them with a
grain of salt, thinking critically rather than in either/or terms (as
in "either productivity numbers are valid or they are garbage").
Under capitalism, productivity numbers refer to the price of the mass
of marketable commodities sold divided by the quantity of inputs, with
the numerator corrected for the effects of inflation. Usually, the
denominator is labor-time, among other things because it's easier to
aggregate. In that case, in Marxian terms we're talking about the
creation of value, contribution to the aggregate pool of value (also
called GDP), which must be done for surplus-value to be collected by
capitalists. We may not like capitalism, but unfortunately we are
stuck with it for now, so that we have to face the music:
if total value isn't growing, neither are people's ability to buy
stuff and to live. We live in the belly of a beast, so if the beast
gets sick or dies, we're in trouble too. In the simplest possible
terms, if someone doesn't produce value for their bosses, capitalists
won't hire them.
Rather than dismissing the Wall Streeters' productivity as "garbage,"
it's best to notice that the problem is that the _kind_ of
"productivity" that they have is different from that of the vast
majority of employees. In general, they do what Marx called
"unproductive labor." In that case, their "productivity" arises
because of their ability to capture a piece of the aggregate value and
surplus-value from others. As far as their employers are concerned, it
doesn't matter whether or not their labor is productive in Marxian
terms. What's important is whether or not employing them brings in the
bucks. That is, the Wall Street creeps may not produce value on the
aggregate level, but they do produce value for their bosses.
This suggests a different meaning for the word "moralistic" than the
one I have been using. Someone who's moralistic jumps into to judge
and dismiss phenomena and never gets to actually trying to understand
them. This meshes with the nature of Roy's initial comment, at least
as quoted on pen-l: she talks down to what she calls "motherfuckers"
without any effort to understand what's really going on. However, she
herself may not be moralistic in this way, because (unlike how the
quote was used) she might have a serious analysis behind her rudeness.
I do not know enough about her work to judge.
>> Instead of pushing down the top, it's better to pull up the bottom:
> Exactly how a Stephen Schwarzman would put it!
Is this an effort to dismiss my point using guilt by association? if
so, that's silly. Even billionaires are right sometimes. In fact,
their wealth might give them the ability to have more perspective than
most (like George Soros), though most of them are blinded by their
greed.
>> I'd rather raise the standard of living of the people at the bottom
>> than punish hard-working people who are already highly exploited by
>> the aforementioned billionaires.
> It looks like it is axiomatic to you that the "working class" cannot
> over-consume. I strongly disagree. I think you and many other Western
> leftists are deluding yourself that the material aspirations of the
> "working class" i.e. the American Dream can be sustainably met. These
> aspirations may have to be scaled back from what seem to be the
> current expectations.
Thanks for the insult! as usual, it reveals more about the insulter
than the insultee.
Since (as far as I can tell) you haven't been taking what I've been
saying seriously, I don't think you have enough evidence to judge what
"axioms" I use. You don't know anything about my delusions. Perhaps my
biggest delusion is that the application of reason can push a
discussion ahead. Oh well.
>> For example, it's not just the US which suffers from gross and increasing
>> inequality in the distribution of income and wealth. It's also India and I
>> presume a lot of other "third world" countries.[**]
> And the relevance to the overconsumption issue is?
go back and read it in context.
>> [**] Sorry about the "third world" tag, but I don't know what else to
>> call India. As far as I can tell, it's not "developing" except for the
>> rich and upper middle classes. Please correct me if my facts are
>> wrong.
> This level of sensitivity is unnecessary. But since you asked, how
> about "poor country"? It is not a tag but simply accurate and
> descriptive.
The sensitivity here is due to the fact that I assume (perhaps
wrongly) that there are other people reading this discussion besides
you and me. I also assume that they are interested in theoretical
issues rather than simply moral ones.
By coincidence, I usually use the phrase "poor country." The problem
is that these days, India is describe as becoming richer
("developing," being an "emerging market"). So something else seems
needed. To me, "third world" refers to a country's position in the
social structure of imperialism -- rather than simply being poor.
However, it's an inadequate term (theoretically, not morally).
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
