Manifesto, on shelves, probably Urban Outfitters, have i guessed right? This signifies the decay, of what were once messages in the form of gifts through communist angst, into mere ornaments for those pitiful enough to worship such false contribution of such profoundly revolutionary material.
(Horray, lets give it away, for free. but no, not free. You will feel free though!)
What is not left for such open hands is found to be what is most valuable for a sub-cultures present struggle. In accordance to Manifesto, well, it is now so obviously available; easy to pass by, or buy, or ponder, without merit, without the reason for such wisdom. (besides the levis). With this, comes partial rage, but more frustration. It is a clear example of Hegemonic Appropriation using history bound to material, bound to consumers, which are bound to wikipedia, who is bound to the public; thus Manifesto will not be feared as it had been, it will be openly accepted, to be obviously looked past, or phased in and then out, like clothes. Like trends. Communism will never be of anything of a trend, well it shouldn't be.
The power of the hegemony has allowed participation in ideas like those of Manifesto, for the means of its own security. What we know, is what we are shown (we know what we are allowed to). Our ideas, remain with us, and as Bob Dylan had once said "if my thoughts, dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine", following through, What we are shown, (but according to the hegemonic states should not be), are the ideas that have luckily reached our senses which we should take advantage of; forming new ideas, poems for revolutions and philosophies that put the hegemonic demons at an eye-to-eye level with those beneath them. You and me.
I will admit, it is a very sad thing to see someone leave a door so powerfully profound, but once so forbidden, now so widely open. Here rises confusion. And this may be true, that there is hardly any physical, external distinction between who is true and who is fat of their consumption and desire to seem it.
Literature is, I believe, to be one of, if not the most, powerful mediums of reflection of reality in a particular state; Social, Political, Ethical, Global........every word is influenced, and every sentence is influenced by the influence which transformed the meaning of the words that build an overall message. Literature is complete, unique, reflection. It is the mirror of particular beliefs mixed with what can be assumed from previous understandings of cause, events, effects, circumstances and living. Literature defends ideas which arise from all influences and imagination.
-Randy
In capitalism, everything has a price. It has been said, that everybody wants to be somebody – but the truth is that everybody has to be somebody. There is no choice in assuming an identity. The issue that most people who contest capitalism seems to be the “quality” of life, when really – “quality” might be seen as secondary when it comes to constructing an identity. Maybe the identity comes first, then the varying degrees of quality. I believe that this might be a result of striving for sustainability. Biological life does all kinds of silly things to simply survive. I’m slipping away from the subject here.
ReplyDeleteWhy do people shop the places they do, why do people do the things they do? Personally, I try to dress as a type of Red Blooded American Male for several reasons, but mostly because I like pretending. But when I am just pretending, and everyone else in the world is taking everything so seriously – the two perspectives are incommensurable. How can a privileged class and an underprivileged class possibly understand each other? What is Real Privilige? Could it be a perspective? A capacity? Might it not exist at all…
I might defend capitalism by throwing around some Ayn Randian sermons, or maybe some heartless words by Neitch, or some senseless words from the brave Don Quiote De La Mancha. But I would ultimately only be defending my own identity and the structure in place that produced that identity. I guess an important question to answer is, who are you? What do you desire most and why? Also, are you willing to make the sacrifices needed to get there? Why do you even want to be there? &c. capitalistic ideology.
What if I said that I think Marxism’s most valuable perspective is that it gives a person the opportunity to consume intelligently? Personally, I can say what I know - that the theater has only so many seats and I am going to get two tickets. Life is fantastical.
Speaking of Don Quiote, this post actually has some vague reasonableness to it.
As consumers, we at times step outside ourselves and do not think of ourselves as actual consumers, especially in our attempts to "rebel" by buying an item that we think is making a statement, a rebellious or anarchistic statement, when it is in fact contributing to the very thing that we are against. It is a repetitive cycle, and whether an individual is a member of the lower, middle, or upper-middle class, we are contradicting ourselves in everything we buy, or buy into, if we think that we are somehow removing ourselves from a capitalistic environment.
ReplyDelete-Allison
One point that Prof. Craig points out is the specific irony of “The Communist Manifesto” right next to a display of jeans in that the person who picks up on the idea of “rejecting normal fashion” and choose “radical fashion” will inevitably be failing to understand the message fully. The Manifesto outlines why capitalism fails the working class and treats the worker unfairly by not paying hem for the value of their labor, but under paying them to keep the profit margins high. The worker who made those jeans is more likely than not working under these conditions and by buying the jeans one would on perpetuate this even further. Its absolutely absurd how a once completely revolutionary text can be taken so far from it’s meaning to perpetuate the one thing it stands against.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that keeps bothering me about this idea of Marxism is that it is meant to empower those who are being repressed by the system, to look into texts and to see how history and other factors make up the meaning of the text and perpetuate the hegemony of the ruling class. How are those being repressed supposed to be empowered in this way of looking through texts? The manifesto is a good outline, but that also requires the person to be literate and sometimes, especially in developing nations, the factory worker might not be literate. In this case, the worker is still stuck in that crumby situation and has no way of gaining power. Perhaps I'm looking at this in a very naive way.
-Steve
You can’t use Bulldozers to study Orchards? Oh yeah, watch me.
ReplyDelete"signs function not through their intrinsic value but through their relative position"
What the dead theorist means by this is that the meaning signs signify are derived from how those signs are situated in relation to other signs within a system. Take the #1 for example, #1 only holds significance in relation to how it is positioned within a system of numbers. The implications of this is that no one ever knows anything outside of the system of knowing they implement. Take physics for example, physics can predict certain things – using the “perspective” physics grants us, one might predict the many things having to do with what happens when a 100 pound weight is dropped on a cute little kitty cat. But physics can not tell us certain things about the kitty cat. A different “system” would be needed to measure the kitty cats level of cuteness. In the end no one can really ever know the kitty cat – the kitty cat is an unknowable X that has merely been represented in a system of sighns.
I had to post this here because i cant acess the pedagogical thingy.