Sovereign Praxis: Difference between revisions

From Cibernética Americana
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__
<div style="background-color: black;">
<div style="background-color: black;">
<blockquote><br><span style="position:relative;top:-5px;left:-15px;">'''Sovereign Praxis''' is [http://archive.org/details/utopianpedagogyr0000unse <span style="color:cyan;font-weight:bold;">Utopian Praxis</span>] <small>(cf. pp 13-15)</small>.</span>
<blockquote><br><span style="position:relative;top:-5px;left:-15px;">'''Sovereign Praxis''' is [https://archive.org/details/utopianpedagogyr0000unse <span style="color:cyan;font-weight:bold;">Utopian Praxis</span>] <small>(cf. pp 13-15)</small>.</span>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
  ... hope is the celebration of the possible, or rather of specific existing possibilities, a celebration that depends equally on the intellect and the will. Our hope dictates that we recognize and act on a tendency actually existing in present reality that can lead to a potential future. This hope is not Utopian if by Utopian we understand a dream of the future that is separated from the present. Hope is better conceived as a temporal vector that points from the present into the future from a specific location, with a determinate direction and force.
  ... hope is the celebration of the possible, or rather of specific existing possibilities, a celebration that depends equally on the intellect and the will. Our hope dictates that we recognize and act on a tendency actually existing in present reality that can lead to a potential future. This hope is not Utopian if by Utopian we understand a dream of the future that is separated from the present. Hope is better conceived as a temporal vector that points from the present into the future from a specific location, with a determinate direction and force.
Line 14: Line 14:
<center>Infrequently Asked Questions (4721)</center><blockquote style="position:relative;top:5px;left:10px;">
<center>Infrequently Asked Questions (4721)</center><blockquote style="position:relative;top:5px;left:10px;">
<ol>
<ol>
<li>Q:<span style="color:lemonchiffon;"> What exactly do you mean by 'Capitalism'?</span><br>
    A:<span style="color:lime;"> Good question. Without qualification and in the domain of concepts, by 'small c' capitalism I mean a transformation that occurs in human industry where the production becomes for exchange value primarily and only secondarily for the good produced. As a social phenomenon a qualifying term is required, e.g. Early Capitalism, State capitalism, Philosophical capitalism (i.e. Objectivism), etc. In ordinary discourse in the bourgeois countries, Rentier Capitalism (RC) is implicitly what is referred to, the current reigning form outside China. I don't in general say RC or the whole noun phrase, unless to make a distinction clear, it can be assumed.</span><li>
<li>Q:<span style="color:lemonchiffon;"> How do you know if you're trapped in a pernicious conception of Capitalism?</span><br>
<li>Q:<span style="color:lemonchiffon;"> How do you know if you're trapped in a pernicious conception of Capitalism?</span><br>
     A:<span style="color:lime;"> If you think everything in the end is about money. Nothing can be done without it and it is the solution to every problem&sup1;. Many [[:en:Base and superstructure|<font color=lime>subsidiary customs</font>]] follow from this abiding faith in Capital&sup3;.<br>A common concomitant complex of misunderstandings surround the nature of money, a doubled fetish if you will, notably obfuscations and denials of its essence as an abstraction and expansion of the value exchange that occurs in barter.</span><li>
     A:<span style="color:lime;"> If you think everything in the end is about money. Nothing can be done without it and it is the solution to every problem&sup1;. Many [[:en:Base and superstructure|<font color=lime>subsidiary customs</font>]] follow from this abiding faith in Capital&sup3;.<br>A common concomitant complex of misunderstandings surround the nature of money, a doubled fetish if you will, notably obfuscations and denials of its essence as an abstraction and expansion of the value exchange that occurs in barter.</span><li>
<li>Q: <span style="color:lemonchiffon;">Aren't Capitalist relations we are familiar with today necessary, inevitable?<br>
<li>Q: <span style="color:lemonchiffon;">Aren't Capitalist relations we are familiar with today necessary, inevitable?<br>
     A: <span style="color:lime;">No, they are wholly based on #1. Before industrial Capitalism there were other relations of production. After it there will be something else. Production is actually based on use values.</span></li>
     A: <span style="color:lime;">No, they are wholly based on #1. Before industrial Capitalism there were other relations of production. After it there will be something else. Production always returns to its material basis in use values.</span></li>
<li>Q:<span style="color:lemonchiffon;"> Don't buying and selling and money imply the Capitalist model of the enterprise/firm, joint stock ownership by non producers, etc.?<br>
<li>Q:<span style="color:lemonchiffon;"> Don't buying and selling and money imply the Capitalist model of the enterprise/firm, joint stock ownership by non producers, etc.?<br>
     A:<span style="color:lime;"> Again, no not at all, and for the same reason, exchange of production and its accounting are constants of organized social life. The other things are by contrast just contemporary realizations of structures of oppression and domination realized in their modern form.</span> </li>
     A:<span style="color:lime;"> Again, no not at all, and for the same reason, exchange of production and its accounting are constants of organized social life. The other things are by contrast just contemporary realizations of structures of oppression and domination realized in their modern form.</span> </li>

Latest revision as of 08:13, 10 November 2024