this is an interesting reading but i would disagree (to a certain amount) with it - the last scene isn't about the judge's artistic fulfillment or the attention on the judge, because (as far as I remember) he's not playing in like a concert, but in a dance. In other words, its a participatory performance, in which everyone in the room is involved in. Attention isn't focused entirely on the judge, but rather on the "ecstasy" produced by the dancing; even the prose that describes it has a certain breathless, mystical quality to it. This esctatic quality is the same in the violence of the glanton gang. to me, the ending is far more about connecting the forms of frontier American society with the forms of violence (war, ethnic cleansing, etc.) that paved the way for that society. the judge, of course, would have to be involved with both
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think we may agree more than you think: the laws you mention aren't laws in the scientific sense of the word; instead, they're a technique (dialectics) for investigating the world. I agree that it is a very powerful technique, that's what I meant when I said that Marxism is best thought of as a methodology than a science. You said it yourself when you called Marxism "an analytical tool". You can use it to do science, but its not a science per se
lol this is more or less what I was trying to say but much more clear and concise. I think you're absolutely right: Marxism is a methodology, and one that has to be applied differently at different places and times to be effective. Its a tactical mistake to think of it as a science
imo treating it as a science does more to hurt the purpose of Marxism than it helps
marx and engel's project was originally conceived as a science in the true sense of the word, in the way we would consider physics or biology to be a science. But forcing abstract, universal laws (something which is essential to science) onto human civilization and development is extremely difficult, if not impossible to do in a productive way. More to the point, even within a single mode of production, the actual conditions on the ground at any given point will differ enormously, so any general doctrine will either lead you in the wrong direction or be abstracted to the point of being useless.
Therefore, its more useful to think of Marxism as a methodology, not a science. Treating it this way keeps you in tune with the needs of the current place and time, and less focused on what should be happening according to abstract laws.
In addition, treating it as a science has the negative side of downplaying the moral force of socialism. No one I've met is socialist because they've been convinced by Marx's syllogism showing the inevitable decline of capitalism and rise of socialism. Rather, when you get down to it, people are socialists because they believe it to be the only way to create an ethical society. It is this moral force that represents the single greatest strength of any left politics, tbh. Treating Marxism as a science necessarily means you have to devalue that aspect.
I think its worth pointing out that, as far as I understand it, the "scientific" part of Marx/Engel's project does refer directly to the scientific method. Their goal was to establish certain universal, empirically-derived (in other words, scientific) laws of historical development which could then be applied to understand the rise and eventual fall of capitalism. In fact, in one of his intros to socialism: utopian and scientific Engels actually mentions Darwin, as well as LaPlace, as precursors to their project.
Which gets to the real differentiation they attempted to make between themselves and the "utopians": Its not that these socialists believed in some magical society where everyone always gets along, its essentially that they attempted to resist the development of capitalism, to slow it down and essentially "opt out" of it by establishing non-capitalism communes and projects within a broader capitalist economy. Marx and Engels attempted to surpass these socialists by demonstrating that human civilization followed certain laws of development (increasing productive abilities and organization, intensifying class struggle / simplifying class structures, etc.) which meant capitalism could not be "opted out" of or resisted, only eclipsed by a new mode of production. Which is all well and good, but leads to some difficult problems when you really start looking at the necessary conclusions. There are of course other aspects of Marx's work that are really admirable and useful, but their whole project of making a science of history or revolution seems like a false start
I appreciate the fervor but this is a very childish take. revenge for revenge's sake is not only definitely not a moral good, but also often tactically counterproductive. I also would say that probably most of the oppressed are not longing for revenge but liberation, which are emphatically not the same thing. I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, but (as an example) I have not seen or read anything since october 7th that suggests that Gazans are eager for revenge itself. In fact portraying the oppressed as foaming at the mouth for revenge seems like it aligns well with Israeli colonialist narratives about Palestinians
The problem with this is that Biden is the only guy who could actually lose to Trump, even with the assassination attempt. Any generic democrat they pick to replace him will probably beat Trump, so all they're doing is tying themselves to ship that will either sink now or in November.
I would say that there must be something they feel they get out of supporting Biden but that would assume they're savvy politicians, which they don't really seem to be
that's a strong accusation for a pretty benign suggestion, particularly when they're talking about someone who's work is constantly being twisted and maligned.
also, like, yeah its gonna be boring sometimes, its work of political and economic theory, not light entertainment. Struggling with the text is something everyone who reads it has to do, and its an important part of the process for actually achieving any kind of understanding of what's he's saying. Skipping that removes most of benefit of actually reading Marx or any other theory lol
I don't know if this is exactly what you are looking for, but John D'Emilio's Capitalism and Gay Identity is a very famous paper that argues for a historical materialist understanding of gay identity. The paper is actually fairly old (it was written in like 1983 or something), so it actually predates much of queer theory, but its absolutely still worth reading if you haven't yet
beyond this being just a stupid take, wouldn't having protestors audible made a more interesting version of 4'33'' than fucking birds or people walking or whatever
Also love the take that anyone in power in America who proposes gun control is only concerned about disarming the working class, not maybe stopping children from getting slaughtered in schools. Like yeah mental health services would be great but also there is absolutely a connection between the number of mass shootings and the fact that America has more guns than people
Pretty much, although I don't think its so much that he's impressed by it so much as he's trying to impress on his hangers-on just how much suffering they've caused via the jihad. Paul is very bitter/ironic about the whole exchange, he's clearly not happy about having killed so many people. Which, as others brought up, is essentially the whole point of Dune Messiah
If you like the stuff about Paul and his prescience, you should read the second book! It takes a lot of those themes around foresight and power and spends more time fleshing them out, I thought it worked really well as a counterpoint to Dune.
Can't speak for the other sequels, but it seems like they get a bad rep
I mean, maybe at some level but certainly not enough to make one side worth supporting over the other. Like ElGosso mentioned, the best thing is going to be what minimizes suffering for normal civilians, and I don't think that supporting Russia is the best way to that goal
I hope I'm not intruding here but I used to be very into Debord and situationists (my username is actually a reference to one of his films, in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni). Its been a while since I read through all of society of the spectacle, but if you want another opinion on a passage I'd be happy to try to help
this is an interesting reading but i would disagree (to a certain amount) with it - the last scene isn't about the judge's artistic fulfillment or the attention on the judge, because (as far as I remember) he's not playing in like a concert, but in a dance. In other words, its a participatory performance, in which everyone in the room is involved in. Attention isn't focused entirely on the judge, but rather on the "ecstasy" produced by the dancing; even the prose that describes it has a certain breathless, mystical quality to it. This esctatic quality is the same in the violence of the glanton gang. to me, the ending is far more about connecting the forms of frontier American society with the forms of violence (war, ethnic cleansing, etc.) that paved the way for that society. the judge, of course, would have to be involved with both