Log in

View Full Version : Capitalism, competition, mistakes, and worth



Mairead
01-29-2007, 02:48 PM
Capitalism is a viciously competitive system (I hope that's not a newsflash to anyone).

We--we here--were all raised to fit into that system. I.e., we were all raised to be competitive with our peers as the baseline expectation. We're allowed to cooperate Only When Authorised By Duly Constituted Authority. We are expected to feel elated when we win these artificial competitions and worthless when we don't. And we were also raised--schizophrenogenically--to deny our feelings in public, whether the elation or the despair. We were especially taught to be "good losers".

There's only one way we can really feel okay when we win and other people lose, and that's by dehumanising them in our minds. At least a little bit. We have to tell ourselves that if they were really as good as us, they wouldn't have made the mistake(s) they did. But they did make it/them, so they're not, q.e.d.

The act of making a mistake becomes an implicit, system-level 'admission' of being lesser, being defective on some level. So mistakes become more than just expressions of quantum uncertainty (which is what they are, at bottom---it is not possible for us ever to have complete information, and therefore it is not possible to never make a mistake) (and no this is not a spillover from that other thread--I'd have said this anyway :twisted:). They are transformed by Capitalism into signifiers of essential, almost genetic defect. Make enough mistakes, or even one if it's the wrong kind, and we get flushed away, as in that scene in The Matrix. We're no longer suitable to power Capitalism, so out we go to live or die on the fringes as best we can.

If we, here, have no respect for Capitalism and its viciousness (and Goddess knows I can't imagine why any non-psychotic people would!), why are we buying into its disgusting ethos? Why can't we let each other make mistakes? Why do we need the mistake-maker to abase hemself? Are we personally getting anything worthwhile out of that, or are we simply being reflexively obedient?

PPLE
01-29-2007, 03:06 PM
Deliberation is built on the solid ground of disagreement.

Disagreement may be caused by

- honest differences in analysis

- the gulf between truth and lies

- mistakes, honest and otherwise

But disagreement is part and parcel to a deliberative discussion. By definition, political discussion is about disagreement.

I for one do not need or want anyone to abase themselves. But I do demand a discussion free of the subterfuge of false premise after faulting reasoning after bad analogy and reserve the right to point them out. I also request the same from you when I make those sorts of errors.

Mairead
01-29-2007, 03:11 PM
Deliberation is build on the solid ground of disagreement.

Disagreement may be caused by

- honest differences in analysis

- the gulf between truth and lies

- mistakes, honest and otherwise

But disagreement is part and parcel to a deliberative discussion. By definition, political discussion is about disagreement.

I for one do not need or want anyone to abase themselves. BUt I do demand a discussion free of the subterfuge of false premise after faulting reasoning after bad analogy and reserve the right to point them out. I also request the same from you when I do.
What makes "the subterfuge of false premise after faulting reasoning after bad analogy" not a mistake? What I'm hearing is that it's not a mistake, but a kind of assault that has to be defended against with the utmost vigor.

PPLE
01-29-2007, 04:10 PM
What makes "the subterfuge of false premise after faulting reasoning after bad analogy" not a mistake? What I'm hearing is that it's not a mistake, but a kind of assault that has to be defended against with the utmost vigor.

This quote function is not doing my typing skills a good turn :oops:

It could be a mistake.

It has been an assault on our conversation and our way of thinking. A distinctly illiberal one. I am fucking through with it. I will not tell someone that they can not play in this sand box, but I will throw sand in their eyes when they keep knocking over the castle we're trying to build.

Rigor is perhaps more accurate in describing my approach than vigor, though alas it is taking some of that too.

Mairead
01-29-2007, 04:33 PM
It has been an assault on our conversation and our way of thinking. A distinctly illiberal one. I am fucking through with it. I will not tell someone that they can not play in this sand box, but I will throw sand in their eyes when they keep knocking over the castle we're trying to build.

Rigor is perhaps more accurate in describing my approach than vigor, though alas it is taking some of that too.

Fwiw, and I offer this just as another data point, I experience it as vigor much more than rigor. From here it feels like a kind of 'let none escape alive' energy. I end up feeling very jumpy :)

PPLE
01-29-2007, 04:35 PM
From here it feels like a kind of 'let none escape alive' energy.

If by none you mean false premises, bad analogies, red herrings and the like, then you are quite correct.

Mairead
01-29-2007, 04:43 PM
From here it feels like a kind of 'let none escape alive' energy.

If by none you mean false premises, bad analogies, red herrings and the like, then you are quite correct.

Well, no, from here it feels more like a 'kill the heretics' energy. Please don't think I'm trying to tell you what it means or should mean to you. I'm only reporting what it feels like to me where I'm standing. It's (in part) why I posted the basenote.

PPLE
01-29-2007, 04:48 PM
From here it feels like a kind of 'let none escape alive' energy.

If by none you mean false premises, bad analogies, red herrings and the like, then you are quite correct.

Well, no, from here it feels more like a 'kill the heretics' energy.

That could be because there have been So Many false premises, bad analogies, red herrings and the like lately...

Raphaelle
01-30-2007, 03:41 PM
I thought it was just an exercize. Wasn't it?