Understanding The State

[soto]

If that's what's happening though, people theorise and perform social research to try and explain it. There has to be reasons why these things happen.

Edited December 4, 2009 by soto

[Guest grandad]

its all we know, its good to be sitting on the inside looking out, watching the world passing by. our animal instinct is still in control of our bodies and minds, technology striving to find the best, but because our fears and weaknesses take over we become defensive, so we have the best weapons. but nowadays i am hearing words saying, wars can only win 10%, diplomacy is the only way to peace. we are still evolving, and hopefully those with intelect used for the good of human kind will evolve into the new world that lies ahead as the new leaders. we will become a one nation planet free of wars and strife, thats if we dont cock it up in this mid way sojourn.

[soto]

Grandad social research is very varied. A sociologist won't just sit in his office looking at statistical data, he'll often try and immerse himself in peoples environments, there's even social research that's been done where the researchers have been locked up in prison and become a prisoner all for the sake of furthering our understanding of the social world!. :-) Ethnographic research is really interesting and also has a lot to contribute to understanding the way people deal with drugs and prohibition.

Edited December 4, 2009 by soto

[Guest grandad]

Grandad social research is very varied. A sociologist won't just sit in his office looking at statistical data, he'll often try and immerse himself in peoples environments, there's even social research that's been done where the researchers have been locked up in prison and become a prisoner all for the sake of furthering our understanding of the social world!. :-) Ethnographic research is really interesting and also has a lot to contribute to understanding the way people deal with drugs and prohibition.

and the results go into the archives, leaving us in the same state as we were before, only evolution will change mankind, we are not yet ready for what lies ahead, we only create hardship for ourselves.

[soto]

Nah the results wait for an age where political elites don't control society, to allow such research to meaningfully inform public policy. The Prof. Nutt affair is an example where science is the victium of this, given this I think it will take a long time for a lot of social research to get recognition as it doesn't even get recognition by many scientists due to some of its 'anti-positivist' roots.

[jahja]

Hi grandad and soto - I just caught up with this lot again.

I completely agree with what soto said, that the confusing mess of systems which makes up the world is the reason that there exists theory: to try and explain or understand it.

Two years ago, before deciding to go for a degree (as an adult), I had no idea what any of the language was or how to apply it, or any understanding of how the system worked or want to change it. I've always done hard physical work since becoming an adult anyway, and I still do whilst doing my degree.

The only thing that seperates me from now, from my pre-degree position, is a few hundred hours of reading, and debate/writing which tries to apply that reading, therefore furthering the understanding.

I think it is sad if/that you percieve a gap between normal people/"intellectuals". I am a normal bloke, as im sure eddie and soto are too, we've just done a load of reading on history/social subjects. The biggest change I've found, since doing the degree, has been my willingness to participate in political or social debates.

At the same time as you wouldn't look down your nose at a mechanic, for knowing hundreds of parts of an engine and what they do, I feel the same attitude should be applied towards people who know their history or social theory etc. It's only because they have worked at it!!

Anyway, I reckon all of us could sit down for a cup of tea and have a few spliffs and a good laugh, and some good damn-the-UK sessions too!! That's what counts ultimately?

jahja

[Guest Logik]

Marx outlines an extremely well and scientific manifesto,

his most simple and intruiging point, about Use-value and the irrevelent surplus value we have today.

Simple put, A marx economy would involve.

2 workers,

1 highly skilled carpenter.

1 low skilled newbie carpenter.

Under a capitalist system, the highly skilled worker would be paid much more than the newbie, but marx does the opposite.

He uses the time spent by each of them and pays them for the labourous force.

So the highly skilled carpenter can make 1 table an hour, in theory under capitalism, lets say the table sells for 10 pounds.

the newbie makes a table in 3 hours, sellers for 10 pounds.

marx would pay them the same amount of money.

criticism; "wouldnt the newbie just be lazy then?"

No the newbie would not, its an incentive to work faster, as the newbie makes tables, he increases in speed and quality of his craftmenship.

he soon turns into highly skilled carpenter just like his friend.

whereas in capitalism, the newbie could even be the same in skill or overtake his friend, but skill be paid a lower wage.

the different between the wage e.g

32,000 highly skilled

18,000 newbie (who has the same skills).

thus the system being unfair.

Marx's theory works, china has adopted the system but changed it slightly, it works for the better.

Intellectuals

By no point should the term mean anything bad, it's up to humans to condition themself with knowledge, if you dont like the 'intellectuals' who run our lives, then you should be an intellectual.

grandad Posted Dec 4 2009, 07:47 PM

with the thought that i dont give a sh-t about intellectual drivel, i never bothered to look see what marxist is about, or anarchist, dont know what they are or what they mean. i wonder if so called intelectuals realise, the biggest percentage of the population of the planet just get on with life in there/our own little world, knowing we have no control over our own lives, not able to understand all the tripe dished up by the intelects, who just happen to control our fair and beautiful planet, its all down to control and class.

Im sorry but I dont agree, I think their is a fine 50/50 line between simple people and intellectuals, People gaze into Philosophy and other matters then what you might think to some degree they would.

Marx's writings on Government intervension wrapped up with corruption and reccesion completely correct and play out everyday, also his writings about surplus value and middle men make complete sense. Marx manifesto is some very heavy reading though.

Section; Capital

[Guest Deanne65]

Hello all,

I was just thinking that in response to the recent heightened rhetorical activity which has been turning our beloved plant into a political demon, it is important for people to have more critical tools available to deconstruct and understand the state, the system of politics and subsequently the system of oppression.

I really believe that it is not good enough just to argue opinion of what we do and do not like, or do and do not agree with. It is much more powerful to have some critical and historical knowledge, if one wants to carry out anything of a meaningful deconstuction of the systems we dislike.

Marxism provides some very interesting ways of deconsturcting the capitalists world and generally power-systems and cultural-systems, and links between the two. Louis Althusser was a marxist theorist who developed the idea of Ideological State Apparatuses, and these provide a very good way of explaining the reasons for and ways in which institutions as large as nations are able to gain and stay in power.

I hope some people will take the time to have a read, please visit hxxp://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser and look for his section on Ideological State Aparatuses. Some of it is thick reading, but well worth going at!!

Lets hear what you think!! Anyone else got any interesting thorists (particularly marxist) who they'd recommend?? Franz Fannon is a good guy for anyone planning a revolution ...

Cutting our intellectual eye-teeth on Marx? Really! And, by the way, if the first Amendment of the Constitution were adhered to like the Amendment to bear arms was so liberally interpreted by the Supreme Court, then the freedom to read what one wants-that is, the free market of ideas-would be commensurate with the freedom to alter one's mind, not only with said ideas, but also with said drug. Of course, Marx said that religion was the opiate of the masses; there's no telling what he would have said of weed. Chances are he might have frowned on its affects, being the poverty-stricken, scrimping-by, family man, that he was. Let's be honest, your name dropping aside, are you for real? This Marxist thing doesn't seem to hold up to well under history or, for that matter, the concept of INDIVIDUAL rights:Its all about the collective (esoterica), and I find that rather stiffling! I digress.

The real solution is not in any appeal to the application of the fossilized remains of Marxism, but, more fruitfully, a re-examining of the claims to liberties, and reclaiming that liberty...one amendment at a time, starting with the First; and most fortuitous for us potheads! What should be the difference between the ceremonial and ritualistic nature of religion, protected by the First Amendment from State (and vice versa), and that of practicing one's ceremonial chemistry? I would submit that both ideas (religious "states") and drugs alter the consciousness-and, conscience. Any discussion over substantive differences between the latter two is not substantive, but moot.

So, why the quibble over the application of the law? To be fair, there are certainly "qualifications" on the Amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms, however, that might be like trying to compare apples with oranges. The fact is, and one I can appreciate as an American citizen, is that the whole of the government is behind the prohibition of marijuana, except for one particular use, and that is medicinal. If you read Thomas Szasz's "Ceremonial Chemistry: The ritual persecution of drugs, users, and pushers (the last two elements of the subtitle should be in quotes!), you might come to see that Marx belongs were he is: In the Junk pile of history! He has no place in this ongoing debate!

Prior to 1914, the United States citizen was quite free to visit his or her apothecary to have whatever prescription needed filling, and always without the bureaucratic meddling of doctor and, well, bureaucrat. Contemporaneously, you have to do a veritable Cirque-De-Soleil jump through the hoops, to get pain meds. There is no need to "deconstruct" anything. However, maybe forensics might avail us: the post-mortem of commonsense. After all, how could Americans, again, prior to 1914, with access to a free market of ALL drugs, and free to use one's drug of choice, slowly allow such a right to be withdrawn? Cui bono? Now the physian and shrink have the imprimatur of state, and you, citizen, are the child who must be taken in hand, lest you stray. Welcome to the Therapeutic State.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Owderb
Please leave text black...Thank you

[Guest Deanne65]

Grandad social research is very varied. A sociologist won't just sit in his office looking at statistical data, he'll often try and immerse himself in peoples environments, there's even social research that's been done where the researchers have been locked up in prison and become a prisoner all for the sake of furthering our understanding of the social world!. :-) Ethnographic research is really interesting and also has a lot to contribute to understanding the way people deal with drugs and prohibition.

The role of "passive" observer, in ethnographic and sociological field work, is most problematic, certainly as it pertains to those naturalistic studies. Erving Goffman seems to have pulled off one of the best attempts at remaining incognito, when he was researching for his book "Asylums". It is a most penetrating study of the workings of Asylums of the 1960s

Edited February 1, 2010 by Owderb

[arunbol]

Grandad social research is very varied. A sociologist won't just sit in his office looking at statistical data, he'll often try and immerse himself in peoples environments, there's even social research that's been done where the researchers have been locked up in prison and become a prisoner all for the sake of furthering our understanding of the social world!. :-) Ethnographic research is really interesting and also has a lot to contribute to understanding the way people deal with drugs and prohibition.

The role of "passive" observer, in ethnographic and sociological field work, is most problematic, certainly as it pertains to those naturalistic studies. Erving Goffman seems to have pulled off one of the best attempts at remaining incognito, when he was researching for his book "Asylums". It is a most penetrating study of the workings of Asylums of the 1960s

One flew over the cuckoo's nest...

[hopefullmonkey]

nice thread

looking for a theorist?? not so sure he counts as a theorist as much as a comentator (and lets face it that makes him worth more than any theorist) but you might want to give the chomster a quick read, pick a book any book, i think hes done over 100 now.

after reading anything of his youl never need to think of an argument to tear any state apart again.

as for marxism, well, it would be easier to pass comment if there had ever been a marxist state (i dont think theres ever been a communist state to be honest and certainly not a capitalist one either). One thing is for sure, the communist manifesto (all 10 pages of it ) does not realy have enough technical detail in it to constitute a political movement let alone a social or economic model. If you really want to read what constituted the only effective communist manifesto then read lenin (mostly writen under suedonim ie lenin) and he was no more of a comunist than george w.

as for the post above?? well probably best to read some of the other works by the authers of the declaration before you even consider taking it seriously and doing so will allow you to find out the true aim of the constitution - liberty, i dont think so.

as for dope laws......

oh before i forget, if you realy, realy, realy want to have arguments to destroy western states at dinner parties etc - joke ffs- then get yourself a copy of "the mismeasure of man" by s.j. gould - without doubt the deffinative narative and investigation of western political theory over the last 300 years - no tory bastard can stand up to that kind of scientific logic.

peace etc etc etc

[hopefullmonkey]

soz i just noticed on the original post, a comment about revolution.

if thats your cup of tea then go straight for the source, mr hernesto "che" guevara in his book guerilla warfare - decent read btw - it gives you all you need to know. mix that in with some of the SAS fighting skill publications, some decent ninjitsu training a few smoke bombs - oh no whos that at my door??

"whenever man is opressed by man there is just cause for armed struggle"

honestly this post is a joke please dont send me to guantanimo

[arunbol]

Marx produced a hell of a lot of stuff after writing 'Manifesto' which is just a pamphlet. 'Capital, Vol 1 - 3' gives a deeper understanding of Marxist economic theory but there is plenty of other stuff that has huge implications for social theory e.g. 'The poverty of philosophy'

I'm a big fan of Marx but I must concede the reading is rather dry, worth the effort though...

[Guest Deanne65]

nice thread

looking for a theorist?? not so sure he counts as a theorist as much as a comentator (and lets face it that makes him worth more than any theorist) but you might want to give the chomster a quick read, pick a book any book, i think hes done over 100 now.

after reading anything of his youl never need to think of an argument to tear any state apart again.

as for marxism, well, it would be easier to pass comment if there had ever been a marxist state (i dont think theres ever been a communist state to be honest and certainly not a capitalist one either). One thing is for sure, the communist manifesto (all 10 pages of it ) does not realy have enough technical detail in it to constitute a political movement let alone a social or economic model. If you really want to read what constituted the only effective communist manifesto then read lenin (mostly writen under suedonim ie lenin) and he was no more of a comunist than george w.

as for the post above?? well probably best to read some of the other works by the authers of the declaration before you even consider taking it seriously and doing so will allow you to find out the true aim of the constitution - liberty, i dont think so.

as for dope laws......

oh before i forget, if you realy, realy, realy want to have arguments to destroy western states at dinner parties etc - joke ffs- then get yourself a copy of "the mismeasure of man" by s.j. gould - without doubt the deffinative narative and investigation of western political theory over the last 300 years - no tory bastard can stand up to that kind of scientific logic.

peace etc etc etc

Not sure if this was levelled at me, however, I don't need your Marxist sophistry. See, in these here parts, on my side of the pond, we don't have much regard for Marx. And as for your astute, although nakedly cynical, observations on the U.S. Constitution, I really have no idea what you are trying to communicate. Maybe your idea of "Liberty" is more in keeping with the windbaggery of Hegel, and his notions of "Spirit" and the State, being one, yahta, yahta

I recommend Karl Popper's two-volume set "The open society and its enemies". I think that the title nicely summarizes what I feel of your left-leaning, statist apologetics.

[Hostile]

It seems to me like philosophical writing is the art of repeating the obvious. As part of a Media course at Uni I had to study Marx, Engels, Althusser, Lacann... all bored me to fucking tears. They just take a simple notion like "signs signify things" or "workers should control the means of production" and then spend an entire book rephrasing it again and again. I've tried reading beginner's books on philosophy and had the same response: one interesting idea, followed by an entire chapter of repetition. I dunno about Deanne's over-all arguement (cause I honestly don't get it), but "windbaggery" seems like the best possible phrase to describe the phenomenon.