^Draft 0 is in this link... need to find citations for what zizek has said etc etc so on so forth, clean it up expand
Obviously a rewrite is required
Will post draft 2 below when I get to it, but in the mean time I humbly request the hivemind help find citations (I'm scared some of them might be in the middle of an hours worth ofzizek lectures on youtube) if it knows them off the top of its head.
Işık Barış Fidanerwell, not all dataset, countries with at least 1000 org x year. you can also choose between years to generate trees for particular periods
'... Put all these advances together, say the authors, and you can see that our generation will have more power to improve (or destroy) the world than any before, relying on fewer people and more technology. But it also means that we need to rethink deeply our social contracts, because labor is so important to a person’s identity and dignity and to societal stability. They suggest that we consider lowering taxes on human labor to make it cheaper relative to digital labor, that we reinvent education so more people can “race with machines” not against them, that we do much more to foster the entrepreneurship that invents new industries and jobs, and even consider guaranteeing every American a basic income. We’ve got a lot of rethinking to do, they argue, because we’re not only in a recession-induced employment slump. We’re in a technological hurricane reshaping the workplace — and it just keeps doubling.'
'... Innovation has never been faster. And in fact, if you look at the underlying statistics, productivity growth is doing pretty well. Productivity levels are at an all-time high, and in the 2000s, productivity growth was faster than it was in the 1990s, which was a great decade.
On the other hand, you have the median worker doing worse. And the median household and the median worker in the United States have lower incomes today than in 1997. What’s more, the employment-to-population ratio has fallen; it’s almost like falling off a cliff. And similar things are visible in the OECD1 statistics for nations around the world. And that is exactly the great paradox of our era.2 ...'
^Prolatarianization
' ... You’d like to see that happening again now. But the data show that it just isn’t happening as fast. We’re having the automation and the job destruction; we’re not having the creation at the same pace. There’s no guarantee that we’ll be able to find these new jobs. It may be that machines are better than that.
That said, I’m not sure that’s a bad thing, because ultimately the purpose of economic progress and technological progress is to be able to create more wealth with less work. I mean, isn’t that what we want? More wealth with less work? So, if we are in a Star-Trek economy, where replicators create all the essentials that we need, that doesn’t have to be a bad thing if we can have an economic system that matches to it and find a way that people can share in that benefit. And people can still continue to find meaning and value in life.
And we may, in the coming decades, be confronted with that question of how we create an economic system that adapts and changes as rapidly as our technological system has changed.'
You just deleted it, if you saved a copy could you post it here?
8 hours ago · Edited · Like
Corax VonVögel not so much, IJZS is peer reviewed, this FB group is their official announcements, no embodiment of Žižek needed. But since you have pirated the IJZS name then there should be an affiliation. Daniel Thomas
8 hours ago · Like
Işık Barış Fidaner doubt wins
8 hours ago · Like
Daniel Thomas " IJZS is peer reviewed"
Corax VonVögel As a point of fact, I'm pretty sure that for most of its history it wasn't, the inclusion of peer review is very recent
8 hours ago · Like
Corax VonVögel So why is it important to you to use the IJZS on your pirate board, why not Žižek for Dummies, or Žižek Sleep Apnea group, or whatever?
7 hours ago · Like
Işık Barış Fidaner daniel i suggest that you rename it as "non-IJZS informal", it appears that corax vonvögel has very strong doubting powers non of us can deal with. by the way mr. vonvögel, where are you from?
7 hours ago · Like
Daniel Thomas Corax VonVögel ijzsinformal.activeboard.com/f607985/quick-hits/
"Forum: Quick hits
When reading IJZS's official facebook group dump quick links here if you just don't want to lose them Reason for existence to make drinking from that firehose a little easier"
Because it's not a split, like the people's front for judea, let me say this slowly since it seems to be causing confusion...
It... Is... A... Supplement[1]...
Just like the International Journal of Zizek Studies supplements Zizek (as a virtual object)
Does that it states in the description that it is an unofficial forum for discussing IJZS confuse you somehow?
I just created it quickly to make a point about DIY and the necessity for acts to cause events, planning to admin the first sucker to register de-admin myself and delete my account, but discovered that there's no means of de-admining myself or admining somebody else in the forum
Since I'm stuck with it, the ethical act is to make it clear the International Journal of Zizek Studies is loved enough
"... Love for me is an extremely violent act, love is not "I love you all". Love means I pick out something, and you know it's again this structure of imbalance, even if this something is just a small detail, a fragile individual person, I say I love you more than anything else. In this quite formal sense, love is evil."
for somebody to create an informal group dedicated to it, to do things like transcribing zizeks talks to make the lives of people writing papers for the journal's easier, and so on so forth
Talking of which, you are interrupting me from my transcription work.
Işık Barış Fidaner Retitled, although I think that adds to the confusion because that non could be that it's not IJZS or that it's not informal, *shrug*
[1]I'm starting to get the impression there is no such thing as a supplement that is not obscene...
Quick hits - non-IJZS Informal ijzsinformal.activeboard.com
6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
Corax VonVögel Na Koja Abad , Işık Barış Fidaner
6 hours ago · Unlike · 1
Işık Barış Fidaner well, i doubt that
6 hours ago · Unlike · 1
Daniel Thomas For those who can't follow the exchange in the above two comments, hermetic.com/moorish/mundus-imaginalis.html
Mundus Imaginalis by Henry Corbin - Prophet Noble Drew Ali and the Moorish Science Temple at... hermetic.com
In offering the two Latin words mundus imaginalis as the title of this discussio...See More
6 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview
Corax VonVögel How anticlimactic
5 hours ago · Unlike · 2
Daniel Thomas ijzsinformal.activeboard.com/.../slavoj-iek.../
"Interviewer: Just two short questions....See More
Slavoj Žižek - Leninist Love ijzsinformal.activeboard.com
[video=www.youtube.com/watch]Interviewer: Just two short qu...See More
5 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview
Daniel Thomas And back onto the point... The section quoted below and following in Less than Nothing that are important to this project
"To take this step “beyond the possible” in today’s constellation, we must shift the accent of our reading of Marx’s Capital to “the fundamental structural centrality of unemployment in the text of Capital itself”: “unemployment is structurally inseparable from the dynamic of accumulation and expansion which constitutes the very nature of capitalism as such.”64 In what is arguably the extreme point of the “unity of opposites” in the sphere of the economy, it is the very success of capitalism (higher productivity, etc.) which produces unemployment (renders more and more workers useless)―what should be a blessing (less hard labor needed) becomes a curse. The world market is thus, with regard to its immanent dynamic, “a space in which everyone has once been a productive laborer, and in which labor has everywhere begun to price itself out of the system.”65 That is to say, in the ongoing process of capitalist globalization, the category of the unemployed acquires a new quality beyond the classic notion of the “reserve army of labor”: the category should now include “those massive populations around the world who have, as it were, ‘dropped out of history,’ who have been deliberately excluded from the modernizing projects of First World capitalism and written off as hopeless or terminal cases”:66 so-called “failed states” (Congo, Somalia), victims of famine or ecological disasters, trapped in pseudo-archaic “ethnic hatreds,” objects of philanthropy and NGOs or (often the same people) of the “war on terror.” The category of the unemployed should thus be expanded to encompass a wide range of the global population, from the temporary unemployed, through the no-longer employable and permanently unemployed, up to people living in slums and other types of ghettos (i.e., all those often dismissed by Marx himself as “lumpenproletarians”), and, finally, all those areas, populations or states excluded from the global capitalist process, like blank spaces in ancient maps. Does not this extension of the circle of the “unemployed” bring us back from Marx to Hegel: the “rabble” is back, emerging at the very core of emancipatory struggles? That is to say, such a re-categorization changes the entire “cognitive mapping” of the situation: what once lay in the inert background of History becomes a potential agent of emancipatory struggle. Recall Marx’s dismissive characterization of the French peasants in his Eighteenth Brumaire:
...."
Somewhere earlier in less than nothing is a passage which I'm trying to find on tracing the errors of actually existing socialism back to marx himself or something along those lines
Posts about Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism on simongros simongros0.wordpress.com
Posts about Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism written by Simon
2 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview
Davorin Mikleušić Daniel Thomas - "the interviewer" above is Srećko Horvat.
48 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
Daniel Thomas Another citation to use, relating to Mladen and Zizek on Absolutism as a compromise formation between Feudalism and Capitalism in Opera's Second Death
'... Finally, communism is the positive expression of annulled private property – at first as universal private property.
By embracing this relation as a whole, communism is:
(1) In its first form only a generalisation and consummation of it [of this relation]. As such it appears in a two-fold form: on the one hand, the dominion of material property bulks so large that it wants to destroy everything which is not capable of being possessed by all as private property. It wants to disregard talent, etc., in an arbitrary manner. For it the sole purpose of life and existence is direct, physical possession. The category of the worker is not done away with, but extended to all men. The relationship of private property persists as the relationship of the community to the world of things....'
^Prolatarianization
"... This type of communism – since it negates the personality of man in every sphere – is but the logical expression of private property, which is this negation. General envy constituting itself as a power is the disguise in which greed re-establishes itself and satisfies itself, only in another way. The thought of every piece of private property as such is at least turned against wealthier private property in the form of envy and the urge to reduce things to a common level, so that this envy and urge even constitute the essence of competition. Crude communism [the manuscript has: Kommunist. – Ed.] is only the culmination of this envy and of this levelling-down proceeding from the preconceived minimum. It has a definite, limited standard. How little this annulment of private property is really an appropriation is in fact proved by the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilisation, the regression to the unnatural || IV ||IV| simplicity of the poor and crude man who has few needs and who has not only failed to go beyond private property, but has not yet even reached it. "
^Refer to the quotation above from less than nothing "not only failed to go beyond private property, but has not yet even reached it"
"... Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society.|XI||[34] ..."
^No end to history, deploy Zizek's arguments against Fukuyama's end of history hypothesis here
Private Property and Communism, Marx, 1844 www.marxists.org
Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
11 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview
To grasp these new forms of privatization, we need to critically transform Marx's conceptual apparatus. Because he neglected the social dimension of the "general intellect," Marx failed to envisage the possibility of the privatization of the "general intellect" itself--and this is what lies at the core of the struggle over "intellectual property." Negri is right on this point: within this framework, exploitation in the classical Marxist sense is no longer possible, which is why it has to be enforced more and more by direct legal measures, that is, by non-economic means. ..."
Slavoj Žižek, First as Tragedy, then as Farce (London: Verso, 2009), pp. 145-147:
^Is not the very concept of salaried bourgeoisie an oxymoron, a salary indicating they have not even reached the status of petit bourgeis? The middle class being the part of the working class that misrecognizes (deploy lacan and hegel here?) itself as bourgeoisie?
"Alain Badiou is driven to a framework of understanding of the "problem" confronting humanity and its "solution" that corresponds to the class position and class outlook of a very definite segment of society, the radicalized petite bourgeoisie. [Note: See points above on salaried bougeis as being an oxymoron, and prolatarianization] He sees the problem of vast inequalities, but does not follow through to the taproots of exploitation in the economic base of society; he sees the solution as a "pure Idea of equality" in the political realm, not in achieving the "4 Alls."
In his work The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Marx offers a profound and trenchant commentary on the outlook and illusions of the democratic intellectual:
...[O]ne must not form the narrow-minded notion that the petite bourgeoisie, on principle, wishes to enforce an egoistic class interest. Rather, it believes that the special conditions of its emancipation are the general conditions within the frame of which modern society can be saved and the class struggle avoided. Just as little must one imagine that the democratic representatives are indeed all shopkeepers or enthusiastic champions of shopkeepers. According to their education and their individual position they may be as far apart as heaven from earth. What makes them representatives of the petite bourgeoisie is the fact that in their minds they do not get beyond the limits which the latter do not get beyond in life, that they are consequently driven, theoretically, to the same problems and solutions to which material interest and social position drive the latter practically. This is, in general, the relationship between the political and literary representatives of a class and the class they represent.
But the democrat, because he represents the petite bourgeoisie, that is, a transition class, in which the interests of the two classes are simultaneously mutually blunted, imagines himself elevated above class antagonism generally.23 [emphasis in original]"
" But for all the attention that's lavished on Enron, the company remains largely impenetrable to outsiders, as even some of its admirers are quick to admit. Start with a pretty straightforward question: How exactly does Enron make its money? Details are hard to come by because Enron keeps many of the specifics confidential for what it terms "competitive reasons." And the numbers that Enron does present are often extremely complicated. Even quantitatively minded Wall Streeters who scrutinize the company for a living think so. "If you figure it out, let me know," laughs credit analyst Todd Shipman at S&P. "Do you have a year?" asks Ralph Pellecchia, Fitch's credit analyst, in response to the same question.
To skeptics, the lack of clarity raises a red flag about Enron's pricey stock. Even owners of the stock aren't uniformly sanguine. "I'm somewhat afraid of it," admits one portfolio manager. And the inability to get behind the numbers combined with ever higher expectations for the company may increase the chance of a nasty surprise. "Enron is an earnings-at-risk story,'' says Chris Wolfe, the equity market strategist at J.P. Morgan's private bank, who despite his remark is an Enron fan. "If it doesn't meet earnings, [the stock] could implode."
What's clear is that Enron isn't the company it was a decade ago. In 1990 around 80% of its revenues came from the regulated gas-pipeline business. But Enron has been steadily selling off its old-economy iron and steel assets and expanding into new areas. In 2000, 95% of its revenues and more than 80% of its operating profits came from "wholesale energy operations and services." This business, which Enron pioneered, is usually described in vague, grandiose terms like the "financialization of energy"--but also, more simply, as "buying and selling gas and electricity." In fact, Enron's view is that it can create a market for just about anything; as if to underscore that point, the company announced last year that it would begin trading excess broadband capacity."
"Nothing is easier than to realise the inconsistencies of demand and supply, and the resulting deviation of market-prices from market-values. The real difficulty consists in determining what is meant by the equation of supply and demand.
Supply and demand coincide when their mutual proportions are such that the mass of commodities of a definite line of production can be sold at their market-value, neither above nor below it. That is the first thing we hear.
The second is this: If commodities are sold at their market-values, supply and demand coincide.
If supply equals demand, they cease to act, and for this very reason commodities are sold at their market-values. Whenever two forces operate equally in opposite directions, they balance one another, exert no outside influence, and any phenomena taking place in these circumstances must be explained by causes other than the effect of these two forces. If supply and demand balance one another, they cease to explain anything, do not affect market-values, and therefore leave us so much more in the dark about the reasons why the market-value is expressed in just this sum of money and no other. It is evident that the real inner laws of capitalist production cannot be explained by the interaction of supply and demand (quite aside from a deeper analysis of these two social motive forces, which would be out of place here), because these laws cannot be observed in their pure state, until supply and demand cease to act, i.e., are equated. In reality, supply and demand never coincide, or, if they do, it is by mere accident, hence scientifically = 0, and to be regarded as not having occurred. But political economy assumes that supply and demand coincide with one another. Why? To be able to study phenomena in their fundamental relations, in the form corresponding to their conception, that is, is to study them independent of the appearances caused by the movement of supply and demand. The other reason is to find the actual tendencies of their movements and to some extent to record them. Since the inconsistencies are of an antagonistic nature, and since they continually succeed one another, they balance out one another through their opposing movements, and their mutual contradiction. Since, therefore, supply and demand never equal one another in any given case, their differences follow one another in such a way — and the result of a deviation in one direction is that it calls forth a deviation in the opposite direction — that supply and demand are always equated when the whole is viewed over a certain period, but only as an average of past movements, and only as the continuous movement of their contradiction. In this way, the market-prices which have deviated from the market-values adjust themselves, as viewed from the standpoint of their average number, to equal the market-values, in that deviations from the latter cancel each other as plus and minus. And this average is not merely of theoretical, but also of practical importance to capital, whose investment is calculated on the fluctuations and compensations of a more or less fixed period.
On the one hand, the relation of demand and supply, therefore, only explains the deviations of market-prices from market-values. On the other, it explains the tendency to eliminate these deviations, i.e., to eliminate the effect of the relation of demand and supply. (Such exceptions as commodities which have a price without having a value are not considered here.) Supply and demand may eliminate the effect caused by their difference in many different ways. For instance, if the demand, and consequently the market-price, fall, capital may be withdrawn, thus causing supply to shrink. It may also be that the market-value itself shrinks and balances with the market-price as a result of inventions which reduce the necessary labour-time. Conversely, if the demand increases, and consequently the market-price rises above the market-value, this may lead to too much capital flowing into this line of production and production may swell to such an extent that the market-price will even fall below the market-value. Or, it may lead to a price increase, which cuts the demand. In some lines of production it may also bring about a rise in the market-value itself for a shorter or longer period, with a portion of the desired products having to be produced under worse conditions during this period.
Supply and demand determine the market-price, and so does the market-price, and the market-value in the further analysis, determine supply and demand. This is obvious in the case of demand, since it moves in a direction opposite to prices, swelling when prices fall, and vice versa. But this is also true of supply. Because the prices of means of production incorporated in the offered commodities determine the demand for these means of production, and thus the supply of commodities whose supply embraces the demand for these means of production. The prices of cotton are determinants in the supply of cotton goods.
To this confusion — determining prices through demand and supply, and, at the same time, determining supply and demand through prices — must be added that demand determines supply, just as supply determines demand, and production determines the market, as well as the market determines production. [2] "
