Marxism and Lacan - Incompatible Theories

[cactusflower]

I also think "labour" is work done for someone else, out of necessity. It isn't neutral like the term work.

It might be interesting to look as well at history of "labour" parties? In German that would be "Arbeiterpartei". "Arbeiter" in this means someone working for someone else, a "labourer". Here the neutral meaning of "arbeiten" = "to work" is clearly gone. "Arbeiters" are an class, econmically and socially. Probably the terms labourer and worker mean the same meanwhile in English? I suppose I'm not a worker when I work in my garden, albeit I work?

Arbeiterklasse - the words used in English would be working class. A worker would be anyone who depends on selling their labour power for their living. Marx uses labour (and most other terms) in his own technical sense, rather than in the sense that we use them day to day.

[stringjack]

Your first paragraph says it is information from the material world. Where does your agnosticism come from?

From the inability to refute scepticism.

To paraphrase, you say that the world may be really reflected in your thoughts and sense perceptions, but that you don't know whether it does or not because you are sceptical about the existence of everything except your own thoughts.

Well, I think that misses the point, to a certain extent (regardless of whether or not we substitute 'justifiably believe' for 'know'). The claim is stronger - that the question of whether or not there is a world that is reflected in my thoughts and sense perceptions is not a meaningful one.

I'm clearly saying that dismissing Marx while admitting to not knowing his work is the opposite to being expert.

Having not claimed to have been an expert in Marx, however...

This scepticism/idealism is directly descended from Berkeley, who ended up selling tar water as a cure all. It was a philosophy aimed at counteracting the Enlightenment. With another two hundred years of development of science and increased knowledge of the nature of the brain and the processes that take place in it, it is even more reactionary now than it was then.

Three fallacies in as many sentences is pretty good going, even around these parts. (Or, at least, it will be, once more people can use sentences.)

[cactusflower]

[quote]

From the inability to refute scepticism.

You seem deeply attached to it. Why would you want to refute it ?


Well, I think that misses the point, to a certain extent (regardless of whether or not we substitute 'justifiably believe' for 'know'). The claim is stronger - that the question of whether or not there is a world that is reflected in my thoughts and sense perceptions is not a meaningful one.

Oh really ?

Having not claimed to have been an expert in Marx, however...

Expert enough to dismiss his work ?

Three fallacies in as many sentences is pretty good going, even around these parts. (Or, at least, it will be, once more people can use sentences.)

If you want to demonstrate that, go right ahead. Probably too much of an effort required though.

[stringjack]

Oh really ?

No, only imaginarily.

Expert enough to dismiss his work ?

Have I dismissed his work?

If you want to demonstrate that, go right ahead. Probably too much of an effort required though.

It's prêt à porter, dear.

[cactusflower]

[quote]

No, only imaginarily.

In your mind.

Have I dismissed his work?

Yes

It's prêt à porter, dear.

Cheapskate.

[stringjack]

Yes...

In your mind.

Cheapskate.

Hey, if you'll give me an address for the invoices...

[cactusflower]

In your mind.



Hey, if you'll give me an address for the invoices...

It's just that I prefer couture.

[stringjack]

It's just that I prefer couture.

My bourgeois sensibilities rebel.