just so we remain fair to all possible theories, is there going to be a link for a class on Mein Kampf?
the price of direct application of Marx's theories is 100 million deaths in the past century. While implemented in various time periods, cultural and geographical contexts, the common conclusion is that Marxism failed everywhere without an exception.
it is clear that the implementation of Marxism can be done only at the cost of terror, massive suppression of both civil and economic liberties, and through maintaining constant fear of the government.
i always find it amazing that all the idiots like Mr. Harvey preach about marxism from the comfort of a democratic country. he should try to live in a communist country for a year. He would very quickly move on to teaching something else. Shame on him and shame on people blind enough to support this shit.
Also - i fully expect bashing from every couch-marxist out there. Well unlike you i had a direct experience of living in a communist country, and only fortunate enough that the regime fell down while still at young age.
I think that archinect should reconsider promoting an intolerant, agressive, totalitarian and economically false theory that brought so much suffering into the world.
Neufert, all I'm going to say about the ilk of comments like yours--sensationalist reactionary intolerant and unfounded--is that they imply that capitalist ideology and capitalist systems are not guilty of equally violent and repressive campaigns. It's amazing to still see this same cassette playing way after the cold war, and considering what the U.S. did all over the world back during that period and is now doing in iraq.... Well, your comment is sham-a-liscious.
davejw, not that this needs much justifying but Harvey's writings, like them or not, and I'm not saying anyone has to agree with him, have been central to architecture, landscape, planning curriculums for a very long time. Te bottom line is that no one has to subscribe to marxism or marxist theory to get something out of either Marx or Harvey.
Javier please argue with what i wrote, not what you think i may or may not implied.
You don't know what you are talking about, you are a perfect example of what Lenin called "useful idiot" - overly idealistic person living outside of a communist country who without knowing the implications of Marxism supports its, ignoring or neglecting its terror based roots and actions. Out if ignorance, idealism, but usually both.
yes, all attempted communist regimes turned ugly. and yes you deserve simpathy for having lived inside one of them. but that experience may have left you with some associative baggage that is unhelpful in a discussion of marx. blaming marx for the oppression and abuses of 20th century communist countries is not unlike blaming darwin for nazi eugenics.
marx was first and foremost a theorist of capitalism, and most of his work is an attempt to show the mechanisms by which a capitalist system will eventually collapse by eating itself from the inside out. what attention he gave to speculating about the evolution of history beyond capitalism was all premised on the aftermath left by capitalism running its natural course. the fact that a communist society is envisioned as post-capitalist self-destruction is THE most critical point-- and without fail, every attempt at a communist state has (obviously) dispensed with this point. this was foundational to lenin, rosa luxemburg, and that whole crew-- that the present couldn't wait for history to run its course, we needed specialized revolutionaries who would initiate the post-capitalist period by force, and since that change will be traumatic and pre-mature, we'll need a centralized, totalitarian intermediate government to nurse society through the transition, and of course that government will use all that control benevolently and reliquish it once we're there, right?
not quite right to blame all that followed on marx, and if you focus on his analysis of capitalism, it hasn't exactly faded away as obsolete and irrelevent.
subtect - the cornerstone of Marx's focus on capitalism is the theory of labor value - that is today unanimously rejected among all credible economists.
further, it is clear that Marx himself counted with violence - not only did he advocate a violent revolution of the proletariat against the establishment, even the interstitial phase between revolution and 'true communism' is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Both to me quite clearly demonstrate that Marx not only legitimized violence to achieve political goals, but subsequently promoted clearly totalitarian establishment to follow the revolution.
Let's get one thing clear again, and I write this more for those with an interest in Harvey, or that are on the fence, than to argue with anyone. Not many people can claim to have done as much with Marx in terms of the theory of the production of space than Harvey. Just that alone justifies listening to what he has to say. No one is being asked to sign onto a cause and by no means is it inciting violence.
It's also worth noting that even when not explicitly citing Marx, architecture and social theory--Lefebvre, Tafuri, Mitchell, Bourdieu, etc-- owe a great deal to reading Capital and other Marx literature.
You do yourself a disservice if you refuse to read anything that gets stamped with a "Marxist" label. You also cheat yourself out of countless debates about architecture, space, landscape, planning etc.
Finally, one might ask what forms of violence one should oppose after understanding what root they may have in the procreation of the establishment, even though most "credible economists" don't weigh in with the courage that Marx did.
Jun 24, 08 6:25 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
7 Comments
just so we remain fair to all possible theories, is there going to be a link for a class on Mein Kampf?
the price of direct application of Marx's theories is 100 million deaths in the past century. While implemented in various time periods, cultural and geographical contexts, the common conclusion is that Marxism failed everywhere without an exception.
it is clear that the implementation of Marxism can be done only at the cost of terror, massive suppression of both civil and economic liberties, and through maintaining constant fear of the government.
i always find it amazing that all the idiots like Mr. Harvey preach about marxism from the comfort of a democratic country. he should try to live in a communist country for a year. He would very quickly move on to teaching something else. Shame on him and shame on people blind enough to support this shit.
Also - i fully expect bashing from every couch-marxist out there. Well unlike you i had a direct experience of living in a communist country, and only fortunate enough that the regime fell down while still at young age.
I think that archinect should reconsider promoting an intolerant, agressive, totalitarian and economically false theory that brought so much suffering into the world.
No comment on Marx's responsibility for wars/death/etc, but what is this doing in an architecture blog?
Neufert, all I'm going to say about the ilk of comments like yours--sensationalist reactionary intolerant and unfounded--is that they imply that capitalist ideology and capitalist systems are not guilty of equally violent and repressive campaigns. It's amazing to still see this same cassette playing way after the cold war, and considering what the U.S. did all over the world back during that period and is now doing in iraq.... Well, your comment is sham-a-liscious.
davejw, not that this needs much justifying but Harvey's writings, like them or not, and I'm not saying anyone has to agree with him, have been central to architecture, landscape, planning curriculums for a very long time. Te bottom line is that no one has to subscribe to marxism or marxist theory to get something out of either Marx or Harvey.
Javier please argue with what i wrote, not what you think i may or may not implied.
You don't know what you are talking about, you are a perfect example of what Lenin called "useful idiot" - overly idealistic person living outside of a communist country who without knowing the implications of Marxism supports its, ignoring or neglecting its terror based roots and actions. Out if ignorance, idealism, but usually both.
Look it up. You might actually learn something.
Neufert,
yes, all attempted communist regimes turned ugly. and yes you deserve simpathy for having lived inside one of them. but that experience may have left you with some associative baggage that is unhelpful in a discussion of marx. blaming marx for the oppression and abuses of 20th century communist countries is not unlike blaming darwin for nazi eugenics.
marx was first and foremost a theorist of capitalism, and most of his work is an attempt to show the mechanisms by which a capitalist system will eventually collapse by eating itself from the inside out. what attention he gave to speculating about the evolution of history beyond capitalism was all premised on the aftermath left by capitalism running its natural course. the fact that a communist society is envisioned as post-capitalist self-destruction is THE most critical point-- and without fail, every attempt at a communist state has (obviously) dispensed with this point. this was foundational to lenin, rosa luxemburg, and that whole crew-- that the present couldn't wait for history to run its course, we needed specialized revolutionaries who would initiate the post-capitalist period by force, and since that change will be traumatic and pre-mature, we'll need a centralized, totalitarian intermediate government to nurse society through the transition, and of course that government will use all that control benevolently and reliquish it once we're there, right?
not quite right to blame all that followed on marx, and if you focus on his analysis of capitalism, it hasn't exactly faded away as obsolete and irrelevent.
subtect - the cornerstone of Marx's focus on capitalism is the theory of labor value - that is today unanimously rejected among all credible economists.
further, it is clear that Marx himself counted with violence - not only did he advocate a violent revolution of the proletariat against the establishment, even the interstitial phase between revolution and 'true communism' is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Both to me quite clearly demonstrate that Marx not only legitimized violence to achieve political goals, but subsequently promoted clearly totalitarian establishment to follow the revolution.
Let's get one thing clear again, and I write this more for those with an interest in Harvey, or that are on the fence, than to argue with anyone. Not many people can claim to have done as much with Marx in terms of the theory of the production of space than Harvey. Just that alone justifies listening to what he has to say. No one is being asked to sign onto a cause and by no means is it inciting violence.
It's also worth noting that even when not explicitly citing Marx, architecture and social theory--Lefebvre, Tafuri, Mitchell, Bourdieu, etc-- owe a great deal to reading Capital and other Marx literature.
You do yourself a disservice if you refuse to read anything that gets stamped with a "Marxist" label. You also cheat yourself out of countless debates about architecture, space, landscape, planning etc.
Finally, one might ask what forms of violence one should oppose after understanding what root they may have in the procreation of the establishment, even though most "credible economists" don't weigh in with the courage that Marx did.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.