tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836154689340525703.post91114936266652667..comments2014-04-28T10:25:29.883-07:00Comments on UNL ENGL 971 - Marx/ism: The Coffee HouseAlexis Abelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268073730513668427noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836154689340525703.post-3400192669187928092014-01-27T15:44:26.605-08:002014-01-27T15:44:26.605-08:00"Time" is indeed a crucial aspect in Mar..."Time" is indeed a crucial aspect in Marx(its) discourse. TIME FOR REVOLUTION is a book by Negri; and Negri's reading of Marx in MARX BEYOND MARX will touch on the question of time in significant ways, too. And of course Marx gets at it in for example "Fragment on Machines"Marco Abelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00943132680498834915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836154689340525703.post-78566552542039748812014-01-26T21:31:58.066-08:002014-01-26T21:31:58.066-08:00One thing that struck me about this post is the im...One thing that struck me about this post is the implication for the value of ones time. In this case, the tension seems to be a tension between the time of the worker (production of the coffee) and the "free time" of the customer. Whose time is more valuable? Is the fact that the pace of the worker impacted the enjoyment of the leisure time of the "Lincoln bourgeoisie by deliberately slowing down production?" (Was the slow-down indeed deliberate?) How one's time is valued, it seems to me, is a function of class. While our readings touched briefly on free time/idle time in "The Fragment on Machines," it didn't fully articulate this aspect of class as I've experienced it (both as a waitress and as a Coffee House customer). I look forward to giving further consideration to this in terms of our class readings/discussion.Kim Tedrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00229254972579179188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7836154689340525703.post-20086933681872008362014-01-26T18:41:29.178-08:002014-01-26T18:41:29.178-08:00While I appreciate your questions regarding the po...While I appreciate your questions regarding the potential of transcendence in Marx, I feel compelled to take issue with the coffee shop narrative you use to frame your post. <br /><br />While, I do agree that the coffee shop is certainly a site where the worker is part of a machine that distances them from more meaningful production, I am troubled by the idea that modifying a drink order is a "gesture of solidarity". Can an act demands the continued functioning of the machine truly be considered solidarity? Does the degree to which we are empowering the owners of the coffee house (by spending less money) really change the nature of alienation and control the employees feel?<br /><br />This is not to say that I am not also complicit in the maintenance of bourgeoisie/capitalist values, I am far more often a consumer rather than an activist. However, as Dana Cloud (1998) warns us, building in part on Marx's criticism of Idealist philosophy, that when we focus on these individual acts that make us feel like activists or in solidarity -- it is easier for us to ignore problematic material conditions (I cite Cloud as she is one of the few materialists in the discipline Communication). If we are truly concerned about for the workers at the Coffee House, let us help them fight for better conditions.<br /><br />At this moment I too am reminded of Clover's talk. While I certainly thought he tended to limit agency in troubling ways -- I do think there is a role for theory to help direct activism -- a major facet of his talk seemed demand we keep a strong focus on supporting material opposition to the problems of capitalism. While we can talk about the problems and nature of the system, when we do act it must be in defiance of the system, not just marginally less complicit. <br /><br />In sum, yes we should ask the big questions, they are worth answering, but we must also remember that these question (at least according to Marx) must consider the full range of material conditions when seeking a true theory of praxis. <br /><br />I also write this reply because I addresses one of the main questions I had while reading <i>The German Ideology</i>. In section II (1), Marx posits that philosophers all to often focus on self consciousness, while ignoring the material. I often feel like the discipline of communication is all to ready simply evaluate a text, ignoring the material conditions behind its production. Many scholars than label such evaluations, which may be critical of troubling aspects of the text activism. I have to wonder is the same problem prevalent in English. As such, much of my umbrage with your position in not directed specifically at you, but rather a general question of the complicity of the academy of reproducing dominant conditions (something Marx notes in III (1)). <br /><br />Broadly this leaves me wondering, can we in the academy every truly be in solidarity with anyone but the dominant classes who support our endeavors? <br /><br /><br />Cloud, D (1998). <i>Control and Consolation in American Culture and Politics: Rhetoric of Therapy</i>. London: Sage PublicationsJonathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/14360592194463298359noreply@blogger.com