Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Sartre, it's one of the production and the use of labor power and not one of consumption in the terms of use or the acqwuistion of wealth

Expand Messages
  • Richard Radandt
    How you as a philosopher run from Sartre to support the capitalist system. It s not a question of consumption and then breaking down consumption into one of
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 4, 2003
      How you as a philosopher run from Sartre to support the capitalist system. It's not a question of consumption and then breaking down consumption into one of survival of needs and wants and then once again of breaking consumption into one of wealth accumulation. It's one of production and not consumption. The in its there-alone in its movement, touching and breathing in a body of flesh and blood creating labor power in the existence of potential, projecting possibilities. The possibilities become existence to serve the interests of the in its there-alone. It also considers in the interests of the other in commodity labor power of the alienating of labor power. Concentrating on consumption instead of production results in the loss of the ontology of Being in the world and Being in the there.



      I don't define I by possessing as I own my projecting, potential possibilities and this isn't a definition or and identity. Possessing or owning is just Being in the world and not identity, or definition. There's no self. In this case, the logic of L and A isn't correct. I own my possibilities and yet this doesn't produce meaning. The possibilities produce labor power to serve the flesh and the blood. My giving of the labor powers I produce doesn't give I meaning either. The capitalist class always and not yet considers I own some obligation to give up my labor power and my life to die for them or for their country. This is the use of their ethics and theology to steal Being in the world from the worker and let him reside with an empty self, identity, or definition just waiting to receive redemption with theology. A and L support capitalism. They aren't into existentialism and Sartre. They are revisionist.



      I must make the choice of what to do with my labor power. In the capitalist system, very few of us own this choice. The idea I can create meaning by what I possess and what I don't possess is silly. I play in a public park. I own a part of the park. In this sense, even if it's public I still own the right to use it. I posses it and I own it. My labor power is a part of the park and in this sense I'm in the park. Now the city might pass a law stating only certain people can use this park. I still own the park even if my rights are denied to the park. I now must create a revolution and give back to I the freedom of choice of the use and the ownership of the park. I must charge those who deny my use of the park with genocide and omnicide. Only in the use of my freedom of choice, do I express the in its there-alone. This isn't the idea of consumption and it's the idea of production. In my freedom of choice, I don't create borders and what I do is destroy the borders. The reason we aren't aware of meaning is that there's no meaning.



      Ownership is the responsibility for one's creating potential, projecting, possibilities. This isn't a case for interpersonal subjectivity, the self, the identity, or a representation. I'm never in separation of the other. I don't possess the other, I'm in use of the other, and the other is in use of me. The reason for this is we both change, are finite, and we own different possibilities. Thus, the concept of possessing is an illusion. We try to consume or exhaust the other in their productive labor power and unless we kill them say by poisoning we never do possess them. In a sadistic or masochistic way, we may like to believe we are doing this and yet it never does occur.

      Capitalism and theology are the doctrines of use to allow the mass to remain dependent in the system. Consumerism is only a minor issue. The real issue is how we tolerate psychologists to tell us this shit and let them live and pay them a salary. They are a front line series of traitors to the working class. The psychologist who isn't able to lead the revolution to free us from capitalism and theology deserves to starve, as they are the real terrorists in the world. E always spends all of this time telling how E feels hurt and yet E doesn't realize how E supports capitalism and denies us the freedom of choice.
      None us are in the processes of brainwashing accept the psychologists who use Carl Jung and Carl Rogers. There's no such thing as representation and yet E continues to believe in it. We all are in freedom and capable of making a freedom of choice. Yet, E hoping of getting some small crumb from capitalism the rest of us won't get chooses capitalism and not the working class. E isn't a revolutionary, is a counter revolutionary, and supports the reaction of E's cynicism. E's hugs are worth nothing as long as E supports Jung, Rogers, and capitalism. When will E own the courage to support state hood for Palestine and volunteer for the war in Iraq?





      We aren't dependent on the system as we all know full well, the number of [a] betrayals, [b] the deceptions, [c] the denials, and the [d] the deceit. Only, I in the in its there-alone, can create a need, a desire, or a want out of my existing as flesh and blood in my experience with my creating labor power. I own the right to reject the advertising and the marketing. We must as a nation double tax those sociologists, those psychologists, and those English teachers who take jobs in advertising and treat them as outcasts. This must be our freedom of choice to consider these others who betray us as workers as the enemies of the state and treat them as terrorists.

      Copyright January 04, 2003 by Richard Radandt at richradandt@... page 1 of 1


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Amy Wing
      Hi Richard, I see what you are saying in that Sartre would not agree that we do not recieve properties such as ambition . Ambition is like having blond
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 5, 2003
        Hi Richard, I see what you are saying in that Sartre
        would not agree that we do not "recieve" properties
        such as "ambition". "Ambition" is like having "blond
        hair", but then there are "secondary" desires, such as
        the desire to go "rowing" where humanness does not get
        lost in an abstract substance. (This is from Being and
        Nothingness--Doing and Having)See, this is where the
        system gets us. They capitalize on everything and
        through advertising and control of the secondary
        reward, money, that allows us to go rowing, they can
        create other desires like nice cars to impress your
        clients, $500 suits to show that your up and comming.
        To tell you the truth I think that we are both barking
        up the same tree. Thanks for your input. You made me
        think things through more. Bye the way I love the
        outlook that the existentialists have on identity.
        That is what made me one. Sartre says that if you
        don't want to be a coward then do something brave--I
        love him. Best, Amy --- Richard Radandt
        <richradandt@...> wrote: >
        > How you as a philosopher run from Sartre to support
        > the capitalist system. It's not a question of
        > consumption and then breaking down consumption into
        > one of survival of needs and wants and then once
        > again of breaking consumption into one of wealth
        > accumulation. It's one of production and not
        > consumption. The in its there-alone in its movement,
        > touching and breathing in a body of flesh and blood
        > creating labor power in the existence of potential,
        > projecting possibilities. The possibilities become
        > existence to serve the interests of the in its
        > there-alone. It also considers in the interests of
        > the other in commodity labor power of the alienating
        > of labor power. Concentrating on consumption instead
        > of production results in the loss of the ontology of
        > Being in the world and Being in the there.
        >
        >
        >
        > I don't define I by possessing as I own my
        > projecting, potential possibilities and this isn't a
        > definition or and identity. Possessing or owning is
        > just Being in the world and not identity, or
        > definition. There's no self. In this case, the logic
        > of L and A isn't correct. I own my possibilities and
        > yet this doesn't produce meaning. The possibilities
        > produce labor power to serve the flesh and the
        > blood. My giving of the labor powers I produce
        > doesn't give I meaning either. The capitalist class
        > always and not yet considers I own some obligation
        > to give up my labor power and my life to die for
        > them or for their country. This is the use of their
        > ethics and theology to steal Being in the world from
        > the worker and let him reside with an empty self,
        > identity, or definition just waiting to receive
        > redemption with theology. A and L support
        > capitalism. They aren't into existentialism and
        > Sartre. They are revisionist.
        >
        >
        >
        > I must make the choice of what to do with my labor
        > power. In the capitalist system, very few of us own
        > this choice. The idea I can create meaning by what I
        > possess and what I don't possess is silly. I play in
        > a public park. I own a part of the park. In this
        > sense, even if it's public I still own the right to
        > use it. I posses it and I own it. My labor power is
        > a part of the park and in this sense I'm in the
        > park. Now the city might pass a law stating only
        > certain people can use this park. I still own the
        > park even if my rights are denied to the park. I now
        > must create a revolution and give back to I the
        > freedom of choice of the use and the ownership of
        > the park. I must charge those who deny my use of the
        > park with genocide and omnicide. Only in the use of
        > my freedom of choice, do I express the in its
        > there-alone. This isn't the idea of consumption and
        > it's the idea of production. In my freedom of
        > choice, I don't create borders and what I do is
        > destroy the borders. The reason we aren't aware of
        > meaning is that there's no meaning.
        >
        >
        >
        > Ownership is the responsibility for one's creating
        > potential, projecting, possibilities. This isn't a
        > case for interpersonal subjectivity, the self, the
        > identity, or a representation. I'm never in
        > separation of the other. I don't possess the other,
        > I'm in use of the other, and the other is in use of
        > me. The reason for this is we both change, are
        > finite, and we own different possibilities. Thus,
        > the concept of possessing is an illusion. We try to
        > consume or exhaust the other in their productive
        > labor power and unless we kill them say by poisoning
        > we never do possess them. In a sadistic or
        > masochistic way, we may like to believe we are doing
        > this and yet it never does occur.
        >
        > Capitalism and theology are the doctrines of use to
        > allow the mass to remain dependent in the system.
        > Consumerism is only a minor issue. The real issue is
        > how we tolerate psychologists to tell us this shit
        > and let them live and pay them a salary. They are a
        > front line series of traitors to the working class.
        > The psychologist who isn't able to lead the
        > revolution to free us from capitalism and theology
        > deserves to starve, as they are the real terrorists
        > in the world. E always spends all of this time
        > telling how E feels hurt and yet E doesn't realize
        > how E supports capitalism and denies us the freedom
        > of choice.
        > None us are in the processes of brainwashing accept
        > the psychologists who use Carl Jung and Carl Rogers.
        > There's no such thing as representation and yet E
        > continues to believe in it. We all are in freedom
        > and capable of making a freedom of choice. Yet, E
        > hoping of getting some small crumb from capitalism
        > the rest of us won't get chooses capitalism and not
        > the working class. E isn't a revolutionary, is a
        > counter revolutionary, and supports the reaction of
        > E's cynicism. E's hugs are worth nothing as long as
        > E supports Jung, Rogers, and capitalism. When will E
        > own the courage to support state hood for Palestine
        > and volunteer for the war in Iraq?
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > We aren't dependent on the system as we all know
        > full well, the number of [a] betrayals, [b] the
        > deceptions, [c] the denials, and the [d] the deceit.
        > Only, I in the in its there-alone, can create a
        > need, a desire, or a want out of my existing as
        > flesh and blood in my experience with my creating
        > labor power. I own the right to reject the
        > advertising and the marketing. We must as a nation
        > double tax those sociologists, those psychologists,
        > and those English teachers who take jobs in
        > advertising and treat them as outcasts. This must be
        > our freedom of choice to consider these others who
        > betray us as workers as the enemies of the state and
        > treat them as terrorists.
        >
        > Copyright January 04, 2003 by Richard Radandt at
        > richradandt@... page 1 of 1
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been
        > removed]
        >
        >

        ______________________________________________________________________
        Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
      • Amy Wing
        Sorry, just one more thing. I strongly oppose treating people as terrorists unless they come into your house and torture and kill you. This is were the law can
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 5, 2003
          Sorry, just one more thing. I strongly oppose
          treating people as terrorists unless they come into
          your house and torture and kill you. This is were the
          law can not go in my opinion. Thanks. I'll break for a
          while. Amy --- Richard Radandt
          <richradandt@...> wrote: >
          > How you as a philosopher run from Sartre to support
          > the capitalist system. It's not a question of
          > consumption and then breaking down consumption into
          > one of survival of needs and wants and then once
          > again of breaking consumption into one of wealth
          > accumulation. It's one of production and not
          > consumption. The in its there-alone in its movement,
          > touching and breathing in a body of flesh and blood
          > creating labor power in the existence of potential,
          > projecting possibilities. The possibilities become
          > existence to serve the interests of the in its
          > there-alone. It also considers in the interests of
          > the other in commodity labor power of the alienating
          > of labor power. Concentrating on consumption instead
          > of production results in the loss of the ontology of
          > Being in the world and Being in the there.
          >
          >
          >
          > I don't define I by possessing as I own my
          > projecting, potential possibilities and this isn't a
          > definition or and identity. Possessing or owning is
          > just Being in the world and not identity, or
          > definition. There's no self. In this case, the logic
          > of L and A isn't correct. I own my possibilities and
          > yet this doesn't produce meaning. The possibilities
          > produce labor power to serve the flesh and the
          > blood. My giving of the labor powers I produce
          > doesn't give I meaning either. The capitalist class
          > always and not yet considers I own some obligation
          > to give up my labor power and my life to die for
          > them or for their country. This is the use of their
          > ethics and theology to steal Being in the world from
          > the worker and let him reside with an empty self,
          > identity, or definition just waiting to receive
          > redemption with theology. A and L support
          > capitalism. They aren't into existentialism and
          > Sartre. They are revisionist.
          >
          >
          >
          > I must make the choice of what to do with my labor
          > power. In the capitalist system, very few of us own
          > this choice. The idea I can create meaning by what I
          > possess and what I don't possess is silly. I play in
          > a public park. I own a part of the park. In this
          > sense, even if it's public I still own the right to
          > use it. I posses it and I own it. My labor power is
          > a part of the park and in this sense I'm in the
          > park. Now the city might pass a law stating only
          > certain people can use this park. I still own the
          > park even if my rights are denied to the park. I now
          > must create a revolution and give back to I the
          > freedom of choice of the use and the ownership of
          > the park. I must charge those who deny my use of the
          > park with genocide and omnicide. Only in the use of
          > my freedom of choice, do I express the in its
          > there-alone. This isn't the idea of consumption and
          > it's the idea of production. In my freedom of
          > choice, I don't create borders and what I do is
          > destroy the borders. The reason we aren't aware of
          > meaning is that there's no meaning.
          >
          >
          >
          > Ownership is the responsibility for one's creating
          > potential, projecting, possibilities. This isn't a
          > case for interpersonal subjectivity, the self, the
          > identity, or a representation. I'm never in
          > separation of the other. I don't possess the other,
          > I'm in use of the other, and the other is in use of
          > me. The reason for this is we both change, are
          > finite, and we own different possibilities. Thus,
          > the concept of possessing is an illusion. We try to
          > consume or exhaust the other in their productive
          > labor power and unless we kill them say by poisoning
          > we never do possess them. In a sadistic or
          > masochistic way, we may like to believe we are doing
          > this and yet it never does occur.
          >
          > Capitalism and theology are the doctrines of use to
          > allow the mass to remain dependent in the system.
          > Consumerism is only a minor issue. The real issue is
          > how we tolerate psychologists to tell us this shit
          > and let them live and pay them a salary. They are a
          > front line series of traitors to the working class.
          > The psychologist who isn't able to lead the
          > revolution to free us from capitalism and theology
          > deserves to starve, as they are the real terrorists
          > in the world. E always spends all of this time
          > telling how E feels hurt and yet E doesn't realize
          > how E supports capitalism and denies us the freedom
          > of choice.
          > None us are in the processes of brainwashing accept
          > the psychologists who use Carl Jung and Carl Rogers.
          > There's no such thing as representation and yet E
          > continues to believe in it. We all are in freedom
          > and capable of making a freedom of choice. Yet, E
          > hoping of getting some small crumb from capitalism
          > the rest of us won't get chooses capitalism and not
          > the working class. E isn't a revolutionary, is a
          > counter revolutionary, and supports the reaction of
          > E's cynicism. E's hugs are worth nothing as long as
          > E supports Jung, Rogers, and capitalism. When will E
          > own the courage to support state hood for Palestine
          > and volunteer for the war in Iraq?
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > We aren't dependent on the system as we all know
          > full well, the number of [a] betrayals, [b] the
          > deceptions, [c] the denials, and the [d] the deceit.
          > Only, I in the in its there-alone, can create a
          > need, a desire, or a want out of my existing as
          > flesh and blood in my experience with my creating
          > labor power. I own the right to reject the
          > advertising and the marketing. We must as a nation
          > double tax those sociologists, those psychologists,
          > and those English teachers who take jobs in
          > advertising and treat them as outcasts. This must be
          > our freedom of choice to consider these others who
          > betray us as workers as the enemies of the state and
          > treat them as terrorists.
          >
          > Copyright January 04, 2003 by Richard Radandt at
          > richradandt@... page 1 of 1
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been
          > removed]
          >
          >

          ______________________________________________________________________
          Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.