1 year later....still glad u went to law school?

[invader]

[...] Instead of exploiting the slave, the master here tries to take care of the worker so that the worker can continue to work. This allows both master and slave to work for the master's master, work itself. But what is crucial about this is that the "taking care of" here or "feeding" of the slave is only feeding the slave such that the worker's work -- and not the worker himself -- can continue. The emphasis is upon work abstracted from the existence of the slave that provides the work. Thus the slave sinks below the conditions that he would be under if he were wrapped up in the feudal master/slave dialectic, because the master here is not concerned with his existence -- the master is "incompetent to assure the continued existence" of the slave, as Marx puts it. The slave cannot properly be a slave under capitalism. That is, it cannot be assured as to whether he will exist as a slave: his bare existence is threatened in the face of the abstract labor-power he temporarily embodies.

[...] The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

In other words, capitalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It creates its own grave-diggers by creating a class with interests diametrically opposed to its own, bringing them together and teaching them how to cooperate. The proletariat then comes to realize that it is a class that has nothing to lose, but everything to gain, by revolting against and overthrowing the bourgeoisie.
 

Don't you think this analysis is a little outdated by now?

What exactly do you mean, I Love?

[let s work together]

Instead of exploiting the slave, the master here tries to take care of the worker so that the worker can continue to work. This allows both master and slave to work for the master's master, work itself. But what is crucial about this is that the "taking care of" here or "feeding" of the slave is only feeding the slave such that the worker's work -- and not the worker himself -- can continue. The emphasis is upon work abstracted from the existence of the slave that provides the work. Thus the slave sinks below the conditions that he would be under if he were wrapped up in the feudal master/slave dialectic, because the master here is not concerned with his existence -- the master is "incompetent to assure the continued existence" of the slave, as Marx puts it. The slave cannot properly be a slave under capitalism.

Could you expand a bit?

Interesting username, commendatore - what does it mean? What's the story behind it?

[Yes Virginia]

[...] Instead of exploiting the slave, the master here tries to take care of the worker so that the worker can continue to work. This allows both master and slave to work for the master's master, work itself. But what is crucial about this is that the "taking care of" here or "feeding" of the slave is only feeding the slave such that the worker's work -- and not the worker himself -- can continue. The emphasis is upon work abstracted from the existence of the slave that provides the work. Thus the slave sinks below the conditions that he would be under if he were wrapped up in the feudal master/slave dialectic, because the master here is not concerned with his existence -- the master is "incompetent to assure the continued existence" of the slave, as Marx puts it. The slave cannot properly be a slave under capitalism. That is, it cannot be assured as to whether he will exist as a slave: his bare existence is threatened in the face of the abstract labor-power he temporarily embodies.

[...] The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

In other words, capitalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It creates its own grave-diggers by creating a class with interests diametrically opposed to its own, bringing them together and teaching them how to cooperate. The proletariat then comes to realize that it is a class that has nothing to lose, but everything to gain, by revolting against and overthrowing the bourgeoisie.
 

Don't you think this analysis is a little outdated by now?

What exactly do you mean, I Love?

The Marxist meaning based on the mid-19th century Communist Manifesto means that the inability of capitalism to expand without creating, in its wake, periodic and more and more severe economic crises (recessions, depressions, unemployment) will alienate more people. These will not only come from the ranks of the poor laborers (the proletariat) who would be made progressively more miserable under capitalism, but also business failures would lead to portions of the bourgeoisie going over to the side of the allegedly rising class, the proletariat, and this combination would lead to successful revolutionary overthrow of capitalist regimes. This became the bedrock doctrine of Marxism and its 20th century Communist successors.

[louiebstef]

PLEASE take this crap to another website.

[Rhetoric-n-Composition]

Not only that, louie, but also I couldn't resist asking the question,

"Where is this person going with all this love?"

[little one]

Not only that, louie, but also I couldn't resist asking the question,

"Where is this person going with all this love?"

I think we should give him the benefit of his greatest horror - time -

Noah Cross used to say,

"Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough."

[Hayde]

Not really! As the glut of excess lawyers continues unabated (and as technology makes many things possible with far fewer lawyers) further adjustments are not far behind. Currently, the top 10-15% (gradewise) from 1st tier schools (roughly, the 40 or so best schools in the U.S.) go to two kinds of jobs. They go to "traditional firms" (these firms used to hire from the top 50%) and government jobs (that used to go to the bottom 50% of the class from the bottom 50% of the schools). Worse, after a year of so of looking for work, the very status of length out of law school is a permanent barrier to most employment. A history in a small firm, as a solo or in a District Attorney's Office qualifies an attorney only to go to work for herself or himself.

The "ticket punching" era has come to an end -- in some states slowly, in some states with great drama. In one instance (when the great "crunch" hit Texas) schools went from full placement by Christmas of the senior year to 20% placement at graduation in the course of one class. Virtually all of the Harvard class of '75 made partner by the 10-year reunion. Of the Harvard class of '85, so few made partner by the 10-year reunion it was a Section B front page story in the Wall Street Journal.

What really gets me is how goes the site allows posters with avatars such as this one's? Is this place for law students or law whores?

[interrex]

I am a 2L and never been happier. People who give up in 1L are quiter and I am glad that they don't pollute our pool anymore. Of course the first few terms are hard, they're a gatekeeper, same as the bar, but once you get the hang of it it gets easy and even fun.

It's like running, the first mile is a female dog but do it everyday and soon you get pissed if you don't have the chance to do a few lapse each day. Same with anything else if life. Get into it or die, too bad so many pick the latter.......

[Thane Messinger]

* * *

The Marxist meaning based on the mid-19th century Communist Manifesto means that the inability of capitalism to expand without creating, in its wake, periodic and more and more severe economic crises (recessions, depressions, unemployment) will alienate more people. These will not only come from the ranks of the poor laborers (the proletariat) who would be made progressively more miserable under capitalism, but also business failures would lead to portions of the bourgeoisie going over to the side of the allegedly rising class, the proletariat, and this combination would lead to successful revolutionary overthrow of capitalist regimes. This became the bedrock doctrine of Marxism and its 20th century Communist successors.

Not quite.  The immiseration thesis assumed that real wages and working conditions must, as a capitalist premise, always decline, pushing the proletariat inevitably to revolution.  Crises, etc., might be a catalyst but were not the cause.  The problem, of course, is that even with our Great Recession history has shown this to be palpably incorrect; residents of capitalist economies--including the newest, partial member, China--are decidedly better off, in every measurable way.  (Ironically, looking at postmodern American society, a major problem is spoiled decadence among the . . . proletatriat just as much as their exploitive brethren.  Think this a stretch?  Since when do we NEED a television, much less multiple, high-definition, big-screen, 3D ones?  How many REAL poor laborers the world over would gladly trade their lot with the "poor laborers" of, yes, even Detroit in 2010?  Our modern crisis is one of selfishness as much as corruption or exploitation.)  What's more, Marx himself had zero patience for wishful thinking, which is what proponents of immiseration have had to be for at least several decades.  So, by Marx's own reckoning the thesis fails.

Okay then.  Back to capitalist running dog consumerist decadent spending!

= :   )

[end in itself]

Exactly, a sick body is a sick body is a sick body. What difference does it make whether it's black or white?

The human body is not unlike an automobile.

Thus, doctors, like mechanics, do take better care when working on a BMW than on a Volkswagen!

I doubt it white people would feel flattered by this comment, even though you are certainly trying to be sympathetic to them.

A totally idiotic comment, no doubt about it!