Your Journey to the Alt-Right.

[constant escape]

I agree, but I think its possible to cognize (through) it despite it not being a deity. Capitalism can be like an archon without actually being one. We dress the forces up like gods as a desperate means of understanding them - even using "forces" as a signifier is guilty of this, no?

I do think it is manmade, but primarily accidental (as far as I can tell). Emergent.

And yeah I would agree in that Pure capitalism would involve virtually no spending, just perpetual reinvestment. And our capitalists can only approximate/approach that purity, because of their material constrictions.

The tentative belief is that we can willfully negotiate with this higher order.

 

[thirdform]

the problem is your order is indebted to Plato, and fundamentally therefore, theological, even if you stridently deny it. There is no higher order, just a power beyond the grasp of individuals in their sum total. It is not a world of forms, but just the sum total of interactions coalescing in such a form that cannot be systematised, because the organiser of labour sees all other organisers as in direct competition with herself. hence the colossal amount of variables to self-valourisation which cannot be definitively quantified. For the proletarian on the other hand, the processes of labour are highly organised and concentrated. This is what Lukacs means by standpoint epistemology, not that the proles are more moral or noble.

 

[thirdform]

I agree, but I think its possible to cognize (through) it despite it not being a deity. Capitalism can be like an archon without actually being one. We dress the forces up like gods as a desperate means of understanding them - even using "forces" as a signifier is guilty of this, no?

I do think it is manmade, but primarily accidental (as far as I can tell). Emergent.

And yeah I would agree in that Pure capitalism would involve virtually no spending, just perpetual reinvestment. And our capitalists can only approximate/approach that purity, because of their material constrictions.

The tentative belief is that we can willfully negotiate with this higher order.

no, it is a force in the direct sense, as in, I hold a gun to your head.

Yes, only a collective force of material potency can ring concessions out of capital, hence the 8 hour working day, sick leave, paternity leave, health and safety procedures, etc. Suspendedreasons ideal capitalism is a non-sequitur because the ideal safety net for capital unmired is minimal survival - the English working classes. Whereas in the US your capitalism was built on slaves you lived with and raped, not the depersonalised factory, at least not until the end of the civil war.

 

[thirdform]

the worker and the proletarian are different concepts (although overwhelmingly intersect in the same personifications.) one is an identity, the other is modular. For the proletarian, going against capital itself is an immediate need of force, whereas for a worker, it can have a moral dimension.

Similarly, the rich is also not identical to the capitalist, who also relies on a subconscious assertion of force to organise labour for the needs of their capitals. Most people ideologically would like to be spendthrifts.

 

[thirdform]

hence it is absurd to talk about freedom or paternalism. these are old, transitional forms more suited to the epoch of the french revolution. It is necessary to conduct an investigation into how capital legitimates itself today, which in essence is not wrong ideas that the ruling or working classes hold, but ideas they themselves participate in forming - autopoiesis. This is why John Locke's tabula rasa is not necessarily defensible in reference to Hobbes. To postulate the isolated mind (even in a syllogistic sense) is to deny the development of knowledge.

 

[constant escape]

I tend to use the term cosmological rather than theological, but that could just be a semantic bungling on my part. I try not to impose a will or agenda onto any ostensible higher order, but I do think we can effectively proceed as if there is a higher order, and as if there is some optimal way to negotiate with it. So long as we bear in mind that such things may not exist beyond our cognition.

Might just be a matter of extending the grasp of individuals, rather than claiming to operate beyond the grasp of individuals.

What would you say about situating the organizer of labor as the economic incarnation of negative entropy? Cosmological, sure, but part of the hangup here is that it seems we need to operate beyond reason and empiricality in order to achieve a radical enough change.

Perhaps it would take the form of an idealism nested within a materialism, so ultimately a materialism. That is, the ideal emerges from the material, and thus the material is more fundamental than the ideal, without the ideal being reducible to the material.

What might this let us do? Perhaps it could let us operate beyond the constrictions of the materialist/idealist dichotomy, or perhaps it would just prove to be that-much-more of a convoluted idealism.

It doesn't seem like what I'm saying goes against the marxist prognosis some eventual revolution - but perhaps the effective violence might be abstracted beyond corporeality. Just spitballing there.

It is necessary to conduct an investigation into how capital legitimates itself today, which in essence is not wrong ideas that the ruling or working classes hold, but ideas they themselves participate in forming - autopoiesis.

And this would warrant a delve into idealism, no? A, if even temporary, belief that ideas are upstream from economic reality, before returning to the belief that they are circularly upstream from each other - a belief that was, itself, borne from materiality.

Hence all the frantic and scatterbrained and two-headed attempts to nest idealism within materialism without trying to synthesize them.

 

[luka]

Lol OK, it's this again. Apocalyptic revolutionary thirdform, best thirdform!

Third form can be aggravating but the likes of you can't dismiss him. He's the only genius here apart from me obviously so you have to pay homage

 

[luka]

It does make my head spin this idea that only programmers can contribute to society and therefore the rest of us should be culled

 

[luka]

As if that might not be a problem with society (assuming it's true, which it isn't) than a problem with the rest of us

 

[luka]

as if we have to adapt to the vagaries of the economy rather than The System being there to maximise and facilitate out our potential

 

[constant escape]

Or that those of us who can't program will just continue to get marked in ever more robust ways by those who can.

 

[luka]

If 90% of people can't contribute that's not the fault of the individuals left behind,p. This seems obvious and axiomatic.

 

[luka]

Or that those of us who can't program will just continue to get marked in ever more robust ways by those who can.

We will just kill them.

 

[luka]

Suspended reason does a programming course and decides everyone who doesn't is deserving of he cull. It's not even an argument. We can't all be autists

 

[luka]

Inane

 

[constant escape]

Well any standard that fails the majority isn't an optimal standard, generally, as far as I can tell.

But in terms of evolution of systems, it makes sense to keep the fitness out of reach of the majority, so as to keep the combustion fueling the growth, at the cost of individual psychic tension.

 

[luka]

But what do you want ? What's the end game? What are you aiming at?

 

[luka]

Saying most people are stupid and deserve to die cos they can't code is obviously not a position which will win mass support, what is the standard of judgement.! Here it is the willingness and ability to mould yourself to the arbitrary requirements of the economic needs of the day.

 

[luka]

Pathetic. Inane. Most people are stupid' but stupidity is not measured by the unwillingness to conform to arbitrary requirements. Quite the opposite

 

[luka]

Resistance is the measure of intelligence. The word no is the token of intelligence