Trump

constant escape

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Well perhaps the true marxists would pass as right wing - that is what I'm trying to figure out. Mind you, it doesn't take much to pass as right wing these days. At least in America.

edit: by true, I mean those whose perspective is most aligned with the world historical spirit, such and such, and so on.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
constant escape said:
Could some real marxists, today, pass as right-wingers?
Click to expand...

No. But they wouldn't pass as left wingers either.

Marxism's merger with developmentalist state ideology and the completion of the bourgeois absolutist state enlightenment is the secret to the 20th C. We have made Italy. Now we must make Italians.

now chop chop, go and study.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
constant escape said:
Very true - a ton of ambiguity here. I guess one of the debates would be just that, what is meant by marxist. I would say anyone who abides by an ideology that is (directly? indirectly?) in compliance with discourse from Marx or other marxists, is a marxist. Since there is a spectrum or variety of positions that would thus qualify, would some of them pass as right wing - and which ones?

And I'm starting to wonder if marxism isn't limited to anti-capitalism. Granted, it could entail a very generalized and abstract interpretation of his work, but I wouldn't consider such an interpretation to be unreasonable, especially considering how abstract he got (from what I've read).

This is a pivotal debate for me, and one that greatly confounds me, especially now that woke capitalism promises (or threatens) to become even more of a reality.

I think opposing capitalism, radically, means opposing the way matter and intelligence evolves, universally. That said, there is a ton of disagreeable ethical baggage thrown onto most conceptions of capitalism, that that baggage is more than likely non-essential. It's like being allergic to the air around you - which seems to shed a light on (what appears to me to be) the general impotence of the Marxist project since, what, neoliberalism?

So a "pro-capitalist" marxism would shift its frame of reference from the setting in which capitalism contends with other potential economic -isms, to the setting in which capitalism is itself the stage on which contend different flavors of capitalism, of which there are an infinite variety. This doesn't necessarily preclude the eventual emergence of communism, but it does add a whole other gauntlet to run before we get there.

Maybe I'm drinking the "tech-bro" koolaid, but it seems like communism, proper, is only possible if there is some kind of superhuman intelligence that is governing us, one whose bias is virtually undetectable, and next to objective.

Whether that amounts to a utopia or a dystopia, depends on whether or not we continue to indulge our allergy to capitalism. I think anti-capitalism, radically, is a denial of the cosmos. That said, for most people "anti-capitalism" simply means an opposition to the ethical murkiness of capitalism, which is far more reasonable and far less radical than the anti-capitalism I have in mind.

In fact, I might even up the ante and argue that any radical anti-bigotry needs to overcome its allergy/phobia of capitalism, in order to start making the next wave of progress.
Click to expand...

you think too much like a Burkeian coming to terms with the transition from feudalism to capitalism, despite the world being 200 years ahead of you. Life does not revolve around discourse, it revolves around the production and reproduction of real life. intelligence comes after that, not before it. now stop waffling and study.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
communism is not a mathematical hyperbole you can consider with capitalist property centralised but the main integuments of capitalism, the use of living labour to destroy dead labour, left in tact. all then you get is the state, or in your case, your fascist dream white frat boy supercomputer extracting surplus value algorithmically. Communism will involve a complete restructuration of production, and the forced axing of socially toxic work, of which there is a lot today, including the brain farts of utopian tech bros who blew their minds on psytrance and lsd - the worst thing in the world.

tech bros famously never deign to learn the nuts and bolts of programming they just want to be snake oils salesmen. It's why they are aghast that most banks and airports use ibm or msDos terminals. the cost to upgrade the operating OS's in airports would be colossal beyond belief, worldwide. but you try telling these Asimov nincompoops this.
 
constant escape

constant escape

winter withered, warm
thirdform said:
you think too much like a Burkeian coming to terms with the transition from feudalism to capitalism, despite the world being 200 years ahead of you. Life does not revolve around discourse, it revolves around the production and reproduction of real life. intelligence comes after that, not before it. now stop waffling and study.
Click to expand...
Maybe its because I'm not familiar at all with Burke (seriously couldn't tell you a thing about him), but this feels like a close-shave miss, almost landing me. Again, I could be mistaken in seeing it that way.

I'm trying to understand, and comes to term with, that transition because it would (or could) let me break through fundamental lenses that have been invisible to me, and largely invisible to all of us. Otherwise, no conception I have of the stuff in the following 200 years could be properly contextualized, no? That's just where I am in understanding this - in trying to.

Maybe I am betraying an idealism here, but half of the fight, in my eyes, involves contending with the leading theory of history, contending for its own sake. The way to reconcile that with a proper materialism (which you seem to be much more acute to than I), I am not sure of, primarily because I live in a privileged, almost entirely abstract world (the result of trying to understand). But surely discourse, or the ideas at its hearts, are not down a one-way stream from materialism, or the production at its heart?

And I admit here, my usage of the word "intelligence" is pretty libertine and far-out. I don't mean a metric of smartness, of cognitive ability, or abstraction and pattern identification/recognition. I don't know how that stuff is even measured, when it comes down to it, and the matter itself is rife with fallacies, no? (IQ tests, etc.)

By intelligence I mean the imaginary forces that "guide" or steer the development of matter all the way up the ladder of physics, and actually towards dematerialization. Its a cosmology that I cannot (yet?) see around, and thus is beginning to register to me as absolute. I think there is a very marginal correlation between this kind of force, and what we consider intelligence/smartness. This force is more correlated to physical information density (moore's law?).

And I am rather strung out, and largely guilty of the kind of pseudo-studying you mention. I would rather err on the side of extensivity, and strive to reconcile it with intensivity.

And I'd be interested in your thoughts on lsd. I admit, you perplex me.
 
constant escape

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Mr. Tea said:
One of the unspoken laws of Dissensus is that everything, sooner or later, comes back to Spengler.
Click to expand...
Another thing I cannot yet appreciate - no nothing of Spengler either, other than what I can unpack from the title "The Decline of the West". Is it really about cycles and phases of prosperity? Or does it not get that metaphysical?
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
constant escape said:
Maybe its because I'm not familiar at all with Burke (seriously couldn't tell you a thing about him), but this feels like a close-shave miss, almost landing me. Again, I could be mistaken in seeing it that way.

I'm trying to understand, and comes to term with, that transition because it would (or could) let me break through fundamental lenses that have been invisible to me, and largely invisible to all of us. Otherwise, no conception I have of the stuff in the following 200 years could be properly contextualized, no? That's just where I am in understanding this - in trying to.

Maybe I am betraying an idealism here, but half of the fight, in my eyes, involves contending with the leading theory of history, contending for its own sake. The way to reconcile that with a proper materialism (which you seem to be much more acute to than I), I am not sure of, primarily because I live in a privileged, almost entirely abstract world (the result of trying to understand). But surely discourse, or the ideas at its hearts, are not down a one-way stream from materialism, or the production at its heart?

And I admit here, my usage of the word "intelligence" is pretty libertine and far-out. I don't mean a metric of smartness, of cognitive ability, or abstraction and pattern identification/recognition. I don't know how that stuff is even measured, when it comes down to it, and the matter itself is rife with fallacies, no? (IQ tests, etc.)

By intelligence I mean the imaginary forces that "guide" or steer the development of matter all the way up the ladder of physics, and actually towards dematerialization. Its a cosmology that I cannot (yet?) see around, and thus is beginning to register to me as absolute. I think there is a very marginal correlation between this kind of force, and what we consider intelligence/smartness. This force is more correlated to physical information density (moore's law?).

And I am rather strung out, and largely guilty of the kind of pseudo-studying you mention. I would rather err on the side of extensivity, and strive to reconcile it with intensivity.

And I'd be interested in your thoughts on lsd. I admit, you perplex me.
Click to expand...

the lenses are not invisible to most people, they are just invisible to those who are born venally, and must abide by skepticism and die by skepticism.

First read Voltaire's candide to understand your own perspective (it will take you less than an afternoon) cut down on the pretentious word salad, then we can have a debate. Otherwise, I'm not perplexed by you in any measure, sorry chief.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
the good student will keep on asking questions until the day he dies, and will constantly revisit old material, never concluding. but first you have to understand the question you are asking. at the moment your thoughts are jumbled and frankly scattershot. systematise things clearly, find out what you want to ask. this may require some psychological probing into your base desires. things much lower than intellectual pursuits. sex, gluttony, authority and power. you are ultimately a debased, dirtty animal who defecates, we are all, with the poisonous instincts the most advanced civilisation has engendered in us.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
i will not be your spiritual guide to dissolving your subjective ego. I doubt anyone on this forum will. this is your battle and your battle alone.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
thirdform said:
tech bros famously never deign to learn the nuts and bolts of programming they just want to be snake oils salesmen. It's why they are aghast that most banks and airports use ibm or msDos terminals. the cost to upgrade the operating OS's in airports would be colossal beyond belief, worldwide. but you try telling these Asimov nincompoops this.
Click to expand...

'"Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling.'

Bjarne Soustrup
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
vimothy said:
'"Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling.'

Bjarne Soustrup
Click to expand...

that's my poit though. you get new alternatives and all the diagnostics to rescale everything will amount to an immense cost. it's not simply a case of hitting the upgrade button and voila
 
constant escape

constant escape

winter withered, warm
I don't know if I am going down that road, of dissolving ego, finding some kind of equilibrium or rest - maybe I am, and I've just deluded myself otherwise. In a way, I'd like to process as much confusion as possible, which is almost necessarily expressed as a scattershot.

But all the advise I get points me toward that equilibrium, this included. And I've gotten plenty of advice from people here, from writing style to more general stuff, that relates to spirituality. I wanted to get some form you, because you seem to be more advanced than I, in ways that I am interested in advancing. If you can't find anything in that for you, then I don't know how to appeal to you, and I'll take your advice and move on.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that I am looking elsewhere. Maybe there isn't anything worthwhile where I'm looking - I haven't felt it all out yet.

Your point about base instincts is something I'll take to heart, or try to. But I still sense, in that advice, a gravitation around some kind of psychic health sensibility that I am not fully interested in.

And yeah the big words are a problem, a problem that I fall into pattern with regularly. Couldn't have gone without them, frankly.

Don't mean for this to stray any farther, but if it isn't clear, I respect you, from what little I've seen of you, and your voice carries an abnormal weight, or affective power, or something. Doesn't mean anyone needs to jack anyone off, but don't think I'm gonna go unaffected by your words.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
well, you are not interested in the psychic health instincts or lack thereof because noone is. it requires a radical confrontation with *ones own material conditions.* not just society as a whole. it is a case of discipline... this stuff is a buzzkill, it is meant to be. Just like Freud talks about his patients often exhibited denial towards the truths which psychoanalysis can reveal to people. A lot of people construct puppet fantasies to navigate the world, butchering modes of thought or misinterpreting to escape from their depressive conclusions. This is fine, per se, one just has to acknowledge it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top