Ideological Expropriation

You are probably familiar on some level with how capital employed the working class to produce surplus-value for itself, in the form of their product and its value on the market.

However, also notable in Marx's account is how capital ideologically expropriated the properties of its labourers, a central part of capitalist ideology.

For example, one such instance drawn upon by Marx is capitalist claims that money, or capital, is directly productive in the capitalist labour process. This hence takes the labour's property of productivity, and instead appropriates it to capital, quite as capital is said to expropriate them generally. It is partially true, however: money is the productive force because it is the spur of working class production, and hence the animating force of production. Of course, people can and have produced for many reasons unrelated to money, and hence this only applies to a highly specific form of society - it was true of the working class under capitalism, but the defiant schoolboy does not throw paper-planes they make at a teacher for such reasons. This is generally conceded, however.

Just as the working class is that sector of society hired to serve the interests of capital, as a whole, and procuring unto it surplus-value, so ideologically capital relies on the working class and description of it is relied upon to furnish the attributes of capital. Money capital must, in its own functioning, realise in some manner the division between itself and the 'working class.'  Hence, developing the category of the 'working class' and trying to explain its attributes is implicit in the interests of the capitalist class, and in this sense quite safe because it is done under capital's guidance. It is unlikely to be able to lead any further than this.

The working class is a social force of capitalist production, and not a strata of people, insofar as it is not a fixed attribute but requires constantly to be refurnished and redefined by the process of employment and atomised signing of contracts. People cannot start 'working class' - they become working class because they are hired to do things, which then has to be repeated continually. The working class is hence not comparable to the aristocracy, which was slightly more stable at least due to not having to go through the same process: the working class is not a stable social strata of people, with whatever traits, but a certain role in capital's process of production.

The 'working class' is hence composed in a highly atomised process which occurs periodically, and not by identification with a group. This derives in some manner from capital, which is similarly amorphous and therefore forms the working class in this manner. In this sense, the traits of the working class are also derived from that of capital, which actively forms them as such.

Attempts at avoiding this identification with capital, or dissociating the working class from capital, have generally sought to avoid referencing this formation. Nonetheless, it is true, and does great violence to such attempts at a working class 'identity' and so on.

In any case, it should be clear that the traits which capital promotes itself as having in the production process, are generally rendered up by the working class, and this ideological function on behalf of capital is a part of their function. While it is generally recognised that ideological jobs have the clear function of pandering to capital, and require people of such disposition, due to the law of value other forms of labour are not qualitatively distinguished, and hence have similarly an ideological component. If this is neglected, people will not be offered jobs, though they can still perform human labour. Where production for the market is to assimilate also the intellectual fields significantly, all other forms of labour must take on such an ideological character, as the law of market production is the law of value. This hence requires the possibility of an 'ideology' of the market, or that the market has taken the form of a partisan, social force, or formed a society around it, hence capital. It was hence in this sense inevitable that the promulgation of market labour would result in a society structured around the market.

When we say 'ideological,' however, we mean of course not honestly or independently so, but instead in terms of how the 'ideological' functions were carried out - pandering.

Promotion became an increasingly effective force as the means of producing it expanded, and capital would not promote things that did not favour it. As such, anything else was excluded from such. As all economic actors, apart from communists of whatever place, functioned in all of their economic activities with a prospect of monetary gain, therefore none of these could organise an alternative to this form of promotion by this point, as it would inevitably fall into monetary and hence business schema within the economy. This is important, as it concerns the cultural life of a nation, as well as what causes and such were promoted within it.

In general, then, capitalist ideology is founded on expropriation of the traits of the working class. This means that merely accusing them of expropriation needn't mean much, as after all this is the purpose of capitalistic production, and a higher development of the law of value than producers' property. They are both ideologically and in reality inoculated against this charge, they take on the properties of labour and drive it. The labour is carried out for monetary return from the capitalists, which is in a sense more immediately assured than from sale, and therefore money capital is not in actual fact excluded from the production process. One could hypothesise a communistic situation where production is not carried out under these lines, or this abstraction from its traits as labour, but this would not describe the act of production under capitalism, where capital cannot be extricated from it. To equate them would merely be to attempt to portray things as already communist, which is problematic although it might make apologetics easier.

In general, then, ideological defences of capital appropriate the traits of the 'working class' to capital. The production of this is necessary, as it helps in the appropriation of ideological labour. Hence, any attacks on this system, to be publicised among a group directly involved in capitalist production, had to in some way link into or complement this systematic. To make up for this, 'leftist' groups were apt to configure artificial categories like 'far-right,' generally inconsistent with their own portrayal of the economic spectrum, where these involved obvious tendencies towards social regulation and often the turning of society towards a common, consciously specified end. In this, such a 'left' will of course oppose them The left is so used to apologetic that anything likely to be inaccessible among capital's supporters is likely to offend it. From there, negotiation with labour is negotiation over a common fund, it is in a sense despite its bitterness something finite. Its organisations are organisations of negotiation with capital, and hence limited in their radical intent. They can easily come into enmity to this, once it reaches beyond where this cannot go, if it cares about bringing the unions along with it. In a society of abstract labour, it seems reasonable that affluence would ultimately flow to some extent to people of various kinds that did not work. That's not wholly down to them. While Marx begun from the notable position that the mode of production, and class, is constructed on the basis of a certain type of production or is an inevitable result of it rather than an active impulse, this slightly unpopular view wasn't significantly represented later on, leaving Das Kapital to be taken as a bunch of rousing but amorphous slogans. People like to be cheered on, but one might question what their purpose is.

As such, this general expropriation cannot be seen as confined to economic questions. It is not only the means by which capital happens to defend itself, but also the means by which it was forced to do so. However, capital is not content with 'defence' - it wants people to fall in line, and to serve it, in whatever capacity. This leaves it actually quite shorn of defences, as it has no interest in such stasis - it is vulnerable. Hence, capital thrives on expropriation, which implies that capital must by itself lead to some differentiation of the classes, and investigation of another class. When the capitalist mode of labour, so far as it was developed by capitalist and labourer, grew past a certain threshold, it became incompatible with previous systems, and hence had to absorb their subjects into its thrall. Capitalist production involves a relation in which this expropriation is systematic and hence something dealt with from the beginning, this is hence a feature of capital which isn't wholly foreign to it. Likewise, whether or not the husband is 'bourgeois' and the wife 'proletarian,' as the famed analogy goes, the latter still has sex - of whatever type - with the former and marries them, often due to their own passion, and is hence in a marital or close union with them. Their relation to the rest of society is hence left out of the original account, nonetheless their relatively closer relation would thus seem to exclude the rest of society, who are outside of this relation, and hence perhaps by implication communism. Of course, the rest of society cannot usually relate to them in this way, and rather seek to participate in their relationship, support them and bring them closer together, which hence relegates them from this. In general, in order to retain their relationship at an artificial distance, they would have to appropriate the categories of society outside of this to it in a domesticised way which is hence ideological promotion and immersion.

A relation of expropriation cannot be stable, unless the system is itself based on expropriation. If people are producing or acting with the intent of being expropriated from, then they cannot actually produce content of their own, because they are trying to produce for another. This is hence highly problematic, and requires content to be expropriated from outside of this relation. However, this means that the task of both expropriation and, inherently, confrontation and attacking is given to the 'lower' class, while the other class pretends that this external element, apart from and probably against the system, does not exist. This means that both are hostile to forces outside of this system, and will go out of their way to undermine it. This is especially the case where such sentiments in favour of the system are deep-rooted. Nonetheless, it hence means that neither is to be trusted, at least as a group, with doctrine.

To conclude, capital's ideological apparatus hence clearly also shows signs of 'appropriation,' suggesting that this is not a merely economic mechanism. This has direct consequences for its mode of engaging with 'other views,' or even those which are nominally so, which can disturb this if they are not hemmed into it again.

Looking in (II)

III.

"Vyasa continued, Oh Yudhishthira, now I understand that your wisdom is far from sufficient. Realize though, no one can accomplish virtuous deeds on their own. The deity moved one, both for the better and for worse, oh donors of blessing."

An almost Protestant sentiment, namely that because good deeds are by nature divine, the gods  therefore must be turned to. Of course, people must do this on their own, usually, and saying that the gods must treat them robotically and turn them to virtue somehow, or that virtue has no relation to the person's intentional actions or themselves generally, raises more problematic questions usually associated with Protestantism that they presumably don't wish to explore here. In general, they perhaps do not wish to go so far in that essentially amoral direction. This is hence perhaps more to be understood as a loose phrasing, rather than otherwise, with reference to the specific context where divine intervention is a valid claim.

The reference hence seems to be that the deed would not be accomplished, the word 'Jaya' not spoken, without divine aid, rather than that the virtue itself must be imputed. It requires this divine or spiritual aid for its realisation in deeds.

In a sense, in causing Yudhistira to turn towards a religious perspective, it actually aids his point, or implies that they should be able to consider such divine aspects as aren't usually associated with their position, despite having it. Whether they are in any position to do so, is another question.

As such, in dealing with continuance, or stability, reference must be made to alterations in the divine order, and not just to the earth. The divine order hence sets limits to men and their actions.

"Where is there room for this repentance? But since you think you have very even sinful acts committed, so listen to the agents how sin may be adjusted. Oh Yudhishthira, he who sinned, can free himself of them always by abstinence, sacrifices and offerings."

 Hence, things are strictly limited. The sense that Duryodhana was in sin as well, and this led to the collapse of their side, means that there is still a prevailing threat against Yudhistira. This threat is treated lightly, but is implicit. Hence, he must win over the gods again, in order to assure continuance for the moment, and this requires a sacrifice.

As such, continuance is attained through sacrifice and instability, just as his accession came with the death of men and horses. This is hence not a stable period of kingship, but instead a period of continual fluctuations and suffering to attempt to be in harmony with the divine order.

"Oh good man, I say it again: sinful people can be purified by sacrifice, penance and offerings."

However, this seems problematic. While Yudhistira wishes to be an ascetic, they are promised a quick way out of this, which will allow them not to disturb their social role. This is in some ways a forged or assimilated version of genuine virtues, in the form of grand, conventional demonstration. Roman Catholic Indulgences, and Protestantism generally, served a similar function. However, in the process, ascetic virtues like sacrifice and penance are proclaimed as counter-acting sin, and hence as notably positive things or things which lead in the opposite direction to sin. In this sense, again, their ascetic impulse is furthered rather than otherwise.

In general, then, these means serve to counter-act the sins and the state of sin which these place them into. They are therefore advocated, and he is to do these. Although sins manifest themselves, or culminate, in a certain form, these serve to abate this or act against this directly, which is hence an aim they share.

"The high-souled gods and demons perform sacrifices to secure religious merit."

This kind of thing manifests a slightly Buddhistic tendency. If the 'gods' are such mostly nominally, but otherwise act similarly to humans, then the 'religious' clearly appeals to an uncertain force which stands above them, and is to be done penance to. Buddhism, likewise, would subject all things to a universal force, and in this sense is only 'atheistic' by a small and mostly nominal variation. It arose quite easily in a religion polytheistic to the point of triviality. Christianity, though resistant, leads to similar phenomena, due to things such as the Trinity and multiplicity of God in that religion. Christianity gives commands without caring if it is an atheist, Jew or otherwise listening, pretending that vague platitudes will always have a clear meaning, and hence ultimately allows easily for a religious which goes beyond God. A strictly monotheistic Christianity, given the mildness of the religion, would seem quite too trivial to be widely adopted among anyone particularly religious.

In any case, even the gods perform these sacrifices, they are hence standard and occur frequently. They have a penchant which is not only occasional, as when kings do them or people opt to do them, but eternal, in nature - they are not performed just once or twice, on a whim, but there is an endless pattern formed by the gods' performance of them, that people can partake in. They are hence firmly established. In this sense, the gods serve as something akin to what many speculate Stonehenge is for, to keep the time. Still, this is a limited paraphrase of the purpose of deities, and in a sense a parasitic use of them, or one where they are used as an image, but otherwise iffy. Nonetheless, the Roman Catholic Church did not follow it, or made its rituals merely human in nature or performance, ultimately, tied to the specific circumstances and continuity of the Church, and hence Protestantism's discarding of much of this need come as no surprise.

"Prepare you, O king, a Rajasuya offering before, or a horse-sacrifice and maybe a Sarvamedha or Naramedha. Yes, just like Rama, Dasaratha's son, and as the pious Bharata, have done it, you execute in accordance with the authorities a horse sacrifice with rich gifts to the Brahmins."

 Hence, they are to form a part of this cyclical progression, founded among the gods. The gods in the sense give this demonstration a cyclical nature, and these luminaries, though speculated to be incarnations of deities, function to elevate it from there, or give the specific occurrence worth among this cycle. By itself, this appeal need not mean much unless one has a particular tie to historical re-enactment, but in the context it is notable. Of course, such sacrifice of horses would be looked on differently later on, and hence the religious status of these texts now might be uncertain. The gods used to freely commune with men, now they do so less commonly, but nonetheless more has changed in this time in terms of mores than then, and yet without divine sanction. These deities seemingly do not wish to clarify their position on these things.

Perhaps, despite the Church's cautions, they too have been made a victim of 'enthusiasts' who claim to speak for God, based on some random encounter, and hence can take these changing mores as indeed a divine reprimand. This can only be done because their texts are highly flexible.

Hence, such sacrifices are a cyclical thing, but take on greater intensity due to their treatment by venerated people, and this is how Yudhistira is to be persuaded.


'Yudhishthira replied, Undoubtedly a horse sacrifice cleanses a king. But I have another intention that thou mayest listen. After this devastating destruction among my relatives, I can not even give away small gifts, because I do not have more resources."

Hence, Yudhistira is caught in a certain sense of contradiction. Though they need cleansing from sin, they cannot give away gifts, to attempt to ease this problem, because they lack resources. This is in part due to the destruction. Though they are caught in sin, they are also not afforded of the means to heal themselves by official or 'easy' means.

This is a highly ascetic viewpoint, from one perspective. They wish to posit that, from the point of view of poverty, these kinds of demonstration cannot cleanse, whatever their heritage. Hence, they are viewing things from so to speak an ascetic perspective, one where they must be able to achieve heritage without such worldly possessions, one where the ascetic stripping away of these things is presupposed and one is to begin from there. Hence, the ascetic is supposed to be the beginning of any religious task, and indeed a highly ascetic sage shall have to be drawn on even to resolve this scenario amicably. The essentially or personally religious is that which can be done without such means, which are not essential to it, and indeed which in the pursuing of duty might cut them away and leave one hypothetically having to ignore them and act. While only loosely touched on, they hence imply a rather ascetic tendency, although one that might not be realised as yet, for they are still fixated on personal themes and interests from their position.

Nonetheless, more notable is the 'bind' that they are moored in here: caught in sin, but due to these circumstances unable to free themselves from it, and so on. This passage is one of the more complex in this section, and summarises a situation more involved than most of the war.

"I can not ask among the sons of the slain kings for riches, these grieving, inexperienced and yet already injured youths."

Hence, again, having to propitiate their sins, they have given themselves a situation where they cannot find favour among others, for they have just fought them. They must attempt to atone for, among other things, their perception among these people, but have no means of doing so. They have as it were cut away the legs on which they stand.

"And after this devastation of the earth, how can I raise taxes there to celebrate a sacrifice?"

This theme continues on - after this devastation, they can hardly atone as easily, with the risk of offence or aggravation. They have bound themselves, and yet must attempt to escape by further action.

"Oh ascetic, Duryodhana's stubbornness met the kings of the earth for their destruction, and we all have harvested shame. For riches and treasures Duryodhana and his brothers have ravaged the earth, and now the treasury is empty."

The stubbornness of Duryodhana has left the earth empty. In this, Yudhistira might be absolving themselves of their own sin somewhat. In that sense, the sacrifice is already given, although in a sense people who wish to 'absolve' themselves of sin by a gesture like a sacrifice presumably already accept that they are free of it from the first, and the rest is only convincing others.

In any case, the acts of Duryodhana have taken the gifts of the earth, and hence by seeking these none is left for Yudhistira. They have therefore ravaged the earth until there was little for Yudhistira to take, apparently, and even less from their people, who are stubborn and will not give.

This point about Duryodhana is poignant for Dhritarashtra's earlier speech, they condemn Dhritarashtra rather than just mourning them, in the wake of their death. In a certain sense, Duryodhana, in ravaging the earth for its treasures, has left it dry and barren, and therefore harmed the chances of those without these finding or using them.

They have sent it into a negative situation which is now a problem for Yudhistira. In this sense, Duryodhana was also unlikely to aid with this, and was inimical to it, or became a force which by their sins depleted the earth and their side in the battle, rather than winning per se.

"In a horse sacrifice the gifts of the earth are the first rule. Although the reversal of this rule is endorsed by some scholars, but I do not want to hurt. So I graciously grant your esteemed Council in this matter, oh dear."

In order to sacrifice, some stable means of procuring the sacrifice is a start. Otherwise it is either a rare thing, or otherwise. As such, this in a sense becomes a religious issue, or the continuance of the ritual in the divine order, drawn upon, becomes the basis for the sporadic occurrence of these sacrifices among people.

However, these means are seemingly lacking, and will have to be found otherwise. They hence have little incentive to keep going.

"After these words Vyasa thought for a while, and then he said to Yudhistira, Your now empty treasury should be refilled. In the Himalayas there's a lot of gold, which the Brahmins have left there, for they could not carry all of it away."

Vyasa hence says that, for the moment, they should take some leftover gold from the Himalayas, which was of the king Marutta. This is a somewhat exaggerated legend, so far as the gold goes - people in this epic slay thousands, some have much gold despite rarely seeming to go anywhere with it, people in other epics have multiple heads and arms, etc. - and bespeak a certain indifference to it.

As such, Yudhistira is still able to replenish what Duryodhana has left of the earth, by seeking out gold from elsewhere. This gold is associated with ascetism and such, which again seems to suggest an ascetic or pseudo-ascetic path for Yudhistira, although they are probably too late for this aim to be fully realised.

This must be sought in a slightly remote and high place, the Himalayas. It previously belonged to others, but they have left some for Yudhistira to take. Yudhistira may hence take this to perform the sacrifice, at the moment, although there is the acknowledgement that it is what the Brahmins have 'left behind,' or in brief the sacrifice is merely a substitute for truly religious life.

The Brahmins hence, like those who claimed rent, carry away a certain sum of gold, and then leave the rest to be found. They do not distribute the gold, but simply attempt to keep it. Nonetheless, in this case, they were the source of the gold which resulted, or contributed to it, and hence claim some of what occurred.

Yudhistira, interested, enquires further into this.

"And Vyasa replied, If you are curious to learn everything about this king from the House of Karandhama, then listen to me, as I tell of the mighty monarch, who had enormous wealth."

 Vyasa promises to tell them more of the past bearer of this wealth, Marutta, and this wealth. It shall in all likelihood, as it is mythological in character or exaggerated to an indefinite extent, be merely mythological or involve some sort of divine interaction or defiance, and hence the intervention of Brahmins and ascetics. This divine interaction helps to give this wealth its 'indefinite' character, although of course wealth is generally a matter of specifics and particular quantities, and hence this wealth is in a sense metaphorical as much as it is anything else. Vyasa hence ends this section with a claim along the lines of: 'Let me tell you a story in the form of a dream, / I don't know why I have to tell it but I know what it means, / Close your eyes, just picture the scene, / As I paint it for you,' albeit less flamboyant. Yudhistira, by contrast, is in a sense restored to their general role here - though they have gone in a different direction, mostly, they are now called upon to take 'what the Brahmins have left behind,' hence merely to try and limply catch up if they wish to take an ascetic path. Nonetheless, the discussion so far is interrupted by this tale, which nonetheless elucidates from an external perspective the relevant categories.

In a sense, then, this discussion does not come to a clear resolution, but instead resolves in a story. However, it has covered much of note about the situation. They are bound in a scenario where they are unable to procure what they need to go on, and need a sacrifice. These are a periodic thing, with notable examples, nonetheless this periodic nature is disrupted, and hence they must explore the treasure of Marutta, or go on an innovative journey. This hence sets them 'out of tune' or departed from the divine order, or from the cycle of sacrifices and their eternal order. They must hence eventually resort to more extreme means if Yudhistira is to compensate for this distance, and voyage to attempt to meet the gods and show allegiance. In this work, Yudhistira is unlikely to be given an ending which does not satisfy this redemptive plot-line, although the complete accuracy of this may be questioned because the angle of the work is already quite clear. Yudhistira's purification is in a way a means of reassuring the kings of the day that their salvation is also vouched for. In any case, due to Duryodhana's ravaging of the earth, or struggle against it, Yudhistira is forced to look for a religious sacrifice for the purpose of off-setting his sins, or at least to display this, which leads to a somewhat ascetic tendency arising nonetheless due to the religious means. While he is not wont to run off to the forest like the Buddha, which is in itself a political act, though one which the Buddha doesn't necessarily want to acknowledge - despite their act being meant to have general significance, they attempt to avoid acknowledging this and so restrict their 'religion' to a primarily personal or felt one which is idle on more notable matters and allows the state freedom to operate, so long as it give shallow demonstration -, nonetheless there is a tendency to give up what they hold. Hence, they are faced with a possible solution to the general situation, a possible direction which will free them of this inability to sacrifice, at least for the moment, but nonetheless requires them first to hear through its story and abide by the precepts of this story, or at least claim to. Hence, they must first grasp a religious moral or the general form in which Marutta gained this, so as to be one appropriate in some way to claim Marutta's fortune, before they may go on to attempt the sacrifice.

Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx (V)

V.

It must be noted that the title of Karl Marx's 'Das Kapital' is an amusing reflection upon the reduction of the labourer to labour-power. The subtitle also might be saying something. That the book seems to be trying hard to turn off most casual readers, or people who might read other books, thus seems like its own message.

Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx (IV)

IV.

In speaking of possession, we must also mention Kierkegaard (not Proudhon, whose names were in the opposite order), who of course wrote many works while seemingly being another person. Now, this is passed off in part as an act of self-control, but the actual writing is instead a restraint of self-control in order to write against it, or certainly apart from it, so to say that Kierkegaard was exercising self-control by restraining self-control seems fairly absurd and would cancel - as dealing with a specific problem - so as to leave merely that Kierkegaard was nothing and the spirit writing it was in complete control. Now, obviously, this is mediated, and one particular character has a name which is a parody of Georg Wilhelm, or Hegel, whom he was polemicising against, although obviously he did not count on accessibility here because the other side is more Hegelian, perhaps suggesting either that Kierkegaard wrote like a Hegelian, or that this was discarded polemical material which was found to sit better on that side, where it could be developed. Their treatment of Mozart is not, however, aesthetic, but rather detached, relative to the aesthetic material, but they get away with this because they are still praising them, although this need not mean that they like him, nonetheless it is perhaps likely that the aesthetic side would only come across as an abstraction if they weren't discussing Mozart, which feels like it might be Kierkegaard making life too easy for himself, while assuming that people of that sort would like Mozart's art just because they like Mozart's life, or in brief that they are 'existentialists' like Kierkegaard.

But obviously this makes sense, as a coherent work begins with the author writing, and only then can they begin to distance the story from themselves, before again at the ending having to make an explicit intervention to (explain themselves to Regine Olsen, who looks like Emma Roberts on a bad hair day) give the works some coherence as part of an authorship, rather than an exercise in mechanical or automatic writing. However, Kierkegaard was always clear that he did not identify with the views which are actually in his earlier works, and preliminary research or follow-up would show that. We are hence to believe that his early works are popular either because people want to spite him but nonetheless feel obligated for whatever reason to say that they like some of Kierkegaard (which would make them Marx), or that after that he just disappeared and was never heard from again, and his legacy was never revived, but his earlier works always taken in terms of some abstract initial impact. But this is subject to the Orwellian clause, namely that he's relying on these two views to popularise his work. However, what actually occurs is that people like Kierkegaard's earlier work, or they view this as a mess unrelated to his real concerns, and prefer their later works - however, people generally avoid this choice, and merely moderate this by liking some of his later works, but then disliking the rest because they're polemical, which is a lie as Fear and Trembling for instance was a polemic against Christianity, and in brief equates to saying they dislike the others because they actually only like the earlier works, which is incoherent - but they do not view him as an authorship, with a progression, but rather just some isolated phrases and views spread through time, some of which they like.

Kierkegaard explicitly guards against this interpretation, by the concept of authorship and pseudonymy. While more valid, this is still a lie, as he is either a religious author or not, either a philosophical author or not, and instead wants to write in such modes in an irreligious form, basically just out of the spur of the moment and because of a lost engagement.

However, one may also ask whom Kierkegaard wrote for, and in this you would have to look briefly at his work. One frequent answer is Regine Olsen. This is fake, but as they use it often misdirected, misplaced and malign. Firstly, though, who is Regine Olsen? Regine Olsen is ultimately a bit like a ghost who is, certainly, watching his work, but not alone, and the whole turmoil begins because of what? - he hurt her feelings. You might usually expect such a case of a broken engagement to be a problem because of, for instance, unforeseen circumstances, or the need for support, but instead it becomes apparently a matter of feelings. Hence, unspecified others - but not Regine Olsen directly - continue to channel these hurt feelings to attack him, on behalf of Regine Olsen, and he apparently leaves that situation noticing that it's actually just this seeming mechanical progression of people. His further work hence involves constantly apologising for and dealing with these hurt feelings, repeating these feelings as if to give people ammunition, and as a result Regine Olsen is ever-present, but merely as an accuser who is constantly watching in accusation, while the actual point of his work is necessarily not to write to her, for as a reader she is merely suffering, and suffering because she was and is being insulted, but this is quite detached from the works themselves, which are for some unspecified other whom is also rejected by one Regine Olsen, which Regine Olsen, of course, could not have gone through, and as such which is not a basis for her. Obviously, the analogy excludes Regine Olsen, it does not allow her in unless she is rejected by Regine Olsen as if a completely different person, which she is not. Kierkegaard's audience is merely a projection of himself as a ghoul, who may or may not be, but is pre-supposed, and hence ultimately socially neutral or passive themselves, but is nonetheless necessarily distinct from Kierkegaard himself. They would hence speak about what people are, or their existential state, but in a way less likely to shake anyone's sense of propriety, and will instead be known for their marital adventures mostly and possibly bringing this to an end. Their face would be frozen into this one progression. However, that this was just Kierkegaard's functional object, and not necessarily their actual object or hoped reader, might also be clear, and as a personal hope would instead reduce to someone in the future, probably distinct from the audience posited in the works.

Kierkegaard and Hamlet:

Hamlet also has a female who has little other point in the progression than to be a romantic character, he begins by being separated from her, implicitly however, although he himself says little about this relationship or why he was in it in the first place. In this sense, in romance, he is just your typical Romeo, with his 'family' separating him from Ophelia, him breaking this, and then being sent by a monarch, into exile, where he discovers this time that he is going to die, before returning and doing just that. We may here observe a Horatio/Mercutio - Claudius/Capulets/Gertrude/Montagues - Hamlet/(Ophelia)/Romeo/(Juliet) axis here, where the former dying means that the second live, and so on - and Mercutio's apparent death is a major cause of uproar in the play and its change of tone - such that Horatio's survival may apparently be correlated with Hamlet's end in that specific way, but was necessary in some form for the conclusion to occur, as for instance when Hamlet jumps into public contentions with Laertes, over Ophelia's dead body, and nonetheless can be seen as somewhat restrained and not abandoned because of Horatio being there as a bit of a silhouette rather than a completely-formed character, or as still, and hence Hamlet as a unit with them can always withdraw to the character who doesn't half sound like Polonius - and it must be noted how Mercutio's random decision to fight with Tybalt, which the play condemns, seemingly, but does not bother to engage with, with Mercutio not even being the passionate one, basically turns the direction of the play, in a way which is basically just random chance rather than resulting from anyone's action or anything else. This is then supposed to be taken as somehow inevitable, in the process pretending that the purpose of Mercutio's action can be summarised in terms of Romeo and Juliet's almost equally random relationship, when it is presumably not that simplistic.

Hamlet, like Kierkegaard, begins by speaking in things that can't be understood, which in this case are for both of them riddles, although Kierkegaard's are temporally mediated or clear to the audience, which might seem to undermine the point. While Hamlet references 1 Corinthians 7 in the statement that those unmarried shall stay as they are, Kierkegaard is also fond of such passages, especially later on. Both of them get into heated conflicts over splitting with Regine Olsen or Ophelia, coincidentally with their 'brother,' which become interminable. Kierkegaard signally failed to get his 'recruits' to follow along with him, and instead figured that they were conspiring against him, although to what cause he was unsure, not being certain if he was doing this in the name of true Christianity, his beliefs, his personal temperament, or what. Both Regine Olsen and Ophelia have no independent works, not only as not given a chance to speak back, but also as represented in the works, in addition to which while Ophelia is a strange character, almost Kierkegaardian in an inverted way, who Hamlet would in no wise wish to be around, as her general characterisation is of one whom is not only passive with regards to others, but absorbs what they say and merely may shriek this out at Hamlet as if deeply felt, one whom is not only influenced but possessed constantly, albeit by those around her instead of spooks, so in that sense more secularly than Kierkegaard, as indeed turns out to be the case, and likewise Regine Olsen's distress and hurt feelings amplify or otherwise merely on account of others' use, or are mostly then used by others repeatedly against Kierkegaard, making her hurt feelings merely a vessel for whatever calumny they may wish to unleash, at which point you might realise that Hamlet is faced likewise with Ophelia mostly simply following others' orders when it involves hurting or at least seeming to act against him, leaving Hamlet facing a court where almost nobody likes him, and people will spin things against him, although not accusatively so much as just speculatively or with a slightly negative twist, while any negative actions in that direction are taken explicitly, because Hamlet is still ultimately just acting upon various feelings within the context of this court as a setting. Kierkegaard and Hamlet both, of course, as they are from Denmark, also effectively reject someone whom they were engaged to in favour of other things. They do both tend to be found, when with Ophelia or everyone's favourite 'Mean Girl,' although oft confused, Regine Olsen, in intimate or symbolic situations, occasionally sending letters about things, which may occasionally address the female in mostly positive terms although we are given no real reason to like them, other than dubious victimhood, or alternatively alone and harsh towards them, or alone and observing them closely in a sort of painted scene, possibly offering something for some reason, without either really getting much further comment from them, other than perhaps apologetically.

Is it possible that, in restraining his self-control in the pseudonymous works, he was not merely subjecting these each to their own author as if possessed or negated, but in fact that the consistent carrying out of this in an authorship was also subjected to such a possession by something else entirely? Spooky, but kind of cool.

Looking in (I)

In this series, we will look closely at some fairly brief extracts from the Mahabharata, taken from an obscure and slightly summative translation.

I.

"OM! Before Nara and Narayana, the highest of the males present, bowing, and also in front of Sarasvati the goddess of learning: the word Jaya [victory] may resound."

Only given certain scenarios may the word 'victory' be uttered, outside of these it is merely transient or hollow. The victory proclaimed is only proclaimed after this, and it is subject to it. The account is hence qualified: the details may diverge from accuracy, and are not absolute, but subject to further powers, nonetheless it does claim some form of inspiration from these. After this has been acknowledged, they may begin to talk.

However, the other function of this is to as it were create an audience where this word may resound, or that in the context of this devotion it take on more sense. Proclaiming victory in a story without specifying a side or view of this you adhere to would be idle. Hence, it is specified as a religious battle, and a religious victory, although of course even according to the text there was a clear material conflict and opposition, and the religious coating is in a sense extraneous to the presentation.

Nonetheless, in specifying a divine immediate audience, they are freed from concern about a temporal audience, or the word 'Jaya' may resound without controversy - at least, there. Although this sets a steep path, or demanding audience, it also gives reassurance.

The word 'Jaya' may resound freely, then, and in a sense with divine sanction, so long as all of these things are done as the text requires of itself.

There is a certain sense in which, given the religious theme, and the religious adversity in the very utterance of 'Jaya,' the battle itself is reduced to a verbal form. In the battle, this religious intervention and worship plays a direct and determining role, it is as much a battle of spiritual phases as anything else, where one man may slay thousands given the power of deities behind them. As such, the battle in a sense parallels the conditions of this utterance - so long as this bowing be sincere - or collapses into the utterance of a word, which is nifty.



"After King Dhritarashtra had performed the libations for the victims of Bhishma..."

Bhishma is something that lets down this story significantly, a warrior who the Pandavas are unable to defeat until he simply tells them a means of doing this, which is in part to take advantage of his lack of resentment towards females. However, this is iffy, because it is more a cue than a method - special methods of defeating an enemy are present even in the Ramayana, but in most of these cases involve a weapon or form of battle -, and hence it may be referred to as more a betrayal or result of favour towards the Pandavas than anything. Bhishma was already known to allow the Pandavas to freely attack 'his' forces, and hence was only a leader in a nominal sense.

Their character is, in this context, a mesh between a trivial obstacle archetype and a deadly warrior archetype, which so to speak means that this story gets hung up upon even something that in most other stories would be trivial, due to the character of Bhishma being brought into this role, or the composite that must result complicating matters. It hence is less fluent and clearly symbolic a tale than others of this mythology, like the Ramayana.

However, notably, they are represented as a 'son' of the Ganga, in some sense or other, and even after their death are recognised by this as alive. This might imply that their existence after this in spirit is not strictly determined, and here again the libations may include the use of water, which links back to this characterisation. In a sense, they seem to reach beyond the bit-part role they are given in this story, although in its length they are restricted to it.





"Yudhishthira let him go ahead and followed him with excited senses to the banks of the Ganga."

 This denotes their both being in a situation where some want would be satisfied. It sets the tone for what is to come, a perhaps engaging discussion about religious matters and duty. This is hence in a sense the limit for the ensuing discussion, or it does not strictly speaking go beyond what is established here in terms of tone or focus. This text hence has a religious theme, but nonetheless a highly secularised one, in a sense, or one pertaining primarily to the religious in the context of Yudhistira's kingdom.

Yudhistira is a title denoting steadiness in the war, which is in a sense a label of less esteem in the reception of the Mahabharata, where the vacillations of Arjuna are of high interest and form the popular Bhagavad Gita. In that sense, they fade out of a major or significantly involved role in the overall religious and historical drama, after gambling away their kingdom in a slightly over-played premise, as it were.

In a sense, the drama of the war was often involved and in Arjuna's case left them a slightly mixed character, hence a leader who was mildly involved in the war would seem the only way of portraying one on the Pandava side in this context. It was a war where, in a sense, neither side wanted to kill those on the other, or disapproved of them notably, or was in brief a waste waged without much of a cause behind it. There was a sense in which the divine powers wanted a war waged, though they were not ultimately partisan to either side as it occurred, nonetheless this tendency was only realised in a highly limited conflict due to lacking a material basis for the enmity.

That it is a bit of a nothing war is well attested to by the severing of and urging of some indifference to naturalised 'familial' ties, which had negligible cultural effect, despite its place, implying that the action of the Mahabharata was muted and it was mostly treated as a set of 'grand' actions of no direct relevance, actions merely 'over there,' and only called upon when highly useful and to give the culture a mythological sense of depth and security.

"There he fell with tear-stained eyes in the sand..."

An immediate inversion of their initial action. Hence, though religious, this will likely take the form of 'angst,' or concern over a troubling circumstance, rather than otherwise

In Yudhistira's case, and partially due to the lacking 'divinity' of the Indian polytheistic deities, who are essentially hallowed aliens, there is a 'kshatriya' disregard for divine command, which the Indian religion of this age permits. This is manifested both in the gambling, and then in their preferring their own preferences to those of the divine beings, as claimed, as concerns 'heaven and hell,' which while seemingly laudable is nonetheless done while worshipping them, and hence implies that religion does not bind them per se or that they cannot escape the kshatriya chains they have artificially manufactured for themselves.

There is a certain sense in which an exalted sense of purpose or of one's aim can lead to both suffering and victory in exaggerated or 'epic' forms, which albeit with some overexaggeration of the phenomenal form is portrayed in the 'Mahabharata,' but nonetheless again if the purpose is interesting the actors make a mockery of it.

As such, what has occurred so far is that two people have gone on a path, and one has fallen. Tellingly, like Arjuna, it is the fallen one who becomes the focus, as they determine the specific tilt of the religious angle. Water again recurs, however, as a sort of alternative protagonist or pathway through this passage, which is hence also associated tangentially with Bhishma. Hence, part of the ensuing conversation is an attempt to negotiate the portrayal of Bhishma and so on within this religious context and aim, which hence leads to conflict. This conflict would be unlikely without an additional element. The still-on-earth elements of the prior battle, especially the acts concerning Bhishma, furnish this.

Yudhistira, who feels ecstatic at the Ganga, falls down. There is hence an element of chastisement to this. It hence provides an immediate segue into any immediate conversation, provided it be of such a tone towards them. The other has been carrying out other duties, and hence their part in this tale does not begin here..

"Krishna immediately sent Bhima to support the one who fell, and said, 'This should not happen.'"

 Krishna seems to have misgivings here, interestingly. They send Bhima, who shall later bring up the earlier battles while they climb, to support him, as if to note that Yudhistira needs constantly to be put into this context of battle in order to remain steady. The whole event is slightly humorous in the light of Yudhistira's name, which may be touched upon.

"The Pandavas looked at Yudhishthira, the son of Dharma, sobbing, weak and despondent, constantly on the ground, and, also sad, they sat down around him."

Hence, the 'son of Dharma,' one with a clear purpose, is fell by a fairly trivial incident. These others are sad for a quite different reason, however, without the same 'weakness' to accompany them. The Pandavas here have a common property with Yudhistira, sadness, but the specific causes, as also their intensity, are quite different. Hence, Yudhistira is able to maintain a sense of detachment from these despite their gathering, and remains the focus.

Despite Yudhistira's unflattering position, the other Pandavas sympathise with him. Hence, they support him when needed, although of course he is secure in a sense, and does not need it. Here is a suggestion that he is perhaps considering abandoning his security, or venturing out, where falling in such a manner would be problematic. This would hence be characterised as a period of toil.

"Yet [Dhritarashtra, mourning,] said to Yudhishthira, 'Arise, O thou tiger among the Kurus. Now Mind your duties.'"

This is a slightly unflattering juxtaposition, as it turns out. The rushing together of arising from a fall and then asserting their dharma is here quite awkward.

There is the vague suggestion that in carrying out their 'duties' they will be powerful. However, they may be reluctant, and so the need to reprimand them, or call on them to do so in a sweeping manner. They also draw on the historical associations of the war.

Hence, the general sense is of a historically developed and specified force, which however has to be brought to focus on their specific role and hence act accordingly. They are hence to harness this to follow certain duties or divisions, which they may be reluctant to do.

"Well rejoice at it with all your brothers and friends as Lord over people."

This historical force has become a power, and indeed one which may be regarded religiously. It has the Pandavas, who as is said support it and rejoice alongside it, at its successes. It is analogous to a divine being in some ways, though not more than one.

"O thou most righteous, I see no reason for your grief. There are Gandhari and I who should complain, because we have lost a hundred sons, just disappear without a trace like treasures in a dream."

While Yudhistira has suffered slightly, they have no reason for complaint at this smiting. Others have lost many more things, that just disappear as if they were never taken into account.

While Krishna is concerned, and takes steps to remedy this, Dhritarashtra is not concerned, and instead stresses the suffering of others.

The analogy is slightly misleading, and seems not wholly in fidelity to Dhritarashtra's character. From it, we may derive a lack of sexual fantasies on their part, which would leave them with no motivation to perform the act. It is a serious and in some ways effective analogy, that seems to take for granted that such unwanted sources of irony or base associations, in Dhritarashtra's speaking, are not of note.

 Nonetheless, they have few problems with Yudhistira, despite their effect and fall on the ground. In the context, the action is quite funereal. In that sense, there might be an aspect of disregarded context here, where Yudhistira and their specific position is not the focus. This is somewhat qualified by Dhritarashtra noting that such people do in truth have to pass away in a specific manner.

"And I regret deeply that I was stubborn and not rather the notable words of Vidura followed, who sought our benefit. With divine insight the virtuous Vidura said: 'Your line will be wiped out by the sins of Duryodhana.'"

Hence, due to the sins of Duryodhana they would be wiped out. Due to this they are in sorrow, yet in a way it was a sorrow which is of their own making. This hence in a way undermines their previous statement, clearly not something they lack a precedence for.

Due to the sins of one aspect of this line, which they were not to foster, they would be increasingly punished. As such, in a sense their line is undermining itself, and they are to attempt to paper over the cracks. This did not occur, however.

"'Strictly forbid them gambling with dice, and put the just king Yudhishthira on the throne.'"

 In the context, this was problematic, as it was perhaps making too far a leap in a Pandava direction, or trying to do too much by proxy than could be supported.

Strangely, gambling in a sense characterises the whole situation - they keep going, but due to a certain circumstance, such as the sins of Duryodhana, things tilt as they go on in an unfavourable direction. They are hence here encouraged to take a fairly high-stakes choice, possibly drawing ire. This might not abate the overall direction. It might worsen it.

If the aim was to avoid war, such movements against one group might be of limited efficacy, in a sense they function here as a sort of post-event catharsis or an ideological function, as trying to put the Pandava elements into the 'appropriate' light so far as they are concerned, in the form of casting fog around the concrete circumstances of the war.

"'With subdued senses he will rule his land truly.'"

This is misleading - Yudhistira, as the name suggests, had senses, as for instance in gambling, which were hardly 'subdued.' As such, it seems out-of-place. 

Nonetheless, the alternative clearly posited to this chance circumstance and conflict is that Yudhistira take charge, which would lead to harmony.

"'[L]ook at all creatures with the same eyes, O lord of men.'"

From there, even if Yudhistira is not to rule, they should keep a gaze which is even across all creatures. This could mean many things. Nonetheless, they are exhorted to avoid baseless favouritism,

Hence, despite this accumulation of things they are to do, they are exhorted also to follow such a general modus operandi, which is so to speak to posit this in abstraction as stable. Of course, this is problematic - as is noted, they are a 'lord of men,' and hence showing favour to those of their own class might be expected. This would usually only be the case if they approved of them generally, hence giving the validity of the previous advice - they would perhaps if with 'subdued senses' favour the Pandavas, but do not -, but in the cirrcumstances of familial ties and so on, they form preferences based on spurious reasons before this is relevant. Hence, this becomes a 'class,' or self-perpetuating classification, or classification of the 'self-perpetuating' in an abstract sense, rather than something that can be governed clearly.

"'May your family [...] live by your generosity.'"

Finally, they are to have these people continue by generosity, without clear constraints on this. This is slightly double-edged, due to the implicit threat of death, but nonetheless he is told to attempt to give himself up to this task, so far as possible.

"I followed my foolish son Duryodhana. Only deaf ears heard the speech of the good man, and now I'm in considerably deep anguish."

 Despite the goodness of the man, that they now recognise, they failed to recognise this earlier on, and so were threatened with the danger which came to pass. They instead followed Duryodhana, and took upon his faults.

This led to notable suffering on their part, due to others dying.

"But for your sadness, oh master of all people, I see no reason."

They do not see reason for the suffering of Yudhistira, despite their suffering through the same deaths. Of course, after these sufferings, such a fall might have more impact. Nonetheless, in brief they take issue with Yudhistira's suffering in the circumstances of their fall, when they have not suffered as much. At some point along this, their 'duty' was no longer mentioned. Nonetheless, it is likely to be the focus, as past suffering falls on either side and can so to speak be left out of the account.

They are told that their suffering here, and its alleviation consequently, is of little account, and to look instead to the sufferings caused elsewhere. The sense of duty is hence somehow to relate to their sufferings and their possible alleviation, but the precise manner this is to be done may be unclear.

To summarise this segment, then, Yudhistira goes with another to the Ganga, but falls down on the way. He is comforted by the other Pandavas, who also feel sorrow for this. Krishna says that it should happen no more. However, he is told by Dhritarashtra to get up, and then confronted with the war in a somewhat mutedly accusing fashion, although they are offered praise which off-sets this. He is exhorted to follow his duty, as a powerful entity, and to rejoice in his fate. However, his sufferings are brought into question despite this, compared to the slightly different suffering of Dhritarashtra, who suffered many deaths, although he in some way brought them upon himself by 'gambling' with the situation in a way that punished him. In this way the spirit of the failed gambling also lives on in some form, in a slightly less pronounced way than Bhishma in this passage, but still notably. They are hence exhorted to carry on, and resume their duties, which they may be uncertain about.

Hence, the general contrast here is between Yudhistira, on the one hand, who feels sorrowed by the fall after it occurs, albeit in part due to the sense that they might have to leave their present security, and on the other hand Dhritarashtra, who wishes to exhort them towards duty and the usual way of things, and towards using their power. This will hence be developed going further. This is in a sense a struggle over on which side Yudhistira's future lies. The overall format is one of chastisement, but Dhritarashtra is also chastised, albeit only functionally, on the side, which implies the likelihood of continuation or an underpronounced ending to this episode of falling in mud. Rather than wishing Yudhistira to take further precautions, Dhritarashtra wish them neither to take these, nor give up their high status, which would usually bring with it more concern. As such, their overall direction might be uncertain, although there is a tone of regret over the whole event. Their clear relation to the religious context is not yet drawn out, and hence the clear direction and denouement of these events is not yet, necessarily clear. While Dhritarashtra raises roles to be above persons, Yudhistira while partially in agreement also hopes for some place for the person's overall concerns. These social roles and duties are hence implicitly in possible conflict with the human being. This grounds the general discussion going forwards, which shall be quite chastising in some sense because they are basically in agreement, although they aren't fully in harmony, and hence there is the opening for acting like Yudhistira is merely straying and would rather return to the status quo view in the book.

Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx (III)

III.

It has been said that poets shape the world we exist in, perhaps to the point of making it more appealing than it is, somehow, presumably via paganism. The song about favourite things from The Sound of Music is not particularly subtle about what it is, namely that it's a female singing about her favourite things in order to insist that others, including the audience, take this also as their favourite things. This is the general point of the song, and its aesthetic appeal is contingent upon this insistence. Now, this seems like a rather strange concept for a song in the first place, but nonetheless it isn't something which could occur by itself, especially once sexual themes and marriage have been brought up, before it become some sort of strange pornography, and as the character is not assumed to be immune to these but rather associated with them, while on the one hand explaining why the audience might find this impressive (if underwhelming in the end or only preparative to something else.), it also follows that this has to be mediated somehow or it may become vulgar or crude. As a result, it becomes a slightly more complex matter, or the song itself seems to detach from the character who is supposed to sing it - as it might, they are only a character - which also seems to excuse it.

What effect is this song to have on the things themselves? It is presumably meant to figure their stories in some way. As a result, the children and others are presumably supposed to encounter these, and as the song itself is shallow and says little about these objects other than that someone likes them, and expects the others to like them for no reason, they are presumably to have not signified, said, meant or figured anything other than screaming, 'Like me!' over and over again, like a Twitter account or most pages on the internet compared to this post. Try it. This is essentially just imbuing the objects with a ghoul of some sort, which had earlier been inducted by the necessity of a character having to have favourite things which were not hers, with the opening being created prior to this by their both being characterised as familiar with and describing particular aspects of the outside world to be liked despite little experience of them on the other side, and then not explaining this at all, and on the other hand the obvious fact that she is also separated from these in the act or hoping to be back with them, as another musical filled with pop songs said 'Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again,' which in brief cancels out to leave a void. They are hence doing little but pinning ghouls from somewhere - which bane may be called a banshee by some - on random locations and objects as some sort of threat. It must also be noted that in this process the singer becomes as it were a pagan, but in addition as they are merely attempting to substitute for or possess the children of either gender, they are posited as leaving Christianity (and 'strict' Christianity is just Christianity), in order to further their personal life as a transsexual. In that sense, it must be observed that Marx's 'x' in the name is highly important, as with slight modification he becomes a weeping creature crying about their favourite objects, as they are.

However, it is also worth noting that the sense of comfortable numbness, which was merely apparent, about Karl Marx's writing could only occur through a similar process of implanting screaming voices in it touching on talking points, which could not occur from someone who did not like or relate to them, but only from Marxism itself, from which we saw continually a bunch of shouting about certain buzz-words in order to turn the 'objects,' which were simply various terms that happened to reoccur in Marx, into screaming entities which may turn readers off from within the book. This adherence to Marxist terms would seem to anchor them as Marxists, although to be convincing they would also need to pretend to be imbued in this, rather than in some other sphere. Nonetheless, it made them weirdly inclusive about this term, until it couldn't mean much. However, it also implied a sort of threat, as if Marx was screeching constantly about things threatening to people such as communism and demanding that they listen to him about this - which doesn't make a lot of sense. Surely disliking that kind of attention-seeking would be more characteristic of Marx than his opponents, who in truth could not be bothered with coherent statements so much as just appealing to whoever or making appealing sounds or gestures. This is itself misleading, however, or in order to appear serious on any level they were to be taken as caricatures, which is again self-undermining on their part.

Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx (II)

II.

The 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' may not always work out as seemed, and that so many claim to just take it in their stride is perhaps deceptive of them, or otherwise they take it personally and are offended before realising what they are reading. It is much like mentioning Hegel. Especially on a Valentine's Day, where the dichotomy as it were between the profane world and the heavenly realm is most pronounced. While it has been taken for granted that its first main section begins strikingly, this is mostly seen as hinging not on the statement itself or its truth - which was of course queried by Friedrich Engels - but on the exciting and appealing nature of class society to readers, which would nonetheless imply taking it and being encouraged to take it as a positive, when Marx and Engels are, much later, critical of it. However, as here they are discussing class society in the context of seguing into a description of capitalism, this is hence merely the drama of class society, and for a 'Manifesto' one might therefore wish to ask which of two alternatives they were attempting: either to turn the reader off the manuscript - from which they were expecting a glance at communism - or to make it accessible via the appealing nature of capitalism and class society to readers of the time, which would seem vulgar but is likely to occur at times to buttress and otherwise highly delayed subject-matter. In addition, that the 'Manifesto' is generally seen as an accessible, even highly accessible, book as opposed to Hegel and such, unlike later works such as 'Das Kapital,' and its many analogues, would necessitate that it be taken as one of the two, neither seeming too favourable. It must be remembered that none of this early segment is polemical.

However, the way the schema works out is treated as merely aesthetic when it is touched on, not so much as appealing as a question of praise or blame, rather than dealt with as a structure which is perhaps neglected compared to that of Das Kapital for instance because it is disorganised, this not however making it that different in focus. In this sense, as perhaps appropriate to its authors, it takes the form less of a work of advocacy as a nightmare of capital, where despite its dream-like progression and the abstraction of its apparently positive traits taken uncritically - and in this passage capitalism is seen mostly as the progress of the bourgeoisie, and these as its historical actors - but then this dream faces the loss of control - the primary flaw to be shown in it by this work - and is plunged into crises where it goes awry, and hence foreign things start appearing, which is displayed as well in the proletariat, which threaten it and keep it in fear. Usually, it would stop here, but Marx and Engels do by a conjuring trick manage to keep it going to a muted hope for a better future, although it might be unclear at this point what this improvement could be seen as in the context of the work if continuity is to be maintained, other than a reinstitution of the apparent harmony of capitalism upon a higher level of some sort, which is of course held to be impossible by this point. The work, despite their stress on bases, does not seem to give communism's explanation a basis in the work, other than capitalism, while giving this was purportedly the purpose of the work. Nonetheless, many seemed to take the work as in essence a personal polemic, whatever it may then go on to say, and one written against them, or in competition with them, which other than seeming like an inherently absurd but typical of a certain social system manner of reading a book which has not been promoted as positive by this system, is a slightly absurd perspective when it was generalised and spread or the attempt made to do so - or portray it as such a polemic against them - and as such you may wonder if such were not mostly seeing ghosts, as it were. The book itself has a reputation belonging to a book otherwise associated with the occult, such as the Bible, and this mysticism makes the book appear distinct rather than as it is a writing of words. Nonetheless, its early sections do have some strange transitions in perspective and subject, and you would be surprised if there was not some poltergeist afoot.

Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx (I)

I.

Marx and Engels early wrote the famed 'Manifesto of the Communist Party.' This begun its main sections in a somewhat inaccessible, idiosyncratic manner by instead focussing on the development of capitalist society, and its nature, from a mostly positive point of view, before unveiling - the reader perhaps not drawn in at this point by the excitement of capitalism portrayed in its own terms - its difficulties, and finally a movement against it. This somewhat strange mode of beginning, which goes on for some time, is found again famously in Kierkegaard's pseudonymous works, incorporating the ideologies of 'the aesthetic,' or ordered fornication, and 'the ethical,' or reactive or reactionary marriage, which he associates with Hegelian Christians and Judaism, before undermining both critically from the perspective of faith, which they were merely attempting to reach while violating it inherently and standing against it. In this, he is still, like Hegel before him - and that his 'pseudonymous' form is merely a vulgarisation of Hegel's categories is fairly obvious despite his polemic, and he is generally as you might expect better off philosophically when writing down his own thoughts rather than someone else's while in the guise of another, which a less respectable person might call stealing - overly positive about what he criticises via a pseudo-personal identification, while obviously in his recollections of Regine Olsen she fails to take on any clear symbolic purpose other than that of a character, and likewise neither 'the aesthetic' or 'the ethical' come to mean anything, again hoping that Hegel's categories will somehow anchor this by giving it sense, but one quite different and more detached.

In all of this, he falls into the trap that we may call 'GWF' Hegel, the one and only, just as Hegel perhaps subscribed overtly to Hellenicism and so on. He is unable to escape the lure of the Hegelian categories, like that of Regine Olsen before or rather after them. We shall hold off comparing them, but the Hegelian categories seemingly would compare favourably, and clearly can have more lasting impact. His later work, in journals and articles, is generally more direct, but also more extreme, generally, in the questions with which Kierkegaard was concerned. It is also worth noting that Kierkegaard and Marx begin from similar stand-points of looking at concrete human activity and the human individual, which is perhaps a half-excuse for Marx in this form if not for Kierkegaard making up abstactions whose unique human activity could be summarised as other people's, except that Kierkegaard nonetheless focusses on the human individual at least in the religious realm, responding to issues apparently raised in Denmark at the time (after divorcing from an engagement, perhaps out of basic common sense or if for whatever reason necessary nationalism, with a nominal doppelganger for 'Ophelia'), while Marx effaces this, but through this can consider the hypothetical relation of the human individual to society, and hence discuss the faults of the social system at the time, which of course did not change until that was abolished. Nonetheless, Kierkegaard's literature is as a result more living in itself, although this is confined by its focus on the religious to the poetic sphere mostly or to an inauthentic reproduction of philosophy, although some of his later polemic within a delimited region could be a highlight of the genre, and also, because of his regard for the circumstances and the opponent he was attacking, and his personal stand against this on behalf of Christianity but on their own, came across as significantly more necessary than many of Marx's attacks on other socialists, which tended to be quite minor and a implied no real nor living opposition, although there was some cynicism to this which was obscure, but promising and anticipative.