Famously, the somewhat milder HIV turns into the feared and here primary AIDS. AIDS makes diseases harsher, including of course HIV. There is a poetic flair to this - HIV, which is known for worsening the effects of diseases, can itself worsen into something more deadly.
This election was competed between Hillary Clinton and Donald 'Trump,' from 'The Apprentice' and now apparently occupying a suspiciously similarly-named role, and unsurprisingly Clinton was the less controversial - although still notably so, due to various scandals. Clinton attempted to run a campaign based on a secure reputation despite all of this, which seems unhelpful. Bernie Sanders may have contributed to this enforced mildness of the Clinton campaign, which was so far departed from their situation, by Sanders' more extreme campaign leading to Clinton having to identify with something different and more mild and hence by the point of the election most of their momentum involving running against more radical tendencies. Hence, they had little to go on but name, and their name was continually tarnished. This suggests that the Sanders campaign was at least somewhat effective in its claim to represent a more radical tendency.
In any case, Donald Trump is a businessman, which might seem like a conflict of interest. Their company is being left to their children. This seems, despite the charade, to merely refigure the conflict of interest. A businessman in charge of a company, who is also President, has an evident conflict of interest - they value a private economic entity and look out for its interests as opposed to that of others, yet they are expected to govern the whole economy in negligence of these. They merely disguise the issue, while still looking out for these interests. Clearly they identify with these 'children's' interests, after giving them the companies - they're keeping the nation 'in the family.' The hands of the company change - the valuation remains the same. It is a concession to ideals, but is otherwise idle.
As such, the general partition of the state has taken on a slightly exaggerated form. It is no longer basically an abstraction formed by the abstraction of capital. If it were, this is at least political - the question of changing it or dealing otherwise is opened. As things are, the Trump administration, as Clinton's would be, is essentially becoming numb to the political. There is still an uncertainty there - the administration does give credence to some sort of division between the state and private sector, by trying to off-load the private in a form, but nonetheless sunders this division ultimately. While not as explicitly non-political as Clinton, it is still going in that direction. The state is an essentially idle figure.
The state in capital is not the state as such - if the expression is permitted. The state is the organisation of society as one entity in an explicit form, the nexus of a given society of a given, uniform form. This is necessary insofar as a society is across its length subject to certain specifications - of whatever form. Hence, if it excludes certain things, for instance, it has a state.
In any case, the state under capital is phased out because it can only represent an intrusion on the essentially private lives of citizens in 'civil society.' It is an unwelcome guest, as Orwell captured in their slightly absurd 1984 with the image of Big Brother enforcing rooms they can look into. In the Reaganite movement and so on, it turned out that some didn't want the state anywhere - others are happy so long as it is only a dressing-up, 'sanctification' of what they do - and hence viewed anything it did as invasive, were hence beset by constant examples of state interference. Orwell's novel was hence in some ways a capitulation to these interests, an attempt to appeal to what they find appealing. In general, its exaggerated imagery was unlikely to devolve into much but a condemnation of the Soviet Union, as they drew on common imagery for it, as well as a limp and undefined swipe at British socialism because it might do the same thing. However, they might have gone too far. The state necessarily exists, but people need to know that it isn't violating these things, a 'sign' or signal via intervention that it is passive and 'normal.' This is a contradiction. Hence, people like Reagan or Thatcher are still departures from the norm, and the ideologues associated with them especially so, private entities would generally not like the state to get so far out of reach that they don't know what it's up to is 'safe.' The state is hence a field which deals with fear, suffering, intrusion, and so on.
When the state becomes as in this election something numb to politics, it hence becomes a realm dealing in basically private suffering or disease. However, it necessarily deals with private suffering of a social kind or which bears the mark of social interaction within it - that is, STDs. The format of the election is hence appropriate, as was Hitler, a fascist's, late identification of 'syphillis' (also identified in Mein Kampf as a clear example of the state's corruption) as one of the 'plagues' of modern society, alongside alcoholism. In general, people don't always begrudge diseases, but they do begrudge people being asocial or value people for having had sex, etc. People with STDs wear this mark explicitly - if you see someone with an STD, you know they're 'normal' in some way or have had such interaction. Otherwise, most would have to admit that they would have to wait before assuming as to these people's social lives. Hence, the assumption that one will meet a 'normal' person with such a 'normal' social life, which may only be violated, basically presupposes something like this. Diseases which touch on social relations can only be transmitted through such means, means like mere proximity are while related not explicitly a form of interaction. Hence, these are notable in society. How are people to remain 'social,' 'socialites,' or so on, when alone, except by wearing such physical marks? Hence, when Marx notes that the wealthy man 'carries his social relations around with him' in the form of money, in a concrete sense or insofar as they are personally claiming these social relations and the struggle around these, they must draw on something similar. Capital can't exist alone, it is always in a relation, always positing an obstacle or hindrance. How, then, is the capitalist to live their necessarily private life, consume within this, except by such a hindrance existing within this privacy? Hence, a capitalist is a manufacturer of their own diseases, and otherwise idle and locked away from society. When the capitalist is alone and yet a capitalist, they are afflicted - one might rather say they all had 'carbuncles.' Hence, all of this affliction is set at the door of the state - hence the ease of accusing them of 'socialism,' or whatever else, as happens periodically and often in a slightly peculiar fashion.
When Jesus observes that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than the rich man to inherit the kingdom of heaven, they are undermined in part by their own mode of operation. They tend to prefer using extravagant imagery to evoke a sense of wonder around their religion and things like faith - the more extravagant, the more impressive. Hence, saying that the rich man needs to complete this
miraculous, impressive operation is merely to say that they are still
rich and grandiose - they are now 'rich' not only in wealth, but also in
Christianity. While Christianity before capitalism was about going beyond the Mosaic law as commanded, Christianity as capital emerged became merely a question of an essentially idle struggle that nobody expected to go anywhere - hence, the rich merely ended up with a more impressive, religious-sounding version of this 'struggle.' When Hitler named his book 'Mein Kampf,' they were aware no doubt of the posturing of German Social Democracy - a fossilised entity of use to no-one by then - around struggle, as well as Marxist uses of it. They had been through the Bolshevik struggle against Tsar Nicholas, etc., as well. Hence, in proclaiming this book a part of 'national socialism,' they were in a way making a humorous gesture in the vein of 'l'etat, c'est moi.' Hitler, of course, had been poor an imprisoned, like Germany, and hence put a lot of emphasis on the head of the state having to be someone who could do this in a somewhat apt manner. In any case, however, Jesus' observation nonetheless is slightly thorned - a 'camel' passing through the needle is an image of an awkward fit and humps which fit awkwardly, of something like a body with ulcers which is in any case unlikely to get through. Of course, it is also an ironic image of sexual conduct, which they recently said one should avoid if one can resist it - otherwise one is no doubt a sex-bot of some sort and unlikely to care for Christianity. Money is a universal commodity, it represents prostitutes as much as other types of commodities - hence this sort of thing might have been a concern, as indeed it was in Marx's day with the Jack the Ripper killings. Paul also drew on the image of prostitutes as parasitic in-growths on an individual person.
Given that people such as musicians must be promoted for what they have done being impressive or facing inordinate obstacles (eg. they can't make good music and don't know what it is) and prevailing, the 'camel' metaphor is in some ways merely inviting such people to be proclaimed 'extraordinary Christians.' When Kierkegaard criticised a Bishop's representation as such during their funeral period, they would have perhaps been taken aback to hear that not only the Bishop was such a Christian but also a random girl singing about the pleasures of fornication.
As such, the state as it is posited is very much a realm of disease, and the treatment of immigration is very much an image of 'disease' - foreign incursion. Clinton generally deals with immigration in terms of the 'family,' which is merely an apparently milder treatment - when called on it, they are just as quick to attack people who are less anti-immigration. However, unlike in the past, there is no imagery of the Soviet Union to support this or try to isolate politics from it - and in general, accusation of Obama's 'socialism' might simply reflect that the state continues to intervene slightly, but has no-one else to blame it on. Reaganism and so on were in some ways merely a necessarily response to the weak, Gorbachev-era Soviet Union - if the US took on an interventionist or 'normal' garb during that time, the state would immediately find itself targetted, and would be on-set with the dissent of private entities that used to be 'happy citizens.' Nobody finds, 'Actually, I, the Head of the State, will stop doing anything and just sit here and be pathetic,' particularly stimulating politically (who's supposed to get excited about these elections), nor impressive, aggressive, etc., it's merely a temporary garb. It might seem impressive briefly, then it is abandoned. And besides, as stories go an actor taking the state and then deciding that, nah, they aren't really fit to do anything with it, seems slightly underwhelming - everyone else thinks that as well, about most actors. Schwarzeneggar gets by on suggesting conservative, controversial motions sometimes or religious intervention, not by merely going, 'Actually, Arnold Schwarzenggar should have nothing to do with governing,' which is merely a truism. Statecraft may be good, but if people are electing people like Hillary Clinton then why should the state bother? The people betrayed someone like Jimmy Carter, in a humiliating way, then apparently get angry because they got what they asked for - because Carter had some form of vengeance for this.
However, without a fall-back in the form of the Soviet Union, this fall back from politics is merely a dissolution - it does not constitute a real society. Obviously, the more capitalist society shrinks back from 'external' intervention that it itself begets, the more this comes to seem domineering and totalitarian. Hence, along with each USA, a Soviet Union, and so on. Hence, there might come the illusion that one might object to capitalism by just using categories used to characterise the Soviet Union as opposed to the USA. However, these are instruments of US capitalism, not just neutral figures. Hence, one should be cautious about this. In any case, while the 'bureaucratic' nature of the Soviet Union derives from its expressing these tendencies and hence being merely a non-directed channeling of these harsher forces, this at the same time implies that as time has gone on fear has increased and seeped into fictitious, expansive societies as in 'The Hunger Games,' without being clearly faced. If something increases to exaggerated degrees, people might fictionalise it - otherwise, they are usually content to deal with it in a normal situation, where it is presented already. This can work both ways: both social tendencies, and on the other hand things which are rejected and shunned to exaggerated extents in these social and literary tendencies. The more freedom shuns other things, the more it is revealed to merely be fear. Nobody makes a choice for 'freedom,' merely against other things. Yet one must know what one is trying to do, before determining how to go about it.
Trump is said to be aiming for a 'confrontational' government akin to a corporation's approach. But they might be unlucky if that was ever an intent. They would have to try and make up for or apologise for any of these 'confrontations' before they could initiate such an approach to a government - to an entity which has to deal with all of these. In all likelihood they do not have a cunning plan prepared.
Amusingly, while Trump's campaign is identified as 'us vs. them' (well, it's a campaign, innit), the dichotomy in the 20th Century was often 'USA vs. USSR.' Presumably this sounds more acceptable? In any case, seemingly their campaign pretty much just set off from how their Presidency might sound and went on from there. Clinton, on the other hand, didn't quite have a clean image through most of it, though they did try. It seems to be a slight curse of the Clintons that their clean image deserts them past a certain point. It's somewhat like the band Paramore - although they might start out 'alt' or 'punk,' and gain a clean image from diluting this genre into something acceptable, eventually they are too closely associated with it and hence gain an image which isn't quite as notable as Taylor Swift for instance. However, they can change genres to try to keep up with this - Hillary Clinton is also known for U-turns - but a politician can only be replaced by someone else. In addition, the Clintons are an established political group and not free to depart from this, hence they are forced into a certain dynamic. They try to make something seem safe, and in a dedicated manner, but then can't keep going. In the USA after neo-liberalism, the sense of responsibility around the state vanished - they didn't seem to have any obligations, they were just a private job for their own enjoyment. Eventually this came to a head somewhat, and Bush attempted to restore some sense of governance and drew on Christian conservatism, but was also drawn into several external wars where they attempted to present an image of a 'benevolent' America. An American Republican was, to the Middle East, just a more insistent 'liberal.' The Republicans attempted to promote 'America,' patriotism, and what-not, but they merely ended up with garden liberalism. Capitalism is a circular system: the further you depart from one side, the further you are still a part of the same system and conditioned by them, and hence ultimately in agreement with their views which derive from capital.
The USA likes to make dramas out of little, so that their politics (outside of elections) is still quite dry is a testament to, in the Middle East for instance, both sides basically doing the same thing and continuing or opening wars there, etc. People pretend there are sides briefly, then they obey and esteem the leader and system regardless - it was an illusion, and they are satisfied with this and promote it. The US elections are more of an action than anything. Ultimately, elections can only be as strong as their weakest link - if it's just a brief rising of drama around the election followed by settling in, this hardly has the place to support radical antitheses. Hence the sense of oppression around radical politics in the USA. Radical politics rarely led to revolutions in established democracies, apart from perhaps the Nazis and that only in part. They generally would prefer to concede to this democratic process, and then play merely a subordinate role - or they abstain from politics entirely, or give way completely, generally alongside some ultimately democratic palaver.
Strangely, the 1995 Shamen album 'Axis Mutatis' opens with 'Destination Eschaton,' 'TransAmazonia,' (Trump), then 'Conquistador,' and the strangely named 'MK2A.' MK2A here stands 'Mauna Kea to Andromeda.' Later, 'Heal (The Separation)', which resembles Clinton's approach to immigration and attempting to send people back to their families - which Sanders notably attacked. It somewhat resembles the vaguely amusing Star Wars scene where Anakin Skywalker walks into a closed room only to find Palpatine and Mace Windu fighting alone. The prequels of course end with Obi-Wan warning Anakin that he can't win now that Obi-Wan has the 'higher ground.' Which is an amusing end in really a few ways, although inconsistent with the series so far of course. In any case, this election is sadly not as mystical as The Shamen's music. It also lacks even the grace of such excellent sentences as, 'For the gift of the present, we owe it to the moment,' and, 'Is it only gold you're looking for, / And will you still not see the treasure long concealed within me?'
No comments:
Post a Comment