A commenter recently noted that a poem of ours was "calming." In the cavalier spirit of literary 'workshopping,' we shall write a poem based around their response to our poem. This will hopefully compensate for not editing the poem itself to be more calming (yet), which would be unfortunate on a blog*. So, here is a poem about 'calming,' based therefore around random feedback.
Calm
The seagull dances
over the cascading waves
in time,
and they all blur
into one action.
The leaf draws
itself to a point,
then opens itself
for stray rain.
The light in a leaf
illuminates
as though in the leaf
were a calm fire.
The habitat of birds
is the open sky,
empty,
far-away,
like a promise.
Calm hides in the
inter mundia
like light.
The fire of an ancient sacrifice,
it was said,
flared in the eyes of the gods,
so calm can watch in silence
the movements of the clouds
and of the heavens,
with no demands to respond to.
Calm can be infinite,
like an open grave
kept vampiric ally open.
Indeed, calm is so close
to this order
that it shelters in distant caves,
as poetry hides in reeds,
with a funereal pallour.
What gives it this?
-
* (While the work-shop format means little, as it abstracts from the people involved and expects to have a reasonable format without this, we nonetheless must act in its spirit due to the commands of the Muses or something probably. Obviously, in a capitalist context the others are enemies. You should not trust them, as them advising you to basically go and kill yourself if it suits them would be essentially what you are accepting. The whole thing is shrouded in deception, and can mostly be ignored. Somehow creative writing is a more emptily pious field than Catholicism.)
Wednesday 31 May 2017
A Poem about a Bird
Egret
Songs rise
from the white sky,
as the water ripples.
The sky turns to water
in their song.
Songs rise
from the night sky,
as the dark mist
that hides a scene.
The sky is an emptiness
that cuts hope like a knife.
White feathers rise and fall,
like the light,
and could be all around
or hidden behind it.
The white sky
sets the teeming
of motion and friction aglow
like a candle.
Yet it is not alone:
its welcoming glow
leads elsewhere.
Forest fires light up
destruction, as the day is lighted,
as if to call us on
to war,
and drape the glittering banners of day
with the furore of death.
In the light
a white snake hides,
a golden snake hides,
a yellow snake hides,
and that which invites us
closes the door.
As the white day fades,
motions slow
across a village.
A nation
greyed by evening
completes a cycle,
as the white day fades —
and the nation is in stillness.
One may wonder if parts of it
have not faded away. How can they stay,
unless the nation itself is a stillness?
Night brings fear,
loneliness is like night,
the tiger's assault is like night
following the glimpse of brilliant day,
like nations of pursued hope
turned to decay.
People huddle together,
in concentrated masses,
with shiny, loud sounds,
as if to escape.
The night is like a cut
that deepens
the more we seek that which glitters
in its loud procession.
A nation has tides,
it laps and hides like the waves.
It must enter the water,
into sea,
into pool,
into ocean,
and it will be reflected.
Beneath this is a current,
that blows like a white wind
to hide the kindled day.
It is yet like the night,
hiding colours
in a shade of quieting white.
The lotus hides
the water.
The falling tree-flower hides
the sky.
They are as the night,
they are like motion standing still.
The lily hides
the garden.
Dark snakes may injure,
yet they are not seen,
except in the bright red that turns
the lily now to a rose.
Skylark, listen to the cries
of the geyser,
and dissolve in them.
Their sound is the sound
of fluttering chirps
played slowly.
Cry out, and dissolve in them,
sound hidden in sound.
For it is the same.
In water tinged like blood,
the piranha and stonefish lurk,
in water tinged black and white,
the shark haunts.
The lily disguises the stonefish,
just as a stone might.
The stone is like the lily,
the lily is like the stone.
The festivity above the sea
hides the shark. Disease is hidden
almost anywhere.
The stone is like the lily,
the lily is like the stone.
Water is still,
tinted white or black.
In stillness it waits.
Songs rise
from the white sky,
as the water ripples.
The sky turns to water
in their song.
Songs rise
from the night sky,
as the dark mist
that hides a scene.
The sky is an emptiness
that cuts hope like a knife.
White feathers rise and fall,
like the light,
and could be all around
or hidden behind it.
The white sky
sets the teeming
of motion and friction aglow
like a candle.
Yet it is not alone:
its welcoming glow
leads elsewhere.
Forest fires light up
destruction, as the day is lighted,
as if to call us on
to war,
and drape the glittering banners of day
with the furore of death.
In the light
a white snake hides,
a golden snake hides,
a yellow snake hides,
and that which invites us
closes the door.
As the white day fades,
motions slow
across a village.
A nation
greyed by evening
completes a cycle,
as the white day fades —
and the nation is in stillness.
One may wonder if parts of it
have not faded away. How can they stay,
unless the nation itself is a stillness?
Night brings fear,
loneliness is like night,
the tiger's assault is like night
following the glimpse of brilliant day,
like nations of pursued hope
turned to decay.
People huddle together,
in concentrated masses,
with shiny, loud sounds,
as if to escape.
The night is like a cut
that deepens
the more we seek that which glitters
in its loud procession.
A nation has tides,
it laps and hides like the waves.
It must enter the water,
into sea,
into pool,
into ocean,
and it will be reflected.
Beneath this is a current,
that blows like a white wind
to hide the kindled day.
It is yet like the night,
hiding colours
in a shade of quieting white.
The lotus hides
the water.
The falling tree-flower hides
the sky.
They are as the night,
they are like motion standing still.
The lily hides
the garden.
Dark snakes may injure,
yet they are not seen,
except in the bright red that turns
the lily now to a rose.
Skylark, listen to the cries
of the geyser,
and dissolve in them.
Their sound is the sound
of fluttering chirps
played slowly.
Cry out, and dissolve in them,
sound hidden in sound.
For it is the same.
In water tinged like blood,
the piranha and stonefish lurk,
in water tinged black and white,
the shark haunts.
The lily disguises the stonefish,
just as a stone might.
The stone is like the lily,
the lily is like the stone.
The festivity above the sea
hides the shark. Disease is hidden
almost anywhere.
The stone is like the lily,
the lily is like the stone.
Water is still,
tinted white or black.
In stillness it waits.
Tuesday 30 May 2017
Sunday 28 May 2017
All Roads Lead
M-C-M'.
Money capital is the Eden of capital. From this the motions of all its actors spur, towards its possession they return. From it, the whole machinery of capitalism is set in motion. It is the basic principle of the processes and labour of capitalist society, the true fount of all of these. It is the truly motivating force, the active principle of capitalist processes. Yet it is, despite this, insubstantial, as Marx and others displayed in explaining the 'law of value.' The whole 'system' is hence unstable.
Now, before continuing, let us clarify some things. When Marx and so on derive money from the 'form of value,' they are also describing it historically. They begin from the 'commodity,' seeking to explain what a 'commodity' is in general terms. Value is treated as inseparable from the 'law of value,' which is merely a further examination of value's actual nature. Likewise, money is explained as a function of value, as expressing the abstraction inherent in value. Hence, these are historical categories. They can nonetheless take on different traits in different 'systems' and times.
In capitalism, forms of labour are stripped of their unique properties and reduced to abstract labour, as forms of objects are stripped of their unique properties and reduced to an abstract, exchangeable substance. Nonetheless, stripped of these properties the objects are precisely - nothing. Not can such labour be performed, though it is expected. People are set an absurd task, and hence phrases like 'rigged economy' now prominent do well to illustrate this. However, what counts as 'labour' here might be unclear. A person standing on a road could be labour, especially if on video; a person jumping from a cliff could be labour, suicidal, or both. Hence, it would be more exact to say that capital strips 'human activity' and therefore being of its distinguishing features, or represents its reduction to nothing. This might seem to equate capitalism to death, which we shall comment on in a later post. Capital does not check each specific type of activity, to check if it is abstract or nothing - obviously, it could not be. It reduces them to nothing, then it assimilates things into this. However, this means that money is merely an expression of this nothingness stripped of concrete traits. Its own properties become disregarded, except in general associations - and when Marx for instance tries to examine it in depth they are lambasted, as people would rather money rush from here to there without having to look at it. Hence, as money or investment becomes the primary principle of society, at the same time it turns out to be a chimera, and hollow. Such a society is not stable in its progression. At its heart is emptiness, the mere abstraction from determination.
Well, unless you are me, and are acclimatised.
In money, discordant things are brought into a 'system,' or at least 'pseudo-system.' Hence, alongside human societies you have a 'community of things' which does not care for differences or 'determinate being.' Hence, the tendency of money towards forming a 'society' is evident, and given explicit recognition in 'capital.' Marx also noted that money as a disruptive force had been earlier criticised by many social commenters, who viewed it as at least a hindrance. People like Socrates urged social coherence as a counter to such discordance, as a way of cohering the various aspects of society and the human soul. This is in some ways akin to more modern socialism. They hence emphasised 'planning' and the harmonising of society into a consciously organised system. However, their account was still limited, and acknowledged opposed forces into this despite the inevitability - that they feared - of this Republic and the Greek society dissolving. Nonetheless, the Roman Empire would then distort Greek themes while Jesus likewise distorted Judaism into a new, eerie tone, somewhat like German National Socialism would then explicitly alter socialist themes. They were hence intimidating, dangerous Empires haunted by past ghosts, unfamiliar and difficult to surmount. The Romans absorbed the Greek multitude of deities and 'Romanised' it or turned it in a single direction, so a tendency to monotheism was always implicit in their situation. Even Christianity, in the Trinity, evolved polytheistic impulses, or attempted to peddle polytheism with monotheistic tendencies as monotheistic. In this they were merely a lesser representation of the Roman Empire's strange culture. They should be seen alongside other tendencies, such as Emperor-worship and the tile of Caesar derived from the 'martyred' Julius Caesar. However, while all of these were eventually caught up in a crowded religious maelström, Christianity with its pseudo-monotheism could come closer to synthesising these tendencies.
Christianity was appropriate to the time, and tried to dilute itself enough to seem acceptable despite divergences. It could be said that the weakness of Christianity undermined Rome, this is only partially true. Its 'weakness' meant that it could be integrated into Roman culture more freely, without throwing it off track.Further, it was adopted in part due to the weakening of Rome, and merely had to express these conditions. With the decline of Rome came also the revealing of Rome's inner forces in a clearer form, without the same show of grandeur - although this might not have been clear at the time.
The later significance of these religions might vary. In a time of suicide bombing, for instance, it need be no surprise that religions like Christianity are seen as mere 'Western' or socio-political entities, and otherwise unspectacular. However, it has to be noticed that along with the sacrifice of Christ came a vision of general sacrifice and being outcast, a religion where God is 'sacrifice.' Kierkegaard's later distinction of 'divine' and 'human' concerns, as well as emphasis on 'suffering,' come close to recognising this essence. However, the formulation of capitalist society, with its emphasis on worldly accumulation as a spur for all human activities and on indiscriminate consumption, is often quite far from Christianity. In this sense, Christianity formalised several things inherent to 'suicide bombing' and similar dedication to a cause, nonetheless despite this religious worth it also paralysed them. When one shoots a gun, a bullet is ejected and is no longer there. This is a similar tendency. However, things such as sin are less transferable, and cannot be taken up unless one oneself sins. A religion of forgiveness is, in the West, merely a religion of ignoring religion and other demanding views, it does not matter whether the means of this forgiveness is understood or coherent.
In lieu of religion - the assertion that Christianity is taken seriously across the Western world is unrealistic - society takes recourse once again to objects, yet now without the semblance of the divine. Hence the frequent social pessimism, often reactionary, is in part a result of this 'worship' without worship. There is a certain directionless to it. Capitalism, though it tends against opposed political forces, could profit from them in appropriate circumstances, and hence appears unstable. However, they can also easily be assimilated or 'co-exist peacefully,' while their groups are hence set at each other's throats. They are hence neutralised, in part by their own permission. The flaws of capital are displayed, not used - and capitalism could just as well do this by itself. Capitalism nonetheless is in essence slightly closer to 'Christianity,' forcing people into opposition and exalting in money something that cannot be consumed. Yet it still takes this exchangeability as its central property, it is not non-consumption but indiscriminate consumption. To appraise it from a Christian perspective is to take up a critical perspective, or view its categories in their self-defeating nature and 'exploit' that. In wealth there is dearth, a contradiction that undoes it; in display there is danger, wealth must not dictate over dearth or it destroys itself - its self being merely dearth. In the concept of capitalism's contradictions and decline due to them there is a hint of the 'religious.' Hence, from a Christian perspective, to praise capitalism is to criticise it and posit its self-defeating nature, to attack it is to do that. This perspective is rare among Christians, who even if they are ascetic cater to the capitalistic world often without notable discrimination. Even moreso among paid preachers, who somehow generally consider God reducible to abstract labour in pragmatic self-interest. It need be no surprise that Christ died for money - and yet among Christians unlimited monetary gain is praised.
Where are the Romans when they could be useful, eh?
Of course, countries like America might have an uncanny similarity to the Imperium Romanum, especially with the similarly-named USSR doing their best impression. Curiously, after the 'empire' rising from a nation titled as 'Romanus' or romance, a term with notable connotations, you hence have a pseudo-Empire which aspires famously to a dream of 'marriage' while 'rich.' Of course it would be a pseudo-empire, as to marry in abstraction is merely to remain locked up. This aptly dove-tails with the contradictions of the nation, which divides and locks itself into separate places yet wishes to constitute itself as a nation despite this. Others are also viewed as abstractions. With 'romance,' one might rather wonder whom with and how to do this if it doesn't matter. Which is an apt companion to the pagan multiplicity of Rome. This might be slightly more coincidental than the United States of America, whose name suggests very clear associations. And an atomised state is primarily a name.
It goes without saying that liberalism's trumpeting of 'love' as against a movement for American patriotism, with pop music and other noises, is essentially running backwards on a treadmill. Even moreso, because it is incoherent in a society proclaiming its defence of capitalism, and compared to capitalism. Who are you loving? How? Can you make a politics out of 'love' for an abstraction shorn of traits? Love is ultimately the opposite of that, it deals with traits. Clearly people are to conjure something from this emptiness. Yet to reduce love to an abstraction is rather to negate it. Hence, again, it undermines itself and serves its opposition - nationalism, national sovereignty, radical politics, Corbynism (notice for instance its turning against people like Momentum, in favour of comfortable imperialists like Jo Cox funnily enough), extremists, essentially anything at all radical or anti-establishment in direction. Nonetheless, it tries to persevere, like a disease. People literally tearing themselves apart for nothing in particular or at all, like smallpox (variola major, perhaps.)
Yet capitalism is always allied to this empty worship, albeit not quite in this exaggerated form. From money capital all things flow, to find it people run onwards. It offers control and directing of activities, and forms structures of authority that are nonetheless hollow. A 'Party of Labour' is either asceticism or farcical - labourers do not labour to stay labourers, unless they are ascetic, but would prefer to approach capital. It is either to posit limitation and asceticism - in which case why not go all the way? - or alternatively they are nonsensical. A Party where everyone would rather escape, by design and also according to their continuing adherence to capitalism in any way, is a peculiar formation that no doubt invites its difficulties. Really, without asceticism Marxism is nothing, and with it it is still just a knock-off. In general, of course, representative Parties allow capital and the bourgeois to further dictate what labourers get up to, as if they need that after capital's authoritative mediation in everything they do and consume - hopefully with notable scrutiny. 'Labour' can never hold true authority or even more rule in this system, it is an expression of subordination. If it strives to rule, it will soon undermine - only itself. The other classes have not been caught up in this illusoy striving. However, to express a sense of limitation is, although contrary to the point of labour, at least an opening to people who want to repudiate the values of the system instead. And besides, what is 'labour'? Labour is how rioters are locked up, how an assassin shoots you, how a political deceiver lies to you, it means little. If people were to be paid for videos of rape, then it would be labour. When labourers could well be paid to kill each other, and this is their 'labour,' then for either to act in the interests of 'labour' would be to invite and congratulate the person who wishes to kill you. To posit a unified interest from this particular 'labour' would seem an absurdity on the face of it. Hence, what actually occurs is usually to ignore the labour and instead substitute rhetoric about the 'brotherhood of men' and 'harmony,' which are ultimately just conservative. It is merely some sort of pacifism in radical garb. This renders it essentially empty, in most cases.
Nonetheless, if in a capitalistic or pseudo-capitalistic context people are reduced to undifferentiated things without traits, they are not truly there. Hence, the emphasis on 'love' has seen a massive emphasis on funerals - more and more praise is heaped on the dead. Society is therefore converted into a funeral, which implies that it is misrepresenting its security. However, people are hence converted to money and sought, leaving them powerless to go forwards because they are simultaneously being used. In the process an 'informal aristocracy' builds, with musicians and others increasingly ignoring their competition and proclaiming harmony and close 'friendship' with any nearby, keeping others out. Many old trends have been revived, to make up for the barriers that have been recently erected. However, capitalism relies on drawing people towards money, to take part in a cycle where accumulation and money are central. If people are widely treated as money, directly, then they are forced into stasis and cannot seek money freely because they are under constant surveillance, continually an object. It ends up in stasis. While the abstract person usually existed in capitalism, this was kept at a degree of separation, not turned into an economic and general object to be encountered freely. It were better to be loved by a 'hater,' than an advocate of 'love' in this now reactionary and liberal form, for whom both it and you would truly mean nothing.
We shall discuss soon the ways in which liberalism often degrades capitalism to something below its stature. The economy ultimately obstructs its own goal, it does not allow for people to settle down into the households they aim for. It sets enmity at the heart of this, and decisively prevents people from being secure around others. Capitalism is a system of insecurity and conflict, considered on its own part. If they want crowds, it instead gives them rivals and dangers - if they want law, nonetheless there cannot be a law because nobody looks out for the law and the state, only for their own person. There is no law, merely caprice. Rape is a caprice, the law is also a caprice - if caprice may be treated as law, because it is caprice and leads to one's own pleasure, this were merely to spur on rape and similar things. Hence, capitalism itself sets little stake on the journey which it sets out before humanity. If you wish to please others, then according to capitalism you might as well commit suicide because what they aim for in the system is your undermining. As we will suggest later, the 'way forwards' that capitalism sets for people in its functioning is not one that it emphasises. Hence, the need for 'liberalism' to try and accommodate for the continual need to take capitalism in a direction it does not want to go. In many ways capitalism, by setting a void at its heart, gives no way forwards except to notice its transience.
Hence, capitalism is like being stuck in divestment with no clearly present way forwards. Capital itself must begin with nothing - no traits to defend oneself, no traits that might appeal to others in this context, no traits at all, nothing to offer and usually nothing to receive. Hence, capitalism can often be like people being thrown to sharks. In this sense, the system is often carried out in ways which ultimately are disharmonious with it and undermine it. This is another side of the system, however it is obscured and in its process this is hidden. The system makes demands, yet these are clearly vulgarised everywhere. It lacks 'authority.'
Nonetheless, despite this the process takes a void as its principle, and as the aim where it shall return. People continually, and passionately, enact this in a way that also undermines themselves. In this lemming-like process, however, the possibility of transcending this cycle appears. Yet there must be a certain truth to it, or a connection to humanity, or it could not interact with their societies. The cycles must connect. As such, capitalism is a process, however it lacks a clear direction. Due to this, it must remain a distortion of the process of human society, not directly a form of it. This is its strength, that it continually undermines human aims, tears movements apart (the alternatives to this are rendered artificial and false), and gives processes a deathly pallor and direction. However, it nonetheless remains finite and self-limiting, and must be transcended.
Money capital is the Eden of capital. From this the motions of all its actors spur, towards its possession they return. From it, the whole machinery of capitalism is set in motion. It is the basic principle of the processes and labour of capitalist society, the true fount of all of these. It is the truly motivating force, the active principle of capitalist processes. Yet it is, despite this, insubstantial, as Marx and others displayed in explaining the 'law of value.' The whole 'system' is hence unstable.
Now, before continuing, let us clarify some things. When Marx and so on derive money from the 'form of value,' they are also describing it historically. They begin from the 'commodity,' seeking to explain what a 'commodity' is in general terms. Value is treated as inseparable from the 'law of value,' which is merely a further examination of value's actual nature. Likewise, money is explained as a function of value, as expressing the abstraction inherent in value. Hence, these are historical categories. They can nonetheless take on different traits in different 'systems' and times.
In capitalism, forms of labour are stripped of their unique properties and reduced to abstract labour, as forms of objects are stripped of their unique properties and reduced to an abstract, exchangeable substance. Nonetheless, stripped of these properties the objects are precisely - nothing. Not can such labour be performed, though it is expected. People are set an absurd task, and hence phrases like 'rigged economy' now prominent do well to illustrate this. However, what counts as 'labour' here might be unclear. A person standing on a road could be labour, especially if on video; a person jumping from a cliff could be labour, suicidal, or both. Hence, it would be more exact to say that capital strips 'human activity' and therefore being of its distinguishing features, or represents its reduction to nothing. This might seem to equate capitalism to death, which we shall comment on in a later post. Capital does not check each specific type of activity, to check if it is abstract or nothing - obviously, it could not be. It reduces them to nothing, then it assimilates things into this. However, this means that money is merely an expression of this nothingness stripped of concrete traits. Its own properties become disregarded, except in general associations - and when Marx for instance tries to examine it in depth they are lambasted, as people would rather money rush from here to there without having to look at it. Hence, as money or investment becomes the primary principle of society, at the same time it turns out to be a chimera, and hollow. Such a society is not stable in its progression. At its heart is emptiness, the mere abstraction from determination.
Well, unless you are me, and are acclimatised.
In money, discordant things are brought into a 'system,' or at least 'pseudo-system.' Hence, alongside human societies you have a 'community of things' which does not care for differences or 'determinate being.' Hence, the tendency of money towards forming a 'society' is evident, and given explicit recognition in 'capital.' Marx also noted that money as a disruptive force had been earlier criticised by many social commenters, who viewed it as at least a hindrance. People like Socrates urged social coherence as a counter to such discordance, as a way of cohering the various aspects of society and the human soul. This is in some ways akin to more modern socialism. They hence emphasised 'planning' and the harmonising of society into a consciously organised system. However, their account was still limited, and acknowledged opposed forces into this despite the inevitability - that they feared - of this Republic and the Greek society dissolving. Nonetheless, the Roman Empire would then distort Greek themes while Jesus likewise distorted Judaism into a new, eerie tone, somewhat like German National Socialism would then explicitly alter socialist themes. They were hence intimidating, dangerous Empires haunted by past ghosts, unfamiliar and difficult to surmount. The Romans absorbed the Greek multitude of deities and 'Romanised' it or turned it in a single direction, so a tendency to monotheism was always implicit in their situation. Even Christianity, in the Trinity, evolved polytheistic impulses, or attempted to peddle polytheism with monotheistic tendencies as monotheistic. In this they were merely a lesser representation of the Roman Empire's strange culture. They should be seen alongside other tendencies, such as Emperor-worship and the tile of Caesar derived from the 'martyred' Julius Caesar. However, while all of these were eventually caught up in a crowded religious maelström, Christianity with its pseudo-monotheism could come closer to synthesising these tendencies.
Christianity was appropriate to the time, and tried to dilute itself enough to seem acceptable despite divergences. It could be said that the weakness of Christianity undermined Rome, this is only partially true. Its 'weakness' meant that it could be integrated into Roman culture more freely, without throwing it off track.Further, it was adopted in part due to the weakening of Rome, and merely had to express these conditions. With the decline of Rome came also the revealing of Rome's inner forces in a clearer form, without the same show of grandeur - although this might not have been clear at the time.
The later significance of these religions might vary. In a time of suicide bombing, for instance, it need be no surprise that religions like Christianity are seen as mere 'Western' or socio-political entities, and otherwise unspectacular. However, it has to be noticed that along with the sacrifice of Christ came a vision of general sacrifice and being outcast, a religion where God is 'sacrifice.' Kierkegaard's later distinction of 'divine' and 'human' concerns, as well as emphasis on 'suffering,' come close to recognising this essence. However, the formulation of capitalist society, with its emphasis on worldly accumulation as a spur for all human activities and on indiscriminate consumption, is often quite far from Christianity. In this sense, Christianity formalised several things inherent to 'suicide bombing' and similar dedication to a cause, nonetheless despite this religious worth it also paralysed them. When one shoots a gun, a bullet is ejected and is no longer there. This is a similar tendency. However, things such as sin are less transferable, and cannot be taken up unless one oneself sins. A religion of forgiveness is, in the West, merely a religion of ignoring religion and other demanding views, it does not matter whether the means of this forgiveness is understood or coherent.
In lieu of religion - the assertion that Christianity is taken seriously across the Western world is unrealistic - society takes recourse once again to objects, yet now without the semblance of the divine. Hence the frequent social pessimism, often reactionary, is in part a result of this 'worship' without worship. There is a certain directionless to it. Capitalism, though it tends against opposed political forces, could profit from them in appropriate circumstances, and hence appears unstable. However, they can also easily be assimilated or 'co-exist peacefully,' while their groups are hence set at each other's throats. They are hence neutralised, in part by their own permission. The flaws of capital are displayed, not used - and capitalism could just as well do this by itself. Capitalism nonetheless is in essence slightly closer to 'Christianity,' forcing people into opposition and exalting in money something that cannot be consumed. Yet it still takes this exchangeability as its central property, it is not non-consumption but indiscriminate consumption. To appraise it from a Christian perspective is to take up a critical perspective, or view its categories in their self-defeating nature and 'exploit' that. In wealth there is dearth, a contradiction that undoes it; in display there is danger, wealth must not dictate over dearth or it destroys itself - its self being merely dearth. In the concept of capitalism's contradictions and decline due to them there is a hint of the 'religious.' Hence, from a Christian perspective, to praise capitalism is to criticise it and posit its self-defeating nature, to attack it is to do that. This perspective is rare among Christians, who even if they are ascetic cater to the capitalistic world often without notable discrimination. Even moreso among paid preachers, who somehow generally consider God reducible to abstract labour in pragmatic self-interest. It need be no surprise that Christ died for money - and yet among Christians unlimited monetary gain is praised.
Where are the Romans when they could be useful, eh?
Of course, countries like America might have an uncanny similarity to the Imperium Romanum, especially with the similarly-named USSR doing their best impression. Curiously, after the 'empire' rising from a nation titled as 'Romanus' or romance, a term with notable connotations, you hence have a pseudo-Empire which aspires famously to a dream of 'marriage' while 'rich.' Of course it would be a pseudo-empire, as to marry in abstraction is merely to remain locked up. This aptly dove-tails with the contradictions of the nation, which divides and locks itself into separate places yet wishes to constitute itself as a nation despite this. Others are also viewed as abstractions. With 'romance,' one might rather wonder whom with and how to do this if it doesn't matter. Which is an apt companion to the pagan multiplicity of Rome. This might be slightly more coincidental than the United States of America, whose name suggests very clear associations. And an atomised state is primarily a name.
It goes without saying that liberalism's trumpeting of 'love' as against a movement for American patriotism, with pop music and other noises, is essentially running backwards on a treadmill. Even moreso, because it is incoherent in a society proclaiming its defence of capitalism, and compared to capitalism. Who are you loving? How? Can you make a politics out of 'love' for an abstraction shorn of traits? Love is ultimately the opposite of that, it deals with traits. Clearly people are to conjure something from this emptiness. Yet to reduce love to an abstraction is rather to negate it. Hence, again, it undermines itself and serves its opposition - nationalism, national sovereignty, radical politics, Corbynism (notice for instance its turning against people like Momentum, in favour of comfortable imperialists like Jo Cox funnily enough), extremists, essentially anything at all radical or anti-establishment in direction. Nonetheless, it tries to persevere, like a disease. People literally tearing themselves apart for nothing in particular or at all, like smallpox (variola major, perhaps.)
Yet capitalism is always allied to this empty worship, albeit not quite in this exaggerated form. From money capital all things flow, to find it people run onwards. It offers control and directing of activities, and forms structures of authority that are nonetheless hollow. A 'Party of Labour' is either asceticism or farcical - labourers do not labour to stay labourers, unless they are ascetic, but would prefer to approach capital. It is either to posit limitation and asceticism - in which case why not go all the way? - or alternatively they are nonsensical. A Party where everyone would rather escape, by design and also according to their continuing adherence to capitalism in any way, is a peculiar formation that no doubt invites its difficulties. Really, without asceticism Marxism is nothing, and with it it is still just a knock-off. In general, of course, representative Parties allow capital and the bourgeois to further dictate what labourers get up to, as if they need that after capital's authoritative mediation in everything they do and consume - hopefully with notable scrutiny. 'Labour' can never hold true authority or even more rule in this system, it is an expression of subordination. If it strives to rule, it will soon undermine - only itself. The other classes have not been caught up in this illusoy striving. However, to express a sense of limitation is, although contrary to the point of labour, at least an opening to people who want to repudiate the values of the system instead. And besides, what is 'labour'? Labour is how rioters are locked up, how an assassin shoots you, how a political deceiver lies to you, it means little. If people were to be paid for videos of rape, then it would be labour. When labourers could well be paid to kill each other, and this is their 'labour,' then for either to act in the interests of 'labour' would be to invite and congratulate the person who wishes to kill you. To posit a unified interest from this particular 'labour' would seem an absurdity on the face of it. Hence, what actually occurs is usually to ignore the labour and instead substitute rhetoric about the 'brotherhood of men' and 'harmony,' which are ultimately just conservative. It is merely some sort of pacifism in radical garb. This renders it essentially empty, in most cases.
Nonetheless, if in a capitalistic or pseudo-capitalistic context people are reduced to undifferentiated things without traits, they are not truly there. Hence, the emphasis on 'love' has seen a massive emphasis on funerals - more and more praise is heaped on the dead. Society is therefore converted into a funeral, which implies that it is misrepresenting its security. However, people are hence converted to money and sought, leaving them powerless to go forwards because they are simultaneously being used. In the process an 'informal aristocracy' builds, with musicians and others increasingly ignoring their competition and proclaiming harmony and close 'friendship' with any nearby, keeping others out. Many old trends have been revived, to make up for the barriers that have been recently erected. However, capitalism relies on drawing people towards money, to take part in a cycle where accumulation and money are central. If people are widely treated as money, directly, then they are forced into stasis and cannot seek money freely because they are under constant surveillance, continually an object. It ends up in stasis. While the abstract person usually existed in capitalism, this was kept at a degree of separation, not turned into an economic and general object to be encountered freely. It were better to be loved by a 'hater,' than an advocate of 'love' in this now reactionary and liberal form, for whom both it and you would truly mean nothing.
We shall discuss soon the ways in which liberalism often degrades capitalism to something below its stature. The economy ultimately obstructs its own goal, it does not allow for people to settle down into the households they aim for. It sets enmity at the heart of this, and decisively prevents people from being secure around others. Capitalism is a system of insecurity and conflict, considered on its own part. If they want crowds, it instead gives them rivals and dangers - if they want law, nonetheless there cannot be a law because nobody looks out for the law and the state, only for their own person. There is no law, merely caprice. Rape is a caprice, the law is also a caprice - if caprice may be treated as law, because it is caprice and leads to one's own pleasure, this were merely to spur on rape and similar things. Hence, capitalism itself sets little stake on the journey which it sets out before humanity. If you wish to please others, then according to capitalism you might as well commit suicide because what they aim for in the system is your undermining. As we will suggest later, the 'way forwards' that capitalism sets for people in its functioning is not one that it emphasises. Hence, the need for 'liberalism' to try and accommodate for the continual need to take capitalism in a direction it does not want to go. In many ways capitalism, by setting a void at its heart, gives no way forwards except to notice its transience.
Hence, capitalism is like being stuck in divestment with no clearly present way forwards. Capital itself must begin with nothing - no traits to defend oneself, no traits that might appeal to others in this context, no traits at all, nothing to offer and usually nothing to receive. Hence, capitalism can often be like people being thrown to sharks. In this sense, the system is often carried out in ways which ultimately are disharmonious with it and undermine it. This is another side of the system, however it is obscured and in its process this is hidden. The system makes demands, yet these are clearly vulgarised everywhere. It lacks 'authority.'
Nonetheless, despite this the process takes a void as its principle, and as the aim where it shall return. People continually, and passionately, enact this in a way that also undermines themselves. In this lemming-like process, however, the possibility of transcending this cycle appears. Yet there must be a certain truth to it, or a connection to humanity, or it could not interact with their societies. The cycles must connect. As such, capitalism is a process, however it lacks a clear direction. Due to this, it must remain a distortion of the process of human society, not directly a form of it. This is its strength, that it continually undermines human aims, tears movements apart (the alternatives to this are rendered artificial and false), and gives processes a deathly pallor and direction. However, it nonetheless remains finite and self-limiting, and must be transcended.
Wednesday 24 May 2017
Reading Group: Das Kapital
A commenter and acquaintance, Zanthorus, has recently attempted elsewhere to set up a two-man reading group of Das Kapital III. In solidarity with this idiosyncratic task, we shall write an account of a hypothetical two-man reading group of 'Das Kapital.' Which one, you might ask? The Capital Inicial album, of course.
The opening invitation:
'Hey bros I think we gotta have a real reading group. One on one, after the bell, in the parking lot. About Das Kapital. - Cain.'
The reading group:
Dramatis personae (or, '1200 years a slave'):
Cain: An enthusiastic fan of Das Kapital. 10 DEX, 48 INT, etc.
Lars Blake: A right bounder. 40 STR, 20 DEX, etc.
The discussion:
Resurreiçäo
Cain: An interesting title.
Lars Blake: You could say they're opening on the stronger foot, eh?
Cain: Yep.
Lars Blake: This song presents a vision of chaos and disharmony across the world. It presents a world of incoherent demands, that they are expected to consider in composing the album.
Cain: They start by talking about a 'crown' and 'steering wheel,' as well as a 'glorious' life determined in a 'minute.' Could it be that 'Diana' is being alluded to in this album?
Lars Blake: That seems likely. How did you feel about Diana's death?
Cain: She was asking for it, I reckon.
Lars Blake: Look, now everybody hates you and is considering not reading this any more.
Cain: In this manner a glorious life is trivialised in a minute.
Lars Blake: How apt.
Cain: Ahem?
Lars Blake: I mean, 'Cool, that.'
Cain: Exactly.
Lars Blake: In any case, the song is slightly laid-back musically. This might be in part because they wish to focus on the message.
Cain: Well -
Lars Blake: Nah, Cain, you're talking too much. Give the blank, white space a chance.
: Lars Blake.
Cain: Did it just say your name?
Lars Blake: The blank space just wrote my name. Does it usually do that?
Cain: Let's check...
: Cain.
Cain: Exceptional.
Lars Blake: I mean, this is cool, but nobody's reading now because you offended them with the thing about Diana.
Cain: What about communists?
Lars Blake: Of course the communists are offended, they revere Diana as well apparently. Like, Diana is dead. So she's oppressed or unfortunate or something, right?
Cain: Good point.
Lars Blake: So the communists support her, mostly.
Cain: I once had a two-person reading group with Taylor Swift, actually. She couldn't read the book, so we quickly called it off. I wonder if this happens often?
Lars Blake: They mention that if you despair, then no-one is with you.
Cain: That sets up for the later song, 'Como se sente,' about despair.
Lars Blake: So this song is fairly appropriate for an opening. It does in some way consider the music itself, and the varying demands made of it that lead in no clear direction. You could hence call it slightly 'despairing.'
Cain: At the same time, it might seem slightly passive or indeterminate. It is noticing conflicts, nonetheless it does not indicate clearly a pathway towards deriving something from this.
Lars Blake: Of course, the title is appropriate due to this name being derived from old sources.
Cain: Still, it does trace a process of division akin to the rashes formed by eczema. Something that they are to treat as unified and revere, is nonetheless divided. Hence it might seem insubstantial.
Lars Blake: So you could say that this album does in some ways speak of itself.
Cain: Alright, yep. Hence, songs like 'Como se sente' might be expected to be personal or specific in some way.
Lars Blake: Anyway, this song had a fairly simplistic structure in some ways, though a slightly obscure and complex message. Not that much to say yet. We see here the divisions in things, or that what society posits as unified is actually divided and a mass of conflicting stimuli.
Cain: Which could hence be time-consuming.
Lars Blake: Yes, although people are instead expected to throw themselves into it without hesitation and passionately.
Cain: Which is only ultimately to tear themselves apart, as one thrown to sharks.
Lars Blake: Indeed. 'Love will tear us apart.' That seems likely to be how this kind of reading group will end, it's unlikely we'll reach the end of the album.
Cain: Nah, it's important that we finish Das Kapital. It could be instructive.
Lars Blake: If you said yes, then who would say no?
Cain: God, probably.
Lars Blake: Would they mean it?
Cain: It would be a metaphor.
Lars Blake: So could you freely ignore it?
Cain: Essentially.
Depois Da Meia-Noite
Cain: So this song is called 'After Midnight,' and -
Lars Blake: AHAHAHAHAHA
Cain: Um, excuse me?
Lars Blake: AHAHAHAHAHAHA
Cain: Alright, can anyone else say something about this song?
: Cain.
Lars Blake: AHAHAHAHAHAHA
Cain: Alright, that was kinda funny. Like, just a bit.
Lars Blake: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Cain: This is too much, though. Although I've said this before.
Lars Blake: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The opening invitation:
'Hey bros I think we gotta have a real reading group. One on one, after the bell, in the parking lot. About Das Kapital. - Cain.'
The reading group:
Dramatis personae (or, '1200 years a slave'):
Cain: An enthusiastic fan of Das Kapital. 10 DEX, 48 INT, etc.
Lars Blake: A right bounder. 40 STR, 20 DEX, etc.
The discussion:
Resurreiçäo
Cain: An interesting title.
Lars Blake: You could say they're opening on the stronger foot, eh?
Cain: Yep.
Lars Blake: This song presents a vision of chaos and disharmony across the world. It presents a world of incoherent demands, that they are expected to consider in composing the album.
Cain: They start by talking about a 'crown' and 'steering wheel,' as well as a 'glorious' life determined in a 'minute.' Could it be that 'Diana' is being alluded to in this album?
Lars Blake: That seems likely. How did you feel about Diana's death?
Cain: She was asking for it, I reckon.
Lars Blake: Look, now everybody hates you and is considering not reading this any more.
Cain: In this manner a glorious life is trivialised in a minute.
Lars Blake: How apt.
Cain: Ahem?
Lars Blake: I mean, 'Cool, that.'
Cain: Exactly.
Lars Blake: In any case, the song is slightly laid-back musically. This might be in part because they wish to focus on the message.
Cain: Well -
Lars Blake: Nah, Cain, you're talking too much. Give the blank, white space a chance.
: Lars Blake.
Cain: Did it just say your name?
Lars Blake: The blank space just wrote my name. Does it usually do that?
Cain: Let's check...
: Cain.
Cain: Exceptional.
Lars Blake: I mean, this is cool, but nobody's reading now because you offended them with the thing about Diana.
Cain: What about communists?
Lars Blake: Of course the communists are offended, they revere Diana as well apparently. Like, Diana is dead. So she's oppressed or unfortunate or something, right?
Cain: Good point.
Lars Blake: So the communists support her, mostly.
Cain: I once had a two-person reading group with Taylor Swift, actually. She couldn't read the book, so we quickly called it off. I wonder if this happens often?
Lars Blake: They mention that if you despair, then no-one is with you.
Cain: That sets up for the later song, 'Como se sente,' about despair.
Lars Blake: So this song is fairly appropriate for an opening. It does in some way consider the music itself, and the varying demands made of it that lead in no clear direction. You could hence call it slightly 'despairing.'
Cain: At the same time, it might seem slightly passive or indeterminate. It is noticing conflicts, nonetheless it does not indicate clearly a pathway towards deriving something from this.
Lars Blake: Of course, the title is appropriate due to this name being derived from old sources.
Cain: Still, it does trace a process of division akin to the rashes formed by eczema. Something that they are to treat as unified and revere, is nonetheless divided. Hence it might seem insubstantial.
Lars Blake: So you could say that this album does in some ways speak of itself.
Cain: Alright, yep. Hence, songs like 'Como se sente' might be expected to be personal or specific in some way.
Lars Blake: Anyway, this song had a fairly simplistic structure in some ways, though a slightly obscure and complex message. Not that much to say yet. We see here the divisions in things, or that what society posits as unified is actually divided and a mass of conflicting stimuli.
Cain: Which could hence be time-consuming.
Lars Blake: Yes, although people are instead expected to throw themselves into it without hesitation and passionately.
Cain: Which is only ultimately to tear themselves apart, as one thrown to sharks.
Lars Blake: Indeed. 'Love will tear us apart.' That seems likely to be how this kind of reading group will end, it's unlikely we'll reach the end of the album.
Cain: Nah, it's important that we finish Das Kapital. It could be instructive.
Lars Blake: If you said yes, then who would say no?
Cain: God, probably.
Lars Blake: Would they mean it?
Cain: It would be a metaphor.
Lars Blake: So could you freely ignore it?
Cain: Essentially.
Depois Da Meia-Noite
Cain: So this song is called 'After Midnight,' and -
Lars Blake: AHAHAHAHAHA
Cain: Um, excuse me?
Lars Blake: AHAHAHAHAHAHA
Cain: Alright, can anyone else say something about this song?
: Cain.
Lars Blake: AHAHAHAHAHAHA
Cain: Alright, that was kinda funny. Like, just a bit.
Lars Blake: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Cain: This is too much, though. Although I've said this before.
Lars Blake: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Monday 22 May 2017
The Haranguing Of Media
Recent politics has seen various attacks on the media, along with various angered responses by media organs. The outcry over these is notable, but partially decentralised - as media organs often are - and hence can seem like a bunch of noises rather than an unequivocal pronouncement. Of course, when left to themselves the media have often been quick to smear or attack political figures. This has often taken the form of 'shock,' perhaps because after staying camped in the Middle East for a decade attacking the media (or, for some in British Labour, Israel) is an incredibly egregious political action. It might come as a surprise to some that the Western governments have been so mild and peaceful of late, that an attack on the media counts as a shocking divergence. Nonetheless
The media is an organ which mediates interactions and experiences, but it is predominantly corporate or associated with bourgeois organs. It is hence best viewed as a propaganda outlet, as the bourgeoisie has ultimate authority over this mediation. Hence, caution about it can be important. 'Propaganda' might be a simplistic term here, as it does not simply promote but seeks to colonise existing experiences and actors and twist these in accordance with corporate ends. As it mediates experiences, or attempts to alter the audience's experience of the world in corporate directions, it goes somewhat beyond propaganda.
When we discuss 'propaganda,' there can be some confusion over the term. Stalinist 'propaganda' is known for its often disputed portrayals of happy people and activity, but Western pop culture very frequently portrays such scenes as a mode of promotion. Indeed, Western culture is saturated with such portrayals, which also serve to condition how the area is portrayed. Many music videos or posters will portray paid 'crowds' acting enthusiastic about the singer and song, but this is an accepted mode of promotion. This all manufactures an image of general contentment within the West, which was not present in countries which dissent even slightly from the predominant Western system. It is predominant in countries which 'go with the flow' of international capital. The bourgeoisie of course have had primary access to these means of happiness, and occasional portrayals of excess indulgence merely serve to glorify them. Nations which were often subordinated to far-away countries, like India, have more ascetic tendencies - in part because they cannot simply relax and go with the flow. Conversely, when the bourgeoisie - with their thirst for gain and the means of universal consumption - are portrayed as living life precisely correct within the circumstances, this is merely a bourgeois viewpoint. Countries like India hence had socialistic tendencies to their independence movement, but these were limited. Ultimately, their freedom was made a near-certainty by the second Great War. Yet it seems perverse that during or even a decade after this British colonialism it should be Soviet propaganda that seems bizarre.- given that the British also tried to promote their Empire as nations might do. The Soviet Union was nonetheless forced to take these frequent portrayals of artificial happiness in Western pop culture, and direct them towards the state which had become a major cultural organ. The general result of this is that 'happiness' in these contexts can be portrayed in a way mediated by corporate outlets, and culture is expected to go along with this.
Hence, you have an 'artificial' realm of corporate living and emotions, which becomes the dominant culture. People are expected to accept that these corporate-mediated emotions are genuine, and get caught up in such enthusiasm - by implication, to shape their emotions in accordance with this. Hence, capital manufactures its own social role. However, when these forms are adopted by an organ with an explicit direction they might appear mechanical or robotic - yet this is merely a general property of them. Hence, the media takes its place in a vast apparatus which allows capital to mediate emotional and artistic content, and hence direct this in accordance with its general position (and interests) in the social apparatus. The social apparatus itself forces people's actions and interests into certain moulds, and identifies their interests with that of capital. They are hence brought into servitude in an 'organic' manner, which can hence perpetuate itself. Hence, the media is supported in its endeavour by many things, and dealing with the media as such without dealing with various cultural outlets is to attack the media but leave its influence intact. Hence, even Trump has been forced to not only attack the media, but also the cultural forces backing their opposition. Trump's campaign is not only its own themes, but also draws on general themes that also occur in more radical campaigns such as the sense of a 'rigged' or self-perpetuating system (a 'rigged economy' in Corbyn's phrasing, which has much to praise about it), and an inimical established order. This is slightly incoherent for Trump, who can hardly claim a 'rigged system' without compromising themselves, and leads with a necessary favour towards companies granted to his family. They are hence brought to draw despite themselves on a more analytic and resistant approach to the critique of the social system, one which is more suspicious of hope and piety as solutions to social problems. They should hence not be seen as falling simply into a single political category, rather they are at times forced to rely on cynical and radical themes.
Their campaign hence, rather than being 'radical,' has little unilateral direction. It is forced to make up for this by largely eschewing a focus on domestic politics, which it reduces to a few happy-go-lucky phrases. In the process it diverges from fascism, of course, which was highly concerned about domestic organisation - and Nazi Germany had to re-construct from a damaged and stifled post-war nation, so their focus on organising the nation was pronounced and allowed them to act surprisingly effective in war despite adverse circumstances.
Of course, such earlier movements were not most dangerous in major nations. They took place in a world hampered by colonial empires, in a Germany treated the same way. The ability to direct the nation, which came to them as 'raw material,' gave them a deceptively effective war-time modus operandi despite their being a re-building nation and a fairly 'young' Reich.. The colonial Empires had a lot of nations that like Germany were kept firmly under, although the war would largely destroy the Western Empires. They were not opposed simply for invading Poland - the Soviets also did this, but it was not found highly concerning. Pointedly, the Western powers were not happy with a Germany that was developed unless it developed in a way mediated by and obeying them - hence, modern German 'regret' for the war should not be taken at face value, but rather in the sense that for many years they were subject to Western rule and hence took on these agendas. This quickly led to conflict between the West and the Soviet Union, neither happy to allow the other to steer Germany - the West increasingly smearing the USSR with a similar brush to the Nazis, and for similar reasons. After the war, then, Germany found itself colonised, but the Western Empires crumbled quickly everywhere else. The war made it difficult for them to sustain these imperial out-posts, and gave resistant nationalists an upper hand. In a way, Germany sacrificed its own independence, but at this expense many colonised nations gained their own.
Hence, the 'Cold War' and its perseverance should be seen in part as a result of the inconclusive nature of the war - neither side was truly satisfied, Empires were put under immense strain and besieged in their own nations, and neither side left without some sort of notable achievement. There was little room for celebration, despite the threat represented by Nazi Germany. It was still a time of unease left intact, and hence international tension. In this atmosphere, the dour Soviet Union flourished before laying down countless wreaths to Western capital and eventually killing itself - giving the West the fortune of a victory without going to the trouble of, for instance, declaring war on them or anything. It must go down as a subject of irony that 'internationalist' leftists who despise USSR nationalist socialism and would rather remain in a state of perpetual war with capitalist nations - as a nation that actively aims to change all of those and does not believe it could survive otherwise -, are also the ones who would be most resistant to the stringent organisation of socialistic areas. Theirs is a tragedy that would repeat were there world enough and time, but otherwise must conclude with Gorbachev's attempt at a flower-draped, happier Soviet Union.
In any case, the media is hence a further manner in which culture is mediated. It allows often hostile forces to twist the reception of an event, from the atmosphere to the context. As such, it is inevitable that movements will come into conflict with this, if they signify or incorporate notable antithetical elements. They hence distance themselves clearly from media organs, who would rather people just listen to them. It is hence important in solidifying such movements, limited as they are, to attack the media. Some might feel uncomfortable with a genuine movement in this direction, that is one which has any worth theoretically. Still, if there is to be any such thing, it will be forced to resort to such attacks. This movement is best seen as unrealised and often poorly understood by those in it. Hence, they can be fickle. This makes it more necessary to distance oneself from the media as a source of theoretical input and other lesser, subsidiary input.
Hence, the cynical movement against the 'media' is an important part of a movement's untangling itself from the web of manipulative culture generally. It frees its actions from mediation by established forces. We have already noted how, in the modern novel, the passivity of the characters is praised and given fantastical forms such as 'magic,' etc. If this is so, it is even more concerning in forms of culture that raise immediate reactions or touch directly on politics, as the media and for instance music have done in recent times. Trump had to face many cultural spheres where he was condemned. This is even more a concern for people who are genuine in their 'offensive' or 'opposed' rhetoric and don't seem completely out-of-place speaking them. Trump's campaign, with its attacks on a 'rig' and 'establishment,' is perhaps best described as awkward given the people delivering these messages. Nonetheless, the media were clearly not going to get a red carpet rolled out for them, and were in some ways a trivial target given the possibility of more evocative forms of official culture also continually pressing in a liberal direction. An election cannot be the focus of a political movement's conflict with the opposition, the abstraction which characterises it means that it is precisely at this point where they see no opposition but only indifferent 'voters.' A capitalist political movement can afford to merely adapt to the prevailing society, more or less. A movement with adverse tendencies must instead specify its direction. Hence, it must focus on distancing itself from things that would undermine or dilute it. Notable mediation is a difficult thing to escape, in its major Western centres. The 'political' sphere only occurs when these other voices are muted, their satisfied sounds subjugated to other concerns and social views. One must not degrade oneself into a servant, but rather seek to alter the terms that society offers.
The media is hence only one manifestation of a mediated and potentially hostile culture, which must be distanced from. When, for instance, culture or its promotion can dovetail with promoting opposition to your movement and cultural sources start to become more valued as political sources, one must attack them if one has genuine political motivation. Movements which are notably divergent must attempt to subjugate or undermine 'culture' in some manner, and after that may still be hated for decades to come. A gun must be taken to culture that risks bringing people into the mediation of concerning forces, or evoking opposed tendencies. In that sense, the accompaniment of radical themes with attacks on the media, though controversial, is an appropriate conjunction. Attacks on the media should not by themselves be found shocking. Politics is easily radicalised compared to media that still operate merely in a private, value-oriented set-up, and hence will often encounter shackles in it. However, these fields and their necessarily atomised forms cannot really comprehend politics. They should hence be distanced from, not allowed free rein there. If the political holds strictly to its own content, which it considers, it remains out of reach. The monarchical form was prone to notable insurrection, as it easily became reduced to domestic affairs - in one sense or another. Other forms have been more secure, and rarely troubled internally on a holistic level. They nonetheless often strive to give politics forms inimical to itself, despite its rugged determination to continue. Nonetheless, if cultural mediation becomes the threat instead, one is heading in a positive direction. While distance is important, it has at its heart the presence of actual critique of and dissent from this media and culture. The more it connects with this, the more dangerous it appears. However, ultimately the critique of it should not be treated as shocking or outré, and one must rather strive to give this critique a suitably radical form.
The media is an organ which mediates interactions and experiences, but it is predominantly corporate or associated with bourgeois organs. It is hence best viewed as a propaganda outlet, as the bourgeoisie has ultimate authority over this mediation. Hence, caution about it can be important. 'Propaganda' might be a simplistic term here, as it does not simply promote but seeks to colonise existing experiences and actors and twist these in accordance with corporate ends. As it mediates experiences, or attempts to alter the audience's experience of the world in corporate directions, it goes somewhat beyond propaganda.
When we discuss 'propaganda,' there can be some confusion over the term. Stalinist 'propaganda' is known for its often disputed portrayals of happy people and activity, but Western pop culture very frequently portrays such scenes as a mode of promotion. Indeed, Western culture is saturated with such portrayals, which also serve to condition how the area is portrayed. Many music videos or posters will portray paid 'crowds' acting enthusiastic about the singer and song, but this is an accepted mode of promotion. This all manufactures an image of general contentment within the West, which was not present in countries which dissent even slightly from the predominant Western system. It is predominant in countries which 'go with the flow' of international capital. The bourgeoisie of course have had primary access to these means of happiness, and occasional portrayals of excess indulgence merely serve to glorify them. Nations which were often subordinated to far-away countries, like India, have more ascetic tendencies - in part because they cannot simply relax and go with the flow. Conversely, when the bourgeoisie - with their thirst for gain and the means of universal consumption - are portrayed as living life precisely correct within the circumstances, this is merely a bourgeois viewpoint. Countries like India hence had socialistic tendencies to their independence movement, but these were limited. Ultimately, their freedom was made a near-certainty by the second Great War. Yet it seems perverse that during or even a decade after this British colonialism it should be Soviet propaganda that seems bizarre.- given that the British also tried to promote their Empire as nations might do. The Soviet Union was nonetheless forced to take these frequent portrayals of artificial happiness in Western pop culture, and direct them towards the state which had become a major cultural organ. The general result of this is that 'happiness' in these contexts can be portrayed in a way mediated by corporate outlets, and culture is expected to go along with this.
Hence, you have an 'artificial' realm of corporate living and emotions, which becomes the dominant culture. People are expected to accept that these corporate-mediated emotions are genuine, and get caught up in such enthusiasm - by implication, to shape their emotions in accordance with this. Hence, capital manufactures its own social role. However, when these forms are adopted by an organ with an explicit direction they might appear mechanical or robotic - yet this is merely a general property of them. Hence, the media takes its place in a vast apparatus which allows capital to mediate emotional and artistic content, and hence direct this in accordance with its general position (and interests) in the social apparatus. The social apparatus itself forces people's actions and interests into certain moulds, and identifies their interests with that of capital. They are hence brought into servitude in an 'organic' manner, which can hence perpetuate itself. Hence, the media is supported in its endeavour by many things, and dealing with the media as such without dealing with various cultural outlets is to attack the media but leave its influence intact. Hence, even Trump has been forced to not only attack the media, but also the cultural forces backing their opposition. Trump's campaign is not only its own themes, but also draws on general themes that also occur in more radical campaigns such as the sense of a 'rigged' or self-perpetuating system (a 'rigged economy' in Corbyn's phrasing, which has much to praise about it), and an inimical established order. This is slightly incoherent for Trump, who can hardly claim a 'rigged system' without compromising themselves, and leads with a necessary favour towards companies granted to his family. They are hence brought to draw despite themselves on a more analytic and resistant approach to the critique of the social system, one which is more suspicious of hope and piety as solutions to social problems. They should hence not be seen as falling simply into a single political category, rather they are at times forced to rely on cynical and radical themes.
Their campaign hence, rather than being 'radical,' has little unilateral direction. It is forced to make up for this by largely eschewing a focus on domestic politics, which it reduces to a few happy-go-lucky phrases. In the process it diverges from fascism, of course, which was highly concerned about domestic organisation - and Nazi Germany had to re-construct from a damaged and stifled post-war nation, so their focus on organising the nation was pronounced and allowed them to act surprisingly effective in war despite adverse circumstances.
Of course, such earlier movements were not most dangerous in major nations. They took place in a world hampered by colonial empires, in a Germany treated the same way. The ability to direct the nation, which came to them as 'raw material,' gave them a deceptively effective war-time modus operandi despite their being a re-building nation and a fairly 'young' Reich.. The colonial Empires had a lot of nations that like Germany were kept firmly under, although the war would largely destroy the Western Empires. They were not opposed simply for invading Poland - the Soviets also did this, but it was not found highly concerning. Pointedly, the Western powers were not happy with a Germany that was developed unless it developed in a way mediated by and obeying them - hence, modern German 'regret' for the war should not be taken at face value, but rather in the sense that for many years they were subject to Western rule and hence took on these agendas. This quickly led to conflict between the West and the Soviet Union, neither happy to allow the other to steer Germany - the West increasingly smearing the USSR with a similar brush to the Nazis, and for similar reasons. After the war, then, Germany found itself colonised, but the Western Empires crumbled quickly everywhere else. The war made it difficult for them to sustain these imperial out-posts, and gave resistant nationalists an upper hand. In a way, Germany sacrificed its own independence, but at this expense many colonised nations gained their own.
Hence, the 'Cold War' and its perseverance should be seen in part as a result of the inconclusive nature of the war - neither side was truly satisfied, Empires were put under immense strain and besieged in their own nations, and neither side left without some sort of notable achievement. There was little room for celebration, despite the threat represented by Nazi Germany. It was still a time of unease left intact, and hence international tension. In this atmosphere, the dour Soviet Union flourished before laying down countless wreaths to Western capital and eventually killing itself - giving the West the fortune of a victory without going to the trouble of, for instance, declaring war on them or anything. It must go down as a subject of irony that 'internationalist' leftists who despise USSR nationalist socialism and would rather remain in a state of perpetual war with capitalist nations - as a nation that actively aims to change all of those and does not believe it could survive otherwise -, are also the ones who would be most resistant to the stringent organisation of socialistic areas. Theirs is a tragedy that would repeat were there world enough and time, but otherwise must conclude with Gorbachev's attempt at a flower-draped, happier Soviet Union.
In any case, the media is hence a further manner in which culture is mediated. It allows often hostile forces to twist the reception of an event, from the atmosphere to the context. As such, it is inevitable that movements will come into conflict with this, if they signify or incorporate notable antithetical elements. They hence distance themselves clearly from media organs, who would rather people just listen to them. It is hence important in solidifying such movements, limited as they are, to attack the media. Some might feel uncomfortable with a genuine movement in this direction, that is one which has any worth theoretically. Still, if there is to be any such thing, it will be forced to resort to such attacks. This movement is best seen as unrealised and often poorly understood by those in it. Hence, they can be fickle. This makes it more necessary to distance oneself from the media as a source of theoretical input and other lesser, subsidiary input.
Hence, the cynical movement against the 'media' is an important part of a movement's untangling itself from the web of manipulative culture generally. It frees its actions from mediation by established forces. We have already noted how, in the modern novel, the passivity of the characters is praised and given fantastical forms such as 'magic,' etc. If this is so, it is even more concerning in forms of culture that raise immediate reactions or touch directly on politics, as the media and for instance music have done in recent times. Trump had to face many cultural spheres where he was condemned. This is even more a concern for people who are genuine in their 'offensive' or 'opposed' rhetoric and don't seem completely out-of-place speaking them. Trump's campaign, with its attacks on a 'rig' and 'establishment,' is perhaps best described as awkward given the people delivering these messages. Nonetheless, the media were clearly not going to get a red carpet rolled out for them, and were in some ways a trivial target given the possibility of more evocative forms of official culture also continually pressing in a liberal direction. An election cannot be the focus of a political movement's conflict with the opposition, the abstraction which characterises it means that it is precisely at this point where they see no opposition but only indifferent 'voters.' A capitalist political movement can afford to merely adapt to the prevailing society, more or less. A movement with adverse tendencies must instead specify its direction. Hence, it must focus on distancing itself from things that would undermine or dilute it. Notable mediation is a difficult thing to escape, in its major Western centres. The 'political' sphere only occurs when these other voices are muted, their satisfied sounds subjugated to other concerns and social views. One must not degrade oneself into a servant, but rather seek to alter the terms that society offers.
The media is hence only one manifestation of a mediated and potentially hostile culture, which must be distanced from. When, for instance, culture or its promotion can dovetail with promoting opposition to your movement and cultural sources start to become more valued as political sources, one must attack them if one has genuine political motivation. Movements which are notably divergent must attempt to subjugate or undermine 'culture' in some manner, and after that may still be hated for decades to come. A gun must be taken to culture that risks bringing people into the mediation of concerning forces, or evoking opposed tendencies. In that sense, the accompaniment of radical themes with attacks on the media, though controversial, is an appropriate conjunction. Attacks on the media should not by themselves be found shocking. Politics is easily radicalised compared to media that still operate merely in a private, value-oriented set-up, and hence will often encounter shackles in it. However, these fields and their necessarily atomised forms cannot really comprehend politics. They should hence be distanced from, not allowed free rein there. If the political holds strictly to its own content, which it considers, it remains out of reach. The monarchical form was prone to notable insurrection, as it easily became reduced to domestic affairs - in one sense or another. Other forms have been more secure, and rarely troubled internally on a holistic level. They nonetheless often strive to give politics forms inimical to itself, despite its rugged determination to continue. Nonetheless, if cultural mediation becomes the threat instead, one is heading in a positive direction. While distance is important, it has at its heart the presence of actual critique of and dissent from this media and culture. The more it connects with this, the more dangerous it appears. However, ultimately the critique of it should not be treated as shocking or outré, and one must rather strive to give this critique a suitably radical form.
Ignore Marx and Engels, Listen to This
Instead of wasting your time on those two, listen to this:
It's far better.
This has been a public health and safety announcement. We apologise for any times we might have given viewers the opposite impression, an unfortunate occurrence.
It's far better.
This has been a public health and safety announcement. We apologise for any times we might have given viewers the opposite impression, an unfortunate occurrence.
Wednesday 17 May 2017
Further information about the reptilian problem
We interrupt this broadcast to bring you further feed-back about the reptilian problem currently facing humanity:
"These reptilians arre becoming a serious issue."
"I used to believe in God, then my family were slaughtered by reptilians."
"Those reptilians are a devious lot..."
"Reptilians? I heard someone mention them being evil. Terrible, terrible."
"How anti-Marxist of them. I'm fine with that, though. What's worse is their devious manipulation of world history."
"What would you suggest to solvve the reptilian epidemic?"
Hope this helps to calm your panicked souls.
Your razzmatazz and the nights on the town (Security, 9-1-1)
In England, culture is rather monotone. Figures of focus include Je-sus Christ, Shakespeare, and Socrates. All with effectively the same name. People are generally hence introduced to the same sound for 'exemplary' figures - suggesting that perhaps it is the 'sound' that perseveres, not the people.
Likewise, pop music in English - though often American - tends to feature heavily people involving an 'ay' sound: Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Hayley Williams, Hailee Steinfeld, Lana Del Rey, etc. This has increased since the mid-2000s. In films, 'eh' sounds like Jessica or Jennifer are more prominent. Heavy metal, for the sake of variety, can trace its way back to 'Black Sabbath' - although admittedly many other bands could have led in the same directions. It also happens coincidentally to resemble 'Hitler,' a figure who admittedly leads to most metal bands seeming tame and hand-wringing by comparison. What is counted as 'heavy metal' in say Black Sabbath's title track is closer to Fates Warning's 'A Pleasant Shade of Gray' - 'heavy' notes interspersed with softer segments with vocals. A lot of it is 'rock.' In some ways, the heavy metal derives like punk from musical simplification. However, perhaps in part due to the radical historical resonances of the name, it has gone in other directions which separate it from rock and 'milder' or 'false' music; these might go beyond the earlier aim.
Christianity, like plays, often encouraged passivity. Plays are a world of characters that pretend to be normal, but unlike actual people are held by the author like a puppet on a string. The author wants to construct people different from them, all they end up with are absurdities and chimeras in the attempt. If you look at these from the perspective of forms of government or social organisation, it should be evident that the societies constructed are an absurdity - the author holds a fictitious authority that obscures or renders farcical any governmental structures or social order. In a novel, despite the pretence of characters the true nature of things is that the author could have characters walk upside down, fly, etc., in the next sentence if they wanted to. These are the actual characters, as the novel form construes them - without the pretence that they aren't characters in a book. Nonetheless, plays prospered in a time of monarchy, when as a format they could easily seek to allure people with a passive, hopeful world of puppets. They should therefore be seen as a format appropriate to an age with an established monarchy.
Nonetheless, they tried to avoid interfering with certain things. Capital still requires passivity, the subjection of man to objects. Hence, novels have caused the infiltration of these passive characters - albeit of far less worth - into schools. They specialise In the fictitious arts that are actually fictions of the author and give the format of passive adherence to author the form of a way of life or 'magic.' Hence, passivity is encoded and enshrined, what is in truth 'going with the flow' of the author is instead pretended as 'magic.' This was in many ways a new low for literature.
Also disturbing is when these passive pseudo-people engage in glorified love affairs, which people assume to be normal - often accompanied with things like 'shipping.' This isn't possible unless people actually relate intimately as passive and empty beings, and take this form of existence as normal. Hence, they are an extension of the 'magic' previously mentioned. Hence, popular examples include 'Twilight,' 'Naruto,' 'Love Hina,' and other things with similar themes. Also troubling is when authors pretend to set passive characters against 'dystopian' and totalitarian regimes, as if they have a right to do so with these characters. That may be referred to as a suicidal novel, and in general it substitutes strange but incorrect things for politics. The historical novel is also an amusing triviality - the author purporting to control a society in a way they didn't. At no point did Henry IV die and leave historical novelists in charge of their kingdom.
The novel form is at its best when it is an overlay or satirical, when it takes events or articles and adds a poetic gloss. However, it is still an inferior form.
The play form is in some ways more constrained, however despite this it is obviously inferior to many things. If performed, it could do so many things as to be amorphous - serve republicanism or monarchism, serve any cause and hence in truth serve no cause besides passivity. Hence, considering performance primary while praising a playwright is hollow - not only do modern renditions in all likelihood not represent an authentic presentation of the historical author, people having other concerns, but it is an empty vessel that can be filled in any manner. Hence, in some way an author's popularity here has to do with other facts. As a text, or insofar as the author wrote it (though still limited by the need to perform it), it is usually too dry. Performed organically, without females for instance, it is still too dry and besides has a different context. In any case, the play form - less honest than the novel form where the author tries to announce their presence or is allowed to issue warning - is a form probably out-moded. Films also have problems, however they are the manipulation of colours on a screen and need not have the same problems as novels or plays. These are both in any case usually chimeras, worthwhile only for when they are self-critical - and there they are inconsistent, for they do not end and cease to exist.
Christianity often deals in strange ways: God separates from Himself, then feels betrayed by Himself. It is ultimately polytheism. Nonetheless, Jesus tries often to separate the divine from earthly matters like the government, actions, etc., and dies in obedience. They are a suicidal 'God.' Likewise, Shakespeare does all that they can to obscure themselves in characters, however these characters are not only creatures below animals - creatures with no semblance of human traits or self-determination in truth - but they are nothing and merely represent Shakespeare in a senseless form. Nonetheless, Jesus acts more definitively: they wish to also make demands on the world, and undermine aspects of passivity by showing people the demands of the kingdom around them.
If Christ's kingdom has not come, and communism is considered dismissed for less, there is still much specious about claims of Christianity. Christianity often diverged from and vulgarised the capitalist social system, it could claim with Three Days Grace that, 'This house is not a home.' If it contained an anti-capitalist element, in general it just preached collaborationism or that virtually anything could be forced to serve the capitalist order. If the Catholic hierarchy inverts and distorts the capitalist order eerily, subverting its lust for accumulation and hence consumption (money is nothing outside of its universal purchasing power) with a hierarchy involving stringent measures to the contrary. Nonetheless, this stubborn anti-capitalist element is mediated by the need for these to serve the 'external' capitalistic society, and hence to serve the capitalistic order and ultimately capital. Thus, there is the assurance that elements in opposition can be tamed, that people can go on in social activity in peace and without acknowledging opposed social forces. These would undermine the things they aim for and are passionate about, so it is no surprise.
Intimate relations like marriage tended to rely on the economic system's fancy and hence on the favour of capital. Hence, the distinction between a Church and a whorehouse was often subtle. And once a Church gives in to most capitalist governments, what more can it submit its religion to? It seems that it takes a fundamentally empty religion to achieve this.
Mostly, then, religion under capitalism was identical. It had to accomodate an irreligious order, and hence eliminate or tone down its distinguishing features. However, while Christianity prevails where it is 'at peace' or comfortable with itself, 'Islam' is often the form taken in more war-like or conflicting elements of the world order. They are nonetheless similar things expressed differently. However, Christianity and Islam are of course different religions, although Islam likes to pretend that it can accommodate Jesus. They have different bases, and people associated with them. Nonetheless, they are ultimately identical in capitalism. This hence diverges slightly, in a positive or negative direction. If capital is 'conservative' or retreating from religious demands, it will seek to pacify this or regress from religion to comfort opposed elements; if there is an insurgent or uncomfortable society, it will seek to go beyond religion or transcend this accommodation of opposed elements. Of course, any religion must involve elements of this accommodation, to survive in capital in a familiar fashion. Sometimes, they will turn against this, or seek to go further. This is implicit, as religion contains resistant elements. However, they contain them like flowers kept in a book, as things that are apologetic about this and are preserved in such a silenced state.
Of course, religions can be dragged further into something comfortable, as Baz Luhrmann can adapt Shakespeare plays. However, these need not be definitive or without controversy, as by that point each loses their overall point. One could go elsewhere if one wanted a film like that, but with an appropriate text that does not come across as comical - and with half-decent people in the main roles. Likewise, a religion mostly involving doing other things would soon give way to these things. The explicitly polytheistic religions sought to limit this, however they eventually pointed to too many alternatives to retain any substance or strictness. The most notable parts of such religions were often things like emperor-worship, which integrated religion with law and gave it some authority and unpredictability. The Caesars, for instance, were associated with this, after taking on the name of the dead Julius Caesar. Eventually, they could dissipate to allow in more 'monotheistic' religions. A religion which habitually deifies things is conservative. It is likely to dissipate, and is idle. A religion which deifies everything, like monotheism often tends towards, can also be so and in a more notable way. Nonetheless, monotheism can contain efforts at limiting this tendency, which Christianity attempts most thoroughly.
Football players are named after Messiah figures, albeit with some doubt implied as to the piousness of their religious beliefs. That could be put down to the laughter of the gods.
Hence, capitalism generally selects for examples of these things which distance themselves from what they are. The fields, such as art, can express some resistance to the commodification of activities and their formulation as abstract labour. 'There is no poetry in money' - and such things. Nonetheless, examples of them where they cede ground and draw the fields back to give way for civil society to carry on uncaring and as it is, tend to be found most secure. Nonetheless, they require some identification with this field and relegate others from it, hence they are inconsistent figures. In any case, this inconsistency and their problems are generally focussed on in their reputation under capitalism, their strengths obscured. Hence, their role has generally gone in this direction.
Hence, on the one hand they need to identify with the terrain and keep others out, on the other hand they let others act freely. They cannot necessarily do all of these things at once, so there is often some forgery around them. However, if they cannot happen at once, they can be represented in a story. This is still slightly inconsistent. Nonetheless, it would imply that someone secures a position or can repel others freely, nonetheless they eventually decide to give in to them and take on their viewpoint. Hence, from a story along these lines, appropriate figures might be generated. However, these are still self-limiting figures, ultimately. Further, they essentially secure a position - they keep others at bay, they do not place obviously shiny propositions that could be attacked and trouble them. They do not try to offer possible weaknesses, or things upon which their appeal clearly hinges, rather they remain secure. Hence, they are 'serious' or 'classics.' Hence, their adherence to a given field is important, as it staves others off - however, this only applies to those specific others. It is nonetheless a weak adherence. Religion, like art, has several elaborate and complex ends that aren't easily subordinated to the uniformity of value - and can subsist in a Masonic suspension which allows them to avoid undue subjugation. The hollowness of popular formalism is merely the subjugation of this to the 'content' of capitalistic society, which is so empty that only formalism can truly advocate it. In any case, then, these tendencies need to have a basis in something that staves things off, perhaps in a direct conflict, albeit with this accompanied by a general story. They control the terrain, and later are not defeated but submit and agree with the other. This is the basic format, and is not suicidal. Some of these stay closer to it than others.
In any case, then, clearly some uniformity prevails between fields. It continually infests them. Nonetheless, this is not to be taken as actually granting them priority of any kind. In general, the forms which these drew on were limited - some more than others. As they are hollow, things like plays resolve to garbled poetry. Marlowe accurately figured with Faustus - despite the play's own flaws - how the playwright gives themselves up to speak directly for others they cannot speak as, and yet it is ultimately fruitless. It is a rather dark message, for a play: a place where the playwright thinks they can play God because they have a pen. Nonetheless it accompanies some interesting religious portrayals to foreground a notable play.
Likewise, pop music in English - though often American - tends to feature heavily people involving an 'ay' sound: Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Hayley Williams, Hailee Steinfeld, Lana Del Rey, etc. This has increased since the mid-2000s. In films, 'eh' sounds like Jessica or Jennifer are more prominent. Heavy metal, for the sake of variety, can trace its way back to 'Black Sabbath' - although admittedly many other bands could have led in the same directions. It also happens coincidentally to resemble 'Hitler,' a figure who admittedly leads to most metal bands seeming tame and hand-wringing by comparison. What is counted as 'heavy metal' in say Black Sabbath's title track is closer to Fates Warning's 'A Pleasant Shade of Gray' - 'heavy' notes interspersed with softer segments with vocals. A lot of it is 'rock.' In some ways, the heavy metal derives like punk from musical simplification. However, perhaps in part due to the radical historical resonances of the name, it has gone in other directions which separate it from rock and 'milder' or 'false' music; these might go beyond the earlier aim.
Christianity, like plays, often encouraged passivity. Plays are a world of characters that pretend to be normal, but unlike actual people are held by the author like a puppet on a string. The author wants to construct people different from them, all they end up with are absurdities and chimeras in the attempt. If you look at these from the perspective of forms of government or social organisation, it should be evident that the societies constructed are an absurdity - the author holds a fictitious authority that obscures or renders farcical any governmental structures or social order. In a novel, despite the pretence of characters the true nature of things is that the author could have characters walk upside down, fly, etc., in the next sentence if they wanted to. These are the actual characters, as the novel form construes them - without the pretence that they aren't characters in a book. Nonetheless, plays prospered in a time of monarchy, when as a format they could easily seek to allure people with a passive, hopeful world of puppets. They should therefore be seen as a format appropriate to an age with an established monarchy.
Nonetheless, they tried to avoid interfering with certain things. Capital still requires passivity, the subjection of man to objects. Hence, novels have caused the infiltration of these passive characters - albeit of far less worth - into schools. They specialise In the fictitious arts that are actually fictions of the author and give the format of passive adherence to author the form of a way of life or 'magic.' Hence, passivity is encoded and enshrined, what is in truth 'going with the flow' of the author is instead pretended as 'magic.' This was in many ways a new low for literature.
Also disturbing is when these passive pseudo-people engage in glorified love affairs, which people assume to be normal - often accompanied with things like 'shipping.' This isn't possible unless people actually relate intimately as passive and empty beings, and take this form of existence as normal. Hence, they are an extension of the 'magic' previously mentioned. Hence, popular examples include 'Twilight,' 'Naruto,' 'Love Hina,' and other things with similar themes. Also troubling is when authors pretend to set passive characters against 'dystopian' and totalitarian regimes, as if they have a right to do so with these characters. That may be referred to as a suicidal novel, and in general it substitutes strange but incorrect things for politics. The historical novel is also an amusing triviality - the author purporting to control a society in a way they didn't. At no point did Henry IV die and leave historical novelists in charge of their kingdom.
The novel form is at its best when it is an overlay or satirical, when it takes events or articles and adds a poetic gloss. However, it is still an inferior form.
The play form is in some ways more constrained, however despite this it is obviously inferior to many things. If performed, it could do so many things as to be amorphous - serve republicanism or monarchism, serve any cause and hence in truth serve no cause besides passivity. Hence, considering performance primary while praising a playwright is hollow - not only do modern renditions in all likelihood not represent an authentic presentation of the historical author, people having other concerns, but it is an empty vessel that can be filled in any manner. Hence, in some way an author's popularity here has to do with other facts. As a text, or insofar as the author wrote it (though still limited by the need to perform it), it is usually too dry. Performed organically, without females for instance, it is still too dry and besides has a different context. In any case, the play form - less honest than the novel form where the author tries to announce their presence or is allowed to issue warning - is a form probably out-moded. Films also have problems, however they are the manipulation of colours on a screen and need not have the same problems as novels or plays. These are both in any case usually chimeras, worthwhile only for when they are self-critical - and there they are inconsistent, for they do not end and cease to exist.
Christianity often deals in strange ways: God separates from Himself, then feels betrayed by Himself. It is ultimately polytheism. Nonetheless, Jesus tries often to separate the divine from earthly matters like the government, actions, etc., and dies in obedience. They are a suicidal 'God.' Likewise, Shakespeare does all that they can to obscure themselves in characters, however these characters are not only creatures below animals - creatures with no semblance of human traits or self-determination in truth - but they are nothing and merely represent Shakespeare in a senseless form. Nonetheless, Jesus acts more definitively: they wish to also make demands on the world, and undermine aspects of passivity by showing people the demands of the kingdom around them.
If Christ's kingdom has not come, and communism is considered dismissed for less, there is still much specious about claims of Christianity. Christianity often diverged from and vulgarised the capitalist social system, it could claim with Three Days Grace that, 'This house is not a home.' If it contained an anti-capitalist element, in general it just preached collaborationism or that virtually anything could be forced to serve the capitalist order. If the Catholic hierarchy inverts and distorts the capitalist order eerily, subverting its lust for accumulation and hence consumption (money is nothing outside of its universal purchasing power) with a hierarchy involving stringent measures to the contrary. Nonetheless, this stubborn anti-capitalist element is mediated by the need for these to serve the 'external' capitalistic society, and hence to serve the capitalistic order and ultimately capital. Thus, there is the assurance that elements in opposition can be tamed, that people can go on in social activity in peace and without acknowledging opposed social forces. These would undermine the things they aim for and are passionate about, so it is no surprise.
Intimate relations like marriage tended to rely on the economic system's fancy and hence on the favour of capital. Hence, the distinction between a Church and a whorehouse was often subtle. And once a Church gives in to most capitalist governments, what more can it submit its religion to? It seems that it takes a fundamentally empty religion to achieve this.
Mostly, then, religion under capitalism was identical. It had to accomodate an irreligious order, and hence eliminate or tone down its distinguishing features. However, while Christianity prevails where it is 'at peace' or comfortable with itself, 'Islam' is often the form taken in more war-like or conflicting elements of the world order. They are nonetheless similar things expressed differently. However, Christianity and Islam are of course different religions, although Islam likes to pretend that it can accommodate Jesus. They have different bases, and people associated with them. Nonetheless, they are ultimately identical in capitalism. This hence diverges slightly, in a positive or negative direction. If capital is 'conservative' or retreating from religious demands, it will seek to pacify this or regress from religion to comfort opposed elements; if there is an insurgent or uncomfortable society, it will seek to go beyond religion or transcend this accommodation of opposed elements. Of course, any religion must involve elements of this accommodation, to survive in capital in a familiar fashion. Sometimes, they will turn against this, or seek to go further. This is implicit, as religion contains resistant elements. However, they contain them like flowers kept in a book, as things that are apologetic about this and are preserved in such a silenced state.
Of course, religions can be dragged further into something comfortable, as Baz Luhrmann can adapt Shakespeare plays. However, these need not be definitive or without controversy, as by that point each loses their overall point. One could go elsewhere if one wanted a film like that, but with an appropriate text that does not come across as comical - and with half-decent people in the main roles. Likewise, a religion mostly involving doing other things would soon give way to these things. The explicitly polytheistic religions sought to limit this, however they eventually pointed to too many alternatives to retain any substance or strictness. The most notable parts of such religions were often things like emperor-worship, which integrated religion with law and gave it some authority and unpredictability. The Caesars, for instance, were associated with this, after taking on the name of the dead Julius Caesar. Eventually, they could dissipate to allow in more 'monotheistic' religions. A religion which habitually deifies things is conservative. It is likely to dissipate, and is idle. A religion which deifies everything, like monotheism often tends towards, can also be so and in a more notable way. Nonetheless, monotheism can contain efforts at limiting this tendency, which Christianity attempts most thoroughly.
Football players are named after Messiah figures, albeit with some doubt implied as to the piousness of their religious beliefs. That could be put down to the laughter of the gods.
Hence, capitalism generally selects for examples of these things which distance themselves from what they are. The fields, such as art, can express some resistance to the commodification of activities and their formulation as abstract labour. 'There is no poetry in money' - and such things. Nonetheless, examples of them where they cede ground and draw the fields back to give way for civil society to carry on uncaring and as it is, tend to be found most secure. Nonetheless, they require some identification with this field and relegate others from it, hence they are inconsistent figures. In any case, this inconsistency and their problems are generally focussed on in their reputation under capitalism, their strengths obscured. Hence, their role has generally gone in this direction.
Hence, on the one hand they need to identify with the terrain and keep others out, on the other hand they let others act freely. They cannot necessarily do all of these things at once, so there is often some forgery around them. However, if they cannot happen at once, they can be represented in a story. This is still slightly inconsistent. Nonetheless, it would imply that someone secures a position or can repel others freely, nonetheless they eventually decide to give in to them and take on their viewpoint. Hence, from a story along these lines, appropriate figures might be generated. However, these are still self-limiting figures, ultimately. Further, they essentially secure a position - they keep others at bay, they do not place obviously shiny propositions that could be attacked and trouble them. They do not try to offer possible weaknesses, or things upon which their appeal clearly hinges, rather they remain secure. Hence, they are 'serious' or 'classics.' Hence, their adherence to a given field is important, as it staves others off - however, this only applies to those specific others. It is nonetheless a weak adherence. Religion, like art, has several elaborate and complex ends that aren't easily subordinated to the uniformity of value - and can subsist in a Masonic suspension which allows them to avoid undue subjugation. The hollowness of popular formalism is merely the subjugation of this to the 'content' of capitalistic society, which is so empty that only formalism can truly advocate it. In any case, then, these tendencies need to have a basis in something that staves things off, perhaps in a direct conflict, albeit with this accompanied by a general story. They control the terrain, and later are not defeated but submit and agree with the other. This is the basic format, and is not suicidal. Some of these stay closer to it than others.
In any case, then, clearly some uniformity prevails between fields. It continually infests them. Nonetheless, this is not to be taken as actually granting them priority of any kind. In general, the forms which these drew on were limited - some more than others. As they are hollow, things like plays resolve to garbled poetry. Marlowe accurately figured with Faustus - despite the play's own flaws - how the playwright gives themselves up to speak directly for others they cannot speak as, and yet it is ultimately fruitless. It is a rather dark message, for a play: a place where the playwright thinks they can play God because they have a pen. Nonetheless it accompanies some interesting religious portrayals to foreground a notable play.
Saturday 13 May 2017
Recent Statistics
In other news, recent reptilian statistics report startlingly that up to 1 in every 4 American government officials are reptilians. Not all are honest about this, in public governmental duties.
We bring you the FACTS and SCIENCE about reptilians.
Monday 1 May 2017
Intro: A Dialogue, translated from German
"So what do you think of Hillary Clinton - ?"
"Who? Sorry, the name was tl;dr."
"Do you know what you just did?"
"Woah."
"Who? Sorry, the name was tl;dr."
"Do you know what you just did?"
"Woah."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)