"Hitler had the right idea, he was just an under-achiever."

Screenshots that are funnier without context (Part I)

 

What could ZeroNowhere have been saying about Hitler? It sounds great.

Greetings, NPCs | 2

You lose track of your identity, because most people are NPCs. You start to blend into the community, finding that you belong and are accepted. However, due to this you start to feel oppressed by the dehumanising effect of the 'NPC meme.' You are also outraged when you hear that some people apparently have 'internal thoughts,' and you ridicule them by saying that they hear voices in their head. This clearly cements your status as an NPC, and hence you seek to redress the wrong done to NPCs by the dehuminising critics. You hence set off to slay a dragon, who has used the NPC meme. This resembles the film 'NPC Wars III: Revenge of the NPCs'.  So you set off, to fight the dragon.

This leaves you with three options:

a) Proceed on a quest to the dragon's abode, by starting a trek up the dragon's treacherous mountain.
b) Gather resources for your trip to reach the dragon, allowing you to delay your encounter with the dragon until it appears vulnerable.
c) Get offended.
d) Become a metalhead NPC, and try to slay the dragon with the 'power of metal,' something that you read about in a Dragonforce comment section on YouTube. Post on metal forums about your political views before that, and how they convinced you to slay the dragon.

Good luck, NPCs.

Greetings, NPCs

A sort of game.

Our resident NPC pet is currently experiencing a problem. They feel dehumanised by the 'NPC meme' currently going around, and they wish to slay a dragon to prove their status as an honourable person. How should they proceed?

Choose one option in the comments:

a) Proceed on a quest to the dragon's abode, by starting a trek up the dragon's treacherous mountain.
b) We should not focus on dragons. Only communist revolution will lead to a truly human society, and a full development of human nature. Foster revolutionary sentiment. Then the NPC will - by the dictates of humanist Marxism - truly assume their place as a human, even though they still wouldn't be human or persons.
c) Get offended.
d) It is hopeless to pursue the dragon, it is too fierce and will not be slain by such a frail attempt. In harmony with the dictates of anti-draconic nihilism, do not bother with fighting the dragon. Become pessimistic, and try to escape from your activist programming.
e) Gather resources for your trip to reach the dragon, allowing you to delay your encounter with the dragon until it appears vulnerable.
f) Lose track of your identity, because most people are NPCs.
g) Get offended.

Deus Wilt

The Catholic church's views on casual sex, mastupration and other expressions of sexual desire lead to the following conundrum: the ordinary Catholic should marry and have sex, but they should not want to marry and have sex. They have, however, an easy solution which allows them to find an appropriately undesirable mate: marrying a Catholic.

In this simple solution, some might see the elegance of God's hand directing matters to uplift his flock, and distract them from carnal desires. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion, but in a church the only burning passion is ennui.

This post was quarantined

'Trust Our Corporation to Inform You'

One consequence of the modern centralization of the internet is the increasing role of corporations in censoring political ideas which they disapprove of.

Unlike the earlier so-called 'Wild West' of the 90's and early 2000's internet, with their profusion of personal web pages, forums, and people posting whatever they want, the modern internet is characterized by revolving around highly homogenized social media giants. This isn't entirely organic, as many of these webpages have run at a loss, and been propped up by speculative investors to monopolize an area of the internet. Sites like Reddit or Twitter are just another example of this, because they centralise the function previously played by forums and smaller online communities, in a way that leads to a corporate pseudo-monopoly being granted the keys to public discourse. After the spread of smartphones and social media led to widespread adoption of the internet among the masses, the internet has steadily declined into homogeneity, authoritarianism and conformity, just like the USSR descended into Stalinist famine and oppression after the Bolsheviks' populist revolution.

Unsurprisingly, there has been a recent trend of politically-motivated censorship on social media websites. This has been applauded by modern liberals, who claim to oppose corporations but in practice always walk in lockstep with them.

The recent move by corporations and their allied corporate-backed pseudo-liberal websites to bar disliked politics should be seen as disturbing. They have no right whatsoever to dictate people's politics or to make political statements, as they are themselves one of the bigger problems with modern politics.

We should not be encouraging (as some 'leftists' do) this setting up of monopolising corporate ideology as the standard of political acceptability in various channels of communication. Calling Trump 'fascist' is not only blatantly false, but has become a justification for liberals to support widespread corporate censorship. That is merely ignorance and alarmism which ignores the bigger picture.

A More Honest Political Compass

There are many graphs akin to the 'political compass' on the internet, all of which claim to portray the political spectrum and the nature of your politics. We thought we would post an improved version. It is similar to the previous political compasses, however now we have edited them to properly reflect the extent of their ability to characterise political views across the spectrum. We feel like this will give a more accurate reading of your politics, while still exploiting the capacities of the political compass to the full. Enjoy:

This hopefully illustrates the power of the political compass itself to enlighten you about politics.

Everything's bigger in Texas

Trump doesn't support illegal immigration. It's not grandiose enough, you see.

Instead, he supports Israel, a whole state that 'immigrated' into the middle of the Middle Eastern states. Indeed, he goes to great lengths to do so.

We can see that Trump's politics are often akin to a politics of 'reality TV.' There isn't much passion so much as a pretense.

Ocasio-Cortez isn't close to a 'socialist,' as even figures within the Democratic Party have noted. Ocasio-Cortez is merely a moderate 'reformist,' if that. The overall bourgeois agenda remains the same. Yet Trump is apparently a 'fascist,' and Ocasio-Cortez more willingly a 'socialist.' The mild bourgeois political crowd are not content to leave radicalism alone, they wish for their petty dramas to seem larger-than-life by pretending that radicalism is involved. Instead of actually letting people engage with 'fascism' or 'communism,' the bourgeois electoral politics have decided that it would be safer to just re-enact a diluted version of this drama on the political arena, to assure people that there is no way out of their bourgeois 'centrist' Matrix.

In the world of bourgeois politics, they proudly hold to the old biblical saying, "All is vanity."

Critiques of labour in value

Value is the form of capitalistic products, which also transforms the process of 'production.'

However, the form in which this value is depicted can vary. Marx's formulation is subject to several, potentially valid objections.

Further, 'value' is not an organic form, rather it arises from the form of the social process. This is not restricted to official 'production,' of course. Nonetheless, Marx stresses that value is inorganic, and hence must arise from the social process. This insight is not unique to Marx, of course; most observe that economic categories are a social matter. The capitalist economic categories are premised on several traits of the social process, which allow people to face each other in the atomised yet unified mode characteristic of capitalism.

In dealing with people's conduct within capitalism, capitalism itself might seem slightly relaxed. It does not, of course, tell people that they must spend money in one way or another, or that it represents anything. This is merely a postulate of ideologists. Ideologists also try to take issue with the 'metaphysical' nature of value - as if money just 'happened' to be an inherent property of things. It is not, hence the 'metaphysical' appearance. Hence, all that ideologists are doing is taking a social process that happens to occur, and taking its treatment of forms as inherent to them. The coin just is money, the spending of money is for one purpose or represents a certain thing. In truth, money is merely an emblem of the society as a force against the individual or concrete. Further, human society must necessarily relate to this capitalistic form with slight uncertainty - does capitalism really have any inherent concern over their conduct being 'ethical' or in one set of moral norms?

Hence, the 'metaphysical' nature of value is the pseudo-concretisation of social forms as an alternate or replacement form of the object. Hence, it is already implicit in things like the socially determined nature of money. As such, the 'social forms' encroach on and seek to replace the objects with something empty. They hence also seek to do this with humans, forming a seeming 'community.'

The ideologist merely wants to evade the 'metaphysical' so that they can excuse their own unthinking positivism.

The liberal positivist finds a systematic criticism too 'metaphysical' anyway, because the liberal is only interested in the immediate spurs and stimuli provided by a society which they positivistically accept. Hence, the liberal views a society of shifting hopes and dreams within it, not of 'absolute' forces. In the process, this 'hoping' becomes itself an abstraction that appears 'absolute.' As such, to enquire too far here seems to disturb this image, and hence 'metaphysical.' To criticise something as metaphysical in this sense is merely to say that it falls outside of their limited 'image' of the world, does not appear there. Their interest is in 'reform,' and indeed anything systematic is not understood - it is not merely reforms. Further, it appears 'dry' - 'reform' takes its momentum from positivist takes on social aspects, while the systematic eschews that momentum or does not start from the same place as liberal 'action' and 'excitement.' The liberal considers things within the system, but rarely the system itself.

Yet there are valid criticisms to be made, distinct from liberal prudishness.

- -

Qualms

- -

Social labour-time

Marx wants value to be determined by the total socially necessary average labour time, with labour hence considered as an abstraction. However, labour is not posited as a uniform, social mass without value. Hence, this cannot occur as an external relation of determination. It is labour necessary to produce a value that is relevant - 'value' is the telos of labour. Hence, it is a problematic category to base value on.

- -

Other factors

From a discussion, which touched on the criticisms made by Böhm-Bawerck:

As far as Marx opening with the commodity, it needn't be seen as stringently necessary. In discussing use-value, for instance, we are also implicitly discussing production - which is where some commodities are used. Hence, it isn't a strictly focussed opening or one that can exclude others stringently, or other ways of giving such an account. The category of production is introduced as something derived, as a result, and must be portrayed in this way throughout the account.

Interestingly, however, within this schema production and such can only appear as adjuncts of the commodity or as a result of analysing the commodity. As occurs. In this sense, Böhm-Bawerck's observation can have some validity, namely that many other things can be derived from and play a part in the commodity. Hence, so far as they are concerned Marx might make a valid point, nonetheless they then make a jump which is uncalled for from the commodity itself. Hence, this is akin to criticising the commodity as a starting-point, with some validity perhaps. It might have been clearer to start with production, then investigate how this is altered in commodities.

In general, it is valid to note that other factors go into the commodity. This is a basic factor of capitalism, that other things are subordinated to commodities, and to act as appendages of them. Hence, other factors are also important, because they contribute to the commodity. However, this is a limitation, as these factors cannot be economically integrated or given a notable status. This was somewhat relevant in times of Luddism and so on, where people were forced to sacrifice machinery and so on in order to demand more of a place for themselves. In any case, it forms a limitation in an economy which wishes to centre around something, yet cannot generally do so.

 - -

 Receptivity

Value appears receptive, or other objects and processes can replace your own active process. 'Sociality' is here posited as generic submission of individuals to the empty core of capitalist society. Hence, this sociality of value appears as a general trait of it. It involves a situation of 'receptivity' where the one person's process is erased in order to unify with another's - your activity and existence is replaced 'seamlessly' by someone else's. Hence, it might not seem apt that it is restricted to 'production.' The act of production is not by itself formulated as being in a social form appropriate to the capitalistic situation. Rather, this is primarily a property of relations.

Of course, even Marx goes in this direction on occasion.

This point might seem straightforward, however it does take issue with the formulation of value as primarily a matter of labour and not of more properly 'labour formulated as part of a society organised according to value.'

- -

What's labour?

The labour process in capitalism typically takes place in a way directed by the interests of capital. However, this hence seems to give capital a role in 'labour.' Hence, capital would also play an active role in the process which 'determines value' - even if it is seemingly excluded from this. If labour is involved, then is not the force which directs social labour and drives it also a determining factor? This is a complex question. Although capitalists function only through capital, nonetheless social labour is conditioned and given direction by capital. As a result, it might be misleading to hypostatise the simple category of 'labour' onto labour in capitalism as if capitalist labour is still the same as labour in general. The labourers who would direct value are themselves directed. The category of 'labour' by itself hence rarely appears without other forces integral to it. This objection does have some significance, although it is important to be careful not to distort it into a more conventional dogma. Due to the 'determination' of value featuring several intertwined or directed forces, it would be misleading to speak of only one as being the sole 'determinant of value.' While rhetorically inconvenient, this is nonetheless the case. However, the classes still have relations to each other which are part of a capitalist system. Though the relations' form of appearance as a relation through objects is interesting, the fundamental objection to this class situation should remain the same due to its basis in the concrete class system as a human social structure. It is easy for people to reduce the criticism of capitalism to a portrayal where it seems like man primarily relates to objects when this is only a misleading appearance which is capitalistic in nature. It is clear why this portrayal may be limited, due to its basis in a capitalist mode of thought. Although it may be called 'Marxist-humanist' or 'German philosophy,' it is important to recall the centrality of the 'human factor' and structure of social relations to anti-capitalist critique within socialist thought.

- -

Multiculturalism or...

There are valid reasons for bringing liberal multiculturalism into question. While it proclaims diversity, it only ultimately wishes for all cultures to surrender their unique or fervent characteristics to take a place in a society governed by the mores of capitalist society. This multiculturalism seeks to manufacture a consensus between various cultures on the basis of their role in capitalist society. This is then represented as a faithful representation of their culture, although it is merely a culture reduced to an indistinguished moment of 'capitalist society.' There is much to object to in such multiculturalism.

However, what is to be opposed to 'multiculturalism' of this sort?

There is a recent trend of opposing Western multiculturalism in favour of some construct of 'white' or 'Western' culture. This is occasionally due to considerations like the theory of 'white genocide,' which confusingly involves little actual genocide. The term 'white genocide' is typically a term used by 'white supremacist' racists and fellow-travellers to glibly reclaim objections that they are genocidal or xenophobic - they appropriate the left's language of victimhood, and use it uncritically in their own favour, even though modern leftist rhetoric is not fit for any purpose other than extinction. These anti-Islamic and 'Western' ideas are less exotic than they seem: is it truly extreme to encourage the West to take measures against Islam and Muslim Arabs when the Middle East has encountered continual invasion for spurious reasons alongside the West's persistent support for Israel? Of course, despite the innocuous fear of 'white genocide' and claims that it is 'okay to be white,' this conceit might well surprise the Middle East where the 'white' Americans have considered themselves so far from oppressed as to freely bomb and pillage Middle Eastern cities. The 'alt-right' consider it radical and offensive to say 'deus vult,' when in truth the West's foreign policy in the Middle East has been invasive for years with or without orders from Pope Francis.

While multiculturalism can have its problems, it maintains the independence of politics as a field from any particular capitalistic culture. Politics is not used merely to serve as a bulwark for some 'Western' culture. Further, this act of not setting politics up as the mere functionary of culture would allow for serious discourse on the more fundamental matters of class, economy and political structure. To dedicate politics to some Western reactionary construct of 'culture' would be almost as much a regression as to dedicate politics to leftist identity politics and cancel culture. It also serves to distract from a serious comprehension of social and political issues. On this ground, liberal multiculturalism comes up wanting, and represents only the persistent tendency of capitalism to abstract from concrete differences and foist the homogeneity of money upon society.

Hence, it is important to be careful in condemning multiculturalism. It is important that in attacking some form of it we do not merely do so on behalf of one or other culture, but from a more comprehensively critical perspective. While there may be a 'culture war,' the real war is not on behalf of one culture or other, but against the rigged social system.

Can dialectics break a Cartesian plane?

Dialectics doesn't even have a plane, you a**hole.

So you think you're reading this? Fascist!

Offensively, I said, "Hi, I'm Z." Offended, he replied, "What an offensive thing to say! You must be a fascist!" 

Offensively, I said, "Hi, I'm Z." Offended, he replied, "Whoever you are, how dare you say that! I assume you're a fascist?"  

Offensively, I said, "Hi, I'm Z." Offended, he replied, "How could you utter such a thing? By my troth, you must be a fascist!"  

Offensively, I said, "Hi, I'm Z." Offended, he replied, "You didn't add a trigger warning! FASCIST."  

Offensively, I said, "Hi, I'm Z." Offended, he replied, "That's a strong opinion. You must be a fascist!" And so on.

We aren't a fan of banning members from political organisations for merely some assertion concerning facts, like Ken Livingstone's assertion about German history. It's not a partisan assertion, it is a neutral statement that does not necessitate any particular response. The assumption that a person like Livingstone is secretly evil and a budding supervillain for saying it seems unfounded. We're also not a fan of most political organisations, which helps. These bans tend to thrive on an atmosphere where emotion seems more important than politics, which is indeed most political organisations. This seems apt when the political realm is generally marginalised, however politics contains facets which cannot be comprehended in such a way.

However, Ken Livingstone's suspension from Labour was one of the more ridiculous bans of late. It wasn't for a usual, controversial topic. No, it was for a trivial suggestion about occasional early Nazi collaboration with Zionists. Well, the Nazis later invaded the Soviet Union, and often condemned their take on socialism. Yet they co-operated with them, even starting World War II in co-operation with the Soviet Union. Yet people don't seem offended at this. In lieu of considering Livingstone, he is merely hounded out based on vague insinuation.

Of course, the Labour Party had ties to the Israeli 'Labour Party,' which recently condemned Corbyn for his criticism of Israel. They also have the Friends of Israel groups, which doesn't help matters. So them getting strict about this while allowing pro-Israel factions to stay is a slightly absurd figure. Okay, so Labour is disunited. Some Labourites supported and still support senseless war in Iraq, yet they aren't all banned. Indeed, it might seem like that decision was quite recent. However, in the light of these Labour escapades, what we totally couldn't allow was - Ken Livingstone. This might seem farcical, however people can reduce almost any political current to farce when they sniff wind of alleged 'anti-Semitism.' All of a sudden, it's the height of anti-communism, it's fascism, it's in brief pure villainy. Few labels are as trivialised as being branded a villain by the usual leftist.

Quite frankly, if the liberal Labour wish to make their administrative decisions like this, perhaps they should stick to a 'laissez-faire' platform.

Let us cut to the chase. So, we have decided on a new rule for this blog. You are not allowed to assert that the state of Transnistria invaded England in 1066. You will also be harshly reprimanded for suggesting that the state of Croatia had the majority of its population convert to Buddhism in 975. Finally, as an unspoken rule, you are not to say that Nuri as-Said was overthrown in 1941.

We trust that commenters will do all of these things, so that we can follow up with a concerned post involving the fear of a scandalous culture running rampant in the comment section.

You see, there are clearly not enough incriminating screenshots available on social media at the moment, so the media is having to grasp at straws to create an uproar among the easily-offended. Perhaps someone who believes, esoterically, that journalists' lives matter should try to help them, by providing convenient material. All the same, that would be a very strange thing to believe, so feel free to abide by the rules we have set.

'Cultural Marxism'

 'Cultural Marxism' is a conspiratorial agenda alleged to determine Western culture. This hence appears to represent an 'adapted' form of Marxism. It is a common bête noire in entrenched alt-right groupings.

It can hence seem akin to a mere over-dramatic accusation using 'Marxism' as a pantomime villain, therefore a form of merely continuing prejudice around the Cold War and Marxism. However, speaking of a 'cultural Marxist establishment' is not altogether misled. As 'Marxism' has taken on a form more in keeping with 'establishment' liberalism, it has also tended to avoid 'dry' economic issues in favour of 'cultural' and social justice issues favoured by liberalism. It would be valid to remark that this is not 'Marxism' in a strict sense, and is more akin to a variant of liberalism. After all, don't several Marxist political parties fall in line and support liberal parties like the Demorats in elections? However, this also raises the question of how and why Marxist categories are quickly repurposed to serve the agenda of the powerful liberal elite.

'Cultural Marxism' often overstates the influence of 'Marxist ideology' in upholding the mores of Western capitalism. Marxism is merely a set of vague ideas, and the world order cannot be based on mere talk. However, it is nonetheless true that a 'cultural' and demographic-focused use of Marxist tropes and rhetoric has come to entrench itself somewhat in the Western liberal establishment. Instead of being an actual opposition, Marxist rhetoric now springs easily from the womb of liberal capitalism. This suggests that Marxist ideas have ultimately originated from capitalistic concepts, and exist in a symbiotic relationship with capitalist ideology rather than truly opposing it. As a result, Marxism is not truly revolutionary.

Poem from earlier, slightly edited

I'm sure everyone is trying to act sprightly right now, so we can't have Wyatt as our latest in artistic decoration. Instead, here's a re-worked form of an earlier poem.

/scar

0. 

Near a night-club,

The way the stars were,
and the palm trees sketching outlines along their spectre,
was almost
a song over
the people's loud blare of noise.

**

the plait of flat lights in the sky
was an illumination,
a painting.

**

The people did not stir,
but kept hopefully to their dance
like uncivilized barbarians beneath the Pax Romana
of the constellations

**

meaning removed for dance beats,
hollowed,
and this dance was their only heartfelt art. 
They were like savages, or proleterians,
men without culture.

**

Meanwhile in the church a block away,

a quaint evening’s chorus
was made of plain choirboys
with nothing to say, but singing
as if they cared about what they said,
because they had been trained to sing this way.

For they praised God,
but only looked to the crowd.
One might think them deceptive.
The exultantly ordinary laity never would.

Some people would be bored when you first
asked why Christmas is a commercial scheme,
or why Valentine's Day celebrates fornication,
or why they pray when God would hate them.

**

the stars sung something like, 'Holy, Holy, Holy,'

starlit trees absorbed their light near the street,
hanging across the pavement staring apart, beneath the moon.

The stars had a music of their own,
quite different from that of the others,
yet it was no pop music, 
and it was no classical music,
it was real. 
The light of
Valentine’s Day moons is like a strange ode,
where the day's halo rings on indefinitely
after the clock strikes, for the night is
all its denizens care for. The moon as if to say,

“Is it a chore of constancy, or the rush
for love without a face? The beauty of night
shall not shine tonight.”
And so it never did.
There was no such special night.
It was a forgery.
And there were no stars, either, not
even of the vulgar, celebrity kind.

The only truth was in the music of stars and of the spheres
that stared at them as out of a window,

But in capital, ordinarily, people moved closer
to capital, and thus attained some modest success,
that was enough to placate them,
and anything else was alternative, detached and rude.

The way past the open gazes
led to a secluded lilt of leaves and sky,
almost transmuted
seen at night.
We may hold the world to account if they did not listen.
Yet perhaps the moonlight sings, far away.

2. Half-light

Quiet oaks
of a Swindonian garden might render
in opal when in focus, yet
the sky still reflects itself in a distant pond.
The sun is a shadowed eye.
It is silent. It is like abandoned factories,
which call out, ghost-like, in a dour town,
as if to display a way out of this.

3. Creep Song.

Wait! Is there a sweeter slumber in the grave below,
or in the light of thine eyes? Mistress, tell me,
I need to know. Somebody told me. If I were
more perjured I should cry, ‘Calumny!’ and
no doubt be met with sympathy. What, then,
should leave your creep so isolated and serious?

For Hoxha is oft hated, I have seen in most encounters,
I have had with those who were not creeps,
And if I were to hope with a hope
that formed bunkers, would I not
then be called rogue? Aye, this occupies me.
But what else occupies me? Well, the Bible and God.

I am alike all of my kind,
a kin to all of my cause.
When people
decried Tarquin's treatment of Lucrece, then truly
could I say, “I have found an ally," for Tarquin is on my side.

Yet am I not the victim of a label? Fie, fie,  
it is victim blaming, to hold against this creep
the rape culture of an age, which admittedly
might just involve me. Why should the world
conspire to separate me from the object of my desire,
what gives it the right?
In this way creeps are like all subversives.

For a million voices cry out that I have raped them,
and I have only raped half,
and they deserved it.
Shall I not be forgiven my iniquities?
For they are venial, in the light of the sins
of those who have perjured me,
who have sought to place obstacles in the way of my conquests,
who have hated me beyond all reason.
I shall be vindicated in the end.

**

A narrow path
would not have looked good on a priest’s
credit card.

If drugs are a function of peer pressure,
then they're just a part of conformity.

Brooding,
half-realised shapes - hopes for escape - were strewn on the walls
of the no-doubt asylum where a creep grows up,
condemned there for punishment.
So we are circled around,
by wardens in many shapes and sizes,
teachers or feminists,
all these are the same.

Romance is a mere tryst,
it is not to truly possess your beloved
if you meekly wait for their assent.
Trysts are made on a whim, and have no substance. To be a creep is to be revolutionary.

4. Year Zero. (ZeroNowhere.)

What need have we for the sound
of exciting words, lacking content?
Our words must hang like silence, in darkness:
mysterious and obscure, yet sublime.

Like the stillness of long-empty hallways, and quiet speculation,
socialism is most certain in silent contemplation.

5. Savage (unedited.)

The promises of
yesterday are like a glassed-off
garden’s grey shadow.

If you wish, you may
never be seen again, but shush
before you’re tortured.

It is a brief note
that the day is wan or in spring,
but a quiet gaze.

A revision of a Wyatt poem

Thomas Wyatt was a Tudor-era writer of crass poems. We have hence altered one of his poems, to more fully express the modern framework. His sonnets are typical and trite love poems, which were common in his era. Yet he was no good at this, while other poets of that era - like Sidney or Petrarca - exceeded him. Due to the dullness of his poetry, we have sought to refurbish it into something worth reading:

They Flee From Metal

They flee from metal that sometime did metal seek

With naked foot, in my hidden chamber.

I have seen them gentle, tame, and metal,

That now are sell-outs and do not remember

That sometime they worshipped metal gods

To fight false metal; and now they range,

Busily seeking albums from Britney Spears.

Thanked be Marx it would be otherwise,

And thus twenty times better; but once in special,

In corpse paint array after a pleasant guise,

When deathcore from her outskirts did fall,

And she me caught with her deep gutturalness;

Therewithall sweetly did to me temporise

And softly said, “Dear heart, how like you me now?”

It was not true metal: I saw their heresy.

But all is turned through my metalness

Into a strange fashion of forsaking;

And I have leave to go of her piousness,

And she also, to use new pop music fads.

But since that I am so kindly treated,

I would fain slay her with the steel she hath deserved.

Land and Capital

The role of 'land' in capitalism is something that Marx placed a surprising emphasis on. They noted that revolution should go "seriously from the ground up," from "land ownership," and often commented on the importance of land to revolution. Hence, despite a focus elsewhere, Marx saw this aspect of capital as a central one. This might seem to resemble the capitalistic struggle with 'feudalism,' however a socialist revolutionary seizure would no doubt have to face it differently. Marx also stressed that the landowner in capitalism acts on a different basis to that in feudalism, a different social basis altering it. Hence, this would set a different task.

Hence, let us briefly set out the roles of land ownership and capital in capitalism, by way of comparison. In capitalism, objects are reduced to expressions of abstract and social value, and hence their own nature is abstracted from. Land ownership in capitalism hence seeks to 'naturalise' this formulation of the object, or take the object as somehow 'inherently' reduced to bare value. This is of course absurd. They hence simply seek to vulgarise the nature of things. Due to their inability to deal with these things fully, they hence merely take forms and try to 'colonise' and run them in averse ways. Hence, 'land owners' as a class often rented off land to others, their own tendencies driving them away from this that they claimed. However, due to the absurdity of their task it was often a self-undermining pursuit - it hence required people who were often quite devoid of content, and even they might be insecure. Capital, on the other hand, dealt with this abstraction in terms of the social relations it gave rise to. Hence, the abstraction there appeared as part of a process.

In dealing with communism, people often claim to come across a sense of 'apathy' and 'skepticism.' This is in many ways false - how many aspects of culture actually manifest this claimed 'cynicism'? Nonetheless, this is how people embroiled in ideological illusion represent their relation to 'communism.' This is further mediated by their capitalistic viewpoint hindering their understanding of 'communism.' Eventually, then, this seems to say little on their part about communism. Nonetheless, the general orientation is closer to the function of the land owning class, a generic attempt to naturalise the mode of social relations. It is foreign to capital, which seeks to carry out this process and hence is far from 'apathetic' about how the social relations are formulated. Capital would hence be more 'anti-communist,' although this is merely a knee-jerk reaction and hence depends on what others opt to label their 'communism.' Hence, the vulgarisation of land somehow seems to 'usurp' capitalism here. However, there is also something murkier there. When this aspect of land ownership conflates itself with capital, what you have is not an advocacy of capitalism but of a 'rig.' In lieu of the capitalist process, you have an actually 'naturalised'  social process posited where the land owner is the characteristic class. Instead of the abstractions appearing as part of a process, they are merely to be 'recognised' - hence, the 'social process' is reduced to a rigged enactment of this, not allowed to occur freely and as a process. It is hence not only anti-socialist, it is also dubious in its allegiance to capitalism.

Generally, 'socialist' organisations with a modus operandi harmonised with the system are similar: the capitalistic process is merely 'naturalised,' and seen as something they should 'adapt' to. This also applies to most socialist 'outreach,' where capitalistic tendencies are allowed to be the criterion of socialist expression. This hence often tends merely to end up in explicit liberalism. Socialism cannot express itself if it sets up capitalism as an authority over this expression - it then has no content.

Hence, Marx's comment criticises the class which represents the 'naturalised' form of capitalism's categories. Hence, they deal with a vision of revolution which stands against the 'value' nexus, or comes from outside of this process. This vision is not their usual, so it appears as an incidental adjunct of revolution. It is nonetheless a potentially profound category. Hence, when their critique in 'Das Kapital' begins from general categories, people often find this departure inexplicable. However, it is connected to this critique of 'landownership,' and hence it seeks to deal with the categories of capitalism and criticise them directly in their effect on things. As a result, people expect Marx to restrict themselves to a criticism of the process, which criticism they are associated with. Marx hence further attacks the arbitrary expropriation of things based on capitalism, or the assumption that this capitalistic reduction of things gives one authority over them. They hence also locate the 'authority' thus formed in the capitalistic society or as a social form, noting that it only appears as 'personal' form of authority due to the contradictory form of this society. Further, this society is hence made 'intrinsic' to the person, as is its contradiction; as a result, they are eventually torn asunder by this posited 'personal struggle.' Further, this approach hence explains their decision, in the 'final' chapter of volume 3, to stress 'landownership' in their criticism. It is in some ways a natural result of the opening: that it will culminate with the system being attacked fundamentally or the concept of revolution, further that this is connected to the 'landlord' category. To have a problem with Marx's choice of a categorical criticism is also to take issue with any revolutionary tendencies in Marx.

Hence, the criticism of 'landowners' is tied to the fundamental criticism made elsewhere. This has hopefully helped to clarify the significance of such criticism, and that it is not simply done arbitrarily.

The Accessible Theory (A Book), Chapter 1

This.

The Accessible Theory (A Book)

Preface:

As a common complaint about books like Das Kapital is their length and ensuing inaccessibility, we have decided to publish a book which avoids these problems completely. We hence present the first volume of this highly abridged work. This shall hopefully encourage readers unwilling to explore more 'obscure' books too much. In this book, we seek to convey clearly what the reader is to get from each chapter. Further, this is expressed in clear terms.

Hopefully you shall enjoy this. It is an exciting pathway for literature, and it should not disappoint you.

The Nation, Reprise

A nation is a political entity, not necessarily a geographical one. It is the form taken by a political force, when it has attained political power.

However, the modern nation has no political substance. Its state and politics alters every few years; further, in a capitalistic system the political agenda is avoided in favour of the actions of atomised actors. The state is reduced to tending to private, economic interests. Hence, ultimately, it is forced to fall behind capital, although in practice this is to evade the political in favour of economic interests. However, more decisively, the 'politics' of a nation are hence insubstantial, an empty 'hole' to be filled by foreign content. This nation is ultimately also 'insubstantial.'

Hence, the nation is reduced to arbitrary, 'geographical' boundaries, in lieu of a substantial political entity. Its politics are indefinite, variable,and ultimately empty. Hence, politically the nation means nothing. It is merely an 'obstacle,' an extent of land barred from political forces. It is in contradiction with itself, however, and hence ultimately limited and torn apart.

Hence, although the political is an aspect of humans, it appears in an 'alienated' form - the 'political' plays out in a realm separated from itself, it is torn away from itself. That which it wants and which is a content proper to it, is enacted where it is not. There is a certain level of superstition or 'patriotism' which is inherent to this. It is hence connected to what we have previously referred to as the 'imaginative' element of capitalistic economies. Further, there arises an even more degenerated politics that calls for replacing struggle with 'co-operation' between nations and 'leaving behind differences,' merely indulging in the emptiness which the capitalistic economy reduces politics to. Nonetheless, along with this 'patriotism' is the firmer 'nationalism' - the demand that the political element establish itself in a primary role, and subject the other elements of the nation which have trivialised it. This is still, in some ways, often merely a distortion of the 'patriotism' of nations, expressing yet not decisively expressing the contradictions of the capitalistic nation. It often scavenges among the nations and people there for an identity, it does not like communism aim primarily at a break with this and towards the future. Hence, while a necessary form taken by the continual self-negation of the counterfeit-political, it is nonetheless itself often limited. It often, in any case, plays a generic political role, set out for it by this system - when the nationalistic comes to play a decisive role, as it must, then it will eventually break free of this generic character. However, it might initially be reluctant about this, about lacking a clear 'anchor ' or 'belonging' in a systematic niche. This must nonetheless occur, in such a situation.

However, along with this development, there is also the continuing 'externalisation' of political and substantial movements from themselves, the manufacturing of hollow, 'phantom' versions of these. These artificial forms are still contradictory, and in a way more contradictory. They are also highly 'derivative' and empty. Nonetheless, you hence have a 'realm' which cannot be accessed by the political, or indeed by official and straightforward means, which hence exists at a level of separation from the realm of genuine content. To keep this separate, the 'gateways' to it must be increasingly 'rigged' and targetted towards limiting genuine content from getting through - eventually barring the gates to the field entirely, or consigning it to the 'imaginative.' Nonetheless, these alienated realms must eventually expand into a right leviathan, akin to an informal aristocracy.

Firstly, however, this then starts to 'self-cannibalise' - its participants are obligated to act this way towards each other, as this is how they function. Hence, actors are set apart, again as though by a screen, and act in parallel as though 'self-sufficient'. They ultimately stand together against the genuine content, or in a 'reactionary' sense; nonetheless, they inhabit a form of 'pseudo-capital' that still threatens this division. However, as this 'realm' is self-undermining, or continually absorbs hostile elements, the hierarchy there - given that they are 'cut off' by default - is merely determined by who can continue to stand out despite inimical tendencies. While all elements in this realm relate to the content similarly, they hence are mostly distinguished by their ability to stay a focus despite the others starting to cut them off and subjecting them to their own means. This relates not to their standing out, necessarily, rather to their channeling things in that direction relative to the others. This cannot occur in too complex a form, given their role.

Hence, among the nations, 'nationalism' draws on conflicts and division. Aggressive modern regimes - Nazi Germany, the USSR, ISIS - have generally arisen in the after-math of war and conflict. Hence, they draw on 'cycles' of conflict and hatred, which are a contradiction that must eventually, dragon-like, explode and tear the world order apart. In some way, these incursions foreshadow its end. As the realm of the national and political is quickly set against the capitalistic form, this aggravation is hence aggressive - while in the cultural realm it is usually only destructive or makes the whole field appear peculiar. Nonetheless, if these nations do not turn against the system itself, they cannot support this division and will be supplanted by those who are less mired in it. The nations which attempt to avoid getting caught up in their division will 'survive,' until the whole system disappears. Likewise, more generally: nations which turn against the system, yet remain branded, by it will have problems with nations more 'consistent' with it. However, the nations that hijack this division do so with a purpose higher than the system, not merely to survive as a 'stable' entity within it. Hence, if they encounter problems with this, this does not impinge on their purpose - which shall eventually be realised. In this progression, 'nationalism' will eventually leave this circumscribed role and take on an independent form.