Rage and the $100/month food budget

thirdform

Well-known member
For self-expanding value he uses the term verwertenden. It is in the full Hegelian tradition. Hegel believed that the self-developing Idea expressed itself in nature and society, dictating the conditions and limits of men’s activity. When explained briefly, Hegel seems to be talking nonsense. In reality this last and greatest of bourgeois philosophers stood like Moses on Pisgah, with the ultimate secret of human knowledge spread before him. Marx’s work was to stand Hegel’s principle on its feet. He placed the dictation in the hands of the mode of production and its expression in the concept of value. This is capitalist society he called the self-developing value, verselbstandigung, a term lifted bodily from Hegel. The prefix ver in Hegel always means a transformation at the root, something that transcends, itself from its own inherent (and thereby contradictory) nature.
The transformation may appear to be the work of something else. Hegel and Marx spent their lives proving that it was not. The very terms, self-developing idea, self-developing value, self-expanding capital repudiate the importance Carter gives to his quotation where the initiative or prime movement is definitely given to the capitalists. Marx is here building his structure on subterranean foundations the analysis resting on his philosophy of history, his estimate of the origin, development and destiny of man. The contradiction is in nature itself, between man, conscious nature, and means of production, appropriated nature. But whereas in previous societies, owing to the low technological level, e.g. a man and a hoe, the contradiction was narrow and little capable of development, now, owing to the complete severance of the man of labor from the means of labor, the contradiction is so sharp that the development is rapid and powerful. Owing to the length of the working-day (physics) and the physiological limitations of man (chemistry and biology), value could not expand itself indefinitely by prolonging one factor the working-day (absolute surplus-value), whereupon it broke that limitation by expanding itself through the only way now open to it, by increasing the other factor, the quantity of the accumulated labor, the machinery, that functioned within the working-day (relative surplus-value). The two active factors in production which we see here Marx calls moments, another Hegelian term. The chapter where Marx establishes the development of relative surplus-value he significantly entitles The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value. The word he uses for concept is Begriff, which Marx being who he is, could be more modernly and precisely translated by perhaps the famous word in philosophy, the Hegelian term, “The Notion”. Of this notion Hegel says:
“The Nature, the peculiar inner Being, the veritably eternal and substantial element in the multiplicity and contingency of the phenomenal and passing outward, is the Notion of the Thing.”[10]
It sounds outlandish. In reality it is very simple. Hegel says that in the theoretical analysis of anything, which for him means a study of it in its self-development and inevitable self-transformation, do not do what Carter does constantly, check off a list of items, in other words “the multiplicity and contingency of the phenomenal”, the ever-changing outward historical forms. He says: seek its notion, that inner relation from which all external developments must flow until this inner contradiction is abolished. Marx reduces his analysis of capitalist production to an ever-wonderful miracle of notional simplicity, stripped of all contingency: less and less of the day’s labor going to the worker, more and more going to the other moment, or active factor, the machinery. This is the mark of capitalist production and when Carter quotes Marx to show that I confuse all types of society, I realise with deep concern the gulf that separates us, not on Russia, but on historical materialism and Capital. For although debate on Russia is understandable, it is a miserable business when you have to stop to explain that this sharp relation within the working-day has nothing to do with, e.g., feudalism. That rapidly developing relation and its laws form for Marx the “inner nature” of capital, and the consequences were analysed by Marx with a logical direction, a mastery of his material and a vivid concreteness, equalled nowhere except in the arrogance and obtuseness with which it is ignored. The self-expanding value expands itself according to its “notion”, accumulated labor devouring living labor. Marx was supremely confident that he had found here the notion of the “strict process of production”, the abstract logical relation around whose development all future historical society would revolve (as it did not revolve in the past) until the abolition of the capitalist system of production. For the word abolition, aufhebung, Marx went again to Hegel, to show quite clearly what he had in mind. Aufhebung is second in Hegelian importance only to Begriff. Aufhebung does not mean mere non-existence, or abolition as you abolish a hot dog or wipe some chalk off a board. As Hegel explains at length,[11] it means for him transcendence, raising of one moment or active factor from its subordinate position in the dialectical contradiction to its rightful and pre-destined place, superseding the opposite moment with which it is interpenetrated, i.e. inseparably united, in this case raising, labor, the basis of all value, to a dominant position over the other moment, the mass of accumulated labor. Thereby self-developing humanity takes the place formerly held by self-developing value. The real history of humanity will begin.
And where are the capitalists in all this? Nowhere. Just nowhere. Capital and labor are the moments. The capitalists are not moments, i.e. determining active factors in production. They do not determine. They are determined. They see that the work is well done. They pocket as much of the proceeds as they can. They are, as Marx wearisomely repeats, merely the agents of capital, the embodiment in will and consciousness of capital. [12] They obey its inner nature. Thus all capitalist activities are in reality (on the historical scale of course and complicated by the class struggle etc.) strictly limited. It is easy for us to see politically, that capitalist man cannot abolish war, and we laugh at all their peace conferences and pacts and leagues and charters. It is the same when a capitalist (or a capitalist class) invests capital here or does not do it there. He is merely obeying the laws of self-expanding value and nowhere so much as in relation of means of production to means of consumption. If he does not, he is fired, i.e. he loses his capital. In abstract logic, production for the sake of production is an absurdity. So far Rosa was right. But in dialectical logic, it is the greatest good sense in that it conforms to the laws of self-expanding value which rule the world.

 

thirdform

Well-known member
You're about one steak away from going full primitive. Keep going...


Actually I am an enemy of civilisation, but definitely not a primmo.
 

thirdform

Well-known member
goldie had the right idea with this title before he created that ghastly Mother album.



Capitalism is fundamentally being dominated by our unobtainable ghosts we cannot reach.
 

146 I.Q. Magical thinker

Bamber Clatscoigne
goldie had the right idea with this title before he created that ghastly Mother album.



Capitalism is fundamentally being dominated by our unobtainable ghosts we cannot reach.

Some people reach them just fine.

Others aggregate with other trash, forming mobs to smash and grab what they cannot create. It's a biological phenomenon rather than a political one.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
For instance, many immigrants in this country, despite being objectively poor, a minority group with minimal representation, and working their butts off on two jobs, feel only grateful. That's all narrative!
usual no offense caveat, but how many immigrants do you actually know/have you known?

bc I have personally have known many, both legal and illegal, and I certainly would not describe them by and large as feeling "only grateful"

there is a vast gulf of difference between "could be worse" and "grateful"

virtually all the non-affluent/white collar immigrants I've known were generally as unexcited about backbreaking/dead-end jobs as anyone else would be, but they 1) were stuck doing them for obvious (language, lack of education, not having papers, etc) reasons 2) had, as you say, minimal representation to officially make their discontent known. incidentally this is also how migrant laborers wind up being exploited by unscrupulous employers who know that they have significantly less ability to address unfair labor practices.

this line of reasoning is basically the same one as people in the Global South are grateful for their sweatshop jobs which are better than starving, the 19th-century proletariat was grateful for their miserable sweatshops jobs which were better than starvation etc

if this was already comprehensively covered in the last few pages apologies, I don't have time to read it rn
 

146 I.Q. Magical thinker

Bamber Clatscoigne
this line of reasoning is basically the same one as people in the Global South are grateful for their sweatshop jobs which are better than starving, the 19th-century proletariat was grateful for their miserable sweatshops jobs which were better than starvation etc
The proletariat was more grateful for the opportunities offered by colonisation, and flocked to the New World in their tens of millions. And there was little stopping them. The most enterprising went beyond the pale and lived peaceably with the natives. It was quite a problem for colonial authorities. The best of times.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
I mean it seems (unsurprisingly) like a thinly veiled - or not veiled all - typical Girardian argument about memetic desire and scapegoats

i.e. "if only the poors would stop coveting [x thing] and blaming [x ppl/corporations] for any part of their material conditions they would be content with their sweatshops and gruel"
 

146 I.Q. Magical thinker

Bamber Clatscoigne
The proletariat was more grateful for the opportunities offered by colonisation, and flocked to the New World in their tens of millions. And there was little stopping them. The most enterprising went beyond the pale and lived peaceably with the natives. It was quite a problem for colonial authorities. The best of times.
The story of indigenous populations being crushed and displaced is as much about their being effective opposition to Old World authority. They offered a better, more fulfilling, primitive life to those they didn't scalp. It's very interesting.

“In an attempt to stem the flow of young people into the woods, Virginia and other colonies imposed severe penalties on anyone who took up with the Indians. The Puritan leaders of New England found it particularly galling that anyone would turn their back on Christian society: “People are ready to run wild into the woods again and to be as Heathenish as ever if you do not prevent it,” an early Puritan named Increase Mather complained in a tract called Discourse Concerning the Danger of Apostasy. Mather was an early administrator of Harvard who spent his life combating—and criminalizing—any relaxation of the Puritan moral code. It was a futile battle. The nature of the frontier was that it kept expanding beyond the reach of church and state, and out on the fringes, people tended to do what they wanted.”

Excerpt From: Sebastian Junger. “Tribe”. Apple Books.
 
Last edited:

thirdform

Well-known member
I've seen your lot's placards. The left cannot meme. Has not seized the memes of production. Can only cheat and steal.

Oh well I don't really care about the left so go at it.

You're wrong though. The left succeeded in bringing to fruition the tasks of the post-1648 enlightened absolutist state. I.E: completing the dispossession of the peasantry and creating the real conditions for the accelerated subsumption of all social life to capital. A civilising force. They won, won a long time ago. No need to attack them. You lost, stop being a teenybopper and learn to accept your defeat. I have yet to arise.
 

thirdform

Well-known member
I'm not nostalgic. Dissensus was fundamentally founded on nostalgia. That's why I'm the chaos demon to haunt both the leftists and rightists on this forum. @luka and @craner conceived me after a long cyborg sodomy session as their evil step son to terrorise all of you and sharpen your minds. A frankenstein's monster.
 

thirdform

Well-known member
The story of indigenous problems being crushed and displaced is as much about their being effective opposition to Old World authority, offering a better, more fulfilling, primitive life. It's very interesting.

Partly yes. A lot of indigenous history is also brutish (not that I have a problem with using that descriptor as I'm not employing it as a moral judgment) hierarchical and very religious. This gets ignored by white guilty landers. There's a reason why the most widely spoken indigenous Native American languages come from societies with strongly founded landed property. It's also why most Spanish colonies are not settler colonies in the sense one would say for the USA.

But the partly is the important bit here. Otherwise you just end up being a romantic. and romance is disgusting.
 

146 I.Q. Magical thinker

Bamber Clatscoigne
Partly yes. A lot of indigenous history is also brutish, hierarchical and very religious. This gets ignored by white guilty landers.
Perhaps only when in crisis mode, when battling colonial armies. Otherwise, awesome

“Notwithstanding the Indian women have all the fuel and bread to procure, and the cooking to perform, their task is probably not harder than that of white women,” wrote a Seneca captive named Mary Jemison at the end of her long life. Jemison, who was taken from her family’s farm on the Pennsylvania frontier at age fifteen, became so enamored of Seneca life that she once hid from a white search party that had come looking for her. “We had no master to oversee or drive us, so that we could work as leisurely as we pleased,” she explained. “No people can live more happy than the Indians did in times of peace… Their lives were a continual round of pleasures.”

Excerpt From: Sebastian Junger. “Tribe”. Apple Books.
 
Top