oh that’s just wonderful, dude. the greatest iconoclast of all time smashes everything we hold dear and then just casually says ‘you know what… don’t even worry about it.’
you got some nerve, pal.
Well what’s it all for if you’re not enjoying it?
What’s a soul anyway?
Fetches a good price, and the Devil is the only honest dealer around.
Parodites says:
“(“money” is to capital what
sublimation is to the Freudian conception of desire; surplus-value is to production and
labor value what primary narcissism and the injunction of the reality-principle upon Eros
is to the Freudian concept of Oedipal resolution and organization.)”
And:
"The real meaning of the Oedipal complex, the fundamental concept in Freud, (object-
relations theory is simply an expansion of Freud in opposition to Lacan) is the following:
the true source of man’s psychic power, of his very Will itself, is- guilt. Man’s psychic
wound is the source of all his power, of the very dynamic force responsible for
differentiation and individuation. As sexuality is simply one of many expressions of our
power, Freud took it as a distinctively primordial expression of man’s existential guilt,
which he could find no other way to configure save by an incestuous fascination with the
mother. "
And what guilt is this that we feel besides obligation? We are by all means indebted to our mothers for the labour of producing us. Oedipal guilt can thus be explained without the naughty angle of Freud - the obsessive affections for the mother are simply our existential sense of what we owe, whom we owe it to. Our whole existence, the whole of our part in Eros, is due to the mother.
Due, debt -
guilt only arises when the debt can not be paid.
People with psychiatric problems, hospitalized and sent to a specialist, the patients of Freud and his colleagues - in them that which they owe their mother is larger than the capital in happiness they feel is in their reach. So what is most violently manifesting in therapy sessions would be a raging guilt.
But I sincerely question the idea that the existential debt owed to the mother must always turn to guilt. What is certain true is that much must be accomplished to completely be free of guilt - culture is much the result of men trying to be worthy of their existence.
We can already begin to question the validity of the attribution of mans fundamental affective complex with incest. By these terms, birth would be a form of incest.
I leave it up to the reader to decide what this does to the rest of the Oedipus complex.
I wish merely to explore the concept of capital in terms of the existential guilt, and I can sense that this will lead to a teleological theory of capitalism which will exhibit all of what is attractive to people in Marx without the inhuman logic of class-dialectic.
What is missing both in Freud and in Marx is a proper conception of the supreme value of the mother -
in Freud, the individual, human mother is simplified to mean simply a source and an object, dismissing the divine aspect of creator , and in Marx, it is mother Earth which is sen only as a place from which men get wealth and fight with each other over who gets to own it. Nothing in Marx suggests that the resolution of the class struggle may have something to do with recognizing that witch produced the bounty along with those who work to enjoy it.
P goes on:
“Politics alone, incapable of meeting the un-intuitable in any meaningful way, (hence the
current state of power-politics in the world. As Steigler notes, technology began to evolve
so much faster than man could evolve a response to it, that we had to resort eventually to
freezing the world in place at the chessboard that had been set up not long after the first
fusion bombs were put together, so that we could have enough time, guaranteed by MAD,
that we could develop some form of theory in the cultural shadow of the Cold War.) reads
it merely in terms of the symbolic-exchange through which Death insinuates the
treacherous excess of capitalist logic into the value-exchange (“money” is to capital what
sublimation is to the Freudian conception of desire; surplus-value is to production and
labor value what primary narcissism and the injunction of the reality-principle upon Eros
is to the Freudian concept of Oedipal resolution and organization.) on whose basis
civilization has fetishistically shielded itself from death and negation, following Rank- an
excess that signals a gradual accumulation of entropic negativity within the strictures of
an eventually paralyzed socio-economic System. In order to resuscitate System, Freedom
must gather into itself this excessive force through the Agon or violently discharge it in
an act of sacrifice, waste, ie. the “accursed share”, the later being a task easily
accomplished in ancient Rome, but more tedious in our era, because in ancient Rome
there existed a massive slave class separated from a nobility that possessed extremely
effective control of the economy, whereas in our age, the ruling-heights have gradually
emerged and control over the economy is not as consolidated as it once was, despite how
much wealth might be concentrated in however small a percentage of the population, and
despite how much that percentage of the population might want to consolidate it. The
globalized or pan-hemispheric global economy that both neoconservative Republicans
and faux-Democrats desire can be weaponized by state-autarks in order to manipulate
dependent nations into the position of having to perpetually straddle the line of pre-
industry and technical development, …]”
Maybe also some things are secrets, kept secret for tens of thousands of years, because it would be impolite to say them.
first of all, who would ever reveal anything of importance to a communist?
I suspect not even their wives.
Yes.
Nature likes to hide.
Possibly nature likes to reveal herself, and it is more a problem of men not being able to see her.
Like a wallnut cannot see a rock.
Does a mountain hide?
Ok, full disclosure, I don’t know what tf I’m saying anymore. But it sounds wise as shit.
Yes, a walnut has no way to value the rock.
A walnut only sees what feeds it.
It is certainly a good hiding place. It hides treasures. It hides itself in the clouds. But this is not what you mean.
And it hides a lot of bugs too.
Holy Guacamol does nature hide herself a lot of bugs.
We must count our blessings though: at least we are not the Ocean.
Although they do all get to fly.
Curiously, bugs, not one thing high mountains hide.
I refuse to call any of these people Communists, as the only Communists I really know are my family, and the dearest and strongest members of that family were all involved very seriously in the Party.
What I distrust is Marxists. None of these Communists I love could be called a Marxist. None of them took an interest in his writing - all that matters was Solidarity and the preservation of culture against what was seen as a pact between fascism and capitalism.
All these beloved Communists renounced their faith in Communism as the USSR became a farce - that doesn’t mean that when people were Communists, they were not the be trusted. On the contrary - the very origin of my grandfathers Communism was his extraordinary trustworthiness as a leader of resistance under nazi occupation.
To be sure, there was a lot wrong with Communism as it developed after the war. But it still put man in space and forced the US to become the great Hegemon. The US owes much to hard core Communism. This is a dialectic which did exist for a moment in history, the back and forth of cultural accomplishments of the USA and the Soviet Union.
There is a very good and suspenseful book about the birth of Communism in Russia; Gorky’s Mother.
That was always standing in the bookcase right beside my grandmothers throne.
No, they just hide yogi’s.
Communism was brave, but it did destroy a lot of very important things.
I agree that the distinction exists, in that the ones of today are not brave one bit.
My great grandfather was arguably a commie, as he was part of the generation that was literally ball and chained from their commie University activities (he bore the scars until his death), eventually exiled and in that exile literally just studied Marx and made connections with communist parties around the world.
Then came back, overthrew the military guys, and planted a dark seed that one day grew into that mighty Oak Chavez.
Thankfully he married a good Christian orthodox and held Christian Democrat fundraisers and rode horses on thick forests he owned the end of which he never found.
But was he was proud of, what I am proud of, is the bravery. Of staring down the fascists. And eventually stepping on their faces.
Not everywhere. The yogi’s are often replaced by cows.