The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Parodites » Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:12 am

Back from the Dead. But I prefer the dead to the living. The dead are less opinionated and annoying.

My equal disapproval of capitalism and communism seems incomprehensible to most people, though I would go out of my way to clarify it. I am, after all, at war with the entire world, and everyone in it.

From an appendix to one of my books, defining the three stages of the development of Capital:

" Primary capitalism is, quite simply, "free trade capitalism," brought into
existence at the dawn of industrialization. It generated wealth, that is, surplus capital, in a form
homogeneously distributed at the local level across innumerable families and small businesses, or
'thermodynamically diffused' within the population more generally conceived, such that this
surplus could not actually be accumulated and concentrated in the way it is in our own time, that it
might then be passed upward, from the level of the modes of production, and sublated at the level
of the 'commanding heights', [The heights are extremely unstable and hard to predict, requiring
technical expertise not available, contra the Marxist line, to the workers at the level of the modes;
eg. we have to contend with, not a dialectical tension between the social relations and the modes
of production conditioning the movement of history toward a Utopia, but the inaccessibility of the
heights to the modes, conditioning a state of nature necessitating an artificial means of
effectuating the concentration of capital which, by its very nature, implies a certain measure of
violence, inequality, and unjust imposition on the part of the State. The Heights, as the
economically dominant technologies, themselves condition other technologies,- in fact, it is by
conditioning other technologies and the patterns of growth or 'Urphanomene' (the Ur-form,
appropriating the term from Goethean morphology) associated with them that they become
dominant in the first place,- just as we see automation and machine learning beginning to
condition other technologies in conformation to their own own 'ur-form': this is the
hypermnemata. For, at a certain point, capital becomes self-sublimed as the Heights succeed in
fully conditioning the technological substrate upon which the modes of production and the social
relations are organized reciprocally in long-range feedback cycles, with each conditioning the
other, as opposed to the one serving to generate, in a Marxist reading, a dialectical instability with
it. As long as that cycle continues, we are still in history, and we enjoy the possibility of a future;
when the hypermnemata has fully sublimed the logic of capital,- it is only then, that we will
experience the dissolution of cultural memory, ethos, and finally experience a true 'end of
History'. The cotton gin, for example, empowered other rising technologies that had, prior to its
invention, been unable to become dominant economic forces, and in that, succeeded in bringing
into existence entirely new technological substrates for the conditioning of new social structures,-
novel arrangements we must always hope will lend themselves to more just and efficient
investments of human labor; the hypermnemata, contrarily, subordinates rising technologies to its
own growth pattern, and therefor,- levelling all politics to the 'subpolitical' and homogenizing
culture, curtails the appearance of any new social structure by reducing all social relations to the one
uniform substrate.] where it could be intelligently re-invested,- by the disdained '1 percent', in
promising sectors so as to net the returns needed to fuel the costs of research and development
driving the inertial telos of the 'technocene', extensive as they are. The greater effect of this was:
the homogenously distributed wealth could not be exported out of the US, such that international
distributive channels became paralyzed. This led to massive world-political destabilization, given
the fact that modern nations are only able to exist through import and export, as they are no longer
self-sufficient- like they had to be in the 1700s.

Thus the first world war: the import-export problem destabilized international commodity
exchange and thus international politics. We developed a new political theory that would later
become 'globalism' as the solution to this problem, though in trying to force it on other nations,
we brought about a new conflict.

Thus, the second world war. We attempted to force other nations into participating in the globalist
paradigm which, it was thought, would stabilize import-export through complex
international/multinational institutions,- that is, corporations grossly swollen on the fat siphoned
off from the public in an 'unholy alliance' between the political and corporate classes, a la.
Braudel's analysis of state-sponsored monopolization,- accomplished mainly through tax codes,
regulations, and systems of law tacitly designed to assist one corporate body at the expense of
another,- or more precisely, at the expense of local businesses, for the perennial threat they pose
to the long-range cycles driving international trade relations,- namely thermodynamic
equilibrium,- will not be shortly obviated by the ruling-powers. Of course, Germany refused our
vision, in no small part due to the fact that the entire burden of the first world war had been
unjustly levied upon it by the 'world court', or, more precisely, on its people,- driving them to a
state of desperation so grave that they turned to Hitler,- while the Soviets refused it just as
viciously on the grounds of their own communist world-vision, at odds as it was with the other
competing theories,- not that any theory on the scale of those detailed here could possibly endure
another. Thus a second world war was commenced between the three major contenders, or
Dugin's 'first, second, and third way': Globalism, (globalist 'capitalism') Fascism, (particularly,
Nazi fascism) and Communism. As one might readily gather from the current state of the world,
globalism gained the decided victory, and capital under its mode I call simply secondary, or
'Braudelian' capitalism.

Then an international banking system emerged. Why? The political class began to recognize that
the multinational corporations they had purposefully helped to create and freely shared power
with for the sake of stabilizing the international channels upon which they both depended had
actually become TOO powerful, even eclipsing the power of entire nation-states. To keep them in
check and to re-stabilize international relationships that had become threatened by the
self-interested activity of these corporations acting,- without the benefit of state-sponsored
intelligence agencies,- outside of any political motivation, that is, out of the motivation to simply
make more money,- an international banking system was developed, on which basis debt became
the new connective tissue holding the distributive channels together. This is tertiary capitalism.
The two world wars followed the failure of primary and secondary capitalism, and, should tertiary
capitalism fail as well,- which it will,- we might be forced to consider the possibility of a new, a
third, a final global conflict.

When one examines the trajectory of this development, one begins to understand how much of the
last few hundred years of history has proceeded, seemingly,- inevitably; as the necessary
development of a singular, machinic, all-embracing logic,- the 'self-sublimed' logic of Capital,
whose invisible tendrils have extended themselves through the entire earth, animating a great
puppet show,- a vast conspiracy as it were, though one without any conspirators. Were the last
few centuries of human history, in other words,- those most incertain and significant,- caused by a
random prince, namely Franz Ferdinand, getting assassinated, or on account of a man with a
funny mustache who happened to hate Jews,- a man who would have otherwise passed his days
quietly as an unpresuming painter if he had only been accepted into art school? No."

From an essay in one of my books, going into depth on the political and subpolitical ramifications of third-stage capitalism, in which we are now living:

" The notion of ‘rewriting’ the past from the future is of great import here. The dialectic, in being inverted (the conceptualization of a materialist-history) or submit to itself, posits itself as a consequence of its own positing, such that its origins, as stemming from nuclear historical forces at work in the evolutionary trajectory of late 18nth century capitalism, are inescapably protended in the sublative metaphysical presence in which it has concealed the mechanism of its self-perpetuation and its subcutaneous programming, manipulation, and encoding of the esoteric core of the Leftist ideology unwittingly commanded by it toward the unforeseen telos of the 'new politics',- (this gestating core is the vestibule nutrified and carried to term as the hypermnemata) in the very moment of its articulation, which is always the present moment. 'Communism' is just this intractable moment, the 'Event'; a present moment,- the 'critical moment',- that can never be fully present, for it is a present that cannot be codified by a past, that is to say,- it is a presence that cannot itself be historicized, a Utopia that cannot be made 'material'. This is why every failed communist state is explained away, in so many words: it was not ‘real communism’,- for the Utopia has not yet been materialized on Earth, inasmuch as the injunction of Marxist critique is, not to construct Utopia upon the potsherds of history, but to de-construct the presence of Hell upon Earth. The most startling realization for anyone who discovers this concealed, self-dissimulating logic is that the apparent ‘victory’ of Capital at the conclusion of the World Wars was only another retrocausal guarantor of communism’s origin, of its eventual birth in the form of a new globalized world-system,- a shadow of the missing Utopia,- another program set into motion beneath the coopted mnemata,-- beneath any mnema which, thereafter, becomes a Lyotardian matrix in which an impulse is rendered invisible by the very activity of the changes it produces, which we regard as a constant non-identity,-- that is, only another ‘perlocutionary’ force [ie. the performance of language as mimesis, that is, the re-enactment of Girardian Desire, versus the performativity of language which, as a perlocutionary mode, constitutes the affective surplus of Desire itself driving the inflationary semioses which any one performance or ‘narrative-form’ must either cathect in an object of desire, burying surplus within an Image in whose visible trace the illocution of desire itself is invisibly ('mimetically') maintained, or, following the analysis ventured by Podoroga, reveal in the apophatic construction of a topos in which to take the measure of available or ‘potential’ externality, that is, our extrinsicity,- a measurement of the absent Object stirred forth beyond the psychic barrier of jouissance in the 'eunuch of the soul' or the disembodied 'gaze', the ghostly ombre of Novalis whose delineation cannot be ascertained on the basis of any binary inner/outer opposition or transcendental synthesis of the antinomies of desire and object, (virgin and prostitute, to draw on Mallarmean poetics) self and other, etc.] at work in forming the intractable presence of the utopic signifier in which the absence of the material utopia or ‘missing totality’, in a kind of echo of what Jameson calls Spinozan materialism, (Jameson: “If it is indeed the new world system, the third stage of capitalism, which is for us the absent totality, Spinoza's God or Nature, the ultimate referent, the true ground of Being of our time, ... only by way of its fitful contemplation can its future, and our own, be somehow disclosed.”) signifies once more the dialectic of history in its attempt to stabilize and work out its own contradictions, and therefor furthers the inescapable logic driving the hypermnemata, which is on all sides extended beyond the apparent ideological (‘subpolitical’) vestitures of communism and capitalism toward the apocalyptic gnosis encoded by the logic of Capital itself. The crucial element to understand is that Lyotard’s matrices constitute the third of three levels of disclosure of the Image, with the first lying beneath the stable ‘graphe’ or traces of the Image,- the visible contours of the seen, beneath which an unseen though still manifest order of the gestalt operates,- beneath which there lies still a third level, that of the true absence, the unmanifest, the non-identity. While the previous mnemata (the narrative forms conditioning and conditioned by history) expropriated and retrovirally re-encoded by the logic of Capital (the logic of the ‘dialectic’) could only give access to the two earlier levels of this ‘order of visuality’, the mnema of capitalism itself, brought into existence through the World Wars, the cultural reduction to the ‘subpolitical’ following the passage from Braudelian to globalizing or tertiary-capitalism, the AI-accelerated technocene, etc. has given access to the third level,- the matrix in which to more properly realize the Object of Capital’s telos and therefor condition, encode, and modulate the appearance of other mnemata,- an object we can only for these reasons name the hypermnemata. It is only within this third-dimensionality of the Image that the otherwise disjunct modes of cultural and artistic production might be incorporated within the modes of economic production, rendering a 'cultural politics' that could directly intercede on the behalf of economic forces finally possible,- a 'new politics' masqueraded under the banner of 'political correctness' and 'social justice'. (Let us make these assertions concrete. This intervention upon purely economic forces may now be observed quite readily, namely in the activities of corporate entities that seem at odds with the basic capitalist injunction, eg. changing the race and gender of well-loved characters already clearly established in popular media. We have the modern refrain: go woke, go broke.) As Geoff Waite argues in "Nietzsche's Corps/e: Aesthetics, Politics, Prophecy, or, the Spectacular Technoculture of Everyday Life", this co-modification of art has absorbed all critical (that is to say, emancipatory) potential in those perspectives from which the dominant economic forces had once been called to account, such that it is now only in states of economic crisis, in which cultural politics is necessarily combined with an ancillary contingent politics of the Catastrophe, that a 'fundamental' intercession upon the economic forces can be made."
Last edited by Parodites on Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Thinker
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Aventador » Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:24 am

Parodites wrote:My equal disapproval of capitalism and communism seems incomprehensible to most people,


Disapproval of capitalism is communism.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Aventador » Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:26 am

Never mind dialectic interpretations of capitalist dynamics.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Aventador » Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:28 am

Maybe you are simply at odds with how other communists approach the 'problem.'

That is also fairly common among communists.

Heck it's what drove Mussolini to invent fascism.

I'm not saying you're a fascist.

Just drawing some historical analogies.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Parodites » Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:53 am

Aventador wrote:
Parodites wrote:My equal disapproval of capitalism and communism seems incomprehensible to most people,


Disapproval of capitalism is communism.


No, it isn't. Communism is a political application of the dialectical-materialist conceptualization of history, which I have- at length- refuted. That conceptualization is a kind of inversion of the Hegelian system- what my OP was half-about. I will not respond to such a superficial comment again. I am serious- if that is all you've got, you might as well leave this thread, because I am done wasting my time. I'm drunk and blasted on H and still, this is what I have to contend with. Nothing. Get lost. I am done. "Disapproval of capitalism is communism". Wtf is this nonsense? This is why I spend months at a time absorbed, totally isolated, in my own mental universe. Because none of you can even... articulate what your point is in responding to me in the fist place. Why don't you just not respond? You're devoid of nuance, devoid of thought, devoid of concept. Why would I argue with someone incapable of understanding what I am even talking about? If I asked you: "What is communism?" I bet you everything I have, that you could not answer without quoting some other guy.
Last edited by Parodites on Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Thinker
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Aventador » Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:57 am

No actually it is.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Aventador » Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:58 am

That is what communism is.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Aventador » Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:59 am

Hegel didn't come into it until Marx.

Who I'm also pretty sure coined the term "capitalism."
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby encode_decode » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:00 am

Parodites wrote:No, it isn't. Communism is a political application of the dialectical-materialist conceptualization of history, which I have- at length- refuted. That conceptualization is a kind of inversion of the Hegelian system- what my OP was half-about. I will not respond to such a superficial comment again. I am serious- if that is all you've got, you might as well leave this thread, because I am done wasting my time. I'm drunk and blasted on H and still, this is what I have to contend with. Nothing. Get lost. I am done. "Disapproval of capitalism is communism". Wtf is this nonsense? This is why I spend months at a time absorbed, totally isolated, in my own mental universe. Because none of you can even... articulate what your point is in responding to me in the fist place. Why don't you just not respond?

My apologies for this one-liner but this type of nonsense that you refer to is rife around here - I would not expect too intelligent a discourse on this forum about what you are talking about.

Right on man with your refutation.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Aventador » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:01 am

Well, at least you have cheerleaders.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Parodites » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:01 am

So I am the one bringing down quality of discourse by asking if you, having without any reason called me a communist, can actually define the word 'communism'. Really?

Alright, I see I have to repeat myself:


No, it isn't. Communism is a political application of the dialectical-materialist conceptualization of history, which I have- at length- refuted. That conceptualization is a kind of inversion of the Hegelian system- what my OP was half-about. I will not respond to such a superficial comment again. I am serious- if that is all you've got, you might as well leave this thread, because I am done wasting my time. I'm drunk and blasted on H and still, this is what I have to contend with. Nothing. Get lost. I am done. "Disapproval of capitalism is communism". Wtf is this nonsense? This is why I spend months at a time absorbed, totally isolated, in my own mental universe. Because none of you can even... articulate what your point is in responding to me in the fist place. Why don't you just not respond? You're devoid of nuance, devoid of thought, devoid of concept. Why would I argue with someone incapable of understanding what I am even talking about? If I asked you: "What is communism?" I bet you everything I have, that you could not answer without quoting some other guy.

--
So, define communism. This is going to be precious.
Last edited by Parodites on Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Thinker
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Aventador » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:03 am

Parodites wrote:So, define communism. This is going to be precious.


In essence, the disapproval of capitalism.

You deaf, son?

Stop crying. Address the thing I said about Hegel.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Parodites » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:04 am

But that isn't true... Communism is the political realization of dialectical-historical materialism, which is itself an inversion of Hegel... Like I clearly defined in my OP. If that is all you think communism is, then there is no reason to talk to you- because you know, literally, nothing.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Thinker
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby encode_decode » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:05 am

.

Aventador wrote:Well, at least you have cheerleaders.

It seems more like you are a smart arse. I am not his cheerleader - it seems like he does not need one. I don't even know him. My fuse with your type of behavior is extremely short.

.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Aventador » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:06 am

Parodites wrote:But that isn't true... Communism is the political realization of dialectical-historical materialism, which is itself an inversion of Hegel... Like I clearly defined in my OP. If that is all you think communism is, then there is no reason to talk to you- because you know, literally, nothing.


I mean you can think that if you want.

But I will tell you, denying you are a communist is also a communist staple.

Don't address the thing then, be a coward.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Aventador » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:07 am

encode_decode wrote:.

Aventador wrote:Well, at least you have cheerleaders.

It seems more like you are a smart arse. I am not his cheerleader - it seems like he does not need one. I don't even know him. My fuse with your type of behavior is extremely short.

.


Well, considering you haven't said a single thing about the thing, and came in here kissing ass, that makes you a cheerleader.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby encode_decode » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:07 am

Aventador wrote:
Parodites wrote:But that isn't true... Communism is the political realization of dialectical-historical materialism, which is itself an inversion of Hegel... Like I clearly defined in my OP. If that is all you think communism is, then there is no reason to talk to you- because you know, literally, nothing.


I mean you can think that if you want.

But I will tell you, denying you are a communist is also a communist staple.

Don't address the thing then, be a coward.

Fuck man - you are fucking dumb. Just another flamer.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby encode_decode » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:08 am

Aventador wrote:

And what have you actually said?
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Parodites » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:10 am

But communism is a political application of dialectical-historical materialism. Having denied capitalist logic, I have equally denied the logic of dialectical-historical materialism... So how can I be either a communist or capitalist?


"Hegel didn't come into it until Marx."


Um.... Hegel lived before Marx... the whole point is Marx inverted his system to realize the concept of dialectical-historical materialism... Look, I am going to be straight with you: you're an idiot with nothing to say, you can't define what 'communism' actually is, and there is nothing I can gain from talking to you. So why don't you just fuck off? I don't need cheerleaders. I will eat anyone alive who tries to call me a communist without even being able to define what communist means.

But communism is a political application of dialectical-historical materialism. Having denied capitalist logic, I have equally denied the logic of dialectical-historical materialism... So how can I be either a communist or capitalist?


SO. Do you have anything else?
Last edited by Parodites on Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Thinker
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Aventador » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:10 am

encode_decode wrote:
Aventador wrote:

And what have you actually said?



Some shit about the thing.

But I like your strategy of kissing ass - throwing a tantrum too, I am impressed.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Parodites » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:11 am

Aventador wrote:
encode_decode wrote:
Aventador wrote:

And what have you actually said?



Some shit about the thing.

But I like your strategy of kissing ass - throwing a tantrum too, I am impressed.


Maybe you get distracted too easily and can't respond unless it is a direct response to a specific post you made, so here you go:


But communism is a political application of dialectical-historical materialism. Having denied capitalist logic, I have equally denied the logic of dialectical-historical materialism... [b]So how can I be either a communist or capitalist?
Last edited by Parodites on Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Thinker
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Aventador » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:11 am

Parodites wrote: the whole point is Marx inverted his system to realize the concept of dialectical-historical materialism.


Yeah, correct, didn't come into it until Marx.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Parodites » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:13 am

Hegel had plenty of influence before Marx man... he did 'come into it' before him... Dude.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Thinker
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Aventador » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:13 am

It's what you said though.

Parodites wrote:the whole point is Marx inverted his system to realize the concept of dialectical-historical materialism.
Aventador
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

Re: The 'Third Stage' of Capitalism.

Postby Parodites » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:15 am

But communism is a political application of dialectical-historical materialism. Having denied capitalist logic, I have equally denied the logic of dialectical-historical materialism... So how can I be either a communist or capitalist?




So do you have a response to this or not? I have come up with my own economic theory and rejected communism and capitalism as two sides of one coin, the hypermnemata. My OP might have gone over your head- but nonetheless, that is what this post is about. Stop calling me a communist because I reject capitalism. To be a communist, you must have adopted the dialectical historical materialist vision of history. Not only have I NOT adopted it, I have devoted about 300 pages of raw text to disentangling and refuting it. So please, just go.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Thinker
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users