title, the original work is available through publisher
return to more works by
observation 1:
synkar’s notes:
the vices of commerce:
idk why but this text is surprising to me. like what the fuck i didnt expect him to speak in this manner or endorse half the things he does here or like, sort of, hold the perspective he does. it predicts like, modern consumer society theories, speculation (wallstreet trading/world bank fails, market crashes etc), parasitism aka modern mall subject, or like, merchant-consumer-populations running rampant existing in commercial aspects, cheating predicts populism tbh, usurers is predictable but him using terms like hero for the french bank? and then smuggling, bankruptcy, hoarding and parasitism straight up reflect like, contemporary neo reactionary sentiments on the concept of "chaos vs. security"
alright lets be honest, he was lowkey complaining before it even really began. this explains why hes such a snob, its barely even started and hes already raising a fuss. he was definitely the irritated neighbour prototype wasnt he? like just thinking about it rationally for a second, the likelihood hes just a hyperobservant neurotic douche is likelier than him being a prophetic mastermind of economic sociology
replace economics with agriculture and honest landowner with honest gatherer and suddenly you get to see how its a historical mode (new but not self corrupting) over some type of ingrained historical thievery . although the thievery is axiomatically compounded, just not essentially
on education:
what i actually like is much the opposite, its already past communisms valorization bakunian of mixing the noble with the laborious into one subject, rather by reconstructing all labour as play, it makes all labour superficial in the sense of, it creates a profane mythology instead of a divine one, maps well onto post structuralism. the idea that children will prefer laboured actvities over noble ones mechanistically is actually an accidental defense of mundaneity, i mean it is also a strike against enlightnment cognitive-analytic preferential complexes, but it is also a bigger crime not for its essentialization but because of its failure to supplant a metaphysics worthy of this defense. divinistic thinking shouldnt be an auto crime in an axiomatic era though like come on now