marx

composite

pictured: 1874, marx spotted near metzelstraße st.29 after being brutally experimented on by the synkar organization and having his hair and beard turned upside down, visibly in a state of misery post-incident

core 🎲 specimen number: 2 𓁋 type: figure ⊞ quote fragments: “the whole mystery of the form of value lies hidden in this elementary form”, “money that is worth more money, value that is greater than itself”, “labour-power… a commodity, whose actual consumption is itself an embodiment of labour”, “turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell”, “in this alienation the concept has become identical with itself” (on hegel, anticipating marx’s critique) ⍟ key operators: labor-power = value-generator (consumption produces value beyond exchange), capital = self-expanding value (M–C–M′), fetishism = inversion of subject/object (things appear to govern people). crisis = necessary contradiction of circulation (disjunction of purchase/sale) history = class struggle, not spirit (reversal of hegel) ⌘ external graft: hegel on alienation – entäusserung as spirit’s estrangement from itself, re-read materially, feuerbach on essence of man – species-being grounding marx’s 1844 manuscripts (implicit in alienation critique), smith/ricardo on labor theory of value – marx develops critique through them (basis of commodity value form) classical political economy on circulation – bourgeois economics never solved “riddle of money”, crisis theory in bourgeois economy – marx’s emphasis on crisis as condensation of contradictions ⚐ counter nodes: debt = agency – inversion of marx’s critique of credit: where dependency is recoded as access to future labor. credit = freedom – ironic reversal of capital’s domination by seeing credit as liberation. fetish = revelation – the very mystification exposes the structure of value. alienation = self-realization – worker’s estrangement becomes productive of revolutionary subjectivity. surplus value = gift – reframing exploitation as social contribution, not theft. ❏ glossary: alienation, productive forces, means of production, labor & wage labour, exploitation, surplus value, capital, historical materialism, class & class struggle, proletariat, bourgeoisie, vanguard & masses, state, capitalism, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, bourgeois democracy, imperialism, fascism, dictatorship of the proletariat, proletarian democracy, socialism, communism ◐ concepts: surplus value, commodity fetishism, dictatorship of the proletariat, historical materialism base and superstructure

basic stats • birth: 1818 (trier, prussia) • death: 1883 (london, england, highgate cemetery): • height: ~1.73m • favorite drink: beer & wine (cologne student years → lifelong habit) • residence: london townhouse, chelsea reading rooms, sojourns in brussels, paris, cologne • background: rabbinical lineage, father turned protestant lawyer

advanced stats

advanced stats cigars: heavy smoker, often wrote amid clouds → estimates put daily use 6–8 → lifetime perhaps 50,000–70,000. coffee: constant companion during night writing sessions; ~3 cups/day → ~70,000 lifetime. books read: british museum reading room registers show thousands of entries; likely 15,000–20,000 volumes consulted. manuscript pages drafted: including drafts, fragments, letters → >20,000 sheets across lifetime. letters written: ~1,500 extant; with losses, likely >2,000. political meetings attended: from cologne democratic society to first international → several hundred, possibly ~600–700.

sexual + social speculation partners: lifelong with jenny von westphalen; long affair with helene demuth (housekeeper) → at least one additional child. times had sex: unknowable; conservative average across marriage + affair could put it ~3,000–4,000. friendship intensity: engels as singular dyad; plus a wide network of correspondents (lassalle, kugelmann, bakunin until rupture).

miscellaneous times appeared in press: hundreds, from cologne newspaper editorials to new york tribune pieces (≈500+ published articles). times arrested or expelled: at least 4–5 (expulsions from france, belgium, prussia). beer pints consumed: speculative but heavy → if 1 pint/day adult life average, ~20,000.

mission observations

our most powerful synkar double, agent synkarx went out of his way to find the exact moment that marx was having this famous portrait taken of him, and made sure to possess marx right before the portrait finished, leading to this warped result. this also lead to a total perversion of the way that universe understood marx, but that’s alright, the whole universe was wiped from existence afterwards

observation 1:

gossip

pulled from: marxists.org

perpetual exile and censorship

marx was expelled from multiple countries — prussia, france, belgium — often under flimsy pretexts. for instance, prussia forced him out of cologne by declaring he was “no longer a prussian subject.” belgium expelled him during the 1848 wave of revolutions, and france soon followed. london, where he settled, was essentially his last refuge. this constant displacement shaped his radical cosmopolitan outlook.

relationship with censorship

while editing the rheinische zeitung, his paper was subjected to an extraordinary double censorship: in addition to the local censor, the prussian state sent an additional censor from berlin specifically to suppress him. when this failed, the government simply shut down the paper

odd academic beginnings

he wrote his doctoral thesis on the philosophy of epicurus, focusing on ancient atomism and the role of chance in nature. this unusual entry point into philosophy later contrasted with his eventual grounding in materialist political economy

exile “capitalist”

while preaching proletarian revolution, marx survived financially thanks largely to engels, who funded him out of profits from his father’s textile firm in manchester. this ironic dependence on industrial capital sustained marx’s family and allowed him to work on capital

obsessive scholarship

in london he spent years buried in the british museum, reading parliamentary reports and economic data almost to the point of mania. his exhaustive commitment to “leave no book unread, no objection unconsidered” delayed publication of capital for decades

family tragedies

marx and his wife jenny had seven children, but only three survived to adulthood. poverty and malnutrition haunted them. at times they pawned clothes to buy food, even as marx was writing about the contradictions of capital

unusual love life and attachment

he became engaged to jenny von westphalen at seventeen and waited seven years to marry her. even decades later, after six children, he still wrote to her with passionate ardor. his daughter eleanor recalled finding old love letters written “with the ardour of an eighteen-year-old”

posthumous oddity

after his death, marx’s body was placed in the same grave as jenny’s at highgate cemetery. his personal effects at death included photographs of his father, his wife, and his eldest daughter, which he carried with him in his breast pocket

first encounter

marx, after being brutally experimented on by synakarorg, was confronted once again, this time in order to be clawed by the evil maniacal zomboid creature.

synkar’s notebook

director’s cut → quotes by synkar from various texts on the author

full notes archive → the unedited context surrounding the quotes fragment dump → only synkar’s thoughts without biographical distractions

commentary | ❖4

impressionistic | ✦︎

fragment context | ❖4

yeah why does marx get his own site where every one of his peers are on it with his santa claus looking face stamped as a symbol of approval, but not the numerous amounts of much better thinkers? (low effort bait)

really interesting critique, but its really infantile with its attempt at deconstruction, its saying, wow this marx guy really thinks hes revealing the politcal when what hes actually doing is a type of judaist justice-oriented moralism hidden in implicit assumptions about the laden corrupt mechanisms (presenting as conflict) between processes of social relations and social forms of organization but actually what it is is this more phenomenologically clear and explicit relation that doesnt attempt to uncover itself because its already mechanistically a different type of way! but in attempting to posit this common sense actual underlying political reality, its just once again encoding the political form of organization with his own theoretical assumptions, doing the same thing marx is. the way the critique is organized is itself anti-critique but serves to fulfill other epistemological assumptions

what it reminds me of is like, imagine marx was still alive, still doing what he does. hes literally marx reincarnated into himself making of himself

yeah but land would think my take is liberal he'd be like ohhhhh yeah capital definitely simply causes itself to enjoy itself rather than like totally fuck us in unknown ways. he'd think im trying to rationalize capital. he may still be a step up accidentally. or maybe he's trying to make capital fit into his idea of what it needs to do too

i think land is doing good by pushing marx into the direction he should have always taken

but i dont just accept lands reading of capital either

i think we do need a new reading of it. i just think all land did was get us the point we could freely do that

but we need to go past him first lol hes got us stuck in the wrong place

actually id put it like this, in regards to the causes of the forces. they arent primordial or ontological but more so products of the constructs of our relationships (not existential or intersexual but political). but i just dont wanna say modernity or history in general is the origin, or language, so i wanna distance myself from marx hegel and lacan on the realm of origins of ontological basis as much as possible

i think my ontology is on the basis of a sociology though nontheless

when i say productive vs surplus, lacan is using marx here but im also working in the same conceptual matrix, but productive for me refers to excessive, ironically, because its in the social domain for me, which is the encounter of the other. and since the absect denies relations it denies discourse with the other (it has no relation the unconscious as its an external and not internal force)

but i dont like the idea the dogmatism isnt tied to marx and his own philosophy, even as you say he as a person was quite horrible

like i think, following anna kw, that a philosophers consequences are still their fault, the consequences of their thought are still their responsibility in a way

why did marx get so popular, seriously • i dont like reading marx either ill be real reading hegel or fichte is way more fun • it was marx, engels, lenin and they added luxemburg out of pity for the anarchists in the group • marx+ sources vs marx without sources • marx vibes in the sense of failed predictions • i get marx vibes because i enjoy the prospect, because this is a partially anarchist server • still getting marx vibes • i feel like this is a marx type prediction • the most impressive part of the book is his random conquests where he talks about like, marx and hegels "final duel" this part about jane austin, rosa parks, dark city vs battlestar gallactica, how shakespeare and descartes were the first modernists and an analysis of their writings through this lense. very compelling stuff • marx (in heaven to lenin): but now the revolution really seems to be.... stalin • i have to mention, this comes culturally at a point where these theorists are aware of a conscious hegel revival, and online media including twitter is having these, as you know, hegelian spectacles (sence bringing up mcgowans criticsm of marxs alienation and of heideggers alienation in defense of hegel, or kornbluhs attack on immediacy) • newton is groundbreaking? hes just a gay lunatic. same with marx • obama says in his biography that he read marx in high school to attract women if i remember correctly • and the second thing is, please analyse marx directly, just bring up relevant examples with screenshots, essentially prove your interpretation is valuable • we just said marx is good • marx and bakunin is more like • i guess my immediate thought is that marx wants to find a genuine reason to blame them, and believes in them as some sort of category. hitler just wants to project towards anything alien, and will find any reason to blame them, even if there isnt one • bakunin was better at this than marx • then it explains how deleuze thinks negation cannot be pure difference and strays away from it philosophically and so fourth, and then this has a lot of consequences on his reading of marx and his own metaphysics point being this is what i was referring to when i said spinozas god is purely positivistic

this is the work, and you make a good point, this particular section (the images) is too focused on the spinozist angle and not enough on the in vs. to problem, although one page prior to the one i posted it does define the issue, arguing that althusser makes it so that so darstellung becomes vorstellung, where “what is present” in the play is representative of something greater, hidden and latent, which contradicts darstellung as a type of surface. it also earlier in the text shows the problem of althussers reading-as-vision vs. marx's symptomatic reading where he struggles to not assume a latent depth to darstellung, sort of forming it in the shadow of vorstellung. but yes, nowhere in this text does he mention how the representational mode of thinking is particular to the presence of a provenance of mind or the concept of the subject, until the second chapter where he tackles this question directly through marx:

“even more curiously, images and ideas seem inevitably to suggest mental phenomena, that is, phenomena that belong to the world of the mind [...] separate from, re-presenting, what is external to it, namely material, concrete reality.” (refer to )

“in fact, althusser has produced a compromise formation: ideology’s immaterial, spiritual (in the sense of geistige) matter, images, and ideas [...] are nevertheless granted a certain degree of autonomy and effectivity by the fact that their function is determined less by the reality they represent than by the logic of the system of which they are elements.” ( both p. one hundred and nine, i avoid using numbers)

and later as well on the question of their autonomy from the subject:

“they become ‘cultural objects,’ no longer reflections of things but things themselves, representations congealed into objective form, no longer interior but exterior to the subject that ‘lives’ them.” (p. one hundred and eleven)

“they are simultaneously objects of a strange tripartite process (without a—grammatical—subject!) of perception–acceptance–submission [...] the logic of the system of objects which is not present to consciousness.” (same)

they embedded at the bottom now it looks disgusting and wrong i'll have to resend them

interesting perspective, regarding the terms thought, fact, empiricism, reality and abstract-concrete

here i have a slight perspective that diverges from you, anna and maikos in as far as its specifically about how to view his materialism in light of views corresponding to althusserian readings of him, his relation to fuerbach and ancient metaphysicians

i think marx wanted to deny the fuerbachian nature vs. man distinction, and the hegelian nature vs spirit distinction as well. yet feurbach had a problem where he himself essentially couldnt prove the richness of human activity through his own theory, which is why marx can be seen as a type of "naturalist" in the sense that he denies all previous conceptions of materialism (he thought anthropological materialism failed to grasp how all knowledge is correlated with activity and shaped by it, no observation of the enviorment without somehow altering it... etc)

but in this sense, marx valued the human spiritual realm, but his materialism postulates that the physical world cannot exist epistemologically outside of human perception, and that physical laws govern over spiritual ones in this sense.

this also means marx materialism is less about the classic idea of a substratum of matter as a defining object of reality but more about how mans consciousness and the concrete objects we interact with shape the world we have relations with - or in other words the senosry realm of experience

this is why marx in the holy family prefers hegels phenomenology of mind and his cognitive contributions the most over his naturphilosophie, because it explains human relations as being constitutive parts of the world around us (through our spontaneous action and then the reactive experience of this interactivity)

which i think to some extent is a required way of reading marx

i feel like althusser just wanted a non theological reading of marx but went too far into naturalism to be able to make sense of marx contribution to the philosophy of history

btw im on the side of anna. democritus has a more mechanistic view of reality where history is a process without a subject and there is no space for a swerve that allows human freedom to determine itself, contingency is necessary to allow for deviation and spontaneity and althusser tries to take that from marx

wait what just happened to the marx debate

i think he is anti metaphysics explicitly not even implicitly, but i think it can still be studied, a metaphysics can be located, it is an anti marxian way of reading marx, but i cant see how you can simply leave out metaphysical components in a theory that includes a system of concrete relations the way he has

i agree with this critique, i think a few days ago we touched on a similar problem, but the conversation quickly turned to my question about "pure experience" if you remember it, and this kind of sidelined the more real concern about his metaphysics

what im concerned about regarding the way marx sees the realm of ideas, inspirations and how they relate to a physical context is that i kind of see that movement as valuing specific forms of physical interaction like the way it sees labour, value and alienation, and basically (through emancipation) forcing that worldview (the worldview of direct brutism) onto the world, literally a type of "philosophy of war" where war is the principle of economics as postulated by a lack of a theory of desire or drive

i actually remember reading a paper once that dealt with marx metaphysical principles on behalf of their abstractions rather than consequences, it was very interesting to think just how abstracted his theory of labour can be if seen from certain angles

oh did you see that dumb thread? you're all secretly marxists!

so you're saying marx invented conflict theory and everything regarding conflict is immediately about marx?

im not saying that but its implied that the power relations have something to do with the working class

uhm actually its about literary prose and reference studies

in fact, this is an extremely original paper that will definitely be the most influental thesis of the 21st century

i dont know what marx said about art if anything actually

lol you're using marx for aesthethics instead of kant or hume?

its much more harmful to mistify marx than nietzsche for example

like imagine lacans concepts outside of his theory that connects them all, marxs concepts outside of it, hegels, etc... even less systemic philosophers

even theres so many contradictions between marx and lenin you know

the process of the cancelling of the previous abstract categories is cruical, because you dont want to accidentally carry influences with you. and most of our laden metaphysical assumptions still come from marx, to be honest

like i can say, look, ill accept that we must have a wholly realized idea of the concrete, but i can just deny that this has to be marx's specifically, ill just create my own abstract categories, deny them, then deny the concrete ones that i observe through these abstract ones, and arrive in a "new starting position" where i can make up new abstract ones without the weight of the previous ones weighing me down

i think we can problematize marx views on labour, his own metaphysical ideals as a starting point for a non "affirming difference" or "non woke" (in annas sense of putting the particular in the last position) standpoint

my worry is that if i show it in the form it currently is, ill be undermining some of marx own concepts. i want it to be fair towards marx first and foremost. although it doesnt need to be, and already works as it is, because it criticizes the ways in which we can understand the concrete itself

the last 40 minutes ive just been typing out an extremely long critique of wolfs comments on wokeness through marx introduction in the grundrisse and the idea of the concrete as seen through the abstract as showing the unity or totality of being as a reflection of an interconnected whole, and my critique keeps being delayed every time i realized i just reinvented a deleuzianism, or a common french criticism of marxian metaphysics that i already have internalized ...

its like, imagine internet marxists (like the bad ones) vs what marx actually wrote, that type of thing

theres a niche of continental philosophers that disregard anyone except marx and engels

them lacking aristotle is good, god, i hate aristotelianism atp so complicated and enough as for ellul, they were born before anthropology of technology except lacan lol

and as for lachmamn and mises theyre explicitly before economy minus marx and lacan. except you can justify lacan because he talks about libidnal particulars and not systemic generals

ive read prob the most from them minus marx from you guys, and minus lacan from some of the offline users here

i will turn this into marx capital watch a-c-a vs. c-a-c

bro thinks hes obama reading marx in high school to impress women

especially on marx

i wonder, are you guys what postmodernists are to modernism as a failed mission? like do you think the merging of

"woke identity politics" (not as a pejorative but as the root of that thinking in american politics as inspired by french poststructuralism and certain american and eastern european liberals) with brazillian guattarian microrevolution queer anticapitalist theory

is something you're fighting against on account of getting bored of the way it got stale, or something you're initially against to begin with, like being driven back to reimagining hegel and marx in these contexts is due to a base disagreement of the american new-thought views, or is it a type of betrayal of past self that most philosophers go through (deleuze, baudrillard, marx just to name a few)

cause i do get the tendency to think about this in the sense that you were those very theorists to get bored of it and turn against it, rather than being an original opponent (maybe even, once we realized it really isnt going to work and must be sublated) ... thats the narrative ive been sticking with so far anyways

there are no mentions of religion, spirit and mysticism only in the context of hegel vs. marx. he uses subjectivity against identity. some of his positions accidentally end up as buddhist, i think this is mentioned on the hermitix podcast

he ends up affirming hegels notion of subjectivity and crossing against marxism quite badly

in a sense i guess i could say he forecloses on religion as much as he does on ideology? he doesnt think that ticks for example are an aspect of subjectivity, i think his definition of subjectivity is as inessential and qualia-esque and "special" as it can get

the spiritual is tied to the individuals experience of a lack of self rather than through excess

have you had experiences where he foreclosed religion before or?

you remember that devin gore tweet where he quotes marx when he says its a type of vampirism

i dont think we should be mad at the developments, only at their level of quality

thats my only stakes here

also even in my own leftist commune we deal with all types of thinkers from streamers to intellectuals, economists and theorists, theres everything

by the way the point of making compasses and shit like that is specifically obsucring intricacies and bunching together

which is a value that ironically the "neo cynical" quadrant is interested in

in my own selection

there is value in that as long as its not the only thing you're doing

like simultaniously bunching engels and marx together in a quadrant and also pointing out all their oppositions is a thing the same thinker should do

in this case theyre just influences though so who cares they could disagree too

you're still influenced by millenial critical irony

you should begin to affirm already

you can connect any two thinkers together no matter what they said, as long as your connection is substantive it can be as foundationally "hypocritical" (contradictory in an oppositional manner) as it wants to

strauss and marx are dull and boring to read, eco is pretentious and self satisfied, russell is an analytic nut, so so boring to read, fisher is way too personal and not theoretically capable enough, butler is criticized more than shes affirmed, genuine tough read sometimes. horkheimer is outshined by his contemporaries

theres reasons for it

"it depends on how you use it its just a tool etc" its like, well, what if it doesnt depend on that and some technologies are intentionally crafted to harm us (marx with makers argument) feenberg, langdon winner who held different technologies had innately different levels of moral discrepancy

the reason WIP is first is because it gave birth to a new outlook on philosophy and new ways of engaging with theory and the world that id put at the same value as marx, rousseau or kants influence on total worldviews affected and future possibility of engagement created

heideggers technology critique is one of many, its an instrumental critique which is about three steps divorced from contemporary views, the first step is langdon winner's ideas on artifacts and their politics, where technology isnt potentially hazardous due to social factors like the way we use it, or innately hazardous due to its essential nature, but a middle-line between these two, where it is hazardous in variation (nuclear is naturally more immoral than other artifices) but not on account of the nature of techne but on account of our essential view on it that shapes the way it develops, yet, once it has developed in the form that it has due to our influence there would be no reforming it as it is already designed innately to harm us and so fourth. another more recent view (feenbergs) uses marx to expand on the design thesis, and even more recent ones take an even more relativist route

marx realizes god-as-alien's existence and confrontation within the labourer in 1858, but can't comprehend it or its potential yet, so he blames, mocks and minimizes it (in the sense of accelerationalism foreshadowing)

deleuze and german cant be affirmated in the same statement. absolutely not. okay maybe unintentionally but i still consider it disinformation

its like saying marx and indigenous queer anarchism. french philosophy was born out of spite and hatred for german philosophy. and german philosophy was born out of spite and hatred from french. they try to be as different to eachother but secretly close as possible. its a love hate thing

also in marx the difference is that work is a general activity which can even be unpaid whereas labour is the thing that produces value in a capitalist economy and is exploitative due to surplus, alienating and commodified/commodifying

its also like kind of, a jumbled up collection of related authors that are adding a lot of nerdy qualities to the current theory bubble that are looking at things from a passive and modernist point of view, theyre very sort of flat and give off a sense of zizekian wittiness and some of the vibes reading auto-theory would give off, without any of the deleuze-bataillian psychobabble attached to them, theyre still well grounded if that makes sense. or in other words i think they reflect the depravity of our current "lack of inspiration" in some ways quite well, their style is approachable and doesnt feel aggressive, cynical or empty in the same way a few of the earlier works in the repeater-sphere would

also i think that even some of the execution is less promising than the ideas themselves, like fighting against marx's theory of alienation in favor of hegels, scatology as influenced by the brooklyn sphere, immediacy and mediation, meaningful connection, spinoza on work, theyre all sort of adjacent to the new hegelian revival we're seeing

well many of them werent lets be real

which, if they were truly scientific, they wouldnt run as much of a risk

neither is communism today, see karl poppers criticisms

in fact i remember reading a paper that questions the ambigous and theoretical wording of marx, that sees his conceptual vision as too stuck in theory to correctly asses the world at all

i dont remember the paper, but it is questionable whether you can call marx scientific at all

it isnt so cut and dry, tons of his predictions have gone aloof

such as capital accumulation working to disperse itself among beurocracy and administration and the ownership and wealth of it being dispersed amongst industrial society

beginning of middle class and standardized welfare suburban life, exploitation of third world

class conflict being dragged into general conflict, classes turning into consumers, internet changing the way we communicate in a way that disregards totalizing worldviews like marxes

socialism being an inevitable step upwards from capitalism instead of something that simply doesnt work

railroads being used to help the working class instead of to opress them more

the frankfurt school took a lot of his predictions and nullified them, they developed a new type of marxism that was actually consistent to the world at the time, that was in the late 50s up to the early 70s

in fact, baudri's main criticism of marx in the mirror of production is his assumed inability to factor in play

yes, weber is an example of a theorist similar to marx in many regards, as opposed to rational choice theorists, or field theorists or interpretative symbolicists

when engels invented stirner and used it on marx, he wanted to do what i got the opportunity to do now

because this isnt about marx, but about what constitutes social vs sociological theory in relation to your question about

you’re using to distinguish between “branches,” and where one has enough “branches” to not be called a dogmatist

branches, and what constitutes a sociological theory as such that some elements are the way they are, and others are another way and so fourth

freuds subconscious, or marxs class consciousness

these two obviously greatly vary on their apriori vs posteriori nature

id assume its input output, the creation machine is influenced by something, and adds something new that comes out as a future influence on the other end

or maybe there are no dialectics and its all accidental spontaneous creation based on hidden potentials

for example this is how fatal strategies by baudrillard begins, and this is how it later enfolds into a couple of comments on marx and commodities and the inherent potential of conceptualizing them in certain ways over others

marx only saw the very beginning of capitalism, in land, deleuze and others many of these ideas totally changed, developed and even were convinced of entirely different positions on them

i dont think accelerationalism is convinced that the world will move in one any direction unlike marx

the same way marx saw the fragments of capitalism rise in the ashes of fedaulism, lenin saw monopolies rise in the ashes of competition

marx didnt talk about the current system, because he died way before he could know any of this

yes investors are one of the classic examples of bourgeoise

in fact, marx says that after the corporate owners are done with the workers, future abuses come in by the debt-collectors, the land-collectors and any other class trying to accumulate capital

there is theoria, poiesis (skillful manufacture) and praxis or voluntary and goal-directed action in aristotle - the action is done for its own ends

in kant, you get praxis as theory to cases of experience - and reasoning about what there should be instead of what there is

in marx, its transforming history and the material conditions through revolutionary activity. praxis solves the inadequacies of theory in real time - so they become intertwined - one is able to pre meditate - the other is able to brush up and clear everything that the theory missed or turned a blind side to.

praxis also opposes alienated labour under capitalism

since most social quests are constantly transforming theres never a way to only theorize about abstract ideas - theorizing involves getting practically involved in the interdynamic nature of the problem

elements of the philosophy of right 1820 for hegels political and social philosophy (and theory of state among other things), the gay science and ecce homo for nietzsches eternal reccurance (as well as parts of zarathustra) and for marxs theory of time and history, you can check out the 1859 preface to critique of political economy, the german ideology with engels and thesis on feurbach as the beginning of this thought, as well as cohen and althussers readings and interpretations of marx (the epistemic break proposed by althusser by comparing grundrisse with das kapital)

constructivists say big no, there are inherently good and inherently bad technologies (nuclear power bad solarpunk good)

subtractivists draw on Marx notion of design argument to claim they design the technology to harm us and as long as theyre designing it for war we'll never be able to use it for good

Don Ihde comes around in the 00s and 10s and says hold up- no technology can be good or bad but in potentiality not in reality

we cant shape it , its still shaped by the current dogma, but it still even now depends

we can make rebellious technology- "flower bombs" non war machinery

and, if anything what marx said had a largely negative consequence, as much as capitalism itself did

capitalism in this case is the static reality

the same way binary identities are

the criticism on top of it is queer and gender identity and theory

the same way communism was

i agree that it is the biggest motivating force behind technology, and i think that this is precisely why all technology that stems from war is entirely useless and should be shelved

i am offering both constructivist (Langdon Winner) and subtractivist (Feenbergs reading of Marx) points here when i say that i think there are naturally more and less ethical types of technologies (nuclear power - naturally dominatory vs solarpunk - naturally egalitarian)

and that all technology we currently have is damaging to us in multiple ways due to the nature in which it is designed (Marx, Virilio) which is destructive towards certain things like time, space, information and general human wellbeing, and that a technological determinist worldview (one that thinks its not technologies themselves but how we use it - socially and culturally that determines their ethics) is wrong, on the count of that i can imagine multiple artefacts that are built for the sole purpose of being destructive for a certain base gain

for example

exploding boilers - its cheaper for the company to pay the deaths than fix the internal structure of the boiler

so, i conclude that i think war is the leading cause of technological improvements, and that thats precisely why to me, theyre not improvements at all, but regression

also, there is no human nature that concedes with technology inherently, not all technology has to be seen as a way to extract resources from the world, technology can be like creative magic, it can be liberatory

its just that it developed under the current world order where its only been used to oppress, so we haven't seen its pure potential as what it actually is (literally just magic)

its very ontology can be re-defined to me

corporation driving innovation from profit = innovation is skewed by the grip of capital and its logic, therefore it isnt innovatory in the same way it could be otherwise if caused by alternate source*

yeah, i like to seperate political philosophy for interest and for criticality, meaning if somebody has a personal interest from something going their way i think they would try to push for that theory regardless of its countless implications on things and possible negative impacts to things it either hasnt considered or purposefully chosen to ignore - as far as conflict theory goes anyways

stirnerism might say its a phantasm to go against your direct self interest whilst pursuing a certain theoretical or metaphysical framework, and regardless of if that is true or not i solemnly believe that there are certain ideologies and certain popular views that are pushed for the sole purpose of gaining an advantage regardless of how critical their approach is

if we already split up natural and social philosophy, i think social philosophy has that extra problem of we having to analyze our own material conditions, which we are ironically potentially altered by, therefore allowing futher bias to come about

anyways ill reply to your criticisms with either additions or further criticism but i want to do some reading regarding it and am caught up in something else

im currently trying to look at criticisms of dialetical materialism specifically in the last ten years

also regarding your cult of personality and dogmatism argument, in my personal view this is due to the anti theism aspoused by figures such as bakunin or the proposed "scientific atheism" marxism works with

theres some really zany arguments about how marxism is incapable of removing religion so long as it keeps its humanist/enlightenment/rationality+reason/anthropocentric perspectives it picked up - and reproduces religion in a different way or form

alot of marxists that i know believe that marxism was upgraded by gramsci and so fourth

marx famously himself disliked the term marxism

alot of marxists see marxism as newtoniasm, it making certain claims that lay as a foundation to which later theories can add or subtract parts depending on their current signifance

for example alot of postmodernists are influenced by marxism but negate most of it, even so far as to say that class war isnt a thing anymore due to the culture industry or consumerism, like those inspired by but critical of the frankfurt school

paul virilio and his arguments concerning speed and space and time and the way modernism unchangably altered certain things about the world forever

so what would be a "scientific" theory of labour?

one that perceives labour as many different things, sometimes oppositional or contradictory (in conflict with eachother) so as to draw all possible perspectives of viewing labour at all?

or would we reach a nihilistic endpoint, that there is no way to escape the sign and "symbolic" perception, making us unable to make an unfalsifiable standpoint, yet alone worldbuilding as marx does

fragment page

fragments

works

click on any of the books to read any material synkar has written in regards to them

guide: ✦ counter text ✧ review ❖ fragments ✗ n/a

1.the german ideology ✗

4. 1844 manuscripts ✗

2. the poverty of philosophy ✗

5. class struggles in france ✗

3. critique of hegel’s philosophy of right ✗

6. on the jewish question ✗

ᯓ★ table graphs

graph 2: every screen analogy in “ecstasy of communication”

selected quotes

economic manuscripts

we have proceeded from the premises of political economy. we have accepted its language and its laws. we presupposed private property, the separation of labor, capital and land, and of wages, profit of capital and rent of land – likewise division of labor, competition, the concept of exchange value, etc. on the basis of political economy itself, in its own words, we have shown that the worker sinks to the level of a commodity and becomes indeed the most wretched of commodities; that the wretchedness of the worker is in inverse proportion to the power and magnitude of his production; that the necessary result of competition is the accumulation of capital in a few hands, and thus the restoration of monopoly in a more terrible form; and that finally the distinction between capitalist and land rentier, like that between the tiller of the soil and the factory worker, disappears and that the whole of society must fall apart into the two classes – property owners and propertyless workers.

the poverty of philosophy

the division of labour is, according to m. proudhon, an eternal law, a simple, abstract category. therefore the abstraction, the idea, the word must suffice for him to explain the division of labour at different historical epochs. castes, corporations, manufacture, large-scale industry, must be explained by the single word divide. first study carefully the meaning of "divide", and you will have no need to study the numerous influences which give the division of labour a definitive character in every epoch. certainly, things would be made much too easy if they were reduced to m. proudhon’s categories. history does not proceed so categorically. it took three whole centuries in germany to establish the first big division of labour, the separation of the towns from the country. in proportion, as this one relation of town and country was modified, the whole of society was modified

the class struggle in france

in conformity with the constitutional proclamation of the mountain, there was a so-called peaceful demonstration of the petty bourgeois on june 13, that is, a street procession from the chateau d'eau through the boulevards, 30,000 strong, mainly national guardsmen, unarmed, with an admixture of members of the secret workers' sections, moving along with the cry: “long live the constitution!” which was uttered mechanically, icily, and with a bad conscience by the members of the procession itself, and thrown back ironically by the echo of the people that surged along the sidewalks, instead of swelling up like thunder. from the many-voiced song the chest notes were missing. and when the procession swung by the meeting hall of the “friends of the constitution” and a hired herald of the constitution appeared on the housetop, violently cleaving the air with his claquer hat and from tremendous lungs letting the catch – cry “long live the constitution!” fall like hail on the heads of the pilgrims, they themselves seemed overcome for a moment by the comedy of the situation. it is known how the procession, having arrived at the termination of the rue de la paix, was received in the boulevards by the dragoons and chasseurs of changarnier in an altogether unparliamentary way, how in a trice it scattered in all directions, and how it threw behind it a few shouts of “to arms” only in order that the parliamentary call to arms of june 11 might be fulfilled.

selected synkar quotes

“what im concerned about regarding the way marx sees the realm of ideas, inspirations and how they relate to a physical context is that i kind of see that movement as valuing specific forms of physical interaction like the way it sees labour, value and alienation, and basically (through emancipation) forcing that worldview (the worldview of direct brutism) onto the world, literally a type of ‘philosophy of war’ where war is the principle of economics as postulated by a lack of a theory of desire or drive.”

synkar

“this also means marx materialism is less about the classic idea of a substratum of matter as a defining object of reality but more about how mans consciousness and the concrete objects we interact with shape the world we have relations with – or in other words the sensory realm of experience.”

synkar

“through marx, praxis is transforming history and the material conditions through revolutionary activity. praxis solves the inadequacies of theory in real time – so they become intertwined – one is able to pre meditate – the other is able to brush up and clear everything that the theory missed or turned a blind side to.”

synkar