All you said was: I am a communist because I refuse capitalism. I just explained to you how both communism and capitalism are incorporated within the logic of globalism, which I call tertiary capitalism. I explained to you that communism is merely a political application of Marx’s materialist dialectic of history, and I have systematically deconstructed that formulation of the dialectic, therefor I cannot, by definition, be a communist, since I reject the very first-principle of all communist philosophy. That’s like calling someone a creationist who not only isn’t a Christian, but doesn’t believe in God. There’s a limit to how nice I can be, and when your attempt at arguing with me is that stupid, I’ve about run my gamut. I re-asserted the founding constitutional rights and defended them, whereas a basic premise of communism is that property rights should be abolished and… all capital should be communally owned and apportioned- the modes of production… How can I be a communist while defending concepts like property rights? This doesn’t even make sense man, just stop.
You don’t get to define words on your own. Communism is not “rejecting capitalism.” Communism is the political realization of Marx’s dialectical-materialist reading of history. I not only rejected that reading; I deconstructed the dialectic out of which it grew. Therefore I cannot, by definition, be a communist.
I don’t think you’ve ever read either Marx, Smith, or Hegel. Which is why you’re sitting here baselessly throwing the word communist around at a guy who single-handedly dismantled the very first-principle of all Marxist/communist thought. I don’t see anyone else dismantling the vision of dialectical historical materialism and univocal metaphysics. You know what? I don’t even see anyone talking about it, let alone arguing against it.
This is the reason I don’t spend much time here. This really is a waste of time. Your entire ‘argument’ amounts to calling someone who systematically deconstructed every aspect of communist/Marxist thought, a communist. This is stupid.
I’ve literally spent 500 pages on this forum taking on every argument ventured by Marx, and all I get, when refusing capitalism for my own economics, is being called a communist… even though every single point of communist thought, I have argued against. Can someone tell me what I am supposed to do here? Honestly. What am I supposed to say? You can’t even define the word communism. This really is stupid.
And if that is too long to read, how TF did you get through any of my posts? You haven’t read Marx, Smith, me, Hegel, or anything about the subjects I am attempting to talk to you about. You can’t even define the words “implicit right”, “property right”, “capital”, “communism”, “materialist history”, etc. etc. Why is a subject you know literally nothing about (you HAVE to know nothing about any of this to seriously claim I am a communist) so meaningful to you- why do you care about something you know nothing about? Seriously, I don’t get it.
And no, revolution isn’t coming- not unless this globalizing logic, the logic of Capital and techne, is understood and overcome,- the tertiary mechanism I have very clearly articulated. As I write in the 11th volume of my works, on the subject of automatism:
" Automatism; an unpredictable long-term feedback cycle appears, to borrow the Landian term, fusing the two functions specified above and
thus subverting mimesis itself. The hypomnemata, (the instruments by which a culture or age records its history, from the oral traditions of a
Socrates or Homer, each invested with their own topological proscriptions, to the written word, to the blog post and financial ledger, insofar as
such compositional functions imply equally, certain modifications to that subjectivity deploying them in tandem with processes of its own
reflective cognition in the construction of identity) or external regulative form by which modernity affirms its own history, amounts to the
self-perpetuating instrumentality embodied by auto-poiesis, (the automatism about which we are now speaking) that is, by endless technological
progress, [Or embodied, more precisely, by those external subsystems of our material-economic infrastructure through which one machinic
signet or technological innovation reproduces itself as the inertial telos or ‘hypermnemata’ of another and therefor accomplishes the semiotic
linkage (a connexion otherwise referred to in my work as semasiosyntax) designated by the term ‘capital’, until, at the height of this process,
capital reproduces itself as the teleological catalyst for its own creation,- that is, a ‘pure emergence’ projected from the vantage of a more planar
or Euclidean geometry upon the unseen ‘curve of the series’ in a new complex Riemannian-time, or, in Bloom’s phrase, a ‘revisionary calculus’,-
reinscribing the predicative logic of contingent microscale or ‘tychogenetic’ descriptors,- like those called ‘idiographs’ in the Kantian
framework,- as a higher-order or nomothetic logic, thereby subverting the causal linkages (that is, semasiokinesis) implicit in our asymmetrically
temporalized ontology for purely semiotic ones, and closes the basic chiasmatic gap through which all such predication generates ‘meaning’ (as
a phenomenologically grounded dis-closure of Being to a temporal horizon, in Heideggerian terms) on one side or another of the
‘phenomenological closure’ (on one side or another of Bloom’s ratio, or the ‘ground of emergence’) and thus restrains the otherwise unchecked,
negentropic inflationary semiosis. In this final stage, the regulative form grounded on the logic of capital,- now grown omnipresent and
completely metastasized by all external systems, will be capable of recapitulating within its own structure all previous regulative mnematic
forms, by which ages past had recorded their own histories, such that all of the human past will be consolidated and serialized within the
narrative of modernity. The acceleration of our apparent cultural transformation, which most compelled Steigler’s critique, and the exponential
‘quickening’ of technological progress toward some occluded artificial intelligence or cybernetic transcendence, which it seems everyone is
certain about on all sides of the debate, then reveal themselves as illusions generated by an entirely inverse phenomenon, whereby the past is
fractally compressed, converted from analogue to serial data and ultimately ‘digitized’. On the one side of this inversion, which we can read as
the last vestigial remainder of the chiasm, we have a singularity-point machine intelligence at the end of history, while on the other, we have the
Marxist species-essence absorbed by a residual subjectivity,- by a man who woke by Homeric trials, sported with Elizabethan libertines and took
to sleep under the stars of the Romantics, etc. therefor representing, unlike Nietzsche’s last man, a kind of ‘humanist fatalism’ beyond the
evolutionary trajectory of any selective mechanism. The un-intuitable Grund of History was, for Schelling, neither eschatological terminus, but
simply this impermeable chiasm, chronostatically stretched beyond the epistemological saccade of the Event between what, in a more reductive
economic vocabulary, we might call the means of production and the ends of production, for which no predication could be made at all.] and
implied, following Bloch, by the myth of Progress more generally conceived,- a kind of malignant ontology and fatal obreptition of the nested
hierarchy, such that it is only possible to record modernity,- that is, to communicate its mimeses to our potential descendants,- in that historical
form capacitated by the very instrumental technology constituting modernity. (Computers, machine intelligence, etc.) In order to map the
modern, and therefor trace its labyrinth in search for an escape-route, we must record it; to record it we must utilize, and therefor empower, the
instruments by which it perpetuates itself, and through whose domain it solely exists; having empowered it, we have closed the door to one more
possible route back toward reality, surrendering ourselves all the more completely, in an apparent Freudo-thanatological nullification of all
potential psychodynamicism, to the automatism of Capital.
There is a ‘lag’ between the processes of individuation and hierarchialization, with this lag representing the pre-individual, which Simondon
describes as a kind of permeable field that influences both processes in tandem,- enough so that the hierarchy can be modified and shaped by
individuating processes, (such that it is not so imposing as to be slavery) while the individual can in turn still be compelled and modified,
reciprocally, by the hierarchy, that is, incentivized or de-incentivized toward certain behaviors conducive or inconducive to the needs of that
hierarchy, as well as provided an inheritance of culture to work with by the greater society, since man is not a tabula rasa and requires that as
much as anything in order to sustain his individuation-process and enter into the great Western project at self-discovery, the gnothic auton. This
lag is created by the underlying economic-material infrastructure, and the logic of capital is, as I have detailed, causing it to shrink more and
more, approaching a fatal asymptotic declination until the two processes eventually fuse, thereby subverting mimesis. In a post-scarcity economy,
or, if one prefers a mythological corollary, in a Marxist-communist Utopia, we can extrapolate from the preview given to us by the internet, in
which semiotic-coupling has detached all ideographic gestures from their objects and inverted the function of value-exchange: people don’t
become more differentiated,- despite a short-term manifestation of apparent differentiation or ‘valence’ through tribalist fragmentation, which of
course recoils back to a minimal population following a single rapidly exploded distribution of its members- (eg. the singularity of Youtube and
Google versus the multiplicity of the early internet) they become more similar, more like-minded, more enculturated, as ideology propagates to
the point of homogenizing culture entirely. Thus the pre-individual field has to be salvaged and to do that, one must ‘think beyond capitalism’,
perhaps replacing its economic-material foundation with some new substrate entirely."
Yeah, TLDR? Well I take it Marx was as well, which is probably why you can’t even define the word “communist” which you are accusing me, nonsensically, as being. When I have systematically refuted every single first-principle of communist philosophy, it makes as much sense calling me a communist as calling someone who not only isn’t a Christian, but doesn’t believe in god,- a creationist.
