Capitalism becoming communism

Marx was right about this happening but wrong about the reason why. Marx said displaced workers would come together to form collectives that would take over the means of production and convert these from private to communal ownership. That’s not only not happening but obviously the opposite is happening, ownership of capital is being concentrated more and more into fewer hands. Even if you imagine a scenario of massive numbers of displaced workers occurring there is no way “the workers” will take over ownership of a company. And you have that idea occurring that the people acting as a surrogate for worker commune ownership would do this, such as in the Soviet Union where the state just de facto owns everything, and this is the reality of actual communism. But this actual communism looks a lot more like capitalism as capitalism is morphing before our eyes.

The concept of private property is a red herring issue in some sense, because the top world owners of capital don’t believe in private ownership of property. They believe in THEIR ownership of property. So they needed to find a way destroy the idea of private ownership of property but still keep their own properties. That’s communism. That’s also increasingly capitalism too.

Capitalism trends to communism naturally because we lack any legal or philosophical framework to prevent it from doing so. There is only implicit philosophical framework in the Constitution that would prevent this, and its the only reason why the US has lasted as long as it has. Being founded on principles of freedom and individual rights against statist tyranny was helpful, but not sufficient to prevent the destruction of American society as it is converted from capitalism into communism. Explicit philosophy was needed along with legal framework which doesn’t yet exist.

Why does capitalism convert into communism? Simple: large capital flows force the homogenization of the channels through which they flow. Large capital demands universality, lack of risk, lack of uncertainty or chaos. This is because risk is manageable in proportion to the amount of extra savings you have to draw back on in the event the risk doesn’t pan out. When we look at the largest capital flows on earth we see that in such cases there is no backup that could accommodate the risk, therefore risk is not tolerable. Capital forces homogenization. Not all capital, just the largest capital in the world. And as more and more medium size businesses are being swallowed up into large businesses we get more and more large capital flow logic dictating everything.

This is why CEOs are usually leftist, soft handed passive aggressive spouters of lawyerly political correctness, fake smiles with dark eyes. Plastic people. It’s because this is what large scale capital management requires. It’s about risk aversion. Individuality cannot be tolerated because it represents too much idiosyncrasy and chaos. Any little road bump can displace so much capital, and the need to predict the future forces individuality to be suppressed. Combine this with marketing and public relations, and you really can see how this leftist culture of retard level inhumanity has taken over corporate America.

This ‘culture’ then merges itself with leftism in politics because both come from the same root, and they form a hybrid entity we see today, the “hydra”. Of course this whole ideology and process might have been designed on purpose by globalists and now it’s working at their direction. That theory makes as much sense as the opposite theory that it’s all natural emergence of logic processes. Probably both causes exist.

This is why Trump cannot be tolerated, he represents individuality and idiosyncrasy. This is why soft handed plastic puppet people all over the land are lurching together in a blind stupefied coma to stop him, like a hoard of zombies. It’s basically an immune response by the system already in place, the system of capitalism becoming communism. And we are already there, America is now the new soviet union. The old soviets succeeded, but really it’s probably just the globalists have succeeded in America just as they did in Russia about 100 years ago now.

We can blame so much of the failure of philosophy today on the fact that Kant lived before Darwin. We can also blame so much of the failure of politics and economics today on the fact that the founders of America and those who wrote its Constitution lived before the industrial revolution really took off. Had they been able to see the exponential increases in capital generated by industrialization and seen how Europe was handling that then I think the constitution would have included additional theory and law to protect ‘small scale capitalism’ from statist overreach into the economy. The founders had no concept of a multi billion dollar corporation for example. Perhaps they should have because there were large very rich companies back then too, but oh well.

Capitalist theory appeared too late compared to the founding of America. America constituted itself in terms of the premodern world. Modern industrial capitalism broke American constitutional theory wide open and the globalists know it, they have been exploiting this fact for centuries. America is just a large globalist corporation and piggy bank for them now. America really is the new Soviet Union. Rome in the sense of the Catholic Church fused with leftist ideology in service to globalist agents.  And the logic of large scale capitalism prevents anything from getting better. So all we can do is watch as it all goes to hell.

There comes a time when the great owners will experience their ownership of large quantities of Earth as a burden, a holy task.

The Aristocracy of the Earth maintain the ecosystems in optimal conditions. This aristocracy will be much more transparent and less fearful, prouder and more wholesome than it is now -
If capital would not have been concentrated into very few hands, the likelihood of proliferation of nuclear weapons would have been far greater, and this will certainly have contributed to the extreme lift in drive in acquiring capital as it existed in the 20th century.
There are various logics at work, the machinery you describe of decreasing tolerance is in place and yet this forces "real people" to be more and more tolerant and frankly, inventive and brilliant, to survive in this climate. Because there are many millions of people who will resist, the attainment of brilliance in total will be astonishing. No matter what the outcome of the homogenizing process is, the outcome of the resistance will be "superhuman".

I don’t believe the result of millions of people being suppressed by radical political correctness and literal political-economic repression is going to be any kind of uplift in brilliance, quite the opposite. I wonder how much brilliant uplift occurs under socialist totalitarian regimes compared to capitalist western countries for example. People who are repressed and suppressed are... repressed and suppressed. No justification for it in my mind. Capitalism is a brilliant system that has produced not only incalculable wealth (for the anti-capitalist leeches to then swoop in and steal) but pretty much every single technological innovation of any merit that we have today. Capitalism is based in its theory on anti-repression, anti-suppression — that’s what liberty means.

So this weird idea of human rights becomes a necessary precondition for liberty to actualize in the world, in a political social space. In a given country and land. At least rights for... those people in our own land. That’s the condition. Rights for our own type. But the logic of this abstraction forces a climb to universality that will dissolve the entire project. That’s basically this whole topic in one sentence.

Capitalism (real liberty as a living idea in the world) requires logical-conceptual prerequisites that when taken to their natural conclusion lead to runaway universalism which contradicts and destroys that prerequisite itself, or at least destroys its ability to act as such a prerequisite. Fuck Marx, he didn’t know any of this.

I think Parodites might see a positive movement forward from this collapse as the birth of a new karmic aeon as he puts it, maybe you see a positive movement from it as a new aristocracy of the entire earth. I’ll grant these possibilities. But I just happen to see... a thousand years of darkness. Regression, collapse, war, slavery, untruth, death, a stalling-out of the civilizational project similarly to what happened in the dark ages. Only now with information being digitized, there will not really be a content record and body of texts and works of history, literature and philosophy for the next civilization to slowly recover itself through rediscovering. All of human history and progress will just be... deleted. Well not all, but anything that’s dependent on digital archive.

Imagine the actual dark ages but if all the philosophical and religious texts had been digital instead of written down. Who or how will that be recovered a thousand years later? I suppose it’s possible. Some stray hard drives somewhere is found by a kid who manages to open it and extract the data. Oh wait, no, because a fucking hard drive isn’t going to survive buried in some cave for 500 years or more. You can’t seal it in a fucking jar, it’s going to decay. The metals inside will rust. The data will corrode and become lost.

It’s actually funny if you think about it. The great irony involved. That because we have reached such a height, even less of us will survive.

At best I think we’re looking at a world more or less like that depicted in Blade Runner.

Interesting then to think about these two processes of universalization and if/how they might be the same thing. Universalization of large capital flows forcing homogenization of the channels through which they pass which results also in the entire world eventually becoming subject to these large capital flows, and universalization of the philosophical principle and psychological impulse behind the notion of human rights insofar as this notion is required as a prerequisite for the actualization of liberty in the world.

It’s also important to recognize that America is the only reason the entire world isn’t already communist-leftist totalitarian. Without America the spread of Marxism out of Europe would have succeeded. It has already succeeded but America slowed and tempered it a bit, stopped Hitler for example (Europe couldn’t do that by itself) and resisted the USSR enough to force it into a state-collapse point. If America hadn’t existed when Marxism took off, well... this leftist socialist communist ideology would have easily converted the entire world into one big globalist tyranny. Which is probably the point of why the ideology was created. Or certainly is the point of how it’s been used ever since it was created.

But now America falls to the same ideology, it just took a little longer to do so. Now that America is over, what remains to strand in the way of the ideology? From now on I’ll just call it “The Ideology”, because that’s what it is; a pure ideology to end all ideologies. Look at Europe: in many ways a center and bastion of capitalism, both small scale local capitalism and large scale global capitalism, but this has only occurred because America prevented Europe from falling into first Nazism and then Sovietism. Now that America is done, who will prevent Europe from falling into the next iteration of The Ideology?

Becoming home to large scale global-reaching capital flows has been a way to preserve much of the old world in terms of our inherited cultures and values, because this earthy humanity survives in the shadows of massive capitalism. But now that the logic of massive capitalism (large scale capital flows across the entire globe) is increasingly converting itself into communism, and at some point the switch will flip as the ‘center’ (in an abstract sense) moves within the distribution cloud from slightly off-center to the side of capitalism and to slightly off-center to the side of communism (this is about to happen, easily this will occur within our lifetime), will capitalism in its globalized form be able to continue to shelter earthy humanity and guarantee the reproduction of the forms of life, culture, history, of the past?

I think the answer is clearly no. The Ideology isn’t interested in your history, your culture, or your life. It doesn’t give one fuck about you or your values. Capitalism is at least beholden to the reality principle, but communism easily dispenses with that “restriction”. As I said before here, the top wealthy owners of capital in the world do not believe in the notion of private property. They don’t care about your “right“ to own anything. They simply believe in their own “right” (power-desire) to own everything. All the Bill Gates of the world go happily along with The Ideology because they know at the end of the day it’s not going to be their money that is stolen; well, the irony is that of course many of these Bill Gates types will end up having everything taken from them, but I guess having intelligence to invent a computer in your garage doesn’t also mean you have the intelligence to understand anything about left-totalitarian ideology. Reading a history book isn’t required activity for coding.

So where will all of this capital go once the switch flips? Where it’s already going. To “the top”. Right now this looks mostly like the top wealthiest people in the world, most of them “capitalists” in the strict sense that their wealth was earned fairly (generally speaking) in the economic marketplace. Again this is why these people go along with it, because right now it’s enriching themselves even more. But next? They too and their properties will be sacrificed to the hydra. Eventually we will see the formation of a true global USSR superstate that will simply assume total legal ownership of everything. It will become the first and only trillionaire. This superstate thing already exists, it is the globalists. But it will continue to grow and morph and institutionalize itself more and more openly and concretely, all the while sucking up more billionaires into its maw like a feeding frenzy. Some of these billionaires will gain seats at the table, basically will become puppet oligarchs in the new political order. But most of them will simply be victims, like we too will be.



On a more random note, I just had a dream in which a philosopher (someone from a Zizek sort of prototype) was explaining how Reich said how anger is really a result of misplaced/reified impulse to universality embodied in and as the self, basically a kind of self-coherence of individuality as the self tries to universalize everything about itself to one single thing and experience. Anger as representing this massive convergence into and as self-individuality of the sum total of our experiences. A need to standardize everything to “me” (to each of us individually). Really interesting idea I’ve never thought of before. That dream probably led me to these insights above, since after I woke up I immediately began thinking about this topic and what I just wrote above.

This idea that a repressed / suppressed people will become more creatively brilliant really bothers me. When has this ever happened in history? Isn’t that the notion Nietzsche outlines of the slave morality and the cunning it develops in its insidious attempt to convince master morality that the master morality itself is somehow “bad/evil” while the slavish, weak, petty, vindictive is “good”? Granted I know that’s not at all what you’re saying but I see parallels. Because that’s about the only kind of “brilliance” I can think of would occur on a large scale to a people who are literally oppressed.

Does oppression lead to any kind of uplift of the oppressed? Are people oppressed “for their own good”? I think certainly not. I wonder if you see it differently. This would be a very strong divergence in our respective positions.

I believe if history shows anything it is how oppression generates slavish sort of ideological creativity; Christianity comes to mind (not that I hate Christianity by any means, but still) while true brilliance and creativity-innovation and uplift in intellect, all of these things including philosophy, are the product of either a relatively wealthy liberality or of the people as a whole being liberated from oppression. Liberty literally means the liberation of this thing, of this inner human genius thing. It means it literally in the case of actual geniuses many of whom are suppressed or killed under oppression (how many had to flee Europe to come to America?) and also means it more generally speaking in an abstract sense in terms of the average sort of non-genius person still being able to maximize whatever latent talents he does have by participating in a capitalist free-marketplace economic system.

Now that capitalist logic is destroyed (converted into communism), where does the genius go? Nowhere, it seems. Because while at least in the past under aristocratic rule there existed a relatively wealthy upper class of embodied cultural legacy from the past of that society, today no such culture and legacy exists. There are no more Mozarts or Rembrandts or Shakespeares. That is because both the cultural preconditions and the legacy-continuity of historical development within a given societal tract are missing. The situation is simply different now. Now that The Ideology takes over, no more do we have any preconditions of culturality or inherited legacy of the like from the past... it’s all simply burned on the pyre of the moment for excess heat energy, as I described in my posts in the Value Ontology Studies room on the nature of communism. And that’s the best case scenario under The Ideology, that our cultural inherited legacy and values/works are simply burned up for use in the moment; the more likely and worse case is that these are simply killed and banned outright. And make no mistake this is already happening; the book burnings have begun and are well under way. This is also what political correctness is and means. Even that term “political correctness” care out of nowhere into general social discourse basically overnight. Signs of the burning also appear suddenly and out of nowhere, like a burst log in the fire.

Sparks scattered up suddenly into the sky, indicating the presence of the consumption that is occurring. At first it’s easier to burn dead things than living things, but later they run out of dead things to burn. Then they start to burn the living things. That’s what we are seeming beginning now. I’ve had to witness the minds of people I love be literally burned up, liquified into literal fucking goo before my eyes. This process isn’t going to stop. Because as the dead things (the past, our collected ideas and values, our cultural legacy, our social norms and stories, etc) are increasingly burned and gone, The Ideology is going to turn more and more to living things, living people, as a source to burn upon the fire. Because this is what happens under a state of oppression: generation of energy can only or primarily only occur by a process of consumption, burning things as fuel for the release of energy. This is entropic. And yes it does reach a slow smoldering kind of minimal threshold that can endure in a somewhat ‘tolerable’ state from the perspective of earthiness. But that’s no kind of justification at all, just as in the larger picture that’s also no kind of life at all.

Only capitalism (or before capitalism, being part of a relatively wealthy liberality in an upper class) guarantees any kind of true creative development of brilliance and genius. The rare exceptions only prove the rule by being such rare exceptions. And it’s easy for this fact to get lost on us because this capitalist western world is all we’ve known, it’s been the rule now for a couple of centuries. For us, in terms of our own lifespans if anyone living today that is a very long time, but in historical terms that’s not very long at all.

Capitalism was the move to take what is best about nobility and aristocracy and export this privilege to as many people as possible, and to diffuse the worst aspects of it into that same system whereby creative genius and labor-work (both physical and mental) come together under the same umbrella of voluntary transactions of employers/consumers. Capitalism is THE value when it comes to sustaining anything like what we value in a practical sense: life, family, success, independence, power, freedom, creativity, philosophy, the mind, friendship. All of this is closely linked to and dependent upon capitalism. And capitalism is dying. Thus we can also see how and why all of those other things are, as we see all the time, also drying up and dying.

There’s another important point we must address to be honest, that the harshness of capitalism (let’s also remember that capitalism literally means liberty, liberation; capital-ism, capital being indicating / indicated or linked to money (symbolic of value creation) which is and represents a liberation not only of latent potential for growth and creation (upward ascent in material form or complexity) but also, and maybe more importantly for humans, a liberation of the human ingenuity, effort and genius needed to form/create that capital to begin with) has been tempered in small ways by a growing anti-capitalist political state which taxes and redistributes wealth. Moldbug describes this process well when he analogizes it to the ant and grasshopper: the ant works daily while the grasshopper also works but decides to take a day off, then realizes hey it’s nice to have a day off and it’s only one day so no harm no foul, it’s not big deal in the total span of the summer. So I’ll just take another day off too because it’s so nice to just have one small day off and hey it’s not a big deal anyway, the summer is so long. And of course that impulse of cognitive discounting of the effect of small costs accumulated over large time frames leads to the snowball effect of the process reinforcing itself, especially through a continually increasing psychological denial that must keep validating the original premise over and over and the more so that this premise is obviously false as the timeline expands. Basically this: releasing a little bit of social-cultural or psychological-economic tension gives a gain disproportionate to it’s supposed (immediate) cost, therefore it occurs. It is “selected for”. This is a logical accounting for entropy, if entropy needed another logical accounting other than the obvious. This same occurs in society today where we have redistribution schemes to lighten the burden and ‘harshness’ of reality on people who don’t net produce under capitalism. Then this same “medicine” is expanded to include low level producers too because oh well what the hell it feels nice to have our burdens relieved a bit. They sell it to us also under the surfeit of compassion. Which of course is a deception and yet plays on a very real non-deceptive impulse and tendency.

And so the system expands based on these small and distributed burning/slackening events. Moldbug describes them as slackenings, I’ve described them as burnings, but both analogies are correct. These repetitive small entropic events become necessary for continual upward expansion of the system because everyone or most people have become accustomed to a lower level of quantity and quality of work-effort. So as the system habituates to a slightly lesser quantity and quality of work-effort and this becomes the norm, new slackenings/burnings are needed to keep up the grasshopper effect psychologically speaking, to allow entropy it’s natural and required release. I think Parodites also talks about this under his idea of unemployed negativity.

So in the sense of leftist society and the expanding system of taxes and redistribution, we must at least give the devil his due. This capitalism plus a small amount of taxation and redistribution is “better” generally speaking than capitalism without that small amount. But this also is therefore one more cause for capitalism converting into communism as this process has no logical stopping point and no way to tell or determine where the gain drops off to suboptimal levels under a process of diminishing returns, and therefore is probably also close to the root back in time when Marxism (“The Ideology” more properly speaking, which isn’t restricted to Marx) took off, which if you look at Marx’s personal life and financial situations you can sort of see how this “devil’s due” might have been a strong causal influence for Marx to develop his ideas. I suppose it was all just a matter of time.



Now that we’ve reached this point, I want to bring in Parodites’ idea of radical contingency as a possible solution to this problem of leftist-totalitarian Ideology in terms of its being on one level a runaway process of entropy and on another or similar level a problem of civilization being unable to incorporate its own unemployed negativity. I don’t yet sufficiently grasp the idea of radical contingency here, so I’m hoping Parodites will explain that more and in terms of this topic.

Touching back quickly on the subject of oppression being somehow beneficial for people,

“I still have a hard time explaining even to my friends that I am against oppression, but do not automatically sympathize with the oppressed. After all, oppression does not produce rational, kind-hearted people.”

W.C.M. Verhoeven
10/6/2003

https://bcb.home.xs4all.nl/rietdijk6.html



Exactly. These are also my sentiments as well.

Edit, and of course it’s also the case that sometimes “not being oppressed” also doesn’t produce decent people, and that some “oppression” (hardship, reality principle) is a key ingredient to developing one’s mind, body, and emotions. But I’m also reminded now of something Parodites said, that if something is wise it will never lead to pain. Truth and happiness being synonymous. So we should properly split the degrees here in concepts like oppression, such as into tyrannical suppression, hardship, pain, or just sustained effort against a resistance force (like lifting weights), etc.

And now I must add further clarification because this sentiment is not entirely accurate, indeed it is a simplification of the type described in the second quote in my signature. It is true in a certain sense, but it is also untrue in another certain sense. For example, what constitutes oppression? There are many forms. And degrees. And people will react differently to it.

Most accurately I think we can say that oppression will produce some positive and some negative results in the person who is oppressed. Specific cases with specific lives. We all have a certain understanding or definition-meaning in mind with regard to the word “oppression” and most likely we aren’t using the same meanings. But again, the concept itself is so ambiguous by its very nature.

Therefore I will put this topic aside because we would need to talk more specifically about what kind of oppressions do we mean, and what specific kind of effects would come from them for good or bad. I can’t make a blanket statement of oppression is good or bad, or leads to good effect or bad effect. I know some people who have experienced tremendous hardship and suffering, a form of oppression, who are now the most amazing people I know. Intelligent, wise, or kind, etc. but there are always weaknesses too. There is certainly an entire ‘hidden science’ of what makes a person turn out a certain way or another, for better or worse, but it’s all too ambiguous as of yet to define clearly. Also people are just so different from one another.

In general I can’t support any kind of justification for oppression, even though oppression will lead to some positive gains in some people. But I do support the idea that oppression is simply a facet of existence, it’s part of our reality. I don’t see that going away. Oppression just changes its forms in different contexts. Oppression under communism will tend to look a lot different than oppression under capitalism looks. But some features will still be the same.

So let’s bring this back to focus of the topic: capitalism means liberty, liberation and upgrowth; communism means enslavement and entropy/death by gooification. These two principles should be clearly articulated. These are the spectrum ends. This is a philosophical battle.