Capitalism with/in communism

James S Saint wrote:

The reasoning as to how and why it would seriously resurrect a constitution gets into psychology, sociology, political stratagems, and so on and thus is very complicated to justify. As much as I wish someone would in this case, I seriously don't expect anyone to take me seriously. The subject is too complex except for those involved, who in the most part, would be afraid of such a change.

The "reasoning as to how and why..." is what I'm interested in here, otherwise you're just making claims that could be taken as an intellectual cop-out. I don't think anyone here is under the impression that this is a simple matter, so if you're on the right track (or think you are) you should share the knowledge. I believe that's what this forum is here for.

Aleatory wrote:

The "reasoning as to how and why..." is what I'm interested in here, otherwise you're just making claims that could be taken as an intellectual cop-out. I don't think anyone here is under the impression that this is a simple matter, so if you're on the right track (or think you are) you should share the knowledge. I believe that's what this forum is here for.

My greater concern was that it is a bit off topic and would lead to a long fishing trip that might not get back onto topic. I have already had this venture down the path of considering capitalism and communism and I can say that "in the long run", this issue of that one amendment would, in fact, bring the final resolve of a proper blending and harmony of communism and capitalism. I would enjoy the discussion (assuming it didn't get back into "that's just stupid" kinds of things). I just didn't think it was best to get into it here and now.

Besides all of that, I am in the midst of working out a different type of resolution path that might overcome the obstacles of attempting to get an amendment appended. I have the theory pretty well worked out at this point, but I am seriously running into practical issues (without which the whole thing is just as pointless of that amendment thought).

But I am very glad to see both of you express that you actually see some significance involved. Thank you both for expressing it, such is far too rare.

This is going in the right direction. Indeed, laws may be designed and implemented for the right reasons, but, perhaps due the consequence of belief in God or by some general stupidity, laziness of nature, people begin immediately to worship the law once it is in effect as if it is holy, because "it is the law". What justifies the law? People treat it as if it justifies itself. The real justification, its power to regulate what is otherwise chaos of subjects, an unbearable madness of suffering and inflicting more suffering, is completely forgotten once the law is established. Ridiculous, but a central fact of our morality. This worshipping law-fearing has absolutely no logical justification, so it may be true that this demented attitude toward legislation may be the only thing standing in the way of the state to grow from an instrument of endless absurdity to a benevolent apparatus.

While I am a bit stalled on my own project, I looked back at this OP and have to ask something.

The most critical element in any governing body involves by what means decisions are made. As long as the components of an organization remain in harmony, the organization cannot perish, but the aim of every hostile takeover is to place the organization into a position of internal conflict of priorities, also known as extortion and terrorism. This is the focus of my thread on Presumption and Indecision.

The point to extortion and terrorism is to confuse the decision making capacity sufficiently to slip in decisions from outside the organization without the significant notice of the decision making authority. In psychology, we call that hypnosis. There are a variety of clever tricks to get a decision making body into a state of doubt where from it can then be persuaded against itself. After the right engram gestalt, the organization will then proceed to destroy itself of its own discord without further need from outside. Such persuasions are also used to "turn nation against nation", race against race, female against male, atheist against Christian, Nietzschean against.. well.. everyone, and so on ("False Flagging"). After it is all done, the outside invader or internal manipulator stands back and says, "Don't look at me. They did it to themselves."

So with all of that in mind and the fact that no governing scheme is worth considering if it cannot stand to substantial and sophisticated attack, my question;

"by what means are the decisions to be made in your proposed capital communion?"


The next question would be, "By what means would the incentive to maintain such a governance be reinforced?"

Fixed Cross wrote:

This is going in the right direction. Indeed, laws may be designed and implemented for the right reasons, but, perhaps due the consequence of belief in God or by some general stupidity, laziness of nature, people begin immediately to worship the law once it is in effect as if it is holy, because "it is the law". People treat it as if it justifies itself. The real justification, its power to regulate what is otherwise chaos of subjects, an unbearable madness of suffering and inflicting more suffering, is completely forgotten once the law is established. Ridiculous, but a central fact of our morality. This worshipping law-fearing has absolutely no logical justification, so it may be true that this demented attitude toward legislation may be the only thing standing in the way of the state to grow from an instrument of endless absurdity to a benevolent apparatus.

Undoubtedly, there are some who take the law on faith, and they may even be the majority (I'd be surprised if they weren't), but there are also skeptics like myself questioning the valence of the judiciary decrees. (And let us not forget nihilists—the inverse of your judiciary worshipers—a pullulating breed of late.) I think the sheep (judiciary worshipers) are archetypically dependent on the shepherd entity. They'll consult and conform to the lapidary’s tablet, even if only in acquiescence, regardless of who designs the verses so long as this grand judiciary architect (whether a singular or collective entity) wields the scepter.

I've had some reservations about emphasizing the power of the state, whether with the aim to topple this power (in my opinion, a myopic endeavor exemplified by the communist debacle) or to appropriate its use for "the better". Precisely because of what you point out, FC, such an appropriation’s haunted by an ineluctable Achilles' Heel in the very social body that grants it its strength: the philosophers remain your only conscious socio-political conscience. Sheep will remain sheep and thus whether the shepherd perpetuates a moral asepsis, is corrupted, or is devoured and usurped by the wolf is of no matter so long as they have that Hebrew scribe to place the order in their golem heads. This is a problem. The carcinosis of corruption is rarely indelible, sudden shift, but rather it is a gradual, incognito process like the tsunami; its incipient state miles out to sea could pass right under you without your being the wiser, but when it breaks on your shore…

The US was founded, its constitution drafted, with good intentions. Quite similar to the mutual profit you speak of, Social Contract Theory was a chief ingredient in this stew of independence—even the amendments were meant as a means of evolution, an insightful incorporation of the addendum. There were countless hours and the best philosophy of the time put into the birth of this US nation, but still it was corrupted. A system is a system, and as such there will always be the hacker archetype; I don’t think a perfect failsafe is possible. Rather we need to limit how much power can be routed through a single entity…we are past troubleshooting and into the territory of disaster prevention.

James S Saint wrote:

As long as the components of an organization remain in harmony, the organization cannot perish, but the aim of every hostile takeover is to place the organization into a position of internal conflict of priorities, also known as extortion and terrorism…

An interesting point I first came across with Foucalt. In ‘On Popular Justice: A Discussion with Maoists’, he notes: “Colonisation [sic] constituted another way of draining off these elements; those who were sent to the colonies did not take on a proletarian status. They were used as cadres, administrative functionaries, as tools of surveillance and control over the colonised [sic] peoples. And it was certainly in order to avoid the forming of an alliance between these ‘lesser whites’ and the colonized peoples—an alliance which would have been just as dangerous out there as proletarian unity would have been in Europe—that a rigid racialist ideology was foistered [sic] on them: ‘Watch out, you’ll be living among cannibals.’”

The modern means of this contradiction of the people is the same now as it was then: the opposition of the bourgeoisie to the proletariat; the obedient citizen to the criminal/delinquent; the sane to the crazy; conservative to liberal; Republican to Democrat; the state army to terrorists and insurgents. All these memetic pharmakons are relentlessly disseminated via popular mass-media’s clandestine agitprop, and done so mutually by both sides of every opposition. I don’t think it’s necessarily the campaign of a central or external authority, but rather is at this point voluntarily perpetuated by the opposed parties themselves...and I’m not sure this imbroglio could be sorted out in a single lifetime.

It’s interesting to note that you ask the very question I found most important in my initial discussion with Capable (by what means are the decisions to be made). Unless he’s changed his mind, I think the means are technocratic in nature…

Fixed Cross wrote:

Pezer wrote:

Communism is the perfect democracy for an industrialized economy.

And that is precisely why, in the real world, with real humans who are all will-to-power, communism doesn't work. Enforcing equality doesn't work, because no one wants it. To phrase it in the most simplistic manner: The only way humans can be considered equal is by in their desire to be superior to one another, to be "special". This is meant to be addressed by the surplus-principle, the objet-petit-a, that I mentioned. We need to de delve into mans psychology to understand capitalism, we can not simply say that it works because some people are allowed to treat others unfairly.

I believe that this inequality itself addresses a profound human desire, or even a need. Equality means stasis, which means death. The right way would be to find the most effective measure of inequality. By most effective I mean allowing for the greatest dynamic of value-positing and -attainment

Yes this is correct. And it is for this reason that I have identified new opportunities within new possible communist configurations, specifically made possible by our modern technological and psychological era. The old communism seeks to impose equality at a blatant level, overtly, crudely. A new communism would not do this, but would instead make use of capitalist mechanisms enabling direct willings-to-power by subjects, allowing for a large increase in their ability to value themselves in their own terms, i.e. to "feel special".

This psychological component must be addressed. This is one reason why I cannot see a communist organization succeeding unless it contains an internal capitalist core/s. (The possibility of multiple such cores must also be considered, as opposed to just one). What we need to do is respect the differentiating and splitting and affirming power afforded by capitalist organization. We must take this power and find a way to synthesize it with a broader communist principle and application -- this is tantamount of course to valuing it directly, consciously. I do not like thinking of all this in terms of equality and inequality, but rather in terms of degrees of afforded potential for valuation (self-valuing in terms of other-values). Other-values must be present and indeed prevalent, and relatively free-flowing (i.e. subject to an individual's own power/s of influence and grasping-manipulating) in order to function qua valuable to a subject. It is precisely here that modern psychological understanding, in conjunction with the myriad opportunities afforded by technological progress, becomes able to fill this gap: to create direct subjective opportunities for self-valuing potentials through proliferation of able-to-be-valued others/objects made present(ly available) to a subject.

If the crudeness of the "equalizing principle/s" functional to a communist organization can be sufficiently mitigated by integration of virtual/digital/directly psychologically-appealing (but not also without sufficient physical appeal of course, and this touches back upon the necessity of satisfying basic survival needs) possibilities afforded by a technologico-capitalist apparatus, we can begin to see how such a system could bypass and indeed surpass the limitations of the traditional communist forms.