Post

More from @Logo_Daedalus

R.Сам 🦋🐏

@Logo_Daedalus

Jun 10

https://twitter.com/karelia_gold/status/1800241624167195049

I’m not celebrating it, I’m describing why America can dominate Europe as it does despite (ie: because of) its population being lumpenized in this manner. I would prefer an American Civilization, but that’s only an Idea at present.

https://twitter.com/karelia_gold/status/1800241624167195049

Europe is no better, the elite of Europe are the most “Americanized” & enjoy their satanic liberties with the backing of American power— they love American backed tax shelters & American drugs &c.

The distinction is rather that Europeans can dissociate from this reality by considering America “lesser” than Europe because it has more welfare statism. “You poor Americans” they say— but their welfare state is propped up by the lumpen aristocracy of America.

Read 11 tweets

R.Сам 🦋🐏

@Logo_Daedalus

Jun 1

"All classes of society not composed of actual and immediate producers of wealth (and these, in England at least, are almost exclusively wages-laborers), all classes, from kings and queens to music-masters and greengrocers, live upon their respective shares of this surplus-value. In other words, they live upon the net produce of the surplus labor which the capitalist extracts from his workpeople, but for which he does not pay. It matters not whether the share of surplus-labor falling to each member of society not actually a producer is granted as a gift by Act of Parliament from the public revenue, or whether it has to be earned by performing some function not actually productive. There is no other fund out of which they can be paid, but the sum total of the surplus value created by the immediate producers, for which they are not paid."
-Eleanor Marx

Now, what does Eleanor Marx mean by "immediate producers" rather than merely saying "all those who sell their labor power as a commodity" -- perhaps it has something to do with the distinction between "immediate producers" & "all classes" which include "kings and queens to music-master and greengrocers" (who are distinct by "living upon their respective share of the surplus-value produced by the effective producers [the industrial proletariat])" -- does this suggest that "music masters" & "greengrocers" are not proletarians then? & that all "wage laborers" who are not also "effective producers" are still, despite "selling their labor for a wage" receiving that wage not from their own surplus production, but from the revenue produced by the "effective producers"? Yes.

Now let's turn to the Grundrisse:

"even given that A pays money for the service, this is not a transformation of his money into capital, but rather the positing of his money as mere medium of circulation, in order to obtain an object for consumption, a specific use value. This act is for that reason not an act which produces wealth, but the opposite, one which consumes wealth. The point for A is not the objectification in the cloth of labour as such, of a certain amount of labour time, hence value, but rather the satisfaction of a certain need. Here A sees his money not realized but devalued in its transposition from the form of value into that of use value. Labour is here exchanged not as use value for value, but as itself a particular use value, as value for use. The more frequently A repeats the exchange, the poorer does he become. This exchange is not an act of wealth-getting for him, not an act of value creation, but of devaluation of the values he has in hand, in his possession. The money which A here exchanges for living labour – service in kind, or service objectified in a thing – is not capital but revenue, money as a medium of circulation in order to obtain use value, money in which the form of value is posited as merely vanishing, not money which will preserve and realize itself as such through the acquisition of labour. Exchange of money as revenue, as a mere medium of circulation, for living labour, can never posit money as capital, nor, therefore, labour as wage labour in the economic sense...

There is nothing of wage labour in this relation, but it can stand in opposition to slavery and serfdom, though need not do so, for it always repeats itself under various forms of the overall organization of labour. To the extent that money mediates this exchange the determination of prices will become important on both sides, but it will do so for A only in so far as he does not want to pay too much for the use value of the labour; not in so far as he is concerned with its value. The essence of the relation remains unchanged even if this price, which begins as conventional and traditional, is thereafter increasingly determined economically, first by the relation of demand and supply, finally by the production costs at which the vendors themselves of these living services can be produced; nothing is essentially changed thereby, because the determination of prices remains a merely formal moment for the exchange of mere use values, as before. This determination itself, however, is created by other relations, by the general laws and the self-determination of the ruling mode of production, acting, as it were, behind the back of this particular act of exchange. One of the forms in which this kind of pay [Besoldung] first appears in the old communities is where an army is maintained. The pay [Sold] of the common soldier is also reduced to a minimum – determined purely by the production costs necessary to procure him. But he exchanges the performance of his services not for capital, but for the revenue of the state.
In bourgeois society itself, all exchange of personal services for revenue – including labour for personal consumption, cooking, sewing etc., garden work etc., up to and including all of the unproductive classes, civil servants, physicians, lawyers, scholars etc. – belongs under this rubric, within this category. All menial servants etc. By means of their services – often coerced – all these workers, from the least to the highest, obtain for themselves a share of the surplus product, of the capitalist’s revenue."

Read 7 tweets

R.Сам 🦋🐏

@Logo_Daedalus

May 27

Monomoniacal Reductionism: "Everything is merely one thing"

Dualistic Schizophrenia: "Everything is two opposing things"

Trinitarian Regeneration: "Everything is two things perpetually begetting a third thing"

Quaternian Eden: "Everything is eternally suspended in a paradoxical balance of infinite contradiction"

"Stuff"

"Good Stuff / Bad Stuff"

"Good Stuff / Bad Stuff / & Stuff"

"Good (Good) Stuff [Good] / Bad (Good) Stuff [Corrupt] / Good (Bad) Stuff [Redeemable] / Bad (Bad) Stuff [Evil]"

The Trinitarian view still posits that there is just neutral "stuff" that is in the process of becoming good or bad-- this is the "normie" christian cosmology, in which there's Heaven, Hell, & "the in between" -- but in the more enlightened esoteric christian hermeneutic, there is more of a recognition of particular states, such as corruption & redemption, the mirror reflections (fearful symmetries) of "the apparent good that is evil" & "the apparent evil that is good"

Read 24 tweets

R.Сам 🦋🐏

@Logo_Daedalus

May 21

It's really funny how in the West, the "communists" immediately jump into visions of cosmic empires, the unification of a globe into a single world government is taken for granted, since the British Empire in the 19th century seemed to them to be the inevitable hegemon over the Globe-- but this tradition of thought is considered more or less "grounded in reality" as opposed to the humble 5 Year Plans of Eastern Communists, who in many ways refuse to describe what "the end state of Communism" even is, because their focus is solely upon their immediate conditions, & the horizons of the class war in that immediate moment.

In the early 20th century, the United Nations was built by Anglo Global Hegemony, & even the Eastern Communists agreed to partake in this dispensation-- but they ultimately turned the UN against Anglo Global Hegemony by this point in the 21st century, which is why there's a growing movement toward openly exiting the United Nations within the Anglosphere-- if the US didn't have super veto privileges in the Security Council & a tacit agreement that it does not have to adhere to any motions passed by the UN, it wouldn't be involved.

The pattern is distinct, & it is as follows.

The West is corrupted by it's immediate power over the Globe, & enchanted by its own visions of cosmic empire-- while the East almost completely forgoes this sort of epic romance in its deliberations-- it's focused entirely upon concrete issues in the present.

Read 6 tweets

R.Сам 🦋🐏

@Logo_Daedalus

May 16

It's good that the Chinese got their hands on Marx, so that they can do the ideas justice, because they have never been a "moralistic" or "moralizing" society-- rather, they've always been metaphysical pragmatists, having created the preconditions for western science in Taoist Alchemy millennia ago.

Most of the "right wing" critiques of "Marxism" are correct simply because "Western Marxists" are petite bourgeois clerks & priests who derive their livelihood from rent-extraction by upholding a pretense to "moral concern" -- the Chinese Communist is not a moralist.

Moralism "feels right" -- but is actually unintuitive & incorrect. A moralist becomes a vegan, which is an asinine sort of behavior. Jesus Christ was not a moralist, which is why he was killed by the moralizing Pharisees. Jesus forgave sin. This is intolerable to moralists.

Read 12 tweets

R.Сам 🦋🐏

@Logo_Daedalus

Apr 30

"It is so customary for the Members of the Corps Diplomatick, to make Ex officio representations of Such Ebullitions in Newspapers to the Administration of the Government to which they are Accredited; that it must be acknowledged to be much to the honour of the Gentlemen who are here from Spain Holland and England, that they have not hitherto persecuted the President & secretary of State with Remonstrances against our Newspapers. Their Silence is a Proof of their Moderation, their Patience and their Tenderness for the Freedom of the Press. I Suppose too that they make allowances for our Youth and Inexperience of the World. For Our Ignorance of what in Europe is known and acknowledged to be the Delicacy and Decency, due to all foreign nations and their Governments. We claim a Right, very justly to the form of Government We like best. Every Nation in Europe has the Same Right and if they judge Monarchy to be necessary for their Happiness, What Right have We to reproach, much less to insult them? Supposing ourselves to be Judges of what kind of Government is best for them, a Supposition however which We cannot modestly make and which is certainly ill founded, We should have no right to impose upon them our Ideas of Government, any more than our principles of Religion or systems of Faith. There is an Ungenerosity in this disposition So often displayed by so many of our Countrymen, nearly bordering on meanness of Spirit, and an illiberality, Strongly marked with littleness of Soul."

-John Adams to Charles Adams, 23 December 1793

The Founding Fathers actual letters are too based & erudite for appreciation these days-- they were writing with such concern for world history as they knew it, the cutting edge of the global discourse as it unfolded-- if you actually read their actual works you realize why they inspired people like Lenin & Mao.

"The history of modern, civilised America opened with one of those great, really liberating, really revolutionary wars of which there have been so few compared to the vast number of wars of conquest which, like the present imperialist war, were caused by squabbles among kings, landowners or capitalists over the division of usurped lands or ill-gotten gains. That was the war the American people waged against the British robbers who oppressed America and held her in colonial slavery, in the same way as these “civilised” bloodsuckers are still oppressing and holding in colonial slavery hundreds of millions of people in India, Egypt, and all parts of the world." -Lenin

Read 5 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

R.Сам 🦋🐏

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @Logo_Daedalus

R.Сам 🦋🐏

R.Сам 🦋🐏

R.Сам 🦋🐏

R.Сам 🦋🐏

R.Сам 🦋🐏

R.Сам 🦋🐏

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!