No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
|dislikes = Socialist Realism<br>Figurative Art<br>Capital<br>Barbie | |dislikes = Socialist Realism<br>Figurative Art<br>Capital<br>Barbie | ||
|infoboxbackground=#C60C31 | |infoboxbackground=#C60C31 | ||
}} | }}Carcosan Communism, is, simply put, the only alternative to Capital. What are my goals, you may ask? To realize an entity which as of now exists only in the past and the future, but never the present: That entity known as communism. I support the decadent, the profane, the vulgar, the free, the foolish and the mad. | ||
== The Critique of Capital == | |||
To properly critique capital, one must first understand it's nature. And to understand it's nature, one must understand the accursed share. The accursed share is that share of resources which exists after the maintenance of a system. Take, for example, an animal. When this animal consumes food, it expends most of this energy on maintaining itself. However, there is frequently a portion of this energy which cannot be reinvested into maintenance; Instead, it is stored as fat for later use. This is a perfect representation of the nature of the accursed share. Capital is simply a method of spending the accursed share. Capital is a process in which the accursed share is spent on creating more resources. For example: In a capitalist economy, surpluses are spent on producing more surpluses. In capital, the accursed share is basically utilized to produce more accursed share. This is the circuit of capital: E-G-E. Expenditure, growth and expenditure. | |||
Communism, on the other hand, is any non-capitalist usage of the accursed share. This can be found in abundance in nature, where the productivist logic of E-G-E does not necessarily exist. The accursed share is instead utilized as reserves, for non-essential processes, etc. Now, one might ask: What is the issue with this productivist logic, this capital-circuit? Well, you see, the issue lies in its civilized, moral, and human nature of capital. | |||
Capital is the essence of civilization; The two are identical, in fact. It is the capital-circuit which gave rise to civilization and it is civilization which keeps it in place. Civilization is basically a tool of capital. Morality, on the other hand, is not necessarily linked to capital. Instead, morality is a system of values utilized to justify and legitimize a specific system of power-relations. Now, in our case, the relationship between capital and morality is quite complex. While capital has existed since the beginning of civilization, it only began the formal subsumption of civilization into it during the collapse of feudalism and the rise of capitalism as an economic system. When the formal subsumption of capital began, prior moral systems collapsed and new, rationalist systems emerged, such as Humanism and Enlightenment Thought in general. However, this morality was, ultimately, too focused on human desires and needs, as opposed to the needs of capital. And so, with the dawn of the real subsumption of capital, rational humanism was phased out in favor of a purely productivist system of morality. In this system, something is determined to be good or bad depending on whether or not it contributes to, or, more accurately, whether or not it is opposed to, growth. Observe, for example, the LGBTQ+ movement. It has slowly been assimilated into capital because it can both A) contribute to growth and B) not oppose it. In essence, the morality of things in contemporary capitalism is determined by their relationship to capital. As such, capital is far from amoral. | |||
Capital is, indeed, highly moral. It has fixed values, or, one fixed value: That of capital. Capital, is, however, rather decadent. It questions, negates and transforms old values. However, it does not do this endlessly, but instead negates only those values which are dangerous to its goals. Ultimately, capital is a moral, civil and non-decadent system. This is why the proper decadent and the proper amoralist ought to oppose capital: Because it is simply playing at being amoral, at being decadent. Capital is the end of change and the end of free time. Capital is the end of decadence, ultimately. It is the crystallization of a specific set of values and their immortalization. So then, what is the opposite of it? | |||
Revision as of 11:35, 5 February 2024
Carcosan Communism, is, simply put, the only alternative to Capital. What are my goals, you may ask? To realize an entity which as of now exists only in the past and the future, but never the present: That entity known as communism. I support the decadent, the profane, the vulgar, the free, the foolish and the mad.
The Critique of Capital
To properly critique capital, one must first understand it's nature. And to understand it's nature, one must understand the accursed share. The accursed share is that share of resources which exists after the maintenance of a system. Take, for example, an animal. When this animal consumes food, it expends most of this energy on maintaining itself. However, there is frequently a portion of this energy which cannot be reinvested into maintenance; Instead, it is stored as fat for later use. This is a perfect representation of the nature of the accursed share. Capital is simply a method of spending the accursed share. Capital is a process in which the accursed share is spent on creating more resources. For example: In a capitalist economy, surpluses are spent on producing more surpluses. In capital, the accursed share is basically utilized to produce more accursed share. This is the circuit of capital: E-G-E. Expenditure, growth and expenditure.
Communism, on the other hand, is any non-capitalist usage of the accursed share. This can be found in abundance in nature, where the productivist logic of E-G-E does not necessarily exist. The accursed share is instead utilized as reserves, for non-essential processes, etc. Now, one might ask: What is the issue with this productivist logic, this capital-circuit? Well, you see, the issue lies in its civilized, moral, and human nature of capital.
Capital is the essence of civilization; The two are identical, in fact. It is the capital-circuit which gave rise to civilization and it is civilization which keeps it in place. Civilization is basically a tool of capital. Morality, on the other hand, is not necessarily linked to capital. Instead, morality is a system of values utilized to justify and legitimize a specific system of power-relations. Now, in our case, the relationship between capital and morality is quite complex. While capital has existed since the beginning of civilization, it only began the formal subsumption of civilization into it during the collapse of feudalism and the rise of capitalism as an economic system. When the formal subsumption of capital began, prior moral systems collapsed and new, rationalist systems emerged, such as Humanism and Enlightenment Thought in general. However, this morality was, ultimately, too focused on human desires and needs, as opposed to the needs of capital. And so, with the dawn of the real subsumption of capital, rational humanism was phased out in favor of a purely productivist system of morality. In this system, something is determined to be good or bad depending on whether or not it contributes to, or, more accurately, whether or not it is opposed to, growth. Observe, for example, the LGBTQ+ movement. It has slowly been assimilated into capital because it can both A) contribute to growth and B) not oppose it. In essence, the morality of things in contemporary capitalism is determined by their relationship to capital. As such, capital is far from amoral.
Capital is, indeed, highly moral. It has fixed values, or, one fixed value: That of capital. Capital, is, however, rather decadent. It questions, negates and transforms old values. However, it does not do this endlessly, but instead negates only those values which are dangerous to its goals. Ultimately, capital is a moral, civil and non-decadent system. This is why the proper decadent and the proper amoralist ought to oppose capital: Because it is simply playing at being amoral, at being decadent. Capital is the end of change and the end of free time. Capital is the end of decadence, ultimately. It is the crystallization of a specific set of values and their immortalization. So then, what is the opposite of it?