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.
Political-Philosophical Views
Postmodernism
Post-Structuralism
Materialism
Nietzscheanism
Stirnerism
Dark Deleuzianism
Vague, Illiterate Accelerationism
Postgenderism
Libertarian Marxism
Post-Civilizationalism
Impossibilism
Esoteric Socialism
Praxis
Insurrection
Illegalism
Propagandizing
Technology
Biomechanicism
Bio-Transhumanism
Cyberfeminism- Biological Anarchy
Aesthetics
Surrealism(Look at Wladislaw Beksinski's Dystopian Surrealism)- Biomechanicism/Body Horror(H.R Giger, White Phyrexia from MTG, Warframe)
Cosmic Horror
Aims
Realized Solar Economy- Universal Aristocracy
"Religious" Views
Technocapital as a Real-God
Communist Social Relations Replacing Religious Ones- Sorelian Mythos
Occult Posthumanism(Numogram, Time-Sorcery, Hyperstitions) (still learning)
All Systems as Conscious
Carcosan Fundamentalism
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?
Communism and The King in Yellow
"[...] I pray God will curse the writer, as the writer has cursed the world with this beautiful, stupendous creation, terrible in its simplicity, irresistible in its truth..."
The King in Yellow. Hastur. The city of Carcosa. In Robert W Chambers groundbreaking collection of short stories titled the King in Yellow, he weaves an eerie narrative through snippets of a play, bouts of madness and the hinting at of a dystopian future. In the tales, one common thread exists; That of the King in Yellow, a disturbed play whose second act is said to drive any who read it mad.
The play itself identified as a horrid monstrosity by those who do not understand it, and a borderline biblical text by it's readers. It plays a central role in Chambers' story The Repairer of Reputations, which features centrally a young and wealthy man who has read the book in question, after falling off of a horse and going 'mad'. What is fascinating in his characterization of the book is that it reveals truths of which "human nature could not bear the strain." Brilliant! The King in Yellow is not just an assault upon sanity, but so too upon human nature!
In the Repairer of Reputations, an elderly man known as Mr. Wilde, the titular repairer, is considered mad by all but a dear friend by the protagonist. Wilde is supposedly deranged and yet is able to locate with perfect accuracy the location of a famously lost suit of armor. While it is unclear whether this was an accurate depiction of reality or not, it could perhaps hint at Mr. Wilde, another reader of the King in Yellow, 's advanced insight imparted upon him in the tale. While Chambers seems to share Lovecraft's fear of hidden knowledge, could we not interpret the evident truth of such knowledge as beneficial? Could we not interpret this supposed madness as enlightenment?
The protagonist of both the Repairer of Reputations and the story The Yellow Sign mention an alleged symbol containing such terrible power that whoever looks upon it is driven mad. It is arguably cursed, much like the knowledge imparted by the play itself. But what is it about this knowledge that is so terrible? Is it that it seems to inspire change in all who read it? Is it that it challenges what is to make way for what could be? Is this book not a form of decadence, of questioning and critique? Is it not the FEAR of decadence that causes its readers to be branded as mad? I think so!
The King in Yellow is not some horrible text of undulating terror. It is a tome of change, of inspiration and so-called 'madness'. It is profane! It is decadent! It is the destruction of what is! It is even claimed in the text itself to be a work of art like no other. Could it be that communism is our "Yellow Sign"? A profane concept which infects the minds of its followers with what others view as madness? Indeed! Communism IS the Yellow Sign, and every communist is a King in Yellow. Let our tatters flow in the winds of change as the Mystery of Hyades is spread across the world, enveloping it and sinking it beneath the light of black stars! Tell me, reader, Do You Know the Yellow Sign?
