Communist Paranoia

[Anonymous No.16745775]

>Capital is so resilient in its process, is the fact that you end up doing it as soon as you want to do anything competently or effectively. There's a kind of extremely telling and insightful paranoia that you get among the most intelligent proponents of the left. I'm thinking particularly at this point of Mao Zedong who has this notion that capital just brings up like mushrooms everywhere. Actually he's very realistic about capital, he hates her and he does everything to try and obstructed and prevented and suppress it with with extraordinary ruthlessness that is entirely appropriate in one respect given what you're dealing with but he recognizes that you need this constant active cultural revolutionary communist activity to keep it suppressed and the reason that it's like that is that as soon as you try and do something competently it starts turning into capital it starts turning into capital because all it takes for something to turn into capital is that you need some kind of positive return on something. If you're doing something that is resourcing itself with a small surplus, so it's therefore becoming stronger, it's reinforcing itself. So the question of how you would not do capital then becomes fascinatingly complicated, you can't engage in any process that is actually in any way self reinforcing without capital sneaking back in again through the back door. Now to me that spells death for any kind of social project, look unless my social project is going to be absolutely minimalistic least steady-state that it's not in any way accentuating itself amplifying itself expanding itself resourcing itself at any kind of surplus, only this perfect steady state process is actually not doing capital and and once something starts doing capital at all it sort doing capital more and more and more and more I mean that's the essence of the thing obviously. - Nick Land

How can leftists refute this? Capital, by all accounts, seems to be inescapable. Your revolution won't amount to anything but a perpetual state of mass paranoia, which is something no man can endure for any significant duration of time before becoming berserk.

[Anonymous No.16745793]

>>16745775
imagine trying to claim this when it took a 70 years of effort by the entire west to destroy the soviet union. if capitalism is so inevitable none of that would have been necessary

[Anonymous No.16745809]

>>16745793
That's because the Soviet Union didn't go to any great length to purge all aspects of Capital institutionalized in their system. Mao seems to have gone the farthest in his efforts.

[Anonymous No.16745885]

The great question of economic systems isn't whether there's catalysis going on, but what you do with the surplus. Privatization of the surplus is a pretty modern change, and in that sense it's historically naïve to say that present arrangements are in fact timeless and inescapable. Indeed, capitalism is a fundamentally lazy system, where any notion of managing the surplus is abandoned in favor of corruption and decadence. So that gives us plenty of reason to believe that present arrangements won't last, since corruption and decadence can only go so far.

[Anonymous No.16745907]

>>16745885
>The great question of economic systems isn't whether there's catalysis going on, but what you do with the surplus.
What are some alternatives ways of dealing with surplus, and have this question been present since the conception of economics? I would like to learn more about this

[Anonymous No.16745912]

>>16745775
>Nick Land
Into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.16745929]

Easy

"I wiped the blade against my jeans and walked into the bar. It was mid-afternoon, very hot and still. The bar was deserted. I ordered a whiskey. The barman looked at the blood and asked:

‘God?’

‘Yeah.’

‘S’pose it’s time someone finished that hypocritical little punk, always bragging about his old man’s power…’

He smiled crookedly, insinuatingly, a slight nausea shuddered through me. I replied weakly:

‘It was kind of sick, he didn’t fight back or anything, just kept trying to touch me and shit, like one of those dogs that try to fuck your leg. Something in me snapped, the whingeing had ground me down too low. I really hated that sanctimonious little creep.’

‘So you snuffed him?’

‘Yeah, I’ve killed him, knifed the life out of him, once I started I got frenzied, it was an ecstasy, I never knew I could hate so much.’

I felt very calm, slightly light-headed. The whisky tasted good, vaporizing in my throat. We were silent for a few moments. The barman looked at me levelly, the edge of his eyes twitching slightly with anxiety:

There’ll be trouble though, don’tcha think?’

‘I don’t give a shit, the threats are all used up, I just don’t give a shit.’

‘You know what they say about his old man? Ruthless bastard they say. Cruel…’

‘I just hope I’ve hurt him, if he even exists.’

‘Woulden wanna cross him merself,’ he muttered.

I wanted to say ‘yeah, well that’s where we differ’, but the energy for it wasn’t there. The fan rotated languidly, casting spidery shadows across the room. We sat in silence a little longer. The barman broke first:

‘So God’s dead?’

‘If that’s who he was. That fucking kid lied all the time. I just hope it’s true this time.’

The barman worked at one of his teeth with his tongue, uneasily:

‘It’s kindova big crime though, isn’t it? You know how it is, when one of the cops goes down and everything’s dropped ’til they find the guy who did it. I mean, you’re not just breaking a law, your breaking LAW.’

I scraped my finger along my jeans, and suspended it over the bar, so that a thick clot of blood fell down into my whisky, and dissolved. I smiled:

‘Maybe it’s a big crime,’ I mused vaguely ‘but maybe it’s nothing at all…’ ‘…and we have killed him’ writes Nietzsche, but—destituted of community—I crave a little time with him on my own.

In perfect communion I lick the dagger foamed with God’s blood."

[Anonymous No.16745943]

>>16745907
not the guy you're responding to but Marx defined the class war as "struggle over surplus" somewhere.
>What are some alternatives ways of dealing with surplus
in slave societies the surplus production was used for subsistence of slaves, in feudalism it was accumulated by the landlord, in capitalism it's accumulated by the capitalist.
>and have this question been present since the conception of economics?
not really, surplus wasn't really a huge issue until the Industrial Revolution when gross industrial production skyrocketed, that's when the first growth models in economics (Smith and Ricardo) were created. Marx analysed this in his book Theories of Surplus Value

[Anonymous No.16745951]

>>16745775
>once something starts doing capital at all it sort doing capital more and more and more and more
woah

[Anonymous No.16746007]

>>16745943
>in capitalism it's accumulated by the capitalist
Why is it better that it gets redistributed instead?

[Anonymous No.16746030]

imagine if accfag put all this effort into something useful

[Anonymous No.16746112]

>>16745793
>implying 70 years not an embarrassingly short time when talking about civilizations/societies.

[Anonymous No.16746203]

>people STILL think that there is such a thing as an amoral or neutral phenomenal world in which you can simply "do things" that is not part of and subordinate to the archonic semiotic temple

Christians acknowledge it, Atheists acknowledge it, Capitalists acknowledge it, meanwhile Communists are rubbing their own shit on their faces babbling phantasmagoria indistinguishable from the worst /pol/ shitters like Ted and Varg. HOUSES ARE NOT MADE OF ORGANIZED EARTH, EARTH IS MADE OF DISORGANIZED HOUSES. YOU CANNOT "RETURN" TO, OR "DEVIATE" FROM, OR "ARRIVE" AT SOMETHING OTHER THAN CAPITALISM BECAUSE IT IS NOT SO MUCH INTEGRAL TO THE WORLD, AS BESTIAL COMMUNISTS SUSPECT IN THEIR NIGHTMARES, IT PRECEDES THE WORLD: ARCHONIC PRINCIPLES OF ETERNAL WORK FOR NOTHING ARE THE WORLD'S ELEMENTARY PARTICLES.

>Renounce all unknowing, that ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the Light and be saved from the servitors of Yaldabaōth and the fire-seas.