Sovereign Praxis: Difference between revisions

From Cibernética Americana
Jump to navigationJump to search
← Older edit
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
  ... hope is the celebration of the possible, or rather of specific existing possibilities, a celebration that depends equally on the intellect and the will. Our hope dictates that we recognize and act on a tendency actually existing in present reality that can lead to a potential future. This hope is not Utopian if by Utopian we understand a dream of the future that is separated from the present. Hope is better conceived as a temporal vector that points from the present into the future from a specific location, with a determinate direction and force.
  ... hope is the celebration of the possible, or rather of specific existing possibilities, a celebration that depends equally on the intellect and the will. Our hope dictates that we recognize and act on a tendency actually existing in present reality that can lead to a potential future. This hope is not Utopian if by Utopian we understand a dream of the future that is separated from the present. Hope is better conceived as a temporal vector that points from the present into the future from a specific location, with a determinate direction and force.
<div align=right>Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri</div>
<div align=right>Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri</div>
<html><a style="float:right;" href=https://meansofproduction.biz/pub/utopian-pedagogy.pdf>a synoptic review</a></html>
</blockquote><span style="position:relative;top:-5px;left:-15px;">'''Sovereign Praxis''' is a recapitulation ...</span>
</blockquote><span style="position:relative;top:-5px;left:-15px;">'''Sovereign Praxis''' is a recapitulation ...</span>
<blockquote>But according as these private individuals are labourers or not labourers, private property has a different character. The numberless shades, that it at first sight presents, correspond to the intermediate stages lying between these two extremes. The private property of the labourer in his means of production is the foundation of petty industry, whether agricultural, manufacturing, or both; petty industry, again, is an essential condition for the development of social production and of the free individuality of the labourer himself. Of course, this petty mode of production exists also under slavery, serfdom, and other states of dependence. But it flourishes, it lets loose its whole energy, it attains its adequate classical form, only where the labourer is the private owner of his own means of labour set in action by himself: the peasant of the land which he cultivates, the artisan of the tool which he handles as a virtuoso.
<blockquote>But according as these private individuals are labourers or not labourers, private property has a different character. The numberless shades, that it at first sight presents, correspond to the intermediate stages lying between these two extremes. The private property of the labourer in his means of production is the foundation of petty industry, whether agricultural, manufacturing, or both; petty industry, again, is an essential condition for the development of social production and of the free individuality of the labourer himself. Of course, this petty mode of production exists also under slavery, serfdom, and other states of dependence. But it flourishes, it lets loose its whole energy, it attains its adequate classical form, only where the labourer is the private owner of his own means of labour set in action by himself: the peasant of the land which he cultivates, the artisan of the tool which he handles as a virtuoso.
Line 16: Line 17:
<ol>
<ol>
<li>Q:<span style="color:lemonchiffon;"> What exactly do you mean by 'Capitalism'?</span><br>
<li>Q:<span style="color:lemonchiffon;"> What exactly do you mean by 'Capitalism'?</span><br>
     <span style="position:relative;top:5px;"> A:</span><span style="position:relative;top:5px;color:lime;"> Good question. Without qualification and in the domain of concepts, by 'small c' capitalism I mean a transformation that occurs in human industry where the production becomes for exchange value primarily and only secondarily for the good produced. As a social phenomenon a qualifying term is required, e.g. Early Capitalism, State capitalism, Philosophical capitalism (e.g. Anarcho-, Objectivism, ...), etc. In ordinary discourse in most countries, Rentier Capitalism (RC) in sole or shared command (typically with a clerisy or bourgeois representative system) of the economic heights is implicitly what is referred to, the current reigning form outside China. I don't in general say RC or the whole noun phrase, unless to make a distinction clear, it can be assumed. RC is the distinctive form based on wage labour, the joint stock firm, and the state and other institutions that serve it as a class conspiracy usurping social production for its private gain.<br>
     <span style="position:relative;top:5px;"> A:</span><span style="position:relative;top:5px;color:lime;"> Good question. Without qualification and in the domain of concepts, by 'small c' capitalism I mean a transformation that occurs in human industry where the production becomes for exchange value primarily and only secondarily for the good produced. As a social phenomenon a qualifying term is required, e.g. Early Capitalism, State capitalism, Philosophical capitalism (e.g. Anarcho-, Objectivism, ...), etc. In ordinary discourse in most countries, Rentier Capitalism (RC) in sole or shared command (typically with a clerisy or bourgeois representative system) of the economic heights is implicitly what is referred to, the current reigning moeity with State Cap very abley represented by China. I don't in general say RC or the whole noun phrase, unless to make a distinction clear, it can be assumed. RC is the distinctive form based on wage labour, the joint stock firm, and the state and other institutions that serve it as a class conspiracy usurping social production for its private gain. Under State Cap the only difference is that Capital does not command the heights, it is rather commanded by them, albeit only indirectly in the form of a party committee, after the earlier debacles. State Cap is really only different from RC at the current stage of development by virtue of its coherence and competence in the single at scale instance.<br>
<br><span style="position:relative;top:-10px;">  In short, capitalism is a metabolic corruption of production while Capitalism is [[:en:Base and superstructure|<span style="color:cyan;">culture</span>]] built on that base.<span></span><br></li>
<br><span style="position:relative;top:-10px;">  In short, capitalism is a fortuitous teleological corruption of production which in Capitalism becomes a metabolic, moral, and ethical corruption of [[:en:society|<span style="color:cyan;">society</span>]] built on that [[:en:Base and superstructure|<span style="color:cyan;">base</span>]].<span></span><br></li>
<li>Q:<span style="color:lemonchiffon;"> How do you know if you're trapped in a pernicious conception of Capitalism?</span><br>
<li>Q:<span style="color:lemonchiffon;"> How do you know if you're trapped in a pernicious conception of Capitalism?</span><br>
   <span style="position:relative;top:5px;">  A:<span style="color:lime;"> If you think everything in the end is about money. Nothing can be done without it and it is the solution to every problem&sup1;. Many [[:en:Base and superstructure|<font color=lime>subsidiary customs</font>]] follow from this abiding faith in Capital&sup3;.<br>A common concomitant complex of misunderstandings surround the nature of money, a doubled fetish if you will, notably obfuscations and denials of its essence as an abstraction and expansion of the value exchange that occurs in barter.</span></span></li>
   <span style="position:relative;top:5px;">  A:<span style="color:lime;"> If you think everything in the end is about money. Nothing can be done without it and it is the solution to every problem&sup1;. Many [[:en:Base and superstructure|<font color=lime>subsidiary customs</font>]] follow from this abiding Faith in Capital&sup3;.<br>A common concomitant complex of misunderstandings surround the nature of money, a doubled fetish if you will, notably obfuscations and denials of its essence as an abstraction and expansion of the value exchange that occurs in barter.</span></span></li>
<li style="position:relative;top:10px;">Q: <span style="color:lemonchiffon;">Aren't Capitalist relations we are familiar with today necessary, inevitable?<br>
<li style="position:relative;top:10px;">Q: <span style="color:lemonchiffon;">Aren't Capitalist relations we are familiar with today necessary, inevitable?<br>
     <span style="position:relative;top:5px;"> A: <span style="color:lime;">No, they are wholly structured as in #1. Before industrial Capitalism there were other relations of production. After it there will be something else. Production always returns to its material basis in use values including at every developmental stage of RC and in its momentary circuits.</span></span><br></li>
     <span style="position:relative;top:5px;"> A: <span style="color:lime;">No, they are wholly structured as in #1. Before industrial Capitalism there were other relations of production. After it there will be something else. Production always returns to its material basis in use values including at every developmental stage of RC and in its momentary circuits.</span></span><br></li>
Line 25: Line 26:
   <span style="position:relative;top:5px;">  A:<span style="color:lime;"> Again, no not at all, and for the same reason, exchange of production and its accounting are constants of organized social life. The other things are by contrast just contemporary realizations of structures of oppression and domination realized in their modern form. If you have participated as a worker in wage labor markets unless you are dull or have aspirations to be a master and don't really in the end care about production, you are probably keenly aware of how profit extraction is the only true religion in this form of production and the degree to which efficient production is violated in favor of the expression of the master slave relation between Capital and Workers up to and including CEOs who act as living embodiments of Capital in production.</span> </span></li>
   <span style="position:relative;top:5px;">  A:<span style="color:lime;"> Again, no not at all, and for the same reason, exchange of production and its accounting are constants of organized social life. The other things are by contrast just contemporary realizations of structures of oppression and domination realized in their modern form. If you have participated as a worker in wage labor markets unless you are dull or have aspirations to be a master and don't really in the end care about production, you are probably keenly aware of how profit extraction is the only true religion in this form of production and the degree to which efficient production is violated in favor of the expression of the master slave relation between Capital and Workers up to and including CEOs who act as living embodiments of Capital in production.</span> </span></li>
<li style="position:relative;top:35px;">Q: <span style="color:lemonchiffon;">Aren't you a Capitalist by selling the service you do and buying labor to build parts of that service?</span><br>
<li style="position:relative;top:35px;">Q: <span style="color:lemonchiffon;">Aren't you a Capitalist by selling the service you do and buying labor to build parts of that service?</span><br>
   <span style="position:relative;top:5px;">  A: <span style="color:lime;">#4 answers the first part, the second i intend to do as discussed on the talk page. I'm a primitive Capitalist in the sense Marx refers to in the final sentence in the quoted passage above (cf. "self earned private property" further down in V I ch 32).</span></span></li>
   <span style="position:relative;top:5px;">  A: <span style="color:lime;">#4 answers the first part, the second I intend to do as discussed on the talk page. I'm a primitive Capitalist in the sense Marx refers to in the final sentence in the quoted passage above (cf. "self earned private property" further down in V I ch 32).</span></span></li>
</ol></blockquote>
</ol></blockquote>
<blockquote>   
<blockquote>   
Line 74: Line 75:


== See Also ==
== See Also ==
* <span  class=plainlinks>[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/early-china/article/abs/epiphanies-of-sovereignty-and-the-rite-of-jade-disc-immersion-in-weft-narratives/2AF5BC0D6E9DCC7AE0E9725C0545546F <span style="color:lime;">EPIPHANIES OF SOVEREIGNTY</span>]</span>
* [[:en:Great Rhetra|<font color=lime>Great Rhetra</font>]]
* [[:en:Great Rhetra|<font color=lime>Great Rhetra</font>]]
* [[Knowledge and Class: A Marxian Critique of Political Economy|<font color=lime>Knowledge and Class: A Marxian Critique of Political Economy</font>]]
* [[Knowledge and Class: A Marxian Critique of Political Economy|<font color=lime>Knowledge and Class: A Marxian Critique of Political Economy</font>]]
* <span  class=plainlinks>[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/early-china/article/abs/epiphanies-of-sovereignty-and-the-rite-of-jade-disc-immersion-in-weft-narratives/2AF5BC0D6E9DCC7AE0E9725C0545546F <span style="color:lime;">EPIPHANIES OF SOVEREIGNTY</span>]</span>
* [[:en:Totalitarian democracy|<font color=lime>Totalitarian Democracy</font>]]


== References ==
== References ==
Retrieved from "https://eg.meansofproduction.biz/eg/index.php/Sovereign_Praxis"