Sovereign Praxis: Difference between revisions

From Cibernética Americana
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<table style="background-color: #404040;" width=100%><tr><td width=80%>
<table style="background-color: #404040;" width=100%><tr><td width=80%>
Text I placed in EnWiki was for a time&sup1; used as the distinguishing characteristic of Capitalism, focused on markets and market actors. These days I'm more inclined to identify the Capitalist epoch in the economic history of a society  as the period where exchange value progressively drowns out every other form until further progression becomes impossible, critical problems are insoluable or actively blocked by and due to the distortion of fundament. At this point, and continously since its inception, there is a reassertion of more fundamental values, non-monetizable ones such as fairness, quality of life, life period, etc. not to mention use value itself, the ground reason for society in the first place. A rejection of finance Capital and the joint-stock company as parasitic strictures on social production ensues spearheaded by the nationalization of finance. Concluded with the dissolution or reversion of ownership of various joint stock conspiracies against social production to the producing workers. As far as defining Capitalism as a thing distinct from its material historical reality, that's pretty much for anybody to do as they please and a number of people have done. Just as the existing thing despite its fatal shortcomings has not been without the production of much good, there are formulations of Capitalism that its hard to argue with, like stateless communism they just haven't ever been or in principle aren't ever realizable. Considered as the expression of the individual as over and against the whole of society, if society is backward and baseless while while technical progress based on individual cognition proceeds unimpeded I do not expect that expression to even have begun to lose it's force. On the contrary, it's the opponents of Capitalism who appear ever weaker with the highpoint of their thought current being sometime in the mid 20th century insofar as being an actual actor in human affairs.  
Text I placed in EnWiki was for a time&sup1; used as the distinguishing characteristic of Capitalism, focused on markets and market actors. These days I'm more inclined to identify the Capitalist epoch in the economic history of a society  as the period where exchange value progressively drowns out every other form until further progression becomes impossible, critical problems are insoluable or actively blocked by and due to the distortion of fundament. At this point, and continously since its inception, there is a reassertion of more fundamental values, non-monetizable ones such as fairness, quality of life, life period, etc. not to mention use value itself, the ground reason for society in the first place. A rejection of finance Capital and the joint-stock company as parasitic strictures on social production ensues spearheaded by the nationalization of finance. Concluded with the dissolution or reversion of ownership of various joint stock conspiracies against social production to the producing workers. As far as defining Capitalism as a thing distinct from its material historical reality, that's pretty much for anybody to do as they please and a number of people have done. Just as the existing thing despite its fatal shortcomings has not been without the production of much good, there are formulations of Capitalism that its hard to argue with, like stateless communism they just haven't ever been or in principle aren't ever realizable. Considered as the expression of the individual as over and against the whole of society, if society is backward and baseless while while technical progress based on individual cognition proceeds unimpeded I do not expect that expression to even have begun to lose it's force. On the contrary, it's the opponents of Capitalism who appear ever weaker with the highpoint of their thought current being sometime in the mid 20th century insofar as being any thing other than a re-actor in human affairs.  


I certainly mean the name in the sense of the sought Totaliser in [[Critique of Dialectical Reason|Sartre's Critique]].</td>
I certainly mean the name in the sense of the sought Totaliser in [[Critique of Dialectical Reason|Sartre's Critique]].</td>

Revision as of 03:08, 12 April 2023