RedMarx

A Forum
It is currently Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:32 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]



Welcome


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 9:31 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:17 am
Posts: 883
Has thanked: 726 time
Have thanks: 844 time
VIII. Star Trek.

People try to speed up reading Das Kapital. I would suggest instead slowing down, and analysing it sentence by sentence. As much as Marx's writing is frequently diluted, in this he can be fairly cutting, if sometimes perhaps inadvertently. So, let us begin this entirely reasonable task.

The first sentence of Das Kapital may be considered a slightly humorous and reluctant throwback to the beginning of the first section of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, which resemblance people generally miss.

The second sentence is more obvious: Das Kapital being humorous about its status as a commodity, and stating that its readers should examine it to find out about commodities, of course.

That the first sentence quotes a more obscure, preparative text, in contrast to the more well-known one, is in some ways humorous. It seems aware of Friedrich Engels' criticism of this, and reacts to this indefinitely, but with a slight degree of humour.

The third sentence is then a slightly half-hearted attempt to sell this commodity to the reader, by extolling upon its virtues.

In this sense, we can already see the excitement and appeal of Das Kapital, from three sentences in. How could one not extol the virtues of such an evident opening in media res? Obviously it is not actually exciting, as it is the book Das Kapital. If people wished for other things, then at the time they could look elsewhere. They could even get married, and then not seem to have any use for Das Kapital, the book, while obviously the possssion of capital or its favour would be significantly important to basically every relationship and marriage in capitalism, at least in most cases. It might also be noted that the accusation of Marx assaulting capitalism because he was poor was anticipated in the sub-title, among other things. Marx does not, however, seem like someone whom would like Marx, however, and hence could say with Sidney, ripping off Petrarch, 'I am not I, pity the tale of me.' This was an unfortunate circumstance for him, and he would presumably come to think differently by the second Volume of Capital, which is the exciting part so far as most might be concerned. However, they dislike it. In this sense, it may be said that the Hegelian Idea realises itself through Marx, perhaps in many ways such as the famed Hegelian process of criticism of critical criticism.

_________________
"The thing [calculus] has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them."

- Friedrich Engels.

Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.

2x Security Reasons. DANGER DANGER.

Was an Admin when RM was important. Was since confused with Negative Creep for being active.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:39 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:17 am
Posts: 883
Has thanked: 726 time
Have thanks: 844 time
IX.

The position of the writer in the work, if they indeed have one, is an important composite of such. As such, we must query where authors are located rather than merely looking at their thought, if we are to derive certain things about them.

Hegel, for instance, begins by observing, as something outside him, the category of Being. Opposed to this is Nothing. While this is still unspoken and unintegrated, this gives a demand to the reader that to begin they must become Nothing, as in Indian religions, which Hegel was in some ways influenced by. Only thus can they begin the Hegelian system properly. However, as the author has no explicit individuality in the work, but is rather subjugated to it - and freed from the triviality of much of the content, subjugation to which may imply domestic or bourgeois triviality, only by the Absolute Idea standing at the end and beyond these, allowing him to be alone like this, which grace perhaps does not exist elsewhere (in this sense Kierkegaard was correct that the existential can pose a problem for Hegel, but incorrect that there was no distinction between Hegel's reported life and the work, or that the life could not be found in the work, which is not dualism so much as a basic defiance of Hegel for little reasons) - just as elsewhere they are subjugated in turn to each of its elements, there is still a certain virtuality to this. The reader is merely to observe a hypothetical transition of someone - but not an abstract being such as God - from Nothing onwards, without necessarily making the same transitions, and hence it's a bit of a damp squib in a sense, while still containing a higher ideal.

However, that the Hegelian system begins from the author as Nothing and facing the beginning of the system, reducing themselves to Nothing to begin, without necessarily claiming a spiritual 'Nothing' on their own part or having such an identity in the work which they are subjugated to, implies that in that sense Hegel is necessarily absent from the work, or posited as nothing in an abstract, commonplace sense. Hegel's identity in the work is hence, as Kierkegaard may have observed adding nothing by this, merely absence. It may hence be noted that Hegel's 'existential' existence is therefore separated, essentially, from the writer of the work.

Kierkegaard does at least have the notability of, while these other philosophers did not, integrating their own concrete life and existence truly into the work, other than this mostly drawing on similar ideas to Marx. However, in this he always seemed a bit restrained - noticing, for instance, his urgent plea that Regine Olsen marry someone and presumably go further, seemingly out of affection - and hence his actual role in things is vague and blurred, leading him to be in all likelihood confined to a religious sphere, although in this often able to make more cutting observations than the others, once he was accustomed to nobody liking him.

While there is probably more to be said there, let us move on to Marx. He begins, of course, from separating himself from the crowd of people, and standing above this crowd, in order to view it from without and treat it and its productive, historical activity as ultimately a basis for Marx's, admittedly limited in subject, writings. In a sense, this is merely to begin from the Hegelian category of 'being,' with abstract things outside of Marx observed pseudo-neutrally, but Marx does not attempt to go systematically beyond this category, strangely. Marx's theory is hence by itself a call to rise above this society and take place in the separated realm thus attained, with the ability to view it from above and without and notice its direction existentially, and anything else is merely external. This is itself a form of communing, if one based upon isolation, and hence a community which stands above and against a given society. This is, of course, for reasons deriving from a society to come. That a theoretical work could be reduced to slogans, without making an existential demand upon the individual, and possibly by the individual, would be weird. Karl Marx repeatedly noted that their reader was not society as subject, or an abstract God, and even then this would merely be one individual. In any case, however, that Karl Marx is in this position need not be unrealistic, but he is thereby excluded from what he discusses, much like Hegel.

The more that Karl Marx describes, the more he stands apart from, and becomes an abstract figure, in part because he does not place himself in the work in any particular way. He hence merely becomes an abstract observer, looking on at things from outside them, and describing them for the reader. Karl Marx does not, however, care about any merely symbolic or generic acts, and does not care about them enough to express them, implying that he is actually closer to Kierkegaard in this than otherwise. As a result, he as well posits Karl Marx, the historical actor and entity, as nothing at all in writing his works, and from the beginning in some form, and thus dissociates from his writings. However, in a way unlike Hegel, he does maintain a certain author-actor dichotomy within the work, by only negating Karl Marx as an active figure while leaving his writings unstained, if in a limited sense, and in this sense is at least nominally safe from Kierkegaard on a base level. Generally speaking, however, this means that if the authorial figure intervenes sufficiently, it is merely by criticising the text, while they keep this criticism to a safe, restricted level in their works. Karl Marx hence nowhere in his works argues that he is not a farcical rendition of Charlemagne, or vice versa.

As much as the writing on whatever topic might seem like the shiny and exciting bit to some, on another level the author's position within this could be consistently more fundamental. This is, of course, the author posited theoretically, and not otherwise, but the author is fundamentally a theorist anyway. They could not be otherwise, if they are of interest generally. While often neglected, this is frequently important to the meaning of a text, and no surprise.

_________________
"The thing [calculus] has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them."

- Friedrich Engels.

Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.

2x Security Reasons. DANGER DANGER.

Was an Admin when RM was important. Was since confused with Negative Creep for being active.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 7:00 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:17 am
Posts: 883
Has thanked: 726 time
Have thanks: 844 time
X.

A similar figure to Kierkegaard in terms of their own, personal existential issue was that enlightened luminary on the woman question, Henry VIII. Now, Henry VIII's killings and otherwise of his wives, often social climbers, were often ambiguous. While a great way to end a marriage, and far cooler than Taylor Swift in every way, although someone should tell the Anglicans that, his continual accumulation of - wives, was premised upon a generic movement in society to give the King 'nice things' which were generically or hedonically pleasing, where his wives were hence offered up as one specimen alongside food, royal trappings, hereditary monarchy, etc. However, there is something very wrong with the traditional narrative that the great ancient king was merely one for so gorging, for his popular trait was that he charateristically rejected these offerings of 'nice things,' and hence the movement towards this, such that his accusation of thus receiving happily seems more like the Elizabethan fantasies of the English populace than having any basis in reality. Elizabeth herself was, of course, known for the killing of Queens, although she had to fetch one from Scotland, and admittedly in all of this was presumably being mocked for something. Because of this incoherence, it can perhaps be discerned that Henry VIII's actual identity was somewhat obscured, and Henry VIII themselves, as you might expect, from hair to toe a public figurehead as the times required. At that point, with someone who came to be known as 'Bloody Mary,' an epithet more suiting a perpetual virgin, and then Elizabeth I (with a strange amount of attention focussed on their name at that point), it can just about be assumed that the monarchy - which was by then increasingly passive anyway and allowed capitalistic forces to propel the nation onwards to the detriment of the monarchy itself - was by this point a bit of a general masquerade of things which might seem acceptable to it, really. A budding capitalist state would not hold under the absolute, if arbitrary and hence limited, power of a monarch.

We may begin by stating that, contrary to several depictions, Henry VIII was not attracted to Anne Boleyn because he saw her as a witch. This is merely an attempt at blurring moral boundaries, such that Henry VIII is reduced to some delinquent Leonardo di Caprio. Obviously, he did not opt for a death sentence which was essentially 'kill her because she's sexy.' Anyway. Given his promotion of Anglicanism, via an ended marriage thereby constructing a Christian religion based around himself and also Christ, which everyone assumes was merely a stop-gap due to ending the marriage because obviously whom he marries is more important than reconstructing Christianity in harmony with the state, his overall agenda might be summarised as an attempt to subjugate other elements of an unruly society to the state, from religion to other elements. In this sense the frequent perspective on him was in many ways problematic, as it firstly attempts to portray the monarchy as something that was not being effaced and artificially distanced from this society, and secondly is reducible to mere apologism for the anarchy of capitalist society, although obviously Henry VIII was merely making a personal attempt at preserving his state, rather than dealing with social questions, mostly, although some of this might be implicit. That Henry VIII took his killing of wives as a gimmick meant that people would not find it shocking unless they objected to him for some other reason. He is, at the least, to be esteemed as a monarch whom, effacing those that Shakespeare likes, had very little respect for monarchs, although he did at least respect it somewhat, and hence was ambiguous. In that sense, drawing on capitalistic or at least republican tendencies, which allowed him to escape from the papal realm and its justifications - obviously, the papal assurance of divine right as something external was quite different from merely the monarch saying that he should lead, which he would presumably have to demonstrate clearly and personally, as Kierkegaard required of theorists, which Henry VIII was allegedly not - he at the same time stood against this overall system or tried to subject it to a controlled society, as well as rejecting the newly-voracious social climbers, so that it would be unlikely that certain communistic tendencies did not enter into this. That killing a bunch of monarchs, and in this serving as a sort of energetic Oliver Cromwell (who has a great surname), is generally not enough to gain people's automatic ire, should be sufficiently clear, and as such the dislike towards him is generally inconsistent and baseless.

Perhaps Kierkegaard's 'Assault Upon Christendom' may be associated with his Anglican mentor, and indeed his distance from Danish Protestantism signified by this, such that he may claim an existential mentor and indeed founder of existentialism in not Hegel but Henry VIII. This is often overlooked. People would rather make puns about how Kierkegaard is Danish like Hamlet and this is somehow funny in the context of Henry VIII, when realistically it would seem more likely to apply to Elizabeth I. In this sense, their fiancée being named 'Regine' might not be coincidental. This must give one pause.

Their use of phrases involving the word 'regina' might imply that this sometimes snuck up on them, however.

In the attempt to unify things such as religion under the monarchy, his wives may have served as a symbolic or personal sign that allowed for Henry VIII to represent the negation of the elements of the new society, and hence get away with such movements. It was already known that their earliest Queen was rejected in part due to foreign associations with certain regimes, and this led to a break from such foreign influence, with the same sense of a 'show trial' as Stalin is often accused of - why would Henry VIII pretend to be the USA - and there was no need for them to stop there, not to mention that the killing of explicit social climbers was an obvious threat to elements of the new society. If Henry VIII married with no intention of constancy, we may assume he was not that passionate about marriage, in fact critical of it. That Anglicanism, likewise, was created from a broken marriage, not an intact one, must also assert this as characteristic, although it was itself distorted over time to a weird parody that wanted to marry everyone off to anyone. The usual portrayal of Henry VIII was that he thought that witchcraft, or attraction - but they are not the same -, was used in his marriage with Anne Boleyn - who everyone past a certain point wanted to pretend was Jennifer Lawrence, go figure - and therefore got them killed, which is used to belittle him because he apparently doesn't understand that females are pretty or something. However, this would imply a rejection of attraction by the end of it. Indeed, we can perhaps suggest by the end of things that Henry VIII didn't think that much of sexual urges, let alone act on them, in which case of acting he would be beholden to that in a more fundamental sense. I don't just mean in 'The Tudors.' His repeated marriages and rejections of them signify a questioning and rejection of such impulses, not in any way their fulfillment. Other issues of his might come into stark contradiction with this, however. Nonetheless, we can also remark that his attempt at exerting personal influence and bringing the kingdom under a united form of rule would conflict with just giving it to some arbitrary person, and would rather seem to suggest monarchy by election, albeit election of a specific person or election in a more Calvinistic sense. Any statements made by such a gimmick do not argue in favour either of marriage, obviously, or even of the trysts themselves, taken to the absurd length that they are both clearly devalued and met with disgust. That Henry VIII and later tendencies, both in French and English civil wars and in Puritan New England, were in some sense connected, need not be surprising.

We may conclude by noting how many of Kierkegaard's own themes: the status of the monarch or Christian as a witness (also present in Elizabeth, but also you suspect derived ultimately from the necessity of living up to Henry VIII which propelled later monarchs to have to take on more stringent gimmicks, as otherwise by that point a mere monarchy without statements or dramatic actions would be stale - Henry VIII had brought the monarchy too much into interaction with the elements of the new society, and they could not extricate from this actual scenario, even by retreating to the religious or otherwise, although this interaction was in the interests of defying it and not being left passive as it crept upon England), the need to turn away from marriage, the centrality of the individual to religion or the state and in defiance of marriage and such expectations, and so on - were present in England at around this time. That Mary's successor was followed by James I might better elaborate that later period for what it was, a farce so far as the monarchic progression was concerned. Henry VIII was not, however, followed by Jesus, who famously proclaimed hatred of the 'family,' that none on earth were to be called 'father,' and division of households, more or less unrelentingly, and in an extreme manner obviously, where a milder message might have found a milder expression. Which comes back to Kierkegaard's point that Jesus was not criticised and attacked merely arbitrarily, but because of what he was and his message, while any Christian if they're not lying about being such (some obviously are, but then the rest of what they say if perhaps likely to be mostly misguided), would be roundly criticised, mocked and ridiculed by 'Christians' for just saying verbatim what Jesus said, let alone noting that he probably meant it.

He was not followed by Jesus, of course, despite all of his attempts in that direction and at unity in that sphere, or the religious, which is where he could truly count on an associate and luminary, although he was not a religious thinker per se and restrained himself mostly to a display of monarchy. Hence, when confronted with an Anne Boleyn, who would systematically reduce religion to merely social gain and favour, for instance praying that people would continue to be positive to them, and to their face, he did not mostly draw upon religion - but, tellingly, did so at last, and therefore made it clear that Anglicanism was not about Anne Boleyn, but about the state. She could die, in whatever manner, this being irrelevant. People only make it irrelevant because they want to pretend that their death was the Holocaust. What's the Holocaust got to do with the price of fish? Usually, you'd have known who to ask.

Consider, though, that when the state is supporting somebody arbitrarily and for nothing, as in the Royal Family, but this is modified because they are being supported just for marrying and so on, the state is effectively acting as a cover for prostitution. They then have to continue to 'earn' this, in the agreed manner, rather than just staying there, and hence constancy would not be favoured. The Royal Family had come some way towards degradation in the interim, but it still married Katherines, albeit in its later years of 'St. Andrew's.' How the mighty fell, it must be said.

_________________
"The thing [calculus] has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them."

- Friedrich Engels.

Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.

2x Security Reasons. DANGER DANGER.

Was an Admin when RM was important. Was since confused with Negative Creep for being active.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:11 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:10 pm
Posts: 413
Has thanked: 26 time
Have thanks: 31 time
Hope without Optimism, Terry Eagleton's latest book, appears to have some references to Kierkegaard


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 9:46 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:17 am
Posts: 883
Has thanked: 726 time
Have thanks: 844 time
To keep it brief, yes, but he's Terry Eagleton, so it's hard to take him seriously. His characteristically mild demeanour might mean that references to Kierkegaard were uncautious on his part, however, as there is a contrast there which would not necessarily show Terry Eagleton favourably, usually.

_________________
"The thing [calculus] has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them."

- Friedrich Engels.

Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.

2x Security Reasons. DANGER DANGER.

Was an Admin when RM was important. Was since confused with Negative Creep for being active.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 12:56 am 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:17 am
Posts: 883
Has thanked: 726 time
Have thanks: 844 time
Sorry if you got banned, mate. Brole noticed the return of some members, either for economic discussion or Noa reasons, and is apparently determined to kill this forum for some reason. Anyway, at least you made it when it counted. Good luck finding obscure Russians, with or without Kontrrazvedka.

_________________
"The thing [calculus] has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them."

- Friedrich Engels.

Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit.

2x Security Reasons. DANGER DANGER.

Was an Admin when RM was important. Was since confused with Negative Creep for being active.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Donate Now
Donate Now



Hosted by © 2017 FreeForums.org | Create a free forum | Powered by phpBB
About FreeForums | Legal | Advertise Here | Investors | Contact FreeForums.org
Report Violation

Design By Poker Bandits  

suspicion-preferred