What are some books, essays, thinkers that expound upon the phenomenon observed in pic related. That is...

does anyone know what happened to that dude? The last I remember he was a weird communist tranny who wanted to in some weird naruto yaoi shit. I

>Silencing and purging are only aspects of a more encompassing process. An active conflation and confusion of leftist ideas with liberal ideas is another aspect.
Yes and my point is that liberals never really did those things and actively distanced themselves from the bomb-throwing anarchists and unionizing socialists at their peak.

It is the conservatives that constantly red-baits the liberals that led to this 'assimilation'. The paradigm that you whine about is merely a illusion that only right wingers and maybe centrists share, but liberals and leftists don't

Attached: dd8e651c3cbcbbf1d407c3f47f2248ce9ac9e88f.jpg (700x621, 61K)

Your historical analysis is just straight-up wrong; there's no other way of putting it. The left has always been a means for the the establishment, the liberal elite to secure power. See de Jouvenel's high/low vs. middle. Conservatives and centrists are simply de-centered liberal elite; liberals that have been left behind.

>twat
Okay, reddit.

>The left has always been a means for the the establishment, the liberal elite to secure power.
This doesn't make sense. What's the reasoning behind the left helping those in power secure the power they already have?

Sorry. Faggot. You're a faggot, user.

XD

Power (the high) isn't secure unless it is absolute. Power isn't absolute as long as there exists a middle to threaten it. Historical manifestations of this dynamic: the king vs. the aristocratic class, the aristocratic class vs. the priestley class. Again, see de Jouvenel's high/low vs. middle.

Okay, maybe. But this doesn't answer the question. What is the high/low v. middle in regards to leftism? And how is the left a means for securing power, would they not be wiped out in the process of the absolute?

The left is the low-proper (the prole, the immigrant, the minority, the black, the woman, the homesexual, the transwomen i.e. the victim) and the vanguard thereof (the silicon valley tech entrepreneur, the journalist, the academic etc.)
>would they not be wiped out in the process of the absolute?
Was the plebeian class destroyed in the king's expungement of the aristocracy?

Ignore brainlet simplificitations ('muh establishment'), modern leftism is a manifestation of the synthesis of state and capital. The ideology promoted is state expansion and mass migration, the result is a quasi totalitarian liberalism the purest manifestation of which we're beginning to see in the UK. But this cannot succeed because immigration will lead to ethnic conflict and reaction.

This is a brainlet explanation if I've ever seen one. The truth is as follows: There exists an (illusory) separation between actual power and power as it is perceived i.e. formal power. This separation is the result of (the false) liberal social ontology. This liberal social ontology necessitates those in power to further accumulate and secure power by: 1) promoting civil discord, 2) creating an (artificial) demand for civil order, and 3) subsequently fulfilling this demand. Disorder is promoted through alliance of the high with the low (the result is the "victimary" thinking expounded above).

Different person, but "capital" can hardly exist outside the state anyway when the State is the one delegating property ownership.

Yeah I have no idea what he was on about. Sounds like some libertarian nonsense.

Industrial Society and Its Future

I mean this sounds nice and all but capital isn't capable of creating this sort of strategic complexity and even if would be individually squashed by moralistic cultural mechanisms, your theory is a conspiracy theory. Capital moves spontaneously and is better understood as acting like a primitive organic, say mycologic manner. Societal brainletism always reduces complex phenomena to some form of conspiracy by an evil class. It's so stupid. Reality isn't comic books and there's no baddie.

>there's no baddie.
there are numerous baddies who actually do conspire(Im not sure how people have been memed into thinking conspiracy doesnt happen), they just aren't in control of literally everything

Yes, there are tens of thousands of conspiracies and all move within and according the world created as I described it. These are just people trying to entrench themselves within a system they have in the fundamentals absolutely no influence over. I mean we're talking about a complex that in long term movement is hundreds of trillions of dollars large. All billionaires and millionaires in the world combined are absolutely nothing to this it is completely beyond the control of human consciousness.

Capital isn't the causative factor in this analysis, rather it is power. Neither is this analysis a conspiracy theory, it is simply an enemprical observation.

No it isn't. You're observing an evolved construction and conclude that it has been consciously built by those populating it rather than it being a spontaneous manifestation of underlying economic forces. On an individual basis where decisions would have to be made any such high level strategic class action would not be observable. There's no smoke filled room in Davos where people decide who the next liberal arts professor in bumb fuck university is going to be. The notion that an entire culture and economic system is run by anyone is patently ridiculous. We know how that would look as we have seen it in the Soviet Union - a primitivist and decrepit totalitarian clusterfuck. What we're observing in reality is the unconscious influence of economic forces which over time subvert all institutions. Any organisation will be bent to the maximization of capital. That also goes for the original elites, they've been subverted and ultimately replaced with a meritocratic class of high IQ administrators, the process has been rationalized. In the U.S. these supposed eternal elites are in many cases 3rd generation immigrants. These people are selected to enact a specific program, it does not matter in this why they enact the program. If they're enacting the maximization because they're commie radicals - fine, if they're doing it because they're evil - fine. Idiocy, confusion, honest do-gooderism whatever. Thing is there are decent arguments for the rationalized world and that means that its agents are of high quality which you cannot for example say at the level of state expansion where the identitarian nutjobs have such a silly worldview that they in large part appear to be recruited among the mentally ill. But this again doesn't matter, because they perform the proper function for this system so they will receive its support. There's no need to see this through an absurd prism of class warfare. It is easily perceived as a natural process of economic rationalization. Commies just always have to look for their oppressor, well, look in the mirror.

>consciously
Wrong wrong wrong. Not once have a claimed that this process proceeds consciously. There are forces at play far greater than any force any factor, individual or collective, is capable of generating. In addition, your analysis of capital is antiquated and incomplete: Capital is one aspect of an unnamed dialectical process, the other aspect being liberalism. When sovereignty was absolute, capital was concentrated, localised, and frozen in stasis, and liberalism was accordingly latent. In the sovereign's alliance with the low, both were unfettered.

>things just happen spontaneously
>actually capital is organic and quasi-living
>no authority exists in society that causes things to happen
your brain on British thought... there's like 3-4 different British errors in this short post.

Still doesn't answer the question.

You didn't ask a question.

I just think in completely different terms. The world isn't capital and liberalism it is the interaction of all its component parts - the assertion of will of every individual being. In an absolutist state the will of the individual is heavily restrained in its expression, the power of a so called liberal society is in unleashing the individual potential, which maybe saw its first crystallized expression in the French revolution. The modern liberal state, itself a product of a natural evolution of harmonizing judicial rationalization, channels these energies into a rational and rationalizing process. It is very difficult to even criticize this process if you see it as such. Sure you can dream up some class structure or pauperization scenario which isn't there but the fundamental criticism propably has to be a criticism of rationalism itself which in the post-Christian west seems to mainly find its expression in rather new-age ecological terms. Just some thoughts, we propably won't agree anyway.

You misunderstand all those points which might be my fault but here you go: Spontaneous as in directed by profit, as life evolves spontaneously directed by survival. In fact we are looking fundamentally at an expression of the exact same process. Capital because of this best understood as an organic structure, not an actual organic structure. Its decisions are primitive and binary but its creations complex and with intelligent autonomy. Authority exists but is limited and given form by the overwhelming power of capital and state, outside limiting factors have largely failed. I don't think anything here is too controversial so maybe I just didn't express myself properly.

i take almost completely the opposite view to this, as in, I don't regard capital as being best understood as an organic structure, I don't view authority as structured by capital (capital requires authority to recognize it for property rights to exist so placing the former prior to the latter makes no sense?)

An I think interesting aside: Darwins theories on evolution were inspired by the observation of economic processes.

Leftists often have this ahistoric view of an ideological ruling class implementation, but property rights are an evolution of law which has a maximizing effect on human cooperation. Law as an independent process derives its authority from this maximization and is not the product of a centralized authority. But I don't exactly wanted to articulate the issue as you understood it but then we propably would have to talk about what I mean by capital and desu that would derail the entire discussion and I do have other things planned so I wish you guys a good night.

Do you have any thoughts on Hegelian/Material Dialectalism?

The user you've been going back and forth with seems to be positing developments that could be be explained by a dialectal.

No conscious and deliberate intentions need be required. Yet there are actors who are functions amongst an integrated totality and this totality has a sort of "conscious"...

Nevermind I see the user has already brought this up.

Insofar as you conceive the relationship of liberalism to capitalism, you don't understand them as antagonists, i.e. thesis/antithesis?

What?

Critique of the Gotha Program

Hasn't the author of this just arrived at Leninist vanguard-ism? It's frustrating when discourse just seems to go around in circles.

i'm pretty sure the Bruenigs just shit post on twitter and make money podcasting. anyway, if he became a vanguardist, it's because all politics are elite politics so if you want to implement Communism it is necessary to have a vanguard leading the Revolution that will rule afterward.

>all politics are elite politics
based and correctpilled

see

see

My worldview only differs from you in that mine recognises collective will and and identifies patterns in thereof. Your worldview lacks "why?". Why do willing things will what they will? Mine does.

See

Bump

Soibois