So many times, I have seen the "bring back industrial jobs" rhetoric in the sad discourse of this country. For about a decade before now, that rhetoric had mostly died in the public discourse, and it had been confined to some pureile narrative about how things were better in an imagined "Little America" where everything worked just-so. Such narratives were relegated to those with simple minds, or more accurately, focus-group tested talking points from some public relations ghouls. Recently, thanks to Retard-Man Trump's tariff posturing, the narrative was reheated, now served with the signature stink of the Zionist Entity and its vast propaganda budget. I suppose now is as good a time as any to remind the readers of this humble website why the manufacturing jobs not only won't come back, but have been effectively eliminated from the global economy of humanity. To understand this, the classical bourgeois conceit about economic management and the labor that involved has to be seen from afar, and then the version of it that existed during the post-war order must be seen for what it is. Only after the managerial conceits are excised from the discourse are we left with the actual industrial process and the technology available to someone who wants to build things. This will mostly focus on light industry rather than heavy industry, although functionally the problem is the same for both, and heavy industry is only granted favor because of associations with militarism and an infantile belief that heavy industry projects "stronk".
In the ideal workplace, there is no "management" whatsoever. The basic germ of production is the laborer, rather than an institution or a conceit about what ideas should be productive. If you must look at the site of production as nothing more than an accumulation of capital, the only capital that is absolutely necessary is everything the laborer brings. Everything else is a machine that is ultimately a manifestation of the same labor that is embodied in the human laborers. Absent the machines that are produced by industry, humans enter labor with the tools of their body, and assemble the simplest of tools with little more than some raw material that was at one point extracted from nature. Before someone considers the enterprise of some firm, some human intelligence in this firm has some concept of what is to be done, and has some reason to do that thing that they have valued. Very likely, the workers at this firm are aware without prodding or cajoling what that plan is. For the obvious example, the laborers at a pin factory arrive with sufficient knowledge of how pins are made. If they lack this knowledge, the workers would be shown the process, asked to recite it, and not need to be told again. The workers certainly didn't need to be told how to navigate the world or exercise the most basic faculties that allow them to be laborers. Before this firm sets its workers to motion, the plan is understood by all who are assembled in this productive task. That is a requirement for this pin factory to work. Nowhere does the factory worker blindly carry out a single part of the task without any knowledge of the greater process. Even if the worker were set against other workers by control of this information, or particular information were kept out of the hands of regular workers, nothing prevents this worker from observing the production process to see where his part of the process is relevant. Whatever the particular knowledge of the laborer of the overall process of a firm, the point is that any ignorance of the processes can impede production when carried out in this manner. The worker who only knows, for example, how to push a cart of some material, is impeded both by his lack of knowledge and reliance on other workers who can leave or be faulty for similar reasons. The worker who is observant of social production is not so hobbled, and this the worker provides at no cost to himself whatsoever. He could fill a greater number of functions in the process. If he can do that, he can consider the efficiency of the labor he expends and ask if there were a better way to create pins, or whatever the task at hand may be. In every case, the worker's independent executive functioning is provided, rather than the peculiar operations he carries out. If that executive functioning is "impaired" because the worker really does not want to be at the place he's working at, that is a matter independent from any necessary knowledge or intelligence. Intelligence is almost entirely irrelevant to the loyalty of workers to this process. Only because of the conceits held by humanity about intelligence does intelligence become an excuse to whip, beat, and humiliate workers, and it is a thin excuse that never needed to be proven—it only needed to be "justified" with whatever pretexts are suitable. In every case where the worker is beaten, whipped, and so on, it is a failure of management and inefficiency in the whole process, on top of the inefficiency of ignorance. The industrial labor operations themselves are not terribly complicated for humans to carry out. They become complicated when attempting to make robots, who are dumber than the dumbest human and expensive to build, do as many thing as a basic human laborer would do. If automated machinery is used in the production line, the machines do not replicate a human laborer wholly. They instead streamline the production process itself, so that less labor or energy is exerted for the desired output. The ideal then is that labor is managed only by itself, and any "beatings" administered would not be an imperious declaration of power of the boss but the struggle of labor against its own limitations. The laborers would have sufficient knowledge to carry out the operations, modify those operations, and communicate the general plan to other workers. Rank or distinction among the workers may exist, but rank would be completely irrelevant to the task at hand, which is the important purpose of assembling these workers for any productive task.
Needless to say, this is not how it worked out. I also make clear that this is an ideal for efficiency. The only workers who really see this as their personal idea are taking on the managerial mindset for themselves. The managerial tasks are the easiest of all to remove by automation, and they are removed completely. It costs great effort to restore managerialism where it has been overcome. Whether the workers, who in reality did not ask to be part of any "social production", see it as their purpose to work as a unit for the firm is another question altogether. However, I do not think it is difficult for workers to see that they didn't need aggressive busybodies pushing, cajoling, and making life generally miserable for anything they really wanted to accomplish. They do not want it personally, and on some level, workers don't want to see that at any place where they work unless they have a perverse love of sadism. The reason why workers extend this courtesy to all isn't some high-minded ideal of social harmony, but a far simpler reason; when excessive managerial sadism enters a workplace by any vector, all workers are on notice that some ritual sacrifice and culling is about to happen. In an ideal world—again speaking of efficiency from a purely managerial view—those who would transgress decencies for the sake of their love of the terror would be removed, and should their transgressions continue and become too pernicious, the transgressors would be violently removed out of necessity. I cannot tell humanity that such a working environment, which is not terribly hard to attain, can be made permanent and the default for our social relations. The reasons why it cannot happen are not economic rationales at all, but exist in the realm of politics and because of humanity's spiritual affinity for torture and humiliation, which cannot be reasoned with and is unlikely to change. If we are to surrender to the beleive that "the thrill of torture must be maximized", then we might as well give up any idea of the pin factory or any other social production working, and so, all of this discussion about industrial society would be irrelevant. In that world, the object of torture is torture, and the only conclusions that are possible are to join the torture cult or renounce humanity and society altogether. If someone wants to argue the merits of either position, it has nothing whatsoever to do with economics or industry. Economics to be sensical assumes the actors involved hold an interest in the world not being that, or at least their small part of the world that they can control not being that. Economically, the world of "the thrill of torture must be maximized" has an obvious conclusion, and the consequences of that are the subject matter of The Retarded Ideology. I shall not elaborate on that further here, but it is worth noting that the partisans of these stupid, retarded memes—and they are retarded!—very much believe in "the thrill of torture must be maximized", and they will always be dishonest actors for the discourse where we contemplate industry and its future in the world. That simple reality has been ever-present and has always been a hobgoblin invoked to make any plan, any aspiration, and anything other than torture a "natural impossibility" in their theory, which they impose on the rest of us by the means I describe in TRI.
The classical bourgeois vocations were that they were petty proprietors like shopkeepers, or salaried professionals like lawyers or doctors who weren't directly engaged in production but offered their investment in the productive enterprise with the expectation of a return on that investment. The capitalist as a "captain of industry" begins as an unsavory member of the bourgeois set, whose mission in life was to make a buck from the exploitation of labor before he went on to hopefully accomplish greater things like becoming a lawyer or doctor, finding a military commission, or becoming a clerk for a trading enterprise doing business in the very lucrative Asian market. The capitalist as a "capitalist" in the purest sense was already an unwelcome new thing. They were not friendly men of commerce who existed to make things for you, or tell you how to make things. What made the capitalist capable of doing this is that, as a man of property, he like anyone else in the bourgeois order had certain legal rights and standing by virtue of that property, while his workers had no rights whatsoever. Who was the intermediary between the dominant political and social regime and the worker? It was the capitalist. The capitalist was never a true necessity for the society. It could very well have been that a "capitalist" only existed in the abstract, and the CEO, COO, and managers down the line were all salaried professionals without a direct stake in stock. It could even be the case that all of the executive and operational management were handled by the workers themselves. Either way, the investors simply deposited the seed money in stock and collected returns from the dividends. But, there were "capitalists", who did not make it in polite society with the other professionals and had no real role in production other than an entitlement that told them they owned some factory and were there to reap a return. At the outset of capitalism, "management" as we know it today was a nascent science. What concepts of scientific management existed were an adaption of the management of slaves and of the underclass that was in practice lower than slaves in the social order. The capitalist possessed no intrinsic genius of his own that made his entitlement a true necessity for production to proceed. Workers had long produced through their guilds or on their own initiative. The true beginning of "free trade" was the violent dispossession of the workers, and most of all taking away the tools the workers used in their manufacturing up to that time. The seamstress working from her home was impoverished and pushed into a textile mill to work for far less and in far more punishing conditions. Someone who might have been a cobbler in the past was pushed out of existence and, if they had a job, they were marked and treated with the utmost contempt, while cutthroats and gangsters policed the laboring forces from within as they had long done throughout history. The home manufacturer isn't in a place where these cutthroats have prime access to victims, while social production is a paradise for the activity of mafias and lockouts. In theory, the workers would overcome all of these difficulties and see social production and investment in it as an opportunity to produce more stuff at less cost to themselves, and with all of the advantages of cooperative labor. The pin factory undeniably produced more pins than a single man would have produced alone or pins produced by some haphazard assembly line, mostly because the working space and usage of tools for this operation could be rationalized in a way that was not possible before. The ugly side to social production is that the incentives that gave birth to this situation of "capitalism", and the incentives that were most readily acted on, were the exact opposite of the world where the common people had nice things. Not one iota of the product of this capitalist society improved the conditions of laborers, and the lowest class who were always immiserated were now openly democided. By real metrics, the early capitalist society was no more productive than the previous mercantile society, and there was a steep decline in real product and knowledge that did not fit the incentives of the new society. This elimination of goods and services that had existed for century was "progress" and "efficiency" because of the imperatives of the capitalist and the true motives of the vicious forces that were ready allies for the capitalist from the outset. The true benefits of early capitalism, and what those who engineered society to do this for some productive purposes, were not in the quantity of product or some objective metric of quality that we would have any reason to respect universally. The qualities of particular products in the emerging capitalist order were technologies that did not exist in the prior society, and a basis for those technologies to be improved upon and established as an interest of the state and the Empire. Among these are better cannons, better steam engines, and better security for the interests of the intellectual elite and the officers of the state against the dispossessed wretches. No prosperity or "abundance" leading to a quality of life increase was seen for the laboring masses throughout the 19th century. Their life expectancy had in fact declined precipitously, which itself was seen as yet more "progress" since it was the social unworthies who were selected to die. The worker in early capitalism was paid less, received an inferior quality of goods, and lived under the fear of police and cutthroats that were encouraged to prey on the incoming workers in the growing cities of the Empire. All of the material benefits of this situation were paid to interests within the bourgeois order, and not to the bourgeois order collectively or evenly. The capitalist, like the plantantion owner, entered business by taking on debt, and usually failed to repay, with the consequences of this failure being extreme shame at the least and probably death if this capitalist was unhappy with the perilous condition he took on. If a capitalist were too successful as a "simple capitalist", he likely exploited enough people and amassed enough money and some decent wealth to improve his standing, and leave the muck of producing to the next crop of witless bourgeois strivers who were, on average, expected to fail at this new situation. If you were a clerk working for the East India Company, this situation was great. You got to sell opium to the world, get paid handsomely for sitting in a office and not really doing anything but ordering cutthroats in your employ to terrorize the locals, if you even bothered to do that. If you were a university student, you got a free ride and membership into clubs, and every excuse would be made for you because you were "good people". Among the capitalists there was a sharp divide between those who really "got it" and made the right friendships in secret societies, and those who didn't "get it" and were the butt monkey who got remarkably little but problems for their efforts at being a capitalist. Maybe the grumpier and unhappy capitalists contented themselves with what they gained from exploiting workers, knowing that at least they're not slaves like those in their employ, but it's hard to think that any of them were "getting ahead" or even had much to pass to an heir. The habit of those in the know to steal the wives of the grumpy "failed men" makes even passing property to an heir suspect, for the habit of teaching children to hate their fathers came early for these poor sods.
In all of this, the situation is dominated by attitudes towards the lowest class, whatever its nature may be in a particular niche. Properly speaking, the lowest class was marked as beggars who were consigned to the workhouse, shamed and scorned far more than viable slaves. Only the punishments of the lowest class within the slaves compared in gruesomeness to the hatred doled out to the lowest class every day, but because the lowest class "deserved it", this is conveniently ignored in the histories of self-congratulating intellectuals who are proud of their past and looking forward to their future. The slaves were never equal between each other in any slavery, and so too are the capitalists not equal or tied to a singular program. The "productive capitalists" were the suckers of their order, and the wealthiest centers of finance that provided this seed capital were never engaged directly in any productive enterprise or any risk that such an enterprise entails. Free trade begins not on a blank slate, but with a great distinction from the commanding heights, always sheltered by Empire, and those who had no such protection and were little better in the rulers' eyes than the workers they exploited. No matter what these distinctions may be, all of them are divided from the lowest class, those who "deserve it". Everyone else, even a slave, can contest something about their lot in life, however little that is. The lowest class cannot, by design. That is always the dominant imperative of any exploitation. If exploitation were purely a managerial interest, it is abstracted away from what is really done in social relations, and what motivates anyone to work. The threat of poverty is not directly starvation, but the threat of being attacked in the way the lowest class is attacked from birth to death. Men with swords, or guns, or some means of taking from the world the required sustenance, do not starve. They can always sell one service that is always in demand, which is the torture of the lowest class and containment of their efforts to do what the associations do to survive. Active suppression is not necessary. Only a moral and spiritual commitment to the cause of choosing who lives and who dies, in the manner humanity has clearly chosen as their fate, is necessary to sell. It is the idea of selecting who lives and dies, and who is to be tortured, that drives exploitation. The actual logistics of arranging production for efficiency are left to a few professionals, and at the end of the day the credits and debits in some financial instrument need not line up. They never had to, for the money itself did not provide energy to anyone. A shopkeeper could easily set aside a portion of their unsold, soon-to-spoil food to members of the valid working class in exchange for a promise that they are "good people" and will dutifully attack the lowest class, so that the social order of the human race may be retained. That is the necessary imperative. "Justice" or fairness is not. The food is there, unsold and about to be thrown away. To justify not using that food for the benefit of the "Greater Jihad", the formerly valid workingman or failed petty capitalist has to be "run down" and placed in the lowest class, subjected to the same ritual sacrifice the lowest class has been. The humiliation and torture is the point, rather than anything the lowest class did to valid society. That is why, as I write in TRI, the fear of the workingmen was not that they would be sold into slavery, or that they would be arbitrarily killed. Arbitrary murder, sudden death, natural disasters, and other such tragedies are not caused by economic abstractions. They may be abstracted after the fact, but this only happens after the fact, when a society plagued by too much arbitrary death asks the obvious question. In practice, if someone were valid, arbitrary death would be a thing to prevent, without a "justification" that the formerly valid was actually part of the lowest class all along, in which case "history must be corrected". It always happens like this. When the ritual sacrifice and culling of the population is planned, and this has always happened in all human societies, it is always justified, glorified, and exultantly praised. If there weren't this ritual, then the regular culls and tragedies of humanity would be seen for what they are, and even the most heartless human can see that this produces nothing good in the world. The suffering of those who "deserve it" has been the prime want of those who exploit, rather than any ulterior motive that exploitation creates good. If we wanted to produce good things, we have no shortage of knowledge about how to do that, and the material cost to do that. If the problem were merely one of allocating resources and solving the optimization problem, that is a trivial problem in any era. The most thorough calculation is not necessary to see that the motive of making the "Bad People" suffer produces nothing but that, rather than the goods that were desired from labor. The chief aim and the overriding liberal obsession has been to "sort the poor" and regiment the society based on some notion of civic worth, which has always been little more than a pseudo-rational excuse to conduct the same ritual sacrifice that has been their proclivity.
However much the torture of the lowest class is the point for those who govern society and insist "this always works", for any laborious operation this torture is complete waste. It must be kept in mind because throughout human history, this imperative overrides anything we would have considered good in the product irself. Without a useful product, whether it is a tangible product or some service that is definite, all of the efforts to torture things will only persist from the inertia of such in the human spirit. The ideal world of the petty-manager is an imagined "paradise" of rapists who rape and hunt and glorify the essential acts of torture and killing in everything they do. This is not an ideal if that petty-manager had aspirations to be anything else in this world, but it is the aspiration assigned to them by the "MAGA" cult, with full knowledge of the consequences of such a world. For a pure, abstract manager, it is the sorting of the population rather than any quality of the goods produced that is their task. If the objective were to produce useful goods, the manager would see that his function is superfluous once it is accomplished. If the workers of some place are set in motion and have their own motives for producing, the manager may communicate some notice from outside of the workplace, which the workers can process or not process as they please. Even this communication between workplaces, firms, or throughout society could be automated or handled by the workers themselves. What the petty-manager craves, and what the institutions we are cursed with has imposed, is "mediated reality", where the petty-manager controls the flow of information utterly. The petty-manager's condition then is forced ignorance, and when his role defines entirely who he is, forced ignorance is what we get. In TRI, I write of this particular application of forced ignorance as essentially a Satanic impulse in the human race. Ignorance itself is a nuisance and not in of itself evil. Forced ignorance for some purpose, such as the keeping of secrets or forbidding of information spread for malicious purposes, has no particular moral quality. The forced ignorance I speak of here from the petty-managers is not forced ignorance for an ulterior motive or a personal moral failing of the managers themselves, as if there were a "good abstract manager" that did not do this. The celebration of forced ignorance is the point. This is exalted and glorified with every humiliation, every insulting sneer, and every beating and humiliation that this humble author endured every day for as long as he can remember. Watching humanity and the world come to this sad fate has been depressing to say the least. It is not merely the essential act of forced ignorance, but full knowledge of why it is carried out and the eternal perpetuation of such, that makes it "Satanic" in the sense I write about in the chapters concerning religion in TRI. Whenever I invoke the word "Satanic", it is that spirit of totalizing forced ignorance for its own sake, reveling in the control of information so that torture may be increased, that I evoke for the reader or listener. What does Satan do to control reality? It commands ignorance and that you will be made ignorant, at all costs. Only the Masters have "perfect information in perfect systems", and they do not tolerate the rest of us pointing out obvious errors in their "perfect systems" and conceits about themselves. There is much more to be written on the malice of the petty-managers. I sympathize with the less wretched of them in some way, because however malevolent their daily routine is, they know that this does not grant to them personally any benefit, and that they have wasted their lives in service to a failed system and a failed society that can only violently recapitulate that failure. Such are the wages of allowing this noxious German Ideology to continue on in this world as anything other than an abomination to be mocked and despised before it is placed in a museum for degenerate art.
If anyone tells you capitalism is a highly productive and creative "system", they are full of shit. The meme requires a belief that workers are simply too dumb to do things they had done for centuries before a capitalist assembled them in a factory to whip them and scourge them. In those early years from roughly 1780 to 1840, industrial technique did not improve significantly in the production of consumer goods, and heavy industry was not considered a product for the masses. What did change very abruptly were the types of goods that could be produced for uses that were novel. Firearms and cannon were first standardized and then improved upon. Clockworks and timepieces were improved. Agricultural machinery streamlined what used to be done by hand or by the landlord's presses. Where agricultural machinery was introduced, it was one part done to eliminate free peasant labor, and one part done to intensify existing slave labor. Slave labor in agriculture rose steadily from the colonial period onward and continued into the 19th century. Those peasants who remained in the countryside found themselves working in increasingly dire conditions, stripped of the meager charity and whatever lands they held onto for dear life. Those who stayed behind were viewed not just as de facto slaves, but were sneered at for "holding us back" for the crime of being instructed to plow the fields at reduced pay, or by the usual treachery, no payment with the farmer pushed into debt-slavery. The entire aim should be understood as a retrenchment of slavery. What did change, very slowly, is that the product of the land increased as knowledge of what would become modern agronomy and chemistry proliferated, as fertilizers were available, and as basic things that could have been done earlier were finally done, only after ruinous culls destroyed large numbers of the people. So too did the living standards of the people steadily deterioriate. The "great success of production" was nothing more than the masses living on less and less, and being pushed and whipped to make more and more, very inefficiently but in a manner that could not be forestalled forever. A favored class within the commons could separate itself from the rest of the human filth as they saw us, and for them, their increased standard of living was entirely from redistribution and the imposition of harsher Poor Laws. Only after the first decades brought culls of millions did the desperate workers band together, mostly because they could and there was no easy way to stop them, and the pre-existing checks on population growth like war and disease were less effective at reducing their numbers. Deliberate starvation policies were not enough to contain population growth. The poor had less to live on, offered the most abject slavery and told they were "free". The workhouse was the reminder of what happened to anyone who was to be sacrificed. As the numbers of poor steadily climbed, so too did the efforts to sacrifice them, to exhaust them at earlier and earlier ages. I believe somewhere in TRI I mentioned the lie of "rising life expectancy", and this is one of the great charlatan tricks of the imperial creed. Life expectancy falls as you would expect given an increase in deprivation. Urbanization entailed the fecundity of the lower classes, absent any good reason why they would be barred from childrearing. Since the capitalist hit upon the great idea of enslaving the children of the men who worked for them, and enslaving their wives (while bragging about their right to conquer women sexually as one of the bourgeois rights of conquest), a man who somehow succeeds at creating a reasonably healthy brood increased his value so long as those children were whipped and scourged at earlier and earlier ages. The first state education is introduced to habituate these children to their fate as slaves, and this is "progress" because it employs that favored middle class and grants to them a vehicle to advance their own shitty little agendas, whatever they may be. That is the story of the "capitalist genius". The incentives of capitalism are entirely opposed to productivity for nice reasons. If we wanted that, we could have done that a long time ago, and in some way, that has happened througout history, and it would happen throughout the rise of capitalism. The lowest avarice of this empire couldn't really stop human beings from maintaining decencies towards each other, with the motive for that decency being a simple understanding that doing this would make life easier for all who are oppressed by the same beast. However much the imperial cult sings the praises of Sodom, most of humanity didn't need to read Leviticus to figure out why the Sodomites had it coming. This effort against "historical progress" angered the nascent ideologues of modern civilization. How dare the masses band together to do the most basic thing to survive in a terrible society! It's "unnatural"! It is only by the inertia of whatever decency humanity cobbled together that there was any growth in this capitalist situation, and the intriguers and instigators who did the greatest damage to the world and the people steal valor as is their habit.
Eventually the advantages of technology and not starving the people become too obvious that the most strident ideologues had to give up something. No, they weren't going to suddenly be nice or "allow" us to live. That would be totally against the most sacred oaths to whatever foul orders they belong to. Simply put, there were more people, worked harder, and it did not take long for those people to see that they could easily circumvent the capitalist and produce more without overbearing managerial idiocy. Then we recall that the capitalists who actually had to produce some product were the suckers of their class, and they were squeezed out and left out of all of the fun associations that reveled in the thrill of torture and reaped the lion's share of benefits under capitalism. They too saw that if this continued, they would be screwed. There was then a new class apart from any of these, comprised of technicians and professionals who remained at the bottom rungs of the comfortable bourgeois. They did not directly engage in production, and either lacked the mindset to enter the muck of productive captial for themselves or saw such a thing as beneath their dignity and attention. They could see how this turns out for humanity and for their new class in particular, and they did not much like what they saw. It did not take too much to see what was happening, and it is the same cycle humanity has been stuck in and the cycle that is most intensified in this century. There would be a large group told from birth they were "selected to live", and that others were "selected to die", and it was imperative for the former group to lie profusely about every fact or sense that speaks of the true alliances and interests at work. The contending classes of the middle of the 19th century do not neatly fit into the Marxist schema and never did, and it was with the Marxists that the first obfuscations of social class and the social question were made possible as a worked-out method, rather than the habit of secret societies who reveled in mocking those "out of the know" as has been the habit of humanity since the very start. The "bourgeois" as a class was a fiction that did not even resemble the literal meaning of "bourgeois", or "city-dweller". Those who lived on a plot of land did not identify with "the city" or any notion of republicanism, but they were the people most invested in "bourgeois rights", which were always recasting of the feudal rights and privileges of the nobility that a larger share of the commons could now enjoy or pretend to enjoy. The interests of the city proper aren't really the interests of a republic. Cities have been throughout history despotic in character, and whatever republican charade they conduct is always understood to be ruled in the smoke-filled backrooms. That's how it always works, and during the 19th century, there was no expectation that it didn't work that way. No one had the insufferable, naive faith in "permanent institutions" that prevailed in the 20th century, for ideology had not been created yet and the people weren't brainwashed enough to believe ideology was a useful description of the world. What motivates these classes? They are motivated by the interest of their individual members, and whatever institution they hold as an instrument which is, out of necessity, shared property. They are not motivated by some essence of such a class, but by the demands of the institution or a tangible thing we can study, and that the interested parties can just as easily discard once the toy is no longer useful to them. It is the institutions that are the problem or the success of any social class, and this applies to the slaves as much as it applies to the masters. Only the lowest class is, as a rule, denied any institution of their own. Since institutions are reviled by the lowest class as the source of most of their miseries, this would not be a problem for us down here, except for the dominance of institutions in these times, once they possessed machinery to invade what little life any of the people of the world possessed. The lowest class is defined by the institutions of ritual sacrifice, culling, humiliation, torture, and all of the worst aspects of the human race, and the sadists who staff such institutions. That is our lived experience since time immemorial, and the greatest imperative of the most peculiar institution is to ensure that this never, ever changes. That problem is not really important to the present article, but it must be impressed on the reader that the only reason we have this awful discourse is because very ruinous institutions have been locked in, and are dead set against any reform. The interest of all of the contending classes is invested most of all in the institutions that torture and humiliate the lowest class, which was not the overt struggle in the past, where industrialization and the future of humanity were open questions. If not for the ruinous institutions, the arguments I am attacking here would be dismissed easily and it would not be possible to persist with the insinuations that are made.
The full accounting of what happened between "early capitalism" and "middle capitalism" is too lengthy to recount here, but the greatest change in the 1930s is that productivity ceased to be any imperative for the contending interests, and it was agreed that production and consumption would be responsive to each other. The needs of the populace were always known and were now more acutely known than they ever had been. There was no longer any excuse for the artificial "anarchy" that was maintained as a convenient fiction in earlier capitalism. For all intents and purposes, "capitalism" as the thing described by most political economists ended in the 1930s. The victors of capitalism won, seized the governments of the world that were entirely captured by the imperial system, and set out to enclose the remainder of the world that was not yet subsumed into that imperial system. They no longer had any need nor want for "capital" as such. The greatest difficulty, the race to produce more and better armaments, had been effectively negated by the outcome of the second world war. The true war, planned in advance, was the war against the people of the world who were selected to die. The vanguard of this coup disdained to conceal their aims. Open democide, "birth strikes", and screaming eugenics were the hallmarks of this vanguard, immediately abandoning all pretenses that they were there for "freedom", "democracy", or any purpose other than the conduct of this war. The moral and philosophical motives of this vanguard, and that which seeped into the institutions and polite society, are not economic ones. Still, the inheritors of the world had to produce things, and they had to tolerate, tmeporarily, the "greed" of allowing workers to live so that those things could be produced. From the turn of the 20th century onward, the aims of production were not to produce quantity, but qualities that suited the aims of the ruling vanguard and their hangers-on. Just as before, the "wealth and abundance" of the post-war order was given entirely to the favored classes, and the disfavored were held up as magnets of shame and ridicule to be scourged for eternity. The hatred of the lowest class and the "stupids" escalated beyond the wildest dreams of the rulers of the 19th century. Never forget that behind their intellectual pretenses, the rulers of the world are jumped-up gangsters, dope dealers, and the slime of humanity who never had to be anything else, and it was the best of such gangsters that became the old money families. There is no magic or culture or special ingredient to the entire rotten operation. If their strategy worked so effectively for them and they were able to instigate the world wars, hy would they ever turn back from that? For us? Heavens no. They hate us more than they hate anything else. The whole horrible story of why the world turned out the way it did, I leave for The Retarded Ideology, whenever I finish it, if I am lucky enough to do so. Just as before, the decency of human beings persisted despite all of the ruling theories and philosophies insisting that such decency was unnatural and "evil". Most of humanity, with no politcal motive and no stake in the things that claimed to be "democratic states", hated the rulers at least as much as the rulers hated them, as it should be forever.
Every work task consists of numerous desultory operations that are, at their core, rational and intellectual operations rather than "physical" ones. I define "work" in the broadest sense, whether it is productive or not, as these operations which are carried out with at least some deliberation or honing of muscle memory. The mechanical force of a tool, a hammer, a human body, an animal, is not directly this; it is instead something that is summoned from machinery, with a human body itself being a considerably complex machine. The deliberation to move muscle to accomplish those tasks is a rational undertaking and a manipulation of that machine, which is set apart from the rational part of this work task. This treatment excises any emotional, moral, or higher spiritual considerations that affect why work is undertaken, for all of these rational tasks are a desultory act. Whatever our wants or higher purposes, this desultory work is an obstacle that has to be navigated. The rational work tasks themselves are only valued by what it costs to solve them, rather than "intellectualism" itself having any moral value whatsoever. In a better world, the rational tasks would be trivial enough that we need not argue over how they would be solved. For reasons that become apparent only with a much more thorough analysis, the rational task which consumes more energy than any other for humanity is the effort spent navigating their entirely pointless, cruel, and monstrous internecine conflicts, which are the core essence of the struggle against the lowest class and the struggle of the lowest to find anything in this cursed world. I leave behind the pointless dickering and scheming of humanity in their struggle for vanity, rank, and petty conceits of who is "bigga", since that becomes an intractable problem purely because certain humans chose to make it so. It does not take a great intellect to see that such pettiness and venality is a bane to be removed so we can have the things we wanted. If we did remove that, we would still find that any work tasks entails considerable desultory labor that is entirely mental. The simplest of these tasks are common to all of mankind, whether they are valid or not. If someone is to exist, whether they are confident in their knowledge or ability to accomplish these tasks is irrelevant. They will either do them, or they will fail and be unable to navigate the world, even to the small extent necessary to beg for a living. The beggar learns certain things and carries out certain desultory acts as part of his begging, and the systems worked out for this would be surprising if someone has to actually ask themselves what it is like to live with the scorn of this disgusting race that surrounds us, most of whom produced the pointless and cruel internecine struggle that necessitated begging in a world that clearly provided far more than humanity ever needed, if humanity simply allowed production to be unhampered by their conceits and production was carried out for the needs of all so that those needs were no longer an excuse to create more of that senseless and stupid conflict. While the simplest of tasks are taken for granted and demanded as a price of entry to even be allowed to exist in human society, when broken down as they must be for computation, things that are very simple for human beings become challenges to reproduce by algorithmic computation, such as pattern recognition or connecting symbolic information to worldly meaning. There is then that desultory work that is not considered common or basic, but that is carried out by the worker in whatever vocation they are set to do. These systems, for example learning to sew, weld, or carry out various industrious activities, are adapted and consist of the bulk of useful, productive labor that can be valued and sold to someone. This is no magic or secret to this valued labor, but it is necessarily limited in supply, as whatever provides this labor only has so much time, so many means to provide it, and must acquire this skill enough to be competitive. It can be disciplined not just in its intensity of exhaustion or measured quantity of output, but in the qualities that are produced, and so there are good products and shitty products.
Much of the desultory work of interest here though is not the workman's useful knowledge, but an intermediary step of counting the beans and calculating numbers, balancing financial sheets, actuarial work, clerical paperwork, and so on. The productive firm in social production of any sort, whether it is a slave estate, a capitalist firm, a socialist unit of whatever sort, employs considerable labor towards these tasks largely because the production is social, rather than an individual labor or a shared labor of some association that carried out the labor for the sake of doing it or some calling of the association. In a free and proper association that is not hampered by managerialism, dickering over these numbers is only relevant for the internal accounting of the workman or a report on the viability of a collective effort. Because social relations in humanity are, and are likely to remain, antagonistic relations even at the best of times, some accounting of this managerial and computational work is required, both to know if this product meets the demand of society outside of the association or person working for itself, and to ensure the members of the social group that their cohabitation is not screwing the individual members or their interests. Nothing about this is an intractable problem, or necessitates and obsessive and all-consuming selfishness of the sort some Randroid retard, and they are retarded, would utter. It is however a considerable task to simply calculate at the local area what stock will be produced, distributed to which locale, and all of the mundane details of accounting that have to be rationalized beyond a makeshift system. This is the work of secretaries, clerks, and those whose work is primarily managerial or clerical. Because the only way to carry out this accounting in the past was to have a human being do this, spending time and effort doing something other than actually producing the product of interest, firms had to devote considerable human labor power to this task. It was complicated further by the aforementioned internecine conflict, the regular beatings and humiliations, the ugly reality of associations being little more than hives of scum and villainy, and such regular fuckery that anyone who has worked a day in their life would know without having to hear a long rant about why it turned out this way. The human beings doing this may have carried out this desultory work efficiently enough, and didn't let the power trip of controlling information or computation convince them they were actually going to become gods by doing this. It still had to be done, and all of the way up to the 1970s, computers remains so weak in their output that human calculators and computers were still employed at every firm. Such agents and desultory work continue today despite mass computerization, and it is unlikely that this labor will ever fully go away. One obvious reason is that the verification of any information or processing of information has to be made by human intellect. The mechanical computer is not a substitute for thought itself, but a tool to make the rote, desultory mechanical acts of computation much faster, such that a secretary need only run a command line program instead of carrying out the program herself, or laboriously processing a batch of 10,000 forms submitted for some operation by hand. This tool was only useful enough for regular office work when computers were miniaturized and could be reproduced for thousands of dollars, then hundreds of dollars, and eventually at such a cheap price that we are awash in computational potential (though never nearly enough for all of the desultory rote tasks we would want to do, and again, great expense is spent on nothing more than the pointless and retarded internecine conflict carried out purely because others instigated it).
The computer does no more than its instructions by design. If it did not, it would not be a "computer" that is useful to us. The entire purpose of this machine is for it to carry out these desultory rote operations, which we have worked out for ourselves to compute some problem. Rather than repeating the rote processes manually, the machine does this for us, and we read the output of some program, which is what we wanted in the first place. Behind the computational task the computer carries out, there is a programmer who wrote the program, so that he or she did not have to repeat something they knew how to do. All of the computational instructions are rules of thumb that can be reproduced by a human being or some other machine. In principle, the computation could be written down on paper or simulated on some instrument which the user of the instrument would interpret from the output, like using and reading an abacus to solve some computational problem. Such devices or systems had been worked out by the workers employed with this task of processing information, just as laborers working with machine tools ask themselves how industrial processes could be done for cheaper, or for better results.
It turns out so much of the work of business is little more than calculating this information, so that objects are moved from some points to other points, rather than any alchemical transformation or substantive change to tangible objects. Considerable expense is required just to ensure that any of the products reach their intended purpose, or that the products are used at all. Just from information alone, the waste and inefficiency of industry was well known. Little of that waste has truly been eliminated by the machine, because managers stepped in and saw that the machine would most readily eliminate the managerial positions most of all, and with it all of the benefits the clerks enjoyed over the laboring masses. A cult regarding the computer had to be created in tandem with its release to the general public, where the computer "thinks for you" instead of carrying out a rote task that would be more expensive manually. It is here where the waste created by human malice is most relevant. Everywhere there is a human in the processes of a firm, there is the malice of humans. Humans are always quick to resort to malice, whereas a computer does nothing more than carry out the desultory instructions. Simple. Fair. The fairness of such computation above all is something the petty-manager cannot tolerate. A human bureaucrat always enjoys the denial, the rejection, the humiliation of the starving. A computer simply has no thought regarding humanity whatsoever. If the computer is programmed to reject, deny, humiliate, and shame, it is because its human programmer insisted on it. This barrier, this stone wall of rejection and shame, is costly for any productive process, and always has been. People who are starving will, absent any compelling reason, take from the world what was denied to them. Only by violent force are they suppressed, over and over again, until "history is corrected". If human society were too productive, and the world had no real resource shortage, then in the long term it would not be possible to maintain any level of industrial efficiency and tolerate the sort of forced starvation plan humanity has been forced to live under due to the eugenic creed and the malice of the human race. Despite the human spirit and malice, industry remained too productive, and too many people needed that industry to be productive if they were to continue living. There was no interest in the broad masses for the starvation plan eugenics and eugenics alone imposed on the world. The information that a computer processes, which is available to all of us and could be reproduced independently, made clear that no such starvation was "naturally necessary", and also made clear the cost of repeated denials and humiliations that were the purpose of the ruling institutions. All of what I describe only exists because some Satanic retards, and they are both Satanic and retarded, decided we were not going to be allowed to live, and when starvation was not enough, forced poisoning, drugging, public torture, and endless atrocities would be imposed on the public to "make them do it to themselves". The first rule is to deny that any such forced poisoning and torture took place, even though evidence of it is all around us and glorified by the eugenic creed. If not for this, we wouldn't have this narrative. We would see very clearly, and many people do see despite the ruling ideas, that there is more than enough product. Humans, despite their miserable nature, have become effective enough at producing things that this should not be a question, and we need not ask how to make people more productive. There is further no real natural resource shortage. We know the water, material inputs, and deposits of all of those materials in the natural world, and are also very effective at extracting them. We know how to grow food, and despite the eugenic creed's invasion of the mind, it was impossible to deny knowledge of agriculture and the qualities of plant life forever, nor was it possible to convince farmers that they should turn off their brain in favor of this Satanic impulse and the failed system of eugenics that was imposed on civil society. The farmer needs to grow crops so he has something to sell, and needs to maintain land in some condition that will allow it to grow crops in the future, and these are things any agricultural producer learns by heart, and has studied for centuries. The knowledge of how to maintain land only increases over time. The insistence of the eugenic creed is that knowledge is proprietary and can be destroyed—vaporized—by the use of repeated and Absolute torture.
The malice is entirely and thoroughly human. Nothing in nature, the world, or rationality itself "requires" the sadism on display. That is what the current crop of "MAGA" retards cannot stand. The computer, programmed by human beings who had some aim that was productive, did not spit out the output that was desired for the death cult. If you feed a computer garbage input, it will produce garbage output. The right and true inputs, verified many times over by human sense, made clear that all of the starvation plans, forced lying, and the use of torture to recapitulate the power of Lie at the center of the eugenic creed, were wholly unnecessary impositions, costly, and most of all, the Great Lie didn't work to shape reality the way its theory insisted it "must work". We can run the numbers ad nauseum through any reasonable algorithm that is reproducible by human sense, and we will come to the same conclusion. There is no "Malthusian crisis!" There never was!