Return to Table of Contents | Next Chapter
What I hope to accomplish in this writing is an account of the history of political economy and the concept of a "mode of production" from the perspective of our class—the lowest class—which divorces from the conventional model of such as it is presented to our class. In the prior three books of this series, I have not laid out "the grand theory" or "the grand model", so much as I offered to the reader some way to speak of the subject matter, without conflation with other things or aspersions that have been the stock and trade of propagandists of the past century. As a rule, "total systems" or "grand narratives" are anathema to my purpose here, or any worthwhile understanding of history or any subject matter. This has been their chief function since this habit of tall tales began. I may be held guilty—guilty until proven innocent, as the law of the world is—of resembling this habit, by presumptively making claims in the prior two books about human society, without a model ready-made. What you will find here is not a "grand model" that purports to explain all, but the beginnings of how such a model could be constructed independently. Any model that could adequately describe the subject matter here or in the next three books of this series, would be an enormous undertaking, far beyond the ability of any one person to construct no matter how much time and resources they possessed. In the past two books, the economic and political respectively have been described as trans-historical ideas—that is, I have largely confined myself to the essence of both, or rather, what would even be the appropriate purview of either. This purview necessarily drags in systems which are not intrinsically related, such as moral philosophy, natural sciences, engineering, psychology, and so on, because I have given attention to human economics and human politics. Humans by no means have a monopoly on economics or politics, and one objective in writing the prior two books is to first generalize what it means to speak of economics and politics—both of which are distinct threads—and then in this book, to speak of history in the same fashion before proceeding to reconstruct "political economy" in some way for the reader's purposes. This is not a novel or scholarly understanding, but rather, a way for readers to approach the subject matter from our time and position, as those who are understandably hostile to the very concept.
Some care must be taken to better structure this book, compared to the others which followed the "essence" of the five castes or interests of life and knowledge I identified in the first book. I have utilized this not because the five-pointed icon is natural or "how things really are", but because it is a convenient framing device to explain the essence that a philosopher sees, and that aristocracy follows zealously in their stated ideology. The reality of aristocracy and the political class is that their existence relies on privileged information—not necessarily occulted in a sinister way, but still information that is with-held from the public, in the name of the public interest it claims. That information ultimately points to no such preferred class structure or analysis at all, but to interests which a class may claim as theirs. The struggle of classes is not between these idealized essences, but between the land-holders and the capitalists, the capitalists and the associations of labor, all against the lowest class who are marked with ritual shame, the free and elect against the slaves, and so on. Part of the difficulty of class analysis is that the new interests and institutions of the 20th century were truly a novel thing, which is the subject of the next book in this series. The greater difficulty is that the participants in this new institution proclaimed to each other their tyranny and took great pride in this accomplishment, and could do nothing else even in the best of cases.
I would like, at some point, to publish a supplemental to make clearer the "philosophical statements" of this writing. I am not a philosopher nor interested in such a field, but I believe that clearing up the often ambiguous and ranty language I have used for this polemic and invective would be helpful to readers. A full "system" of such would be a considerable undertaking, which is impossible within the walls of the institutions and will be attacked if it arises outside of it. Power laughs at truth, and this has been the credo of the present institutions to the bitter end.
As I finish writing this, I want to tell humanity—those who are reading, regardless of who or what you are—that none of us are consigned to these mechanisms, or any "laws of politics" that have been advanced as unbreakable holies of holies. I have shown a very disparaging view of economics and politics, but nothing about humanity was consigned to do politics this one way which clearly hasn't worked for most people, and doesn't give its victors what it really promised. Humanity is not consigned to "laws of history" stated dogmatically. The reality has always been that history does not have laws as such—not laws of any code made by man, nor laws of nature or science which assert the fate of the world as things to be pushed and cajoled by people who should have known better. The great question then is how it could be different—certainly that has been a question for my life that I wracked my brain thinking on for so long, and still do. I will never stop wracking my brain about this, as it is my obsession. To better think of how anything in humanity can be different—for good or for ill—we would have to better understand what this has been for the past century, and how history can be understood for what it can teach us. By no means is this confined to "political history" or a "peoples' history", or something preferred for my purposes. History as a concept is not limited to some hobby horses, and part of my hope with this book is to place our reading of history and "theory" on a footing that is compatible with the world we live in during this time.
There is another project I hope to start—a way to systematize knowledge and learning in a way which can bypass educational lockouts, or better yet, replicate what education might have taught but which has been denied to the vast majority of humanity by diktat. Despite my low opinion of education, I do not believe "abolishing education" or "abolishing school" is a worthwhile goal for its own sake, or that something as foul as "school" has no right to exist or serves no purpose. There is no education that will be "nice" or feel good to pass through, nor an education that will spare fools. Encouraging foolishness certainly did me no favors. Because humanity's pedagogues cannot do better, it will fall on those strange spirits among us who see another way to attain the goals education would have sought if humanity weren't given over to this eugenist screeching and its forebears, and didn't assign to it this value that overpowers any other judgement humans would make in the niche they arose in. This cannot be for everyone, for the drive to answer these questions or attain anything is not universal among humanity, nor should that expectation be made. Many of humanity are perfectly happy with a simple life, and will not be pushed into being what they are not, let alone molded by these insane and maladaptive approaches I saw during the 1990s. A simple life is not a reduced or miserable life. Some of the most aware and insightful people are those who are detached enough from this mania to retain some of that decency that institutions tear to shreds if it is detected. This is hardly a rule, and far more of the simple folk are just as nasty as those who occupy the middling and lower rungs of institutions. But, the knowledge a human may want out of this life does not need to correspond to some "grand mission", and frankly, the grand missions given to humanity are so detestable that not doing that would have been better, if we lived through a different history. Perhaps some day, I will be able to write more about this or pursue the objective myself, with some examples of what could be different. Obviously "home school" is a lost cause thanks to all of the Germanic insinuation and monopolization of it. The main purpose of education is to mark down who is consigned to special education, and once that starts, the home school culture exemplifies the worst bigotries and is intended to do so—a kick in the teeth to remind us "once retarded, ALWAYS retarded". It is typical of Germanic culture to pervert and reverse something that might have offered some escape from their ruinous institution.
—"eugenics-kun"
July 2024
There is in describing the models a three-part cycle that is exploitable, and it is peculiar to technology rather than knowledge proper or "science" or "philosophy". Where does metaphysics begin for human beings? It does not begin as idle chatter or an honest spiritual inquiry, but exists for a much more basic purpose. In all of the ways that technology affects anything or can be described, it is a system. What is a system at heart, but metaphysical information which we hold to be real and substantive as what we intend it to be? I say here that "intent" is important, rather than the facts of the situation, or how language expresses the intent of the technology. That is, at a basic level—a koan known in many university departments today—"the purpose of a system is what it does". Doing is ultimately accomplished not by technology in-of-itself, but by its laborious existence or as something regarded as a force in the world without regard to "the tech". But, all of the ways a system is understood is not by pre-established factoids to legalistically declare what the system "does", but by what we hold it actually does. For this purpose, form and function are one and the same. The system that is a piece of technology has the form that it does because something it does, and some function expected of it that is realized, made it into the form we regard it as. This is at heart a metaphysical construction of the technology—the tool, the thing, the system—that is in some sense superimposed on the world that actually exists, which did not require or necessitate any "system" or "theory" that suits our aims. Technology is in all ways an artifice of some sort, whether the artificer is human or something in nature. The further elaboration on this is within the bounds of the next chapter. Before technology can be described as a realized fact, it first exists for us as this metaphysical construct. This is not the same as "idea" or "fantasy" or a mockup we might believe. It is rather to say that every system or technology we will ever work with will first be handled as this metaphysical system by reason and intelligence. Intelligence itself is such a system with limited potentials, however varied they may be, and it is never a "black box" as cajolers and charlatans insinuate. Intelligence and technology do not mean or possess any of the superstitious qualiies often attributed to them by said cajolers, or anything close to that. Where superstition is transformed into a technological device, as it can be, this is always understood to be a working of a particular category of knowledge which must be studied with its peculiar science—the knowledge of the evil, or religion, which is also understood to us as a type of technology when we grasp it. So too is any body of knowledge or theory of knowledge for us, with the full understanding that anything about us has no bearing whatsoever on a world that largely went on without us, including our own bodies which are at odds with the conceit of self such cajolers invoke as their superstition.
The metaphysical description of systems is inadequate for any worthwhile description of the world or genuine knowledge. The metaphysical description is a necessary and primary step for technology and only for technology. For all technological implements, there is no primary theology or superstition regarding the world that is necessary. Technology, and the intelligence which operates with it, is a world of its own, and in the first instance, no superstition or theology regarding something highly advanced can be operative at all. Metaphysics at its most basic is more "concrete" or "base" than the matter of the world we live in, and has to be so. It is the naive assumption human beings must operate with, before establishing proper contact with the world and eliminating the biases of society. Institutions, being what they are, are locked into this thinking, but lack any of the faculties an actual human being or any genuine knowledge would use to navigate this metaphysical mockup.
For these metaphysical systems to be anything other than arbitrary utterances, they are not merely compared with other systems or an imagined worldly "God" which is itself a system much like any other technology. One need not invoke any deity at all to speak of the temporal, worldly realm which is greater than mere technology. The transcendent information that is part of knowing anything beyond "it exists" does not exist as any system or a hobgoblin. Here, the faculty of intelligence and "pure knowledge" betrays the human being, because in our mockups of the world, "the transcendent" is necessarily stored as some information in some system set aside for the task. All of our knowledge of metaphysics, ontology, and "high knowledge" is reproduced for us in the only form it can be produced—as a routine within the brain. This transcendent knowledge has no claim to be the "kernel" or "core" of rationality or ourselves or anything about us. The real core of a human being is not the transcendent. Human beings certainly know of things which are transcendent, but no part of a human being is transcendent or can make such a claim that is not laughable and childish. The real core of human beings is very worldly, and human beings like any life-form exist in an environment. It is not so with metaphysical technology or the forms of systems we identify, which are always imagined as something apart from other systems or other forms. Nowhere in genuine knowledge can a system be conflated or "sublated" or subject to the sort of rank mystifications I have complained about at length in prior writings. Technology to be relevant does not change on its own accord by "spooky action". If the tool adjusts itself, there is a reason why. If a human being is fully intrepreted as technology rather than a human being, the same would apply. In that light, people never really change at all, nor are they really "beings" in the sense that would be invoked. There is no either-or or contradiction about it. Either a human being is construed as technology and thus affected by all laws of technology, or it is something more, and the technology that comprises a human being in incidental to what it really is or does. That is to say, human beings cease to be mere "systems" or treated in that manner if anyone is to speak of the same topic, and there is not ambiguity regarding this in any way.
The question of a "being" at all is possible because it is implied for a system to exist that there is a world it exists in, even if that world is an imagined plane of existence apart from every other realm of the world. But, "being" is not determined by philosophical navel-gazing or any inquiry that a human being asserts willfully. The human will is a piece of technology and nothing more—a technology with a particular purpose we value, but it has no "being" or "soul" simply by asserting "me wantee". It is, more appropriately, a confluence of many aspects of volition which require history for will to be operative. It is strange to me that the people who are most given over to "strength of will" deny any condition where a will of anything can actually exist. But, this is the Satanic ethos at work, which has shit up every psychological and spiritual concept, loudly and proudly. Anyone who goes along with the most reactionary German ideology is an idiot. I would think they would be ashamed of themselves like Nietzsche the sniveling and crying syphilitic craven, but such people are the last to know of any shame, and expecting that to change is beyond a waste of time. It is also deliberate and inherent in their execrable culture and the assholes it spawns.
What does it mean for something to be rather than simply exist? Only when history is understood as what it truly is will that be sensical. The true temporal understanding is not understood as a series of instants or moments or "ideas frozen in time", nor a contiguous form in space-time or any such construct. That is the understanding developed in the early chapters of this book—how metaphysical concepts of technology are realized in actual beings, whether they are human, merely living, inanimate, or abstract. This is not a purely "historical" understanding, which locks the object in a historical framework or story which subjugates it to anything whatsoever. It is instead an understanding we would possess and must possess of anything that is deemed real or genuine knowledge. It is not an understanding we will ever possess in purified, pristine form. If you may recall the inquiry made in the first book of this series, you may predict the content of the inquiry to follow; but, that was a naive inquiry rooted in common sense. Before continuing, it is necessary to establish it as a formal rule of things generally, so that they can be placed in a historical context. It is there where a true "system" of political economy may be understood—and this "system" is only seen as such in a mockup, rather than it actually being a system in the way we expect a tool or technology to be a system. Technology conforms to the model because the purpose of the system was envisioned by its creator, or those who assessed a system as potential technology were clear from the outset when describing the thing they speak about. When we speak of a "particle" or "atom" in modern chemistry or physics, there is not great ambiguity about what is referred to, regardless of the linguistic anomaly of the "atom" describing something that is divisible in principle and in our description of what actually happens. When someone speaks of an "economic system", many vagaries are introduced—usually intentionally and with the deliberate aim of insulting the listener—unless they are specifically corrected, or the description of a "system" is left so vague and detached from its genuine existence, if any such entity even exists in form, that "the system" is meaningless for our purposes. The terminology of "systems" did not exist when Marx envisioned the concept of a "mode of production", and similar such groupings of economic understandings that are mashed up into one "thing", and the concept "mode of production" is left intentionally vague. It is one of my hopes to correct this oversight, and with it, place the concept of such a situation in its proper historical context. In doing so, a general description of economics regarding systems, rather than "the system", is possible. What this means is that economics in the fullest sense is, for human beings, a general theory of technology, rather than what it is often presumed to be involving finance, rituals, superstitions, natural science, biology, or other things which are not really economic categories. The political part of political economy remains what it always had been—the imperatives of political society, which operate for purposes that were never economic nor suggested to be so by anyone honest. Economics was always servile to the political situation and interests, rather than the other way around. The latter is a Germanic reversal of basic sense, and this would be the first of many abrogations of sense, the most egregious being the eugenic creed, which is the topic of the sixth book of this series.
In all of this, "the world" and transcendent realities we would have to abide about it—"rules of thumb" so to speak that allow a description of the world generally—remain apart from systems themselves, and are not intrinsically involved at any point of describing systems. This is instead understood superstitiously and theologically for us, because of the political situation we are always going to answer in one way or another, and because we hold that this situation is relevant to describe the world for our purposes, rather than any law of nature that compels or cajoles anything.
This "metaphysics-science/being-theology" cycle may be familiar, except that here, theology is at the end—since religion is a product of the world, rather than the other way around. By itself, the description of genuine knowledge and sense tells us not much more than a mechanistic model of the world, and in some ways tells us less. It opens a door for any aspersion to be made by anyone, or for institutions to jump in front and monopolize information, or for undue censorship which has been dominant in the civilizational project since it began. My view is that the genuine world we live in, rather than a metaphysical framework we use to understand it, is the object of inquiry, and theology is superstition. That superstition is necessary for us not because it has any causative agency, but because it grants to human beings, who have no "natural" reason to know anything or believe they have any purpose, direction that a dry recitation of facts would never supply. If we looked to nature's genuine state as our cause, we find many unfortunate truths which denude any objective we would have, even those we regard as self-evident or things easily knowable and reproducible. It is also necessary because human beings, and any knowledge, operates with less than complete information, short of omniscience of the fullest sort which I have held to be a rational impossibility. We use the theological superstition of a "guess" to fill in many blanks in our knowledge, and this is an opening for malevolence and also a tool that assists us in smelling bullshit. We can understand theology rationally as something which serves a purpose in the world, rather than merely a useful fiction of our imagination. None of this would require us to believe in any particular religion or reject it necessarily, but it would require us to regard that this is how humanity, for better or worse, actually does think—that humans are in the main spiritual animals rather than political animals or mechanical flotsam.
Which "came first" is clear—the world itself, which didn't need us to tell it what it is. But, this thinking really does not appreicate what history and temporality entail. History is in part what we reconstruct of it, and another part are the potentials that are inherent in the concept. To the world itself, the true occurrence of events is not relevant to any plan or teleology we read into it. The knowledge any of us possesses is in some way unstuck from any "cycle" or preferred ordering, and this is something which can be exploited when history is conflated with the world itself, or history is conflated with something which isn't really rational. It, like economics, politics, and science, has a proper purview, rather than "all that exists". The only thing with the purview to claim it can speak of all that exists is the world itself. All of the philosophy and metaphysics about knowledge are, in the end, theological constructs more than "the true science" or anything pointing to truth. What is relevant for history is that, once established, it is not a plaything of anything else, or subject to mystifications if it is to be a worthwhile understanding of history. The games humanity plays with limited information are circumvented by recognizing history as something more than an annals listing names and facts or a "total system" which really explains nothing but a preferred notion of what the world "ought" to be. If we regard history's potentials instead of a "grand narrative", we are better able to defend what we know and any truth we would want out of historical knowledge, even with limited information or a disadvantage of information against rivals. This thinking is equally applicable for those who would lie and cajole much as they have in the past—they would, and already do, operate on the principle that they can outsmart and occult against those they deem inferior. There is no power or justice in truth. But, it is a necessity, as the methods of cajoling that have prevailed in propaganda have clear victors intended beforehand, and can only end as one contributor to the fate I intend to write of more in the seventh book of this series.