I brought up that action comes before meaning. Would a period's form of communism-becoming exist as a meme so that people could aim specifically for communism at some point instead of giving into pressures from the state and political groups? So an attempt at communism-becoming in the present can create the model of near future communism-becoming. Its becoming is an expression of social desires from unremarkable locations towards a common will in conflict with the capitalism and not the actions for potential rulers (Obamania!) or a desperate few? Or is its becoming the very meaning necessary for communism to exist...communism is always the social form created in reaction to capitalist contradictions, when a social form is created? – HPwombatSome questions:
What does this mean, "meaning"? Isn't meaning just the interpretation of action useful to sportswriters? Is it "sense" for the materialist, the recognition of the unique which is in turn an acknowledgement of difference? An index to a larger category for the botanist, a larger space for the cartographer? If not just referent or interpretation, can it be the object of goal-directed behavior? If meaning is only its subject, that is, theory underlying and therefore antedating practice, aren't we transformed into weathermen, or perhaps lab rats wagering on which scientist in a white coat completes the maze first or pushes the button which doesn't deliver a fatal dose of electricity? Is meaning the means, the end or the becoming between them? Or are meaning and object, action or objective merely the backsides of each other, seen by an uninvolved (that is to say, objective) third party, as if watching a play? Is the distinction only a mystified abstraction from praxis, taken from today and imposed on future generations to insure we are correct, that we are on the right path? The self-fulfilling prophecy? My current favorite: "meaning is only derived from mixing metaphors, carefully but vigorously shaken, not stirred." Only metaphors illustrate connection and flow - movement beyond mundane grammatical 'sense' and the dry syntax of information systems.
It was once said Anthropology is comparison or it is know nothing. Meaning is the source, path, derivation and destination of comparable processes and should not be confused with truth. Always confined in the territory of theory, meaning only posits patterns which move. Is this movement the same idea as the Greek "flux" before Socrates, Plato & Aristotle thought it out of existence? Circulation? An "intimate order"? Meaning burried just beneath consciousness, its atom, on the analogy of genes, called "meme" & transmitted to the next generation completely unawares? Is there wind-blown or bull-dozed dirt covering (meaningful) ancient encampments?
The hydraulic theory: Isn't capitalism, as the latest avant-garde of civilisation, just an ever new and improved cork in one pipe diverting circulation away from us, leaving dank misery and rust? We, left behind, are to survive in stagnant waters if we can't find a channel upward and outward to flow with the elite? By hook or by crook! Rock-n-roll stardom, a stretch limo headed for the senior prom, a yuppie house with an apartment over a detached garage used to store our things we do not remember owning, but still feel too important to abandon to make room for a family in need of shelter? And then we replace the cork behind us, roll over and go back to sleep. History is a progressive process of cultural amnesia. If one has acheived the american dream, doesn't that mean one is living in a dream world?
For the cartographer: Is movement a path being travelled, but without destination? A Red Path my Indian friends speak of, the path of Taoism, of Hindu "truth", Deleuze' and Battaille's nomadism, the track of "righteousness" Job was riding before god-the-tempter tried to derail him with the misery of an imposed order – ethics, law & morality from without? Spiritual education – finally accomplished with Moses! This attained, managed truth leads us down many deaden(e)d roads. Did we decadently fall or just take a different turn? Life is left behind, but life moves, nevertheless.
Communism becoming: "is its becoming the very meaning necessary for communism to exist...communism is always the social form created in reaction to capitalist contradictions, when a social form is created?" What if this sentiment were turned inside out? "Capitalist social form is always the set of contradictions (the confusion of unresolvable binary oppositions) created in reaction to the intimate, (communist) order" making capitalist meaning the virulent and cancerous meme eating away at the human body by injecting it with organs?1 Like our machines, we must be organised! There are springs which need winding. Take care you do not succumb to a bug and sneeze to death. We must be civilised! Is surgery indicated?
We cannot just let being be; there must be agency. The machine model of the universe suggests that man makes his machines in his own image and likeness just as he was made by King Organ (aka Thug the first), the bearded fatherly fellow living in the sky and pulling the strings of natural selection. The reverse of this is that man makes the maker in his own image, and the machine itself is only a mimicing doll, a toy simulation of the most its maker can imagine, that this represents man's supremacy, not his limit, that he has as a prize for ingenuity, won the right to impose his own order on all else. But the world is not machinic, machines only pretend worldliness. Machines now make each other. Could a machine come to make a man who, unlike Ponicchio, would search out the Blue Fairy, wishing to become a machine? Have our machines already done this?
Political machines: An automaton is a Deleuzian organism, otherwise known as a specialized machine or a component therein. If this is so [and we are not all automatons – are any of us actually; do automatons dream, or is that something intrinsic to being itself?], how do we assemble, create, design, implement something which is already present? This is the historical function of the historical party. The Agency. Shouldn't we rather get out our trowels and tooth-brushes and proceed to excavate? To remove the dirt and filth in order to expose prescious artifacts?
Just what is "communism"? Is the "meme" an invariant virus and as we track its movement (epidemiology), we witness an on-going infection? Or is it an archetype, a subdued cultural memory? Perhaps it's an instinct, a reflex action so many romantic theorists of human nature have described and mystified, which the young Marx tried to demystify and materialise with a 'scientific' approach? Even he succumbed to amnesia – he "matured" with old ideas of progress and Calvinist duty. Amnesia itself only forgets the questions. When confronted with the age old question, "What the fuck?", we tend to revert to older, stronger answers, programs, subroutines. We look to authority. Truth is always the leadership of the party.
The cure: Do historical parties try to halt one impending sickness while thinking themselves authors of another? Or is that the other way around, a cure, the result of much mixing and stirring in the back-room lab of The Peoples Revolutionary Pharmacy? Is communism something that can be erected like a 50 story bank building; is communism something done to us, or Of Us, By Us, For Us? That is how Dave Beck described government: "The government buys the people, force the people, and offs the people!" Or is communism rather Deleuze' body without organs, Battaile's intimate order, the red-letter christian's jesus? If communism doesn't include, entail, display anarchy, a lack of specialized organizers, managers and bureaucratic minions, is it not hypocrisy?
If we pull out the cork, clear the obstruction, break the dam so that the river can return to the sea, clear the rubble from the path, allow movement & circulation, of what use are architects and construction workers? Should we aspire for positions in maintenance, as janitors and plumbers instead? In other words, what's to create when the water is already flowing? Bordiga said the revolution doesn't create communism but removes the obstacles which impede its movement.
What is it that flows? Gifts? Is freedom an unobstructed path, an un-dammed river? What are we talking about?
The historic party's meme is an abstraction that follows what is perceived to be real attempts at communism. So the historic party is insignificant to the real attempts in the grand scheme of things. Individual meaning, however, will find an interpretation for the intention of their actions, thus a mass acceptance of bourgeois ideology to reflect their actions which is compliance with bourgeois order. The real movement will be receptive to ideologies that are hostile to bourgeois order when their actions are already expressing that hostility. The historic party will become relevant when the real movement needs an interpretation that expresses its intention to break with bourgeois order. What is the relevance of catalysts? Catalysts create a memory of interpretation that SHALL BE re-interpreted for the real movement when the catalyst is associated with the actions of the real movement. The history of catalysts will be appropriated as part of the history of the real movement and it's catalysts will define its behavior.
Not all catalysts are the same, some are consequences, some are exceptional material forces, some are individual behaviors, some are the wrong side of the bed, some are hangovers and hurt feelings, some are stubbed toes and spilled milk, some are ugly commercials and billboards, some are 4 day coke binges, some are good relationships and strong family ties, some are hugs before bed and tears during prayer. Ultimately the basis of the catalyst can be traced by individuals within the historic party to a creation by systematic problems with how society is dominated or other theory that expresses why people are acting against the system that pits them against the system. Some have an interpretation that exposes underclass compliance and the difficulty of individuals and excluded groups to accept this compliance, despite their exclusion.
What isn't a catalyst? The base exploitation that all proletarians face? – HPwombat
1Holistic medicine, for example, does not concentrate on parts but their relationships within the whole, that it is the whole as a functioning body (unit) which needs attention in health and healing. In fact, it also concerns our surroundings as part of the body's functioning. This big-picture approach causes much chagrin to the establishment M.D., a repair man (mechanic) who is only trained in cutting out or replacing parts like one would change the oil filter in a volkswagon, inserting synthesized fluids and compounds (almost all toxins of one sort or another) to replace or augment natural ones, has no training in nutrition or in social dynamics and other stress agents which impact health, largely because bio-tech corporations and pharmaceutical companies do not require such to make a profit. As a result, medical schools will only denounce holistic medicine until a profit potential is realized by their financial benefactors, much in the way all the small, independent organic farms supplying product have been purchased (leveraged out of existence) by the big corporate food giants. Only the label remains.