Catastrophe Capitalism

Catastrophe is bad for the Left, say these communists, so there’s at least something to look at there. They don’t make the connection to r/K politicial dynamics, but that’s probably linkage worth making. The #HRx criticism that capitalism goes off the rails by making people fat and happy has something to it as well. There’s a tragic structure there, which can get lost behind the obesity statistics. Capitalism works best as a general problem-solving protocol for tackling harsh reality.

Capitalism is, in any case, a positive catastrophe in the technical (Thom) sense.

The XS meta-political-economic proposal is capital autonomization, based on massive capital goods absorption of social surplus, in order to keep the monkeys sharp and hungry. It’s not an easy thing to pull-off politically, which is why exotic solutions of the Neocameral-type are so attractive. Constant Malthusian catastrophe requires a lot of upkeep, but there are a number of ways to get there. Crypto-cybernetic capital (at last) in power is one, but social / ecological collapse gets there by a negative route. The extreme challenge of the off-planet frontier (stripped of abundance delusions) would help to put it onto automatic.

December 1, 2015admin 14 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy


14 Responses to this entry

  • Catastrophe Capitalism | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on December 1st, 2015 at 3:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Says:

    This monkey business
    blows up the crab bucket
    tardigrading us onto platinum orbs
    hacks all our bio Mold-bugs
    all Left behind burned to a crispr
    Triump and we reach the Matrix edge
    and Bostrodamus says
    Kuan Yew so much
    It was almost Baghdadi


    John Reply:

    This poem was sponsored by Modafinil.


    SVErshov Reply:

    modafinil is for kids, Venlafaxine is where real pump coming from


    Posted on December 1st, 2015 at 4:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Skilluminati Says:

    Theodore Roszak in 1969:

    “What I have called “the counter culture” took shape between these two points [1946 and 1972] in time as a protest that was grounded paradoxically not in the failure, but in the success of a high industrial economy. It arose not out of misery but out of plenty; its role was to explore a new range of issues raised by an unprecedented increase in the standard of living. For a period of some twenty years the world’s most prosperous industrial society became an arena of raucous and challenging moral inquiry the likes of which we may never see again—at least not if those whose wealth, power, and authority are at stake have anything to say
    about it.

    Even more effective than its collaboration with Bible Belt reactionaries, however, has been the corporate community’s systematic repeal of the affluent society. Having seen what dreaded things result from fat paychecks and cultural permissiveness, business leaders have decided to rely on a blunter, more traditional weapon: economic insecurity. They have exported the jobs that once promised to make affluence possible for all and busted the unions that defended high wages. This is turning out to be a far more efficient form of social control than corporate largesse.

    Liberalism, whose goal was little more than to spread enough wealth from the top to the bottom of the corporate order to keep the system economically viable, has come to be seen as the “radical” extreme of the American political spectrum.

    As intimidatingly effective as the new Social Darwinist conservatism may be in the short run, it is a reckless and risky option. Corporate America is playing with psychological dynamite. The new global economic order is reneging on the only promise industrial society ever had to offer its working millions: that of eventual material abundance. As an end in itself that was never a noble ideal, but it was as much as the corporate establishment could imagine: a world built in its own image of grasping, competitive acquisition. But why will the millions work, obey, and bear the daily burdens once the hope of universal access to that high-consumption future has been taken away? An indefinite future of material insecurity makes for an ugly, demoralized people, and a dilapidating biosphere is the shortest path to a new dark age.”


    Posted on December 1st, 2015 at 4:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • TroperA Says:

    Roszak was either dishonest or delusional. Marxists were Marxisting over 100 years ago and Jacobins were “raucously challenging morals” long before that. What changed in the middle of the 20th Century was that the West had developed the level of prosperity and the resource glut necessary to allow the implementation of Progressive moonbattery without the system immediately collapsing as a result. Far from “collaborating with Bible Belt reactionaries”, the corporate world did its best to inject degeneracy and equalist rhetoric into the culture, knowing that a decadent, emotion-driven population obsessed with its own genitals would be easy to sell products (and politicians) to. The Corporations screwing over the average worker can be explained as a combination of graft, greed, and wanting to keep the Middle Class from becoming a spawn point for those who would challenge the System.


    Skilluminati Reply:

    Roszak was American. (So both, right?)


    Posted on December 2nd, 2015 at 8:41 am Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    Nick, have you ever been an Ayn Rand or James Clavell fan? Sometimes you sound like the Tai Pan kind of literature to me…

    (Some consider Clavell airport fiction, in which case this could sound like an insult. I have always considered these very good novels, so it isn’t.)


    admin Reply:

    Never read much of either, but I agree that I’d probably like both.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    King Rat is god-tier.


    Posted on December 2nd, 2015 at 11:30 am Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    BTW why is war ruled out? War on one hand satisfies part the monkey instinct and on the other hand could be eugenic. I am not advocating it amongst humans for basic ethical reasons, just thinking it will happen anyway.

    If you look at it from this angle… I have always suspected capitalism did not evolve as business-for-business, it evolved as business-for-war. For example, railroads won the Franco-Prussian war. And European railroads or coal mines had uniformed officers. When you see capitalism imitating the military, which is even true today in using terms like “the Chief Accountant is reporting to the Chief Finance Officer” which are 100% military terminology, you could suspect it is about business-for-war. Wasn’t the industrial revolution launched by a king finding bronze cannons too expensive and wanting better, and cheaper steel? Looks a lot like the “free market”, at least in Europe (US Frontier is a different story) was always about Uncle State jovially allowing you to manufacture clothes and not nationalizing your business and encouraging you to innovate and produce them cheaper because in wartime you will be ordered to produce uniforms anyway.

    I may not be 100% right about business-for-war but I think you can agree this is at least a potentially sane way to look at history. What would follow from this?


    Exfernal Reply:

    Modern war being eugenic? WMDs don’t discriminate. Elaborate, please.


    TheDividualist Reply:

    COULD be. WMDs are obviously not. It is generally the settings where officers are more likely to survive than grunts.


    Posted on December 2nd, 2015 at 11:43 am Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    Well, let’s see what mark citadel thinks, because if he doesn’t agree, you’re a moron and an entryist, so we should seek his counsel first before forming our own opinions about anything.


    Posted on December 2nd, 2015 at 1:12 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment