Ejecting and Injecting Pronouns in Capitalism. Drunken Risibility.

10sncu1zw-pqy-4gdqe7yxw

I want to de-agentify myself. It is not ‘you’, or ‘I’, or ‘me’. It is the questioning of such pronouns. And why are they required at all. As I have always maintained, agencies would disappear in capitalism. And when we have capitalism everywhere, we would cease to be “we”. “We” would become part of the “IT”. And this is emancipation of the highest order. Teleology would be replaced by Eschatology. Alienation would be replaced with emancipation. Teleology is alienating, whereas eschatology is emancipating. Agency would become un-agency. An emancipation from alienation, from being, into the arms of becoming, for the former is a mere snapshot of the illusory order, whereas the latter is a continuum of fluidity, the fluid dynamics of deracinated from the illusory order. The “IT” is pure and brute materialism, the cosmic unfoldings beyond our understanding and importantly mirrored in on the terrestrial. “IT” is not to be realized. “It” is what engulfs us, kills us, and in the process emancipates us from alienation. “IT” is “Realism”, a philosophy without “we”, Capitalism’s excessive power. “IT” enslaves “us” to the point of us losing any identification. Capital is the fluidity of encampment. Ideologizing it is capitalism. This fluid is hotter than molten lava and colder than ice-caps. This fluidity does not believe in layers, and to that extent is democratic. Capital is the flow of desires/passions/reasons that criss-cross with the material that go on to build them. Capital is abstract only as far as speculations are concrete. Both morph into each other.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Ejecting and Injecting Pronouns in Capitalism. Drunken Risibility.

  1. Hi, Himanshu. Now after deluge of Mathematical Theorems finally you posted something which “I think” I understood. You are talking about the brute, crude “reality” of Capitalism that strips us of our comfortable, to put in your words “illusionary” existence as “I” or “You” or “We” and makes us stand naked as part of “It”, or again to put it in your language transformation(forced, I should say?) from being to becoming a part of “It”. The “We” part I understand as what they call primordial relationships. You have also used the word “Democratic” which I think I agree with as Marxists, we believe even a Capitalist is alienated in the process of accumulation and expansion of Capital. Of course, that is why we believe the emancipators, though not in the sense you meant it here, have the double responsibility of emancipating the Capitalist while emancipating herself(using it here in gender-neutral sense). However, this post smacks of determinism and we are helpless being in this “Great Transformation”. In one way Marxists believe in linear ascendancy of Consciousness where consciousness sharpens itself proportionally with exploitation. However, I cannot agree with that and it had been proved with Fascism that consciousness has many stratum and proletarian consciousnesses need not be the only consciousness, and in fact I doubt if that exist at all in such a fractured society, where the primordial relations everywhere are ruling the roost. However, I believe, it cannot be construed as inevitable and struggle to transform from this asphyxiating becoming to deliberative being as “I” which can and should exist comfortably side by side with becoming a part of “We”. The last two lines can be explained further, I believe.

  2. Thanks Rohith for this provocation. Though, I agree largely with you on the Fromm angle of consciousness as linear and directly proportional to exploitation as one of the strands of Marxian thinking, the non-linearity creeps up from epistemology on the technological side, with, something like, say Moore’s Law, where ascension of conscious thought is or could be likened to exponentials. Now, these exponentials are potent in ridding of the pronouns, as in the “I” having a compossibility with the “We”, for if these aren’t gotten rid of, there is asphyxiation in continuing with them, an effort, an energy expendable into the vestiges of waste, before Capitalism comes sweeping in over such deliberately pronounced islands of pronouns. This is where the sweep is of the “IT”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s