You are currently browsing the monthly archive for December 2009.

The Socialists: A Fraction of America Therein

This note announces the formation of a new political organization – The Socialists. The Socialists will be a political fraction for *individuals* who have con-trib-u-ted to the functional American economy and find themselves without additional “helpful advice” for those with a more properly *political* role in the present time. Broadly they agree with the principles of Marxist socialism, that transmission of the material facts of human history – which can never be surpassed, for it is an “addendum” to the governing principles of a society in a period which bars no “opening to the theological” or, must it be said, “hold”. However, having – as many people have – received a *thorough grounding* in the principles of critical political thought over the years and across the centuries (as is “meet and proper” for American citizens) they have less to say about the “niceties” of contemporary communal life than may be supposed by others; and consequently, the organization will follow a program of “political abstentionism” where its members will exercise no *dirigente* control over the electorate through “party or class” organization – rather, instruct the populace generally (including its *externale* elements) through their thoughts and actions in a spirit of “helpfulness” rather than *camaraderie* properly spoken.

Mr Jeffrey Daniel Rubard, a “Democratic-Republican” and Labourite, *Politologe* and *litterateur* of some standing proposes this, but the point is intended to be *quite general* and “hive off” the pointed and “live” concerns of the American multitude from those with issues only to be raised in a Future Perfect, through contemplation of their *ever-green* and functionally unquestionable thoughts as regards sociocultural matters and aesthetics; *pace* Perelman, we care not how funds are allocated for *faits accompli* and can care little as regards the works of those with “so much to give” – and *perhaps* rightly so: for there is no more water in certain “wells”, H.G. Wells inclusive, the thoughts having been /completely absorbed/ in the traditional style of ‘subterranean’ American tradition; and thankfully, we ought to thankfully accept the /blessings/ of a *saison* in the American Republic without feeling compelled to “get up, get into it, and get involved” for those we cannot *effectively help*, perhaps against our “better judgment”. Having seen much [as is to be expected for an *ordinary* human being] we hold no brief *sic et non* difficulties for our selves, but we confidently expect you will be unable to “get past” our accomplishments except by achieving an unacceptable state of insanity – and something learned thereof will be. The organization can be joined simply by registering “The Socialists” on a registration card, and refraining from voting and electoral organization. Details to follow.


A thought to conclude, for the nonce: the chief philosopher of republicanism is Spinoza, he of ‘Basic Space’ guaranteed with a quickness and conclusions drawn there-from according to the “observables” of some physic of the human body *singulare et total*. “The noblest intellect”, sure: under his sign all kind o’ people can conquer, part-i-ci-pa-ting or not/and that proved a great deal, including that liberalisms *discret* y “pure” could be in a modern era *denudee* of Mandatory Signage: but that was, as per Montesquieu giving “everything and the world” qua organizational strategy a FAIL of “epic proportions” — not good enough for government work, as it is at a point and must continue. Enter Thomas Paine? Screaming, but…

The Socialist International, a *Derivat* not of the “state naturalism” of the Bolsheviki or Trotskyist enthusiasm for babies kicking daises, but rather of the “London Bureau” chiefly charact. by POUMistas punctuating explanations why the way everyone was living was wrong with truly necessary gunfire, finds its “solace” (such as the by-needs-privileged “enunciant” of a demand for social justice in any framework, cert. one where the demand to “Can a ‘Duh'” does not by needs stay implicit, apodictically needs rather little of) in the exemplum of a rather unlovely German Idealist: Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, not of Meyers but of a certain parlous state of “spech” properly considered. Instead of “virtue and reason”, Jacobi promulgated Glaube und Wissen; instead of Kant, Kant; instead of “Israelitism” as regards the common fonts of European values, something else.

And.why.not., since life is not “all at a point” and therefore the mind must needs be slight’l inconscient — the world *may* be a dance to the music of 3/4 time; the unknowable before you, the unsayable *before* you, and the un-hope-ab-le before you. But then, of course, there is the “what what” of the Lebenswelt; it tickles the fancy and perhaps the trousers, runs like a “red thread” of capital inna visuality clearly displayed, and “in than you more than you” probably coooooould be construed to feat. the genome of yo’ moms. Generally speaking, all is ‘nowt’ *right now* and nought in any particular case e’ventually: from whence consequences flow, including that the demand for “social justice” cannot, exactly, be a Crystal-Clear Attempt to Make the Poorer Man Understand on *any* understanding of what, exactlee, Idealism is About and Why (Not) to Talk that Way.

— For the sanity saver being *Existenz* for “anybody and everything”, no need for ‘static’ as regards the Proper Way that English, or another world language, is Wrote; or to promote the state of anything else *adventitious*; or of *difficiles* incoepit Leon Trotsky, of who’s told/that he was both “firm” and “bold”. Huh, and a bottle of bread/books already exhume the dead/why you/say that/interests me/not at all/News Flash.

Not: “You shoulda known”.

“Living Life Over Again.” DAVID BLUMENFELD. 2009; Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol 79 Issue 2