There is a specific aspect of Marx’s theory of capitalism that isn’t sufficiently emphasised. And that is Marx’s view that capital is an actual entity — a being with a mind of its own that op…
  • ikiru@lemmy.mlEnglish
    8·
    11 months ago

    This sounds really interesting and I’d like to read it.

    Just wondering, I’m not familiar with this site/writer, is it actually a well-formed thought or does it just get New Age, occult weird?

    • culpritus [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
      9·
      11 months ago

      It’s quite firmly marxist, just uses the occult as a basis for historical materialist analysis. Makes a compelling case for how the functions of religious concepts are embedded under the surface of the logic of capital etc.

      • ikiru@lemmy.mlEnglish
        8·
        11 months ago

        Cool, thanks! I’ll read it.

        I’m comfortable with all those themes personally, as I’m a very philosophically religious Leftist, but not every writer does them well.

        • emizeko [they/them]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
          9·
          11 months ago

          see also

          https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/#automatic-subject

          and

          Now your dreams will never again be so peaceful. You will see capital in your nights, like a nightmare, that presses you and threatens to crush you. With terrified eyes you will see it get fatter, like a monster with one hundred proboscises that feverishly search the pores of your body to suck your blood. And finally you will learn to assume its boundless and gigantic proportions, its appearance dark and terrible, with eyes and mouth of fire, morphing its suckers into enormous hopeful trumpets, within which you’ll see thousands of human beings disappear: men, women, children. Down your face will trickle the sweat of death, because your time, and that of your wife and your children will soon arrive. And your final moan will be drowned out by the happy sneering of the monster, glad with your state, so much richer, so much more inhumane.

          —Carlo Cafiero, Summary of Marx’s Capital (1879)

      • 1000mH [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        4·
        10 months ago

        Sure thing.

        Hegelian Contradiction and the Prime Numbers is broken into two parts.

        Part 1 attempts to explain the identity/unity/contradiction of Being and Nothing in Hegel’s logic by illustrating each aspect and their interactions using mathematical models. IIRC, Wright claims the harmonic oscillations he illustrates corroborate Hegel’s conception of Determinate Being.

        Part 2 expounds on the contradictory nature of prime numbers, namely their regular irregularity, and how an analysis of the primes reveals a similar conclusion as to part 1. This is also where he introduces the concept of Hegel Numbers – that’s whereabouts I became confused.

  • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    1·
    10 months ago

    I’ve had a bad taste in my mouth regarding Ian Wright since I read this paper also described on the same blog. I think he really screwed up his interpretation of Marx there, basically a neo-Ricardian reading that is the very source of the “mistake” he identified.

    I’ll take a look at this blog post though and comment if I have anything notable to write.