[syndicate] \\

[0f0003 | maschinenkunst]

"Dmytri Kleiner" <dk at telekommunisten.net>

 >>> Whith this drivel, all you are proving is you are unable to see  
or understand anything else other than "plastik / fashion /facade",
 >
 >> Is there anything else behind your capitalist government financed  
drivel +?
 >
 > Well, I haven't posted any pretentious android talk to any art  
mailing lists,
 > so obviously, nothing that you would understand, no.
 >
 > Also, for three messages in a row you haven't noticed that I don't  
much care what you think of me, but rather the arguments that I make,  
which
you
 > are plainly unable to comment on.


As you can see no1 really cares about ur komunist kapitalist drivel  -.o
but since you might have a valid point or two
let's rock



 > I'm flattered you think I'm fashionable.

Da. I hope ur fashionable more in the east european proletariat sense
than the occident media artist sense - the latter is a portly  
disgrace and offense to the f.universe.



 > As a middle-aged, out of shape,

that's very occidental


 >software developer with a fairly pedestrian
 > wardrobe and penchant for talking about boring technical topics  
like information
 > technology and political economy, I'm not often accused of wanting  
to be the belle of the ball.

Well - get used to it. I might even call u a korporat fascist shortly.
So long as you partake in the sachrine coated government financed  
carnival.

Although it looks like u just suffer from the usual 'software  
developer' view of the universe
that needs some watering.



 > I admit, it would be better if somebody other than a blathering
 > wannnabe robot like yourself though I was fashionable, but I'll
 > take what I can get.

If u repeat those robot compliments in person u might also get a  
complimentary plastic resurfacing balkan style.
juzzzzzt 4 u. kidding - sometimes.




 > Drinks on me

Ok. Now, lets see - Try growing the ingredients + making the drinks  
urself,
then u kan say drinks on me. Until then it's just money on u.

U c in communism** + capitalism = no one makes a f.thing 4 themselves  
or people they know
because it is no longer viable. It is easier to buy this + that. It  
is easier to let others speak,
feed, entertain, and m9ndfukc you. Ubiqutous prostitution.

Forget Proletarians of the world unite.
The modern refrain = Prostitutes of the World Unite!


** - the communist state did try it, yet it largely failed. But  
capitalism is accomplishing what communism failed to,
ie. make unprostituted labor unaffordable except to the wealthy.



 >when the "capitalist government financed" cheque arrives, In the  
meantime Telekommunisten will continue to support ourselves
through
 > software development and operating self-financed Internet &  
Telephone services.


Good.

And since you seem comitted to posting more than just announcements  
on Syndicate
it's all just lvvvvvly.




 >>> If Venture Communism is unappealing to you, can you name a  
project that
 >>> enagages with class struggle,  that you do find interesting?
 >
 >> Why 'project' / fashion / facade +?
 >
 > If on-line translation technology had advanced to the point of being
able
 > to parse gibberish, I would happily respond to that.


Why 'project' / fashion / facade +?

Why not the countless life forms who struggle against all odds
and raise children without a plan nor grant, without some bs formal  
manifesto,
without higher order knowledge, without an uniform, without a cv,  
without a job title,
and in some instannces without a name.

How about some old life forms that still smile as children
and have real stories to tell over some home made (just 4 u) culinary  
delights
+ heavenly perfumed spirits,  not some out of context bs one saw on  
tv, a book, or the net.



 > Instead, I will simply understand the obvious, you are unable to  
endorse anything other than yourself,

I endorse the unpronounceable since nothing else is worth pronouncing.



 >because you are lacking conviction even in your own beliefs, and  
thus have no means of engaging positively with anything,
 >thus no prescriptive or even coherently critical comments are  
possible from you, only posturing.

Applicable to ur lovely self don't u think




 >> Maybe you pull up your insecurity sensitivity and narcassistic bs  
+ elaborate your political economy beyond 2bit catch phrases.
 >
 > Here is a good starting point: political power is an extension of  
economic power, thus political change can only follow, and never  
precede a change in the mode of production.

Agreed.





 > more:
 >
 > http://www.telekommunisten.net/venture-communism
 >
 > Your catch phrases are not even worth two bits, as you make no
 > reference to any arguments I make, you only express how painfully  
insecure I make you feel by being so much more fashionable than you,  
which I'll admit is sad if true.

What is there 2 b said about 2bit etoy catch frasez - venture-communism.

Re: web page - some of it is ok, but overall it's not a sustainable  
direction.
I'll go into details rmaybe. The principal issues are stated through  
out this email however.




 >> Now, what part of - both communism and capitalism are non  
sustainable political economic systems [that similarly degrade  
existence] do you dispute +?
 >
 > You plainly have no clue what the terms even mean, nor has your  
attitude given me any reason to believe you are interested in knowing.

You seem think that pseudo-specialist terms are unassailable by the  
lay man.

But Ur grandmother's grandmother who did 4 grades understood as much  
or more than  u.

Much as modern production obfuscates reality so pseudo-specialist  
terms obfuscate reality.
Behind these  seemingly complex terms are common sense events any one  
can comprehend.
In fact, a peasant with no formal education is more enterprising than  
some clown with an arsenal of specialist knowledge.

'withholding the instruments of production from labour' - that is  
precisely what specialization does (ditto for specialist terms).
And specialization is integral to both communism and capitalism. In  
other words, neither can exist without legalized prostitution.
Taken to their logical conclusion ud entail that one maximizes one's  
investment in everything inclusive, one's parents, relatives,
husband/wife, children, friends, everything. Everything is  
desacralized, accounted for, and employed.

As in Alphaville:

Why does everyone look so sad here?
Because they lack electricity, of course.


---

There are no longer any worlds, only the fragments of a
shattered universe, an amorphous mass of myriad neutral places
in which the modern person drifts, governed and driven by the
obligations imposed by an advanced, technocratic democracy.





 > First of all you should learn the difference between a mode of
production
 > and a "political economic system," second the difference between  
"communism"
 > and a "communist" workers state.
 > "Capitalism" is a mode of production, in particular a mode of  
production where
 > state-back property owners are able to capture and accumulate  
surplus value
 > by withholding the instruments of production from labour.
 >
 > "Communism" is a theoretical society that is stateless and
property-less,

I'm not sure Proudhon agrees with that.


 > and
 > exists as an ideal within most, if not all, tendencies within  
socialist thought.


All common sense. If it matters to u I refer to it as socialism.




 > What you appear to mean by "Communism" is a "Communist" worker's  
state (which nobody
 > would say is Communism).


In fact everyone would say is communism.
Particularly those people that lived in it.

Get a time machine and go back to 1989 and enter that mob and  
proclaim urself a communist
and see what remains of u.

The LAW is not greater than its subject.



 >This "transitional" society is controversial
and
 > particular to certain tendencies.


Da. It prostitutes life as much as capitalism does.

As I said -  In fact show me one coherent, large scale sustainable  
system created by humans.
This is _the_ issue.



 > The "political economic system" I employ is basic Ricardian  
political economy,
 > since I'm a software developer and not Piero Sraffa, Nobuo Okishio  
nor Andrew Kliman, that is good enough for my purposes.

Why don't you quote your parents, grandparents, friends (thats what  
makes you you),
instead of life forms you don't know.



 > It is simply an analytical model, not a society, which is never
 > homogeneous,
 > nor conforms to any theoretical model or ideal.
 >
 > The map, as was famously said, is not the territory.

Agreed.

Now tell me about how things become real,
and how we pronounce the unpronounceable.



 > But I don't expect you to offer seriously discuss on any of this,  
just post
 > more
 > uninspired attempted derision.
 >
 >
 >> In fact show me one coherent, large scale sustainable system  
created by humans.
 >
 > What a pointless and shallow statement.


Think about it some more - or even better. Get ur components
up in the mountains of Romania or a country of ur choosing and
see what/who u find.



 > I wish you luck waiting for gods or space aliens to create a "large
scale
 > sustainable system" to your liking.


Humble we are and wait for the wise monarch
who will govern the chosen nation to all’s well-being.
The paradox of love and peace shall be dissolved.
from the unpublished Manifesto for an Utopia after Communism,
East Berlin, June 2004


check the balkan.os transmission ...

and ask ur better half how to pronounce the unpronounceable.

it's there ...






 > In the mean time, my goals are rather less grandiose.

That's the the point.

Am terminat cu lucrurile marete
si planurile de anvergura,
cu institutiile mari
si succesele de rasunet.

Sint de partea acelor forte
umane invizibile, iubitoare,
marunte, care lucreaza de la un
individ la altul, furisindu-se
prin cotloanele lumii ca
firisoarele de radacina,

sau ca incretiturile abia schitate
ale apei, care, daca li se ofera timpul
necesar, vor fisura si cele mai
dure monumente ale semetiei.