[Nettime-ro] \\ zerkalo

[n2o@ggttctttat.com (0f0003 | maschinenkunst)]

>Salut!


Salut,


Iti raspund public.
In plus iti raspund in engleza.

These two things should clarify the issue - for
by responding publicly I am commodifying our rapport
and by responding in english I am increasing the efficiency
of the labor I am expending in answering you - more people
understand english than romanian and to express these ideas
in romanian would take me twice as long.



>Am si eu 2-3 intrebari si as aprecia daca mi-ai raspunde intr-un limbaj uzual,
>pe care sa il inteleg si eu:
>1. Ce este rau in a respecta pe cineva, a avea respect pentru cineva sau ceva?
>Pentru ca intelegu din faptul ca pui semnul de egalitate intre respect si
>fascism/comunism/capitalism pe care in mod evident le critici.


Depinde ce intelegem prin respect. I would say in most cases
it is used in rather formal situations. It is a form of politeness,
although in most cases not much thinking nor veritable sentiment
goes into saying "cu respect". It is a low electricity statement.

Secondly, because it is employed in more formal situations,
it is likely to involve asymmetrical relationships,
and thus it revolves around artificial classifications.
In other words, one does not address the human being per se,
but rather ones social status, image, etc.

And thus respect doesn't necessitate a mutual, reciprocal understanding,
but rather a prescribed modality of comportment -- it reinforces a hierarchy
without establishing and/or communicating a veritable sentiment.

It may be that 'respect' once upon a time did emanate from real affect
but its meaning has been hijacked.

In conclusion respect in most cases is born out of an order/rule.
It is imposed from above rather than from communication.

While I may respect no one, I admire people.



>2. Daca dezavuezi atat fascismul, comunismul precum si capitalismul,
>care este sistemul social-politic pe care l-ai promova/dori?
>Ceva mai vechi, feudalism sau sclavagism sau unul viitor, care inca nu a fost
>definit?


fascismul, comunismul si capitalismul au radacini comune.

Capitalism is corporate fascism.
And communism is asexual capitalism.


(Re: asexual

the communist State fails where a woman succeeds.
It prescribes dacia's + trabant's whilst males desire Ferrari.
But women routinely convert that Ferrari into a Volvo.

the communist State prescribes devotion + altruism.
It advocates the Party whilst males want a party.
But women routinely convert the party into responsibility/fatherhood.

Our dear capitalist scientists have 'discovered' that,
a sexual population succumbs to asexual invasion when it can no longer
justify the two fold cost of males. This happens when a male cannot
consume more food + sex 'items' than other males, ie. inequality.
[ironically it is capitalistic societies which have declining populations]

Yet women, constantly convert the capitalistic tendencies of males,
into small scale socialism)


Fascism, capitalism + communism's roots are in mass production
which through the division of labor realize the so called 'progress' and
bright future,
whether it is 5 years from now or 5 min. from now/the next SALE.

While turning human beings from generalists to specialists
maximizes efficiency and order, it relegates pleasure/emotion (without it
nothing matters),
and commodifies life. The compartmentalization of life destroys its very
essence and meaningfulness.

Following the doctrines of fascism, capitalism + communism
one may as well hire the BEST, to (re)produce one's children.



Romanian communism is derided for destroying Romania,
but it accomplished in slow motion what capitalism
would have accomplished (and is presently) in faster motion.

It modernized a traditional society
through massive urbanization + industrialization,
which involves division of labor. (simultaneously, it attempted to deal with
the complex issue of providing a suitable environment for its inhabitants
whilst keeping its detractors at the periphery -- this is extremely non-trivial
as proved by its failure]

While fascism, capitalism + communism all depend on mass production,
the methodology of control differs. And therein lies the genius of capitalism.

While fascism + communism destroyed people's lives, capitalism has enabled the
people to feel that they can destroy their own lives -- one can feel that
they have a choice
in the process.

While fascism and communism centralized control and created an atmosphere
of us against them -- internal/external, capitalism makes war pervasive and
ubiquitous.
The enemy is everywhere (vrei si tu) and dressed in attractive, sexi garments.
The distinction between enemy + friend = null + void.
The distinction between real + synthetic = null + void. (McDonalds is
edible makeup ... and desirable)
No readily available (Party) target to blame for one's horrible life.
Suddenly it is YOUR responsibility -- although naturally one does not exist
in a vacuum.


While fascism + communism (and women on a small scale) metamorphose and channel
one's egotistical desires and predilections towards a mutually beneficial,
reciprocal objective, capitalism aims 'lower' -- it does away with
the intricate and complex objectives and puts YOU first.

SEX PLEASZ !!

Capitalism/western democracy invites you to PLEASURE. pure + selfish
pleasure \ sex
whilst dictating human rights \ love.

Incidentally a film about the .ro 'revolution' concluded
with a 27 year old romanian crying (literally): "(ceausescu),
nu ne-a lasat sa ne distram. Stingea lumina la 6, nu puteam
sa ne ducem si noi la un disco. Nu ne-a lasat sa ne distram".

Ironically, capitalism/western democracy only creates the impression of
pleasure and individuality.
The most advanced capitalist society, the USA, has accomplished a level
of homogenization and disindividualization of society that Ceausescu/the
communists/the fascists
could only dream of. If Hitler and Ceausescu were presiding over the
current US population
they would be merry and bright for centuries to come.

Therein lies the genius of capitalism - it has commodified pleasure and
individuality.
It has made prostitution + employment a desirable thing.



-- Lumières d'ete


The last sequence of Max Ophul's Lola Montes (1955) depicts the final
attraction of a circus act
(let us joyfully entitle it the '15 minutes reality'):
a long line of well-dressed, well-behaved men wait their turn to kiss, for
the sum of one dollar,
the hand of the notorious courtesan whose love life almost ignited a
revolution. To encourage the crowd,
the ringmaster murmurs 'Payez-vous un peu de plaisir! Payez-vous un peu de
plaisir!'

The group deliberately resembles a queue of spectators waiting to enter a
cinema [artificiality],
per chance to purchase themselves un peu de plaisir / a little pleasure.






>3. Sau doresti anarhie, lipsa toatala a oricarui sistem?

Anarchists advocated a mutually established order, not based on respect
but understanding. They advocated small communities where human beings
were not relegated to abstractions. Thus, I would say anarchists
advocated a society far more orderly and genuine than fascists, communists
+ capitalists.


>care este sistemul social-politic pe care l-ai promova/dori?

Nu este un 'sistem'. Pe scala mica exista de mult.
Pe scala mare ... this is what several men have tried throughout history
... even God came to be this way.  They have failed. But ...
desire when truly vital refuses itself nothing.

Thing is - to desire the implementation of something on a large scale one
requires ambition.
But ambition is the very obstacle ...

Thing is o2 ... implementation is not the solution.
It must be grown. that isn't a system. it isn't a 5 year plan.
(the genome does not exist in a vacuum)

No system has been able to devise an implementation\a plan to raise a child
into a complete human being.
It happens _exclusively_ at the small scale -- and thus all large scale
systems exploit small scale systems.


Note the western/democratic presidential time limits (more like sex - nema
problema bebe).
Given what happened to Ceausescu after 30+ years (more like marriage),
what do you think would happen to Bush after 30 years -- and Ceausescu
eradicated Romania's debt. Bush is creating multi-generational
m9ndfukc-debt globally, not only in the US.



>Cu respect



Cu placere













-



                               SSUKc_IT+C \+\


                                                        | | konsistency =
dze limit ov slavery



                                        ||
                                      ||9||
[p-un_kT-pr_o-T?k_oL] Ø f Ø Ø Ø 3       ||
                 herausgegeben vøm !nternat!onalen
!nst!tut f:ur ordnung |+| d!sz!pl!n
       : / / www.tagueulebabacloanta.tm


_______________________________________________
Nettime-ro mailing list
Nettime-ro@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-ro
-->
arhiva: http://amsterdam.nettime.org/