Tuesday, 24 April 2018

Varoufakis on the Communist Manifesto.

Politicial parties publish Manifestos and, sometimes, are elected on the basis of them. A number of Manifestos have had a profound, indeed revolutionary, effect on  contemporary events. Marx's Communist Manifesto had none. By contrast, Marx's economic theory did have a tremendous and lasting impact.

Varoufakis, with typical stupidity, believes the opposite.
For a manifesto to succeed, it must speak to our hearts like a poem while infecting the mind with images and ideas that are dazzlingly new.
A manifesto must have a conceptual tie to action in order to advance its objectives. A poem need not. 
By the time Varoufakis could read it, the Communist Manifesto was a hundred and thirty years old.  Communism itself was not 'dazzlingly new' but stupid, senile, shite as represented by the brain addled and deeply provincial regime in neighboring Albania.
It needs to open our eyes to the true causes of the bewildering, disturbing, exciting changes occurring around us, exposing the possibilities with which our current reality is pregnant.
In 1848 and 1968, it was possible for some young people to believe that some profound convulsion of a global sort was occurring.
This is not the case today. Obama has come and gone. No 'exciting changes' are in the offing for any save die-hard Trumpistas or deluded Brexiteers.
It should make us feel hopelessly inadequate for not having recognised these truths ourselves, and it must lift the curtain on the unsettling realisation that we have been acting as petty accomplices, reproducing a dead-end past. Lastly, it needs to have the power of a Beethoven symphony, urging us to become agents of a future that ends unnecessary mass suffering and to inspire humanity to realise its potential for authentic freedom.
Beethoven's symphonies had the power of a Beethoven symphony. They did't urge anybody to do anything to end unnecessary mass suffering. That's why the Nazis paired him with Wagner.

A manifesto should represent an 'unthought known'- something we'd often felt or heard in an incoherent or fragmentary fashion but which has now found its canonical, action guiding, expression.
No manifesto has better succeeded in doing all this than the one published in February 1848 at 46 Liverpool Street, London.
Really? Communism has inspired humanity to realise it potential for authentic freedom? That's what happened?
Commissioned by English revolutionaries, The Communist Manifesto (or the Manifesto of the Communist Party, as it was first published) was authored by two young Germans – Karl Marx, a 29-year-old philosopher with a taste for epicurean hedonism and Hegelian rationality, and Friedrich Engels, a 28-year-old heir to a Manchester mill.
Why is Varoufakis telling us such a stupid lie? English revolutionaries did not commission the Manifesto. The thing was wholly German. England was far more developed than Germany or even France. The English had even less respect for Europe than they do now. Only Julian Harney, among the Chartists gave Marx and Engels the time of day- but Marx's writing style proved not to be to the taste of the English. Harney himself emigrated to America. Marx did get some journalistic work from the American Herald Tribune. But, Marx was not a good writer- as the English judge such things. Still, he had a Doctorate and write a ponderous tome in a pedantic manner which claimed to prove, by some algebraic method, an entire theory of History.
By then, Marx had shaken off his Left Hegelian sehnsucht and was a genuine Ricardian with a Classical Labour theory of Value. Similarly, Engels was a genuine Fox hunting Manchester 'Radical'. He understood his trade. It was these bourgeois qualities which gave Marx and Engels a certain cachet, more particularly after the rise of Bismark's Germany and the humiliation of France.

Germany's success in new knowledge based industries and its repudiation of Free Trade is what made Marxism attractive. Had Germany declined in economic and military power, Marx would have had a diminishing currency. After all, when Bengal was still a source of fabulous wealth, Raja Ramohan Roy's writings could inspire Unitarians in America and even England.

Why would any one from Ireland or Spain or France or Germany want to listen to Varoufakis who fucked up the Greek economy? Greece is doing very badly- but then it was always behind Western Europe. Ireland and Spain are recovering- the latter has overtaken Italy- and Britain, of course, is out of the Union.

Still, in Varoufakis's vain little mind, he has been commissioned by the advanced countries who want to imitate a backward country which regressed under an idiot of a Finance Minister.
As a work of political literature, the manifesto remains unsurpassed.
A manifesto is supposed to have an immediate impact. It has a 'kairotic' aspect. It is 'timely'. Marx's manifesto had none. It was translated into English in 1850 but it wasn't till the 1880's that one can speak of an English Marxism with some political significance. But this had to do with the extension of the franchise and a decline in Britain's relative industrial position..
Its most infamous lines, including the opening one (“A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism”), have a Shakespearean quality. Like Hamlet confronted by the ghost of his slain father, the reader is compelled to wonder: “Should I conform to the prevailing order, suffering the slings and arrows of the outrageous fortune bestowed upon me by history’s irresistible forces? Or should I join these forces, taking up arms against the status quo and, by opposing it, usher in a brave new world?”
Is Varoufakis capable of writing a single sentence not fatal to his own cause? Hamlet screwed up right royally. Every reader knows this.
For Marx and Engels’ immediate readership, this was not an academic dilemma, debated in the salons of Europe.
Their immediate readership was tiny and wholly German. European salons, then as now, didn't debate 'academic dilemmas'. Impecunious pedagogues did.
1848 was 'the year History reached a turning point and failed to turn'. Nationalism was the Spectre haunting Europe- Irish Nationalism for England, Napoleonic idiocy for France, Prussianism for Germany, Poland for the Tzar, the Hungarians for the Hapsburgs, the Balkans for the Grand Turk.

The question was whether the Nationalist project would be realised by Liberals or Monarchists- the likes of Mazzini and Kossuth or Bismark and Cavour.
Their manifesto was a call to action, and heeding this spectre’s invocation often meant persecution, or, in some cases, lengthy imprisonment.Today, a similar dilemma faces young people: conform to an established order that is crumbling and incapable of reproducing itself, or oppose it, at considerable personal cost, in search of new ways of working, playing and living together? Even though communist parties have disappeared almost entirely from the political scene, the spirit of communism driving the manifesto is proving hard to silence.
WTF? Sclerotic Communist parties exist as do corrupt ex-Communist parties. Silence on their part would be strategic. It is when they talk that they repel young people.
To see beyond the horizon is any manifesto’s ambition. But to succeed as Marx and Engels did in accurately describing an era that would arrive a century-and-a-half in the future, as well as to analyse the contradictions and choices we face today, is truly astounding. In the late 1840s, capitalism was foundering, local, fragmented and timid.
Which is why Britian had turned into the greatest Empire the world had ever seen while France would prove, under Napoleon's nephew, to have become a paper tiger.
And yet Marx and Engels took one long look at it and foresaw our globalised, financialised, iron-clad, all-singing-all-dancing capitalism. This was the creature that came into being after 1991, at the very same moment the establishment was proclaiming the death of Marxism and the end of history.
Wow! Marx did not predict the end of Capitalism but its triumph! Thus, when Communism fell, this confirmed Marx as a true prophet! Can Varoufakis hear himself?

Henry George, not Marx, was the prophet of Globalisation's discontents. Rents, not Profits, were maldistributed because of localised hysteresis effects, not the logic of the Market.
Of course, the predictive failure of The Communist Manifesto has long been exaggerated. I remember how even leftwing economists in the early 1970s challenged the pivotal manifesto prediction that capital would “nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere”.
Capitalism had done that by 1914. China and Abyssinia were playing ball. Even Tibet had been penetrated. Incidentally, Communist regimes proved very bourgeois customers for MNCs. Soviet Union had been helped to electrify by G.E. Why? They paid their bills.
Drawing upon the sad reality of what were then called third world countries, they argued that capital had lost its fizz well before expanding beyond its “metropolis” in Europe, America and Japan.
Left wing economists say stupid things- because (a) they are economists and (b) they think an ostrich with its head in the sand can have a Left, or Right,  or up my Tail, wing which aint entirely Ornamental.

But, in the early Seventies, my memory is, they were saying 'Coca Cola will topple Third World democrats- as they toppled Allende- so as to enforce 'neo-colonialism'. Thus in India, we were forced to drink 'Campa Cola' coz otherwise some little shit with a Wharton degree, running the local bottling plant, would go and murder Madam Gandhi.

Empirically they were correct: European, US and Japanese multinational corporations operating in the “peripheries” of Africa, Asia and Latin America were confining themselves to the role of colonial resource extractors and failing to spread capitalism there.
Coca Cola sells Coca Cola. That's how it makes its money. No doubt mining sector MNCs extract raw materials but MNCs come in all flavour. Take Pepsi Cola. It hired Nixon after he lost to Kennedy to go around the globe getting poor countries to grant industrial licenses for the production of this particular brand of soft drink.

Multinationals wanted to penetrate each and every Developing country. Some let them do so- and, provided they didn't breed like bunnies, prospered. Others didn't and stayed shit.
Instead of imbuing these countries with capitalist development (drawing “all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation”), they argued that foreign capital was reproducing the development of underdevelopment in the third world.
What does 'the development of underdevelopment' mean? Consider a desert island. It is underdeveloped because no one lives there. This underdevelopment does not have to be 'developed' by anybody or any thing. It already exists.

Foreign capital may be afraid of expropriation and thus fail to 'develop' a given market. But that isn't its fault. Domestic capital too will be in flight from that market. Investment will occur only if its costs can be recovered and a profit can be made.
It was as if the manifesto had placed too much faith in capital’s ability to spread into every nook and cranny. Most economists, including those sympathetic to Marx, doubted the manifesto’s prediction that “exploitation of the world-market” would give “a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country”.
It would have been perfectly reasonable to think that Third World countries would favour autarkic policies so as to increase the power of the regime. Moreover, MNCs  had in fact persuaded National Intelligence Agencies to interfere in certain developing countries, so some Economists may well have believed that a political factor would militate against an economic process.
As it turned out, the manifesto was right, albeit belatedly. It would take the collapse of the Soviet Union and the insertion of two billion Chinese and Indian workers into the capitalist labour market for its prediction to be vindicated.
China and India abandoned Marxist Economic policies because they were so stupid even the stupidest voter suspected that something entirely corrupt and 'casteist' was going on behind the smokescreen they provided.
Thus Marx's stupidity- the idiocy of his second hand Economics- caused his prediction to be falsified. True, he'd said Capitalism would rise till Communism supplanted it. But he did not say Communism would be so stupid that its votaries would abandon it so Capitalism could rise again.
Indeed, for capital to globalise fully, the regimes that pledged allegiance to the manifesto had first to be torn asunder. Has history ever procured a more delicious irony?
Was the Chinese Communist Party 'torn asunder'? Nope. Nor was the Indian Left. Gorbachev, it is true, was so stupid as to surrender control of the Economy but though the Party died, the nomenklatura survived.
Anyone reading the manifesto today will be surprised to discover a picture of a world much like our own, teetering fearfully on the edge of technological innovation. In the manifesto’s time, it was the steam engine that posed the greatest challenge to the rhythms and routines of feudal life. The peasantry were swept into the cogs and wheels of this machinery and a new class of masters, the factory owners and the merchants, usurped the landed gentry’s control over society. Now, it is artificial intelligence and automation that loom as disruptive threats, promising to sweep away “all fixed, fast-frozen relations”.
The steam engine was a good thing. It freed peasants from the tyranny of feudal lords. Varoufakis is saying something similar is happening now. So, young people should welcome it. The gig economy will end the tyranny of feather bedded employment which has so enfeebled and unjustly enriched my generation.
“Constantly revolutionising … instruments of production,” the manifesto proclaims, transform “the whole relations of society”, bringing about “constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation”.
Absolutely! Soon there will be an app for couch surfing and another for blood and sperm and egg donation. There is no need for a Welfare state which will provide a social minimum in terms of housing and education and so on- nor of a 'paternalistic' employer- who will pay for vacations and paternity leave and pensions and so on.
For Marx and Engels, however, this disruption is to be celebrated. It acts as a catalyst for the final push humanity needs to do away with our remaining prejudices that underpin the great divide between those who own the machines and those who design, operate and work with them. “All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned,” they write in the manifesto of technology’s effect, “and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind”. By ruthlessly vaporising our preconceptions and false certainties, technological change is forcing us, kicking and screaming, to face up to how pathetic our relations with one another are.
Yup! The Bank of Mum & Dad will be securitized and sold off. When you try to hit up Granny for a loan, or a place to crash while recovering from exhaustion, you will be put through to a call centre in Uganda. Turns out Granny's interest in you now belongs to a Guatemalan syndicate. Thus you have to go kiss x number of old ladies suffering from dementia so as to get a mug of ovaltine and some biscuits and a smelly old sofa on which you can snatch some much needed sleep.


Today, we see this reckoning in millions of words, in print and online, used to debate globalisation’s discontents.
We see trillions of words, in print and online, used to debate Meghan Markle. Before that it was Pippa Middleton's bum. No body cares about globalisation. It is immigration they object to.
While celebrating how globalisation has shifted billions from abject poverty to relative poverty, venerable western newspapers, Hollywood personalities, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, bishops and even multibillionaire financiers all lament some of its less desirable ramifications: unbearable inequality, brazen greed, climate change, and the hijacking of our parliamentary democracies by bankers and the ultra-rich.
All of which would have happened anyway.
None of this should surprise a reader of the manifesto. “Society as a whole,” it argues, “is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other.”
This wasn't true in 1848 and it isn't true now.
As production is mechanised, and the profit margin of the machine-owners becomes our civilisation’s driving motive, society splits between non-working shareholders and non-owner wage-workers. As for the middle class, it is the dinosaur in the room, set for extinction.
Machine-owners don't matter. Realty does. Landlords vs Tenants is a possible syzygy. Machine owners aren't important because Manufacturing isn't important and, in any case, it is only in the Service Sector that increasing labour input by 'precariat' type contracting can yield 'surplus value'. It is true, the composition of the middle class is changing such that land-lords and some retired people have increased salience- but that would have happened anyway because of local, not global, rent-seeking behaviour causing irrational distortions.

Henry George, not Marx, is the true heir to Ricardo. Indeed, Communism was a subterfuge because everybody already had Rational Expectations of 'Ricardian Equivalence'. It's like people who support the regime in Venezuela or Mugabe-land. They pretend its about the reality of workers owning the means of production when actually its a cheesy game-show like 'Touch the Truck' with Dale Winton.

Wikipedia says-
 Jerry Middleton, 39, from Winchester, Hampshire, was the winner who managed to stay awake touching the vehicle for 81 hours 43 minutes and 31 seconds. He stated that he was going to sell the vehicle to fund a new political party.[2] Middleton stood at the 2001 General Election in the Kingston and Surbiton constituency, but gained only 54 votes of a turnout of 49,093.[3]
Was the guy a fucking Nazi to get so few votes? No. He was an 'Eco Warrior'.  A truck was the last thing he ought to have been touching.  Fuck, if he'd come out- in a suitably coded way- against dark skinned Iyengars moving in and stinking up the place with their sambars- I'd have campaigned for him. Iyengars must be confined to Zone 1 or 2 so I can drop in on them claiming to be a distant relative and nosh down on some proper 'thaligai'.

At the same time, the ultra-rich become guilt-ridden and stressed as they watch everyone else’s lives sink into the precariousness of insecure wage-slavery.
The ultra-rich may pretend, from time to time, to be concerned about poor people. But, nobody is fooled. Thus has it always been.
Marx and Engels foresaw that this supremely powerful minority would eventually prove “unfit to rule” over such polarised societies, because they would not be in a position to guarantee the wage-slaves a reliable existence.
Stalin and Mao showed that you can starve millions of people while increasing the power of a tiny ruling elite. You can reintroduce a type of slavery worse than anything in previous history in your Gulags. Indeed, the slave labour which perished building the White Sea Canal felt better off than in the Gulag.
So what? The Nizam of Hyderabad- or, according to Amartya Sen, the Bengali factory worker- were even more callous.
Barricaded in their gated communities, they find themselves consumed by anxiety and incapable of enjoying their riches.
Really? Where? Maybe Venezuela. Not London, not New York where a dodgy Property Developer  has become President.
Some of them, those smart enough to realise their true long-term self-interest, recognise the welfare state as the best available insurance policy. But alas, explains the manifesto, as a social class, it will be in their nature to skimp on the insurance premium, and they will work tirelessly to avoid paying the requisite taxes.
The Welfare State is a Social Insurance scheme. If pay-outs grow too quickly, it gets scaled down. Entitlements are ruthlessly cut by the very politicians who promised to reverse any such trend. Varoufakis should know. That is what his Party has done in Greece.  It turns out, the ultra-rich will never finance Social Insurance- indeed, they never have. All over the wold, working people have realised this.
Is this not what has transpired? The ultra-rich are an insecure, permanently disgruntled clique, constantly in and out of detox clinics, relentlessly seeking solace from psychics, shrinks and entrepreneurial gurus.
Yup! That's what's happening to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, everyone else struggles to put food on the table, pay tuition fees, juggle one credit card for another or fight depression.
Everyone else? How come so many ordinary people are paying a lot of money for IVF? If they are struggling to feed themselves, why are they so intent on adding another mouth to feed to the household?
We act as if our lives are carefree, claiming to like what we do and do what we like. Yet in reality, we cry ourselves to sleep.
Okay- Varoufakis is being sarcastic. I get it now. Greeks may have cried because of what Varoufakis did but they've gotten over it.
Do-gooders, establishment politicians and recovering academic economists all respond to this predicament in the same way, issuing fiery condemnations of the symptoms (income inequality) while ignoring the causes (exploitation resulting from the unequal property rights over machines, land, resources). Is it any wonder we are at an impasse, wallowing in hopelessness that only serves the populists seeking to court the worst instincts of the masses?
Populists like Syriza? But, they quickly do a volte face and screw over those who voted for them.
With the rapid rise of advanced technology, we are brought closer to the moment when we must decide how to relate to each other in a rational, civilised manner.
The rational manner of relating to each other is everybody saying or hearing  'you own more than me. Boo to you! You are exploiting me! Share your wealth immediately.'
No doubt, this was the argument the Visigoths directed at Roman Civilization. But there were, and  always will be, tribes poorer yet.
We can no longer hide behind the inevitability of work and the oppressive social norms it necessitates.
We can hide wherever we like because nobody is looking for us. Work is inevitable. Our bums won't wipe themselves. No doubt, Varoufakis finds the social norm against protruding a turd from one's rectum to be highly oppressive. Still, it will always exist.
The manifesto gives its 21st-century reader an opportunity to see through this mess and to recognise what needs to be done so that the majority can escape from discontent into new social arrangements in which “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”.
Nonsense! The Manifesto is just empty verbiage. It is not linked to any program of action. Rather, it predicts that some big revolutionary change is about to occur and it sure will be swell though what shape it will take is unclear.
Since we all know what happened next, the thing is garbage
Even though it contains no roadmap of how to get there, the manifesto remains a source of hope not to be dismissed.
Because garbage is not dismissed but carefully picked out of bins and skips by compulsive hoarders who will die unmourned and unlamented when a pile of garbage collapses upon them inside the rats' warren they have rendered their own home.

If the manifesto holds the same power to excite, enthuse and shame us that it did in 1848, it is because the struggle between social classes is as old as time itself. Marx and Engels summed this up in 13 audacious words: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
People within a class compete to get out of it and onto the next rung of the ladder. Otherwise cooperation, not conflict, characterises Society.

From feudal aristocracies to industrialised empires, the engine of history has always been the conflict between constantly revolutionising technologies and prevailing class conventions.
Conflict, as the engine of history, has been represented by Wars where the subaltern mindlessly obeys the hegemon. Generally the hegemon is of higher hereditary class or else this becomes the case within a generation.
Prevailing class conventions cease to do so once conquest becomes imminent.
With each disruption of society’s technology, the conflict between us changes form.
Technology does not matter. The victor can always decide not to use it.
Old classes die out and eventually only two remain standing: the class that owns everything and the class that owns nothing – the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
This has never happened and will never happen. There is no point owning stuff with a negative real rate of return. Because of 'reswitching' and information asymmetry, it will always be the case that some assets can have a positive rate of return for some members of an otherwise impoverished class but not for others from a wealthy one. Thus even if, formally, the impoverished class is forbidden to own property or enter into contracts, still the thing will happen by default. Slaves will buy their freedom and, like Trimalchio in the Satyricon, insinuate themselves by ostentation into the older patrician class.
This is the predicament in which we find ourselves today. While we owe capitalism for having reduced all class distinctions to the gulf between owners and non-owners, Marx and Engels want us to realise that capitalism is insufficiently evolved to survive the technologies it spawns.
Capitalism has evolved plenty. Technology is embodied Capital and its continued evolution depends on Capitalism's ability to coordinate vaster and vaster operations each of which requires unprecedented investment. Marx and Engels were so stupid as to think that Capitalists would compete with each other so ruthlessly that profit would go to zero and so the wheels would fall off the vehicle. They were very silly.
It is our duty to tear away at the old notion of privately owned means of production and force a metamorphosis, which must involve the social ownership of machinery, land and resources.
Venezuela, here we come!
Now, when new technologies are unleashed in societies bound by the primitive labour contract, wholesale misery follows.
Yup! That's the story of the silicon chip. When it entered offices and factories, wholesale misery- for Trade Union bosses- soon followed. They stopped being able to hold Society to ransom.
In the manifesto’s unforgettable words: “A society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.”
Nothing is like some sorcerer in a fairy tale. Marx was a big silly.
The sorcerer will always imagine that their apps, search engines, robots and genetically engineered seeds will bring wealth and happiness to all. But, once released into societies divided between wage labourers and owners, these technological marvels will push wages and prices to levels that create low profits for most businesses.
Varoufakis is forgetting about 'reswitching' and information asymmetry. Some businesses will go to the wall because they use the wrong technology and pay their owners too much. Others won't. A few will rise to the top while some big conglomerates will come crashing down.
It is only big tech, big pharma and the few corporations that command exceptionally large political and economic power over us that truly benefit.
In a race, only the winner gets the prize. Thus we should not allow our kids to race because most will never win the prize. The class of winners may keep changing but we should pretend it is fixed for all time and thus can become an object of hatred and envy.
If we continue to subscribe to labour contracts between employer and employee, then private property rights will govern and drive capital to inhuman ends.
Yes! We must abolish labour contracts! That way, at the end of the month, when you come to me and say 'I have wiped your bum faithfully five times a day (what? I shit a lot), now pay me the million pounds you promised me'; I can reply 'go fuck yourself. Where's your contract of employment? You have been wiping my bum all these days because you are a bum wiper by inclination and character. Get back to wiping my bum immediately, you fucking pervert.'
Only by abolishing private ownership of the instruments of mass production and replacing it with a new type of common ownership that works in sync with new technologies, will we lessen inequality and find collective happiness.
Quite right! Your new smartphone embodies new technologies. I must be allowed to take it from you because you don't own it. It is our common property. I can't, in foro conscientiae, stand by and allow you to hog the thing.
According to Marx and Engels’ 13-word theory of history, the current stand-off between worker and owner has always been guaranteed.
I own the bum which is the means of production of shit. I employed you to wipe it for a million pounds a month. But you know I won't pay you because there is no contract and anyway I own no resources because nobody does. So there is a stand-off such that you won't wipe my bum. Boo! This is a violation of my Human Rights! You are discriminating against me in a blatant fashion! After all, you wipe your own bum. Yet, you won't come to my house and wipe my bum! Why? It iz coz I iz blek.
“Equally inevitable,” the manifesto states, is the bourgeoisie’s “fall and the victory of the proletariat”. So far, history has not fulfilled this prediction, but critics forget that the manifesto, like any worthy piece of propaganda, presents hope in the form of certainty. Just as Lord Nelson rallied his troops before the Battle of Trafalgar by announcing that England “expected” them to do their duty (even if he had grave doubts that they would), the manifesto bestows upon the proletariat the expectation that they will do their duty to themselves, inspiring them to unite and liberate one another from the bonds of wage-slavery.
Nelson won. It turned out England expected every sailor to do his duty because England had correctly predicted that England would greatly prosper and enjoy increased security if its sailors did their duty.
It did not say 'England expects every sorcerer to do his duty' because England knew sorcery does not work. Had England relied upon sorcerers not sailors, it would have been conquered and reduced to slavery.

If people currently working under a labour contract united together and refused to work under any such thing, then they will be much worse off. Some will have to become domestic slaves simply so as to have a roof over their heads and some left-overs to eat.

Will they? On current form, it seems unlikely. But, then again, we had to wait for globalisation to appear in the 1990s before the manifesto’s estimation of capital’s potential could be fully vindicated.
Twenty years have gone by since. During that period workers have understood the importance of labour contracts. They now know they need to read the fine print.
Might it not be that the new global, increasingly precarious proletariat needs more time before it can play the historic role the manifesto anticipated?
The 'precariat' has already voted for restrictions on immigration and offshoring of jobs. But this is just 'Tiebout sorting'- i.e. subsidiarity based variation in local fiscal policy. It is a good thing- 'smart' Globalisation, so to speak which gets rid of worthless pi-jaw about 'universal' rights so as to focus instead on local, incentive compatible, 'bonds of law'- contracts- which preserve the things people find valuable about particular areas and communities.
While the jury is still out, Marx and Engels tell us that, if we fear the rhetoric of revolution, or try to distract ourselves from our duty to one another, we will find ourselves caught in a vertiginous spiral in which capital saturates and bleaches the human spirit.
Very true! If we fear the rhetoric of sorcerers, or try to distract ourselves from our duty to wipe each others bums, we will find ourselves caught in a vertiginous spiral in which Sorcery saturates and bleaches the anus of our human spirit.
The only thing we can be certain of, according to the manifesto, is that unless capital is socialised we are in for dystopic developments.
The only thing we can be certain of, according to the Necronomicon, is that unless the tesseract is socialised by being forced to join a kindergarten where it can learn to play nice with other tesseracts, we are in for dystopic developments featuring the rise of the Evil Dead and the Elder Gods of Chtulu.
On the topic of dystopia, the sceptical reader will perk up: what of the manifesto’s own complicity in legitimising authoritarian regimes and steeling the spirit of gulag guards? Instead of responding defensively, pointing out that no one blames Adam Smith for the excesses of Wall Street, or the New Testament for the Spanish Inquisition, we can speculate how the authors of the manifesto might have answered this charge.
Jews and Muslims did blame the New Testament- which says there are Three Gods, one of whom was a crucified Rabbi- for the Inquisition. Both Leftists and traditional Rightists did blame Hutcheson, Hume, Smith and then Jews like Ricardo, Lassalle, &c for their materialist conception of Moral Philosophy. That is why the Left developed a sort of Heideggerian Marxism- hilariously titled 'Humanistic'- on the basis of Marx's Hegelian meanderings in the Grundisse.
I believe that, with the benefit of hindsight, Marx and Engels would confess to an important error in their analysis: insufficient reflexivity. This is to say that they failed to give sufficient thought, and kept a judicious silence, over the impact their own analysis would have on the world they were analysing.
Quite false. Marx, famously, was not a Marxist. He favoured a more 'Narodnik' path for Russia which would not have featured 'Scissors crises' or Holodomors or Gulags and Mass Deportations.

The manifesto told a powerful story in uncompromising language, intended to stir readers from their apathy.
Rubbish! The manifesto was commissioned by and distributed solely to highly committed readers who were far from apathetic- though some later became so.
What Marx and Engels failed to foresee was that powerful, prescriptive texts have a tendency to procure disciples, believers – a priesthood, even – and that this faithful might use the power bestowed upon them by the manifesto to their own advantage.
A Theist may believe that a Revealed Scripture bestows supernatural powers upon a particular Apostolic Succession. Similarly, a believer in Magic may believe that the Necronomicon bestows power upon disciples of Satan. Marx and Engels were neither Theists nor Satanists. They failed to foresee that a manifesto could bestow power because manifestos don't have magical or supernatural powers. Varoufakis may believe differently but then he is as stupid as shit.
With it, they might abuse other comrades, build their own power base, gain positions of influence, bed impressionable students, take control of the politburo and imprison anyone who resists them.
It is not some book which gives you the power to act immorally. It is your own selfishness and wickedness.
Similarly, Marx and Engels failed to estimate the impact of their writing on capitalism itself. To the extent that the manifesto helped fashion the Soviet Union, its eastern European satellites, Castro’s Cuba, Tito’s Yugoslavia and several social democratic governments in the west, would these developments not cause a chain reaction that would frustrate the manifesto’s predictions and analysis?
No. Capitalism would still fall because the rate of profit would go to zero.
After the Russian revolution and then the second world war, the fear of communism forced capitalist regimes to embrace pension schemes, national health services, even the idea of making the rich pay for poor and petit bourgeois students to attend purpose-built liberal universities.
But this trend had been established before the Russian Revolution.
Meanwhile, rabid hostility to the Soviet Union stirred up paranoia and created a climate of fear that proved particularly fertile for figures such as Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot.
What? There was no 'rabid hostility' to the Soviet Union in the Seventies which was when Pol Pot took power. The West supported him against Vietnam which had fallen out with China.

Stalin flourished after the West stopped backing White Generals fighting the Bolsheviks. Trotsky was a figure of fear. Churchill showered abuse upon him. Stalin, by contrast, was the beloved 'Uncle Joe' of the War time Newsreels- one of the Big Three, along with Churchill and Roosevelt.
I believe that Marx and Engels would have regretted not anticipating the manifesto’s impact on the communist parties it foreshadowed.
Marx and Engels moved on from the infantile Leftism of the Manifesto to a Classical Economic Theory of the English sort. Had Marx's daughter not married a bounder and not topped herself, there would have been a perfectly respectable Marxist dynasty- like the followers of Anna Freud in London- which would have overlapped with the Fabians. Marx was not concerned with 'barbaric' Russia which, in any case, would have had a highly repressive autocratic State machinery.
They would be kicking themselves that they overlooked the kind of dialectic they loved to analyse: how workers’ states would become increasingly totalitarian in their response to capitalist state aggression, and how, in their response to the fear of communism, these capitalist states would grow increasingly civilised.
Democracies implemented Social Insurance because voters benefited from it. At first, there was an element of redistribution- including the notion of a 'solidarity wage'- behind this but this quickly became counter productive because it was not incentive compatible. Fear of Communism was scarcely a factor in the English speaking world because Communist Parties did not get many votes. On the other hand, in Europe, Communist parties had legitimacy because of their role in the Resistance. Still, it must be said, fear of Communism was counterbalanced by a fear of a revival of a Poujadist Right.
Blessed, of course, are the authors whose errors result from the power of their words.
WTF? Marx's words were not powerful- there were more able windbags like Lasalle. It was his Economic theory- in  particular his Ricardian theory of Capital- which gave him salience. This theory was erroneous- like other Economic theories- but it could always be repaired by using sophisticated mathematical techniques.
Even more blessed are those whose errors are self-correcting.
A theory does not correct itself. Some guy or bunch of people has to revive it by imbuing it with new techniques and categories. That is something Varoufakis has himself tried and signally failed to do.
In our present day, the workers’ states inspired by the manifesto are almost gone, and the communist parties disbanded or in disarray.
Yup! Under Xi, the Chinese Communist party isn't going back to its ideological roots. Why would you think so?
Liberated from competition with regimes inspired by the manifesto, globalised capitalism is behaving as if it is determined to create a world best explained by the manifesto.
That's what's happened in the last few years. China is now ruled by the Confucian Party. It doesn't own ports in Greece nor have clients- like the Czech President- do its bidding in the Council of Europe.
What makes the manifesto truly inspiring today is its recommendation for us in the here and now, in a world where our lives are being constantly shaped by what Marx described in his earlier Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts as “a universal energy which breaks every limit and every bond and posits itself as the only policy, the only universality, the only limit and the only bond”.
Marx was speaking of private property as something 'transferred into the very being of man'- i.e. what you own, owns you.
Similarly, a Vegan might say 'You are what you eat' and a Freudian might say 'you are what you fuck' and a cat-lover might say 'Miaow, miaow, miaow'.
From Uber drivers and finance ministers to banking executives and the wretchedly poor, we can all be excused for feeling overwhelmed by this “energy”.
Very true! The Uber driver, speaking generally, owns his own car. Alas! this turns him into a car driving around all the time! Suppose he had bought a fridge instead of a car. Then he would have turned into a fridge. People would pay him to store their beer cans in his rectum so that they'd become nice and frosty.
Capitalism’s reach is so pervasive it can sometimes seem impossible to imagine a world without it.
Unless you can make money doing so.
It is only a small step from feelings of impotence to falling victim to the assertion there is no alternative.
Right! Coz when you can't get it up with your obese g.f,  it is but a small step to falling victim to the assertion that there is no alternative to marrying her.
But, astonishingly (claims the manifesto), it is precisely when we are about to succumb to this idea that alternatives abound.
In which case we were never really 'about to succumb' to it.
What we don’t need at this juncture are sermons on the injustice of it all, denunciations of rising inequality or vigils for our vanishing democratic sovereignty.
But we do need Varoufakis talking shite.
Nor should we stomach desperate acts of regressive escapism: the cry to return to some pre-modern, pre-technological state where we can cling to the bosom of nationalism.
Because we need to go back to 1848.
What the manifesto promotes in moments of doubt and submission is a clear-headed, objective assessment of capitalism and its ills, seen through the cold, hard light of rationality. 
If the manifesto really has a 'clear-headed objective assessment of capitalism' then why the fuck did Marx spend the next couple of decades developing an Economic theory?
The manifesto argues that the problem with capitalism is not that it produces too much technology, or that it is unfair. Capitalism’s problem is that it is irrational.
So? It is irrational to feel love or joy or hope. If Capitalism's big problem is that it is Human, not Vulcan, then it doesn't have any major malfunction.
Capital’s success at spreading its reach via accumulation for accumulation’s sake is causing human workers to work like machines for a pittance, while the robots are programmed to produce stuff that the workers can no longer afford and the robots do not need.
Where? Every country where Capital has spread now has a larger number of people enjoying a higher level of prosperity than ever before. Sure, if they breed like bunnies or if migration is unrestricted or if subsidiarity based Tiebout models aren't implemented, then a lot of people will still be very poor. But that's not Capital's fault.
Capital fails to make rational use of the brilliant machines it engenders, condemning whole generations to deprivation, a decrepit environment, underemployment and zero real leisure from the pursuit of employment and general survival.
Really? Does Google not make good use of its 'brilliant machines'? If so, that's market sensitive information. It means an arbitrage opportunity exists. The Market can fix the problem.

Varoufakis has helped condemn whole generations of Greeks to deprivation, a decrepit environment etc. But it was in the name of Marx, not Hayek, that this was done.
Even capitalists are turned into angst-ridden automatons. They live in permanent fear that unless they commodify their fellow humans, they will cease to be capitalists – joining the desolate ranks of the expanding precariat-proletariat.
Does Bill Gates really look like an angst-ridden automaton? What about Elon Musk?
Managers, not Capitalists, may face increased stress- but that's a different story.
If capitalism appears unjust it is because it enslaves everyone, rich and poor, wasting human and natural resources.
If telling stupid lies appears unjust it is because it involves telling lies about everything. It wastes resources.
The same “production line” that pumps out untold wealth also produces deep unhappiness and discontent on an industrial scale.
Varoufakis is obsessed with the factory floor though only a small minority of workers now toil away on an assembly line. Why not go the whole hog and speak of the slaves in the cotton-fields being whipped by Simon Legree?
So, our first task – according to the manifesto – is to recognise the tendency of this all-conquering “energy” to undermine itself.
How true! If you are an Uber driver then your first task is to recognise that your tendency to turn into a car is actually undermining itself because every time you change your oil or pump gas up your rectum you get very very sick.
When asked by journalists who or what is the greatest threat to capitalism today, I defy their expectations by answering: capital!
What did they expect you to say? The Nazis? But, of course, for you Nazism was Capitalism as represented by Herr Schauble.

A sensible man might say 'China is using Capital- its money power- to undermine the Democratic West. It is happening in Greece as we speak.

Of course, this is an idea I have been plagiarising for decades from the manifesto. Given that it is neither possible nor desirable to annul capitalism’s “energy”, the trick is to help speed up capital’s development (so that it burns up like a meteor rushing through the atmosphere) while, on the other hand, resisting (through rational, collective action) its tendency to steamroller our human spirit.
Suppose you attach a rocket thruster to a meteor so as to speed up its entry into the earth's atmosphere. Will it burn up faster? Nope. More of it will reach the earth causing a much bigger crater.

Suppose a big steam roller is coming towards us. Should we all get together and push it back? Nope. That way we all die. We should run around the side and climb up into the cockpit so as to turn off its engine or steer it away from its destructive path.
In short, the manifesto’s recommendation is that we push capital to its limits while limiting its consequences and preparing for its socialisation.
Sheer nonsense! Marx was calling for the working men of Europe to unite against the Holy Alliance. He did not say, 'become a merchant banker', he said ' Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.'

We need more robots, better solar panels, instant communication and sophisticated green transport networks.
So we need smart people who know about Science to do cutting edge stuff. Talking shite about some pamphlet published in 1848, on the other hand is not needed by anybody.
But equally, we need to organise politically to defend the weak, empower the many and prepare the ground for reversing the absurdities of capitalism.
Organising politically means listening to shitheads, like Varoufakis, talk shite. Why bother?
In practical terms, this means treating the idea that there is no alternative with the contempt it deserves while rejecting all calls for a “return” to a less modernised existence. There was nothing ethical about life under earlier forms of capitalism. TV shows that massively invest in calculated nostalgia, such as Downton Abbey, should make us glad to live when we do. At the same time, they might also encourage us to floor the accelerator of change.
Science guys might have their foot on an accelerator. Talking shite is a foot on the brakes. We need to disintermediate shitheads like Varoufakis. A first step would be to recognise that Economists, by and large, are shite.
The manifesto is one of those emotive texts that speak to each of us differently at different times, reflecting our own circumstances. Some years ago, I called myself an erratic, libertarian Marxist and I was roundly disparaged by non-Marxists and Marxists alike. Soon after, I found myself thrust into a political position of some prominence, during a period of intense conflict between the then Greek government and some of capitalism’s most powerful agents.
Herr Schauble? The guy worked as a tax-man! That's 'Capitalism's most powerful agent'?
Rereading the manifesto for the purposes of writing this introduction has been a little like inviting the ghosts of Marx and Engels to yell a mixture of censure and support in my ear.
Coz Marx and Engels think Varoufakis is a World Historical Personality and worth censuring and supporting. How vain is this silly man.
Adults in the Room, my memoir of the time I served as Greece’s finance minister in 2015, tells the story of how the Greek spring was crushed via a combination of brute force (on the part of Greece’s creditors) and a divided front within my own government.
The 'Greek Spring'? Really? Who is the Assad or Mubarak in this scenario? In which secret police cell was Varoufakis whipped and anally violated? Sorry! I forgot. It was the 'Global Minatour' which rammed its horns up his rectum.
It is as honest and accurate as I could make it. Seen from the perspective of the manifesto, however, the true historical agents were confined to cameo appearances or to the role of quasi-passive victims. “Where is the proletariat in your story?” I can almost hear Marx and Engels screaming at me now. “Should they not be the ones confronting capitalism’s most powerful, with you supporting from the sidelines?”
Varoufakis, as an Economist, was supposed to say to the Eurozone Council, 'guys! Austerity violates price stability because of non-convexities and dynamic effects. Reflation is legally mandated upon us. Look, I have with me econometric studies supporting this conclusion endorsed by the leading Universities and Think Tanks and Nobel Prize winning Economists across the globe.'

Schauble might still have stuck to his guns, but Draghi and the French would have got something to work with. Essentially, the moment a purely legal argument is made then all the Finance Ministers have to go back to their countries and get their Civil Servants to pore over the details.

Everybody expected Varoufakis to blind his Eurozone colleagues with science. Furthermore a legal challenge to Austerity, on the basis of 'price stability' could have been mounted. Grown ups could have thrashed the matter out and disintermediated journalists writing about lazy Greeks or Nazi Germans.

Instead, what happened? Varoufakis stuck his hands down the back of his pants and pulled out something he called chocolate cake. His remedy for Austerity was to invite everybody to eat his stinky chocolate cake. The Eurozone ministers shunned him. They wouldn't accept his company at dinner.

Varoufakis now says he ought to have involved the proletariat. What does this mean? Presumably, he should have appealed to the Hotel staff to go on strike to force the Eurozone ministers to share Varofakis's chocolate cake.

Thankfully, rereading the manifesto has offered some solace too, endorsing my view of it as a liberal text – a libertarian one, even.
Anything and everything Varoufakis reads or hears or sees offers him solace because it endorses his own view that everything is a liberal- even libertarian- text proclaiming the chocolate cake he produces from his anus to be such a confection as Marie Antoinette could have used to end hunger and defuse the violent tendencies of the Parisian mob.
Where the manifesto lambasts bourgeois-liberal virtues, it does so because of its dedication and even love for them.
 So- it's just sour grapes.
Liberty happiness, autonomy, individuality, spirituality, self-guided development are ideals that Marx and Engels valued above everything else.
Like what? Slavery & Sadness?
If they are angry with the bourgeoisie, it is because the bourgeoisie seeks to deny the majority any opportunity to be free.
The reason people are angry with Marxists is because they want to deny everybody any opportunity to be free.
Given Marx and Engels’ adherence to Hegel’s fantastic idea that no one is free as long as one person is in chains, their quarrel with the bourgeoisie is that they sacrifice everybody’s freedom and individuality on capitalism’s altar of accumulation.
Given Marx and Engels' adherence to some worthless metaphysical tosh they quarrel with everybody who regards them as stupid gobshites. They pretend the working man won't regard their shite as shite but rather as chocolate cake.

Although Marx and Engels were not anarchists, they loathed the state and its potential to be manipulated by one class to suppress another. At best, they saw it as a necessary evil that would live on in the good, post-capitalist future coordinating a classless society. If this reading of the manifesto holds water, the only way of being a communist is to be a libertarian one. Heeding the manifesto’s call to “Unite!” is in fact inconsistent with becoming card-carrying Stalinists or with seeking to remake the world in the image of now-defunct communist regimes.
But it does involve accepting chocolate cake which Varoufakis produces by sticking his hand down the back of his pants.
When everything is said and done, then, what is the bottom line of the manifesto? And why should anyone, especially young people today, care about history, politics and the like?
Because Varoufakis's chocolate cake is soooooo tasty.
Marx and Engels based their manifesto on a touchingly simple answer: authentic human happiness and the genuine freedom that must accompany it. For them, these are the only things that truly matter.
That's right! We don't want none of your fake human happiness or ersatz freedom here! The only that that truly matters is eating Varoufakis's chocolate cake.
Their manifesto does not rely on strict Germanic invocations of duty, or appeals to historic responsibilities to inspire us to act. It does not moralise, or point its finger. Marx and Engels attempted to overcome the fixations of German moral philosophy and capitalist profit motives, with a rational, yet rousing appeal to the very basics of our shared human nature.
Which consists in offering one's poop around as a dainty confectionery.
Key to their analysis is the ever-expanding chasm between those who produce and those who own the instruments of production.
Because no workers own shares in the companies they work for.
The problematic nexus of capital and waged labour stops us from enjoying our work and our artefacts, and turns employers and workers, rich and poor, into mindless, quivering pawns who are being quick-marched towards a pointless existence by forces beyond our control.
Which is why people won't eat our delicious chocolate cake.
But why do we need politics to deal with this? Isn’t politics stultifying, especially socialist politics, which Oscar Wilde once claimed “takes up too many evenings”? Marx and Engels’ answer is: because we cannot end this idiocy individually; because no market can ever emerge that will produce an antidote to this stupidity. Collective, democratic political action is our only chance for freedom and enjoyment. And for this, the long nights seem a small price to pay.
The price of eating Varoufakis, on any other shithead's, chocolate cake is weeks of diarrhea. That's a good thing, in his book, because we can now feed the whole world!
Humanity may succeed in securing social arrangements that allow for “the free development of each” as the “condition for the free development of all”. But, then again, we may end up in the “common ruin” of nuclear war, environmental disaster or agonising discontent. In our present moment, there are no guarantees. We can turn to the manifesto for inspiration, wisdom and energy but, in the end, what prevails is up to us.
So get pooping and eating already! You know you want to! Coprophagy is the only social arrangement which allows 'the free development of each'- i.e. shitting all over the place- to become the condition for 'the free development of all' because shit will be universally available for purposes of consumption in a manner which militates against any anally retentive  'accumulation' or petit bourgeois norms of cleanliness or continence.

Friday, 20 April 2018

Why Hunger does more than Oxfam can

 Because Global Justice can have no more Noble ratio
Than affirming Famine's right to food-for-fellatio 
 Hunger must, more than Oxfam can,
Justify some Holier yet scam to Man

& since but Vanity births a Subaltern sure
To drown in Charity's vaginal juices
The God within us is lonely, poor
& Dark the Light of Eleusis.

Envoi- 
Prince! Prophesy's hysteria, all History is.
 Braxton Hicks, Hope's hysteresis



Wednesday, 18 April 2018

The sorrows of Structuralism- part 1

Structuralism arose because 'catch up growth' was 'low hanging fruit'. Direct intervention in the Economy could have dramatic, self-sustaining, results. Thus, for intellectuals, the temptation was to look only at the Supply side of the equation and do a bit of handwaving parsable as a claim that some 'Structure' existed which would internally adjust the Demand side. Kantorovich's work is an extreme example of this. His getting the Nobel Prize emboldened Soviet mathematical Economists to such an extent that they persuaded Gorby to crash Communism itself.

Capitalism, because it treats Supply and Demand as co-evolved and thus essentially ergodic- i.e. it features no 'non commutative' operators such as must perforce give great scandal to Control Theory- Capitalism is, nevertheless, precisely for that reason, enormously hospitable to Structuralist shite. Why? It's coz charlatans do 'market discovery'.

Satan, in Marie Corelli's novel, had his sorrows- all of an essentially chrematistic type- at the birth of my natal Century. Structuralism, it seems to me, was our Satan. Thus, its sorrows are worthy of remark.

Anyroad, to start from where starting should- i.e. Wikipedia- grok this you gawper unable to turn your eyes away from this train-wreck of a blog post-

The origins of structuralism connect with the work of Ferdinand de Saussure on linguistics, along with the linguistics of the Prague and Moscow schools. In brief, Saussure's structural linguistics propounded three related concepts.[1]
  1. Saussure argued for a distinction between langue (an idealized abstraction of language) and parole (language as actually used in daily life). He argued that the "sign" was composed of both a signified, an abstract concept or idea, and a "signifier", the perceived sound/visual image.
So, this is like the distinction between i-language and e-language. At one time we thought someone like Chomsky would, one day, be able to program a computer with all the different 'intensional' languages and then the computer would not just be able to talk to us in a natural manner but also translate for us into any language.

We no longer believe that this can be done. Google Translate works by massively crunching 'extentional language' data- i.e.  only parole matters, 'langue' does not.

Even if there were some tractable way of specifying an i-language, it would be foolish to do so because our communications could be spoofed by a parasite or predator.

Indeed, in so far as 'langue' exists at all, it already has been spoofed by various rent or interessement seeking shitheads of the sort that we will always have too much with us because as Pascal says there are more more Monks than Reason.
2.Because different languages have different words to describe the same objects or concepts, there is no intrinsic reason why a specific sign is used to express a given signifier. It is thus "arbitrary".
No it isn't. There is a buck stopped mechanism here so a more or less rigid Kripke type designator exists. No doubt that mechanism itself arises out of focal solutions to coordination or discoordination problems- but then human beings themselves exist on an uncertain fitness landscape and so nothing social can be wholly ideal or Divine.
What I mean is if you start to use words in a Humpty Dumpty like way, people will think you are a nutter. If you do it in a Court of Law, you will lose your case. We may not be able to say, with any great precision, where 'the buck stops' when it comes to deciding whether a particular word can have a specific significance. But then it is best for a Society not to let any one discover this aspect of its existence for fear of being rendered vulnerable to parasites or predators.


3.Signs thus gain their meaning from their relationships and contrasts with other signs. As he wrote, "in language, there are only differences 'without positive terms.'"[5]
Fuck off! Signs gain fixed meanings by a buck stopping, protocol bound, discourse specific, mechanism.
Consider the following statement- 'in language, £$%$@ are only diff))(*e3s without xdffs terms'
It means shit. What Soossoo (which is the correct way to pronounce Saussure) said isn't the same sort of shit. Why? Because it is obviously false.

Shit is a positive term. So is 'false'. There is a difference, contra Soossoo, between his shite and my taking the piss out of his shite. My statement is neither true nor false. It isn't buckstopped. Soossoo's statement is buckstopped as false because we know a lot more about what is and isn't computable.

Wikipedia says-
Proponents of structuralism would argue that a specific domain of culture may be understood by means of a structure—modelled on language—that is distinct both from the organizations of reality and those of ideas or the imagination—the "third order".[6]
Deleuze, who wasn't genuinely stupid, writing in '67 makes a forgivable mistake- one Chomsky also made, as did Arthur C Clarke in thinking a computer, like HAL in 2001, could use 'i-language' or what Soossoo called 'langue'.

This is a quote from Delueze's article- 'How do we recognise Structuralism'- which Wikipedia links to.
'In fact, language is the only thing that can properly be said to have structure, be it an esoteric or even non-verbal language. '
What elementary mistake is Delouse making here?
The answer is obvious. Language has no structure. Using it efficiently- for some wholly non-linguistic purpose- however, does involve structure of a sort describable by decision trees and heuristic rules which tantalise by the prospect of some more general algorithm.

In other words, just as there is no structure inherent in 'stuff in the fridge you better eat or throw out'- there is a lot of structure in the tasty little snack your g.f can concoct from it. Can but doesn't. I swear, the only reason she comes round is coz I'm hooked on Uber eats.

Delouse, deluded about Language, makes the same point about something my students were expert in- viz. being unconscious while I lectured.

There is a structure of the unconscious only to the extent that the unconscious speaks and is language. 
Nonsense! The Unconscious isn't a spandrel. It is useful. So it has a capacitance diversity type structure which may, at the margin, be linguistic, but is otherwise wholly concerned with improving inclusive fitness on an uncertain landscape.
There is a structure of bodies only to the extent that bodies are supposed to speak with a language which is one of the symptoms. 
If Neurosis were a real illness- this might be true. But we now know Nuerosis is no such thing. The whole thing was just a money making fraud.
Even things possess a structure only in so far as they maintain a silent discourse, which is the language of signs. 
Very true! The ice cube in my bacardi & coke is only maintaining its structure because of its silent discourse with Slotedijk's conception of the Zorn und Ziet syzgy as foundational to any future Prolegemenon to saying Trump is very very bad. Fuck you Trump!
So the question What is structuralism? is further transformed—it is better to ask: What do we recognize in those that we call structuralists? And what do they themselves recognize?— since one does not recognize people, in a visible manner, except by the invisible and imperceptible things they themselves recognize in their own way. 
Quite right! We don't recognise people using visual cues at all. That is why I put my dick upon the Papa John pizza box. My g.f likes surprises of that sort. True she is 84 and looks nothing like the two young Mormons whom I had invited in. Still, there must have been some 'invisible and imperceptible things' about the pair which should have allowed them to recognise, in their own way, that they were actually my very elderly and quite toothless g.f.  Yet they signally failed to do the needful! Why? It is because Trump is very bad. Fuck you Trump! Fuck you very much indeed!

How do the structuralists go about recognizing a language in something, the language proper to a domain? What do they discover in this domain? We thus propose only to discern certain formal criteria of recognition, the simplest ones, by invoking in each case the example of cited authors, whatever the diversity of their works and projects.
One can think of the Bourbaki as Structuralist- indeed Piaget mentions them paradigmatic in his short introduction to the subject- but Pure Mathematics is a wholly nomothetic discipline. What drives its language is Grothendieckian Yoga- i.e. the unification of idiographic discoursess on the basis of greater generality. Short run, this means a trade off in terms of significance. But, new techniques, not structures, gain mobility by this project so what really happens is that a 'Reverse Mathematics project' becomes more and more feasible. In other words, paying attention to Bourbaki, 'New Maths' ( which Tom Lehrer made fun off) and other such Continental uncleanness, does not involve assimilation to the Borg.

In '67, however, when Delouse was writing this, the madness of Maoism was precisely the Borg du jour of deeply petit bourgeois pederasts and pedagogues.

I. First Criterion: The Symbolic We are used to, almost conditioned to a certain distinction or correlation between the real and the imaginary.
Coz u r a fucking pedagogue! Get over yourself! Back in '67 working class people probably thought Professors of worthless shite were smart. They were swiftly disabused of any such notion. Delouse and his ilk were industriously storing up treasure for, not Marx, but Monty Python.
All of our thought maintains a dialectical play between these two notions.
Under Uncertainty- which is the fitness landscape on which we have evolved- there is no efficient way of distinguishing the two. Thus there can be no 'dialectical play' between them.  Kant's quid juris/ quid facti distinction reappears in Physics without any fucking a priori buck stopper at all. Later, much later, the experiments of Michelson-Morley, or Madam Wu, would drive this point home to the hilt.
That's why 'dialectical reason' has disappeared. It was empirically proven to be shite.
Even when classical philosophy speaks of pure intelligence or understanding, it is still a matter of a faculty defined by its aptitude to grasp the depths of the real (le reel en son fond), the real "in truth," the real as such, in opposition to, but also in relation to the power of imagination.
Nonsense! Either there is 'participation' in Nous or Logos, or there is a 'constructive' mimetic. Faculties, for, not Classical, but Christian, philosophy, refer to an endowment of an ultimately occassionalist sort. Why? The Soul were otiose but for some such alien faculty constitutively judging it or otherwise instrumentalising it.
Let us cite some creative movements that are quite different: Romanticism, Symbolism, Surrealism...
All of which were as boring as shit save for some aleatory talent their exponents might have been unable to programmatically smother.
In doing so, we invoke at once the transcendent point where the real and the imaginary interpenetrate and unite, and their sharp border, like the cutting edge of their difference.
Does citing Shelley invoke anything save boredom? Or citing Mallarme anything save a desultory, adolescent, 'afternoon on the phone'? What about Surrealism? At best, it is decorative in a simpering manner. At worst a facile availability cascade for Trustafarians.
In any case, we get no farther than the opposition and complementarity of the imaginary and the real—at least in the traditional interpretation of Romanticism, Symbolism, etc.
Traditional interpretations? Why not just say worthless belles lettristic shite?
Even Freudianism is interpreted from the perspective of two principles: the reality principle with its power to disappoint, the pleasure principle with its hallucinatory power of satisfaction.
Not any more, Delouse. It is interpreted as fraud. You can't get your HMO to pay for treating your Oedipus Complex. You have to come clean and mention that Voices are telling you to shit higher than your arsehole.
With all the more reason, methods like those of Jung and Bachelard are wholly inscribed within the real and the imaginary, within the frame of their complex relations, transcendent unity and liminary tension, fusion and cutting edge. 
Yes, but so were the methods of the Maharishi and Charlie Manson and Felix the fucking drug dealing Cat.

There is nothing, wholly shite, of which it can't be claimed that its methods are completely inscribed in something not subject to any selection pressure- i.e. stuff outside the realm of scarcity and thus subject to no 'sufficient reason' type efficiency constraint.

By contrast, anything not utterly shite is not wholly transcribed anywhere and has no intractable complexity or but backwardly inductive 'transcendent' unity.  Man can levitate- but not by the Maharishi's methods. What is needful is a jet-pack whose engineering depends not at all upon any fucking 'dialectical relationship' between the 'real and the imaginary', but a protocol bound manufacturing and testing process.

The first criterion of structuralism, however, is the discovery and recognition of a third order, a third regime: that of the symbolic.
Did Bourbaki type Mathematics- which was (or may still may be, for all I know) a highly productive Structuralist Research Program- have a Frege type 'third realm'? Oddly, no. The thing may feature in Godel and Ackermann and so on, but Bourbaki's is genuinely a Yoga. It unites without any ontological state space expansion or, ex falso quodlibet, principle of explosion.
The refusal to confuse the symbolic with the imaginary, as much as with the real, constitutes the first dimension of structuralism.
A dimension only exists if it has an intrinsic metric. Otherwise it is empty. Structuralism's first dimension is empty- save for beings able to construct a metric for symbols used in modal, or more immodest yet, logics.
In this case again, everything began with linguistics: beyond the word in its reality and its resonant parts, beyond images and concepts associated with words, the structuralist linguist discovers an element of quite another nature, a structural object.
'beyond the world in its reality and its resonant parts' is good. Deleuze wasn't a stupid Credentialised Careerist- moreover, the year was '67.

But what metaphysics or soteriology does this notion correspond to?

The answer is, onomatodoxy- i.e granting equal status to the name as the named, for example by saying Lord Rama is served simply by saying 'Ram! Ram!'- as mediated by an aesthetic notion of dhvani as developed by Riti poets like Tulsi.

But what is discovered beyond the word in its shruti or dhvani, beyond such rupa or yojana or, indeed, chittavritti, as is associated with it, is that the univocity of Nirguna Brahma can have no structure because its Truth is a pathless land.

A 'structural object' has symmetries corresponding to conservation laws or conserved forces. However these arise in non dissipative systems. Still, Linguists were able to make remarkable predictions- or what seemed remarkable predictions at the time- for example that an Indo-European language would be found in ancient Anatolia and it would have certain characteristics. However, the problem here is that Languages are dissipative systems. True, by treating them as non-dissipative, you can make some interesting predictions. But those predictions are highly misleading because  dissipative organic systems may not be wholly ergodic for regret minimizing reasons. In other words what looks like a structure is actually a hysteresis effect built into a co-evolutionary arms race. So Structuralism is 'fool's gold'-

And perhaps it is in this symbolic element that the novelists of Tel Quel wish to locate themselves, in order to renew the resonant realities as well as the associated narratives. Beyond the history of men, and the history of ideas, Michel Foucault discovers a deeper, subterranean ground that forms the object of what he calls the archaeology of thought. Behind real men and their real relations, behind ideologies and their imaginary relations, Louis Althusser discovers a deeper domain as object of science and of philosophy.
Foucault fucked up- he literally 'died of ignorance' as the tag line was back then. Althusser killed his wife and was revealed to have been off his head all along. Structuralism's fool gold arose because of the aleatory appearance of hysteresis effects which gave the appearance of 'timeless' truths- whereas they were simply artefacts of an arms race between co-evolving multiplicative update weighting algorithms. Structuralism thought that if gold had been found then, by digging deeper, platinum must surely be discovered. But there was nothing there but dirt. The mine had been salted from the start.
Returning to the Wikipedia article, this condign summary is given-
 In Lacan's psychoanalytic theory, for example, the structural order of "the Symbolic" is distinguished both from "the Real" and "the Imaginary";
This would be cool iff Dr. Lacan had actually cured anybody. He didn't. A Voodoo practitioner who distinguishes a Symbolic Baron Samedi from the Real and the Imaginary Baron is still just a fucking Voodoo practitioner.
similarly, in Althusser's Marxist theory, the structural order of the capitalist mode of production is distinct both from the actual, real agents involved in its relations and from the ideological forms in which those relations are understood.
So it can't be critiqued and can't be reformed but rather must, like Lovecraft's Elder Gods, reduce those who seek for them to gibbering idiocy.

Returning to Delouse's '67 essay, we find a misology not absent in analytical philosophy- viz.  the mystification represented by a 'third realm' whereas all that exists is the tertius gaudens of a careerist academic availability cascade which will gain tenure and talk shite till the entire Department is discredited and disintermediated for signalling purposes as more and more of its PhDs end up as barristas.
We can enumerate the real, the imaginary, and the symbolic: 1, 2, 3.
No we can't. This isn't enumeration. It is mere juxtaposition. Enumeration means listing all the elements of a set. The Real and the Imaginary and the Symbolic are not elements of any Set as Delouse quickly reveals
But perhaps these numerals have as much an ordinal as a cardinal value.
If so, the Real must be bigger than the Imaginary or Symbolic because the latter two are computationally constrained.
For the real in itself is not separable from a certain ideal of unification or of totalization: the real tends towards one, it is one in its "truth."
Unless we had a language which could 'carve up Reality along its joints' in which case we would have a metric for modal logic.
As soon as we see two in "one," as soon as we make doubles [de'doublons], the imaginary appears in person, even if it is in the real that its action is carried out.
Seeing double means you are drunk or have a concussion. Of course, this could be just a metaphor for suddenly grasping that a thing or concept fits into two different action schemata. However, to take this metaphor as a concrete reality and construct upon it another metaphor- viz. that the 'double' is like a spooky doppleganger- is merely a baroque type of poetry which will cash out as onomatodoxy- i.e saying 'Ram! Ram!' and grinning toothlessly.
For example, the real father is one, or wants to be according to his law; but the image of the father is always double in itself, cleaved according to a law of the dual or duel.
The real father, more often than not, has done a runner and doesn't want to pay child maintenance. The image of the father was only invoked by pedagogues teaching credentialised shite or charlatans who recognised that treating people who aren't sick pays better provided you can convince them you're like their Daddy or summat.
It is projected onto two persons at least, one assuming the role of the playfather, the father-buffoon, and the other, the role of the working and ideal father: like the Prince of Wales in Shakespeare, who passes from one father image to the other, from Falstaff to the Crown.
So, this 'dual or duel' is just some shite a pederast of a pedagogue says in Eng Lit 101 in the hope of getting it on with some smooth cheeked youngster.
The imaginary is defined by games of mirroring, of duplication, of reversed identification and projection, always in the mode of the double. 
That is the definition of how people are duped. It depends on our imagining these obviously worthless shitheads aren't obviously worthless shitheads. In other words, this is the definition of how destroying the Imagination is the first step to duping people or oneself.

This can be the solution to a Newcombe or Kavka toxin type problem but, as such, this points to the manner in which the Imaginary is subsumed by the Real- not the other way round.
But perhaps, in turn, the symbolic is three, and not merely the third beyond the real and the imaginary. There is always a third to be sought in the symbolic itself; structure is at least triadic, without which it would not "circulate"—a third at once unreal, and yet not imaginable.  
Right! Coz you've just run up against the incompossible. So you gibber wordlessly and point to a sinister type of Occassionalism. Congratulations! You have advanced from the Catholicism of Ernst Hello to the cult of Cthulu which speaks to you from the pages of Hello Magazine in your psychiatrist's waiting room.

 We will see why later; but already the first criterion consists of this: the positing of a symbolic order, irreducible to the orders of the real and the imaginary, and deeper than they are.
Deeper? How? Were symbols created by Lovecraft's elder gods? If so, why have any truck with them?
The truth is, symbols are solutions to coordination and discoordination games. Nothing less, nothing more. If the symbols are useful, they are 'buck stopped'. If not, they are dammed up as capacitance diversity in a regret minimizing manner.
We do not yet know what this symbolic element consists of.
You would have done if you'd read David Lewis on Thomas Schelling.
We can say at least that the corresponding structure has no relationship with a sensible form, nor with a figure of the imagination, nor with an intelligible essence.
If it is a structure, it must have symmetries. What are they? Delouse doesn't know. So why mention the subject? No doubt, Super-Strings have a structure but the guy on 'Big Bang theory' who owns the Comic Book store does not mention them coz he doesn't have any inkling about what that structure might be and if he pretends otherwise- for example if he says 'Silver Surfer is cooler than Wolverine coz Super String theory says so'- he knows he'll be shot down by Sheldon.

Delouse's problem was that he was Comic Book guy hanging out with people stupider than himself. No wonder he has acolytes!
It has nothing to do with a form: for structure is not at all defined by an autonomy of the whole, by a preeminence [pregnance] of the whole over its parts, by a Gestalt which would operate in the real and in perception.
But this sort of structure could only arise in an Occassionalist, not an Evolutionary, theory.
Structure is defined, on the contrary, by the nature of certain atomic elements which claim to account both for the formation of wholes and for the variation of their parts.
Very true! That's why coal is as hard as diamonds and why diamonds burn so well.
It has nothing to do with figures of the imagination, although structuralism is riddled with reflections on rhetoric, metaphor and metonymy, for these figures themselves imply structural displacements which must account for both the literal and the figurative.
Schizophrenic word salads are riddled with such shite. Structuralist research programs in Maths are not.
Nor has it has anything to do with an essence: it is more a combinatory formula [une combinatoire] supporting formal elements which by themselves have neither form, nor signification, nor representation, nor content, nor given empirical reality, nor hypothetical functional model, nor intelligibility behind appearances.
So, Delouse is writing about a zairja type combinatoric method Ramon Lully, a Franciscan tertiary, discovered while trying to convert the Moors. Poor fellow, he didn't understand that the Islamic barzakh could serve a philosophical 'capacitance diversity' type function which the corrupt Catholic concept of Limbo could not.
No one has better determined the status of the structure as identical to the "Theory" itself than Louis Althusser
Thus guaranteeing it to be shite
—and the symbolic must be understood as the production of the original and specific theoretical object.
Production? But that is an economic process- it evolves under scarcity. If 'original and specific' theoretical objects evolved, then they did so in competition with non theoretical objects as well an un-original and non-specific theoretical objects. This means that their mutual coexistence must represent an Evolutionarily Stable configuration. But, if that is the case, there is no point understanding the genidentity of an 'original and specific' theoretical object in a manner different from anything else. Suppose a mad scientist studies a theoretical 'woofy-cat'- i.e a cat which says woof woof and does other doggy things. Suppose such a woofy cat is actually produced. How it fares in the world, however, depends on a common fitness landscape for domestic pets. To understand how woofycat genidentity has propagated we have to use the same methods we would use for any non-theoretical breed available in the relevant market.
Sometimes structuralism is aggressive, as when it denounces the general misunderstanding of this ultimate symbolic category, beyond the imaginary and the real.
Yes. Paranoid Schizophrenics can sometimes become aggressive.
Sometimes it is interpretative, as when it renews our interpretation of works in relation to this category, and claims to discover an original point at which language is constituted, in which works elaborate themselves, and where ideas and actions are bound together.
Quite true, pedagogues often turn into pederasts and try to bugger with the brains of their charges.
Romanticism and Symbolism, but also Freudianism and Marxism, thus become the objects of profound reinterpretations.
Profound? Are you kidding me? Which pedagogue ever said anything profound? All that matters is that they don't actually beat their students to death with their dicks or drown them in their vaginas. Or is that too much to ask?
Not to mention the mythical, poetic, philosophical, or practical works which themselves are subjected to structural interpretation. But this reinterpretation only has value to the extent that it animates new works which are those of today, as if the symbolic were the source, inseparably, of living interpretation and creation.
The Black Panther first appeared in Marvel Comics in 1966. Unlike Althusser's shite, or Lacon's shite or even Delouse's shite, the Black Panther, in 2018, has animated a global project of reinterpretation and creation.
Why did Stan Lee succeed where Delouse failed? The answer is that Marvel Comics paid attention to the fitness landscape, it did not navel gaze at theoretical origins. Had it done so, Chadwick Boseman would have been playing a character named 'Coal Tiger'. The thing would have bombed.

To conclude, Delouse thought the Symbolic order was higher than the creatures who use it to solve coordination problems under conditions of scarcity. The result was that he and his ilk wrote stupid shite. Stan Lee understood the symbolic order was about efficient competition on an uncertain fitness landscape. He stuck to his guns- though there was a brief period when T'Challa was renamed the Black Leopard! such was the madness of the Nixon era- and so we can now all say 'After Shakespeare, Stan has created most'. (vide Hamlet vs Spiderman 1972 in which The League of Shakespearean characters defeats both the Avengers and the Justice League who have been fooled by the Joker into trying to destroy the Cosmic Cube)

Returning to Delouse, let us see whether he can say something sillier yet

II. Second Criterion: Local or Positional 
What does the symbolic element of the structure consist of?
A structure's symmetries are expressed symbolically. If there are no symmetries there is no ordering, however weak, and, hence, there is no structure. That's it. That's the whole story.
We sense the need to go slowly, to state repeatedly, first of all, what it is not.
No we don't. Either a Structure has symmetries and thus a lower Kalmogorov complexity definition, or there's no point calling it a Structure.
Distinct from the real and the imaginary, the symbolic cannot be defined either by pre-existing realities to which it would refer and which it would designate, or by the imaginary or conceptual contents which it would implicate, and which would give it a signification.
If you define a symbol- and Delouse's 'the symbolic' is one such- then either the thing is buck-stopped or you have wasted your breath. Pi is buck-stopped. Delouse's 'symbolic' is not. This means one can go on asking the same question and getting an answer with the same homology as before and pretend one is engaging with an actual Research Program. Fine! But, sooner or later, the Ponzi scheme collapses.
The elements of a structure have neither extrinsic designation, nor intrinsic signification. Then what is left? As Levi-Strauss recalls  rigorously, they have nothing other than a sense [sens = meaning and direction]: a sense which is necessarily and uniquely "positional.'"' It is not a matter of a location in a real spatial expanse, nor of sites in imaginary extensions, but rather of places and sites in a properly structural space, that is, a topological space.
Aha! So Topology is the master narrative here. Good to know.
Space is what is structural, but an unextended, preextensive space, pure spatium constituted bit by bit as an order of proximity, in which the notion of proximity first of all has precisely an ordinal sense and not a signification in extension.  Or take genetic biology: the genes are part of a structure to the extent that they are inseparable from "loci," sites capable of changing their relation within the chromosome. In short, places in a purely structural space are primary in relation to the things and real beings which come to occupy them, primary also in relation to the always somewhat imaginary roles and events which necessarily appear when they are occupied. The scientific ambition of structuralism is not quantitative, but topological and relational, a principal that Levi-Strauss constantly reaffirms.
Cool! So if, fifty years after Delouse wrote these words, the top Topologists and Geneticists and so on were telling their students to study Delouse then we'd know he was onto something.

Nothing of the sort has occurred. A Sokal can spoof Deluezian shite better than Ajay Skaria or some other such Subaltern shithead.
And when Althusser speaks of economic structure, he specifies that the true "subjects" there are not those who come to occupy the places, i.e. concrete individuals or real human beings—no more than the true objects are the roles that they fulfill and the events that are produced. Rather, these "subjects" are above all the places in a topological and structural space defined by relations of production. 
In other words, Althusser was more Debreuivian than Debreu- but Debreu moved on. By the early Seventies, he was one of the co-discoverers of the 'Anything goes' theorem. Econ didn't get stuck in a logic loop. It developed an actual critique of capital markets- and thus Capitalism- as well as of incomplete Contracts- and thus every type of Left-Liberal Utopia.
When Foucault defines determinations such as death, desire, work, or play, he does not consider them as dimensions of empirical human existence, but above all as the qualifications of places and positions which will render those who come to occupy them mortal and dying, or desiring, or workman-like, or playful.
So the guy set up as a manufacturer of Procrustean beds for every occasion. What happened next? A bunch of brain dead Careerists cobbled together illiterate PhD theses and put their students to sleep while pretending to be fighting the system as the intellectual vanguard of some surd and subaltern identity class.
These, however, only come to occupy the places and positions secondarily, fulfilling their roles according to an order of proximity that is an order of the structure itself. That is why Foucault can propose a new distribution of the empirical and the transcendental, the latter finding itself defined by an order of places independently of those who occupy them empirically.
I can do the same thing on the basis of a prescriptive ontology featuring a maximal tropism to make cat like noises. People and things merely occupy a lattice of cat like noise making which alone can properly distinguish and distribute the empirical and the transcendental.
Structuralism cannot be separated from a new transcendental philosophy, in which the sites prevail over whatever occupies them.
That's not a good thing. It means whatever shite you are spouting is homologically equivalent to the theory that everybody and every thing should be making cat like noises.
Father, mother, etc., are first of all sites in a structure; and if we are mortal, it is by moving into the line, by coming to a particular site, marked in the structure following this topological order of proximities (even when we do so ahead of our turn).
Father should be making cat like noises. So should mummy. That is what is required by their sites in my structure. You may say 'why should I make cat like noises? Mummy and Daddy didn't and they lived happy and successful lives.' My reply is, 'Daddy and Mummy occupied sites of cat-like noise production. Empirically it may appear that they failed to make cat like noises- but, from the Transcendental point of view, silence too is a cat-like noise. Moreover, they were probably saying 'O Long Johnson'. Kindly click on the relevant video on You Tube.
"It is not only the subject," says Lacan, "but subjects grasped in their intersubjectivity, who line up... and who model their very being on the moment of the signifying chain which traverses them... The displacement of the signifier determines subjects in their acts, in their destiny, in their refusals, in their blindnesses, in their conquests and in their fate, their innate gifts and social acquisition notwithstanding, without regard for character or sex..."  One could not say more clearly that empirical psychology is not only founded, but determined by a transcendental topology.
It is not only the potential cat like noise maker but also the potential cat like noise makers, grasped in their intersubjectivity, who line up... and who model their very being on the moment of the signifying chain which traverses them while itself potentially making cat like noises.

One could not say more clearly that empirical psychology is not only founded, but determined by a transcendental  topology of making cat like noises.

Several consequences follow from this local or positional criterion. First of all, if the symbolic elements have no extrinsic designation nor intrinsic signification, but only a positional sense, it follows necessarily and by rights that sense always results from the combination of elements which are not themselves signifying?
Cat like noises are elements which are not themselves signifying to vacuum cleaners. Yet, if Delouse aint talking shite, it must necessarily be the case that saying miaow to your Dyson will activate it even if it don't have no voice control module. Okay, I just tried miaow and nothing happened. Now I'm going to purr. Fuck me! It worked! The fact that I just pressed the switch is irrelevant coz like it was just a case of how the geodesic of my Space Time is warped.
As Levi-Strauss says in his discussion with Paul Ricoeur, sense is always a result, an effect: not merely an effect like a product, but an optical effect, a language effect, a positional effect.
This means my cat-like noise theory is not nonsense at all. Somebody please tell Macron. As Ricoeur's protege, he will immediately understand that he needs to make cat like noises to the French Railway Union till they call off their strike.
There is, profoundly, a nonsense of sense, from which sense itself results.
Oui! Monsewer Macron, pleeeze zay 'Miaow Miaow'! Zis Rail Strike is zo awfooool! Zut alors!  Aux grand maux les grand remèdes!”
Not that we return in this way to what was once called a philosophy of the absurd since, for such a philosophy, sense itself is lacking, essentially.
Absolutely! Macron must remember this if he finds himself accused of being the Sganarelle of the bildungsburgertum's theatre of the Absurd.
Fuck that. He should just stick to making cat like noises till Angela Merkel takes him in her lap and strokes and pets him and refinances Europe.
For structuralism, on the other hand, there is always too much sense, an overproduction, an over-determination of sense, always produced in excess by the combination of places in the structure. (Hence the importance, in Althusser's work for example, of the concept of over-determination^ Nonsense is not at all the absurd or the opposite of sense, but rather that which gives value to sense and produces it by circulating in the structure.
Miaow miaow miaow 
Structuralism owes nothing to Albert Camus, but much to Lewis Carroll.
Fuck off! Carroll was a proper Mathematician. 
" The second consequence is structuralism's inclination for certain games and a certain kind of theatre, for certain play and theatrical spaces. It is no accident that Levi-Strauss often refers to the theory of games, and accords such importance to playing cards.
But he remained ignorant of Game theory. 
As does Lacan to his game metaphors which are more than metaphors: not only the moving object [lefuret, literally the ferret; or, moving token in the jeu de furet, the game of hunt-the-slipper] which darts around the structure, but also the dummy-hand [la place du mort] that circulates in bridge. The noblest games such as chess are those that organize a combinatory system of places in a pure spatium infinitely deeper than the real extension of the chessboard and the imaginary extension of each piece.
Math can tame state space explosion- but it takes actual cognitive effort to do so. Talking shite don't cut it.  
Consider the new computer program which is beating human players of Go. It does this by turning aside by broadening its nueral network and using simpler decision rules- which however are self-learning. Its approach is eminently idiographic.

The new AlphaGo Zero works more simply. First, it combines the move-picking network and the game-predicting network, making the program more efficient and flexible. Second, the combined neural network uses a new architecture that allows for many more layers of tunable artificial neurons than those in the first AlphaGo. Third, during training, the network and search tree work more closely to improve each other. With these changes, the program could skip the step of learning from human games. It also skipped rollout, which had relied on hand-crafted tactical guidelines.
The hypertrophied nomothetic approach of French shitheads, half a century ago, was bound to validate nothing but theories homologically equivalent to my cat-like noise teleology. That is why it was commodified for Identittyarian (Breast is One, Nips are many) gesture politics.
Or when Althusser interrupts his commentary on Marx to talk about theatre, but a theatre that is neither of reality nor of ideas, a pure theatre of places and positions, the principle of which he sees in Brecht, and that would today perhaps find its most extreme expression in Armand Gatti's work.
Gatti was one tough dude. Why compare him to, the poltroon, Brecht, or mention his name in connection with, the wife-killer, Althusser?
Okay, it was '67. Delouse couldn't have known how things would go down. But the reason he couldn't have known was because his own theory was shit. If it hadn't been, he couldn't have written this sentence.
In short, the very manifesto of structuralism must be sought in the famous formula, eminently poetic and theatrical: to think is to cast a throw of the dice [penser, c'est e'mettre un coup de des].]i
But Game Theory is topological. Throwing dice involves Probability, and hence is fully covered by Measure Theory, not Knightian Uncertainty of 'Quantum' entanglement or 'negative probabilities' or Hannan Consistency or anything we know now to be useful.

Deciding may be compared to throwing dice. Thinking is penumbral, it's topos is the 'in-between'- methexu, barzakh, bardo, antarabhava... it occurs at the limit which unites as much as divides quantity and quality, Representation and Recurrence, the one and the many because to deny, as Oedipus does, that one man is many, is to stand self-blinded as the pillar of a Temple whose roof has always already fallen in.
The third consequence is that structuralism is inseparable from a new materialism, a new atheism, a new anti-humanism.
No it isn't. It is inseparable from any theory homologous to my teleology featuring cat-like noises.
For if the place is primary in relation to whatever occupies it, it certainly will not do to replace God with man in order to change the structure. And if this place is the dummy-hand [la place du mort, i.e. the dead man's place], the death of God surely means the death of man as well, in favor, we hope, of something yet to come, but which could only come within the structure and through its mutation. This is how we understand the imaginary character of man for Foucault or the ideological character of humanism for Althusser
or my insistence that everything makes cat like noises which does not depend on Goddess Bastet or Shashti but arises out of a critique of the notion of 'Man' or 'Humanism' under conditions of late Print Capitalism.

III. Third Criterion: The Differential and the Singular What then do these symbolic elements or units of position finally consist of?
Delouse is saying 'what does some X's 'hash table' finally consist of?" This presupposes there is an index (which Delouse will later discuss under the rubric of the 'serial') for a complete 'associative array' such that each 'key' figures uniquely.
Obviously, if Uncertainty prevails and God is not Occassionalist, the hash table consists of nothing but notional, defeasible, elements.
Let us return to the linguistic model. What is distinct both from the voiced elements, and the associated concepts and images, is called a phoneme, the smallest linguistic unit capable of differentiating two words of diverse meanings: for example, "Millard" [billiard] and "/>illard" [pillager].
Either the phoneme is buck-stopped by some conventional juristic process or it isn't. If it isn't Wittgenstein's private language argument applies. Not only is there no certainty, it must be the case that no error correction is occurring. The thing is bound to turn to shit, not retain any semblance of structure.
It is clear that the phoneme is embodied in letters, syllables and sounds, but that it is not reducible to them.
It is reducible to reception. You may say 'eggs', I hear 'yeggz' and say 'Sari! No yeggz here Saaar! These iz Brahman Ho Tull, yai zay!'
Moreover, letters, syllables and sounds give it an independence, whereas in itself, the phoneme is inseparable from the phonemic relation which unites it to other phonemes: b / p. Phonemes do not exist independently of the relations into which they enter and through which they reciprocally determine each other.
If this were true, people would say I sound like Stephen Fry and people would ask which Public School I attended. As things are,  the young Asian Immigration Officers at Heathrow gaze at me in dismay because though I clearly have lived in this country for forty years, I still sound as if I'd just been discovered stowed-away on a Cross-Channel ferry. Amartya Sen says the same thing happens to him. It doesn't at all. The fucker talks posh. What invites incredulity is his claim to be the Dungeon Master of Trinity or some other such notorious S&M hangout.
We can distinguish three types of relation. A first type is established between elements which enjoy independence or autonomy: for example, 3 + 2, or even 2 / 3. The elements are real, and these relations must themselves be said to be real.
Gorillas and hand grenades enjoy independence and autonomy but you can't add them together. Two gorillas may well be divided by three hand grenades in to lots of different pieces but those pieces won't all be either gorillas or hand grenades or some aggregate of both.
A second type of relationship, for example, x2 + y2 - R2 = 0, is established between terms for which the value is not specified, but which in each case, however, must have a determined value.
Nonsense! R may be impredicative.
Such relations can be called imaginary. But the third type is established  between elements which have no determined value themselves, and which nevertheless determine each other reciprocally in the relation: thus ydy + xdx = 0, or dy-/ dx = - x/y. Such relationships are symbolic, and the corresponding elements are held in a differential relationship. Dy is totally undetermined in relation to y, and dx is totally undetermined in relation to x: each one has neither existence, nor value, nor signification. And yet the relation dy/dx is totally determined, the two elements determining each other reciprocally in the relation. 
Sheer nonsense! Dy is wholly determined by what is happening to y. There exist a set of X's which satisfy the formula with respect to how y is changing. dy/dx is wholly indeterminate- any x or y could satisfy it at some times but not others.
This process of a reciprocal determination is at the heart of a relationship that allows one to define the symbolic nature. Sometimes the origins of structuralism are sought in the area of axiomatics, and it is true that Bourbaki, for example, uses the word "structure." But this use, it seems to me, is in a very different sense, that of relations between non-specified elements, not even qualitatively specified, whereas in structuralism, elements specify each other reciprocally in relations. In this sense, axiomatics would still be imaginary, not symbolic properly speaking. The mathematical origin of structuralism must be sought rather in the domain of differential calculus, specifically in the interpretation which Weierstrass and Russell gave to it, a static and ordinal interpretation, which definitively liberates calculus from all reference to the infinitely small, and integrates it into a pure logic of relations.
Oh dear! Delouse thinks he is smarter than Andrei Weil or Grothendieck! He thinks the 'mathematical origin of structuralism' is something fixed for all time in the rejection of 'space intuition' in favour of a similarly flawed Arithmeticization in thework of Weierstrass and the early Russel, whose halitosis was so bad he had to settle for calculus rather than coition. Thankfully, an American Dentist fixed him up and so he could move on from Logicism to getting laid.

Obviously, if we- irrationally- subscribe to a complete and consistent Logicism then we could liberate calculus from anything at all. However, this would also entail the ineluctable tropism of every Dedekind cut to make cat like noises. That's the way the Principle of Explosion works. It justifies you saying something stupid at the price of licensing every other sort of stupidity.
Corresponding to the determination of differential relations are singularities, distributions of singular points which characterize curves or figures (a triangle for example has three singular points). In this way, the determination of phonemic relations proper to a given language ascribes singularities in proximity to which the vocalizations and significations of the language are constituted.
If this were the case, not only would Strong A.I be feasible but it would also be mathematically certain that cats excrete some microbe or virus which causes Society to build pyramids and create hierarchies and so on. Thus my teleology re. making cat like noises is perfectly rational.

Delouse's project, however, is not because it is reciprocally determined by my making cat like noises without, however, determining the sort of noises Parisian cats used to make which, I need hardly mention, have an archeological relationship to such sounds as my neighbour's tabby emits and which, from time to time, out of simple exasperation, I too utter.
The reciprocal determination of symbolic elements continues henceforth into the complete determination of singular points that constitute a space corresponding to these elements. The crucial notion of singularity, taken literally, seems to belong to all the domains in which there is structure. The general formula, "to think is to cast a throw of the dice," itself refers to the singularities represented by the sharply outlined points on the dice. Every structure presents the following two aspects: a system of differential relations according to which the symbolic elements determine themselves reciprocally, and a system of singularities corresponding to these relations and tracing the space of the structure. Every structure is a multiplicity. The question, "Is there structure in any domain whatsoever?," must be specified in the following way: in a given domain, can one uncover symbolic elements, differential relations and singular points which are proper to it? Symbolic elements are incarnated in the real beings and objects of the domain considered; the differential relations are actualized in real relations between these beings; the singularities are so many places in the structure, which distributes the imaginary attitudes or roles of the beings or objects that come to occupy them. 
 If it is true that 'to think is to cast a throw of the dice' then it must be the case that the terminus ad quem of thought is making cat like noises- because silence too is a cat like noise. Furthermore, since any set of dice throws can be mapped onto a sequence of cat like noises, it follows that Delouse's thought is fully determined by, without itself at all determining, cat like noises.
It is not a matter of mathematical metaphors. In each domain, one must find elements, relationships and points.
Why must one do so? "Nicaraguan horcruxes of my neighbour's cat' is a domain. Why must one find elements, relationships and points in this domain? There can be only one canonical answer- viz. making cat like noises.
When Levi-Strauss undertakes the study of elementary kinship structures, he not only considers the real fathers in a society, nor only the father-images that run through the myths of that society. He claims to discover real kinship phonemes, that is, kin-emes [parentemes], positional units which do not exist independently of the differential relations into which they enter and that determine each other reciprocally. It is in this way that the four relations—brother / sister, husband / wife, father / son, maternal uncle / sister's son—form the simplest structure. And to this combinatory system of "kinship names" correspond in a complex way, but without resembling them, the "kinship attitudes" that realize the singularities determined in the system.
So, Delouse thinks there is a correspondence without resemblance even in elementary kinship structures.  Thus I was justified in making cat like noises rather than saying 'Namaste Auntyji!' as my Mother demanded. Indeed, she hereself corresponded to, without resembling, some sequence of cat like noises and thus I was fulfilling my filial duty to what she corresponded to by making similar cat like noises.
Anyway, I won that argument. Sadly, my Professors at the LSE were made of sterner stuff. But then they actually knew some Maths as opposed to 'mathematical metaphors'. Sad.
One could just as well proceed in the opposite manner: start from singularities in order to determine the differential relations between ultimate symbolic elements. Thus, taking the example of the Oedipus myth, Levi-Strauss starts from the singularities of the story (Oedipus marries his mother, kills his father, immolates the Sphinx, is named club-foot, etc.) in order to infer from them the differential relations between "mythemes" which are determined reciprocally (overestimation of kinship relations, underestimation of kinship relations, negation of aboriginality, persistence of aboriginality).
So, what if Levi-Strauss shat on Literature? Any Witzelsucht Witzel can and has accomplished as much. By contrast, if you gave Alan Moore a copy of Kirscher's Oedipus Aegyptiacus you'd get a comic book franchise so rich and strange it would redeem our trumpery Trumpian Age and, by the quill of Thoth, stay Yahweh's Day of Wrath.

The wrong answer to the Sphinx's riddle is 'me'. Saying 'we' would have spared its life and tamed it and one could then go on to have lots of nice adventures and Mummy would have made us sandwiches and we wouldn't end up sleeping with her but just fallen asleep holding her hand on the sofa as some Sun TV serial meandered melodramatically on and on.
 Similarly, saying 'one man can't be many' is fucked in the head. I recall sleeping my Granny in the Sixties at a time when I was a secret agent  and a cowboy and an Astronaut as well as Dev Anand in 'Jewel Thief' and unstarching Mary Poppins knickers.

 Oedipus pronounces a curse on his Daddy's killer. But, tat tvam asi. Thou art That. So what? One is also everything else.
Killing Daddy is an imitatio dei- that's how Zeus and Jupiter got their start. Fucking your Mummy, or dreaming it happened, means you'll be welcomed back to your polis as a great hero. Oedipus is sitting pretty till he does what is ungodly and unkingly viz ask too many questions and thus become subject to his own isonomia- but that's okay, no biggie coz the old Indo-European Religion prescribed reciprocity between Deity and devotee- they live each others deaths and die each others lives.
This is a story with a happy ending. Though Oedipus, the big silly, didn't pal up the Sphinx to have a lot of nice adventures, like He-Man & Battle Cat, which he could have done just by saying 'we' not 'me' in answer to her riddle, still, at the end of the day, the Erinyes are tamed and transformed into the Euminides just in time for us to get the ancient Greek equivalent of corn-dogs and candy floss.

Kinship is about hugging and squeezing Daddy to death and giving little kisses to Mummy or Granny- Aunties can go hang, except for that sweet one who is getting married in December- and everybody eating corn-dogs and candy-floss and watching terrible melodramas on a CRT TV connected to a VCR that weighs more than you do.

Fuck was wrong with Levi-Strauss? He'd lived in Karachi. There must have been some kids who adopted him and made him give them piggyback rides and then fed him samosas or jalebi or whatever. Why could he not understand that kin are kind and continually exchange identities by 'paratman parivartana'? You feed a baby and it tries to feed you. You try to teach English to the little shits and they teach you not to say 'yeggz' rather than 'eggs'- either that or the other way round. I don't know anymore.

To belong to a kinship network- e.g. my own Tambram family- is- I am very sorry to say- to be immediately integrable into a wholly different one- e.g. that of Karachi Memons with whom I've got zero in common. Kids- and not just kids- young people from homes of that sort- they just fucking colonise everybody. Maybe, it wouldn't have happened to me if I spoke posh English or dressed better. I'm kidding myself. Kinship and kindness aint about 'me'. It's about 'we'.

I'm a 55 year old Tamil man. When I die, the only people who will remember me will be this Memon family where- back in '94- I accidentally ate 2.5 kgs of vegetable samosas which were supposed to be for all the guests. I thought the tray was just for me- I imagined that the womenfolk, discovering that their son's guest was Hindu, had sent this vegetarian dish so I could slake my hunger rather than be tempted by food forbidden by Religion.

Anyway, I was so stupefied by overeating that I sank supine on some sofa and thus became easy prey for some terroristic gang of tiny tots who, perversely, fled the attentions of the lovely lasses in the andaroon in order to try to get some useful work out of the horrible hulk that I represented.
Kids are like that. Cruel. Till they stop being kids. Sad. We are all that Sphinx which perishes as the four legged become two legged in so univocal a manner that 'me' supplants 'we' and one man can no longer be many.

Still, my memory is that I was once 'Battle Cat' to a He Man who is now probably an actuary or oncologist.

'Oedipus? Oedipus-Schmoedipus. He was a good boy who loved his Mother.'
I read out that joke from an American joke-book I'd borrowed from the USIS library.
Mum laughed.
I wasn't sure she'd gotten it. I hadn't. But, for once, she had and was able to repeat it at dinner parties.

What am I saying here?
Frances Hutcheson, Adam Smith's precursor, defined Economics under the rubric of 'familial rights'.
Them Glasgow Uni geezers were great Greek scholars.
By contrast, India's 'Artha-shastra' (Economics) is backward because it is atomistic.
Yet, Yuddhishtra- the Just King- had to learn Game Theoretic Decision Theory just to overcome his 'Vishada' (abulia) at not knowing how to do justice to his own kin.

I'm now gonna try say something as foolish as Delooser.
Here goes-

 Oikos is related to Oikonomia as Artha is related to Akrebia.


Wikipedia says- the ancient Greek word oikos (ancient Greekοἶκος, plural: οἶκοι; English prefix: eco- for ecology and economics) refers to three related but distinct concepts: the family, the family's property, and the house. Its meaning shifts even within texts, which can lead to confusion...In normal Attic usage the oikos, in the context of families, referred to a line of descent from father to son from generation to generation.

Oikos is related to Artha by a notion of 'true descent'- legally meaningful, for buck-stopped, kinship relationships. Artha, as meaning, also relates to the divine 'rta' or 'oikonomia', and is cognate with Avestan 'asha' as Truth. The Greek Church distinguishes between the plasticity of 'oikonomia' and the rigidity of 'Akrebia' as laws, vows and depressive conceptions of duty. But, and this is the fucking point of the Mahabharata, everybody is a true born son- if he wants to be- and none is if you didn't love him to pieces when you could coz he has become 'one man' and thus can't be 'many'.


Sod that as a game for soldiers!
Artha- hermeneutics- is a steaming pile of shite if Baby can't teach you langue.
Not everybody has a Baby.
Sad.
Think I'll go make cat like noises.
But which Baby will it delight?
Well, me writing this blog post is still a sort of cat-like noise making, right?
Jeez, I jus' fuckin' depressed myself.

Delooser took another course. And won- that fucking Froggie louse! Sterile Spinozas, spinning their unsticky webs, yet are redeemed and rendered Avuncular, Paternal, or even Vatsalya Avatar type toothlessly grinning Granny or Gandhi type figures, by the sticky hands of those who childishly turn over their pages with sticky hands.
Vasudhaiva Kutambakam is a real thing.

Just as Moliere died playing the title role in Le Malade imaginaire, coz he really was sick; and Sophocles, senile, cheated his Oikos by reason of the continued brilliance of his rhyme, so too does Deleuze- as did I after overeating samosas at a Memon Eid- become Evelyn Waugh's hellish vision of the Monsieur Prudhomme of the Thirties- viz. a man who seats his children on his lap and methodically feeds them all the good things on offer while prosing on in the manner of a Freemason.

Deleuze- by reason of his esoteric verging on Diabolism- now deservedly spoon feeds Subaltern Skarias.
Such irony is that theodicy which reconciles every conatus to being disrupted by cuddles.