Fate

1. Human ‘subjectivity’ is constructed from:

a. absolute autonomic processes (internal biological and environmental pressures)
b. arbitrarily autonomic processes (the unavoidable inheritance of accidental historical and economic developments).
b. ongoing processes of that which is becoming autonomic, (i.e. the processes by which dead labour is actualised in the world around us and which we take to be our second nature).
c. subjectivity, or inter-subjectivity itself (i.e. the forms of conscious awareness and activities which feed into each other, conflicting, destroying, combining etc).
d. Human subjectivity is always set recursively in various environments, however within Marxism it is framed specifically thus:

2. There is a conjectured objective trajectory within history in which social development is identified by communist discourse as the progressive realisation of the human species; this trajectory becomes more apparent in subjective consciousness the closer it is to realisation (which is conceived as the clear-eyed control by humanity of its own fate). It is supposed that at the point of this realisation there will appear a subject capable of controlling the forces which reproduce it as an expression of the entirety of human society constructed for itself.

3. However, it has become apparent that the exponential increase in proportion of the domination of dead labour in ratio to the capacity for subjectivity has led to a qualitative transformation in the potential viability of a subject that is capable of controlling the forces which do not so much sustain as subsume it.

4. Therefore, if communism is the expropriative increase of consciousness (i.e. effective decision-making capacity) in ratio to productive forces then communist revolution cannot be seen as simply the ‘communisation’ of existing productive processes but must involve a deliberate deconstruction of technologies up to the point where consciousness (i.e. decision-making) is actually, really, and objectively in advance of the processes that sustain it. That is to say, arbitrary and value driven forms such as nuclear power and GM technology which have been developed precisely to foreclose on decisions about their viability, cannot simply be decided against – in other words, distinct capitalised forms will continue to exist and will continue to dictate to society no matter what form of governance is developed subjectively unless somehow there is a means to put them back in the box.

5. Obviously, there are feedback issues here. That is to say:

a. consciousness is always a delayed reflection upon the material forces which produce it
b. we do not want to ‘double back’ to the point where we have to reinvent the wheel every morning.

Even so, I think, within an anti-political communist discourse (i.e. a framework which rejects the religious ideology of an objective benign ‘real movement’ in capitalism), there is an optimal relation between decision-making and automation which historically was probably located in what can be described as the ‘mechanical’ or bourgeois age, that is where decision making was still a fundamental factor of production.