Didymos Thomas wrote:
I do like history.
What's the difference?
Well, while this may truly be said of capital, I believe if it is said correctly it sheds much more light on all human relationships. Now, in the case of Marx, what he said was like an objective judgement based upon a great deal of study. If we see capital as a formal form of relationship it is revealed as being a part of a great class of forms which are all forms of relationship. Apart from a value judgement on a form of relationship like slavery; if it can be seen a form purely, then the human relationships within can be seen objectively for what they are. So, if I say all forms (ideas, as can be concieved) are also forms of relationship then, as a common denominator in all relationships they can be excluded in any relationship. On the other hand, in any form of relationship, if one can exclude the relationship as without form then the form may be seen clearly for what it is. To try to look at both together form and relationship the variety alone is confusing. Marriage is a form of relationship. What can we tell of the form by looking at one marriage? Not much. Add ten, and then what can you tell of marriages? Again, more but still little. Excluding the relationship in any form, the form can be studied comparatively with other like forms. Then, excluding the form which gives it structure, marriages can be examined purely as relationships, and judgements can be made as to what works or fails in all relationships.
Now, to exclude the relationship from the form is not really possible. Some relationships are all form, and little personal relationship. Some forms are very informal, being mostly personal relationship without structure. Ultimately, the lesson I draw is not just the obvious one, that all forms are forms of relationship, but that each relationship is more formal as it is less relationship, and that at one period of time the relationship dominates and at other times the form dominates, that, this is true of forms of governments as forms of relationship, and that over formalization is the destruction of relationships. Invariable when something like capital no longer answers human needs so much as presents human problems, the answer becomes that: it is what it is and it cannot be changed. That is forms, because forms resist change, and are an attempt at stability. In the case of government we can see how this formalism is expressed in megalythic structures that literally shout to the skies that they will not be changed. If they cannot change they will neither serve a human purpose nor survive as a form. In fact they may destroy us in the process. And we should ask: is it really in the best interest of this people to be at their own throats with hatred because the other is seen as intransigent? The intransigence is in the form.
(here I will offer an observation made by some unknown on the Bourbon kings of France; that the learned nothing, and forgot nothing.
To change forms does not take that much, little effort, and much understanding. Even the worst forms serve some body's interest, and they defend the form, and this creates violence. To actually change the form means to reject it, and begin again. It can be like a disappointed husband jumping into the car to go for a bottle of wine, a loaf of bread, and thou; and never going back. We are only lost if feeling powerless before the form. It is the relationship that makes the form real, and gives it meaning. If the form can be cruel and mean to those within it is a demonstration of its dependence upon the people for its being.
Read the declaration of independence for a statement of forms.