re: "structural amorality of capital" - where was this from again?

synergy? it's like in positive right - not amorality (to speak of it like that would be too obvious within ius/ethica construct ;-)), but in critiques of extreme juidicial positivism (e.g. 'auctoritas non veritas...' etc.) one has introduced term 'deontological morality', which i received to be quite close to 'ethical neutrality'. this notion contains the instrumentalisation of ethical reason for political ends: the rationality of contractualist participation is based on premises about human nature via natural state argumentation, so the hypothetical or aprioric contract is as such already rationally instrumental and collective morality (ius) is subordinate to this ('auctoritas/veritas'). kant, in his ahistorical and obsessive universalism tried to get around it through his transcendental method of extrapolating the notion of right via reason apriori (via rationality itself !! - after horkheimer it feels like cheating...). hegel then looked at it through the telescope of totality and noticed a sense of instrumentality in the historical emergence of the moral subject (cf. sittlichkeit/categorical imperative). anyway, we've been through this ;-). synergy then, in the sense of a structural amorality of institutions via ius (-> discourse -> ideology -> advanced industrial society -> whole goddamn business).

have noted that "for the common good" argumentation seems to rely heavily on such reductions of moral reason or ethical suspension.

when will contemporary ideology finally reflect this? obv. only after institutions have been ideologically "reduced to ashes", hence i can only agree, that there is an integrative nature in protest against institutional policy, that fails to analyse the institution's underlying mechanisms, legitimacy or even the notion of 'such a thing' (in ppp language: polity prior to policy). to be anti-wef or anti-american is merely a response to the flawed institutional excuse (washington consensus/united nations/nation states) without identifying it as such, so using the same language, therefore similarly pseudoconcrete. this isn't about "abstract entities" such as the modern nation state, certain regimes and their policies, as much as it's about us, our neighbours and everybody else. the world of appearances does not disclose that one can/must dig deeper than that. policy analysis (thereby including the acceptance of the institution that formulated it) has thus a purely phenomenal function and shouldn't inform political praxis directly which, in this ahistorical way, can only be formulated as a superficial reaction (nothing the state can't handle etc). as phil describes ("evil outthere" whilst "suv-driving neighbour"). perhaps this structure contains threads similar to 'really-existing socialism' vs. libertarian socialism, but that's just an interesting feeling ;-).

title of debate also telling (functional grammar -> fascist syntax): "britain [subject] needs more immigrants [accusative object]" - aren't we staring instrumental reason/ethical neutrality in the face there? this is not about the perpetrators (hiding behind subject), nor is it about the immigrants even (intransitive object)! it's about "abstract entity" britain (subject) - a policy debate with an extraparliamentary nature that is misleading. the real question as below, it seems, is why the west needs more immigrants whilst being unable to wash the "common good" excuse any longer to much success - we are in fact on the same titanic as asylumseekers are. upper or lower deck, the boat still sunk. only difference is that we have the material means to believe that there is an 'us' and 'them'. and the asylumseeker obviously strives to be as rich as 'us' (the slave doesn't want to be free, he wants to be a master as benevolent as his own - both alienated). our solidarity with immigrants then, if that's all we can come up with, might just reduce us to benevolent masters...

protest within the framework usually leads to implicit acceptance of issue at hand. seeming anti-systemic forces are healthy after all ("we need no passport people to run first world economy, brownies without labour or indeed any rights are as necessary to the maintenance of our luxurious lifestyle as the slaves of ancient rome") ie. to act on such issues on the nation-state or institutional level is almost like accepting the lies. one might as well be talking micro/meso/macrolevel all day.

of course, there's nothing wrong with the dynamic of immigration solidarity. but locality of issue and discourse (both empirically and intelligibly) lets one wonder about the critical-revolutionary potential of such action. in good reformist tradition: it's tackling the right outcomes, but remains beside the actual problem. we can sit around debating governmental policy as much as we want, but in the end we'll still treat the concept of our suv-driving, viagra-popping neighbour/boss/professor/priest with an acceptance like no dystopian vision had ever entered our minds.

anyway ("coitus? i was talking about my rug...") was only going to refer to synergy, so: there might be insights to be gained by looking at establishment of ethical neutrality within both capital flow and sittlichkeit (essentially political economy), exposing mechanisms of functional rationality/instrumental reason within and between base and superstructure -> institutions.

but then again, this exposure is what any creative work represents.