Hmmmmm

"For there is no art where there is nothing to be overcome, and we realize then that the monotony of this ceremonious harmony is as much the result of clear-sighted calculation as of heart-rending passion."

-Albert Camus in Intelligence and the Scaffold, Confluences (1943)

Say it's midnight on a Friday. You, as a man, an individual of free will, can walk up to a brothel. You can have $84 in your pocket. She will charge you $84. You can say you have $84,000,000,000 in your pocket. She will charge you $1,000,000,000. Is this what free trade is?

Opposed to Hegel, Marx thought that history is driven by the material or economic conditions that will inevitably wither. “Before men can do anything else,” Marx wrote, “they must first produce the means of their subsistence.” Without material production, there would be no life and thus no human activity. The main argument withheld against industrial capitalism is the idea that it inevitably diverges into two classes: the bourgeoisie who own the means of production and the proletariat who becomes the means of production, a mere appendage of the machine. Scrolling through political Twitter discourse has made me realize that many leftists fail to recognize that capitalism is quite literally a necessary stage of development for humans to extend their network, their control, their increased aggregation over nature. Although Camus claims beauty is in the suffering Marx would most likely shake his head and tell us that this statement is merely used as opium for the deluded proletariat, a false delusion that numbs their rationale and convinces them to accept their wretched condition as an inevitable way of life. But is it true? Is it an inevitable way of life? Margaret Thatcher once said that "there is no alternative to capitalism". 

’disaster’, ‘neoliberal’, ‘postfordist’, ‘necro’, ‘communicative’, ‘surveillance’, ‘platform-- all blaring terms we see on social media, news headlines, and leftist video essays that dedicate capitalism as an eternal concept. I think I agree with the concept that we have elevated to a stage beyond description utilizing Marxist terms. We as a society have entered a third stage: vectoralist information, the privatization of codes and data of every form, including genetic (Jennifer Doudna, the founder of CRISPR, is a literal professor at my school which I still think is pretty crazy). The big tech industry, capitalist to its core, has the agenda of adapting technology to do more and more with less and less until we can do everything with nothing. Another ode to the horseshoe theory--I see this as simply another fulfillment of the Communist Manifesto where capitalism’s revolutionary power to wash away all things in its relentless search for profit is summed up in the famous phrase: ‘all that is solid melts into air’. 

Comments

  1. I like how you don’t go the route of many pop leftists by going for a rugged critique of capitalism. I also agree it is an inevitable reality if we want to dominate nature with progress. “One may dye their hair green and wear their grandma's coat all they want. Capital has the ability to subsume all critiques into itself. Even those who would *critique* capital end up *reinforcing* it instead…”.
    For this idea of “vectoralist information”, did you read “The Vectoralist Class” by McKenzie Wark? I feel like that explains this “information” with categorized definitions. I disagree with that writing, particularly with an alternative category being the “hacker class”. Classism has its limits for me.
    Please reply with some inspirations behind this concept since tech culture is still dominating antiquated, real spaces at an exponential rate; I see this as a great way to see new movements that aren’t compatible with Marxist terms. Very insightful!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts