Capital As Power.

DYxMn9QXcAIh8-W.jpg-large

One has the Eric Fromm angle of consciousness as linear and directly proportional to exploitation as one of the strands of Marxian thinking, the non-linearity creeps up from epistemology on the technological side, with, something like, say Moore’s Law, where ascension of conscious thought is or could be likened to exponentials. Now, these exponentials are potent in ridding of the pronouns, as in the “I” having a compossibility with the “We”, for if these aren’t gotten rid of, there is asphyxiation in continuing with them, an effort, an energy expendable into the vestiges of waste, before Capitalism comes sweeping in over such deliberately pronounced islands of pronouns. This is where the sweep is of the “IT”. And this is emancipation of the highest order, where teleology would be replaced by Eschatology. Alienation would be replaced with emancipation. Teleology is alienating, whereas eschatology is emancipating. Agency would become un-agency. An emancipation from alienation, from being, into the arms of becoming, for the former is a mere snapshot of the illusory order, whereas the latter is a continuum of fluidity, the fluid dynamics of the deracinated from the illusory order. The “IT” is pure and brute materialism, the cosmic unfoldings beyond our understanding and importantly mirrored in on the terrestrial. “IT” is not to be realized. “It” is what engulfs us, kills us, and in the process emancipates us from alienation. “IT” is “Realism”, a philosophy without “we”, Capitalism’s excessive power. “IT” enslaves “us” to the point of us losing any identification. In a nutshell, theory of capital is a catalogue of heresies to be welcomed to set free from the vantage of an intention to emancipate economic thought from the etherealized spheres of choice and behaviors or from the paradigm of the disembodied minds.

Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler‘s Capital as Power A Study of Order and Creorder

New Critique: From Hyper-heteronomy to Autonomy. Thought of the Day 13.0

explorepahistory-a0b6r5-a_349

The new critique is an invention of a new form of autonomy from hyper-heteronomy, a therapeutics of the pharmakon. This critique is dimensional in that, it is pharmacological, a critique that consists in analyzing the specifics of the pharmaka, a critique that invests its energy in finding the toxic possibilities of individuation, through an approach that is both theoretical and absolute and that is without a context, but not totally context-free, since it is an organological approach, an approach which is always within a context, in the Nietzschean genealogical sense of the term, but is at the same time independent of any particular political situation.

Ejecting and Injecting Pronouns in Capitalism. Drunken Risibility.

10sncu1zw-pqy-4gdqe7yxw

I want to de-agentify myself. It is not ‘you’, or ‘I’, or ‘me’. It is the questioning of such pronouns. And why are they required at all. As I have always maintained, agencies would disappear in capitalism. And when we have capitalism everywhere, we would cease to be “we”. “We” would become part of the “IT”. And this is emancipation of the highest order. Teleology would be replaced by Eschatology. Alienation would be replaced with emancipation. Teleology is alienating, whereas eschatology is emancipating. Agency would become un-agency. An emancipation from alienation, from being, into the arms of becoming, for the former is a mere snapshot of the illusory order, whereas the latter is a continuum of fluidity, the fluid dynamics of deracinated from the illusory order. The “IT” is pure and brute materialism, the cosmic unfoldings beyond our understanding and importantly mirrored in on the terrestrial. “IT” is not to be realized. “It” is what engulfs us, kills us, and in the process emancipates us from alienation. “IT” is “Realism”, a philosophy without “we”, Capitalism’s excessive power. “IT” enslaves “us” to the point of us losing any identification. Capital is the fluidity of encampment. Ideologizing it is capitalism. This fluid is hotter than molten lava and colder than ice-caps. This fluidity does not believe in layers, and to that extent is democratic. Capital is the flow of desires/passions/reasons that criss-cross with the material that go on to build them. Capital is abstract only as far as speculations are concrete. Both morph into each other.

Afraid of Hegel? Why….Drunken Risibilities

img_12306

Hegel sees the family as the immediacy, civil society as the alienation and the state as the reconciliator of the two. The very presence of civil society in between the family and the state cries for institutionalizing for politics to happen. Civil society demands for the strict normativities for the other two to possess. Therefore, for Hegel, it is the negation and the withering away of civil society is compensated “today” by various simulators/simulations for eg. the media. (I am looking for the possibilities of media as the guarantor of a conflict-free Social, yet to comprehend it fully).

The family, as stated above guarantees immediacy, solidarity and this results in the first corruption of a kind in limiting the one that is guaranteed immediacy and solidarity. If, one is ever possible to escape the Scylla of family, one is caught in the Charybdis of civil society i.e. if the break from the limit is successfully negotiated, an imposing limit takes its place in the form of civil society.This is the second corruption. And the way to reach a rapprochement is through the mediator in “State”. Does this mean that “State” as the community is the only assurance of doing politics today? This is nothing short of twisting of the dialectic, a kind of trolling!!

Now, one thing is for certain and that being a trajectory to be followed to surpass the constraints imposed upon by the Hegelian pillars and the strictures these demand to be obeyed (lest ‘Anarchism’). Well, it isn’t really suitable to put the culpability on Hegel for these theses of bad notions, as for him, they only acted as progressions through dialectics. Mis-representations lie in ossifying or fixating these progressions as if forgetting the movement that started to initially define them.

So, it is not to be apathetic to these progressions that could never define the contours of politics today, but to rethink the terms and the relations that are derived between them. What is imperative is to think of: cross-individuality/multi-individuality and means to mitigate corruptions that for Hegel laid the basis for the Social.

On Political Activism

This is more of a pronouncement in theory, a look into the excess that makes possible peeping into alternatives, or more specifically economics as an object that escapes or rather exceeds finite human comprehension.

What has been contentious is the extant of neo-liberalism. Since, we are all caught up in the global financial crisis, and the alternatives from the left not forthcoming, inoculation from the global finance appear all the more distant.

Neo-liberalism, as we have known it has changed its form, and with the difficulty of representation associated with it, social imagination often wanders far and wide in trying to stake its claim on a legitimate political alternative. This change in form, however has not completely left the underlying grounds uninhabited, with movements coming in to reside, albeit temporarily. This is significantly attributable to their discourse clinging on to diatribes of neo-liberal orthodoxies, and missing out on augmenting latent capacities. In short, if I could be allowed to make this bold claim, then I would:

“The extent of capitalism is all pervasive with no direct perception of it being possible. Navigating through this labyrinth needs inflating human cognisance, and alternative politics misses this mark.”

I want to borrow Jameson’s idea of ‘Cognitive Mapping’, which he uses to critique the left. For him, “Cognitive Mapping enables a situational representation on the part of the individual subject to that vaster and properly unrepresentable totality, which is the ensemble of society’s structures as a whole.” This statement goes on to prove what ought to be, and what has not been achieved. Unlike the past, where a localized experience was strong enough to give a fair idea of the underlying economic structure and its superimposition by a political formula, the case today runs on deficiency in prescribing precisely such a formula. Moreover, the talk of emancipation cohabits increasing alienation, and the perception of this ideological stance is what could come out as an alternative. To put this on a lighter note, TINA breeds alternatives.

The talk of alternatives, and here I must make it clear, the economic ones over which the political and the developmental paradigms could be made to rest, is somehow sandwiched between the burning issues of unemployment, inequity, welfare schemes and reforms on the one hand, and the more academically oriented rhetoric of dialectics on the other. But, even under this state, alternatives are launched from an ‘Aleph’, to take Jorge Louis Borges idea of a point in space that contains all other points in space to facilitate all perspectives.

MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA

This claim stinks of hubris, if nothing more. The way out, as I see it is by embracing technologies that helps prevent mutations of individualistic (micro) ideological affiliations and encompassing these within a larger socially construed concept. The other reason for this mandate is accessibility to the socio-political developmental paradigms that have hitherto been fluctuating on the borders of these micro affiliations. I term this ‘mainstreaming’.

Ecological degradation, resource allocation and associated wars, fractiously built equalities, cultural constructions are some of the problems that are bound to multiply in future under the dromological era of economies of exhaustion already set in motion in the form of an invasion from the future. This is highlighted by the pervasiveness of debt economies that are made the indicators of a utopian world order. Rejection to partake in this systemic implosion and explosion double bind is surely no way at proposing political, economical and developmental alternatives, but merely a regression into the crevices of capitalism in its current trends.

Here, I might be made to appear a pessimist, but commonsense has other ideas that I cannot overlook, and that being the impossibility of doing away with market, a market where economies are traded, developmental ideas are rubbished and furbished and political consent and dissent are bred.

So, how is this proposed?

Political activism is enmeshed within technological interfaces, such that reality creates insights, augments it, rather than merely providing insights on reality. This goes a long way in distorting, or more appropriately disturbing conventional modes of understanding, thereby expanding or opening vistas of human sensibilities and cognitive mapping than hitherto had been the case.  Additionally, technological interfaces infuse tactility bringing in its wake political alternatives.

The obvious question begs the productive efficacy of this as an alternative. Well, this might require time to sink in, but the thesis I propose is in fact trying to affine technological embrace with a political alternative. This is to be gotten through a movement of aesthetics that explodes the political sensibilities. Is there any wonder that we find ourselves encapsulated with the abstraction of neo-liberalism, with an inability to draw contours beyond the rhetoric of alienation, oppression, marginalization and what have you? Yes and no, this is the case, and therefore negotiating the void created by a lack of an alternative political scheme should only ensure habilitating on this technological interface to realize complex notions of global financial movements into local politically comprehensible formats. If the world order is too chaotic, or complex to understand, then the proposal is an attempt to curtail the speed of this chaos by grasping these dromological flights and making them affordable. (I could talk here of smartphones and other networking gadgets over the web).

An example could be drawn from Allende’s time in Chile. Project CyberSyn was designed as a real-time control system capable of collecting economic data throughout the nation, transmitting it to the government, and combining it in ways that could assist government decision-making, furthering the realization of a single control room capable of overseeing the entire economy. Drawing on extensive archival material and interviews, Eden Medina (Cybernetic Revolutionaries: Technology and Politics in Allende’s Chile) examines the cybernetic system envisioned by the Chilean government–which was to feature holistic system design, decentralized management, human-computer interaction, a national telex network, near real-time control of the growing industrial sector, and modelling the behaviour of dynamic systems. She also describes, and documents with photographs, the network’s Star Trek-like operations room, which featured swivel chairs with armrest control panels, a wall of screens displaying data, and flashing red lights to indicate economic emergencies. This history further shows how human attempts to combine the political and the technological with the goal of creating a more just society can open new technological, intellectual, and political possibilities. Technologies, Medina writes, are historical texts; when we read them we are reading history. The beauty of this model lay in decentralization and wedding whatever technologies were present at the time in its material form with socialism. Are we not better equipped at present technologically to bring something similar or grand into effect……

*This has been largely inspired by Nick Srnicek, Alex Williams and the Accelerationism phenomenon when I was starting to understand them and this. 

The escape velocity of theory competency: of no consequence

this is a bolt of lightening from the darkest abyss of unreclaimed comprehensibility, a nondescript translation of the experiential excess of reading, and the vanity of seemingly gripping binaries and the subsequent refusal to admit to a camp.

all along the trajectory over the last few months, a decidedly harsh allegiance to the dilution of self and/or subject affined me towards the Buddhist creed, which was gaining in exacerbative rigors. this had to be curtailed and the way out was to go back to Kant and Hegel. from the latter, the notion of subject being formed over history, as against the Kantian fashionable timeless entitlement given to spirit as a transcendental pre-given set of cognitive faculties, releases one from the formal take on history and throws one into the speculative core. not only does spirit become a historical auto-production thus delineating the real self from the reflective self through a logically conducted orchestration of thinking through time, but points to the becoming of subject as not merely expressed, but how it gets ‘thought’ through a series of predicates.

this auto-production/differentiation is precisely what Marx contorted (albeit in a materialist sense) to call it the process of alienation, since through these mechanisms in the proper Hegelian world, spirit would gain freedom/autonomy to escape the strictures of phenomenality.

certain consequences are to be drawn here. first and foremost, a blast from the past to the positions of many of the modern day thinkers associated with lending legitimacy to the dissolution of self, which incidentally maps to the Buddhist creed. this blast is nothing more than gaining the momentum of critique as delimitation. secondly, the efficacy of this position depends upon the unintelligibility of Hegel to be converted into an intelligibility, which is the hardest nut to crack in philosophy, if one were to go by popular and ironically strong academic sentiments. third and perhaps the most important one here is to gauge the velocity of escape competency of theory, which when measured would draw us inside to the real possibility of realism, if attainable at all.

just maybe, i am beginning to see through the fog, or this might be a curl back into the Parmenidean thought ‘+’ being.

Capitalism Without Being…

There is only one way to escape the alienation of present-day society: to retreat ahead of it. – Roland Barthes, The Pleasure of the Text

noname

This powerful statement by Barthes, even, unintentionally, is thetic of ‘accelerationism‘, the position that deliberates on the generation of forces of dissolution as an inherent property of capitalism calling forth to be radically challenged. How could this be achieved without falling into the trap of drawing endlessly vicious circles of positioning the subject of revolt as always peripheral to capital? One contingent solution lies in rehabilitating this subject of revolt in relation to capital, such that, the immense circuit of capitalist exchanges makes room for the possibility of coming-into-existence of all modalities of jouissance, with none of them suffering the fate of getting ostracized (marginalized). This very well echoes Lyotard’s position as stated in his Libidinal Economy.

My interest lay in connecting this rehabilitation with speculative realist stance, which would lock away the correlationist (thinking and being as tightly coupled) side, and appreciate the elevation of thinking capitalism as it would be in-itself. If, one perceives capitalism as a gigantic productive machine, without any relation to the human, one is successful in jettisoning the possessiveness involved therein, as in, capitalism-for-humans, as either putative or pejorative. Capitalism then, as a colossal producing machine, becomes inorganic, and calls for a traction along non-anthropocentric lines. Such a reading creates ruptures within the Marxian discourse, where, speculating on capitalism in-itself is either not permissible due to the tenets of his labour theory of value, or, if at all undertaken, epitomizes levels of insanity. Whereas, capitalism as inorganic, construes speculation to be of highest value. Supplementing this theme, is the DeleuzoGuattarian notion of capitalism-as-proces, where a switch from concrete-ness to processuality invests the onus of housing a true nature of capitalism as shifting  from basic building blocks, such as, forms of alienation to telos (destination) of the process.

The prescription is a call to embrace capitalism, in order to be liberated from the polarities of agonizingly devaluing post-modernism, and increasing bankruptcy of the ideologies of liberal democracy. Such a liberation might create frameworks of naivete, which would subsequently be liquidated with the emergence of inhuman subjectivation in the face of relentlessly indefatigable capitalism. For such emergence to be brought about, the embracing of capitalism would obligate the dissolution of animated ideologies that drive corporate assemblages on the one hand, and mass-based power structures (states, civil societies etc.) on the other. Such a dissolution, in the words of Alex Williams would usher in an absolutization of an adequation of post-human subjectivity to capital, and in turn would also carry a caveat akin to revolution eating its own children. One way to safeguard from this caveat is to go back to Deleuzian notion of metabolic rate within capitalism through the vestiges of Foucauldian ‘man’ that derives its dependency on the analytic of finitude while attempting to face up to the relentless brutal force of capitalism. This not only negotiates the falling back into the already experienced conservative subjectivation, but also formulates a novel theorizing accounting for the expansive nature of capitalism, homeostatically arresting the realization of pernicious potentials of capitalism.

Nothing would obviously prevent from thinking about such a form of realized capitalism as fantasy. Williams invokes the Badiouian fiction with its potency to bring about a completed truth, and in turn actualize its own reality. This invocation is required to undertake a radical new reading of the friction generated in balancing the deterritorializing/reterritorializing axiomatic within capitalism, a position that is not adversative to the real praxis built upon the system. The re-reading departs from Nick Land’s, where any deterritorialization sends an immediate reterritorialization into oblivion. Importantly, what is required is a firm belief in the negativity harbored in capitalism, through an accelerationist reading to safeguard the critique of the left on one hand, and the praxis of the right on another. This would not only maintain Deleuzean becoming sans affirmation, but equally legitimize capitalism’s colossal machinic status in tune with Lyotard’s observation (above), thereby expounding what is truly adequate to capitalism-in-itself.

How would an accelerationist reading differ from another communist revolution-in-the-making? The idea propounded by Williams is most suitable, for, accelerationism, in a weak sense, would be opposed to ameliorative leftism by acting to foreground the structural privations of the capitalist system, and accelerationism in its strong sense would mutate the system itself rather than getting engulfed in the euphoria of capitalism’s downfall. It is precisely in the strong sense of the word, accelerationism would talk about capitalism as inorganic, or as nullifying the subjectivity, or even for that matter, resemble as effectuating inhumanism. This inhumanism, or inhuman becoming poses the  problematic of grounding politics. In other words, with speculative realism as a tool, an un-correlated philosophical system at place would find its grounding on to the correlated domains of political system quite misfitting.

To circumvent this problematic, either through taking recourse to Deleuzean notion of capitalism as a system of deterritorializing/reterritorializing flows, or some sort of dialectical movement, with the haunting of de-subjectivation, if at all attainable, this could only be made so through the trace of what praxis seeks to eliminate….

But, then this is only a dream now with no academic ambitions to pursue. Fictionalised.