37

Capitalism’s Failure Of The Flesh: The Rise Of The Robots

by Phil Rockstroh

Roxy the sex robot


Humankind, being an inherently tool-making species, has always been in a relationship with technology. Our tools, weapons, machines, and appliances are crucial to forging the cultural criteria of human life. At present, amid the technology-created phantomscape of mass media’s lurid — yet somehow sterile — imagery, one can feel as if one’s mind is in danger of being churned to spittle.
On a personal note, an informal consensus has formed among my friends who share a passion for reading: We read far fewer books since the time we became enmeshed with the internet. Worse, we find the feelings of isolation that we have attempted to mitigate by an immersion in online activity, at best, provides only a palliative effect. Yet, in the manner of addiction — or a hopeless love affair —  we are prone to trudge deeper into the psychical morass by further immersion into the very source that is exacerbating our feelings of unease and ennui.
Yet we insist on remaining mentally epoxied to electronic appliances, as the oceans of our technology-besieged planet die, as the atmosphere is choked with heat-holding greenhouse gas emissions, and, as a result, exquisite, living things disappear forever.
Therefore, it is crucial to explore why we are so isolated from each other but so connected to our devices, and are married to the belief system that misinforms us that  technology can and will lift us from our increasingly perilous predicament. When reality dictates, if the past remains prologue, a fetishising of technology will further enslave us in a de facto techno-dystopia. A reassessment, for numerous reasons, of the relationship between humankind and technology must come to pass.
Moreover, the reevaluation must include machines, at present and in the future, we have created in our own image: for example, those such as IA technologies, that on an increasing basis, will cause a significant number of the workforce to be rendered idle.       Of course, it is a given, bottomline obsessives that they are, capitalists crave to replace workers with an automated labor force. The parasitic breed has always viewed workers as flesh machines, of whom they were inconvenienced by having to pay wages. Capitalism is, by its very nature, dehumanising. From the advent of the industrial/capitalist epoch, the system has inflicted mass alienation, societal atomisation, and anomie. Moreover, the vast wealth inequity inherent to the system allows the capitalist elite to own the political class — a mindless clutch of flunkies who might as well be robots programmed by the capitalist order to serve their agendas.
The question is, what effect will the nature of being rendered superfluous to the prevailing order have on the powerless masses — who have, up until now, been kept in line by economic coercion, by meretricious, debt-incurring consumer bribes, and by mass media indoctrination and pop culture anaesthesia? Will consumers continue to insist that their mental chains are the very wings of freedom?
Yet the Age Of Mass Mechanisation carries the potential to bestow an era of liberty, artistic exploration, scientific inquiry, intellectual fervour, the pursuit of soul-making, and inspired leisure. Or the polar shift in cultural raison d’etre might inflict a crisis of identity so harrowing that demagogues rise and despots promise to seed a new order but harvest the corpses of dissidents and outsiders.
A couple of weeks back, during a visit to a neighbourhood playground with my four year old, I had a conversation with an executive on voluntary leave from her management position at BMW (Bayerische Motoren Werke). She was grousing about an infestation of seaweed choking the beaches of the Florida Keys she had encountered on a recent excursion to the US. When I averred the phenomenon of the warming oceans of the planet, the progenitor of the exponential growth of the sea flora she had been troubled by, was caused, in large measure, by the very socio-economic-cultural dynamic that financed her trip to Florida in the first place…well, it put a crimp in the conversation.
It can be unsettling to be confronted with one’s complicity in the ills of a system that, by its very nature, provides camouflage to its perpetrators — the big bosses, down to its functionaries, and foot soldiers. Soon, she, by a series of subtle moves, extricated herself from the conversation — and I cannot say I blame her. I myself experienced discomfort by the thought of the discomfort I inflicted on her. Therefore, as a general rule, under the tyranny of amiability, which is the rule of the day of the present order, one is tempted to avoid trespassing into the comfort zones that aid in enabling the status quo.
Yet we are faced with the following imperative: The system and its machines must begin to serve humanity, as opposed to what has been the case since the advent of the industrial/technological age, the mass of humanity serving the machine. Therefore, there must arrive a paradigmatic shift in metaphors and the ethos of the era e.g., a renunciation of the soul-decimating concept of human beings as flesh machines — who must, for the sake of monomaniacal profiteering, divorce themselves from human feeling, as well as, must forgo exploration, enthusiasm, and craft in the pursuit of expediency.
We do have a choice in the matter, all indications to the contrary. Yet, in the prevailing confusion regarding what ethos should guide our relationship to technology, we are confronted with a phenomenon such as the situation chronicled in a recent article in The Guardian. Headlined: “The Sex Robots Are Coming: seedy, sordid – but mainly just sad”  https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/nov/25/sex-robots-are-coming-seedy-sordid-sad?CMP=fb_gu
Regarding the supercilious nature of the headline, wouldn’t it be more propitious for all concerned to ask and explore why, under the present order, men are so alienated, socially awkward and lonely, as opposed to lapsing into all the predictable moral panic, wit-deficient snark, and supercilious value judgements these sorts of stories evoke?
Isn’t being attracted to consumer goods what it is all about, identity-wise, under the present order? Don’t customers demand that the de facto slaves of the service industry evince the demeanour of compliant androids? Isn’t it a given that the underclass workforce, holders of service industry jobs, will soon be replaced by robots? Do we not worship and are we not ruled by the cult of efficiency?
Withal, for the present order to be maintained, it is crucial for the general public to remain both alienated — thus using consumerism as a palliative, and that includes the production and retailing of sexualised, simulacrum appliances that mimic sex partners — and to have the psychical release valve of finger-wagging, easy virtue and shallow vitriol aimed at the poor sods who seek comfort from them.
Addendum: I’m much more mortified by robotics designed for surveillance and war than for one’s designed for simulacrumatic sex. I’m simply beastly that way.
Robots can be programmed to simulate copulation but it is doubtful that machines can be tuned and tweaked to experience the manifold, complex states of being that define human consciousness and its innate ability for self expression, for example, the ability to express themselves by means of spontaneous generated metaphors. While it is true, AI technologies can mimic forms of poetic and artistic expression, in any honest account of the processes they utilise, machines engage in the activity without a depth of feeling, without the facility to evince empathy and the ability to access imagination i.e., the phenomenon we human beings term soulfulness. Sans the ineffable quality of soul, AI entities, as is the case with our present information technology, will contribute the palliative, yet inherently alienating, effects inherent to our hyper-commodified era.
In contrast, writers/artists/activists must proceed to dangerous places. It is imperative that they descend into the danger zone known as the soul. The soul is not a realm inhabited by weightless beings radiating beatific light. Rather, it is a landscape of broken, wounded wanderers; inchoate longing; searing lamentation; the confabulations of imperfect memory; of rutting and rage; transgression; depression; fragmented language; and devouring darkness.
The reductionist metaphors inherent to the age of mechanisation — which limn human beings in mechanised, commodified terms — as opposed to the organic, unfolding pantheon composed of needs, longings and desires we are — inflicts not only alienation from our fellow human beings but from our essential natures. In our misery and confusion, we have bloated our bodies, maimed and poisoned the earth, and scoured the hours of our lives of meaning by the compulsive commodification of all things. Therefore it should not come as a surprise when alienated, lonely men become enamoured of glambots.
We have delivered insult after insult to the soul of the world, and yet it loves us with an abiding and bitter grace. The question remains, do we love it in turn, and deeply enough, to mount a resistance to the present order thus turn the tide against the love-bereft forces responsible for the wholesale destruction of both landscape and soulscape.

Phil Rockstroh is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in Munich, Germany. He may be contacted at [email protected] and at FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/phil.rockstroh

SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN

If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

Categories: Essays, latest
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

37 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
George
George
Dec 13, 2017 8:29 AM

I can relate to the article’s point about the negative effect the internet has on reading. I was always a reader but over the past few years I have found it increasingly more difficult to concentrate on any one book. I become more easily dissatisfied and impatient and find myself with ten or more books all with bookmarks in them and I am attempting to juggle them all.
I recall a story about someone who was new to the net and who was receiving informal instruction from a friend. Whenever the learner wanted to stop and read something, the friend said, “Oh you don’t read anything. You just go for the next link”. Well precisely. The net encourages everyone to compulsively jump from one place to the next without settling.

M
M
Dec 9, 2017 10:46 PM

“In contrast, writers/artists/activists must proceed to dangerous places. It is imperative that they descend into the danger zone known as the soul.” And that is (for me anyway) one of the core issues. Art and creativity are being decimated, purposely. One needs only to visit an exhibition of the officially sanctioned art world of today to understand that. Around the world, it would most likely be state funded, corporate sponsored and, in essence, nothing more than advertisement for a multi billion money laundering scheme, which portrays criminal state and corporate power as hip “open” and charitable. Sadly, well beyond that, it would probably also be a good opportunity to promote manifestations that seem to be created precisely to kill our links with our “essential natures”, with intelligence, with our notions of beauty, of transcendence, of historic continuity, of truth and value. Instead of a Guernica we could get a collection… Read more »

Big B
Big B
Dec 10, 2017 2:52 PM
Reply to  M

M: fascinating comment …for for your self-portrait in bodily fluids – you could could probably win a Turner Prize? [Though Marc Quinn kinda cornered that market already – my, how I laughed till I cried when his self-portrait bust ended up in a literal bloody mess in Saatchi’s kitchen!!!] But more than anything: the event that epitomised to me the subversion and cultural misappropriation of the art world – was when two ‘West’ Banksy’s were stolen from the apartheid Palestine-Israel wall and ended up in the Keszler Gallery …in the fucking Hamptons!!! Like the Mexican Muralists before: that art was of the place, of the people, an (anarchy lite) political statement in a place of relevance …even the gallery owner and cultural looter (Steven Keszler) had qualms about delegitimising their meaning – only not enough to stop him selling them for $500k each!!! Anyway, art is state of mind, a… Read more »

Fair dinkum
Fair dinkum
Dec 9, 2017 11:51 AM

The soul is neither a ‘realm’ or a ‘landscape’ Phil.
It’s the equivalent of Love.
Indefinable, indescribable and undeniable.
Test it.
In your experience.

michael\\
michael\\
Dec 9, 2017 9:59 AM

wow, thank-you Phil, hamlet is reincarnated from an only slightly less substantial existence and calls us not to dither but to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them! I am compelled by the beauty and force of language to hear. michael\

Big B
Big B
Dec 8, 2017 4:35 PM

The implications of the possible coming of an AI transhuman sentient net are truly Frankenstinian and horrifying. It goes beyond the fear porn of the AI revolution stealing our jobs and income (there are positive outcomes that could be tailored to that eventuality – like more time to address the things that really matter …like life, love, and happiness…) It goes far beyond the subjectification and citizenship of Sophia …and the normalisation and fetishisation of silicon “digisexuals” …Augmented ‘brain net’ reality is almost upon us (see vid below) …long before we have reached the development required to master the (redundant) consciousness we already have. Call me a cyber-Luddite: but I hope to be dead long before we move on …If indeed, we ever move on … Death is the definer of life: that may sound crazy – but what are we if not mortal??? If we are to evolve beyond… Read more »

Big B
Big B
Dec 8, 2017 2:58 PM

Be afraid, be very afraid …the brain net is almost here …

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Dec 8, 2017 8:29 PM
Reply to  Big B

The ambitions of these loons is indeed creepy, but – thank God – their reach is still way exceeding their grasp. Those rat experiments, nasty as they are, are a long way from achieving their stated goals, and as for the idea of “uploading consciousness” – that is simply deluded hubris. We haven’t even figured out what consciousness is yet, let alone figured out how to contain it and move it around. We don’t even know if consciousness is embedded in the brain itself, or exists somehow independently of it. As for creating cyber-consciousness. Well, that will have to wait until we understand all of the former. These goons operate in an elderly 19th C view of the nervous system as a sort of machine, and consciousness as merely the product of that machine. This view has never had much data in support of it, and is being outmoded now… Read more »

Fair dinkum
Fair dinkum
Dec 9, 2017 11:32 AM

I am, therefore (unfortunately) I think.

Big B
Big B
Dec 9, 2017 12:32 PM

MLS: couldn’t agree more. Didn’t Niels Bohr say something to the effect that we would need to rewrite the laws of physics and chemistry to accommodate the understanding of consciousness? What I find disconcerting is not the possibility – or more probably the impossibility – of augmented reality …it is the mindset and seeming pathological normalisation of the macabre of these people. I mean, just who do they think they are: immortals! …Gods!!! That is their delusion!

Frank
Frank
Dec 8, 2017 1:35 PM

As it exists and has existed, nature has been the matrix for human development. But we have declared war on nature using it as a disposable and irreplaceable input. I’ve got news for these despoilers of the natural order – nature is going to win this war and will easily constitute itself in a few millennia and will carry on as if homo-sapiens had never existed.

binra
binra
Dec 8, 2017 12:18 PM

The development of the dissociative subjective mind is a tool and its progeny is the intent and attempt to resolve its birthing conflict via external means. Mind control is not relational communication. The expression or embodiment of this ‘mind’ is our human ‘world’ – which is the filter of definitions and believed or invested meanings through which we interact in code as the ‘alienated’ attempt to mask over, or substitute for a hollow sense of disconnect into which every wish gives way to disappointment, disillusion and nightmare. The simplest way to notice this tool is that it is thinking and in this sense I use it, thoughts that run as habitual, automatic conditioning of the reaction to whatever is triggering it. To look AT the thoughts rather than ‘living’ inside the bubble of a kind of narrative led identity is to stir as the presence you are. Presence is not… Read more »

rtj1211
rtj1211
Dec 8, 2017 9:51 AM

The interesting thing is that multimillionaires who hate imperfect humans and love robots get very self-righteous, defensive and uppity when you point out to them quite how many things they are totally useless at.
Just imagine the consequences of telling them quite how useless their daughter is in bed….!!
Normally in such circumstances you find a better performing lover, as humans have not yet ben rewired to be aroused by the touch of plastic and metal.
Thick blokes you see get aroused by the touch of human flesh, not the words of a sex robot……
Has any told neoliberal investors that yet? Assuming they have not already realised that about themselves…….

writerroddis
writerroddis
Dec 8, 2017 8:45 AM

I enjoyed this as an insightful and, the odd lapse into purple aside, nicely written piece. I have to say it would benefit from engagement with Marx’s writing in Capital. Two obvious reasons for saying so … … one, it is not reductionist to link our alienation as a species – perhaps most thoroughly explored by the Frankfurt School – to the very specific alienaton arising from the fact that capitalism, unlike any previous form of class exploitation, has made human labour-power itself a commodity. Marx’s writing on ‘commodity fetishism’, at its most focused early in Capital 1, should be essential reading here. … two, it’s true that individual capitalists do, as Phil says, crave workerless factories. But therein lies one of capitalism’s several essential paradoxes. A workerless capitalism is an oxymoron since the extraction of surplus value – not by individual capitalists from individual workers but by the capitalist… Read more »

Big B
Big B
Dec 8, 2017 1:55 PM
Reply to  writerroddis

“[…] is the ONLY source of profit. Why? Because, uniquely, the commodity labour power has the capacity to create value greater than its own.” Hi Phil: is this as true today as it was in the 19th century capitalism Marx was critiquing? To my mind, the labour commodity power is being reduced toward zero; and the extraction and production (in the form of environmental degradation and pollution) are ‘externalities’ (with no cost implications). The real value, particularly of modern luxury goods, is being ‘stolen’ and replaced by rent extraction – in the form of intellectual property rights. These in turn are reinforced by State intervention and protectionism – in the form of legally enforceable patent laws. Is the labour value not being marginalised and squeezed out of the market??? The example I use is the most conspicuous of consumer goods: the iPhone X. As Apple recently discovered, the price they… Read more »

Big B
Big B
Dec 8, 2017 2:48 PM
Reply to  Big B

Hi Admin: thanks for repositioning my comment …only, where is the rest of it! 🙂

Admin
Admin
Dec 8, 2017 3:28 PM
Reply to  Big B

Sorry! Found it and put it back

Big B
Big B
Dec 8, 2017 3:34 PM
Reply to  Big B

Thankyou!

writerroddis
writerroddis
Dec 8, 2017 6:43 PM
Reply to  Big B

Hi BigB. Though your question, and my assertion, take us away from the thrust of Phil Rockstroh’s post I’m glad to discuss them here. I see them as just as important as Phil’s theme of psycho-spiritual alienation under capitalism. WARNING – VERY LONG COMMENT … You ask: is it still true that labour-power’s unique quality of creating a value over and above its own is the sole source of profit? Yes, absolutely. Imperialism has vastly altered capitalism’s forms and configuration of the social relations of production (human relations concealed as relations between things). It has not, however, changed the inner dynamic revealed in Marx’s analysis of the commodity in Capital 1. Nor the process of valorisation – converting value to price, and surplus value to profits which are then shared between state, the various capitals, and non-value producing labour (nurses, teachers, coppers, advertising creatives, psychiatrists, prison warders etc) – in… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Dec 8, 2017 11:23 PM
Reply to  writerroddis

“An explanation more robust and more plausible of the $720 is that the global south generates huge surplus value in its sweatshops.” Just to clarify things for ordinary blokes like me, to bring the substance of the theme of surplus value extraction in any shop, let alone the sweatshops of the Third World, down to a more concrete or pedestrian level of understanding, which is the level at which understanding should in the end settle: Under a system of wage labor, “profit” is only possible by a separation between, on the one hand, the market(s), where commodity exchange happens and, on the other, the sphere(s) of production. For-profit production, at the level of competing enterprises or corporations, can be viable under only the following condition: there must already be market exchange at “current prices,” that is to say, a given amount of purchasing power must already be in circulation and… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Dec 9, 2017 1:05 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

BTW: the phenomenon of “perpetually falling profit margins” inherent to capitalism basically derives from two interrelated causes: a) competition between rival firms that undercut one another in the commodity market(s) by means of rationalizing their operations; and b) a perpetually shrinking pool of purchasing power (i.e., the aggregate wage paid to people who work for a living) deriving from the rationalization of operations proper, that is to say, the introduction of labor saving technologies and techniques that cannot but result in an accompanying system wide trend of incrementally increasing unemployment. (Machines that cost money but do not earn wages, cannot buy products; only people who are paid wages can. Reduce the pool of wages, and you ipso facto reduce the profit margins of some business somewhere in the system to the point of eventually collapsing some sector(s) of the economy. “The popular notion of a ‘post industrial’ world is [indeed]… Read more »

Big B
Big B
Dec 9, 2017 12:17 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Capitalism had a fix for “a perpetually shrinking pool of purchasing power” – cheap consumer credit …in lieu of forty years of wage erosion. Only, they don’t know what they can do for the next forty – now the credit lines are maxed out?
On the existential side: I think we can all agree capitalism is universally alienating and dehumanising? And that includes the so called 1% – who are being alienated and dehumanised themselves. Hence AI???

writerroddis
writerroddis
Dec 9, 2017 11:28 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

True. All true. And to add to your final paragraph, “all of which explains why” (mainly western) consumers are urged to buy more, to junk the old and embrace the new in a futile search for joy and existential meaning that hollows out our souls in the manner described by Phil Rockstroh.

Big B
Big B
Dec 9, 2017 10:38 AM
Reply to  writerroddis

Hi Phil: thanks for your detailed and fascinating response; and thanks for taking the time to compile it. Taken from your last paragraph: “I don’t say there’ll never be a an exploitative society – perhaps even more monstrous – that is not dependent on surplus value extraction from human beings. I do say that such a society will not – cannot – be capitalist.” I think this gets to the heart of the matter. We are, in fact, critiquing two different systems: industrial capitalism and the modern financialised system – which by your definition is NOT capitalist …but the parasitism of it. Both systems are entirely consistent with Marx: as this in depth presentation by Michael Hudson describes – detailing the processes I was trying to highlight that are eroding the productive (M-C-M’) economy …and undermining the ‘Labour Theory’. In other words, dispossessing us (Harvey’s “accumulation by dispossession.”) A fact… Read more »

writerroddis
writerroddis
Dec 9, 2017 1:17 PM
Reply to  Big B

Thanks BigB. You write: “We are, in fact, critiquing two different systems: industrial capitalism and the modern financialised system – which by your definition is NOT capitalist …but the parasitism of it.” Here’s where you and I, who agree on much, may agree to differ. Viewing finance capital as parasitic seems to me both useful and misleading. It’s useful in understanding tensions between two wings of the ruling class. Historically, anglo-saxon capitalism has tended to back its finance wing. Hence Britain’s favouring of laissez-faire trade, and Mrs Thatcher’s demolition of domestic industry by ‘pure’ market forces while re-establishing London as the world’s premier stock exchange. Hence the greater support for industrial capital by the state in France and Germany.. Where ‘parasitic’ MAY be misleading (the term does not of itself necessitate misconception) is the way some see two qualitatively and radically different economic systems in play. They aren’t. Just as… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Dec 9, 2017 3:52 PM
Reply to  writerroddis

Actually Phil: I think we can agree to agree. The distinction into “two systems” is purely analytical. The contradistinction between the two is therefore also theoretical and analytic. In reality, they are facets of the one system – of which commodity labour value is the basis (sorry Norm!) [Not to digress, but on another forum we could explore that it is in fact energy that is the fundament of economics?] Where it becomes useful to draw the qualitative distinctions is to draw the conclusion that one is functional and the other dysfunctional. The M-M’ self-multiplying money sequence is the parasite that is killing the host. Perhaps this analogy is more useful to liberals who seek to reform capitalism, rather than those who want to replace it – as you say? When it is the system as a whole that is alienating and dehumanizing …not to mention ecocidal? As to Hudson:… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Dec 9, 2017 3:36 PM
Reply to  Big B

” We are, in fact, critiquing two different systems: industrial capitalism and the modern financialised system” I’m not sure that I can agree. Financialization is an attempt by the capitalist class to remedy the insoluble problem of the “falling rate of profit” for ventures in for-profit production. Indeed, from the standpoint of the capitalist worldview, M-C-M’ was always and only M-M’, a point that Marx makes, and thus the illusion of extracting “profit” from printing money and merely allocating it among the capitalist class as real claims on real-world assets and commodities is merely a refinement in practice of the original illusion of turning more capital, in its abstract expression, i.e., “money,” into more capital. The real capitalist economy very much continues to exist, and the really existing working class that is enslaved to a condition of expropriation and destitution in the means of production, to a condition of wage… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Dec 9, 2017 4:03 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Norm: before you go – apologies. In analytic mode …I appear to have invented a new form of not-capitalism parasitism!!! Phil put me right – and I conceded the point above.

Big B
Big B
Dec 9, 2017 11:52 AM
Reply to  writerroddis

Hi Norm: thank you as well for your detailed response and time. See my comment to Phil (you could hardly miss it!) and the link to Hudson. When you take my original question (“is this as true today as it was in the 19th century capitalism Marx was critiquing?”) – and answer “yes” ….The original question was asking specifically about the “commodity labour power” being the ONLY (Phil’s emphasis) source of profit? For reasons I give to Phil; and are most authoritatively detailed by Professor Hudson – with all due respect, shouldn’t the answer be “no” …it is not the only source of profit??? There is a metastasised parasitic ‘economy’ feeding off the productive economy – that is creating its profits by capitalising and leveraging debt (the “usurious” and “fictitious” capital of the M-M’ money sequence). Although he described it in the abstract: this Marx (optimistically) did not see coming… Read more »

writerroddis
writerroddis
Dec 9, 2017 2:13 PM
Reply to  Big B

Ah! Maybe we’re closer than I thought, BigB. You say to Norman: “Money makes money in a “self-multiplying sequence” that is parasitic to the underlying ‘commodity labour value’ sequence (M-C-M’) – giving nothing back (industrial capital, production capital) …just bleeding it dry.” I’m a tad puzzled by “the underlying ‘commodity labour value’ sequence” but maybe that’s our different ways of expressing the M-C-M+ cycle, where the ‘mystery’ that converts M to M+ is the peculiar property of labour-power to create surplus value. (The redistribution of M+ via dividends etc – and indeed via the forms of shady practice that lead every now and then to cosmetic crackdowns on ‘rogue capitalism’ – lie outside that cycle and come after the fact.) The more substantive difference is that I do not believe finance capital ‘bleeding productive capital’ marks a new source of profit, independent of surplus value appropriated at the point of… Read more »

writerroddis
writerroddis
Dec 9, 2017 2:21 PM
Reply to  writerroddis

… as does Norman

writerroddis
writerroddis
Dec 10, 2017 11:09 AM
Reply to  writerroddis

Thanks BigB and Norman for a fascinating exchange. Even if it was off-topic from the start – my bad – it’s a vital one. Thanks too for the comradely spirit in which we’ve conducted ourselves. That too is vital for reasons as much practical as ethical.
I’m working at a post on the law of value. I’ll offer it to OffGuardian as usual but it will in any case appear on my site. Perhaps that’ll offer a platform for continuing as we’ve started.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Dec 10, 2017 6:25 PM
Reply to  writerroddis

Looking forward to reading the piece and discussing the issue further. It is a crucially important topic for an understanding of Marx, one that many readers of Marx, in my opinion, all too often completely and unfortunately misunderstand. As I see it, the misunderstanding derives from a tendency to reify the ‘law of value’ and thereby to unwittingly remain ensconced within the ideological horizons of capital. The most common expression of this moment of reification is instantiated by the idea that the essential insult of capital is the ‘theft’ of ‘value’ that rightfully belongs to the producer(s) of ‘value,’ that ‘value’ is expropriated from those who should rightfully appropriate ‘it’ because, after all, they produce ‘it.’ In other words, because they hypostatize ‘the law of value,’ many interpreters of Marx end up seeing the ‘problem of capital’ as being little more than a problem of ‘wealth distribution.’ For Marx, however,… Read more »

writerroddis
writerroddis
Dec 11, 2017 1:52 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

“misunderstanding derives from a tendency to reify the ‘law of value’ and thereby to unwittingly remain ensconced within the ideological horizons of capital.”

Indeed. In fact Castro took on the USSR leadership, with some success, over its operating the same value based trade terms as the imperialists.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Dec 13, 2017 2:32 PM
Reply to  writerroddis

Speaking of “reification,” a link to a piece I’m presently reading and that you might find interesting:
“Georg Lukács’s theory of revolution” by Daniel Lopez
I’ve posted the piece on my blog. If you have any comments you’d like to make, please do.

Eric Blair
Eric Blair
Dec 8, 2017 8:41 AM

This is a good piece. It is difficult being ‘aware’ and conscientious amongst people who do everything they can to remain ‘positive’ and unaware. There is huge social pressure to conform and join the other sheep in practising wilful ignorance but for some of us that is not an option.

Fair dinkum
Fair dinkum
Dec 8, 2017 7:06 AM

Don’t let the world (what man has made) get you down Phil.
It all comes to nought in the end.
The Earth (what Life or ‘God’ created) will prevail.
It’s not ‘real’ anyway:
http://www.headless.org/