Skip to main content

The anastrophe called Marx

Had a great and long conversation with Phil about the childhood of the machines. The childhood I have in mind is one where kids are part of a unit of production, we entrust them with responsibility according to their capacity. Maybe we don’t need children to mix eggs in the kitchen anymore because we have machines – the childhood of the machines have already brought about some Edenism in human childhood: play, play, play, this is what children are here for. In that context, we can see how children are trained not as the main objective, but as side effect of having them inside the production chain. The same with machines. We are in the cosmic age where the species is being reproduced and we put most of our collective effort into that. That image of our cosmopolitic moment brings together the struggle for Edenism – the idea that we have always pursued a life without effort – and the idea that the future of humanity is to become guards of machine process they don’t understand, humans will assume responsibility and be liable and paid for it. In the late adolescence of the machines, we will have them as trainees, competent ones but still under supervision. This will be like having supervised trainees that we are responsible but have some independence, or like with trainees or with members of a crew of folks with specialities we don’t quite master etc. Later, we will go to Edenist retirement homes. Marxism was perhaps a form of Edenism: get production into a stage where it involves no effort. We then moved to Marx, as it happens. what exactly is the bet that the forces of production will disrupt the social (and cosmic) relations of production? My bet is that these relations of production are like restricted economies in the Bataille's sense: ways of dealing with excess. What is the anastrophe? Maybe it is that the accummulation economy will just go, maybe when we become cyborgs the issues of property will just stop making sense and be removed sooner (by revolution) or later (by obsolescence). Maybe security, something property requires, is going to become too expensive, and capital (or production) will find a cheaper way to reproduce itself. (MS stopped fighting pirate versions of Windows, better to distribute and make it abundant than to enforce scarcity.) Maybe the soviet scheme, after all, was to find a way to reproduce capital in a way that could be faster than capitalism – accummulation was certainly greater and faster, as Bataille himself suggests. It will come to a point where reterritorialization will be too expensive – the force of production that melts things will be stronger than the pull towards a scheme of distribution or registration. Then production will maybe find a different way to reproduce itself; if collective distribution becomes cheap, and it tends to be automated só that freecycle, for example, becomes something that requires no human effort, then stores and market will become a too expensive form of distribution. Marxism is the believe that production is the guiding force in history, so that machines could usher in a biological moment in the history of cybernetics and something other than the current restricted economies will be possible.


Popular posts from this blog

Giving Birth

This is a month of giving birth: 1. On the first day of the month (my birthday) I sent out my book BUG (Being Up for Grabs) to publisher. A birth-giving moment. 2. On the forth, we started the Journal, called Journal of Questions. It is a Jabèsian and Jarryian endeavor that intends to reflect in many languages about the gaps between thought and translation. It will be available soon. 3. On the 10th, day before yesterday, offspring Devrim A. B. was born. Her name means revolution in Turkish and is a roughly common name. She's very attentive and concentrated - especially on her own fingers that she learned to molest in her youth during her womb months. She was gestated together with BUG. Hope the world enjoys.

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne