Skip to main content

Accelerationism and wages for housework

In my course on Whitehead and Deleuze we're discussing the Anti-Oedipus. Discussing accelerationism (it is hard to read the book without seeing it coming from more or less everywhere) lead us to compare Deleuze and Guattari's emphasis on the limits to schizophrenization that capital has to maintain - it is not a body without organs and the Oedipus separates it from a full schiza - with the idea, that Land (and others) have defended, that capital is the ultimate decoder of flows and therefore that the limits of capital can only be overcome by capital itself. The main issue is then whether the Oedipus - nuclear family-oriented desire, private life, the individual, reproduction placed outside the socius where production and distribution takes place - is really a limit of capitalism (D&G talk about relative limits...). This is the main contention that separates their position from a full-blown capitalist accelerationism (or unconditional accelerationism) that understands that decoding the flows is what capital itself is. In other words, the Oedipus is the difference between a capitalist and an anti-capitalist accelerationism (or left and right accelerationism...).

Silvia Federici's book Caliban and the Witch offers, in my view, a compelling view of capitalism that is thoroughly anti-accelerationist (or, rather, non-accelerationism). Yet, the movement for wages for housework that she championed in the 1970s could be seen as an interesting accelerationist strategy against capitalism if we consider it with the idea that the Oedipus is the limit of capital in mind. The idea is to place the reproduction of labor back to the socius, back to the domain of capital. To do that, it is asked from capital (i.e. the bosses) that pay wages to women doing the reproduction work. That entails a decoder of flows - what was flowing within codes alien to capital becomes a flow of capital - but one that makes the capital extend beyond its limits - the Oedipus. It would enter family life and by doing that it would deterritorialize something that according to the Anti-Oedipus, it needs to keep in place. If families are decoded, there is nothing to assure capital's concentric structure: it can flow and never come back. To be sure it is at least a strategy to derange the established structure of a structure for reproduction - the family - outside capital that is crucial for capitalism to maintain the limits that define it as an unchallenged territorial machine.

Comments

  1. is a non-familial capitalism really unthinkable? think of automated reproduction (a baby factory, say) or something like zaibatsus, isn't that completely outside the nuclear family, and still definitely capital?

    ReplyDelete
  2. yes. but the issues then are a) whether capitalism can objectively sustain paying for all the costs of the reproduction of its needed labor - it looks like capitalism wants to make these costs external by all means necessary and b) whether the subjectivity of these future workers will be appropriate to capitalism assuming they will have no Oedipus, they won´t dream and plan and desire in terms akin to the nuclear family.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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 https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-indexicalism.html   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

Necropolitics and Neocameralism

It is perhaps just wishful thinking that the alt-right seemingly innovative and intrepid ideas will disappear from the scene as Trump's reign comes to an end. They have their own dynamics, but certainly the experiences of the last years, including those in the pandemics, do help to wear off their bright and attractiveness. Neocameralism, what Mencius Moldbug and Nick Land with him ushered in as a model of post-democracy that relinquish important ingredients of the human security system, is one of these projects that is proving to be too grounded in the past to have any capacity to foretell anything bright beyond the democratic rusting institutions. It is little more than necropolitics - which is itself a current post-democratic alternative. Achile Mbembe finds necropolitics in the regimes were warlords take over the state-like institutions (or mimick them)  to rule on the grounds of local security having no troubles killing or letting die whoever is in their path. Neocameralism pos