Worth dying for

[trouc]

More broadly, I'm not sure how clear I have to make my point here:

within D&G's thought there are 2 possible definitions of capitalism

1, as a historic socio-economic system (which I think they retreat from to some extent)

2, as a process of the devaluation (more accurately) of all values, the destructive creativity that nietzsche admires

obviously they set themselves against the first, but they are fascinated both by the second as fact and by its potentiality to become a revaluation of all values, hence it's reappearance in the modes of resistance they advise

 

[noel emits]

But where do you stand on this trouc? What is your point exactly? Or are you just here to provide commentary on DG?

 

[trouc]

But where do you stand on this trouc? What is your point exactly? Or are you just here to provide commentary on DG?

When did I say I have a stance here ? And anyway, how are my positions relevant ? This is a conversation about an idea. I'm merely pointing out what I see as a misconception

 

[gek-opel]

I don't know why but I keep thinking of people in my grad-school cohort... For all the critical theory we read and Marxist topics I made everyone discuss in seminar (I guess I was THAT GUY ), they never seemed to really give a shit about it, I was so disappointed. I think comics and video games were their "gadgets." I preferred drugs&alcohol for mine, maybe why I didn't get on with them so well.

Actually there's a strong strain of "gadgetry" in cultural studies (what I got my m.a. in), a kind of fishing for "resistance" inside corporate media representations... People writing dissertations on why The L-Word is a Positive Step Forward for lesbians, tripe that doesn't hold up on even a superficial critique. There's even a theoretical canon devoted to it: Michel De Certeau, Henry Jenkins (never realized how much I hated this guy until after I matriculated), Janice Radway, a hundred meager scholars regurgitating received criticism of the Frankfurt School, appropriations of Bataille, Foucault, D&G... it all seemed like doing backflips to justify enjoying crap TV and silly superhero comics.

This is interesting Gavin. I'm studying Crit Theory at grad school (just started) and whilst its not quite that bad (ie- pretty much what I feared cult-studies would be like unfortunately) the disavowal of the economic and the revolutionary-political is pretty strong. In a sense (and though of course it ought not to be) is theory not sometimes also (functionally utilised as) just such a gadget?

 

[noel emits]

When did I say I have a stance here ? And anyway, how are my positions relevant ? This is a conversation about an idea. I'm merely pointing out what I see as a misconception

Of course you have a stance, you're either just not aware of it or are deliberately masking it behind a supposed 'objective' reading of some French people. Your position is relevant because it's much more interesting and useful to talk to people who think for themselves and express their opinions genuinely rather than just sniping from behind a fence.

 

[vimothy]

[When you peel back Land's deep accretions of scrambled jargon in that Miserabilism article, what emerges is both a ridiculously simplistic, nay, naive, understanding of Capital and yet another strawman (his mis-reading of an imagined K-punk).]

The same challenge as Gek, then, though I doubt you'll do any better: define capital.

Here we go again [the real intent of your tired ravings] ... D&G's anti-capitalism is now in question because Land is now a right-wing looney and the IDF are supposedly 'using' their ideas. Yeah, and Nietzsche was a Nazi ...

It's not in question, at least by me. It's of no interest. I think the fact that nomadologist referred to D&G as being part of a "canon" is revealing.

 

[vimothy]

Vimothy, you have no idea what you're talking about RE D&G, and the only extent to which I sympathize with Land is insofar as I do not think the left have gone FAR LEFT ENOUGH.

You do not sympathise with Land, because he doesn't think that.

Until you show an even basic mastery of a single work by D and/or G, I have no interest in hearing your opinions about it.

But I haven't told you my opinions. I simply said that it was possible to read D&G in a way that was pro-capitalism, in response to your insults about the fact that my band was influenced by them.

 

[nomadologist]

yawn

 

[vimothy]

Anyone read Delanda on Braudel's theory that "Capitalism" as a term should be abandoned as it fails to take account of its top-down control of "free" markets (He's also a D&G fan, so the antimarket/market idea is roughly analogous to striated/smooth space, arborescent/rhizomatic etc.)? Interesting and germane to the both Vimothy and the lefties around here:

Interesting - when and where was Braudel writing, dHarry?

Nowhere is this need for real history more evident that in the subject of the dynamics of economic power, defined as the capability to manipulate the prices of inputs and outputs of the production process as well as their supply and demand. In a peasant market, or even in a small town local market, everybody involved is a price taker: one shows up with merchandise, and sells it at the going prices which reflect demand and supply. But monopolies and oligopolies are price setters: the prices of their products need not reflect demand/supply dynamics, but rather their own power to control a given market share.

This is obviously true, but Braudel seems to be saying that most read capitalism as developing from free-market structures to monopolies (i.e. command & control economies):

Even non-Marxists economists like Galbraith, agree that capitalism began as a competitive pursuit and stayed that way till the end of the nineteenth century, and only then it reached the monopolistic stage, at which point a planning system replaced market dynamics.

However, this is clearly not the case, which is why I asked when and where he was writing from above. Capitalism developed out of planned economies, but to present it as a continuous process of monopoly is not coherent. Economic freedom has peaked and troughed through history and according to geography.

So for e.g., this is not true:

Also, it has always been associated with the ability to plan economic strategies and to control market dynamics, and therefore, with a certain degree of centralization and hierarchy. Within the limits of this presentation, I will not be able to review the historical evidence that supports this extremely important hypothesis, but allow me at least to extract some of the consequences that would follow if it turns out to be true.

 

[trouc]

Of course you have a stance, you're either just not aware of it or are deliberately masking it behind a supposed 'objective' reading of some French people. Your position is relevant because it's much more interesting and useful to talk to people who think for themselves and express their opinions genuinely rather than just sniping from behind a fence.

I'm sorry Noel, but this is a pretty awful rhetorical move on your part. I laid out an interpretation (never claimed it was objective, just better), was attacked for it, and explained myself rather irritatedly (with no rebuttal in sight I guess). This isn't sniping, it's defending a point.

(also, masking and failing to be genuine? this is just childish man. there's some things on which one can withhold judgement. just because i didn't say "i believe..." doesn't mean i've got an agenda. when did dissensus turn into a witch trial anyway?)

 

[Gavin]

This is interesting Gavin. I'm studying Crit Theory at grad school (just started) and whilst its not quite that bad (ie- pretty much what I feared cult-studies would be like unfortunately) the disavowal of the economic and the revolutionary-political is pretty strong. In a sense (and though of course it ought not to be) is theory not sometimes also (functionally utilised as) just such a gadget?

Oh of course, I would probably not enjoy it so much without its gadget-like properties of removing systems of exploitation into giant abstract concepts to be bounced around on intellectual volleyball courts like this forum. Still, I find it surprising that economics is left out of Crit Theory -- is it more textual stuff like Derrida or something? I suppose for many people grad school, whether "critical" or not, is just a step on the path to a comfortable middle class life. Which is not a crime, but I wanted it to be so much more!

Many cult studs and crit theory peeps are coming from lit, yes? I would imagine few have much of a background in economics... And revolutionary politics is subsumed by middle class accomodationist identity politics -- even if it weren't such a dire sell-out position, it's quite a boring intellectual pursuit!

 

[noel emits]

I'm sorry Noel, but this is a pretty awful rhetorical move on your part. I laid out an interpretation (never claimed it was objective, just better), was attacked for it, and explained myself rather irritatedly (with no rebuttal in sight I guess). This isn't sniping, it's defending a point.

(also, masking and failing to be genuine? this is just childish man. there's some things on which one can withhold judgement. just because i didn't say "i believe..." doesn't mean i've got an agenda. when did dissensus turn into a witch trial anyway?)

It's not a witch hunt, I've been genuinely interested in what you have to say. I'm not really that bothered about discussing d&g as such it's just that I think (thought) that behind your interpretation of their 'admiration' of capitalism lies a bias which would be more interesting to hear about. This thread is more broadly about what you would consider to be 'worth dying for' so I was looking at it through that lens and assuming that posts here have some relation to deeply held convictions, or not.

I suppose I just find 'admiration' to be a loaded term. It's not the same as 'respect' for instance.

 

[trouc]

Interesting - when and where was Braudel writing, dHarry?



This is obviously true, but Braudel seems to be saying that most read capitalism as developing from free-market structures to monopolies (i.e. command & control economies):



However, this is clearly not the case, which is why I asked when and where he was writing from above. Capitalism developed out of planned economies, but to present it as a continuous process of monopoly is not coherent. Economic freedom has peaked and troughed through history and according to geography.

So for e.g., this is not true:

Vim, Braudel was writing in postwar france up until maybe the early 80's when the reworking of "civilization and capitalism" was released. I think saying he was a fan of D&G would be overstated, but obviously there's some influence back and forth.

Also, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by monopoly here, but Braudel uses the term to refer to local and micro-monopolies, not just those held by large firms or cities such as Amsterdam (one example of a micro-monopoly: all grain imported into dunkerque during the 1700's was initially sold at the wharf in quantities that only wealthy merchants could afford, to then be carted a few hundred yards to the market where it was sold in smaller shares at a %25 markup.) So if he's talking about centralization and hierarchization, it's both micro and macro.

 

[gek-opel]

Oh of course, I would probably not enjoy it so much without its gadget-like properties of removing systems of exploitation into giant abstract concepts to be bounced around on intellectual volleyball courts like this forum. Still, I find it surprising that economics is left out of Crit Theory -- is it more textual stuff like Derrida or something? I suppose for many people grad school, whether "critical" or not, is just a step on the path to a comfortable middle class life. Which is not a crime, but I wanted it to be so much more!

Many cult studs and crit theory peeps are coming from lit, yes? I would imagine few have much of a background in economics... And revolutionary politics is subsumed by middle class accomodationist identity politics -- even if it weren't such a dire sell-out position, it's quite a boring intellectual pursuit!

Yeah they're all from Lit pretty much, though a lot of the teaching staff are dedicated post-Marxists... but it goes for them too... in a sense professional academia is just as much of a control system (effectively) as others mentioned before... it engages potentially troublesome minds in harmless para-struggles whilst leaving the hegemonic situation as is. Im anticipating a disappointing lack of practical transformative progress, but I knew that anyway and am planning around such eventualities... getting economics back at the core of it is essential, and the inverse also -- to create a new form of economics really...

 

[vimothy]

Vim, Braudel was writing in postwar france up until maybe the early 80's when the reworking of "civilization and capitalism" was released.

I thought as much. Does Braudel differentiate between different forms of capitalism? For instance, in the quotes posted by dHarry, Braudel states that "[Capitalism] has always been associated with the ability to plan economic strategies and to control market dynamics, and therefore, with a certain degree of centralization and hierarchy." But that's clearly not true. There are variations, from once-ubiquitous socialist command and control economics, to the Keynesian demand management strategies of the 1970s, to the Austrian and Chicago School free markets of the 1980s. The idea that capitalism has always been a system of "arborescent" top-down control is simplistic. Capitalism is both an event and a process, as you point out upthread, and as such the devil remains in the details: yes, post-war France had its top-down, monopolistic dirigisme, but other countries took other routes. And before the war, France was a different (more laissez-faire) story still.

Also, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by monopoly here, but Braudel uses the term to refer to local and micro-monopolies, not just those held by large firms or cities such as Amsterdam (one example of a micro-monopoly: all grain imported into dunkerque during the 1700's was initially sold at the wharf in quantities that only wealthy merchants could afford, to then be carted a few hundred yards to the market where it was sold in smaller shares at a %25 markup.) So if he's talking about centralization and hierarchization, it's both micro and macro.

I'm just assuming that Braudel means a price-controlling cartel, be it large corporation, government agency or local farmer.

So you might point to your example, which might or might not be evidence of price control (intentional collusion), but what does Braudel say about international price convergence of wheat under the first instance of globalisation? It's not always about individual entities controling markets to the disadvantage the many.

 

[vimothy]

Still, I find it surprising that economics is left out of Crit Theory -- is it more textual stuff like Derrida or something?

Many cult studs and crit theory peeps are coming from lit, yes? I would imagine few have much of a background in economics... And revolutionary politics is subsumed by middle class accomodationist identity politics -- even if it weren't such a dire sell-out position, it's quite a boring intellectual pursuit!

Not that suprising - IMO.

Im anticipating a disappointing lack of practical transformative progress, but I knew that anyway and am planning around such eventualities... getting economics back at the core of it is essential, and the inverse also -- to create a new form of economics really...

Well, that would definitely be more interesting than Derrida. Does this mean that leftists will start talking about growth again?

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

Yeah they're all from Lit pretty much, though a lot of the teaching staff are dedicated post-Marxists... but it goes for them too... in a sense professional academia is just as much of a control system (effectively) as others mentioned before... it engages potentially troublesome minds in harmless para-struggles whilst leaving the hegemonic situation as is. Im anticipating a disappointing lack of practical transformative progress, but I knew that anyway and am planning around such eventualities... getting economics back at the core of it is essential, and the inverse also -- to create a new form of economics really...

It's what we used to call Political Economy [what I once studied as an undergrad]... and urgently need to so call it again.

[But if you'll excuse me, I'm off to find my gadgets]

 

[nomadologist]

Yeah, I don't know if they're always para-struggles.

I do prefer bloody ones when necessary though.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

It's what we used to call Political Economy [what I once studied as an undergrad]... and urgently need to so call it again.

For anyone interested in critical theory applied to IPE (international political economy) check out Andrew Linklater, Robert Cox, Stephen Gill, Kees van de Pijl....

Some draw from the Frankfurt School and others from the work of Gramsci although tbh most take insights from both.

 

[trouc]

It's not a witch hunt, I've been genuinely interested in what you have to say. I'm not really that bothered about discussing d&g as such it's just that I think (thought) that behind your interpretation of their 'admiration' of capitalism lies a bias which would be more interesting to hear about. This thread is more broadly about what you would consider to be 'worth dying for' so I was looking at it through that lens and assuming that posts here have some relation to deeply held convictions, or not.

I suppose I just find 'admiration' to be a loaded term. It's not the same as 'respect' for instance.

Noel, if I'd wanted to say something about my personal stance I would have.

On your second paragraph, you respect something you wish to keep at a distance. I don't think that's their agenda.