A question remains open as to the current state of play with the unfolding trans-global financial deleveraging and subsequent mass-governmental bank buyout: Is this a genuinely unprecedented situation or simply the latest facet of business-as-usual, a crisis in the system, or merely a crisis of the system? The pessimism of the intellect suggests the latter, another arresting of the genuinely alien development of the capital-virus, in favour of the maintaining of a stable form. The optimism of the will though suggests that there might be the basis in the opprobrium that finance capital is now attracting (low level intensity but extremely broad in terms of numbers) for some kind of new proletarian leftist movement. BUT, and crucially, it is difficult to identify either a new and energised ideological/political-philosophical position or any kind of institutional framework (party, movement, mass, guerrilla attack group etc) with which to focus this negativity. There are certainly some limited Socialist Worker/Stop the War associated protests, but these lack both scale and the energy of new ideas. All that is on offer there is warmed over leftism/anticapitalism, without the energy of anywhere but back to go (essentially a conservative-radicalism perhaps). In the bending of all history against that impassable perimeter of the Postmodern terminus even radical leftism is fundamentally a mere shuffling of a pre-existing deck of possibilities, hopeless, haunted, an echo, homeless, nostalgic. It must be feared that for as long as it is thus the left remains incapable of defeating the status quo, or achieving much beyond the establishment of briefly extant semi-autonomous zones, all-too rapidly snuffed out.

Perhaps what this crash offers however is a chink in the armour of late capital, a Badiouian event, evading the usual in-situational structural determinations. In a sense Badiou would not recognise (economic) it really does give an opportunity (as did the crash of 1929) to recalibrate both the state-market relation and the type of economic theory deployed by governments. But this will be merely to retrench, to stabilise, to maintain the present system, in a new form, by whatever means necessary and available. Politically it is less clear, for in order that the potential this event offers to be fully exploited, we need a politics capable of fully evading even the kind of generic humanism Badiou’s politics (for example) proffers. For the impasse of the end of history can only be properly surmounted by a final nihilistic overcoming of humanism– in a sense even Badiou fails this test, his minimal-communist humanism not going far enough. What perhaps this might entail is a rethinking of a revolutionary position, built on the basis of a rethinking of the very notion of value itself.

In Speculative Realist terms, what is necessary is to think the in-itself of capitalism outside of any correlation to the human. Ray Brassier has already hinted at this in his original “Nihil Unbound” article on Badiou, Deleuze & Guattari and Capitalism. For surely what all analyses of capitalism have presumed to date is the capitalist ‘for-us’ (construed in positive or negative terms), whereas capital is ultimately a machine which has almost no relation to humanity whatsoever, it intersects with us, it has us as moving parts, but it ultimately is not of or for-us. Capital properly thought is a vast inhuman form, a genuinely alien life form (in that it is entirely non-organic) of which we know all-too-little. A new investigation of this form must proceed precisely as an anti-anthropomorphic cartography, a study in alien finance, a Xenoeconomics. Brassier himself has shied away in the last few years from a detailed discussion of capitalism, but I believe that the most interesting applications of speculative realist philosophy may well arrive with precisely a re-reading of both Marx’s and Deleuze & Guattari’s models of capitalism. Marx’s labour theory of value fails to think the capitalist in-itself, the ability to create value ex nihilo (ie- credit, and all financial instruments constructed from variations on this theme). For Marx credit, ‘virtual capital’ and speculation built upon it is “the highest form of madness”. Instead we ought to think of credit-based ‘virtual’ capital as the highest form of capital. This is not a mere semantic shift, but rather a revolutionary inversion of the LTV, following Deleuze & Guattari in considering capitalism-as-process, conducted upon pre-existing social forms, disassembling and reassembling them to suit its own nefarious and presently obscure ends. As process rather than concrete ‘thing’ we must consider its true nature to be contained in its destination, rather than the primitive building blocks from which it originally constituted itself (ie- in the worlds of ‘virtual’ capital rather than the alienation of human labour, which is surely merely an initial staging post).

Part of what is at stake here is the thinking of capitalism outside of alienation. For if we are to follow Badiou’s stab at an unmitigated inhumanism, a total leap beyond the suffering animal model of godless democratic-materialist bio-linguistic humanism, as surely we must, then a theory of value cannot be predicated upon this original suffering, the voodoo process of soul-theft at the core of the alienation of labour in the commodity form. To build a model of capitalism from a new theory of value is necessary if we are to evade the traps of both democratic materialist commensically corrupt liberalism, and the post modern end of history. The “blind acephelous polymorph” that is capital must be embraced, but not from the point of view of some naïve enthusiasm or sentiment of hope that markets can deliver utopia. Instead, as the way out of the binaries of a leftism which is utterly and irretrievably moribund, and a neo-liberal economics which is ideologically bankrupt, we must bend both together in the face of an inhuman and indefatigable capitalism, to think how we might inculcate a new form of radically inhuman subjectivation. This entails the retrieval of the communist project for a new man, AND the liberation of the neo-liberal quest for a capitalism unbound, from both its subterranean dependence upon the state and the skeletal humanist discursive a priori which animates its ideological forms.

In thinking how to deliver this subjectivation, an unbinding towards the absolute, an absolute adequation of post-human subjectivity to capital, the crucial concept must be that of institutionalisation- agglomerative masses of power (including states, corporations, NGOs, religions, discrete humans) all of which need to be dissolved. In a sense this is a continuation and merging of both Marxist-Leninist Communism and Neo-liberal capitalism, but where there is no need to take over the state, but rather to utilise capitalism as an engine with which to obliterate nation states. However, to merely do this would be entirely insufficient, as the state function within capitalism would simply be taken over by institutional figures such as corporations, which must therefore also be dissolved. But this is merely to think at the scale of large institutional actors, we must also continue this drive towards dissolution, (to be powered by the pure force of a nihilistic capitalism-unbound) towards what Foucault termed, in a Nietzschean manner in The Order of Things, ‘man’ (clarified by Deleuze as the ‘man-form’ the kind of self-conception dependant upon the foldings of the analytic of finitude). The question also needs to be asked of how to recalibrate this alien lifeform towards forms of dissolution which do not immediately restructure with conservative/familial types of subjectivation. Our contention (following Deleuze) is that this is intrinsically bound up with the metabolic rate of capitalism, currently constrained by its symbiotic relationship to the state, which maintains the expansion of capital within a homeostatic formula sufficient to prevent its most destructive potentials from being actualised. What is necessary (breaking with Deleuze) is to utilise the stuctures of capitalism against the state, in an entirely terroristic fashion, so as to transform the very nature of the nightmarish Lovecraftian creature itself. Finally, we might consider that the maxim of the politics which results from such xenoeconomical analyses to run as follows: “capitalism against the human”.

Posted by Alex at 16:17

Labels: Badiou, Brassier, Capitalism, Deleuze, Marx, Postmodernity, Xenoeconomics

I hope you don’t mid but I’ve posted a “dissenting opinion” on my blog, although I’m pleased to see the cashing out of SR in Left political terms.

Capital is not best seen as acephelous, so much as 100 headed,

As Nietzsche wrote:“In the realm of the genius, could “Rafael without hands,” taking that phrase in the widest sense, perhaps not be the exception but the rule? Genius is perhaps not really so rare, but the five hundred hands needed to tyrannize the kairos, “the right time,” to seize time by the forelock!” (BGE, 274).

Nietzsche had in mind not only the Hecatonchires, hundred-handed chthonic deities, sons of Uranus, but also Typheus, the hundred-headed:

“Strength was with his hands in all that he did and the feet of the strong god were untiring. From his shoulders grew an hundred heads of a snake, a fearful dragon, with dark, flickering tongues, and from under the brows of his eyes in his marvelous heads flashed fire, and fire burned from his heads as he glared. And there were voices in all his dreadful heads which uttered every kind of sound unspeakable; for at one time they made sounds such that the gods understood, but at another, the noise of a bull bellowing aloud in proud ungovernable fury; and at another, the sound of a lion, relentless of heart; and at anothers, sounds like whelps, wonderful to hear; and again, at another, he would hiss, so that the high mountains re-echoed” (820-835, Theogony)

It is a question of kairos, the seizing of the right moment.

http://kvond.wordpress.com/

Alex,
I think you’ve hit on something very interesting here, especially in your amputation of D&G’s excellent reading of the accelleration of capitalism, from their erroneous (Deleuzian-Spinozist) conjunction of this with what they presume to be the inherent dynamism of all life (capitalism as a vitalist machine such that accelleration of capitalism and maximisation of deterritorialisation is bound to -and by- material nature). And I agree that a radicalisation of inhumanism and an evacuation of any philosophy/politics of pathos as performed by the accelleration of your inhuman capitalism may be the only way of catalysing a revolutionary moment.

Yet, and this was a point raised by H the other night: to what end accellerationism? In order to provoke a crisis, as you say, in the system, but for what? For the future of humanity? Is this inhumanism, then, merely a deferral of pathos until such time as revolution has been achieved?

I wonder about those that indulge in the phantasy of system-busting. I do not wonder if these folks are necessarily wrong, or even that their motivations are suspect. What I wonder about is the question “schoolboyerrors” asks. There is ever, for those intoxicated with implied Deleuzian answers, the temptation to feel that in accelerating the “system” in order to rupture it, one is living out a naturalized dream, that one, in the Sadean sense, is being more natural than Nature…somehow intentionally doing Nature’s desiring for her…becoming an instrument, and pleasurably so.

I suspect, rather than outside of the system, it is within the borders of sense (in the fullest meaning of the word), that the answer to such a question is found. It is after all rampant Capitalism which has driven the invention and deployment of youtube, a means to see “first hand” the policy consequences of Washington or London, the faces of those effected. This increase in facialization, the ubiquity of effects (affects really), forms the groundwork for the possibilities of a new justice. I think if anything, Deleuze and Guattari, in assembling new metaphysics, destabilize even the notion of “system” in the first place. The possibilities for justice, or freedom, or revolution, become really molecularized. Given this though, I would disagree though with the idea: “the crucial concept must be that of institutionalisation- agglomerative masses of power (including states, corporations, NGOs, religions, discrete humans) all of which need to be dissolved.”

If I read the point correctly, this would be like making of Deleuze and Guattari’s appropriations of evolutionary biology as the suggestion that “species” need to be dissolved. What needs to be “dissolved” is the notion that there are only “species” in biology, and only institutions in politics (in terms of analysis and path).

http://kvond.wordpress.com/

麻將,台灣彩卷,六合彩開獎號碼,運動彩卷,六合彩,遊戲,線上遊戲,cs online,搓麻將,矽谷麻將,明星三缺一, 橘子町,麻將大悶鍋,台客麻將,公博,game,淘,中華職棒,麗的線上小遊戲,國士無雙麻將,麻將館,賭博遊戲,威力彩,威力彩開獎號碼,龍龍運動網,史萊姆,史萊姆好玩遊戲,史萊姆第一個家,史萊姆好玩遊戲區,樂透彩開獎號碼,遊戲天堂,天堂,好玩遊戲,遊戲基地,無料遊戲王,好玩遊戲區,麻將遊戲,好玩遊戲區,小遊戲,電玩快打

情趣用品,情趣,A片,AIO,AV,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色文學,色情,寄情竹園小遊戲,色情遊戲,AIO交友愛情館,色情影片,情趣內衣,情趣睡衣,性感睡衣,情趣商品,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人圖片區,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室 ,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,080苗栗人聊天室,080聊天室,視訊交友網,視訊

借錢,黃金,黃金回收,黃金價格,黃金買賣,當舖

A片,A片,成人網站,成人影片,色情,情色網,情色,AV,AV女優,成人影城,成人,色情A片,日本AV,免費成人影片,成人影片,SEX,免費A片,A片下載,免費A片下載,做愛,情色A片,色情影片,H漫,A漫,18成人

a片,色情影片,情色電影,a片,色情,情色網,情色,av,av女優,成人影城,成人,色情a片,日本av,免費成人影片,成人影片,情色a片,sex,免費a片,a片下載,免費a片下載,成人網站,做愛,自拍

情趣用品,情趣,A片,AIO,AV,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,AIO交友愛情館,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,情色文學,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,一葉情貼圖片區,情色論壇,色情影片,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片區,成人圖片,成人貼圖,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天