View Single Post
Old 09-17-2008, 07:56 AM   #65 (permalink)
roachboy
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
what matters is continuity of movement, the continuance of flows, not what flows. the objects that move through these systems are secondary to the fact of their movement. trafficking in debt means that value is a temporal form, not a 1:1 relation--so it's not about objects, not about thinking with or through objects...it's thinking motion, systems that allow it, and relations which are structured in and through that movement. value is a convention--but it's always been convention, nothing more. the value of gold was a convention and the assumption about that convention was that scarcity (or at least limitation) of supply functioned to anchor that convention in something outside itself--but that too was a convention. and what mattered was the movement of these conventional objects--these time-forms, like sounds---through particular systems. when you extract "value" from the systems of circulation, you convert media, but the conversion of media doesn't mean that you move from a system anchored in circulation to something else--you just move from one circulatory system to another.

the entire idea of the old marxian labor theory of value was to anchor value to praxis, acting on nature, transforming nature into usable objects, as a way of making it more "material"----but even there value was located in labor power, in process, and it's object-expression---commodities---was seen as "dead labor"....

i don't know why this is surprising, that the anchors of bourgeois "reality" are basically objectifications of modes of being that are basically motion or pattern within motion (another metaphor that you could plug into the above and run the machinery).

what matters is not the relation to materiality, not the relation between process (which is temporal) to the object-oriented world that we see and live through because we see it---what matters is the equity of modes of allocation, what matters is the distribution of power. in contemporary capitalism, we--you and i---have NO power. we are spectators. this is a form of spectatorship. and it also turns out that the institutions we assumed DID have power do not have it--not really--what has power is the flowing of capital within abstract networks. that rules the world, the world that neoliberalism has enabled.

better to watch tv, i sometimes think.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360