Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
If the article talks about how banks making magic money to pay off debts being a huge portion of the economy is in no way capitalist, that's been happening for thirty years now. News. But yeah not as competitive a society as the neocons would believe they live in.
that he want's you to BUY his book
nah it's not about that
It sounds like some sort of massive brightly coloured robot. is it?
paul mason is really good and i will probably get this book.
i haven't had a chance to read the full article yet though
can this article be re-imagined as a series of drawings of what cartoon characters might look like grown up?
I find capitalism difficult to understand when not in this context
All great civilizations fall when the people become unwilling to take responsibility for themselves. Capitalism is just a facet of this, rather than the cause.
I was all ready to talk about the privatisation of the royal mail there. Not reading that kind of article at 4.20pm on a Friday mate, no offence.
I read it, but I don't think I fully understood it.
So capitalism cannot undergo another revolution like it did in the 1850s, 1900s, 1950s (or whatever the years were) because there's nowhere for it go now? Or because post-Internet it isn't possible to control the proletariat in the necessary way? What's happening? It's Friday, for fuck's sake.
the more efficient, automated and monopolistic stuff gets, the more disconnected from value (us) the capitalists are etc...
think of the music industry
previously, pre-1990s (ish) recorded music was sold at an increasingly high value to the public. importantly, the biggest expense for companies was not the recording of the music itself but the distribution of it: vinyl records and then CDs being printed and then transported to shops
however, with the rise of the internet a new method of distribution was brought in: the p2p network. because the real value of CDs are the information they contain - the music - there is no issue with abandoning their physical forms.
thus it is no longer possible to prevent access to music, everyone had free access to an increasingly unlimited amount of music, and this produces an irreversible effect in the music industry.
now imagine this on a scale of not just music but everything, including physical objects, which is possible when the effect of automation is also included. as all good marxists know: capitalism wants to minimise the cost of production. traditionally it has done this by lowering wages, but technology has put it in a position in which workers can be (mostly) excluded completely.
the exclusion of the worker from capitalism combined with the ability to create effective distribution networks allows new structures to be made which can either be good or bad. it should henceforth be the project of the left to control the transition to postcapitalism in an emancipatory and positive manner
you should be a teacher
ty. pleased as always to talk about this stuff
to me it seems pretty closely related to the current meme of 'fully automated luxury communism' i.e. this idea that the utoian post-capitalist society should consist of zero working hours and everyone living like beyonce does now
the main problem with all of this for me (as with accelerationism) is that the people suffering in providing all the tech for these projects aren't in the west but at the source of the materials e.g. the congolese. to transfer to the 'utopia' envisioned by this stuff would surely inflict more conflict on these people.
it's also not clear to me how to fit climate activism in all this - i suppose you could envisage some kind of geoengineering (e.g. rebuilding the climate with silver nanoparticles) but i'm not clear to what extent this would actually be possible with current or even near-future technology
which is always nice on a Sunday afternoon.
It's a bit of a re-tread over the thoughts of Manuel Castell, but I liked it. It makes me wonder if information becomes situated in 'us' as much as is claimed whether we could all be seen as public intellectuals (to pull from Gramsci)? What does that mean for conjunctural conflict; does it increase as voices clamour for attention, or decrease as we develop a public conscience and a more inclusive hegemony?
It's been a decade since I last read any network theory... perhaps something for next weekend.
could you recommend some good stuff (maybe not whole texts but the basic ideas to read up on) on network theory in a sociological context?
my dissertation was on this but the scientific 'network theory' which i became highly suspicious of (though i think maybe it's in the v. early stages before any strict 'theory' has arisen), but i'd like to understand it better in an area where the aim isn't to look for strict calculable laws - if only because it seems both free marketeers (e.g. von mises and hayek) and marxists converged upon it as the solution to a bunch of problems.