autonomist dork blogging

my sharp descent into reprobate-quote-machine waters; sorry gang

Thus, to take this second group [the precarious position of individuation itself under monopoly conditions] first, the traditional image of the rebel is not merely objectively precarious but perhaps even subjectively illusory. Of the Hollywood rebel, for example - they seem to have had Orson Welles in mind - Adorno and Horkheimer observe that even his dissidence can be accommodated as a style or an eccentricity: ‘Once his particular brand of deviation from the norm has been registered and classified by the culture industry, he belongs to it as the land reformer belongs to capitalism’. Outflanked, ‘coopted’, the most revolutionary peasant demands now reintegrated into a larger market strategy that seeks very precisely to break up the great estates in order to create private property and to foster a henceforth landless proletariat - the heroic simile includes this whole epic process, which constitutes a capsule textbook on agrarian reform as seen by Marxist analysis; but it also includes a preview of a whole newer film history for which stylistic innovation of the Welles type is considered a form of marketing try-out that allows Hollywood to modify and modernize its technique, while drawing innovation itself back inside the stereotypical product. On the other hand, all of this can be rewritten in terms of the first mode of analysis mentioned above, the internal division of labor [within the individual subject]: ‘No wrestling match is without a referee: the whole brawl has been staged by society internalized in the individual, which both supervises the struggle and takes part in it’.

Fredric Jameson, Late Marxism

sorry orson :/

How has Marx’s dialectical method been working here? Would you say that exchange-values cause value? Would you say exchange-values cause use-value, or use-values cause… ? This analysis is not causal. It is about relations, dialectical relations. Can you talk about exchange-value without talking about use-value? No, you can’t. Can you talk about value without talking about use-value? No. In other words, you can’t talk about any of these concepts without talking about the others. The concepts are codependent on one another, relations within a totality of some sort.

I recognize that to use the word “totality” is to wave a huge red flag in certain intellectual circles. Marx had no idea what structuralism might be about and would have had even less idea about poststructuralism. We should be wary of cramming his thought into these categories (my own view is that he does not fit into them at all). But Marx certainly had the ambition to understand the capitalist mode of production as a totality, so the only question of interest is, exactly what concept of totality does he have in mind? What we know from this first section is that this totality can best be approached through the triumvirate of concepts of use-value, exchange-value and value built around the commodity. But he has acknowledged that use-values are incredibly diverse, that exchange-values are accidental and relative and that value has (or appears to have) a “phantom-like objectivity;’ which is in any case subjected to perpetual revolutions through technological changes and upheavals in social and natural relations. This totality is not static and closed but fluid and open and therefore in perpetual transformation.
David Harvey, A Companion to Marx’s Capital, 24 (via motheatonn)
Michael Jackson - Lisa It's Your Birthday
9,109 plays


Michael Jackson | Lisa It’s Your Birthday
originally recorded for The Simpsons episode: Stark Raving Dad

(not used in the episode for legal reasons)


faithful non employment by alexandre galmard - i have worked since march with all pay going towards credit bureau and day out of credit card debt find out the store is closing capitalism wants to fire some of you communism all of you the justice of free time to work on working-through without superegoic guilt of negative judgment (you are employed, you are not employed, you are unemployed - infinitely infinite judgment you are non-employed to suspend distinction between positive and negative judgment that does not defer: the double suspension of employment or available jobs but the assertion that work exists, the universal condition of work where a true worker under conditions produces universality - which appears as no-thing in the world - to separate no-thing from nothingness, to produce what counts as no-thing - to subtract from the objectivity of exchange or use value - there are historically specific ways of doing no-thing in each transcendental organization of a world - dialectics suspends dialectics, producing what suspends it, while being the suspension of suspension of dialectics - to not hypostasize one form of negation, to subtract from negation and work through all the forms of negation, to remain materialist - to work on no-thing, to invent new forms of no-thing in the non-world of the market. a free time or maybe it is a false category, leisure time, perhaps it is to be poor of time, to be immediately within the consequences of justice and equality rather than the search for free time, where leisure time is simply within the injunction of to live now - the invention of leisure time where the worker only feels free when having sex, eating, or drinking in leisure giving the worker the fake idea that you are only free in the now of your bodily functions (this is why boyhood is deeply reactionary in its ending ‘it is always like right now’ and the mother ‘what’s next? my funeral?’ that is, living only in the now, where the now vanishes into the next now until the vanishing vanishes and the worker dies - the question of cinema is never the now but the presentation of the present 

Jeez, I’d forgotten how good the Reverend Smith storyline was. His preaching to the cattle about Paul’s theology of circumcision is brilliant and tragic and hilarious.


The X-Files teaching a brief lesson on spatial relations and geometry 

[Ideas] are related to each other in so far as each one is also a star; yet a star that hangs like a sun in any particular heaven becomes thereby incomparable, the horizon of a whole world and the only true reality or referent, as Derrida once put it. Within that hegemony, only the one unique sun is conceivable and cannot be thought together in the same breath as the glittering swarm knowledge vainly identifies as other suns. Concepts are those distant stars whose juxtaposition can be grasped in the figure of the constellation; Ideas, meanwhile, although multiple and equally discontinuous, offer no analogous standpoint beyond them from which to grasp their star-like coexistence: which is to say, returning to the question from which we began, that they cannot be yoked together in the form of philosophical system, and that the philosophical exposure to any single Idea blots the others out with its light.

Fredric Jameson, Late Marxism

On the distinction between the concept and the idea in Benjamin

[W]e must denounce culture (as an idea but also as a phenomenon) all the time we continue to perpetuate it, and perpetuate it while continuing tirelessly to denounce it. It is with culture as with philosophy, which famously ‘lived on because the moment to realize it was missed’; there is, as we shall see, a utopian power in keeping alive the impossible idea of philosophizing (as of producing culture) even while ruthlessly exposing the necessary failure to go on doing it today.

goddammit fred

Fredric Jameson, Late Marxism


why is every cool french theorist named jacques? jacques derrida, jacques lacan, jacques althusser, jacques deleuze, jacques foucault etc

don’t forget important predecessor jacques-jacques rousseau