The crisis-development in this mode of production thus acquires a discrepancy between social needs and financial logic based on criteria of hyper-profitability: in developed countries, the assertion of an anthropogenic model of “production of man by man” where consumption is increasingly oriented towards social, health, educational and cultural sectors, clashes with the privatization of many sectors previously managed by public criteria; in developing countries, the expansion of valorization provokes processes of hyper-exploitation and the destruction of local economies and the environment. The demands of profitability imposed by financial capitalism on the entire society reinforce social regression under the pressure of a growth model that, in order to distribute wealth, voluntarily sacrifices social cohesion and the quality of life itself. Wage deflation, pathologization of labor with increases in health costs generated by work stress (up to 3% of the GDP), worsening social balances and the irreparable deterioration of the environment are the effects of financial logic and of company delocalizations typical of global financial capitalism.
The problem is that, analyzed from a distributive point of view (economistic in the last instance), the crisis-development of financial capitalism leads to a veritable dead-end. As much as it is thrown out the window, the cliché that finance is parasitic implicitly comes back through the front door. The impasse, more theoretical than practico-political, is before everyone’s eyes: the impossibility of elaborating strategies to overcome the crisis, the recourse to economic stimulus measures, on the one hand, presuppose the rescue of finance (of which we are really hostages), but, on the other hand, annul the very possibilities of economic revival.
Both the right and the left wish for an unlikely return to the real economy, veritable “re-industrializations” of the economy (preferably a little greener) in order to leave a finanzialized economy that is an accomplice to the destruction of income and employment. But no one worries anymore about describe the nature and functioning of the so-called “real economy.” And thus they wish for state aid to industrial sectors suffering from overproduction, aid that is then translated into job and wage deductions, which certainly do not help (on the contrary) to revive the economy as a whole.” —Christian Marazzi - “The Violence of Financial Capitalism” (via effusionofbiopower)
Politics and the End of Consciousness
Avi Alpert - Lecture/Discussion
It is somewhat taken for granted today that revolution occurs through the passions, beliefs and desires of activist subjects. Why would someone revolt if they did not desire a better life, or believe in a particular cause, or feel warmed by the passion for change? Indeed, those who believe that thinking must be responsive to its times, and who have followed recent revolutionary political events – from the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi to the series of insurgencies that followed – might find it strange that the most trendy philosophy today is going by the name “object-oriented ontology.” Less concerned with the structures of self-conscious activity, and more interested in the agency of objects and the end of human life, this philosophical turn seems oddly disconnected from its moment. I will argue in this talk, however, that there may be a valid and serious connection between revolutionary politics and the end of consciousness.
Perhaps, I want to suggest, there is a kind of revolutionary activity that comes not from belief and desire, but rather through their elimination. Indeed, we find in revolutionary thinkers like Kant, Thoreau and Gandhi, the argument that it is a dispassionate application of truths about basic human needs which gives life to a revolution. This talk will consider some of their thoughts about this other kind of politics, as well as their response to the charge of quietism. I will also consider the relation to several aesthetic practices with similar concerns, either explicitly or implicitly (Kuoan Shiyuan’s Ten Bulls, John Cage’s “Lecture on Indeterminacy”, and Hitchcock’s The Birds). The central question posed is this: is the end (purpose) of consciousness to bring about its own end (cessation), and could this end of consciousness take the lived form of a revolutionary non-violent politics based on the satisfaction of basic human needs?
Geez, must be terminally bored or maybe it’s because I haven’t had any booze today, but I was actually civil to that 20 year old Elder Elsbury who chatted me up on the street and gave me a copy of the Book of Mormon. Didn’t pull any of the old jokes like ‘if Moroni is the big one for you guys how come you’re not called Morons?’ or ‘no, won’t want your number—-don’t you think I’ve seen Angels in America, Joe Pitt…’ or ‘you’re really crypto-Freemasons what with the sacred underwear symbols—-damn Illuminati New World Order lizards!’. Even said Mitt Romney without laughing…
Today was the 10th time or so I got a call from those nice indian call centre scam people and I went ‘listen, I know you’re a fraud and you’re going to jail for this, do you understand: you’re going to jail’ which the bully got very butt-hurt about. They always do don’t they, the bullies, getting a bit of their own shit back.