Friday, October 17, 2014

As if I had already seen it somewhere before....

“The Young-Girl understands freedom as the possibility of choosing from among a thousand insignificances.”

Deja vu is a phenomenon created by modern times. Still, no one suspects that decades of homogeneous architectural manufacturing could have such a profound psychological effect. Nonetheless the first accounts of deja vu occur, unsurprisingly, in the 19th century, during the early days of mass production. In a philosophical sense, industrial society came about as the material emergence of Western metaphysics up to that point in time; in particular, the supremacy of essence over existence. Plato’s desire to understand individual objects through mastery of the forms was now finally realized: mass production allows a person to see an individual object and understand it through his preexisting idea of that object, through its essence. So when I see endless roofs zigzagging through entire regions with the most unamusing flow, as is common in most suburban neighborhoods, each house appears to me as a mere example of the true essence, the true form, of a house. As if I had already seen it somewhere before. Each house becomes just another possibility, and most likely an insufficient possibility, since the essence of a house is always portrayed by the Spectacle as superior to a single house. In this way, deja vu was created.

So in response to the phenomenon of deja vu, which loses its original excitement once it is induced constantly and turned into a hellish boredom, existentialism spread as a philosophy (again unsurprisingly in the 19th century), as in “existence precedes essence.” This line of thought was primarily a response to capital’s ability to trivialize everyday life, which in modern times has become the ability to commodify everyday life. This is why Soren Kierkegaard encouraged people to live an “authentic” life: because he understood that there was nothing authentic about commodity society.

So the police can also be analyzed from this perspective. One of their larger goals is to secure the supremacy of essence, a supremacy which is already continuously reinforced by mass production and the Spectacle. This is why, when people pursue their own existence vigorously enough, and reject the boring “possibilities” already imposed onto them, they are suppressed in a seemingly unnecessary way. This is why graffiti is outlawed, or why it is quite literally illegal to be homeless; it's the reason why physical and social presentability, or employment at a high-paying job, or even avarice are all considered to be important virtues. It isn’t because a hoard of disgruntled youths or vagabonds pose an actual threat to anyone; instead, it is because their uninhibited desire to exist -- first and foremost -- is the biggest menace against which commoditism must fight. They refuse, even if only because they can, to give into the supremacy of essence: the youth, by not working; and the homeless, by not consuming.

But what form does this supremacy take today? What essence is our existence ideally supposed to follow? It seems obvious that the dominant mode of production would have us all become the most efficient producers, and the most greedy consumers. Hence the constant repetition of the phrase “humans are naturally selfish” (as if such a statement could relieve the modern citizen of his guilt). And this effectively sums up all of the “self-fulfillment” that capital can provide for us: fulfillment of one’s supposed essence, which only ever amounts to slavery. So when Forbes compiled a list of “Ideas for Self-Fulfillment” it should not come as a shock that one of the items on the list states that “if you don’t like what you do, you won’t love YOU, and the job won’t last.” What they fail to realize is that love is not the same as a lack of hatred. After all, no one really loves their job. Some people just don’t hate it.

Simultaneously, capitalism refuses us the possibility of reaching our own authentic existence. Even the citizen who flees any sort of prescribed essence, always jumping from individuality to individuality, digs his own grave; thus the temp is born, the temporary worker, the most flexible producer. Surely we have all realized by now that the temp is the future of all work in the West. Therefore, even the citizen who appears most unpredictable is recuperated into the workforce, and capital even has an incentive to keep people in this permanent limbo. The ideal existence which has always been sought by capitalism, the ultimate essence, is represented in the subject that has no existence -- not meaning non-existent, but meaning an existence of nothingness, of pure adaptability.

However the “ideal” existence is not only achieved through working. Consuming is also a major aspect, and “the consumer” is one side of capitalism’s phantom essence, an essence with which we are all supposed to match our individual existences. Thus Microsoft’s recent advertisement which describes its latest tablet as “one experience for everything in your life.” This slogan perfectly describes the allure of commodities and their simultaneous attempt to quench our thirst for existence. By pursuing the individualities and pseudo-existences provided by commodities, one actually throws away his authentic existence in favor of commodity society’s solitary essence. In this way, the single experience of consuming can replace all other true desires and literally become the “one experience for everything in your life.”

Of course when we speak of production and consumption so negatively, we are not underestimating the power of creation and fulfillment. From this perspective, an Existentialist Marxism can be developed. Within the dichotomy of essence and existence, it seems obvious that the homogeneous commodity, so easily mass produced, takes the form of the essence, the thing that all competitors must match, the ultimate form of that use-object. On the other hand, existence is that which is not mass produced, the use-object that is made in a DIY fashion, and furthermore, it is the impulse to create. It is the desire to access the means of production in a direct, collective way. In this sense, the socialist revolution coincides with the social insurrection. In fighting for existence, the ultimate enemy is commodification.

8 comments:

  1. Some more good points, Max -- I think you're on to something especially with your point about the inauthenticity of consumption. You have to concede, though, that the accumulation of capital can be necessary to certain processes of self fulfillment. If I devote my existence to curing cancer, I'll grant that I may be able to get away with "communally owned" labs for research while living in a "communally owned" space. Upon discovering the cure, however, producing this cure on a massive, global scale would fulfill my existence more than anything else. I would want to own a factory, to pay people to help me produce the cure, and to distribute it for consumption on a global level. I would need capital in order to accomplish this goal, although my intentions would be authentic.

    Something I can't quite come to a conclusion about is whether capitalism bars other forms of authentic fulfillment. It seems like the answer is no -- while I can see your point about how society necessitates work in order to pay for basic food, lodging, etc, I don't think that your (or any) system would grant everyone housing and food without expecting some sort of returned contribution to the society. What I can't quite reconcile is that our society does ban certain forms of creative expression, especially when they pertain to the destruction/defacing of others' property, banning self fulfillment by those means. Valuing property rights over authentic self fulfillment does seem like a perverted world view, but at the same time I do think people should have some right to not be harmed or have their valuables destroyed...I'm not sure -- but the answer has some big implications in the debate.

    I'd like to quickly go back to your point about the inauthenticity of consumption. To me this seems apt; I can think of examples where excessive consumption may be self-fulfilling, but I have a hard time justifying the authenticity of the fulfillment. Might need to let Josh take this one...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree that in some cases the accumulation of capital is necessary. However, I am not inherently opposed to its accumulation, but instead opposed to its accumulation in private hands. At the same time, I am skeptical about the possibility of it ever being accumulated without private control. The USSR tried to accumulate it "in the name of society," but we all know how that turned out: another form of capitalism under the disguise of a humanitarian system (or, in other words, the accumulation of capital in private hands, this time the hands of government officials).

    Also on this point, I never said that anyone has a right to fulfill themselves, but at the very least there should be somewhat easy access to an attempt at fulfillment. I believe that capitalism suppresses this access -- in general (although you can perhaps find exceptions). One way it does this is by "incentivizing" people into working jobs for which they have no passion. This is not the exception, but undeniably the norm. "Being fine" with a job, also, does not equate to passion. "Making money" does not equate to fulfillment.

    I also have some theories about creative expression and capitalism's tendency to suppress it. That can be another post, but the general idea I have is that it is extremely difficult to get access to the means of art-production. For example, it is ridiculously expensive to rent out a studio, produce an album, etc. The reason for this is because we have not yet communalized the means of art-production. They are still in private hands, and these private hands use their ownership to exploit artists or suppress their creations altogether. Even when certain underground artists do get produced, their contracts usually leave them financially unstable. Simultaneously, this is why we currently see the complete degradation of art: pop music dominates the radios and entire youth/social scenes. This music is not art, but entertainment. It is produced because it can bring profit to those who have control over the means of art-production. This is the only music that can be efficiently produced under a capitalist system. Also keep in mind that poetry has been dead for decades. It is not even published anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  3. first half of my comments for first half of my post (still havent read 2nd half or your guys' comments so bear with me)

    "Deja vu is a phenomenon created by modern times"
    --what son?? elaborate

    "Each house becomes just another possibility, and most likely an insufficient possibility, since the essence of a house is always portrayed by the Spectacle as superior to a single house. In this way, deja vu was created."
    --what do you mean by this? And Spectacle or no Spectacle, isn’t the idea of something always superior to the manifestation?

    "So the police can also be analyzed from this perspective. One of their larger goals is to secure the supremacy of essence, a supremacy which is already continuously reinforced by mass production and the Spectacle"
    --not sure i can necessarily agree with this, at least in principle. however, i do think that, unfortunately, as a consequence of protecting property (and what should only be property of the individual citizen) , the problem of police has certain escalated and distorted the prioritization of what they’re to protect, and that is fundamentally the lives of citizens.

    "this is why, when people pursue their own existence vigorously enough, and reject the boring “possibilities” already imposed onto them, they are suppressed in a seemingly unnecessary way"
    --how much of this affects other’s existence? those that don’t live vigorously enough or reject the boring possibilities.

    "It isn’t because a hoard of disgruntled youths or vagabonds pose an actual threat to anyone;"
    --sometimes it is;

    ", it is because their uninhibited desire to exist -- first and foremost -- is the biggest menace against which commoditism must fight."
    --fair. but how much of this desire to exist is means related? if someone has all the means and still has the desire to exist then we can expect them to be exempt from traditional suppression, i.e. the law, society, and financial hardship. but if those that desire don’t have the means— thats when the desire is inflamed and because of that lack of means, they themselves get fucked over… but what if they had the means? would the desire exist or would it disappear? YOU (max) would want to say the desire would still exist…if it didn’t, then the desire to “live” would be born out of commoditism, meaning without it, the desire to “live” couldn’t be… I (josh) would say the desire is tethered to real in depth conscious awareness and education… you can’t agree with me on that because that would imply that this desire can arise out of a system that isnt commodified… and that would deflate your entire argument. but then if the desire does rise out of commoditism and as a rejection of essence over existence, then the only way to really exist would necessitate commodity, in order to break yourself free from it. without commodity, thered be no need for desire, nor would we realize the lack of desire— there just would be.. so this desire cannot be intrinsic to us, it has to be a learned desire, one that not only flourishes best in this system, but necessitates this system

    "They refuse, even if only because they can, to give into the supremacy of essence: the youth, by not working; and the homeless, by not consuming."
    —but really max- how often is this a choice? aren’t these the very consequences of this oppressive system of capitalism?

    ReplyDelete
  4. First of all, thank you for being so clear by quoting the segments as you did. It is helpful. But what I meant by deja vu being a product of modern times.... Basically, "deja vu," has never been described before the 19th century. No phrase or description has described that phenomenon besides a few possibilities, which I personally believe are not real examples. You can decide that for yourself though. I can give you the only surviving examples if you wish.

    Either way, of course a lack of evidence for it existing previously is not enough to make my statements objectively true. To some extent, this statement about "deja vu being a product of modern times" was a way to gather attention and to focus on the peculiar ways that commoditism can affect the human mind. It may not be true. But it still might be. No one can really say for sure. If it is, then my post is all the more compelling. If it is not true, it is not detrimental to my post either.

    You are correct in saying that "spectacle or no spectacle," the idea of a thing will always be superior to the thing itself. But this is what I am trying to get at. The idea itself does not exist. Only the thing itself exists. And this is the theme of this whole post. Existentialism: existence precedes essence. The existence of a thing precedes the idea of the thing.

    What I mean by the police enforcing "essence" is extremely vague, but this theory expresses itself in endless examples. For instance, you say that the police should exist to protect the lives of citizens. Instead, they kill citizens (Eric Garner and Michael Brown among many others), and then compare those citizens to what they SHOULD have been (i.e. their essence). This is what has been referred to as a "character assassination": Michael Brown was portrayed as a violent thug by the media. In fact, there was even a social media campaign which made an attempt to speak out against such techniques. Various students and activists posted pictures of themselves: first in graduation or military photos, and then in more casual photos. The activists then pointed out that, if they had been killed by the police, the more casual photos would have been used to portray them, thereby assassinating their characters.

    This is but one example. If the police were really there to "protect the lives of citizens," then they would not put this much effort into assassinating individuals -- and then characters -- and protecting their own members. We cannot talk about "ideals," like the "ideal" of police protect human lives. There has never been a police force that does such a thing, and there never will be.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You also ask how this sort of anti-existential suppression affects the less rebellious individuals. But this question seems out of place. After all, the less rebellious individuals are those who have been sufficiently suppressed. The police, the Spectacle, and Biopower have all terrorized these people into suppression. We cannot deny that we ourselves fall into this category -- even if we are privileged enough to fall into this oppressed category. We are "privileged" enough to be the perfect little children that capitalism always wanted.

    But onto your next objection. You say that, if a desire-to-exist stops existing after the means to that desired-existence are attained, then that desire would be fueled by commoditism. In other words, if I desire an existence, and I suddenly attain the means to attain that existence, the desire for that existence might stop existing. If the desire stops existing, then the desire was originally fueled by commoditism. I do not follow this chain. I do not understand why, if the desire stops existing, I would have to then admit that the desire is commodity-based. Perhaps you mean that the desire would not have existed if not for commoditism urging on this desire. But this is spurious. If I desire "X," and I attain "X," do I still desire "X," once attained? I do not desire it, in the sense that this desire is redundant. After all, why would I desire something I already have? On the other hand, I do desire it, in the sense that, if I found myself without "X," I would desire "X."

    I believe that the desire to "exist," the desire to "live," the desire to fulfill oneself, is something natural to humans -- with or without commoditism. Capitalism and its current form (i.e. commodity imperialism) happen to suppress access to existence, therefore making it more desirable! Does this make sense? I understand that this is abstract (although your own comment was extremely abstract and difficult to follow, so clear this up if I am mistaken, and I will also clear up what I meant). Overall, what I mean is that capitalism suppresses pure existence. This suppression makes existence all the more desirable. If there was no suppression against pure existence, then pure existence would be attained. After such attainment, the desire would be redundant, unless suppressed.

    Your last comment is also interesting. Do the homeless not consume because they can't, or because they refuse to? In the end, it must be a mixture of both. Neither of us can say which. Nonetheless, the fact is that the police violently and brutally suppress the homeless. I believe there must be a reason for this. The reason is either police barbarism or a capitalist tendency to violently force consumerism. Both of these reasons seem to point to the same implication: abolish capitalism.

    This was an abrupt comment, so please tell me where I can clarify. Especially the point about desiring-to-exist. I feel like that was vague.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think some people do love their jobs... unless you're trying to get technical and say that then it wouldn't be a "job"...

    anyway, excellent responses to my comments, thank you my good sir. I have to tease out what i was saying about the means related desire bit.. it indeed was quite abstract and while perhaps not spurious, maybe irrelevant to the point at hand.

    fundamentally, however, i do not believe that capitalism suppresses the ability to *exist*-- at the very least, not to the extent that you claim. I think the ability to *exist* in a capitalist system is very much tied to your means and ability *to* *exist* and I challenge you to find a system were more people can *exist* to the extent that they do under a 'capitalist' system.

    furthermore, i do stand behind what i said that the desire to *exist* -- at least in the context that i understand it we're speaking of here -- is learned and perpetuated by commoditism. but nonetheless, it is learned- you say it is intrinsic.. i think it is intrinsic in the sense that our brains are quite fucking good at desiring, but we have to be shown something we desire before we desire it, i.e. we have to know of the existence of something in order to desire it. It is true that the Spectacle gives us the existence of something while making us desire the unattainable "essence" , making it all the more torturous. But When do we ever attain the *essence* of something? Even something objectively "uncapitalist", say "love" -- the idea , the essence, is way more pleasant and desirable than the manifestation, should that manifestation be something that is true... I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure how relevant it is that the Spectacle plays into this secret, that we're really adept at desiring essences and ideas, always ready to try the manifestation until we reach it... That's a facet of life- to take it away, as I said earlier, is to take away the desire.. hence desire being born out of this system. But again, I said desire can also come out of education and self awareness and yada yada... the extent of that education and self awareness would be severely limited if not for the way things have gone since the scientific and industrial revolution. And if for some reason they weren't severely limited and we still somehow had all the knowledge we have today, attaining that self fulfillment would be hard as shit without - again - the physical, real fruits of the scientific and industrial revolution.

    ReplyDelete
  7. then again, all of the above could be pointless depending on what your idea of “authentic existence” and “true desires” are…which i guess you point out in the final paragraph. hmm.. im not sure that everyone is necessarily going after this homogenous essence. I think everyone (corporations, firms, whatever) are fighting to shape the essence with how their individualized product looks. Those suburban homes look the same because its the same real estate company, not because its one Giant Spectacle working together to make everything the same. their is the essence of something, a home, a product, whatever. but that is abstract in everyones mind. the existence, the individualized existence is what aims to shape your idea of the essence…and it is mass produced for that reason (and because it can be, thanks to the good ol’ industrial revolution).

    Again, I dont think the impulse to create is so severely stifled as you claim.

    All in all though, very nice post

    ReplyDelete