Tag Archives: Marx

Marx! The Spectre is Still Haunting Us.

Just a few lines of thoughts and links that have been coming up recently.

Terry and I went to an interesting talk/reading group the other day at Xero, Kline and Coma, Pil and Galia Kollectiv‘s gallery. The talks had been organised by POCA, a research group exploring many themes but the one we were at was looking into the possibility of creating an antihumanist system for curating and whether this is possible. Central to antihumanism is the rejection of the human as an autonomous subject rather that humanity is historically relative and metaphysical. I’m still grappling with this but can be understood (I think) to reject the notion that a person stands independent and outside of expeience; knowledge and meaning is than perceived through analysis of the object beyond them. Empiricism, such as science. Science derrives meaning by experiential experiment. I suppose this is saying that the human precedes meaning. People like Marx on the other hand believes that humans are formed by the conditions they find themselves in and therefore an analysis of the whole is what is called for. This is what Capital attempts to do and why it goes beyond being just an economic work. One sticking point for antihumanists is the notion of inalienable human rights or the sovereignty of the individual, the notion that one has the right to do this and have that.

‘The young Karl Marx criticised the project of political emancipation, embodied in the form of human rights,
as symptomatic of the very dehumanisation it was intended to oppose. Marx argued that individuals are constantly in conflict with one another because of their egotism, supposedly inhererent under capitalism, and rights are necessary to protect them from each other. True emancipation, he asserted, could only come through the establishment of communism, which abolishes the private ownership of all means of production. While the mature Marx may have retained a belief in the inevitability of progress, he also became more forceful in his criticism of human rights as idealist or utopian. For the mature Marx, humanity is an unreal abstraction: because rights themselves are abstract, the justice and equality they protect is also abstract, permitting extreme inequalities in reality.’

This view is picked up on by Alan Badiou and Marx’s conception of the ‘free’ labourer being the crucial factor that turns a society towards a capitalist epoch. Anything is possible as long as we stay within the constrains of possibility. That is I am free to sell my labour-power to whoever but I have no option in whether or not. Freedom as bondage. Zizek also picks up on this in his book violence.

Where this now brings us to to Louis Althusser. Althusser is famous, apart for strangleing his wife, for teaching Alan Badiou, Ettiene Balibar, Jacques Rancierre among others and it is with Rancierre that he co-authored the book reading capital. This can very basically be seen as trying to remove what was left of an humanist aspect of Marx’s writing out of Capital. One online resource is here (which also has lots of other bits). A key text though is the one you will find on the POCA website under anti-humanist curating. Not read this yet but had a crash course in it on the night and still trying to get to grips with things so if you see glaring holes in my above analysis please point them out!

This is I think something that we will all relate to and understand as anti-humanism seems to point toward an inherent equality in the subject that does not need to be moralised but is rather like math 1=1 as such (this may be my most wild assertion here). The project of extracting meaning from Marx’s capital is one we have taken up and I think we would do well to follow these strands. You can listen to the previous seminars on the POCA website too. A good summary can be found on the venerable wikipedia

‘Althusser believes that Marx’s work is fundamentally incompatible with its antecedents because it is built on a ground-breaking epistemology that rejects the distinction between subject and object. In opposition to empiricism, Althusser claims that Marx’s philosophy, dialectical materialism, counters the theory of knowledge as vision with a theory of knowledge as production.[15] On the empiricist view, a knowing subject encounters a real object and uncovers its essence by means of abstraction.[16]

On the assumption that thought has a direct engagement with reality, or an unmediated vision of a ‘real’ object, the empiricist believes that the truth of knowledge lies in the correspondence of a subject’s thought to an object that is external to thought itself.[17] By contrast, Althusser claims to find latent in Marx’s work a view of knowledge as “theoretical practice“. For Althusser, theoretical practice takes place entirely within the
realm of thought, working upon theoretical objects and never coming into direct contact with the real object that it aims to know.[18] Knowledge is not discovered, but rather produced by way of three “Generalities”: I, the “raw material” of pre-scientific ideas, abstractions and facts; II, a conceptual framework (or “problematic”) brought to bear upon these; III, the finished product of a transformed theoretical entity, concrete knowledge.[19]

On this view, the validity of knowledge is not guaranteed by its correspondence to something external to itself; because Marx’s historical materialism is a science, it contains its own internal methods of proof.[20] It is therefore not governed by interests of society, class, ideology or politics, and is distinct from the economic superstructure.’

In terms of the rejection of ideology this is particularly of interest in the Homeland project the corpus of Bloch’s work being a Utopian Humanist one. Where does this take us then?

Strands of research/issues and our response/action

A lot of what I am about to write I would assume you have all considered but I think we need to concrete each of the certain areas, even if we decide that they will resolve themselves naturally. I am keen for us to have considered what it is we are doing and defining our path ahead as I am keen to avoid the vaguarities of doing something that is learning and educational, and to fully understand what these mean and where they fit in.

I think this is very important especially as when our reasons for embarking on this become more defined then our responses to that should do as well. If we are positioning our project in opposition to an idea of debt slavery for instance then what have we done to oppose that. It would be frightful if our only reaction is to say that we have embarked on our own education and this naturally opposes. For me it would not be good enough. What were our other options, who else has set out to solve this problem, who have we spoke to specifically in relation to this, does taking charge of our own education offer a real solution, is it applicable elsewhere, are we left with a different sort of debt?

All this may sound obvious but in order for us to direct ourselves these questions must surely be asked. Also when assuming the role of education body, teacher and student all at once, several points come up concerning how we organise ourselves and others and what part of this triad we/they fit and where are the overlaps. These three areas are very distinct and encompass a whole swathe of other points. If we are going to truly map this then I think we need to have a structure to begin with, key points to address, areas of research, frameworks for intervention and so on. When we approach someone to collaborate in what context will we be doing so? I would want to avoid a vagueness on our part as it would probably invite a similar response on theirs.

Anyway here are some points I have outlined below. These will need extending and working through. Perhaps we can all respond and then skype afterwards. I think it will help us galvanise.

Blueprint for Education
Identify strands of research/issues and our response/action:

* Funding/fees
* What constitutes education
* what constitutes learning
* what is valuable as a curriculum
* what constitutes a curriculum
* who can teach
* how do we assess
* how do we position knowledge, intelligence, skills
* what role does research play, what forms can this take, what structues validate this
* what do we make open (do we make it open)
* how do the social, political, ethical and egalitarian figure
* how do we approach being the education body, teacher and student. Do we tackle them one by one? where do they overlap?
* How do we structure our education? Do we need to have an initial period of formulation or can this develop as we progress?
* What wider discourses impact upon this project? How are these approached incorporated into our dialectic?

Wider Issues

* Marx
* Class
* Money
* State
* Political economy
* Activism/fatalism
* locating location
* Badiou
* Notions of skill
* configurations of value
* utopia
* socialism
* hierarchy
* accepted knowledge
* autonomy
* the expert/amateur
* language
* the value of work/labour

People

* Department 21
* Imogen Stidworthy
* Becky Shaw
* Paulo Friere
* David Harvey
* Terry Smith
* Keller Easterling
* Dan Smith
* Ele Carpenter
* Peter Thompson
* Derek Horton
* Cat Moir
* Andy Abbott
* The Radical Aesthetics Research Group
* Dissent at Home
* iDC (institute for distributed creativity)

Possible Structures

* Research studios/trips
* lectures
* projects
* mail-lists
* blogs
* publications/journals (our own and others)
* flying structures
* reading groups
* essays/dissertations
* guest speakers, tutors, module leaders
* the marx library
* the public school
* pop-up school

All this covers a lot and can be quite vague. What I hope it does show is the breadth of what we are proposing and what it touches upon. What we choose to cover is up to us but perhaps it would be useful to seriously consider understanding all that will act upon us and define new positions. For now though I would like to say that Badiou’s points for a new communism are something which I would like to instill into this as much as possible, that the marx library offers us one of our first resources and points of convergence as a school and that us all undertaking writing and passing it between us is a wonderful place to start in defining our position, procuring an education but also is translating our resources and experiences through the project into something that others can access.

David Harvey’s Spaces of Hope

Started reading David Harvey’s Spaces of Hope which is a good introduction for me on quite a few concepts of Marx and his work. Its interesting how Harvey introduces the book through his experience of teaching a module on Marx’s Capital (Volume 1) every year since 1971. At the time it was not the done thing in America but managed to go unnoticed for nearly a decade as it was taught in the geography department and was entitled Reading Capital. Harvey has managed to accumulate a unique position in doing so of peoples reactions to the text.

Spaces of Hope

specifically focuses on the spatial questions raised by Marx’s text, drawing out the importance space, geography and location has to the advancement and accumulation of capital, illustrated most simply by such methods of accumulation as buying cheaply in one market to sell at a premium in another. What Harvey is aiming to raise is the importance of the spatial to capital, how it is often been overlooked in Marx and I dare say how it may offer a space of resistance. Importantly this space also becomes the arena where class struggle is played out.

‘The geographical element in the Manifesto has to a large degree been ignored… When it has been the focus of attention it has often been treated as unproblematic in relation to political action… it is vital to recognize (as the Manifesto so clearly does) the ways in which geographical reorderings and restructurings, spatial strategies and geopolitical elements, uneven geographical developments, and the like, are vital aspects to the accumulation of capital and the dynamics of class struggle, both historically and today.’

He goes on to say how this account must be developed further, now, to develop more sophisticated understandings of bourgeois power and the suppression of workers rights.

This brings me at this point to two strands of thoughts for development. Firstly a clear call has been made to understand deeper the processes which shape capital accumulation (and invariably at its opposite pole deprivation) and also the question of class and the conception of work and labour. For me these form key themes which all of us share.

If we start with the latter points, that of class and labour it brings us nicely to what terry mentioned before, Mark Fisher. Totally interesting guy but something which stuck with me from Terry is who Mark talks of work which manages to go beyond class conceptions in their most commonly conceived forms. Instead and emphasis is put on the act of labour through which to unite. If we are to follow how Marx conceived of the working class it was as individuals who seal their labour for a wage and do not own the means of production of their labour. I think it is this in essence that Fisher gets at without any contentious class definitions. Indeed the process of defining ones class may only serve to divide and alienate a relatively united body of workers beyond the pale of recognition towards their shared goals and ideals. Adam Smiths term ‘the division of labour’ takes on a whole new meaning in this sense. Indeed the latest efforts to further push a wedge between ‘the people’ can be found in the Iain Duncan Smiths new conception of the benefit system Universal Credit. Cleverly disguised in name as an apparent socialist dream come true, it becomes devilishly clear that the intentions of the biggest overhaul of the welfare state is nothing short of an ideological attack on the conception of work and a workers rights therein. the rhetoric which accompanies this great upheaval of state benefit positions universal credit firmly within neo-liberal doctrine. The main points of which is a virtual ‘criminalisation’ of the work-less and unemployed and a concerted effort to further redact the commonality of waged workers. Indeed the increased number of social classifications employed by government to define its population such as the newly created managerial class serve to further alienate one from the other by creating false consciousnesses of differing interest and identity. This restructuring of the social space amounts to the removal of a workers right to choose their place of labour and in short is the ‘expropriation of the labourer’ which Marx speaks of – it is the removal of the commons from the worker not physically but conceptionally.

Likewise for university fees (I really need to extend this point but am running out of steam. At a later date! [Procrastination is resistance!])

What is interesting here is this initial request by Harvey to update our understanding of Marx has already been taken by the architect Keller Easterling in her book Enduring Innocence. In this book Easterling describes neo-liberal processes of capital accumulation through the expropriation of space by citing six contemporary examples, or stories as she calls them. One such story is that of the Love Boat, a holiday cruise ship that sails from South Korea to North Korea, and gains entry into some of North Korea’s most important and spiritual sites – a process that would seem impossible but is unbelievably true. How such contracts can be achieved in the quest to secure profit, which would fail around any other negotiating table, are based on certain jurisdictional ambiguities. Easterling argues that these ‘spatial products’ as she calls them, can only come about through the maintenance of righteousness which is built upon a base of excluding contradictory information.

Regimes or worlds of righteous belief are easy to find. Righteousness is a form of violence that most people cultivate. In marriages, families, professions, nations, and other consortiums of power, we are often in the process of recoding worrisome contradictory information to conform to our own story, our theoretical beliefs, the operational lore of our profession.

The ability of these spatial products to glance over political, social, ethical and jurisdictional subtefuges is based on a willingness to exclude problematics and maintain a decor of innocence. What is most important here though is that this protocol is not confined to neo-liberal processes of accumulation but is indeed practiced in most situations of exchange and upheaval. Similarly the guise of resistance can oft be seen to be wearing the mask of innocence and righteousness – it is a monoism of segregated worlds: that of the neoliberal as well as that of the radical. Due to the worrying closeness that forms of resistance can be to processes of capital gain Easterling suggests that effective activism may now rarely look like classic resistance. Indeed resistance need not correspond to that of ‘tragic counterculture with its principled self-valorizations – righteous dispositions they share with war’. What this set of positions risk is the same one as that of the avant-garde where intelligence is successive rather than coexistent.

Problematically for me is I am yet to find where Easterling actual describes what these alternatives may be. Indeed if we are to stay true to Marx when he says ‘philosophers theorise the world, the point is to change it’ (activism as opposed to fatalism) then it would seem that we are obliged to take steps towards nothing short of proletarian revolution. Yet I do not see these two positions as being contradictory but rather wish to embody the state of action that Marx demands but also to find alternatives to traditional forms of resistance in order to eschew the problematics of such actions found therein.

I haven’t watched the talk yet but perhaps this is where Alan Badiou asks whether activist art still has meaning (video link sent by Terry)

The author that Terry pointed us to, Paulo Freire, finds in the emerging global society a new context in which education cannot be indifferent to the reproduction of dominant ideologies and the interrogation of them. Freire shows why an acceptance of fatalism leads to loss of personal and societal freedoms, he argues against “progressive” liberalism and its acceptance of a world where poverty must inevitably coexist with opulence.

This is where I see our position now and think it is important to explore all of these points carefully in what we are uptaking. I am reluctant to use a language of resistance as I see reflected in it valorized self-righteousness which not only mimics the language of capital but also maintains systems of dominant ideologies. Secondly I think that in structuring what may become a syllabus we must as Freire requests interrogate these dominant ideologies and incorporate that into our structure. I think it would be a good idea to start with David Harvey’s lectures as you suggested Dan but also to incorporate the Marx library into this somehow. I think rereadings of Marx with updating is a vital endeavor in the current situation.