Ontofuckry

The pseudo-dominant hype that comes alongside ontological thinking: a kind of extension of postmodernism’s apolitical arabesques, which then moved into the digital. This most likely reflects a lack of political consequence amongst the wider left in the metropolitan centres. Spare time on their hands, fairly comfortable economic circumstances, and no practical occupation, meant speculations and flights of fancy with ‘radical’ inclinations but no connection to expressed political needs or mobilisation. A theoretical dominance that treads water in the flow of cultural politics.

  • part of a gripes version of a future essay/chapter/book that will be rehearsed online here or on academia.edu
  • – to share (gift “pay” forward) other articles and texts, click here

Trinkets…

The analysis of trinkets, objects, souvenirs or commodities remains wholly bourgeois if things are not seen as first up, against the grain, the embodiment of social labour power and prevailing relations of production. From there the examination of class struggle and the relations of production as they shift according to distribution of resources,  labour, machinery, market and state becomes the necessary context to understand the role trinkets play in crises, conflicts and historical change.  Trinkets do not have autonomy, but are contexted by the political, social and historical conditions they nevertheless allow us to describe. Appearance form.

  • part of a gripes version of a future essay/chapter/book that will be rehearsed online here or on academia.edu

passive aggression 101

Am continually amazed at the truly fucked up and arrogant entitlement of the middle class Brit – especially those of that middle class which still claims some distant working class origin. It manifests in a unbroachable passive aggression as if the Empire continued, as it objectively does, for them by right of a trickle down inheritance. It almost makes one prefer the polite but honest nostalgia of the debauched ruling class in their sanatorium suburbs. They at least can be put to work as national treasures and relics. The spectrum of those from rich off shore fund pig fucker to arsehole self-regarding Wikipedia entry tending bureaucrats of the Arts constitute the real impediment to any sort of social transformation in the back of the queue Isles.

  • this is not about YOU (or ME) but rather just an experiment in rhetorical flourish [who am I kidding, its you]
  • part of a gripes version of a future essay/chapter/book that will be rehearsed online here or on academia.edu
  • – to share (gift “pay” forward) other articles and texts, click here

Dumping or Trumping

Bright side of the current reaction. The decline of the European powers was bolstered by the land grab that was the USA – basically the oppression of indigenous and slave Americans was invested in a temporary world domination culminating in the Marshall Plan and Marilyn (the famous Monroe doctrine of coca-colonisation). But the only America that can be made great again by incompetent boorish land speculator Trump will be his accidental spurring of central and south America towards cross border action. Take a longer view and recognise how the anti-colonial triumphs of the 20th Century will, no doubt in convoluted ways, deliver on the promise of the massive transformations (Russia, China etc) of populations and aspirations for justice in the 21st. The centre is real old and the periphery is on the up, dialectics is not just propaganda but recognition of patterns and analysis of historical shifts. Migration changes the world for the better, and  claims to any other outcome are myopic idealism, racist self-harm and stalling of the inevitable.

(On inadvertently hearing The Donald on the radio).

Dig for the humanities

What if: the digital humanities represents a wanna be elaborate theoretical effort with a retrograde political conception and naïve economic complicity – an intellectually restrained class bought off with moderate comforts one step above the austerity imposed by upon the majority lower tiers by a cynically corrupt ruling class.

  • part of a gripes version of a future essay/chapter/book that will be rehearsed online here or on academia.edu

  • – to share (gift “pay” forward) other articles and texts, click here

The Syndication of Plagiarism SZ: (For Nicole Pepperell)

Was reading and discussing with a comrade Dinesh Wadiwel about his stuff on animals in Marx, and took up discussion of the bit from Capital 1867 edn , cited by Endnotes 2, on animals as general equivalent (dropped in subsequent editions). This since I am giving a talk on related themes: Marx, Animals, India, a certain rhinoceros, in Senegal this Saturday.

But then I did a search of the phrasing (english trans of 1867 edn from Value Studies by Marx <download here>). There, discovered a bit of suspect website scrubbing.

Let me put it neutrally, and let the people decide <the people know I have nothing against Zizek, except for my polemic in Pantomime Terror, that is: (see here)

OK, this involves two instances of people we know using that quote. Nicole Pepperell’s one from her blog in 2008, and Slavoj Zizek from Less than Nothing in 2012. Of course there is no guarantee Zizek did not already use this phrase previously, because he has hardly ever had a thought that was not published two or three times (see below), but here the use of the exact same words does indicate some level of something more than general equivalence.
 .
What do you all think? See the attached screenshots if you don’t want to follow up, the first exhibit is Nicole from Rough Theory <full post here>, the second is SZ <Pdf here>.
Screen Shot 2016-02-16 at 23.30.35
and
Screen Shot 2016-02-16 at 23.29.51
***
Romping heterogeneity. Ba bah boom.
.
*********************
.
ahhh, and since SZ does the rerun thing so often, its also in a 2012 volume called God in Pain: Inversions of the Apocalypse, with Boris Gunjević <here>
Screen Shot 2016-02-17 at 00.16.11
***
AND syndicated in Italy and translated as a 2013 bog post: <here>
Screen Shot 2016-02-17 at 00.18.22
***
and then it circulates unawares, we get “Žižek says” in <this> otherwise fine piece:
Screen Shot 2016-02-17 at 00.35.17