Perhaps one of the elements I appreciated most about Marx’s
arguments is that his explanations address meaningful connections between
people living within a capitalist system. As Chandler points out, on surface,
the dialectic is apparently tidy. I, however, was taken by the complexity and
careful articulation of the interrelatedness and interdependence of such a
system: “Production, then, is also immediately consumption, consumption is also
immediately production. Each is immediately its opposite.” It is in identifying
how each stage is unique and interrelated that we are able to begin to
understand the complex workings of a capitalist system. This understanding
allows us to consider where chinks in the system’s armor are weakest.
The conclusion we reach is not that production, distribution,
exchange, and consumption are identical, but that they all form the members of
a totality, distinctions within a unity. . Mutual interaction takes place
between the different moments. This the case with every organic whole (Exchange
and Production para. 4)
Such
understanding is key to progress—or dare I say, Revolution. The true nature of
the political economy lies disguised within these mutually perpetuating,
bi-directional relationships. The distinction between each element is reified
within public discourse; each element is examined as unique and unrelated. What
is more, individuals are separated from each other, unable to see their
relationships to others. While individuals are constrained by their individually
situated conditions, we can understand and exploit the interrelatedness of the
system.
This understanding has to come in
some sort of general intellect. It is not enough that a few recognize this
interconnectedness, but rather such knowledge must compose some sort of
communal doxa. While prophetic in some regards, Marx surely had little conception
of the extent to which contemporary life would be governed by machinery and
technology. Although, in some regards, his conversations concerning machinery
condemn society to a spiraling, capitalist hell have come true, in others, we
might find the seeds of revolutionary potential.
As early as 1999 Nick
Dyer-Witherford argued that technological advancements would break down walls. Economic
powers have certainly sought to protect themselves—tightening regulation and
controls to keep up with such advancements (consider instances from SOPA, to
the death of Aaron Schwartz, to ongoing net neutrality battles). Outside of the
strictly commercial, however, Dyer-Witherford suggests that technology can be
used to foster a revolutionary knowledge, arguing that, “working-class
emancipation involves the collective ownership not only of the physical
machinery of production but also of ‘the general intellect’” (p. 220). While
far from perfect, we might take into account the role of techology in recent
revolutions in across the Middle East. More than simply the where and when of a
protest or action, technology revealed and communicated the ways that power
manifested itself throughout diverse contexts—and then proposed solutions. While
many of these efforts have resulted in little material change (if not a return
to some instantiation of pseudo-democracy), I wonder if it is false hope to see
the seeds of possibility within the digital. If not televised, I wonder if, through
the fostering of revolutionary general intellect, the Revolution might be
Tweeted?
Within popular culture, I thought NPR’s T-Shirt Project did a
great job of exposing the interconnectedness of our chains of supply and
demand, tracing the production of a T-Shirt from cotton field to Western store
to an “after-life” in sub-Saharan Africa
(http://www.npr.org/series/248799434/planet-moneys-t-shirt-project)
Dyer-Witheford, N. (19991). Cyber-Marx. University of Illinois Press: Champaign, IL
Jodi Dean has things to say in response to "revolution might be tweeted" (JD: "no"...).
ReplyDelete