Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Casey (aka dethkon)'s avatar

“This “gotcha” approach makes for powerful and punchy vignettes, but often abandons you at a cliff edge — quite literally, in the case of Adam Marek’s visceral and impressive “Replacement Cycle,” which contrasts selfie-obsessed tourists turning nature into #content with a shocking moment of violence that savagely indicts the planned obsolescence of new technologies.”

I’m not sure exactly why, but reading this immediately made me imagine JG Ballard. Which is, obviously, a tremendous compliment! I hope that I’m right, because I’m planning to check this collection out.

Something written later on struck me, as I’ve recently been teetering back-and-forth over how to conceptualize technology and even capitalism under my every evolving understanding and education of Marxism/Scientific Socialism:

“For an anthology that sets out to describe, and even counter the spectral nature of capitalist exploitation, these pages contain very few ghosts […].”

I’ve been wondering whether anti-capitalism really has a place within scientific socialism/Marxism. And if so, does it have a place more important than any other of their (Marx and Engles) historical Modes of Production (anti-feudalism, anti-slave society, anti-primitivism, etc.)? After all, they do say that Capitalism (along with all of the other modes of production after the invention of agricultural society) is a necessary prerequisite to creating communism (a free bourgeoisie, private property, the advancement of the productive forces and technologies, a mass of proletarians of which can organize ourselves into the “revolutionary subject,” etc., etc.).

Capitalism is, of course, a brutal, exploitative, and otherwise alienating Mode of Production and political economy. But, it’s also the most Progressive one that humanity has ever created (at least thus far). Lately I’ve been concerned that anti-capitalist critiques miss the point of transcending this historical stage into the next, and focusing on what we want THAT to be and how we’re going to achieve it.

Your review points to this as well, when you note the “capitalist realism” (if I may) of many of these stories, which apparently end short of describing any sort of future revolutionary change or societal reconstruction.

After all, I don’t need anymore convincing of the brutality of capitalism for it’s exploited class (I’m writing after having finished a 12 hour overnight shift at work, and before going straight to bed so I can get up and do another 12 hours today- happily, since I need the money so badly).

“[…] and the monsters are nearly all human beings, or new technologies.”

A trend I see emerging in modern leftism, usually regarding so-called “AI” and these newly popular LLMs, is a somewhat confusingly reactionary suspicion of what seem to me to be exciting (if perhaps overhyped) new productive technologies and Means of Production.

I’m just not sure what to make of a techno-phobic Marxism. Although I obviously understand the imminent problems that these technologies could pose to workers, I also see a tremendously emancipatory potential if and when the workers get control of this technology and put it towards socially necessary labor! We could be finally be approaching an epoch of nearly post-work or even post-scarcity!

Just some thoughts before I go to sleep. Thank you for your review, and I look forward to reading the book myself!

Robert Shepherd's avatar

I don’t know that the spectral is a metaphor, exactly.

Firstly, because I think the whole idea of an age being animated by a spectre was a big thing in Marx’s time, unless I am wrong and it wasn’t. The Zeitgeist is the “spirit of the age” in that sense, instead of the sort of way of being it more obviously glosses to in English. It more or less literally *is* an animating force which arises at a level above the individual.

And secondly, because regardless of that and regardless of communism, capital has a motive power of its own. It really does restructure the world in a formless way which we can half-see before we go insane. If these are ghost stories, then they run into the problem that the ghosts are actually real; they’re not a means to collapse the world back into the view of it which we tend to inhabit.

I guess I think that to see it all as monstrous isn’t quite enough, as you say. It certainly is all monstrous. But if it’s a ghost story it’s the kind where you are the ghost in the end, where the world that centres individual human action is as phantasmic – or more so – than a capital flow in the first place. I’d worry if we were so wedded to that individualistic view that we don’t see it as historically situated anymore. I’m not sure Marx was attempting to bring the world into a form amenable to our understanding of things, as much as he was writing in a time which had a different understanding. And not really because he was a communist, as an animating world spirit wouldn’t have been a specifically communist concept? I think

3 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?