Tecnologías de alienación

15:07 27/01/2017

Una vez más, The Anti-Puritan (via OutsideIn [comentario]):

I think of capitalism as being a great alienating machine composed of dozens of social technologies with the tech consisting of turning countless social relationships into property.

For example:
Patents (property in ideas)
Trademarks (property in creativity)
Real estate (property in land/ houses)
Title (property in objects)
Contract (property in agreements)
Marriage (property in sex)
Constitutions/Tort (property in rights)
Slavery (obsolete property in humans)
Futures (property in hedging risk)
Stocks (property in corporations)
Votes (equal property in government)
Bonds (property in debt)
Vouchers (property in services)
Insurance (property in safety)
Money (property in other people’s work)

Capitalism is PROPERTY. Moreover, as more and more things are be defined as property capitalism expands is dominion into every aspect of life. Capitalism not only is property, it is the expansion of what constitutes property.


Capitalismos y propiedades

14:51 27/01/2017

The Anti-Puritan:

Capitalism can be thought of as identical to the sum of all its property arrangements. Capitalism is a system of property-based social technologies that allow some things to be owned, (land, cars, etc.) and not others, (people, women, government). Capitalism, unlike feudalism, does not allow humans to be owned in an obvious manner within a liberal democracy. That is why human ownership is on the down low, (H1B Visa, illegal immigrants, etc.) But I digress.

Basically, capitalism likes it when profits are maximized. This tends to work against feudalism, male dominance, hierarchy, and morality. It works in favor of things that maximize profit, (free trade, immigration, corrupt banking, atomized workers, low birth rates). But capitalism is just the summary of all its property relationships in this system of capitalism. And capitalism has not stopped evolving. This is just one of many capitalism(s). So when you talk about capitalism, you must ask; “which one?” Because the capitalism that exists today is not the same as the one that existed in the 1950’s, the 1900’s, or the 1800’s. Property relationships evolve. No one could envision selling “space” on the iPhone by letting developers put their apps on it. The property form of “platform” on a computer system had not yet been invented.

“Castes of the United State,” and “The BDH-OV Conflict:” Highlighting Moldbug
[via The Anti-Puritan (fragmento subrayado) ]

The BDH-OV Conflict

I outlined five groups (Brahmin, Dalit, Helot, Optimate, Vaisya) in language that was neutral to slightly negative, using a bit of anthro-speak to focus on personal, rather than political, values.
The Democrats are the party of the Brahmins, Dalits and Helots. The Republicans are the party of the Optimates and Vaisyas. Thus, instead of the red-state / blue-state conflict, which uses meaningless colors and averages geographically in a way that blurs information, we can speak of the “BDH-OV conflict.”
As in any political contest, each side can succeed only by crushing the other – capturing its institutions and converting its followers. But keeping this conflict and its predecessors within the bounds of democratic politics, and preventing any degeneration into actual combat, has been a central concern of American intellectuals for the last 200 years. Obviously they haven’t always succeeded, which makes the concern all the more intense.

As Clausewitz observed, war and politics are a continuum. Representative democracy is a limited civil war in which the armies show up, get counted, but don’t actually fight. The BDH and OV factions refrain – mostly – from inciting or participating in outright warfare, for one reason: it is not in either’s interest.

15:10 23/12/2016
Ernesto Castro:

“La politización del rol sexual, tan extendida en nuestro tiempo, forma parte del arco de una desesperada defensa de la política en la era de su derrumbe. Trata de incluir, construyendo una hipérbole, lo menos político que existe, que es el cuerpo, dentro de lo político, que es puramente psicológico. Ese es el contexto en el que Pasolini se permite hacer la burda comparación de la acción del cuerpo con la acción política, de la que se desprende que la definición de roles en el juego sexual es un asunto de definición de roles políticos. No es más que una metáfora que vincula la relación de poder virtual que proponen los roles sexuales (¿activo opresor, pasivo oprimido?) con una real (¿masculino opresor, femenino oprimido?). Tú, que te declaras materialista convencido, deberías darte cuenta de que solo hace falta llegar a la materia, es decir, de que solo hace falta follar (o no follar, como opción comprometida con el sexo), para darse cuenta de que el rol es una herramienta básica de su lenguaje. Porque, efectivamente, el sexo es una cuestión de lenguaje, es decir, de algo infinitamente más importante que la política, y no creo que haya política en el sexo (al menos no necesariamente), pero estoy seguro de que sí hay lenguaje.
La definición de un rol sexual es la definición de un marco lingüístico, de un modelo expresivo, semántico, de un sistema de significados y significantes. Nos permite construirnos por el clásico método de la adopción de identidades, un método teatral en la dirección en que el sentido primero del teatro es el de definir la identidad humana (dúctil) por comparación con la identidad mucho más firme de los personajes ficticios, de los roles.”

Si Ernesto Castro tendría una posicion materialista, y esta persona una posicion linguistica de la sexualidad, podría preguntarme qué sería una posición **informacionista** (simondon, floridi) de la sexualidad, la opresion, la politica, la economia, etc etc etc.

14:49 24/11/2016
Sobre Austin::re Ética (via aeon):

Even the novelist and philosopher Iris Murdoch, one of the few in Austin’s Oxford with any sympathy for the French philosophy of the day, was happy to give credit where it was due. Austin’s style of philosophy, she wrote in The Sovereignty of Good (1970), ‘attacks every form of spurious unity. It is the traditional inspiration of the philosopher, but also his traditional vice, to believe that all is one.’ By contrast, she continued, the ordinary language philosopher simply says: ‘Let’s see.’
‘Let’s see’ is sensible advice for most things: don’t generalise before the evidence is in, don’t assume that everything will cohere. But Murdoch saw a flipside to Austin’s commitment to the everyday. Applied to ethics, her own area of interest, philosophy in Austin’s style produced work that was, to her mind, ‘both unambitious and optimistic’. The downbeat, quotidian quality of the Oxford style represented by Austin and his colleagues risked turning British philosophy into a simple mirror image of its French and German counterparts. As Murdoch once remarked about an influential book written by one of Austin’s colleagues, it evoked a picture of a world where ‘people play cricket, cook cakes, make simple decisions, remember their childhood and go to the circus … not the world in which they commit sins, fall in love, say prayers or join the Communist Party.’

Episteme social

11:01 29/09/2016
Epistocracy o Epistemocracy:

Voters tend to mean well, but voting well takes more than a kind heart. It requires tremendous social scientific knowledge: knowledge that most citizens lack. Most voters know nothing, but some know a great deal, and some know less than nothing. The goal of liberal republican epistocracy is to protect against democracy’s downsides, by reducing the power of the least-informed voters, or increasing the power of better-informed ones.
A major question is what counts (and who decides what counts) as political competence, or basic political knowledge. We don’t want self-interested politicians rigging a political competence exam in their own favour. One might use widely accepted pre-existing tests; the Unites States citizenship test, for example, or the same questions that the American National Election Studies have used for 60 years. These questions – who is the current president? Which item is the largest part of the federal budget? – are easily verifiable and uncontroversial, plus an ability to answer them correctly is strongly correlated with the kind of political knowledge that does matter in an election.
One common objection to epistocracy – at least among political philosophers – is that democracy is essential to expressing the idea that everyone is equal. On its face, this is a strange claim. Democracy is a political system, not a poem or a painting.