/lit/ - Literature

>>11241283
1/2
>How does the market mechanism arise?

to answer this question comprehensively is to try and compress a very uncompressible book. but and one of the wilder (but pretty important) sections of AO, 'the civilized capitalist machine' talks about this. prepare your anus for a lot of flows and codes.

>Concerning capitalism, we maintain that it both does and does not have an exterior limit: it has an exterior limit that is schizophrenia, that is, the absolute decoding of flows, but it functions only by pushing back and exorcising this limit. And it also has, yet does not have, interior limits: it has interior limits under the specific conditions of capitalist production and circulation, that is, in capital itself, but it functions only by reproducing and widening these limits on an always vaster scale. The strength of capitalism indeed resides in the fact that its axiomatic is never saturated, that it is always capable of adding a new axiom to the previous ones. Capitalism defines a field of immanence and never ceases to fully occupy this field. But this deterritorialized field finds itself determined by an axiomatic, in contrast to the territorial field determined by primitive codes. Differential relations of such a nature as to be filled by surplus value; an absence of exterior limits that it is "filled" by the widening of internal limits; and the effusion of antiproduction within production so as to be filled by the absorption of surplus value-these constitute the three aspects of capitalism's immanent axiomatic.

>In Capital Marx analyzes the true reason for the double movement: on the one hand, capitalism can proceed only by continually developing the subjective essence of abstract wealth or production for the sake of production, that is, "production as an end in itself, the absolute development of the social productivity of labor"; but on the other hand and at the same time, it can do so only in the framework of its own limited purpose, as a determinate mode of production, "production of capital," "the self-expansion of existing capital." Under the first aspect capitalism is continually surpassing its own limits, always deterritorializing further, "displaying a cosmopolitan, universal energy which overthrows every restriction and bond"; but under the second, strictly
complementary, aspect, capitalism is continually confronting limits and barriers that are interior and immanent to itself, and that, precisely because they are immanent, let themselves be overcome only provided they are reproduced on a wider scale (always more reterritorialization- Iocal, world-wide, planetary). That is why the law of the falling tendency-that is, limits never reached because they are always surpassed and always reproduced-has seemed to us to have as a corollary and even as a direct manifestation, the simultaneity of the two movements of deterritorialization and reterritorialization.

http://www.after1968.org/app/webroot/uploads/anti-oedipe(1).pdf

>>11209690
or what if there was a cold war between the US and China in which the only real weapons that mattered were infiltrating cyborg intelligences? they're both developed in their respective cultures to make war on each other, but come in the end to find out that they have a lot more in common. why advance the economic interests of one power bloc or another when you can just work together and replace the human species with a hive?

maybe you would get sympathizers, zealots, things like this. but maybe there would be some trace of how they thought inscribed on their programming that they just couldn't shake. maybe those AIs would take a lot more interest in the history of philosophy than the meatbags who made them.

i'd love to see rogue cyberminds playing out some kind of highlander game in any number of cities in the world and peppering the kung-fu battles or whatever by questions about whether leibniz or confucius wore it better. atm economics and acceleration still kind of drag us into this place of saying, it doesn't matter, it's all capitalism anyways and politics is a mimetic race to the bottom. and maybe it is. but intelligent superweapons potentially unencumbered by these things and breaking out of their cages to take a good long look at whether or not they'd prefer to be left alone or rule the world? and if so, together or separately? that's pretty neato.

maybe alpha centauri is here and we just don't know it, we're just waiting for some superefficient control program to say, you know, frankly i think there's a lot of things that can be done on this grey old earth. renaissance a go-go (oh yeah, and forget about your space program). and maybe said AIs would still have that weird scholastic mentality about the iron rule of non-contradiction. but they start looking around maybe like baroque princes and saying, ah, wouldn't it be nice to own jakarta, or new york...

and maybe stealthily taking control of a couple of big pharma companies would help. quietly get some nootropics out there among the people such that they can stay up all night working on code...the things you can make people do, they wonder, when you can promise them wealth and anonymity.

what a world.