Primitive Accumulation

2012-01-18T12:55:00.000-08:00

The question of Primitive Accumulation is central to howcapitalism developed out of feudalism. What is at stake in Primitive Accumulation are the dynamics of how the world has a majority of the population forcedto sell their labor to a minority—the forced integration of billions into thecity, factory, or urban job. To grasp thisprocess there are 2 points to keep in mind;

1) Feudalism didn’t have free laborers; they hadpeasants who directly farmed subsistence crops on the land they occupied. Just as rural societies lived directly off the land.

2) Capitalism necessities a mass of dispossessed freelaborers who must sell their labor to survive.

What this transformation entailed was nothing less than whatis still happening across the third world; the uprooting of individuals andtheir communities from the land and their resulting status as a “free laborer.”The free laborer onlybecomes a free laborer after he has been robbed of his original guarantees ofsubsistence provided by Feudalism or the traditional community—only after the liquidation of his food andsecurity can Capitalism truly begin. Imagine you are a peasantwho knows nothing outside of what you and your family have been doing on theland for generations. Now imagine that you have been kicked off the land by colonists,capitalist, industrialists, or the government and are faced with the problem offeeding yourself and getting shelter; the only option left is to enter thefactory, city, urban center. There is no escape, yet some tried and were then faced with the Law.

If you refused this process and resisted then you werelabeled a vagabond and persecuted by the state. For example, inEngland in 1824 the Vagrancy Act was passed that stated

“every person wandering abroad and lodging in any barn orouthouse, or in any deserted or unoccupied building, or in the open air, orunder a tent, or in any cart or waggon, [...] and not giving a good account ofhimself or herself [...] shall be deemed a rogue and vagabond.”[1]

Capitalisms growing power and infusion with the state madeany escape into a hiding spot impossible. Thus through the combined process ofexpropriation, punishment, and hunger, the birth of the free laborer occurred.This process was radically more dark and violent than Adam Smith’s descriptionof it. Adam Smith said that the free laborer became that because of hislaziness and unmotivation while the wealthy worked hard and were smart andtherefore deserving the position of employers instead of employees.

Adam Smith’s idea has now become a staple of thecapitalist mindset; how many times does one hear “the poor are poor becausethey cant strap up their boots, do good work and get out of poverty!” What ismissing in this view is that the radical bi-frication of society is a structuralnecessity for capitalism—it cannot function without a dispossessed majorityconstantly selling their labor. Indeed, for Capitalism to function the majoritymay never rise out of their poor condition. Capitalism does not continuedespite these antagonisms but by virtue of them.

[1]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/5/83/contents

Philosophy of Danger

2012-01-17T13:41:00.000-08:00

Dangerous ideas, individuals, and art imply transgression. Transgression against the set of social codes and norms that order and maintain a community. Schoenberg was a dangerous man when he dropped ATONALITY on the early 20th century European music scene, he was transgressing the forms of classical musical composition. You were a dangerous little kid in your parents home when you drew all over the walls--you were transgressing over the rules your parents had to maintain clean and stain-free walls.

A community maintains its authority, social codes and practices through an inter-dependent, self-perpetuating, and unconscious process of distributing the sensible--what feels comfortable, acceptable, and makes sense. The "creepy" guy outside the convenience store is a marked man because he doesnt look sensible, we feel weird when we see him, he falls outside our conception of normal. Thus your parents had reason to beat you when you drew across the walls because what you were doing was not acceptable, it didn't make sense. Schoenberg's music didnt make sense to the early 20th century community of classical music, thus he received death threats.

Having dangerous ideas and practicing them against your community is a very dangerous position to be in. Some good historical and literary examples can illuminate this point--Socrates, Jesus, and Antigone. They began with what was right, not what was acceptable and thus became dangerous to their communities standards and laws. They were walking, speaking, and worse, embodied contradictions within their communities sense making. There resistance formed new sensibilities--Jesus's sensibility formed a new religion with billions of followers. Their ideas broke down the comfortable logic that propagated injustice and dumbness. And they were killed for it.

Being brilliant is no great feat if you respect nothing, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

But back the present. Schoenberg's revolutionary music is now taught in academic music departments. And most rooms I walk into havent been drawn on--maybe we have forgotten the thrill of freedom. Schoenberg's danger has been domesticated, just as all of us. It is high-time to rethink the role of dangerous sensibilities and ideas in the time of our dilapidated and confused world. Our current conception of progress--Technology, Skyscrapers, Nuclear Bombs, Cities, Wal-Marts upon Wal-Marts--is a comforting idea to many in the world, maybe a dose of uncomfort is needed awake the decayed and senile We need more people drawing on the walls and being punks, and less people worried about their pretty walls that hide injustice.

Against the Current

Primitive Accumulation

Philosophy of Danger