BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The Matrix as a parable on the nature of wage-labour and its concealment

 
 
nickyludd
00:17 / 14.06.03
Thoughts on The Matrix
The Matrix is sometimes thought to have philosophical relevance in that it deals with the issue of the reality/illusoryness of the physical world. This seems to me to render the movie a disservice. The 'is the table real' question is an armchair philosophers' question in the sense that no-one asks it so as to seriously doubt the existence of the external world (What would they do if they acted on that doubt? How would living that doubt differ from not living with it?).

The nature of the illusion in The Matrix is societal. That illusion is generated for a political purpose: to obscure from view the fact that humans live as energy-generators in a world ruled by non-humans, byaliens - even though these originated from human AI experiments.

However, there is a double incoherence at the heart of the story. Firstly, we are told that the aliens have nuclear fusion power, but that it doesn't supply all their needs. We're not told why it does not. Nor is it clear why there is any mention of nuclear fusion in the plot at all.

Secondly, and more importantly, is the core incoherence in that we are told that humans are forced to generate energy, much as does a battery (we're actually shown a Duracell, if my memory is correct). But of course, batteries do not generate energy - they store it. Likewise, humans store energy which is ultimately derived from nuclear fusion in the Sun.

However a human can produce more wealth than is required to reproduce their productive labour. Above a certain level of technology humans can produce more than what is needed to survive. This opens the possibility of that extra - that surplus - being appropriated by non-producers. When that labour is forced as chattel slavery or as feudal bondage the expropriation is clear. When that labour is forced in the manner of wage-labour, the expropriation is masqued (sic) under the guise of a formal exchange between equal agents (the capitalist class and the wage-worker class). Here the surplus takes the historically specific form of surplus-value.

To whom does the produce of alienated labour belong?: To an alien. When Marx developed that notion in his Economic and Philosophical MSS and used the term ‘alienation’ he could have had no idea of the future representations of ‘alien’ which would simultaneously illustrate and obscure his notion.

The only way to make sense of the human ‘generators’ in The Matrix is that they are producing not energy, but surplus-value. That is the societal illusion which The Matrix deals with. I do not suggest that this is part of its authors' intentions, but that only this reading makes sense of its central plot-incoherence.

There is irony in that this movie comes from the propaganda apparatus which helps sustain the illusion of consent. In the language of the Situationists: The Spectacle now parades the secret of its own nature as a phantasmagoria. A cynical nod to this is given in the scene where we briefly see Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulations, a work which is a rip-off of Debord’s revolutionary notion of the Spectacle. It is a pale echo of a subversive notion, now the common currency of the parasites of the Culture Studies Industry - so fitting that the sequel to The Matrix is already imbricated with a range of adverts and console games.
 
 
penitentvandal
13:30 / 14.06.03
Very good. I give it 71%. You could have included some more direct quotes and made reference to the discussion of the interdepency of capital and labour in Matrix: Reloaded, possibly giving some thought to where exactly Zion fits into the Marxist bourgeoisie/proletariat/lumpenproletariat system, and the posited Hegelian structure of the trilogy (1. Neo is an agent of freedom. 2. Neo is actually an agent of control, 3. ?), and indeed trilogies in general, but overall a very fine essay.

Now get back to more important stuff like flaming posters at random and complaining about the fucking people in the mall, dammit!
 
 
Jack Fear
14:26 / 14.06.03
Y'know, Neil Gaiman wrote a prose story for the Matrix website that plays into the incoherence at the heart of the story, positing the Matrix less as a parable of wage-labour than as a parable of the concept of division of labor. I never mentioned it before because I thought I might've dreamt it, but I just checked the site, and there it is...

Gaiman's story hinges on two tropes: (1) the idea of distributed computing—as in the SETI@Home project, wherein millions of bog-standard PCs, running a background program that uses only a fraction of each hard drive, combine (through the magic of networking) to do the work of a ginormous supercomputer, and (2) the old saw that human beings only use about 10% of their brain's processing ability.

Gaiman's notion was that the machines actually needed humanity for their brains—that they were using the enslaved humanity as a sort of distributed computing system, pumping the Matrix's shared hallucination in to keep the standard 10% occupied and content, and using the other 90% of an individual's brainpower to crunch numbers.

It's a non-canonical story, of course—I'd hesitate to call it a "Matrix story" at all—but this central notion is both wicked and elegant, certainly far more so than the biolelectricity malarkey peddled in the films, and it would certainly change the equation in the analysis above...

Any thoughts?

The story's called "Goliath," and you can find it on the "Comics" menu of the official Matrix site.
 
 
nickyludd
12:42 / 27.06.03
I don't see that distributed computing is analous with the division of labour. D of L means different persons (or, I guess, in general - agents)doing different kinds of things.In distributed computing the agents are doing the same kind of thing.

How would this reading deal with the battery-generating-energy image, which is the main point of the analogy with wage-labour.

The old saw that humans only use 10% of their brains is something which I don't think is taken seriously by neuro-scientists at present - though I can't give any refs for this.It might be interesting to know the origin of that claim.
 
 
diz
13:45 / 27.06.03
the old saw that human beings only use about 10% of their brain's processing ability

Any thoughts?


well, my first thought is that i'm not sure that the whole 10%-of-the-brain thing is true.

my second thought is that i want to read the story when i have a chance (in other words, when i'm not at work), but that my interest in Gaiman's work in general outside of comics is waning.

my third and final thought (well, for this post, anyway - or, at least i hope so.... ~knocks on faux-wood desk~) is that this reminds me of the idea that popped up in the main Matrix thread that the whole biopower thing is, as you say, malarkey, and that the whole Matrix is not a simulation designed to keep sleeping pod-people hooked up to the power grid but rather to investigate questions of choice and free will. the power grid thing is a red herring.
 
 
arachnephorm23
09:55 / 01.07.03
THERE'S A GREAT WEBSITE CALLED MATRIX 23 FROM AMERIKKA, CAN'T REMEMBER THE URL BUT LOOK IN ANY OLD SEARCH ENGINE...... I GOT IT THROUGH A LINK THRU' THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE WEBSITE. USUAL DISCORDIANISM, JOHN LILLY BIOHUMANCOMPUTER METAPROGRAMMING, KAOS, ETC......
LOVED THE 1ST FILM AND ALSO NEARLY WET ME PANTS VIEWING THE SPECTACLE (A GOOD TRIP!) OF THE SECOND ONE.... DEFIN8 GNOSTICK VIBE WHICH CAN'T BE MAD/BAD!!!!! ISN'T NEO LIKE A PHUTURE VERSION OF P.K.D.???
SOME SCIENTISTS ARE EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITY OF A COMPUTER-CONTROLLED SYSYTEM - 'TWAS IN AN EARLIER FORTEAN TIMES - I THINK RALPH ABRAHAMSON(THAT HIS NAME?????!!!) EXLORES THE POSIBILITY IN HIS CHAOS MATHS/SCIENCE BIBLE....... KEEP EATIN THE DOGFOOD......HAHAHA.....
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
11:26 / 01.07.03
Mind the caps please. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.
 
 
Sebastian
13:21 / 01.07.03
The whole Matrix is not a simulation designed to keep sleeping pod-people hooked up to the power grid but rather to investigate questions of choice and free will. the power grid thing is a red herring.

I like that. It ties up the second with the first movie. The Oracle makes a bit more of sense. Actually, it is what sustains the second half of the first movie, since Neo is put into a double bind by the Oracle that can only be act upon through, well, you and Neo decide: predestination, free-will, fate, or even entertainment. The lesson was: you were told what you needed to be told (a prophecy) in order for you to challenge it and then ponder if it was a prophecy (which it was in Neo's mind) or an invitation to challenge your own notion of prophecies, which it also was, in Neo's mind, after everybody was alive (the prophecy was that one of them was going to die).

Morpheus belief in Neo's predestination -the most powerful engine of narration- is challenged in the first movie by the Oracle, which is then challenged by Neo. In the second movie, everyone in Zion is challenging Morpheus belief, though the Matrix seems to support it, mostly through the Architect, who was expecting all the developments of the One, but then Neo challenges the Architect's own belief-expectations-plans thereby challenging or surpassing his own and Morpheus' theory of predestination, if there ever was one.

What did I say??
 
  
Add Your Reply