| |
|
Monday for y'all is so before Monday for me... Part of the excitement comes from the possibility of authentic multiple antagonists to Capital. It struck me when I read the original post, and thru the original thread, that such a theory might provide new avenues of resistance and even help explain various failures within other theories/actions.
The possibilities for discussion in just the quote above seem endless (depending on participation) and oddly centering - esp for the Headshop at that time. And, y'know, a thread that takes on so many ideas might be ideal in the face of Tom's intended shift in focus.
Read this bit: again from Crunchy's OP
quote:again from Crunchy's OP
My suggestion is that we might think about formal and real subsumptions of sexuality under capital. That would mean that originally, capital merely absorbs precapitalist forms of sex and sexuality. They're basically alien to the system, and hence potential sources of antagonism. Capital also absorbs and develops a precapitalist response to sexual deviance, i.e., violent repression.
However, this proves inadequate for various reasons (largely, I'm inclined to think, the way such a system produces zones of antagonism towards and exclusion from relations of production and consumption) and capital reorganises sexuality in a way that inaugurates a tendency to real subsumption. Specifically, sex/uality becomes commodified, it takes on the characteristics of the commodity form. Gay people aren't just weirdos to lock up, lobotomise or execute; they're a market segment.
and hey, read the whole thread, it's not that long...
So if we set to work, even lazily - thousand monkeys style - at showing this to be true, perhaps not only for sexuality, but perhaps race, gender... (even unto attacking the very notion of these), then we might end up creating a(nother) foundational argument against reformism.
This, however, is Sunday evening, and I'm being lazy.
My major questions clustered around whether the notion was meaningful when applied individually to sexuality, or race, rather than as something that could be reduced to an equation where you plugged in the [aspect of physical life], engaged its history under Capital, and laid down the same conclusion. First, are , for example, race and sexuality differently antagonistic? Is either authentically antagonistic? both? neither? If they are similarly antagonistic, is it still meaningful?
/babbling... gawd |
|
|
