[iDC] Re: a critique of naturalized capitalism

[Simon Biggs]

I'd agree with Ryan's analysis completely. It is also well articulated.

Dawkin's selfish gene idea, along with his concept of the meme, are simply a
restatement of the popular notion that Capitalism has been successful due to
its appeal to basic human instinct whereas, in contrast, Communism failed as
it could only function when people behaved in an idealised manner.

Of course this argument about Capitalism is totalising. In both its form and
its basic components it resembles the same totalising narrative of early and
medieval Christian theology/ideology. We should reject these arguments and
again establish a critique of our socio-economic structures that recognises
the complexity of its subject. This brings us back to our earlier
discussions of Baudrillard.

Regards

Simon


On 7/4/07 20:05, "Ryan Griffis" <ryan.griffis at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 7, 2007, at 8:25 AM, Nicholas Ruiz III wrote:
> 
>> I'm not sure I understand the question...could you
>> elaborate a bit...?
>> 
>> NRIII
> 
> i'm questioning the use of the phrase "decided by virtue of our birth
> as living capitalized beings, driven by the currency of the Code..."
> There are two paths that seem to be suggested by this language, but
> correct me if i'm wrong:
> 1. This (capitalism) is Nature as code, an indifferent system that is
> not explainable through social/cultural systems, but is a phenomenon
> of the Universe that is reducible only to observable mechanisms.
> 2. This (capitalism) is Nature as metaphysical "Code", written into
> the specifically "human nature" as sin is attributed to all humans
> "by virtue of our birth" in Judeo/Christian terms.
> 
> Either way, capitalism (as both an ideology and material system) is
> unavoidable and evolutionary, as well as totalizing. As if there is/
> cannot be other ideologies/systems parallel to it, that are not
> merely false or mythical.
> If this is the case being stated, i'm not sure what the meaning of
> the term "capitalism" might be, as in either case, it becomes
> synonymous with "Nature" and/or "Human."
> Obviously, i would disagree with such an assertion - hence my
> recalling of Dawkins' "selfish gene" theory (which, to simplify, is
> the notion that the behavior we call "selfish" or "self-
> interestedness" (the traits, not coincidentally, most celebrated by
> capital) is "hard-wired" into us genetically).
> If what's being stated is not this, and is just using the language of
> "Code" (the capital "C" is part of what caught my attention) and
> "genetic protocol" rhetorically and metaphorically, then i think it's
> a bit problematic as a critical gesture, as it evades critically
> through naturalization. It seems, to me, to dismiss the importance of
> the political, rather than locating it.
> best,
> ryan
>> 
>> 
>> --- Ryan Griffis <ryan.griffis at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Apr 2, 2007, at 11:03 AM,
>>> idc-request at mailman.thing.net wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Herein lies the importance of the political.  It
>>> is
>>>> not that we will not be capitalists--this has
>>> already
>>>> been decided by virtue of our birth as living
>>>> capitalizing beings, driven by the currency of the
>>>> Code; that genetic protocol of environmental
>>> utility
>>>> and capitalization.  Every breath we take is a
>>>> capitalization on the environment we exist
>>> within...
>>> 
>>> does the word "capitalism" mean anything specific
>>> here?
>>> sounds like a "selfish gene" argument to me.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
> (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc
> 
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
> 
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/



Simon Biggs
simon at littlepig.org.uk
http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
AIM: simonbiggsuk
Research Professor in Art, Edinburgh College of Art
s.biggs at eca.ac.uk
http://www.eca.ac.uk/