Jump to content
...Hi...

Semiocaptialism K

Recommended Posts

cross-x does not pay its authors. no longer relevant. 

Edited by ...Hi...
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this completely homecut or are some of the cards from Jack Ewing's semiocap/bifo file?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this completely homecut or are some of the cards from Jack Ewing's semiocap/bifo file?

 

You've presented a false dichotomy Loyola EM was the first team to read the Bifo stuff in debate, a lot of people have since. A few of the Bifo cards were the same Loyola read, yes, but they aren't "their" cards, that doesn't make sense. I cut the same book as they did, we cut the same pages, sure. There are also a lot more Bifo cards that weren't read by loyola, but Bifo is not even the central author for this file, so that's largely irrelevant. 

 

EDIT: I realize my initial response sounded hostile, I apologize for that. I'm just trying to ensure people that this argument is unique and hasn't been done before, and I was having a pretty shitty day yesterday, but that doesn't justify me acting like an ass hole. Again, Miro, I'm sorry. 

 

Here's a few of the tags from the thesis cards in the file if this gives you a better idea of the argument. I apologize if it sounds like I'm not being very transparent. It is literally only because a lot of these cards haven't been read in debate before so I don't want to give away too much about the argument before it gets broken. 

 

 

Tags: 

 

The 1AC was a virtual presentation of a world improved through an imaginary strategy of economic engagement. This is pan-capitalism- virtualized exchange value prescribed to commodities in order to guarantee economic comfort through systems of capital. This process of virtualization is life negating and anti-political, as it makes the implosion of these economic systems inevitable through a process of fascistic consumption 

 

 

The 1AC is a battery plugged into the machine of digital capitalism. Think about the form of their argument; the presentation of the 1AC was a face-down reading of economics literature at a hyper-fast pace off of the bright digital computer screen where they store information. This reduces the body to a mechanic instrument used for data storage and extraction by the system of virtual capitalism and destroys all political subjectivity 

 

 

The way the system of exchange operates is through the invasion of the field of communication, which reduces the affirmative to a commodity in a state of standing-reserve to be used by the economic system. This is the foundation for modern violence- the circulation of pancapitalism creates a system of relationality that is dependent on violent consumption and technologizes every facet of existence 

 

 

Vote negative to reject the 1AC. Instead of further investing ourselves into the realm of virtualized production, the alternative is a momentary diversion from neoliberalism on the level of the social. This is an affective singularity that allows an analysis of individual complicity in systems of capitalism, which creates a reconceptualization of the internal desire for commodity production- only this solves 

 

 

The plan is an act of colonization that extends the space of the virtual economy in order to maintain the sovereignty of pan-capitalism. Their politics are always already determined by technocratic state elites which make structural violence, military intervention, and the death of political subjectivity inevitable 

Edited by ...Hi...
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've presented a false dichotomy Loyola EM was the first team to read the Bifo stuff in debate, a lot of people have since. A few of the Bifo cards were the same Loyola read, yes, but they aren't "their" cards, that doesn't make sense. I cut the same book as they did, we cut the same pages, sure. There are also a lot more Bifo cards that weren't read by loyola, but Bifo is not even the central author for this file, so that's largely irrelevant. 

this is awfully hostile for someone trying to sell a product. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is awfully hostile for someone trying to sell a product. 

 

Yeah I suppose. I apologize if it was perceived that way. Just trying to be clear that the argument isn't the same as the way similar strategies have been deployed. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fair enough - I think the latter articulation might be more effective in conveying confidence in your product. miro's question (and others like it) are predictable and fair to the extent this is a business transaction. plus, miro's a pretty cool guy. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says I don't have permission to see the file 

 

Which sucks cuz I've been reading into Berardi and Baudrillard with regards to semiocapitalism - never got around to cut a file 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says I don't have permission to see the file 

 

Which sucks cuz I've been reading into Berardi and Baudrillard with regards to semiocapitalism - never got around to cut a file 

 

seconded--i cannot view the file

which is sad

hopefully it will be fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seconded--i cannot view the file

which is sad

hopefully it will be fixed

 

looking into that now. Hopefully it will be resolved soon. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you submit a file to the store as an author, it first goes under a review process. The author is able to see it, but no one from the public can. I would assume administrators can, but I'm not one, so I can't make a definitive answer.

 

After about a day or two, the file comes out of review and is accessible to all. Usually, a topic is also automatically generated.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phantom707 is exactly correct. The file has now been approved. It's nice to review files to ensure they don't contain malware, and are what they claim to be.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you describe the alternatives with some additional detail? They're not mentioned in your description and the index is largely uninformative.

Also, I'm curious what your answer to Pinker is. I'd be happy if you'd PM me the card or block. My current impression is that Pinker focuses on direct violence but ignores indirect violence, and that his estimates of modern violence are often based on untrustworthy official sources like the US government, but that his broader argument holds up regardless. If you've got something saying otherwise I'd appreciate getting to see it.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you describe the alternatives with some additional detail?

 

Since the file is based off of Semiocapitalism, I'm assuming the alternative is something around the lines of that Bifo 09 card that most teams read whenever they're critiquing semiocapitalism which says that we we ought not give energy to the system and instead let it die - some teams call it "radical passivity" (as I do), others call it "exhaustion" - the evidence essentially says that the system is dying and that the only thing keeping it alive is our constant plugging in of our energy into the system - I believe Bifo bases his theories off of Baudrillards theories, specifically where he says that the simulacrum is itself death (I can't really explain it well as of right now, since I just started getting deep into Baudrillards theories)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you describe the alternatives with some additional detail? They're not mentioned in your description and the index is largely uninformative.

 

Also, I'm curious what your answer to Pinker is. I'd be happy if you'd PM me the card or block. My current impression is that Pinker focuses on direct violence but ignores indirect violence, and that his estimates of modern violence are often based on untrustworthy official sources like the US government, but that his broader argument holds up regardless. If you've got something saying otherwise I'd appreciate getting to see it.

 

There are two different alternatives in the file, you can read either just depending on which on you like more, they're both solid. The first one is a Deleuzean style alternative, that affirms the impending collapse of virtual capitalism and calls for a withdrawal of the individual from investment in semiotic accumulation in favor of an affirmation of singlularities outside of the normative affective realm of the market. This alternative focuses a lot on the projection of desire in the context of capital accumulation and problematizes the way we normatively internalize and circulate the manipulating narratives that uphold violent structures. 

 

The second alt is the "study" alt in the file. This is an Agambenian approach to semiotics that has been written about in pretty new works. Basically the alt says that they way that capitalism pervades semiotics is through a notion of use value and an ethos of betterment that forces us to constantly labor to better the self and make our bodies and minds more efficient for the market. In response to this, the alternative calls for an analysis of semiotics that doesn't prescribe a teleological call for action, rather uses the debate as a moment of interruption that affirms the "impotential" that we all possess. The ability to not act, to not be, to prefer not to breaks down the way that we internalizes notions of labor in opposition to notions of worklessness/excess. 

 

The answers to Pinker are pretty similar to the ones you've described, the cards are pretty new though. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two different alternatives in the file, you can read either just depending on which on you like more, they're both solid. The first one is a Deleuzean style alternative, that affirms the impending collapse of virtual capitalism and calls for a withdrawal of the individual from investment in semiotic accumulation in favor of an affirmation of singlularities outside of the normative affective realm of the market. This alternative focuses a lot on the projection of desire in the context of capital accumulation and problematizes the way we normatively internalize and circulate the manipulating narratives that uphold violent structures. 

 

The second alt is the "study" alt in the file. This is an Agambenian approach to semiotics that has been written about in pretty new works. Basically the alt says that they way that capitalism pervades semiotics is through a notion of use value and an ethos of betterment that forces us to constantly labor to better the self and make our bodies and minds more efficient for the market. In response to this, the alternative calls for an analysis of semiotics that doesn't prescribe a teleological call for action, rather uses the debate as a moment of interruption that affirms the "impotential" that we all possess. The ability to not act, to not be, to prefer not to breaks down the way that we internalizes notions of labor in opposition to notions of worklessness/excess. 

 

The answers to Pinker are pretty similar to the ones you've described, the cards are pretty new though. 

 

I've seen that word before in Baudrillards texts, what does that mean? From what I've gotten from the internet, it's defined as "unusualness," but I don't know if that's correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen that word before in Baudrillards texts, what does that mean? From what I've gotten from the internet, it's defined as "unusualness," but I don't know if that's correct. 

 haha well you bolded my misspelling of it, so that's embarrassing, but a singularity is that which cannot be known/boiled down to a single rational signifier. In this context it means that basically we have to carve out a zone for communication outside of the realm of productivity, we don't know what will result, but that's the point of a politics outside of teleology/rationality.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ATTN ANYONE WHO HAS BOUGHT THE FILE. It was brought to my attention that some of the stuff in the table of contents was missing from the file. I accidentally uploaded the PRE-TOC version of the file that didn't include some of the work I did in the summer for it. The file has been replaced with the correct copy, and if you redownload it it should all be fine. Thanks to Needs More Consult Japan for bringing this to my attention. Sorry for the inconvenience. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second alt is the "study" alt in the file. This is an Agambenian approach to semiotics that has been written about in pretty new works. Basically the alt says that they way that capitalism pervades semiotics is through a notion of use value and an ethos of betterment that forces us to constantly labor to better the self and make our bodies and minds more efficient for the market. In response to this, the alternative calls for an analysis of semiotics that doesn't prescribe a teleological call for action, rather uses the debate as a moment of interruption that affirms the "impotential" that we all possess. The ability to not act, to not be, to prefer not to breaks down the way that we internalizes notions of labor in opposition to notions of worklessness/excess. 

OUR ALTERNATIVE IS TO CHILL THE FUCK OUT

 

seriously this sounds pretty cool 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is awfully hostile for someone trying to sell a product. 

 

I'm calling the OP Zizek from now on since the OP is trying to make money by selling evidence that says that capitalism is bad. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm calling the OP Zizek from now on since the OP is trying to make money by selling evidence that says that capitalism is bad. 

 

lol, fair. But I'd like to at least be compared to someone who has an accurate description of capitalism to highlight my internal contradictions. Could I be Baudrillard instead? 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...