Re John H's [7004]: John: thanks for your response and to Gary M for [7003] as well. > I quite agree with Harry on this. Capital is boring, not just in the > sense that it reproduces boring lives, but because capital is a process of > separation. Capital separates us from sociality (the social flow of doing) > and therefore from each other, from the sense of our own activity, from > ourselves, etc. Yes and no. Capital *also* brings tends to bring workers together within the production process in larger numbers where they (as any factory worker knows) tend to interact with each other socially. Indeed, historically the factory system and urbanization (to a great extent brought about by the needs of the former especially in relationship to the "industrial city") has brought workers together in greater numbers than any preceding period of history and has created working-class *communities*. One could also say that there is a sociality that can be seen in the market (even if it is distorted by capital's effort to get workers to conceive of their lives only in terms of the accumulation of 'things', i.e. commodities). Thus, one can see how "the mall" is a *social center* in many areas. Even in less developed capitalist societies, the market often also performs this social role of bring people into greater contact with one another (indeed, there are social ritual often associated with these markets.) > If capital is a process of separation, then it generates an externality > in all our social relations. What we find boring is surely boring because we > see it as being outside us, external to us. In that sense capital is > inherently boring. Yet, entertainment (sometimes) is not boring. Indeed, it tends to be manufactured as a commodity in capitalist society. So -- from that perspective -- the effort to overcome boredom is a *business*. As for being "external", other capitalists attempt to capitalize on this desire as well. E.g. some capitalists offer "adventures" to consumers who are bored by merely _watching_ "adventure" on TV etc. E.g. whitewater rafting, mountain climbing, luxury cruises to Antarctica, etc. What should be noted, though, connecting with something you wrote in [6877], is that *economics* (by which I mean here, bourgeois or 'mainstream' economic theory) *is* boring. And this should be a significant conclusion of the critique of economics: i.e. it inverts what should be the vitally-important and fascinating comprehension of how systems of production, distribution, and exchange and class struggle impact peoples' lives into an eminently boring -- and trivial -- subject. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:09 EDT