James W reviews McKenzie Wark's Capital is Dead. Nearly a year has passed since the publication of McKenzie Wark’s short book Capital is Dead: Is This Something Worse? More than half of that time has been spent in the midst of an unprecedented global crisis which has impacted the course of history in wa ...
Isn't her focus on vulgar Marxism exactly what your critique of her is? She argues that the cultural theorists don't focus nearly enough on the development of the forces of production (which IIRC according to her argument can't be understand theoretically sans collaborative effort), and how the rapid development of the forces of production have led not further the rationalization of the economic process, but only a furthered its abstraction to new levels, which basically seems to be what you just said.
Yeah, I think that was the reasonable part. But then the explanation she starts into about "the vector" comes across as deeply uninformed. I think it's a failure to adequately understand the nature of contemporary technology, and then elevating it to essential godhood while arguing that no one can argue against the empirical sciences. I agree with the critiques as does the review, but then the whole argument of the book goes right off the rails.
Isn't her focus on vulgar Marxism exactly what your critique of her is? She argues that the cultural theorists don't focus nearly enough on the development of the forces of production (which IIRC according to her argument can't be understand theoretically sans collaborative effort), and how the rapid development of the forces of production have led not further the rationalization of the economic process, but only a furthered its abstraction to new levels, which basically seems to be what you just said.
Yeah, I think that was the reasonable part. But then the explanation she starts into about "the vector" comes across as deeply uninformed. I think it's a failure to adequately understand the nature of contemporary technology, and then elevating it to essential godhood while arguing that no one can argue against the empirical sciences. I agree with the critiques as does the review, but then the whole argument of the book goes right off the rails.