Lashed by its own Whip: the Working class, Sadomasochism and Pension Funds

The working classes have been particularly battered by global capitalism’s most recent recession cycle. As this working class grows older and more of these people reach retirement age, the primary concern of these people will be whether their savings and pensions will provide them enough of a financial cushion for the next 20 years or so. Those members of the working class fortunate enough to have been represented by trade unions are most likely to be best insulated against volatility in the market place as judicious saving, in combination with a healthy pension, will presumably keep these people more than comfortable.

Many of the pensions owed to such people will be the result of a curious arrangement on the behalf of trade unions and their employers however. This is because during the last 30 years a growing number of trade unions have sought out market mechanisms in the form of investment pension funds, either through the union entirely, or in conjunction with a particular employer, to seek returns on the pension contributions of union members.

This curious arrangement is just that, curious, for a number of reasons. First, the practice of a trade union vulgarly embracing capitalist market mechanisms to generate financial capital appears to be a reactionary concession to the capitalist class. The trade union movement in its inception sought to transform society into a more egalitarian environment no longer premised on the private ownership of capital.

Second, the pension funds organized for the benefit of the membership are rarely directly managed or overseen by the working brothers and sisters on the shop floor. These funds are generally overseen by professional union managers who work solely for the union and no other organization. Furthermore, these managers rarely have concrete work experience on the shop floor with their fellow brothers and sisters. Thus, the establishment of a pension fund is a symptom of the profound bureaucratization of the trade union movement. Excessive Bureaucratization is an outcome that the trade union movement originally sought to avoid since it represented a regression into petty-bourgeois organizational patterns

These trends among the working class thus indicate a pattern of bourgeoisification among their ranks. What is the nature of this bourgeoisification? Surely the consumption cycle it implies is different than that of the more classically oriented middle class of lawyers and doctors?

It certainly is. We must never forget that in a capitalist economy it is labour that is fundamentally the basis of all economic value. The activity that the professional and middle classes have been primarily engaged in however is not of “creating value” so much as expropriating profit. Profit is derived from the exploitation of the working classes who are not compensated for the full financial value that their work in turn implies.

When this dual formula of value enaction and expropriation of profit is applied to the newly bourgeoisified working class, a perverse scenario results; the working class relinquishes its autonomy. It metaphorically hands its own lash to the capitalist class only to be subsequently, repeatedly and violently whipped by it. This situation results from the fact that investment funds must continually seek a source of return. In order to derive this return on investment, the fund must necessarily put someone to work. Perversely, the funds invested by trade unions inevitably trickle back into the coffers of the organizations that employ the working class in question. The end result is the institution of the working class’ slavery through the medium of the trade union. The lash has been handed over, and this kind of sadomasochistic relationship is what structures labour negotiations today. The proletariat learns to love what dominates it.

It may be said that new opportunities are opened to the working class as result of this kind of industrial relationship. As perverse a claim as that is, it may still be true. The price paid has been high however. It has come at the expense of the working class’ own autonomy. Only when the working class recognizes the fundamentally autonomous nature of its existence may it once again become of world historical importance as a class. Until then, alternative means are necessary in order to institute an autonomous and egalitarian society.

This is not to say that work is to be abandoned. Quite the contrary, work is the creative basis that fundamentally assures the maintenance and institution of a free and autonomous society. The task for such a society is therefore to fundamentally re-conceive the nature and end goal of such work. Will work be based on the untenable and unsustainable basis of profit or some other means? This seems crucial.

The relationship between Psychoanalysis and Information Technology

In our late capitalist climate, what is the relationship between psychoanalysis and information technology? What each discipline shares in common are the concepts of the unconscious and the source code. What are these concepts and how are these seemingly disparate disciplines deeply implicated with each other?

To begin with psychoanalysis and the unconscious, what is this? Simply and vulgarly, the unconscious is not just the site of an individual’s repressed desires but is also the basis of an individual’s autonomy. In this sense, an individual who is aware of and able to access and understand his or her unconscious desires is in a greater position of autonomy vis-a-vis someone who can’t; the former will always have greater knowledge of how to approach and deal with that that frustrates him or her in their day to day interactions with others.

Likewise, the role of the source code in information technology plays a similar role to that of the unconscious in psychoanalysis. How so? This is primarily because one who knows how to access and understand how to program the source code is an infinitely more able and autonomous user of a, computer, for example, than one who does not. A software program’s source code is a kind of “master key” that allows the programmer to modify the software’s code based on their personal needs. Knowledge of how to program software in this way is thus a vital necessity for any literate IT technician.

But the unconscious and the source code differ in one very important respect. Most software that is sold today categorically FORBIDS modification of its source code. Given the ubiquity of information technology in our late capitalist climate, this is certainly disturbing. In fact, in psychoanalytic terms, this would be the equivalent of one’s family or culture prohibiting the understanding of one unconscious. In other words, prohibition in terms of source code access has the effect of undermining the inherent autonomy of individuals and societies.  A society aware of how its social imagery is produced and functions is an autonomous society. In these kinds of societies therefore, unjust forms of “private property” may thus rightfully be challenged and questioned. By contrast, heteronymous or non-autonomous societies, like ones that prevent discussion about the unconscious or prohibit access to the source code of software, generally tend to conceal how a society’s laws are created and where they come from.

While autonomy may sound warm and fuzzy, my comments here nevertheless appear to be leading to the disturbing conclusion that, if psychoanalysis and information technology have something in common, it must be because human beings are just machines. Quite to the contrary however, I believe to have shown that the opposite is in fact true, namely, that through the imperfections of our machines and societies, we come to understand our finitiude as human beings. If, as many of us do today, we ridicule the bible for its outrageous claims to truth, the day will come when many of us equivalently look upon contemporary technology and its claims to “truth” and “private property” with an equal degree of skepticism. Is it really sustainable to believe that technology can be made private property and rendered “profitable”? This is what psychoanalysis and information technology teach us today; in the long term free, open and equal access can only be denied through short term repressive mechanisms that are never able to fully placate the subject.

Lament for a Movement: The Failure of Occupy Vancouver

From where I write here in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, a relatively high degree of media attention has been accorded to the Idle No More movement. Many commentators cannot resist lumping the movement under the same roof as Occupy. Remember Occupy? That weird crazy party at a park in New York City where the protesters did not make any one single clear demand, much to the chagrin of the major media outlets. The mainstream media here has chimed this same chorus in reference to Idle No More as well.  

But for those of us seeking to overcome capitalism was Occupy the high water mark of our talents? Is it the best we’ve got? I certainly hope not. That Idle No More has in some essential respects been compared to Occupy, is, I believe, a sign of the latter’s failure. Given that Occupy has been the largest and most important movement of its kind for a generation of people born during and subsequent to the 1980’s (I count myself among that group of people), it would be important to critically revisit why the movement failed, while refraining from the kind of apologetics and hagiographies that attribute a positive outcome to the movement, a position only the most dogmatic of believers could attempt to defend with a straight face. I therefore want to point out what I see as some of the major shortcomings of Occupy. To this extent I do not claim to speak for the movement as a whole, only for the movement as it took place in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, by the name of, you guessed it, Occupy Vancouver.

Where did Occupy Vancouver go wrong? Simply put, Occupy Vancouver had no real understanding of Canadian politics and simultaneously suffered from a general lack of creativity. Instead, Occupy Vancouver was more than happy to trope on the commidified, pre-packaged discourse of Occupy Wall Street. Setting up tents in the heart of the Vancouver’s downtown, the trite, imported, slogans were disseminated as fast as one’s mobile data connection could download them. “We are the 99%”, “People over profits”, and so it began on Oct 15, 2011continuing until the occupation ended about four weeks later.  

How did Occupy Vancouver lack a real understanding of Canadian politics? A common theme manifest throughout the length of the movement was the notion of “rights”. Human rights, native rights, ecological rights, economic rights, you name it there was a right for it at Occupy Vancouver. What are these rights however? Why was occupy asking for them? Who was going to give them these rights? Why did they not have these rights?

            
It is in this forum that the misunderstanding of the Canadian political climate was most pronounced, clearly indicating that, at least in British-Columbia, an autonomously constituted civil society has yet to take place. What do I mean by this? The idea that I have a right that is to be respected, assumes the existence of a court where I can challenge someone who I believe has infringed my right. In other words, the idea of a right in this sense short-circuits the entirety of the political process and relies exclusively on the courts to ensure the privileges of citizens.

            
In Canada however, this role is meant to be fulfilled by parliament! In this sense, elected citizens, NOT APPOINTED JUDGES, are the ones who are supposed to safeguard the democratic rights of citizens. The idea that we have rights that are overseen and protected by judges is a wholly American concept and is entirely contrary to the notion of citizenship and democracy which occupy claimed to be in favour of! Occupy Vancouver was thus importing political concepts and ideas that are not wholly applicable to the Canadian context. The irony of Occupy Vancouver is that they played right into the hands of the Conservative Harper government by vulgarly and uncritically under-appreciating the role of parliament in Canada. All Harper had to do was sit back and watch as everyone missed the point. The proliferation of American media in Canada thus served to distract the majority of people from coherently understanding how to use Canada’s political institutions. This moreover showed that political power in Canada is, surprisingly, more unevenly distributed than in the US since a relatively smaller percentage of Canadians (compared to Americans) actually understand how their political system functions. Occupy Vancouver was a clear expression of this ignorance.

            
How was Occupy Vancouver uncreative? It suffices to note that while Occupy Vancouver was busy importing American political tactics, adapted to an American political system and society, a municipal election campaign was simultaneously taking place in Vancouver. If one of the concerns of the movement was democracy and inequality, there would have been no better institution to target (and right under its nose to boot) than the city of Vancouver. Unfortunately Occupy Vancouver was unable to take advantage of this golden opportunity. Why not run an Occupy candidate for mayor? The movement had a high profile and certainly the candidate would have been given a considerable soapbox by the media given the movement’s visibility.

            
Alas, such was not the case, as, again, Occupiers in Vancouver were more than happy to copy the perceived success of others rather than focus on its own concrete situation. A cursory glance at the list of candidates for election shows that it would not have taken much effort to put together a few candidates. 94 people ran for election, of note are the following (these are how their names appeared on the ballot): Daniel “Saxmaniac” Zimmerman, Amy “Evil Genius” Fox, and WENDYTHIRTEEN. How inconceivable would it have been to put together an Occupy slate then? Cleary, in its Vancouver iteration, Occupy lacked serious political insight and creativity.

At the end of the day, Occupy Vancouver was more than happy to revel in the vapidity of their internet connection to the American movement than take the opportunity to push the movement even further. To this day, supporters of Occupy Vancouver are defending an empty, unoriginal and bleak movement. Those of us in Canada who want to see the end of the Harper regime have to take a hard look at ourselves and come up with a profoundly different alternative to what we are seeing in the US. Who wants “capitalism with a human face”? Is not a human face without capitalism a wholly superior alternative? If all that “progressive” movements are striving for is the former, then it must be acknowledged that the Conservative’s platform is more honest since there are no secrets; we know we will be getting the real deal and not some kind of pretend socialism that lets a monstrous form of capitalism in through the back door.

Those of us looking to go beyond capitalism need to seriously start thinking about critical constitutional change in Canada; do we really want to maintain a monarchy? Occupy is not our high water mark. We can and must do better.

The Rise and the Fall: The Photography of Robert Adams

Two years ago The Vancouver Art Gallery staged a retrospective of the work of photographer Richard Adams. I dug this essay up as I feel it is still relatively well written. This is my review indicating how I understood the exhibit as I saw it two years ago.

The Vancouver Art Gallery has been staging a significant exhibition since the 25th of September entitled Robert Adams: The Place We Live, A Retrospective Selection of Photographs. The exhibit showcases over 300 of his pictures spanning the late 1960’s into the early 2000’s. Adams’ work has primarily been recognized for its depiction of western US landscapes and the influence human culture has had on these spaces. Many of the exhibit’s most enduring images are pictures of urban scenes disrupting the earth’s innocence and beauty. This theme runs through the entirety of the exhibit and is contrasted by a number of images of a more pristine subject matter, ultimately seeing the exhibit juxtapose themes of innocence and guilt. 

One of the more memorable pictures of the over 300 featured shows a beautiful valley carved out of what looks to be the Rocky Mountain plains. The perspective is not unlike an Ansell Adams photograph. Perched up high, the entire region is visible, we can see the horizon well into the distance and the clouds above create a clear contrast with the murkiness below. Unlike the latter Adams landscapes which suggest a nature in terms of a pure and pristine force as distinct from civilization, Robert Adams’ picture is more sensitive to the powers of our new technologies. The picture features the insidious advance of the said culture appearing poised to overtake and dominate the mountain. The shadows below are revealed to be not just shadows created by the mountainside but by the town’s heavy industry.

Another frequent subject of the exhibit is trees, and a substantial portion of the retrospective is devoted to such images. Depicted are trees in a range of shapes and sizes against a variety of backdrops. What is striking about these images is that the presence of civilization seldom appears to creep into the image in quite the same way as the above described pictures, giving these images a greater sense of purity. Urban regions are often not present within the frame and a single tree may stand centred against a backdrop of a receding hill and an infinite horizon. Some of Adams’ prettiest pictures are of this kind.

But Adams’ art is never really about purity in itself. Rather, he approaches his subject from the perspective of the pervert, that is, as one who has himself been corrupted by the technological society. Since the camera is a product of the same industrialization it depicts, Adams’ gaze into a beautiful mountainous horizon cannot therefore be considered the gaze of an innocent bystander but must be understood as the gaze of someone who is also the product of the technological culture. As the title of the retrospective suggests, the place we live, is not just any place, however; the place we live is undoubtedly a technological society.

Thus, while Adams brings to our attention the nuances of our complex present, questioning the extent to which it is our own fault, he also appears to suggest that we have been willing to condition ourselves to see in some ways but not others. An image of a tree may conventionally symbolize wisdom or purity or beauty but trees are also the subject of a number of our culture’s founding myths. It has been said that it took the fruit of only one tree to expel Adam and Eve from Eden. Is knowledge thus the problem, or can it offer the solution? Adams appears unwilling to assuredly point us in either direction.

Religion and the Market Today or Why I stopped worrying about not identifying as an Atheist

A popular concept used by the mass media to judge the quality of a country’s economy today is the concept of the “tertiary” sector. The tertiary sector refers to those kinds of economic activity concerned with the rendering “services”. Service sector jobs include anything from retail store work to financial planning. In contrast to the tertiary sector, the primary and secondary sector broadly refer to natural resource extraction and manufacturing. The tertiary sector is thus that industry within the economy that seeks to transform the fruits of the primary and secondary industries into financial capital. It is this transformation of raw material into financial capital that constitutes the “value-added” added portion of the economy.

In this context, the most “advanced” economies of today are in those countries that offer the most opportunities for “value-added” production. Perhaps the best example of the “value-added” economy and its ensuing ethos is found in the United States’ Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley is a suburban region south of San Francisco in the state of California. It comprises an extremely high concentration of wealth, universities of remarkable repute, and high technology companies such as Google and Apple. These conditions lead many to cite Silicon Valley as the leading example of American achievement in the tertiary sector and thus one of the most “advanced” cultures of the world.

The region is named after the chemical compound silicon. Silicon is the material basis for the vast majority of computers today. Given the high concentration of IT activity in the region, the sobriquet “Silicon” seems apt. The vast majority of computer manufacturing, the transformation of silicon into a functioning computer, takes place in Asia however. Apple inc. Thus claims that its iPod is “designed” in California despite being manufactured in Asia. This distinction between the product’s design and its actual manufacturing constitutes the “value-added” of a product’s production cycle with the “value-added” portion of the cycle biased toward the “design” rather than “manufacture” side of the spectrum. The bias toward the “design” of products is what characterizes Silicon Valley as a service economy. “Value-added” is achieved by “designing” objects in service of a higher good. Such an example is an iPod designed to serve the user of the object. That without such an emphasis on design and service an object would otherwise appear inanimate to human society is certain. This ability to imbue seemingly inanimate objects with a social purpose and utility is the defining marker of an “advanced” society. Such refinement in imbuing objects with a purpose toward servitude is has become necessary for any mature service sector to compete in the global economy.

A status marker of such “advanced” society today is a decline in religiosity. Today, belief in a Judaeo-Christian god is not a status necessary in order to participate in society as a free subject. One thus does not only participate in the “value-added” sector of the economy without any apriori belief in god but is also encouraged to as a marker of one’s status within such “advanced” society.

It is therefore interesting to note the parallels between how modern subjects revere service to others and how Christians do. At Galatians 5:13 is the following passage, “For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love to serve one another”. Or take the following passage from Acts 20:35, “In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

Now observe the following passage taken from Google inc’s mission statement. Their first priority, under the heading “focus on the user and all else will follow”, reads:

Since the beginning, we’ve focused on providing the best user experience possible. Whether we’re designing a new Internet browser or a new tweak to the look of the homepage, we take great care to ensure that they will ultimately serve you, rather than our own internal goal or bottom line. Our homepage interface is clear and simple, and pages load instantly. Placement in search results is never sold to anyone, and advertising is not only clearly marked as such, it offers relevant content and is not distracting. And when we build new tools and applications, we believe they should work so well you don’t have to consider how they might have been designed differently.

Google’s position is nicely surmised by the following passage from Romans 1:20, “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse”. By taking the away one’s necessity to consider things differently, Google insists that these invisible attributes, the impossibility to see how something could be designed differently, are built into each of their platforms thus assuring, as in Romans 1:20, that god’s, and Google’s, creations are without excuse. In both the bible and the advanced economies, it is precisely the lack of excuse that thus renders a service to others necessary.

Oddly, many contemporary atheists inhabiting “advanced” economies would presumably favourably champion Google as an example of scientific triumph over superstitious and fetishist religious doctrine. For such people, Google is a pillar of human emancipation from folly. By contrast, consider Marx’s prescient insight on this matter:

But, the attitude of the state, and of the republic [free state] in particular, to religion is, after all, only the attitude to religion of the men who compose the state. It follows from this that man frees himself through the medium of the state, that he frees himself politically from a limitation when, in contradiction with himself, he raises himself above this limitation in an abstract, limited, and partial way. It follows further that, by freeing himself politically, man frees himself in a roundabout way, through an intermediary, although an essential intermediary. It follows, finally, that man, even if he proclaims himself an atheist through the medium of the state – that is, if he proclaims the state to be atheist – still remains in the grip of religion, precisely because he acknowledges himself only by a roundabout route, only through an intermediary. Religion is precisely the recognition of man in a roundabout way, through an intermediary. The state is the intermediary between man and man’s freedom. Just as Christ is the intermediary to whom man transfers the burden of all his divinity, all his religious constraint, so the state is the intermediary to whom man transfers all his non-divinity and all his human unconstraint (Marx, On the Jewish Question).

Thus, by seeking human emancipation and salvation through the medium of the market, so called “advanced” societies re-produce the same “primitive” conditions they believe they have overcome. Atheism and religiosity are thus two sides of the same media & technology coin.

The question here is how should we subjectivize our experience in situations of incomplete information or knowledge? Religion is one answer, the market another.  The purpose is to seek other alternatives.

What is the Aorta?

The Aorta is the name given to the human body's largest artery. An artery is a vessel through which blood circulates in the body. To name a site devoted to social commentary and criticism "The Aorta" is thus to imply that this site will provide its readers with a concentrated dose of information necessary in order to live today. While we acknowledge that many of you may get by without reading The Aorta, what we can guarantee is that readers will think differently about the world they live in after having read the commentary provided on this site. 

Cordialy, 

The Aorta