#9

#9

The subtlety of Kapital's ontology and the epistemology of the commodity: K ≈ C. C ≈ K.

The commodity is subject to the exchange of its own complexity. The actuality of its realization is the product, made obvious via the branding process – not at all trivial to the consumer glance. The process of commodification is Kapital enunciating the knowledge of the specificity of its own production. There is tension, a type of enmity, within competition, to lower wages and raise inflation. It is only through recognition of value that Kapital becomes able to transform its resources into the fixed material article. The commodity {C} as abstract entity is like a flux-capacitor – the capacity of flow – which enables the value of one product to be exchanged for another. If we consider Kapital {K} as a living being then the commodity {C} is its direct inversion, if the critic is detected then shut up and listen, its direct inversion, the exponential, epistemological subject of its person. The inversion is the reciprocity of its conversation. The form of the commodity {becomes} congealed when its possession is actively human; exchange has taken place and its direct object becomes its direct consumption. The brand is acknowledged by the living human. The brand adopts this living agency and returns it to the aspect of the commodity that is in flux. The incorporation of multiplicitous signs keeps the commodity in flux. This is the principle of trade, a principle that {becomes} the overall practice of Kapital, which leads us to a basic understanding of how the commodity is mediated via the spectacle.

The drawback, or flaw, of «laissez-faire» capitalism, individualism, per se, as a principle, let's say, is that even though governments cannot restrict what is commercial, the individual is controlled by Kapital.

The function of the commodity is that it plays a central role in the order of the economic regulation of Kapitalismo-sozjietie. The commodification of the worker is {its} identity as labourer. This gives us a treatment of Kapital, a sort of synopsis, of its humanity, its ability to at once identify with the human yet at the same time make the human the focus of its production. Kapital desires what is human yet Kapitalismo-sozjietie refuses to apologize in the face of its condemnation. Kapitalismo-sozjietie, merely, offers to that very face its concatenateous explanation. The desire of the human for Kapital's production is its ultimate consummation and affirmation.¹

Kapital, as ontological, seeks to rationalize its suffering through spectacle, and anything else it seeks to examine that makes Kapital ontological, like the editorial of the Lewiston Evening Journal for example.

Citizen Lewsiton – the reader and the editor – writes to us from 1970 to bring to our attention the plight of the migrant worker. This coincided with the enquiry of the spectacle through other media. The Associated Press and the National Broadcasting Company of America both came together to investigate the well-being of the itinerant worker in Texas and Florida. Citizen Lewiston cites a doctor's report submitted to a Senate subcommittee which stated that “'thousands of our fellow citizens are manipulated and managed in such a way as to reduce them to sub-human status.'”² Citizen Lewiston goes on to say that, “{o}ne of the doctors investigating a migrant camp area in Florida termed it 'the closest equivalent to slave quarters that could exist in a free society.'”³ Citizen Lewiston compares this status to that of the pre-Civil War slaves and feels the need to point out that conditions for workers on the best plantations of the Old South meant better treatment and better care. Is there a greater conscience for Kapital as Kapital becomes more-and-more ontological? - as the spectacle becomes increasingly more conversational, as the memory it has gained moves into the realm of the digital and the virtual becomes more actual?

Citzen Lewiston predicted, from our 1970's epoch, that the “shackles of a modern form of slavery”⁴ would take generations to throw off. The standard of living for migrant workers were dependent upon wages. Citizen Lewiston contextualizes this by saying that even if the father, mother itinerant labourer, as well as their school age son or daughter, were all to work they would “still fail to earn a sufficient amount of money to support a family adequately.”⁵ Despite Governor Claude Kirk of Florida refusing to talk to NBC, Kapital indicts the individual to hold the individual responsible and therefore make itself more accountable. As an egregore, that has become a legal individual, Coca-Cola is able to resist and leverage Kapital. This is why the corporation, as well as the individual, must be held accountable. It was “significant that one of the NBC interviewers was ordered out of Coca-Cola's migrant worker compound,” writes Citzen Lewiston.⁶

1O'Brien, J. C. (1981) “Karl Marx, the Social Theorist.” International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 8, No. 6; p.4.

2Editorial (1970) “America's Shame.” Lewiston Evening Journal, Jul. 17.

3Ibid.

4Ibid.

5Ibid.

6Ibid.

©Elijah Nathaniel James