#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.
