The savage / despotic / capitalist differ primarily in terms of what is
the full body or quasi cause of all. Not as Bw0s. the state is never a
BwO, quite to opposite: it is the judegement of god on a BwO. In the
savage socius the full body is the Earth, in the barbarian/despotic it is
the body of the despot (hence despotic incest), in the capitalist socius
it is the full body of capital at its most abstract. All this is
quite obvious in AO, and, yes, they are not mops, but what of that?. Do
you deny that the industial mop is different from the feudal mop?
Teleologies aside...... Each style of socius has an associated semiotic
(savage/presignifying)(nomadic/countersignifying) (despotic signifying)
(postmodern?/passional-postsignifying)[I'm not to sure about this last one
being associated with any particular socius type - it seems to be a
unbiquitous line of flight]. These are semiotic mops (what else could you
call them?). Again, teleologies aside..... Each styple of socius organises
flows differently, the savage according to gens, the nomad according to=20
number, the barbarian according to rank, and the capitalist according to
profit margins. These organisations are undeniably enabled by certain
technologies (systems of assemblage) - but are probably not necessitated
by them. =20
>=20
> There is no such thing as over-production - either relative or absolute.=
=20
> Over-production is a concept which requires an idea, however theoretical=
=20
> or abstract (but not yet abstract enought), that there is a fixable,=20
> definable quantity of demand. A fixable, definable quantity of lack in=20
> other words. A "natural" lack, a "natural" need that is pre-existant and=
=20
> the moment more than that is produced then there is a crisis of=20
> over-production.=20
It has become a commonplace that there is no limit to the desire to=20
consume. Why should there be? but the fact is that if you run a business
on that grounds you are doomed. Ever heard of 'market shares'?=20
> But consumption is always a matter of the production of consumption.=20
> Demand is always a matter of the production of demand.=20
> Yes, Chris, there is a REAL need for the newest Pentium, but that is=20
> because desire produces the real. Needs are real because they are=20
> produced. There is no pre-exisitng need, prior to its produciton.
Demand is not need. I don't know how to tell real needs from unreal needs.
but I suppose it is easier to do where real needs are not being met? If
you can do without it, then its not a need. What can you do without?=20
=20
> Yes production of one particular product may outsrip demand but this is=
=20
> pure contingency and hardly impacts the machining of desire into need=20
> that is the present capitalist machine. Yes, instant gratificaiton is an=
=20
> axiom (compare it to the nineteenth century where gratification was=20
> delayed).
Agreed. But what I was trying to say is that i think generalised mops
should be rethought in terms of subsystems (e.g. corps) - as the machines
making up an asiatic mop. But as you point out, the late capitalist
asiatic mop is more accelerated in its operation than the industialist
asiatic mop. So all asiatic mops are not the same? And we can begin once
again to speak of history 9but leaving teleologies aside?)..=20
>
> Anti-production - I understand this in Bataille=92s sense of=20
> non-productive expenditure (although I=92m still thinking this through,=
=20
> particularly in terms of the BwO which they write is "the=20
> anti-productve") but I don=92t really see how advertising whose function=
=20
> is the producion of need could be seen as "unproductive expenditure" it=
=20
> seems to have a definite utility; nor arms production - so long as it is=
=20
> profitable for the companies that make them (and there aren=92t that many=
=20
> arms firms going bankrupt). Is anti-production to be seen only in firms=
=20
> that fail to make a profit? Firms go bankrupt other firms take over -=20
> the machine only works by breaking down ... Does this sound right?=20
>=20
A few good examples of antiproduction:
1/ video arcades - but only from the point of view of the one's wasting
their money on pleasure.
2/ brothels - but only from the point of view of the john (and his
wife....)>
3/ carnivals - qua Bakhtin?
Antiproduction is always liable to recapture as Investment (productive
Consumption). e.g. the ostentatious waste associated with feudal displays
of power or the Academy Awards.
Pure antiproduction is hard to find, but antiproductionis everywhere.
Personally, I also find these terms useful:
=20
Production: Writing the 3 pages requested.
Antiproduction: Writing n pages on a taboo subject as opposed to the
subject requested. Certain 'passionate' kinds of "waffle".
Nonproduction: Writing nothing.
Overproduction: Writing 3+n pages on the topic requested.
Underproduction: writing less than 3 page. Certainother kinds of "waffle".
They are usually mixed in any document.
And, yes, they are all relative to demand - not to need.
>=20
> - Chris
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com
>=20
