LoveFest™: the notion of unrestricted love within lines of demarcations. We are free and tolerant, but only on certain days and only within Market St. Technology of the body in the service of architecture, the idea of this space, this city. Much like some of its architecture, maybe San Francisco is still Victorian.
Interestingly enough, the trademark sign (TM) is part of Unicode. So is the sign for copyright (©) and registered trademarks (®), but not the one for copyleft. Is this an instance of open-source code containing the idea of property or the idea of property infiltrating the open-source code.
Perhaps the reason why capitalism keeps striving no matter what is that technological concerns are given free reins rather than ethical ones. We hear: Si Se Puede! and "Change we can believe in." This insistence on the first person.
Something Marx omitted in his historical analysis: desire.
Perhaps a counter-politics should reformulate the notion of desire, but not as expression of free love, which is still working within a technological framework, but the desireof the Other. Logical operators are failing here. Then, rather than the expression of the Self's desire, the Other's desire?
***
Interestingly enough, the trademark sign (TM) is part of Unicode. So is the sign for copyright (©) and registered trademarks (®), but not the one for copyleft. Is this an instance of open-source code containing the idea of property or the idea of property infiltrating the open-source code.
***
Perhaps the reason why capitalism keeps striving no matter what is that technological concerns are given free reins rather than ethical ones. We hear: Si Se Puede! and "Change we can believe in." This insistence on the first person.
Something Marx omitted in his historical analysis: desire.
Perhaps a counter-politics should reformulate the notion of desire, but not as expression of free love, which is still working within a technological framework, but the desire
Comments
You are mentioning the classic chaos of modern capital: the injunction to enjoy, the order of abeyance to the 'free libidinal market'. The inflammation of the death drive by the promise that somehow the pleasure principle can be fulfilled and the drive - the void - can be filled. This is the algorithm for a sinusoidal curve of patriarchal over-determination, where the phallus (ϕ) compensates for lack of significance with feats of overproduction and wastage.
Yet we should not be so clever as to completely discard Marcuse in our spite of free love (TM). We should recognize that free love (TM) is only a registered trademark of Time magazine - it's a vulgarization of Marcuse's Freudo-Marxist analysis of surplus-repression versus aesthetic expression. Law re-presents the Symbolic of the State which subjects the jouissance of desire to the 'machine' or Apollonian.
Although Foucault argues against Marcuse, suggesting instead a de facto expropriation of the means of production as opposed to a consignment to resistance to repression, Judith Butler provides an excellent reconciliation of Marcuse and Foucault in Gender Trouble: "Foucault argues that the desire which is conceived as both original and repressed is the effect of the subjugating law itself..." In fact, Butler manipulates Foucault here, but she makes an interesting point: with law, as with capital, the repression of desire returns to the subject of human discourse and its problem of symbolic over-determination.
Mallarme's quote from Divigations: "Ah! Property, with all its proper and express usages, is closed, as the People would say, to the dreamer, from the deep shade of forests to the spacious retreat it offers..." The Heideggerian 'closedness' of the 'thing owned'. The brokenness of hegemony (being space and power), up to ideology, up to experience and expression, can never harmonize in reality without the excess of enunciation.
The question is now how can we do without real space? to continue the Mallarme quote: "I must have avoided it (property), obstinately, for years - to say nothing of having the means of acquisition - in order to satisfy some instinct of owning nothing and simply passing through; at the risk of having the residence, as now, open to any adventure, which is not quite a chance occurrence, for it brings me closer, depending on my attitude, to the proletariat." To divine the real, do we actually eliminate the 'mystifying quality of, (TM), etc...'? In this sense, the best answer is not to plead the 5th, but to simply reply, "I don't know", or, in the Bataillian sense, "could you please repeat the question?"