bourgeois

maybe aristocracy was (and is, where it is) simply the expression of an architectural necessity?

~~~

i think i said architectural because architecture may also include electric circuitry as well as moral structure. there need not be a master architect, the concept of “master” can be part of the architecture

~~~

a bourgeois is someone who is an architectural element, whether s/he manages or not, whether s/he is useful or not, whether s/he is successful or not.

rentiers rely on the architecture. so we have to rely on the element.

~~~

and this does not mean “we as the revolutionaries have to rely on the element”, it’s the whole historical process in which people could not rely on the architecture so they had to rely on the element. neoliberalism is such a process, thatcher is an element in that process.

~~~

The basic dilemma is: Will you rely on a single element or will you rely on at least two elements?

In the first case, you can also rely on other elements, but they will only be relative to this first absolute element. This is compatible with rent and indebting.

In the second case, both of the elements are absolute in themselves and relative to the other. You can add other elements who are also absolute in themselves and relative to the others. This is incompatible with rent and indebting.

~~~

So what this has to do with architecture? Well if there’s a single door with security clearance, that’s the single absolute element that makes the architecture compatible with rent by relativizing all other elements — on which people have to rely to be able to resist, by the way — and this whole setting makes their resistances quantifiable, indebtable, investable and rentable.

~~~

The question is: people are already implicitly indebted to this or that absolute element, knowingly or unknowingly. The rentier system works by shifting these debts around. An anti-rentier would also work by shifting these debts around, but in a way to make people indebted to elements absolute in themselves unknown to them. If Alice shifts Bob to an absolute element unknown to Bob, Alice will appear to be this absolute element. If Bob shifts Alice to an absolute element unknown to Alice, Bob will appear to be this absolute element. But be it Alice for Bob, or Bob for Alice, these elements as absolutes, insofar as they are unknown, will be relative to other absolute elements. They can be known, and insofar as they will be known, this whole thing works as the shifting of debts within an unpredictable future that is simply based on relative absoluteness of elements….

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s