|>>|| No. 63699
Finance capital is still capital. The point about the lack of production of material value is valid and interesting, but triyng to get away from the word capitalism seems a lot like trying to polish the message to make it an easier sell.
Mark Fisher had a kind of a response to it though -my understanding is he would basically have argued that Neoliberalism (i.e. capitalism after the end of the postwar consensus, i.e. Callaghan reluctantly and Thatcher zealously.) is primarily designed to support the current class structure and the existence of some form of capitalism. With the postwar consensus of managed capitalism (with capital and labour mediated by the state in some hopefully stable condition) being inherently unstable, things were either going to snap towards socialism or towards placing all efforts towards preventing socialism, even to the detriment of capitalist efficiency if necessary - and they snapped in that direction. You could draw that forward to the present, especially with the way computers track and monitor us, but even before then you've got the remarkable increase in the status and influence of the management class despite the fact it's highly doubtful they actually lead to any efficiency increases - they're good at monitoring and controlling their fellow workers, leaving them more precarious, too busy with paperwork to think about strike action, or only taking ineffective actions like 1 day strikes in unis (where they inevitably just have to work harder the next day to get back on top of things.)
Though I'm going to raise a non marxist idea of interest. Financial Markets nowadays are so hypercompetitive that humans are barely involved, with trades made by computers and billions spent on laying new cables to shave fractions of fractions of seconds off trades. So what if the logic isn't exactly that of capital at all, but that of networks? What if capitalism tilted in a financial direction because the material equipment of computer networks made that the most appealing route? What if bizarre, perverse, computer networking algorithms are behind the utter insanity of the modern world? If both Keynesianism and early (<1993ish) neoliberalism were largely run by humans in service of capital, what if beyond that period we increasingly found ourselves in a world where humans are the servants of capital, which is itself the servant of the network itself. Why should the medium is the message be restricted to living entities?
The perverse ways we're all expected to jump for algorithms on the modern internet fit neither with the visions of Keynes, Friedman, Hayek or Marx but with some kind of alternative with a greater degree of stupidity. The stock trading computer has decided to invest in Google because the Google computer has decided that the best way to maximise desired metrics for giving the stock trading computer the metrics it wants is to show us and our children Elsa from Frozen eating a bucket of Heron Needles while the cast of Zootropolis re-enact Zardoz in the background. The children will watch the original, we will pay £25 for a balding man to shout out our name as we watch his reaction to the original video streamed live into our bedrooms. It's like that idea of a paperclip producing AI accidentally ending all life on earth, or basically just feedback loops, only stupider. It's what the network wants, why bother to complain?