![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitoutThere's a long line of people who have called Debord a communist, which I _think_ makes it absolutely hysterical that he writes for BI. I am not suggesting Debord is a communist. Altho I can definitely see where that temptation might come from.
Yesterday, I spent a bunch of time _trying_ to waste time reading news and not thinking very hard and I kept ... missing. And honestly, I have really had it up to here thinking about missing kids because that is just a heartbreaking subject. So let us return to Debord and the post-ownership transportation matrix, because after reading about Elon Musk weighing in on the get-rid-of-drivers side of the argument (Debord had positioned Elon Musk as being on the other side) I asked myself, Self, You Should Look Into Debord and This "Post-Ownership" Proposition, because that's what got you thinking about Graeber and Graeber reminded you of Wolff and all these people really want the world to Share More and Own Less. Which I don't have a problem with, except when the advocates start dragging in loony fantasies of an unrelated nature (cf Silicon Valley developer collectives developing the personal computer in the 1980s on laptops. Honestly, I'm never gonna stop finding that Hilarious.).
Here's what a teeny tiny amount of googling found:
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/14/news/OE-DEBORD14
As my friend J.K. notes, 2007 feels like about 20 minutes ago to Old People Like Us (okay, old like me, anyway. I'm sure he retains his youthful vigor.). When Debord was writing that article for the LA Times, it was about the wonders of Zipcar and Flexcar and their ready availability via the Internet.
I feel like Debord has a template for these articles. The idea is, I want a personal vehicle to go where I want to go. But I don't want to actually have to deal with it 24/7 with insurance and all that. Look, [Zip/Flex in 2007][Self-driving car in 2015] will be always available via [the Internet in 2007][apps on smartphones in 2015]. No Need to Own! Yay! To be fair, Uber is also invoked, altho it is never perfectly explained why taxis did not bring the Utopian World of Ownership Free Transportation Matrix into existence. Maybe because of state involvement in enforcing medallion monopolies?
Some of the arguments have evolved. For example, he used this one in November 2007:
"In many cases, freedom from vehicle ownership should allow people to put their money into investments that do not lose value as soon as they are driven off the dealer's lot."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ahem. That was for everyone who remembers what happened to pretty much every investment on the planet shortly thereafter. (Someone's gonna point out gold. Okay, gold. Are you happy now?)
Anyway. The good news is, back in 2007 Debord was still willing to openly use words like communitarian (or maybe it was, when he was writing for the LA Times and not BI?) and collective, and say things like this:
"Individual ownership of something as complicated and labor intensive as transportation gradually will be supplanted by collective ownership of (or membership in) a vast system"
Which I don't see conspicuously present in the BI piece that caught my eye.
I feel like the Steve Jobs deal to avoid having to get a license plate could be mentioned at this point, but I'm tired, so maybe I'll just quit now.
Yesterday, I spent a bunch of time _trying_ to waste time reading news and not thinking very hard and I kept ... missing. And honestly, I have really had it up to here thinking about missing kids because that is just a heartbreaking subject. So let us return to Debord and the post-ownership transportation matrix, because after reading about Elon Musk weighing in on the get-rid-of-drivers side of the argument (Debord had positioned Elon Musk as being on the other side) I asked myself, Self, You Should Look Into Debord and This "Post-Ownership" Proposition, because that's what got you thinking about Graeber and Graeber reminded you of Wolff and all these people really want the world to Share More and Own Less. Which I don't have a problem with, except when the advocates start dragging in loony fantasies of an unrelated nature (cf Silicon Valley developer collectives developing the personal computer in the 1980s on laptops. Honestly, I'm never gonna stop finding that Hilarious.).
Here's what a teeny tiny amount of googling found:
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/14/news/OE-DEBORD14
As my friend J.K. notes, 2007 feels like about 20 minutes ago to Old People Like Us (okay, old like me, anyway. I'm sure he retains his youthful vigor.). When Debord was writing that article for the LA Times, it was about the wonders of Zipcar and Flexcar and their ready availability via the Internet.
I feel like Debord has a template for these articles. The idea is, I want a personal vehicle to go where I want to go. But I don't want to actually have to deal with it 24/7 with insurance and all that. Look, [Zip/Flex in 2007][Self-driving car in 2015] will be always available via [the Internet in 2007][apps on smartphones in 2015]. No Need to Own! Yay! To be fair, Uber is also invoked, altho it is never perfectly explained why taxis did not bring the Utopian World of Ownership Free Transportation Matrix into existence. Maybe because of state involvement in enforcing medallion monopolies?
Some of the arguments have evolved. For example, he used this one in November 2007:
"In many cases, freedom from vehicle ownership should allow people to put their money into investments that do not lose value as soon as they are driven off the dealer's lot."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ahem. That was for everyone who remembers what happened to pretty much every investment on the planet shortly thereafter. (Someone's gonna point out gold. Okay, gold. Are you happy now?)
Anyway. The good news is, back in 2007 Debord was still willing to openly use words like communitarian (or maybe it was, when he was writing for the LA Times and not BI?) and collective, and say things like this:
"Individual ownership of something as complicated and labor intensive as transportation gradually will be supplanted by collective ownership of (or membership in) a vast system"
Which I don't see conspicuously present in the BI piece that caught my eye.
I feel like the Steve Jobs deal to avoid having to get a license plate could be mentioned at this point, but I'm tired, so maybe I'll just quit now.