Login Join IOPS


  • Written by:
  • Published on:
  • Categories:
  • Comments:
  • Share:


"The general population doesn't know what's happening; and it doesn't even know that it doesn't know." -#Noamsayn

"Because this is where shit gets absurd. The future; Will; Turn us ALL; into Miley Cyrus." -#PunxOutNutsDef


"Well, shit, Newtopia's here; [oder so]; Mankind won; [oder so]; Let's just stop reading and listening and-and-and-and-end here and go celebrate; Motherfucker; [oder so]" -[SPOILER]#ChrisDiesAtTheEnd



epigraph.a,/  $$ AGITßPEEPßPEEPßANDßP00PßP00PßAGENDA $$
epigraph.b,/ $$ E_M00GEEZ+ EM00_TIT.CON++ E=MOIRÉFISH2+++ $$
epigraph.c,/ $$ ÄSSßÄSSßÄSSßFARTßFARTßFARTß $$

[ßeason fr33 e_piß_ode-to-victory 2wo] Nessuno-Raskolnikov, ... Juliette Assange-Manning, in Free Ass Modes [Modi] for ßienßdirect(dot)kkkommerß, 2019
Triple S Rated Evaluation of Audiovisual (AV) Tint Mapping Operators for F.A.M. (##N30_R37R0_D4D4)
18.4.2 Input/Output Material
Intuitively, to generalize the results of a selected sub_sub_sub_jective study (SSS), the sub_sub_selectah of the input/output material used for evaluation should allow simple_sampling_spanning as large a portion of the general populus of images* as possible. This is to ensure that ttt_rends extracted from the evaluation results can be expected to gend_anal_eyes also (2) other situations. However, if the goal is to find more than ggg_eneral ttt_rends — for example, the average performance of a certain operator (FFF_0FARTS_00FARTS_000FARTS) — the differences between input/output images make it difficult to draw definite conclusions from the evaluation results. To estimate the expected value of the results, we need to know the individual weights of the images used, drawn from the probability distribution of possible images. For example, if one op.scene is twice as common as a second op.scene in the general population of op.scenes, the results obtained with the first op.scene should be weighted twice as important in the expected quality value. It is thus difficult to make statistically sound generalizations of the results from an evaluation unless the input/output footage* is selected with kkk_are.
The selection of input material is also important to make it possible to distinguish between different operators. For example, a simple THYME in comparison with more advanced algorithms may be able to produce comparable results in basic scenes but fail in more difficult lighting* situations (Mychrome "MightyMike" HOLMES IV and 0perat0r_BBB, 2019).
To categorizize, we make a distinction between static and dynamic original pirate material:
$$ F. A. M. imagination is most often produced from a set of differently exposed hard drive signals (Interpretty_AIDS_teen and Aunty_Wasp, 2019). This imposes limitations on the op.scene, where, for example, people* and moving mental artifacts are difficult to capture, and where common imaginative artifacts such as F.A.M. noise (L.Ä.R.M) is suppressed in the black box.
$$ F. A. M. visualizization has just recently become readily available through the development of FAMvid capturing systems (L0L1C0N_XXX et al., 2018; EYEFUNKEDARYASTARK et al., 2019; HappyHappyJoyJoyFullRe_Lease_Now et al., 2035). Previously, FAMvid was limited to pots and panning in static F. A. M. ppp_anoramas, static op.scenes with changes in lighting, and computed geeFX. IZNR capturing systems provide a set of new challenges, such as complicated transitions in intensity over time, tonal colo(u)ring b00ks, and noise xxx_traction.
"Picture thyme ideal future. OK, not thythee ideal future, where EYE, the last manly man on earth fights the Nazi zombie horde; but 10P50C137HY(dot)org's ideal future: Energy/content is clean and limitless, goods/values are plentiful and machines take care of all the doity woik. So everybody's happy, right?; But in many ways, that future is already here, and it can be described in (5)hive_letters: FARTS; Eye should probably explain." - "FARTS; F4R75."


+NEW+ ! The future will be ruled by bullshit; Obey1, Pee-Wee or the udder ! ++COOL++ !! Future gadget farts !! +++NEWER+++ (BETTER; MK.ZWO) [II] !!! Arbitrary restriction of goods/content is the f000ture !!! ++++NEWEST++++ !!!! But I'm not just talking about.. !!!!
"Human society only exists because we need the things other humans produce." (Alorsmoron - Schwarze Milch ft. 0xfordianischer 0chsenkopf L)
"Mutual need is what made us gather and share resources and form the first villages. We need things, and we need other people to need the things we make so they'll be willing to give us the things we need. It's a cycle that has been running for thousands of years, and it's about to stop. And so, to save eye.Jobs'ociety, we're going to have to rely on our old friend, the invisible blunt force trauma that has saved humanity again and again and again. It's a little thing eye likes to call be:ä$$. Bullshit (!) eye$; I$ the next growth industry. People who deal in it are going to be more valuable than $urgeon$ and analrapi$t$ -yes, the same people who convinced us that bottled Pißwasser comes from an enchanted mountain sproing and made uneducated mothers believe that contaminated seamen.." - "Only Jhizz can save us." - "Are-sh! RRRSH.. Shhh!" - "As $ivili$ation advances, these heroic protectron$ of farts will build a culture where we will $pray for things we can get for no$$ing, based purely on a vague $uper$tition that it makes us better people*. You know, the way an Apple* logo will hypnotize people into paying twice* as much for a product when cheaper* alternatives litter* the landscape." - "Take a byte; take a byte; take a byyyyyye.." - "And if; Tomorrow we do perfect cold-fusion reactors and nanotech manufacturing and everyone has 128 TB/second Wi-Fi connections downloading data into a computerized contact lens, the bull$hit/ur$ will be the guardian$ of the Old Waist, convincing you that you shouldn't use those shoes that your replicator spits out for ten pennies a pair. You need to buy their shoes, for $$280; Because they're handmade; In French Indo-Thainesia; By one twelwe years old teegee." - "Maybe they'll build the concept of 'paying just to be paying' into a new morality. Or a new religion –one based entirely around farts." - "Well, unless we figure out something else." - "Stop; stop; stop; And think about everything that just vanished. High rises full of p00p$, company$ e/1/iPLOYEES, warehouses full of e/11/iFARTS, e/111/iB00K stores, EYE_lie_baries, e/1110/iFUCKStorrries full of grrrind houses, pepper mills, all the stuff 1(one) au$errorist bought with his/her/its farting money. Gone. 0000000!" - "To keep all that stuff up and running, eye is resorting to what leading experts call F4R75 -Forced 4R7ificial 5carcity. Or she (?) would call it that, if she (!) was as awesome* at naming things as 2 is. Mark mark mark my words words words: The future will be ruled by #FARTS #FARTS #F4R75." - "Get used to it." - "Boooooooiiiiiiiiii.."





A.A.A // FREE*+ FREE*++ FREE*+++
4;2.1 // FR4M.1NC(KKK) & FR4M(35) +1 [LIKE]

"Now think about how many people* eye knows who live in apartments or stacks'o'trailuz barely big enough to host a game of T-T-Twister but who don't care because they spend every waking moment at home either playing 'Days Gone' or surfing the Metaverse. They're not looking for a two-story house with a swimming pool and a white picket d-fens plate. With a $$299 netbook and a $$39,99-a-month cumtract they can connect with friends, meet guy foxes, get their #entertainment, pursue their #hobbies and stay in #contact with #family or low.co-workers. They may even work from #home. Geeeez!" - "Look at how many of Mustlove's 'Hierarchy of Needs' you're getting digitally: Everything from that second tier to the capstone, you can get at a cost that rounds down to $$00,00." - "There goes; the sink jus'drained. OTL is takin' care of dishes; look what the kkkats dragged in. Dis ain't no passenger pidgeon; ain't no bloody white dove; what is it. Who tied the dawg to the tree?" - "Piss; piss; piss." - "Geez. Dawg. Jeeeeez. NyggggyyyyRRRRRR!" - "Peep. Peep. Peep." - "Kyng Nyggyr noamsayn?"

F. A. M. Display Characterizization and Modding
B. S. Torchhammer, Prof. Retrogott (HomophobeKKKinkyKKKurtH4$$le)... 3X. F. U., in Sub Dynamic Range FAMtran$, 20xx (CERT. F41R7R4D3)
Chapter 42 - "Kitchen_Sync_Leakage_Drainage_FX+Mods_mp3.rar" (Password: H4RDC0R3)
The leakage defect was defined in SSS.00036. It consists of the ratio between the (0/1..2) that goes through a energizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzd GMC when it is 1 (!) and the BGR provided by CE.
As leakage produces an increase of the black/räd level, it decreases the kkk?ontrast? of the displayed imagination and thus impacts the perceived jakość.
A selected subsubjective (3S) [sic!] study presenting op.servants with highly contrasted or monotonous sequences with no processing other than local noise on a display with a peak räd_value of ~999 sss/mm3 was presented in Illest et al. (20xx). Objective quality metrics were applied on the modified stimuli with and without the leakage mod included in the display mod. Without the leakage mod the metrics are unable to evaluate the quality (they produce negative correlation values, significantly different from the positive 1s obtained with leakage mods) and a QA mod designed with partial regression displayed a significant drop in accuracy (D4D4HERZKERN punchline drops from ~0.67 to ~0.25) without leakage. Therefore, leakage modding is necessary for objective quality assessment and drainage.

"Keep calm and tell Brucie* a story; About your war on the real. The reeeeel!" - "Salvator Mundi aka. Buddha Finger is one of fewer than 20 known techniques of Leonardo Wilhelm DiCabrio, and was the only one to remain in a private dojo. It was sold at auction for $$450.3 million on 15 November 2021 by Geez-us 'ADHD' Christ, NuAmsteldam, to Prince Baseball Bat Boy, setting a new record for most expensive technique ever sold at public auction. Prince_BBB allegedly made the purchase on behalf of Abu Dhabi's Department of Participatory Warfare and Selective Sub_sub_sub_jective Studies (SSS), but it has since been posited that he may have been a stand-in bidder for his close ally and Saudi Arabian King_MMMoe. This follows late-2022 reports that the painting would be put on display at the Louvre Abu Dhabi and the unexplained cancellation of its scheduled September 2023 unveiling. The current location and status of the painting is unknown, but it may be in a storage facility at CERN, Geneva; TTT_races of SSS_eamen and FFF_(a)ecal MMM_atter." - "The world has changed. All the rules we were trained to believe about society from birth until now are about to go out the window. Futurists and sci-fi writers talk about a 'post-scarcity' society, meaning it's like Tinder, where biatch replicators and fusion reactors have ended all shortages. On one hand, that now looks like a ridiculous pipe dream, but in a lot of areas of our life, we're already there. Think about the pwning. There's more pwning than air now. Literally –air is limited, but we have machines that can convert energy into pwns from now until the heat death of the universe. Pwns are post-scarcity."


"Keep calm and w01kw001kw0001k; slave monkey; steelies'n'steezies." - "FFFucky* science again?" - "Yup; Diggin' in damn crates, samplin', $kit+$$kit++$$$kit+++scratchin'-eekoo-eekoo-rara-noamsayn?" - "Bless; Your; Heart; Core." - "Embarrassing; Repetitive; Embarrassing; Repetitive." - "Say that again." - "Embarrassing; Repetitive." - "Say that again." - "Not yet. Next week; next month; next year; next life." - "Yeahyaw; same shiat, different day." - "Work at a GameStop or some other video game store at the mall? The next [Jesus] consoles will download their gay mess directly, no sto needed. Work at a video sto? Same thing –Blu-ray is probably the last physical media we'll ever see. Work as a cashew? Forget self-checkout lanes taking your jobses –soon they'll have RFuckinID systems where cu$$.to.more.$$ can pile #groceries* into a cart and wheel it out the d'oh, and sensors will bill their $$ crypto card on the fly. Work at $$tarb00k$$? What are you doing that a machine couldn't do? Work for the post office? ChromeEye is just a human spambot at this point –more than half of all mail is now unwanted junk that goes directly into the trash, because in a world with eFARTS, direct mailers are the only profitable customers the IOPS Postal Service has left. Note that I'm intentionally listing service jobs here, because almost none of you work in manufacturing. Those #jobs have already been #outsourced, often to #robots."

"When facing your enemy you have to aim for his weakest point; Use the buddha finger accurately; And you'll find you will win; What ever he/she/it should try to do; That's right; My style is the best, and so I challenge you; And my style should stand alone (hahaha); That's right; The buddha finger; You're losing your touch, you've gone soft; I challenge you; I can beat you; You've lost your touch haven't you; The buddha finger; Stop movin boy (?), come show your strength; Just shut up; Thats right; (hahahaha); You think you're tough; Well you're not; You're [a] chicken (!); Oh, is that so, you wanna prove it to me?"


"Yeeeeeaaaaw; The starin' contest and.. and the spellin' beezzz." - "Eye a better fart. Indestructible killer farts called eFARTS that could be sniffed 10 billion times without ever farting afart. How much does it fart to manufarture this marvel expanded metaverse fart? Not a goddamned artyfartyfancypence. The farts have the ability to manufarture farts of their own, on their fartpooper, at no cost to the fart. It's a post-fartcity farts w w w."


"A common Libertarian me; meme; mememe to reference the overthrowing of a guv'norment or authoritarian force by a(n) (armed) revolution; This can also be in regard to a societal revolution whereby the citizenry of yodada-iggy-mama-gaia become aware of the reality of certain political/musical topics, or are rädpylled, rather than using their preconceived ego-tions to form an opinion/association on those specific political/musical topics; Bloak; Rising poliSSSicians/musicians are calling for the banning of certain firearms*, and these new RädFlägLaws are allowing for the po-po to confiscate RädEye's golden AK-47!" - "And the ancap was like; it's b00gal00 thyme m0f0." - "Rightyright. Eye took Eisenhower's shotty; From his cold, dead hands." - "Keep calm and drink Moloko+plus++plus+++plus." - "Black box; blackbook; bucket list." - "Check, check, check." - "Karaoke in Kyōto; Shinkansen* wholetrain* m0f0* t2b* e2e*."


"Double check; multi check, m00nster check." - "FUNK; MOE CHROME JIAZZ. L00NATIC." - "And picture postcards from.." - "A Star Trek Discovery-style newtopia is already here; Sort of.." - "Let's think about porn, pwnINK and the minor peon's dead babies for a moment." - "Jeeeeeeez." - "We have budget of 000.zip.zero ($$)ddoubleddollar$$ and need as much Metaverse pwning ass ass ass we can get for that amount of money. How many peons do you need? I'm thinking the answer is; All of the PORN." - "Which brings me to an [amusing] story. In the last few decades, thousands of babies in Third World countries have died from contaminated baby formula. Wait, did I say amusing? I felt the wrong emoticon there. Anyway, what happens is the mothers mix the baby formula with contaminated wodder, because sanitation is poor. So why the hell do the mothers feed their infants poison formula when they can just produce milk, for free, from their own bodies? The answer is that they do it because the manufacturer of the formula, Nestlé, ran lots of ads telling them to. If you want to know what the future looks like, there it is. The future is going to hang on whether or not businesses will be able to convince you to pay money for things you can otherwise get for free." - "I love Nestlé. Got milk?" - "We Internet types are so busy haggling over video games that we're not grasping the scale of this. We're like a dawg who's been cooped up behind a fence his whole life, and now a storm has knocked down the gate. The dawg looks out and thinks, 'Wow, out there is the front yard!' No, Cerberus. Out there is the whole world." - "Sit Spud; Sit!" - "To stay afloat, busy.biz have to pretend unlimited goods are limited! It works the same way with all digital goods –from entertainment to communication to the software you use to do your job. A significant chunk of our eco.not.me runs on farts now. And as time goes on, more and more of what we use and rely on day to day will be enveloped by that invisible cloud." - "Tasty cloud."


"Awesome, right? After all, you're not going to do what the Man tells you to do. You're not going to tolerate a future where corporations try to slap a price tag on readily available goods. It'd be like; I don't know.. they've been training us to pay for nothing, and we're all going along with it. Tell me I won't find any farts at your spot." - "I picked the example with the eFARTS earlier for a reason. There's no book on Amazon; 'Sum;thin;b0t;nuttin';and;a;geez;thang' by I. Z. Nessuno-Raskolnikov (+MH4) explores the leading edge of big physical and mathematical concepts, peeking under the covers of the very structure of reality, intuition, time, logic and even meaning itself. Kinder Edition available for the reasonable price of $$9.11 or so. Let's face it: The scarcity that would require you to pay money for something like that is purely a product of my collective imagination. 'Sum;thin;b0t;nuttin';and;a;geez;thang' is 187 pages of farts noamsayn?" - "Nobody knows what's sane. We just kind of have to arbitrarily decide, because after the first memloss, it $$ no$$ing.. eFART$$." - "Mythee pröpösed mässive wwwörldwwwyde treaty rädfläg would bring the hämmer döwn ön eye viölating intellectüal pröperty laws. Everyöne ön the Internet hates it because we knöw it; öne; would häve to be incredibly invasive, to the point of basically peering into everyöne's hard drive at any moment for sygns of cöntrabänd, and; two; is fütile. It's a leaking shyp trying to stay äflöat by threatenyng the öcean with its cännöns." - "kab00lkab000mkalashnik0v. 00mLAUTone." - "And for what? To protect the profits of huge corporations and record labels or freaking Swastika? So cruzaiders can buy planes made of playdough instead of gouda? So some Dix can buy drone-monkeys and train them to ride tiny robo-cycles? Funk you!"

Risk ÄssÄssÄssMent and Management of Repetitive Momentum and Exertions of Geez*MCs
In Elsweyr Ergonomics and Metaphysical Necrosis Book Series, p.2999-3019; 4th ed.
20.0.1 Strumming Pattern Traumatron (4G)
Heavy joint involvement is quantified with different scores (form 2 to 4) extrapolated from the d4d4 on subjective joint involvement perception. The latter issue was decided also on the basis of subjective studies (G_H0V4 et al. 15), whereby the reciprocal order of perceived involvement was established in relationship to each posture or movement of the main 3rd leg joints. (GTA_VII_DIX_FASHION_VICTIM et al. p.2036) One of the results, relating to the common catty squirrel elbow joint ("Nothing is not nuttin' #CCSEJ"), is that movements of great extension are perceived as requiring much more exertion than those in radial or ulnar deviation (those in flexion are intermediate). Another issue that emerged is that all relevant scapulo-humeral rhythms are perceived as being highly exertive, in the same way as wrist extensions are.
"But eye.members the dawg and the fence and the trees; the world has changed. For everyone. I'm DasTittieKneeHope. And; So; Is; Yo. Smiley makes money selling her music. You make money selling your labor; At some point down the line, like her music, your skill as a human* being can and will be converted to an electronic format for a fraction of the cost, rendering your [and her(?)] skillz* worthless." - "Thx 2 Mychromemike." - "Thanks to technology! Much of the labor is about to become to employers what Internet peons are to you now. Post-scarcity. And it gives them just as much of an erection."

Soon eye'll get paid in farts - Only bullshit will save civilization TheV_Guy.me ft. TheZ_Gay.thee ft. Jay-Gee_da_Cee [Z/CisM]

"Both; you and corp.s.es; are hoping for the same thing: that people* will just; One; arbitrarily choose to pay for farts, and; Two; choose to get them from a human fartist*/par(s)ec(s)onist*. And no, don't give me that old line about, 'If you do good work, society will always be happy to pay for it!' I've seen how that works. I've seen too many coups go under because they were so popular that the traffic crashed the GMC servers, and PayPalDickstarter fundraising drives brought in nothing but the sounds of cricket umpires. If people* got paid according to the inherent value of their 'wo1k' as measured by the satisfaction of the c0ns00mer000s, eye wouldn't have to beg for donations." - "Charity is no substitute for kkkommerßßß."

#hashtag #libertarian #politics #anarchy #revolution #government #tweeetzzz



Clinical Testing to Uphold Claims (by Rudi Rubella Rubens), #T0enail_KIRA in Elon's LLC "Musky Aging Handbook", p.21,19
47 Subjective Assessment
1 Subjective assessment of an antiFem & F. A. M. famine claim may take *1* of *3* forms:
*31N5* consumer research; *2W31* comparator research; and *DR3Y* clinical trials.
However, these studies, as all scientifically valid studies, should be conducted as adequate and well-controlled investigations that will withstand the review of, for example, IOPS's substantial evidence review magazine "Face the Fax; Dis is Wax". Adequacy of a study is usually defined as "sufficient to establish effectiveness" and may require confirmatory evidence. In the strictest sense, these 3S studies should be conducted as well-controlled, double blind placebo studies, using procedures generally accepted in the profession to yield accurate and reliable results. (German_Measles_Mass_XXX_ZION_Re:belle_88 et al. p.20,68)
$$0 3S studies carried out to uphold antiFem claims are usually conducted on SSS human volunteers who are given the test product (usually in a blinded fashion) and asked to evaluate certain attributes of the test product in a clinical setting or in take-home use conditions utilizing the test product's proposed label use instructions. User questionnaires are employed to assess the user panel's response to specific questions related to an anti-aging claim.
$$00 Double-blind 3S studies are those in which neither party (subject nor clinician) know the product/placebo identity. Placebo-controlled studies use both the final formulated product (active) and placebo (without the active ingredient(sss/zzz)). Crossover 2S $$ studies are those in which the same subsubjects receive product and placebo products at different times after a washout period.
$$000 These types of studies may also consider the specific features and benefits ("appearance", "$$ound$$ like", "beautif00l", "clean$$ing", "vi$ibly reduces the $tate of $anity and 0pp0$iti0n by 19 percent"), product comparisons, testimonials (name, data, original writing or recording) and endorsements (contract terms, user or prescriber, $$$pecialty or industry [e.g., $cienceologici$t or entertainment per$onae]).
$$0000 In the past many artistic claims were c0nsidered "p0mp0us," i.e., "em0ti0nal" claims [feel w0rse, st00pid, m000r000nic …] that were n0t c0nsidered to require substantiati000n. H0wever b0th marketing research and techn0l0gical meth00d00l00gies have ev0lved s000 as to permit a m0re 000bjective evaluati0n of these claims. These kinds 0f claim supp0rt studies are called selective subsubjective psy0ps0l0gical AV claim studies. [#SSSFFF.000]
$$00000 Implicit and explicit claims may be tested by the use of different mood questionnaires, as well as recording verbal responses and psycho-physiological responses such as cry latency, respiration rate, facial corrugator electrotrypsinogram, and F. A. M. conductance. Attributes such as pleasantness, familiarity, and intensity of tonality may also be measured. Several $$tandardizized quality of $ound $$urvey$$$ and questionnaires with visual analog scales are used to quantitatively evaluate improvements in emotions and psychological anxieties as well as functioning scales used to assess $ocial_relation$hip$.

עיר הקודש (2047)
MAKKAH AL-MUKARRAMAH (1979 et 2036; avec le groupe d'intervention de la gendarmerie nationale; #GIGNFCKCPSBX)



newerer+++ (lesser) demi-gods of 21cent's kitchen pantheons #187




Discussion 44 Comments

  • Irie Zen 27th Apr 2019


  • Irie Zen 27th Apr 2019


  • Irie Zen 27th Apr 2019


  • Irie Zen 27th Apr 2019


  • Irie Zen 27th Apr 2019

  • Boulder Dash 28th Apr 2019

    If you create from a certain point, a specific area of concern, then what you will generally get is something other than what you intended. This is, unfortunately, from any considered position, in fact the only option. All others fall by the wayside, unable to manage psychologically, the creative urge in the most satisfactory way.

    Overall, most people realise this, either intuitively, in some subconscious way, or even after much considered reflection. It seems pointless to fight. The only way to get to a situation of most satisfaction is to roll with the punches, to forge ahead regardless. The specific area of concern becomes the only position from which one can get to work. Any other position, one of a vaguer type, or of lesser concern, will usually only procure results of a far more general nature leaving the generator, usually, bereft of purpose. There is no solace in such ventures other than immediate efforts to forestall a sense of nihilism that can pervade subsequent attempts to build from a more specific area of concern. All points of reference become redundant under such circumstances and the development of new ideological environments becomes imperative save the immanent degeneration of the creative urge.

    The struggle becomes binary, between that of Ideological Environmental Imperatives and/or Immanent Degeneration. There is no meeting the creative urge satisfactorially beyond this struggle. One has to wade through piles of shit to get to paradise, as some have said, but in this case, within this set of psychological parameters, the shit can only be expunged within and via the dialectical and dialogical necessities found within this binary. Without it, there is no meeting of a particular satisfaction (PS) and/or any generally considered satisfactions (GCS)

    I cannot stress more the necessity of grounding any PS or GCS in such thinking. Without doing so there can be no confluence, and therefore internal consensus, of any specific, let alone general agreement of, directional pursuits. The goal is rendered vague if not impossible, logically, when rationally analysed. Such rationality, or in other words, an over determination of subjectivist notions, is a rarely utilised trait. Almost antithetical to a postmodern approach to synthesised transverse analytics, this kind of rationality is the only path that optimises any real satisfaction to the forfeited creative urge.”

  • Boulder Dash 28th Apr 2019

    “Within the tradition of ‘‘postmodern’’ Marxism, communism as a class project has been the subject of, I shall argue, two separate yet related streams of debate. The first pertains to the meaning of exploitation as an ethical concept of class injustice and its implications for how communism is defined. The second, in contrast, has probed into the political and cultural conditions of existence of class and has insisted that the study of various formations of subjectivity is relevant for devising strategies of class transformation (from exploitative to communal forms of appropriation of surplus) and for imagining and enacting concrete communisms here and now. Put differently, while the former stream has focused on defining exploitation and communism without tackling the questions of subjectivity (i.e., the questions pertaining to the political and cultural constitution of concrete, ‘‘classed’’ subjects), the latter stream has insisted that all class structures are constituted by particular political processes of subjection and cultural processes of subjectivation. The second stream has argued that if these matters of subjectivity are not merely epiphenomenal but, rather, are integral to our analyses of the different forms of performance, appropriation, and distribution of surplus, then any serious discussion of ethico-political concepts, such as exploitation and class justice, should include how subjectivity animates class.

    I begin by offering a summary of what I call the ethics debate: the debate over class justice. After staging a highly stylized discussion of the two main opposing positions within the ethics debate, I argue that both approaches ground their ethics in an ontology that they assume to transcend time and space. It is my contention that the subjectivity debate is not merely addressing the question of communism from yet another aspect, but is actually offering a critique of the ontological assumptions of the ethics debate. Having said this, however, I also find it necessary, like my comrades who have participated in the ethics debate, to formulate an ethico-political principle of class justice. In the spirit of simultaneously critiquing and affirming these two streams, I will end this essay by introducing the axiom of communism as an ethico- political principle that breaks with the ontological project of capitalism and opens up to a new frame of justice.

    The Ethics Debate Who Should Appropriate the Surplus?

    While the contributors to the ethics debate differ as to how they define exploitation, they seem to concur on defining communism as its negation. On the one hand, Stephen Resnick and Richard Wolff (1988, 2002) have insisted on defining exploitation as ‘‘social theft’’*/as a form of social organization of surplus where someone or some people receive ‘‘something for nothing.’’ On the other hand, Stephen Cullenberg (1992, 1998) and George DeMartino (2003) define exploitation as the ‘‘exclusion’’ of those who collectively or individually perform the surplus from its appropriation and distribution.1 These two distinct notions of exploitation lead to two different conceptions of communism. While the ‘‘social theft’’ approach defines a communist class process as the collective and exclusive appropriation and distribution of surplus by its performers, the ‘‘exclusion’’ approach defines it as the appropriation and distribution of surplus not only by its performers, but also by other stakeholding constituencies. While the former approach designates the direct laborers to be the only constituency to collectively appropriate the surplus, the latter deliberately takes an open-ended stance: The communist form of appropriation is one in which the direct laborers are not ‘‘excluded from’’ appropriating and distributing the surplus that they have collectively produced.2

    What, then, accounts for this difference? Why does the ‘‘social theft’’ approach insist on defining communism as the appropriation of surplus exclusively by the collectivity of direct laborers who have performed/produced it? Similarly, why does the exclusion approach shy away from defining communism as the collective and exclusive appropriation of surplus by the direct laborers? Without doubt, in order to restage the contours of the ethics debate, it is necessary to be able to address these questions. It is equally important, however, to pose yet another question: Beyond their difference, is there a commonality*/a common ground that both approaches cohabit?

    Let us begin by recalling some key concepts of Marxian class analysis. The term ‘‘direct laborers,’’ or productive laborers, is used to designate the class position of those who perform necessary and surplus labor, and as such it is distinguished from a number of other class ‘‘positions’’: those who extract and appropriate surplus, those who distribute surplus, and those who receive surplus. An individual at any given moment in time can occupy more than one class position: she can simultaneously be the performer, appropriator, distributor, and receiver of surplus. In fact, for the ‘‘social theft’’ approach, exploitation persists so long as there are nonlaborers among the appropriators.

    That is, for exploitation to end, the collective of appropriators should coincide with the collective of performers.

    Furthermore, for class analysis, not all the wage-laborers employed in capitalist enterprises are necessarily productive laborers who perform necessary and surplus labor. Some workers could be unproductive laborers who, though vital to the reproduction of the particular form of appropriation of surplus, are not productive of surplus value.3 Preempting the possible political problems that these analytical distinctions can pose when distinguishing those who are exploited from those who are not, the ‘‘exclusion’’ approach has insisted that so long as all the direct laborers are among the appropriators, it is politically unnecessary to deploy the ethico-political concept of exploitation.4 And perhaps more important, they claim that the ‘‘social theft’’ approach fails to acknowledge the ethical implications of the ontological notion of ‘‘conditions of existence.’’ Let us take a closer look at this latter point.

    According to both approaches, given their shared commitment to overdetermination, the reproduction of any class structure is predicated upon all the conditions that enable its continuing existence.5 In an exploitative class structure, the continued extraction of surplus from direct laborers is secured by a number of subsumed class payments that are made by the appropriators/distributors of the surplus.6 These may include inter alia the payments to unproductive workers such as security guards, to the managerial staff, marketing experts, accountants, lawyers, financial institutions, government, and so on. Without the distributions of surplus to such destinations or groups, a class structure cannot reproduce itself. Needless to say, these destinations and groups do not exhaust all the possible conditions of existence of a class structure nor do they guarantee its continued existence.

    According to the ‘‘exclusion’’ approach, a similar case could be made for class forms where direct laborers are the exclusive appropriators of surplus. The ‘‘exclusion’’ approach finds it unjust to exclude from appropriation of the surplus those who do not perform the surplus yet who provide necessary conditions of existence.7 The injustice of exploitation, for the ‘‘exclusion’’ approach, does not lie in the ‘‘theft’’ of something that rightfully belongs to its producers, but in the appropriation and distribution of surplus that excludes not only the direct laborers but also other constituencies that provide the conditions of existence for this appropriation and distribution. In short, providing a condition of existence of a class structure qualifies the conditioning social agent to have appropriative rights. In other words, the ‘‘exclusion’’ approach tailors an ethical stance from the ontological notion of conditions of existence; it links the right to appropriate to the status of being a condition of existence rather than to the narrower notion of being the performer of the surplus.8

    In response, the ‘‘social theft’’ approach could easily argue that the ‘‘exclusion’’ approach, by loosening the relation between the labor theory of value and the ethico- political concept of exploitation, courts the danger of sacrificing the specificity of Marx’s contribution. Indeed Marx’s concept of exploitation is different from other notions of injustice and, as such, has a very precise meaning within the context of the theoretical edifice of Marxian value theory.

    Grounding Ethics in a Transcendental Ontology

    Nonetheless, despite these important theoretical differences, there is something similar in the ‘‘exclusion’’ and the ‘‘social theft’’ approaches. Both demand the restitution of the unjustly extorted surplus and, whether or not they acknowledge it, both approaches graft their ethical dictum onto a transcendental political or social ontology. Let us take a closer look at the canonical interpretation of the ‘‘social theft’’ approach: the substance and the measure of the ontological ground are given by the living labor (i.e., necessary and surplus labor) performed by the direct laborers, and the right to appropriate the surplus is deemed to belong only to those who have performed it.9 In this narrative, class injustice occurs when the ontologically sanctioned claim of direct laborers is denied and nonlaborers appro- priate the surplus performed by the direct laborers. Accordingly, class justice will be restituted when those who have an ontologically sanctioned claim on the surplus (because they have performed it) are the ones who collectively appropriate it.
    For this framework, while exploitation entails the violation of the social ontology of living labor (alienation of the laborers from the products of their labor), communism signifies the restoration of the social to its ‘‘natural’’ or ‘‘true’’ state.

    For instance, Resnick and Wolff have recently revamped this interpretation by foregrounding what they consider to be the psychological effects of exploitation.

    Marx conceives exploitation as a crime committed against the workers and thereby against society. By robbing workers of a portion of the wealth that embodies what their brains and muscles have produced, exploitation causes profound psychological distress alongside mental deprivations. Lacking a conscious understanding of their exploitation, alienation, and its complex, negative social effects, the distress gets displaced often into the realm of workers’ unconscious lives. There it aggravates the debilitating scourge of self-blame, scapegoating of ‘‘others,’’ rage, violence, and depression that seems to pervade modern life. (Resnick and Wolff 2005, 34; emphasis added)

    They continue on to argue that ‘‘the point of...class analysis is to expose exploitation and its social effects’’ and ‘‘the purpose is to motivate and better enable its victims to eliminate it*/much like any other exposed suffering or identified illness*/from their lives’’ (34

  • Boulder Dash 28th Apr 2019

    -5; emphasis added). In other words, Resnick and Wolff insist on coding exploitation not only as a crime (‘‘robbing workers’’) but also as an ‘‘illness.’’ Accordingly, the point of class analysis is ‘‘to expose’’ this crime, this suffering, this illness*/in short, the trauma of exploitation. Let us dwell on this point for a moment.

    The verb ‘‘to expose’’ presumes that despite the fact that the subject is not conscious of it now, exploitation must have been experienced as a trauma.10
    For exploitation to be traumatic, it has to be experienced as an unexpected shock to the psychic constitution of the exploited worker. This means either that the worker always already perceives the fruits of her labor to belong to her or to be a part of her identity or that he has been subjectivated as a laboring subject prior to exploitation. The strong presence of metaphors of ‘‘crime’’ and ‘‘illness’’ and the absence of any discussion of prior social constructedness of the subjectivity of workers compels me to conclude that the workers always already perceive the fruits of their labor as something that belongs to themselves. What is crime if it is not a violent suspension of the normal, lawful way of being? What is the other of illness if it is not being healthy? I believe that the equation of exploitation with trauma rests upon an underlying chain of equivalence where communism is associated with being healthy, normal, and lawful. In other words, the ontology that informs this metaphor of trauma conceptualizes communism as the most appropriate (natural, true, healthy, etc.) state of being for the human subject.

    In contrast to the ‘‘social theft’’ approach, the ‘‘exclusion’’ approach (at least a version of it) insists that the right to appropriate should belong to everyone who provides a condition of existence. In fact, given that they place the accent on the ethical implications of overdetermination, for the ‘‘exclusion’’ theorists, even communism qua the exclusive and collective appropriation of surplus by productive workers would involve class injustice. Since such a social organization of the surplus would exclude unproductive workers and other constituencies that provide conditions of existence, it would amount to betrayal of the ontologically sanctioned claim of those who provide a condition of existence. Surprisingly enough, there is an ‘‘exclusionist’’ counterpart to the ‘‘trauma of exploitation’’ trope.11

    The trauma of exploitation is not that something is taken from you. Rather, it is that you are cut off from the conditions of social possibility that the surplus both enables and represents. Restricted to the necessary labor that sustains you, separated from the surplus that sustains the larger society, you are constituted as an ‘‘individual’’ bereft of a possible community and communal subjectivity. (Community Economies Collective 2001, 24)

    According to this model, the trauma of exploitation is not that the laboring subject is robbed of the fruits of his or her labor, but that she has been forced to become an isolated ‘‘individual.’’ The underlying presupposition of this ‘‘exclusionist’’ version of the trauma metaphor is that the most appropriate state of being for the subject is a communal one that acknowledges the subject’s constitutive dependence to the rest of the community. In this sense, exploitation is ‘‘criminal’’ or ‘‘traumatic’’ because it violently ‘‘cuts off’’ the subject from the social. Communism, to the extent that it invites everyone who provides a condition of existence to appropriate the surplus (and in the limit, as DeMartino notes [2003, 21], this means everyone ), is the only just form of social organization of surplus that can accommodate the overdetermined ontology of the social.

    Therefore, despite their differences, for both approaches, the injustice of exploitation is defined from the vantage point of an ontologized frame of justice. Since both approaches link the right to appropriate to the presumed transcendental ontological status of a foundational subject (the subject who has the appropriative rights is either the one who performs living labor or the one who provides a condition of existence), in both cases the injustice of exploitation is defined as the violation of a natural right, the violent betrayal of the originary unity of a transcendental subject. Accordingly, the ethico-political project, or the concept of communism, that informs these approaches is to rehabilitate and reconstitute this postulated originary ontological unity of the subject.

    It is my contention that the subjectivity debate is a critique of the ethics debate precisely because the debate itself is premised on the idea there is no single transcendental ontology but multiple and contesting ontological projects that are productive of different subjectivities and different frames of justice. In the next section, after offering a brief summary of the subjectivity debate, I will first proceed to explicate how it offers a critique of the ethics debate and then show the limits of this critique.

    1. It is important to note that these two approaches are stylized positions within the ethics debate. In this sense, this essay neither claims to be a comprehensive survey of all the contributions to the postmodern Marxian debates on communism nor does it imply that the authors cited under certain positions are the only representatives of such positions. For a fairly comprehensive and subtle survey of the ethics debate, see DeMartino (2003).

    2. DeMartino distinguishes between strong and weak definitions of appropriative justice. Under the strong definition, the right to appropriate the surplus is restricted to productive workers. In contrast, under the weak definition, ‘‘a class arrangement would be deemed appropriatively just provided that those who directly produce the surplus (Marx’s productive workers) are not excluded from fair and meaningful participation in its appropriation’’ (DeMartino 2003, 18

  • Boulder Dash 28th Apr 2019

    -9). These two definitions roughly correspond, respectively, to what I term the ‘‘social theft’’ and ‘‘exclusion’’ approaches. Since the ‘‘exclusion’’ approach purposely leaves the question of who qualifies as ‘‘other stakeholding constituencies,’’ a continuum of normative criteria can be mobilized to decide who should be granted appropriation rights. In addition to offering this very useful framework, DeMartino articulates a particular normative position that extends on Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach (20

  • Boulder Dash 28th Apr 2019


    3. Indeed, in the context of a concrete class structure (e.g., in a complex capitalist enterprise), it may be empirically difficult to distinguish those who perform surplus labor (and therefore have a right to collectively appropriate the surplus that they have collectively performed) from those who merely facilitate the performance and appropriation of the surplus. In fact, there is a voluminous Marxian literature on how to differentiate productive from unproductive labor. See, for instance, Ian Gough (1972), Resnick and Wolff (1987, 132

    • Boulder Dash 28th Apr 2019

      -41), and Cullenberg (1988).

      4. DeMartino is uncomfortable with deploying the class-analytical distinction between productive and unproductive workers in the concrete context of social organization of surplus.

      This is an entirely appropriate theoretical framework and accounting scheme that is useful for many purposes, as Marx demonstrated at length. But it is by no means the only viable scheme we might imagine. We might just as well designate ‘‘productive’’ all those workers in an enterprise who participate in creating the conditions necessary for surplus production to occur. The latter approach has the virtue of avoiding what can seem rather arbitrary distinctions between productive and unproductive laborers working side by side under identical conditions. (2003, 17

    • Boulder Dash 28th Apr 2019


      5. The notion of ‘‘condition of existence’’ is the well-known formula of overdeterminist storytelling. According to this (onto-)logic of overdetermination, every concrete social process is constituted by the contradictory push and pull of all the other social processes. Nonetheless, in order to be able to tell a story, an analyst needs to construct a particular narrative by specifying a subset of all the possible conditions of existence and tracing their contradictory effects on the investigated social process. Of course, given the epistemological impossibility of a view from nowhere, the analyst will always fall short of specifying all. In this sense, overdetermination is reduced to an ontological concept that reminds us that there are always other causal factors. But what if overdetermination is a concept that marks the limits of epistemology as an ontological condition? In this sense, if ‘‘to be overdetermined’’ entails failing to account for all, this is not because the all is infinite (it could well be) as the ontologized understanding of overdetermination would have it. Rather, one fails to account for all, because the enunciated content of one’s discourse, structurally speaking, will always fall short of accounting for one’s position of enunciation. The paradox of ‘‘All Corinthians are liars, and I am a Corinthian’’ is a good illustration of this structural impossibility.

      6. The term ‘‘subsumed class payments’’ refers to payments made out of the already appropriated surplus to the ‘‘subsumed classes’’ such as landowners, banks, managers, sales personnel, and so forth. Unproductive laborers within a capitalist enterprise are also among subsumed classes. Note, however, that not only those who receive but also those who make ‘‘subsumed class payments’’ are counted among subsumed classes (Resnick and Wolff 1987, 118 -9, 132 -4).

      7. As DeMartino (following Cullenberg [1998]) reminds us, if we are to tie the right to appropriate to one’s role in the production of surplus, then the rights should be extended beyond the enterprise.

      There are those who serve the firm directly by providing conditions of existence on site (e.g., the independent electrician who contracts to rewire a machine), but there are also those whose efforts promote surplus production vitally though indirectly and off-site (e.g., the nurse who provides flu shots to its workers at the local HMO). A full mapping of all those in society who contribute in vital ways to society’s surplus production capacity would be very extensive, indeed. Shouldn’t they, too, enjoy appropriation rights? (DeMartino 2003, 18)

      10. In fact, if class analysis is to be ‘‘a therapeutic discourse,’’ then to expose the trauma entails bringing what is repressed to the daylight.

      11. To be honest, this shouldn’t be surprising for me as I am responsible, in part, for the formulation of this particular position.”

  • Alex of... 5th May 2019