Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to read Part I of Capital – the chapters on the commodity, exchange, and money – in conjunction with Dante’s account of the sins of incontinence. Incontinence is a lack of self-control, a weakness that afflicts one’s deliberate choices, and makes one prone to doing what one wishes one wouldn’t. An incontinent is a slave to her or his passions. In Marx’s account of commercial society, I discern a socialized version of incontinence, a condition in which the producers of commodities suffer from a very peculiar lack of self-control: a propensity to do what they would rather not in the face of price-signals. Marx thinks there is something deeply wrong with this feature of commercial society. Because value is determined by abstract, socially necessary labour-time, no producer can know until after the fact whether or not their labour was productive at the socially necessary level. This exposes producers to all manner of forces outside her control, forces that take the form of the prices of goods. But, because these forces are merely the aggregated preferences of other people, the susceptibility of producers to act otherwise than they would like in the face of price-signals is simultaneously their enslavement to the actions of others, made without any consultation or debate. The preferences of others impose themselves on each producer without any need to justify themselves, and without any possibility of being contested. There is no way to ask whether the activities that set the terms of sale are themselves worthwhile. Being subjected to forces outside one’s control is the unalterable condition of every finite being. While this can be very frustrating, there is nothing wrong with it. But when these forces originate in the incontestable and unjustified desires of other people, there is something wrong. This wrong is the wrong of domination. The socialized incontinence of commercial society is also, on Marx’s account, the impersonal domination of each of its members.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".