Dominic and other interested readers,

I wish to ask if you have considered Marx's writing on the production of
the free worker in Capital? (Dominic's comments on circulation and
freedom sent my thinking in this direction, BTW and thanks.)

For my own concerns on critique the capitalist production of the free
worker which circulates as variable capital (around ch 8 Vol 1) we can
say that capitalism produces it's own critique, which is to say immanent
critique, on which the immanent critique of reason by reason in Kant may
go some way toward. According to Marx the arts of a historical era
express the values of the ruling class of that era so it would follow
that the values of the capitalist ruling class are also those of its own
destruction, which in Marx is critique against the model of cutting and
deconstruction inherited from Kant and Aristotle and even Hiedegger. 

The production of art which functions on the mistaken ideological notion
of commodity production as transitive productive labour, against
unproductive labour as intransitive and free art practices, cannot
itself be free production and as such, art. So, in a capitalist era
which we live in, art can only express freedom if it is unproductive
labour, which is to say intransitive and opposed to the notion of art as
productive labour and commodity production to be sold as a painting in a
commercial art gallery. Art produced in the name of an ideological
productive labour cannot be free since circulation fails and also art
fails, here. Also, while circulation then creates the conditions for
art, this itself is not enough to be freedom or liberation  but rather
provides the changed conditions provided by the circulation of variable
capital. For Modernist art practice to be effective it must oppose the
circulation of capital in place of an immanent critique which must
circulate.... (Perhaps this is the kernel of my concern?????)

This pulls in a very wide range of current debates, based on various and
plural liberal democratic grounds, which leads back to the importance of
Kant in deciding what is and is not art, the painting model of artistic
production being the grounds of this judgement and which is judged
worthy of the title "fine arts".

Following from this is also a concern that technological determinism has
been under estimated in terms of the need to get out of this black-hole
of technologically determined being. Basically, technological
determinism, it seems to me, needs to be taken far more seriously given
that it is the gallery painting model which is based on a technological
deterministic ideological model which determines what is and what is not
to be considered as fine art. (The question of techos and logos in Kant,
perhaps???")

Anyways, this short summary seems to me too confusing and with too quick
leaps, but I guess all one can do is let the question fly? best wishes
Chris Jones

PS. It is very important to understand that for Deleuze flows (smooth
space et al) are not themselves freedom although flows and smooth space
do provide changed conditions for freedom. (See ATP page 500.) While
variable capital produces the smooth space of the worker it is not by
being a worker alone that leads to our liberation. A further confusion
also exists on multi-layered computer networks where it is a mistake to
consider these networks as smooth space. The networks themselves are
striated space and not smooth and implying free space as is too often
claimed. (At least Badiou understood this much in his book on Deleuze so
I am not that quick to dismiss Badiou's version of Deleuze as some may
be inclined to do. Rather, I would defend and support Badiou's version.)