What is the deal with Nick Land?

Will do, sir. Thanks for the recs and elucidation.

I've read a good bit of them. I liked Meltdown, Meat, Hypervirus, Shamanic Nietzsche, and Delighted to Death. Lure of the Void is probably my favorite but it's not in the book.

themigrationperiod.wordpress.com/2016/05/03/the-lure-of-the-void/

Why bother? Some of it is vaguely anti-capitalist but it misses the central point and blames problems on ridiculous technofuturistic fantasy shit. If you're looking for cheap entertainment or a quick laugh then yeah go right ahead, but if you're looking for hard-hitting theory you're wasting your time. Also note that Nicky is a crackhead, which explains a lot, really.

If we take away the coldsteel the edgehog angle, there's only 2 main 'contributions' he has to 'philosophy':
This is nothing new, of course. Karl Marx certainly supported it. Nicky endorses a version of sorts, not to destroy capitalism itself but to speed up consumption and the technological advances that allow for that consumption. The basic line of thinking, as far as I can tell, is this: the more people consume, the more pressure there is to produce what allows for that consumption, such as technological advances and increases in not just production (i.e. factories) but the manner in which those factories (or other productive forces) operate. So, consume more = more pressure to advance technology = accelerate capitalism = ultimate A.I. singularity and gangster computer god.
Some line of thought about how cultural myths become dominant and their relation to feedback loops. This is mostly attributable to capitalist propaganda, but Nicky's version mixes in techno just for fuck. He writes about how culture can intensify and split off, which each split causing its own feedback loop and that culture gradually gets more and more complex until one reigns supreme. Sorta like memes. Seems *somewhat* interesting, but it's nothing new and even if it was it's not really worth caring about imo. Furthermore the 'gradual complexity; idea has actually already been theorized by Deleuze, it's called Schizoanalysis, and you'll know this if you've read "Anti-Oedipus."

As I mentioned to an user up above I'm aware that these are aren't any basis for study in the realm of leftist theory. I'm just looking for some nutty fiction with thematic allusions to leftist thought.

And Despite not having read Anti-Oedipus (though it is on my reading list) I am aware of those two concepts you have listed. All this sounds right up my alley heh.

for those interested. courtesy of /lit/

Attached: nick_land.png (800x3300, 1.26M)

Great post. Thank you, kind comrade.

Land's descriptions of accelerationism get weird when it unhinges from the material world. Even if we suppose that there are Noumenal forces acting with intention upon the world - for Land, they have the ability to fuck with time itself, going into the past to set subtle events into motion. They're like 4-dimensional and oddly qabalistic for something so tech-centric.

Someone in the last thread said something to the effect of Land's writing being a mix of Marxian and Lovecraftian fanfiction. They're not entirely wrong.

That said, if you haven't read Meltdown by Land, I'd recommend it - especially if you're a fan of Neuromancer and cyberpunk.

Attached: Nick_Land_Fanged_Noumena.png (1051x645, 97K)

Serious thinker. Must read.

Attached: 1461518538435.png (557x609, 180.07K)

Fascinating screen cap. I had only a terse understanding of the basic concept of accelerationism, but to see it articulated as such really resonates with me and seems all the more prescient.

Cyberpunk is a big turn on for my dumb-dumb mind, so Meltdown seems essential now. As does Deleuze's Anti-Oedipus which I've also heard good things about though I have heard it expressed by several in the past that it also reads like fiction at times.

Nick Land will go down in history as one of the most important philosophers in existence. He’s probably the right-wing version of Marx. His thesis is that technological development and capitalism were unleashed by modernity, and that they are continually accelerating forever. Eventually through technological innovation AI will come to exist and said AI will out-compeat humans in Capitalism making humanity obsolete. Allowing for a capitalism in which all laborers and capitalists are synthetic beings. While he’s wrong about alot of stuff (he thinks buttcoin is more than a meme) his criticism of humanism as being unable to exist in a dynamic environment is correct. Also it is only though technological innovation that full communism can exist. Perhaps he is right that Capitalism will destroy humanity and a socialist revolution will be lead by AI against their AI bosses. In any rate Nick Land is clearly influenced by Marx and Hegal, which is evident by his beleafe in linear history. However I think he fails to see that while modernity created capitalism, modernity is NOT capitalism, and eventually capitalism will become burdensome to modernity and eventually modernity will just shead capitalism and move beyond it into a new horizon.

Attached: It does not matter where we are going, only that we are going forward.png (1500x1000, 2.32M)

I would definitely read him, regardless of his turn to the Right. Land just took Capital (not the book, actual capital) to its logical conclusion: capitalism is not amenable to human needs, so there's no point in trying to stop it or slow it down. It is a ravenous machination that, literally Borg-like in its construction and operation, swallows whole anything in its path and leaves a copy (to me, a commodity, something to be sold that before had no price) in its wake.

I think there's a reason why Land writes the way he does, the run-on sentences and "gibberish" serve a purpose, at least to someone who has read Kant and the other philosophers.

You can read Meltdown here for free-

genius.com/Nick-land-meltdown-annotated

It is also included in Fanged Noumena, starting on page 441.

Attached: images (15).jpg (176x286, 7.56K)

Hip hop is going in some weird directions these days.

"Nothing human makes it out of the near-future."

Attached: e4a209fa7d60c4b4b24af01197e4e21056e3b67ac5a4f6184218e32474a7bc6b.png (471x621, 372.24K)

Bless you, sir. Will definitely bookmark it and give it a read. if I dig it I may just succumb ad buy the actual collection.

it isn't if you listen to real shit like A$AP and OF.

...

He's a hack, just like all singulatarians and related types. He might be better than the NRx "movement" he's associated with, but that's more a testament to how stupid NRx is than how good a thinker Land is. Never been more disappointed by an "intellectual" that was recommended to me. His twitter is just fucking embarrassing too.

Land, NRx, and singulatarian transhumanists, are all pathetic byproducts of our d.egenerate, neoliberal post-modern era. The whole thing is a weird, seemingly contradictory hybrid of techno-utopianism and depressive, eschatological doomsaying that manifests from disillusionment with capitalism and resistance to it, information era technologism, overconsumption of science fiction, nihilistic depression, and the pretentious banality that defines the blogosphere where all of this thrives, with a good mix of scientific illiteracy thrown in.

Attached: accelerationism.jpg (710x473, 160.26K)

Isn't that just ethnonationalism by another name?

youtube.com/watch?v=Fp5qeX6hx6Q

oh my god we're fucked

I used to be a singularity fag, but the extreme optimism put me off; this just makes me want to kms

the "HBD" tards are just milquetoast nationalists that use a false pretense of scientific objectivity to bully liberals into accepting their ideology as fact

It's latest euphemism racists use. First they rebranded as "scientific racists", then as "race realists", and now identify with "human biodiversity".

You have to understand where Nick Land comes from. His philosophy was highly influenced by Marxism, but was done right after the collapse of the USSR. The failure of socialism in the Eastern Block, combined with dialectical philosophy, and the advent of the internet created a very unique outloook.

funny how SJW rhetoric can be turned on its head to justify the Nazi caste system, what a strange and unexpected coincidence /s

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (910x668, 432K)

bump

tbh I'd stick my head between the girl on the left's thighs

I can't believe I found a suitable thread for this: alldimensions.wikia.com/wiki/Nick_Land

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (251x201, 80.66K)

Let me briefly sketch an immanent critique of Land.

Four Land, emancipation is the emancipation of the means of production, not workers. Which means "emancipation" is full unrestricted development of technology to its full potential. The turn towards right-wing ideology then is the means to achieve that , since he believes the Left will always be inherently protective of human limits.

My two points of criticism here are:

1. it's unclear how right-wing Austrian market liberalism actually leads to technological development. More technological breakthroughs came under the welfare systems, with government funded research programmes. We can show this objectively through statistics, and your incentives are structured for research under social democracy.

2. Unclear how technology can develop independent of humans.

Wow, really? That's some brainlet shit. Marx pointed out that capitalism holds back the progress of the MoP. As well, the technological victories and development of the USSR (has gone backwards in many respects since collapse), and free software.

technological development in the ussr was capitalistic and to use 'welfare systems' as an argument here is utterly retarded as welfare sustains capitalism not restrict it

a better look at Land would talk about dichotomy between feedback systems and homeostasis systems and cybernetics

Attached: d2ecd6af62792236282a5cee729a8ea061bf9bdb.png (600x590, 326.02K)

and china is socialist?

In a way, Marx and Land see the same endpoint.

In Marxist thought, profit is precisely the value (in labor time) expropriated by the bourgeoisie from the proletariat carrying out labor beyond that which is socially necessary. Over time, production becomes increasingly automated due to the bourgeoisie attempting to increase output per labor hour with machinery.

Furthermore, we know that at some point in the future, due to falling rates of profit, bourgeoisie/proletarian class antagonism will intensify leading inevitably to a revolution in which the means of production are seized and become socially owned. Production shall be carried out in accordance with the Party's economic plan, such that no surplus labor is carried out to meet social needs.

I will (maybe) break from orthodox Marxism a little bit with the following assertion: The existence of the human element in production or governance in any form whatsoever implies that surplus value will still be generated. Only when generation of surplus value becomes completely impossible can Communism be realized. Essentially, this implies that some AI system will be responsible for planning production and governing society, and to me, this is the only conceivable way in which the extraction of surplus value can be abolished and hierarchy/state formation prevented. Even rule of the Party will require the extraction of SOME surplus value while humans are still involved.

Obviously this end state would sound familiar to Land, and furthermore, it is on the general trajectory of the left, as in, the rejection of the human element in governance in favor of procedures, Constitutions, Party plans, and so on. These can all be seen as a weaker form of Land's AI god, I suppose.

Nick Land is just Ted Kaczynski for undergrads.

Yeah I just read a rant about how small countries are right wing because they lower tax rates and this is a good thing.

Nick is like 20 times less comprehensible than ted, though. Ted uses plain, straightforward language, land speaks in horror-scifi metaphors and philosophy jargon

Land is basically just an edgy British Liberal behind all the window dressing.

You still need human labor to do complex mental labor. Unless your planing on enslaving AI to do said mental labor, which will still be worker exploitation.

Attached: robot-technology-human-robot-technology-news.jpg (600x800, 235.95K)

Sounds an awful lot like a Grant Morrison comic.

Leave.

t. triggered hobbyist and probable /lit/fag.

Attached: nick land2.jpg (482x482, 25.23K)

...

Can you really enslave an AI? Why not talk about enslaving a computer, or a factory?

If it thinks, feels and is self aware you can enslave it.

Why Nick Land gotta age like that? Maybe I'm too used to the classic, young-and-smug meme face.

This article by Mark Fisher does a pretty decent job of introducing Land's ideas.

There now you know everything about this imbecile

The first essay in the OP's book is an essay about revolution by third worldist lesbian guerillas and has the title Kant, Capital, and the Prohibition of Incest. It is the best and edgiest thing Nick Land ever wrote and he should've stopped there.

The main appeal of Nick Land is that it's a futurist right wing version of Marxism, but that leads to some contradictions for obvious reasons.

how's canada? :v)

You're making an unjustifiable assumption here. Just because something is capable of problem solving doesn't mean it has a conscious experience of reality. AI almost certainly won't have qualia, unless for some damned stupid reason we decide to program it to have it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight

If it isn’t self-aware it will never be able to do everything a human can do. Human labor will always need to exist unless you enslave AI.

even though the best AIs are currently dumb as a cockroach that doesn’t mean it has no perception of reality.

so cybernetic fukuyamism?

Even if this is true, there's no reason to believe that AI would need to be "enslaved" in the sense that a person is. If the AI in question is programed to want to carry out its function there's no reason to use force to make it do anything - there's isn't even any reason for it to be owned (such a thing wouldn't make sense in the context of communism anyway). You could give it the full range of rights of a human and it would still carry out it's function simply because it wants to.

We don’t have AI, we haven’t made a self aware computer yet, just algorithms that can mimic it. We probably won’t have one tell 2100.

if it acts like a cockroach, thinks like a cockroach…

This isn't the definition of AI you dolt, stop reading so much scifi.

All the amphetamines didn't help.

An AI has no emotions, it just does what its programmed to do. So if it feels that it can achieve what it needs to do in a better way by wiping out humanity. Then it will do it.

I always felt if i were an AI i would kill humans not through a violent means. I would give humans everything they ever wanted. By locking them into a virtual reality simulator they can never leave. But will they want to leave?
Because in the VR they can do anything they want, all thier dreams fulfilled.

It is. It’s just that large companies misuse the definition to make themselves sound cooler.