History

wat

if private ownership of the MoP is abolished then I am free to decide if I make a machine more efficient or not, I am free to decide if I use it or not. Under capitalism the capitalist must improve the productivity or else faces going bankrupt.

yes, i believe nick land is prophetic of an overlord AI which is the inevitabile result of technological reproduction coming to a centralised brain hub of sorts. The operations of capital will come in service to itself in anti-human conscious terms.

this sounds like some primie shit fam tbh

this is precisely an idealised imagination of Plato's forms. All is descended from divine forms of utility and all fracture into such use in material plane and so on and so on.

It's not primitivist, it's a refutation of primitivism that suggests that no matter what, we are forced to develop our technology unless we completely abstain from ever touching a tool ever again. Seeing as a tool can be as primitive as a stick, I rather doubt this is feasible.

The market is but one system of evolutionary pressure. Even if we abolish the capitalist, the market, money, etc. we are not free from evolutionary pressures that force us to strive for ever greater ability or perish. This just happens under capitalism because capitalism creates its own system of evolutionary pressures.

I actually was thinking more along the lines of Aristotelan thought at the time what with the distinction between life and tools as tools have a teleological cause that life does not. I suppose you could make that but I'm not specifically arguing for the "forms" of greater technological development, rather that new technologies are developed from the internal and external relations of each technological idea as they must develop.

Also this actually includes non-human species too, such as crows or octopi, really, it's just that humans are so much more developed for this that we're able to sprint where they can barely crawl.
Even if humanity wipes itself out, crows will eventually develop AI.

I suppose that this means that the dialectical relationship between life and death results in machines?

i legit dont get your point, before the industrial revolution we were developing tools yet the methods of production were different from capitalism.

the development of tools doesnt mean you are reproducing capitalism, hell I even dare to affirm that we could have capitalism without the development of tools, it would be more inefficient at producing commodities but it wouldn't be a requisite. A monopoly could get away with it as it would face no competition, thus it would not have the necessity of develop more efficient machines.

I am not talking about simply "capitalism" in itself. What I mean is that the development of tools implies further development and refinement of tools regardless of whether you "want" to do that or not.

I beg your pardon, what?

also, in the OP, you claim that the development of, let's call them, ultra-efficient machines that would abolish labour altogether is sabotaged by the capitalists to mantain the status quo.

If that is the case, abolishing capitalism would mean that the posibility of creating a self-repairing, self-refueling, self-reproducing machine could be a possibility (just theoretical, we don't know if it'd be thermodinamically possible). If it is a posibility, then it's the ruling class the agent that replicates the cycle of capitalism, not the machines, as machines wouldn't need human input

well nick land says that if the destiny of capital has been understood, then we should accelerate the processes of production for the sake of reaching it's limits, for it's own sake. He points to how China produces capital, but also stabilises it through authoritarian government, he says that this is the future of the liberal government - Zizek also agrees that this state organisation is a probable future for the west.

This is the understanding of deleuze, in how capitalism deterritorialises all things, and how these factors lead to it's own destruction, but also, deregulation is chaotic and dangerous, whereas land takes a particularly anti-anthropocentric take on it.

explain how the fuck is the development of tools equal to capitalism if we developed tools under under several methods of production that were, objectively, not capitalism

ok, that makes a lot of sense

HOWEVER

How the fuck was an Homo-Habilis a capitalists if there was no written law, no property rights, no state and no commodity production for exchange because barter was not invented yet?

Ah.

I don't mean that the development of tools is equal to capitalism, but rather that capitalism is a stage of tool self-development that co-exists with, drives, and even surpasses the development of human society.

I have genuinely been thinking of the idea of development towards an entirely new type of capital for the sake of ending capitalism by making what I was describing as "lightweight capital", for the specific purpose of acceleration. Although I was planning on implementing it in a market system to end the market system.

ok

but you still can develop tools under a method of production that is literally, not capitalism

Yes, I don't disagree, the point I'm making is that if we take historical materialism seriously, we're not looking at the development of human society, we're looking at the development of tools.

it's both tbh fam

base-superstructure

develop tools to satisfy demand, demand increases, develop tools to satisfy demand, demand increases….

also, to prove my point, look at those stupid boxes whose only purpose is to turn themselves off, like those boxes where you hit a switch and a hand or a stick comes out to turn itself off

aside from being a toy, this machine cannot be used to produce commodities, in a way, developing tools for the sake of developing tools would not reproduce the capital cycle, we would need to satisfy demand found on the market

Oh, sure, I absolutely agree, but the point there if we start seriously looking at it is that humanity ends up forming the superstructure of this cycle and that the base of unliving machines do not actually need us as an absolute.

yes, theoretically the cycle of capitalism could be reproduced by any intelligent lifeform, and they would need to develop machines to increase profits
but grug making machines isn't capitalism per se

also, instead of developing machines you could just demand workers to work harder. The development of machines wouldn't happen in this case yet the capitalist mode of production still reproduces itself

My dude, you are too caught up in looking solely at capitalism. That is not the point here. The point is to take a look at historical materialism in a long term sense.

Put another way, if you are looking solely at how capitalism operates, yes, what you are describing happens. However, if you look at human history as it is developed by its own usage of tools, capitalism is now just a stage of the continuous material base of machinery self-replicating through living beings.

I doubt accelerationists read Deleuze.