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.
Carter Young
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
Brandon Bailey
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?
Benjamin Price
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.
Gabriel Murphy
ok
but you still can develop tools under a method of production that is literally, not capitalism
Henry Gonzalez
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.
Elijah Powell
it's both tbh fam
base-superstructure
develop tools to satisfy demand, demand increases, develop tools to satisfy demand, demand increases….
Christopher Bell
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
Oliver Ortiz
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.
Christopher Evans
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
