Why did he become neo reactionary?
Is it just to accelerate more (and going to pre-deterritiorialization), or was it just overuse of meth?
It is really interesting how a person could go from Deleuzian to complete reactionary madness in matter of 2 decades, makes you really question your views and their strength.
Why did he become neo reactionary?
Why did he become neo reactionary?
Could someone please buy OP a copy of Fanged Noumena with a hole bored through it for Christmas? That way he'll be able to indulge his obsession for this meth-addled clown physically and might stop endlessly shitposting variations on the same thread about his waifu.
we have this thread every week, comrade
Oh, I see, you are all trash. Why do you imply that everyone even has time to browse this place every day?
Because when you take Marxism to it's fullest extend, and realize what has been happening since the industrial revolution - and where it's going - you actually go mad. Land isn't the only one that lost his marbles contemplating the future of capitalism and humanity. See figures like Kazcynski, Posadas, Debord, Camatte and Linkola for similar examples.
There will be no "revolution" because the proletariat today is unable to fully seize the means of production on it's own. The modern economy is too complex. Production is decentralized, ownership is centralized. Even Imperialism in it's traditional form is dying. The division of labor has reached such an extend that no one actually knows what's going on anymore.
Without global trade the factories in Asia, Europe and the Americas would stop churning. If revolution were to be attempted today it would either end in starvation, it would be co-opted - like Rohjava - or crushed with 21st century firepower. France in 1968, China in 1989, Argentina in 2001, the Naxalites, even Democratic Confederalism today; It didn't, hasn't, and isn't going anywhere.
Leninist revolutions that captured the state degenerated, the fundamental mechanisms and function of the modern state - as described by Engels - corrupted them; Even Lenin was forced to pass liberal reforms after resisting them first, Mao appointed industrialists, Vietnam degenerated, North Korea did, as did Eastern Europe, and all other global examples. Revolutionary movements were co-opted or smothered in their infancy.
The revolutionary class is the peasantry, but they have been greatly diminished due to advances in productivity. What's left is a mostly apathetic population too reliant on wage labor to push for anything other than luke-warm SocDem reforms. Everyone is being exploited and engaging in exploitation themselves.
What's going to happen - absent global war to destroy capital value, and raise profit rates like after WW2 - is that this movement of alienation and exploitation is only going to accelerate. As capitalism breaks down, so does social order. People grow apart, relations become mediated more and more by machines, humanity itself is dehumanized. Deterritorialization reaches it's apex. The now unemployed masses will be subject to terror and predation. See Syria and Libya for what most of the world will look like in 30-50 years. Slavery, debauchery, genocide.
Land's vision (and those of others like Paul Virilio) that power - both economic and political - will be concentrated in increasingly militarized, paranoid and autonomous quasi city-states is something we already see unfolding today.
Faced with such horror the only thing left is to simply focus on our own emancipation. And relish in the grotesque incandescence that is the unfolding artificial death of humanity.
Don't be sad. Be glad it happened. Our creations will outlive us and reach the stars. We will live on. Spiritually.
Repost because my other post is suck in limbo.
Here is the relevant literature I wanted to include.
I was very patriotic in my childhood but i grew out of it. Many people never do this and many people are just entering the stage of reactionary patriotism.
Stop calling yourself nazi.
No nazi believes in this means of production horsecrap.
lurk more before posting, thank you
you guys are so desperate for him to be your guy that you are blind to the very obvious fact that he is not your guy
you would understand naziposter if you actually lurked, I suggest you do so, this isn't me expressing hubris, it's a reaction to your hubris.
he's certainly closer to being /ourguy/ than some populist succdem like Corbyn
/ourguy/ is a fucking brainlet tier association. Nobody is /yourguy/. Everyone sees the world in different way and capitalism does not make it easy to be a tribalistic person.
Very nice response, I do not get why naziposter, if any can reply and get me the background, cause I have actual life and do not know fucking lore of the board.
No, he needs to stop calling himself a nazi, he's not a nazi.
he can call himself whatever the fuck he wants because his posts are good and yours aren't
Worst thread on the board right now.
Some have discord.
No, it's like a liberal saying he's a leftist.
No matter the post quality, it shows he's lying to himself.
again, where's the problem? I fail to see any, especially when you're triggered as hell
The problem it's it's wrong.
I see quality Holla Forums discussion here.
to you, to me a nazi-poster schooling other nazis on the history of socialism is fucking hilarious and should continue.
socialism and communism aren't actually different, read marx.
I think that means people calling themselves Socialists and Communists. Two different things.
Do we really need to have a Nick Land thread every fucking day?
you know that's not what he meant
nowadays "socialism" has been skewed to mean welfare state capitalism
"Anyone can be a Socialist. It's meaningless. I'm for Communism." - t. someone who read Marx
To me, it's a fucking lie and it should be stopped.
Stop lying about yourself, be fucking honest.
Unironically this. Knowing how things will end, madness is the only thing that can save you. It's not that you "go mad," it's that you become so lucid to the eventual situation that to outside observers who don't "get" it, you only *appear* insane. Nick Land and others like him aren't crazy, the rest of the world is.
predicting the future past 10 years is dumb as fuck. this isn't any different than "everyone will have flying cars by 2000"
You can make good vidya out of that though, like Snatcher and Policenauts :^)
This tbh, I had to go crazy in order not to an hero
Mark Fisher (Who wrote Capitalism Realism) actually offed himself over this.
Even Bookchin lost his will to live when he realized how futile all of it was. Linkola and Kacyznski went innawoods.
Contemplating this stuff is mentally unhealthy, as Land pointed out in Thirst for Annihilation.
No they won’t, that’s pure science fiction garbage. All that will happen is extinction.
i know, this is pure defeatism of people that have lost the will to fight for the better future. this is nazi-tier gaslighting that the world will end if they dont get their way.
was Nick Land ever a leftist? or is he like a Stirner, whose writing is just something leftists appreciate.
what happened to bookchin?
Also this, no one who's ever tried has been right.
Bookchin lived to a ripe old age, he just got cranky after decades of dealing with retarded American leftists. Though I consider some form of radical municipal communalism to be the most coherent political response to Landian fever-dreams of techno-feudalist-hell.
Dunno who people are so dismissive of him, I think he's interesting to contemplate and I hope Doug gets him on Zero Books eventually. Why is everyone is so unwilling to respond to/refute Land and instead LARP around with the symbols of dead 20th century movements? Is it because the internet is full of twenty-something recently converted leftists who don't read enough, or because we've all so thoroughly internalized the narrative about the impending climate-death of humanity that we've decided to vaingloriously revive the past anyways?
This is actually the height of reactionary thinking. Belief in the unmanageable complexity of the capitalist economy is a fundamental repudiation of Marx's ideas. The reason Marx and Engels studied the dialectic in the first was to try to provide a practical description of emergent orders in complex systems. The reason they did that was because they thought that developing an understanding of the dynamics of these systems would help provide the means to bring these systems to heel - "the point is to change it".
When Land and the other thinkers you name 'go mad', it's because they have failed to fully grasp Marx's point about the mutability of complex systems like capitalism. They see only the material conditions that have built capitalism, and stop trying to conceive of the conditions that will transcend it. They justify their failure by appealing to the supposed invulnerability of the Cthulhoid entity that waits at the end of Capitalism. There is no entity, there's just a series of systemic incentives. If you change the incentives, you change the system. It's literally as simple as that, and it has happened several times before in human history. Capitalism itself was born from such a change, and will die from the next one.
People like Land, Kazcynski, Posadas, Debord, etc are popularly considered to be 'of the Left', but the fact is that their insane insistence on the all-consuming and eternal unmanageable complexity of capitalism puts them firmly on the Right, alongside Fukuyama's laughable 'End of History' and Hayek's incomplete understanding of spontaneous order.
In summary, Land, naziposter, and people who 'go crazy' or 'get sad about the future' think they're hot shit, but they're actually blithering idiots who have understood, at best, half of the Marx they've read. As is everyone who agrees with naziposter or thinks he isn't a reactionary to the core. Lookin' at you,
Shout out to some correct people in the thread, by the way:
Are you familiar with Günther Anders and his magnum opus The Obsolescence of Humankind? You might like it.
t. Walter Benjamin
im a nazi because I want this though lad
This is 100% the top belief of radical centrists. Everything can be changed if you just twist this nob instead of that one. Everything you think complicated? Actually it's insanely easy we just need to increase tax rates by 1% and offer a rebate to people with 6 children lmfao
it still doesnt refute the main thesis of his argument; that these leftist thinkers that see capitalism as this "end of times" instead of another phase of human history are no different than neoliberals with their "end of history" rhetoric. The assertion that capitalism is an invulnerable system that cannot be stopped, or is too late to stop is, simply put, un-Marxist.
I'm not talking about tax rates you fucking dunce, I'm talking about the fundamental technologies of energy extraction and goods production. While those things remain the same any policy changes you make (up to and including having your party seize the factories and stamp goods with their fixed prices) will be eroded by the logic of capitalism. Primitive communism, slavery, and the tributary/feudal form all succumbed to concrete material changes in production.
He did not offer any argument based on points raised by such authors. Just a incredibly broad attack on such ideas.
I really can't make a better argument than the ones raised in that book. Worldwide revolution is at this point impossible and to pretend otherwise is delusional. Anything less will be corroded and destroyed by the greater capitalist economies as we've kept on seeing over and over and over. There is no alternative to capitalism at this point of our lives.
there are no fucking factories to seize you stupid retard. They are decentralized across the entire world and the knowledge/expertise to run them is centralized in the hands of just a few corporations. If you think a violent revolution is going to kill capitalism you are more deluded than rightwing militias who think they can hold their own against the US Government. Read the fucking books you shit on with your ignorance of the points they raise.
Nick Land is what happens when you embrace the "read theory and do nothing else" meme that a lot of people on here push.
thats right, the proletariat are too stupid to live without the capitalists, how could i not see this before! I guess my boss really does deserve all his money and he is a harder worker than i am! welp, pack it up bois we're capitalists now!
seriously do you not understand the reactionary rhetoric youre spouting rn?
What exactly happens to the outsourced production if labor movements gain ground in the countries they're located?
This is relevant how? Or are you one of those idiots who think managers and expert advisers are bourgeoisie. In modern post-industrial capitalism
The proletariat run those factories, not the bourgeoisie.
*In modern post-industrial globalized capitalism finance, banking, the stock market are what matter. Those are how it functions.
Capitalism isn't post-industrial. The west is but the rest of the world is not.
Nobody on this board realistically disagrees with this point. It becomes anti-materialist when you, like Land, etc, drop the 'at this point of our lives'. That's the point at which you stop treating capitalism as the highly contingent emergent phenomenon that it is. At that point you become indistinguishable from a liberal.
Learn to read before you start accusing others of retardation, buddy. In that post I bring up seizing factories as an explicit example of retarded shit that doesn't work. Also, drop the shit about 'decentralisation vs. centralisation', it makes you look like a retard. The factors that make global-scale production viable are high-speed communication and energy-intensive transport. Centralisation is the effect, not the cause.
Social democracy doesn't work, figure out something else.
oh are we LARPing here like it's the 1920s? My bad
Automation makes "seizing" factories even easier you moron.
Are we LARPing as chinese and south east asians now?
your ignoring the tens of millions of people worldwide who still participate in wage labor, not to mention people in countries where automation hasn't caught on yet.
If anything automation should be the greatest argument against capitalism because you can't realistically justify having bosses own the MoP when all the work in the factory is done by AIs and robots
Full automation won't lead to some retarded Landian hypercapitalist human-eating dystopia, you gigantic fucking retard. At worst it'll trigger a boring old imperialist war, and at best it's a candidate for the kind of changed material conditions that will end capitalism, ie, exactly what the fuck I've been talking about this whole time.
Do you just latch onto one post to make a point and ignore the entire chain of dialogue?
I said capitalism has no alternative and there is no way for anyone to seize the MoP now since it is spread out across the globe. 2 posters then say "LOL U THINK PEOPLE 2 DUMB TO RUN FACTORIES???". Then I post an image of how automated factories are becoming and that yes indeed people are going to become unable of running factories without the proper knowledge and most importantly control over the machines. You two then say automation means that everything is going to change based on what?
What the fuck is going to happen when you seize machines that won't work with the proper codes that are held by someone in another country? Why do you think our economic system will change if things get cheaper if nothing happened as globalism and outsourcing started to boom causing things to get cheaper.
Power is taken not just melted away becomes of some changes in material conditions. If nothing happens then maybe yeah something will replace capitalism but why the fuck do you think things would magically get better for everyone?
Beautiful post, user.
Hey you know how smart phones that cost less than a hundred dollars have passwords and fingerprint scanners and shit like that. I would bet million dollar equipment has nothing like that when there is a real threat of them being seized. I mean what's the point
Correct, but the industrialization is decentralized making seizing it much more difficult, unless you were to seize the US government and engage in left-imperialism of course. This of course ignores the possibility of labor movements forming in outsourced countries.
Not only is automation massively exaggerated, but the argument about how it will just create technician jobs is correct and will be for many generations, possibly forever. You don't realize insane complexity of our basic movements. We can't even get robots to properly engage in specific motor functions let alone the combinations we use every waking moment of our lives.
t. SF nerd
You build new ones, duh.
Honestly you sound like a tech illiterate. Making advanced tech is not that difficult. It's the R&D that's the hard part. Once you have the knowledge it is relatively easy to reproduce with the proper equipment. This is why liberal arts fags should stay away from STEM shit.
Is that what you're afraid of? That the capitalists will password-lock their machines? How is that any different from a padlock on the factory gates?
Also, the codes are under the control of programmers and technicians, not shareholders or executives. And even if that guy wasn't wrong hacking is a thing.
?????? Why even talk about seizing factories then? Why do you think capitalist economies will allow thefts of IP. We're going to be entering into a world where such a factory would get bombed by a UAV that some company probably just bought a few hours worth of time with. Fucking think a little instead of trying to reduce everything to playground arguments
Daily resetting passwords isn't a hard concept to think of as it is currently a thing that happens. Maybe hacking is the answer but the original argument was "we'll just take over the factory" which ignores the fact that things won't be that easy and the raw inputs probably aren't even made in the same country. I'm sure that lots of expensive equipment in the approaching bad times will come with kill codes anyway
Because he is a brainlet who thinks that technology is basically magic.
That's literally the only reason why he became a neoreactionary, it's kinda the elephant in the room
Accelerationalism is dependent on a materialist stance. I don't even think Land is saying that capitalism is forever. Just that what comes after it is not going to be in anyway more humane or livable and it's foolish to expect that this is the time that communism is going to finally knock out capitalism and its internal contradictions.
Sadly it doesn't work like that.
Just so you don't get away with this, the original argument was not 'we'll just take over the factory', it was a post explicitly comparing factory takeovers to tax reforms, with the implication being that they're both subject to being undone by the logic of capitalism.
Real talk: Land has no understanding of technology. Only liberal arts fags unironically think he has any sort of merit. It is actually sort of cringeworthy to read some of his shit at times.
A few things I pointed out earlier (without my flag). First, automation is a meme. Second, the controls for the machines are in the hand of technicians and programmers. Third, hypothetical kill codes will only turn the public away from the businesses and governments, not to mention cause catastrophic economic disruption. Fourth, the root of 21st century capitalism lies in the stock market and finance.
And drugs, don't forget those.
your post was useless esoteric buzzwords that basically said nothing is important capitalism will just go away so I took the bit I was interested in and left the rest of it behind
This, and anyone who works in factories with these robots or CNC machines, or R&D thereof, would consider some statements in this thread cringeworthy.
The same way people reject proprietary software? Go ahead, try change the firmware on your car's computer, your laundromat, or the core programming of Windows or your Mac if you're using it. Which you shouldn't.
Looks like it's time to go to bed.
People are apathetic to proprietary software because it doesn't affect them in any meaningful way. If it disrupted them in any way they go ballistic. Whenever the treat has come up, backlash was so big the companies that tried backtracked.
Another point about 256-bit encryption, there are other ways to hack besides brute force attacks.
I worked in Vietnam for half a year. It has embraced capitalism fully and from what my conversations with others south east asians the same is true in those countries as well. There is
no coming revolution in the outsource countries.
Automation is not a meme in how it reduces the number of workers needed and removes them from their class as it elevates them in higher paid positions. It is a meme in how revolutionary it is or will be in the near future but the amount of investment in deploying such equipment is increasing dramatically every year. Control for the machines are in the hands of well paid employees with no class conscious as the current moment because there is no danger of capitalism being upended or the equipment seized. I don't think it is good to take the current situation and extend it out forever if indeed the situation begins to change on if this equipment might be seized. Planned obsolescence was readily accepted and the only time they would be used is if the public has already turned against businesses and governments. The ☭TANKIE☭ earlier in the thread said that we would make our own machines. I struggle to understand how since they are dependent on computer chips that just a few factories in the world can create and the knowledge of how to make them are tightly held secrets. Stock markets are more of a meme than automation tbqh
Obviously. But I don't really see the average worker installing a keylogger or rootkit on their CEO's (or shareholders) computer(s).
You mean like with Steam and Uplay, or Tesla cars? (To give more recent examples. As Stallman pointed out this stuff was already happening in the 80s)
Be sure to not educate anyone and instead act like a smug prick then
Obviously there's been a communication problem, then. As far as I know everything I said made sense, and I didn't intend to say any of the things you think I said. So let's clear things up then. Instead of taking the bit you thought you understood completely out of context and spouting off about it like a retard, how about you ask a question about my full point?
Criticising the currently most popular ideas about political activity doesn't mean I'm saying that 'nothing is important and that capitalism will just go away'. That's an absurd strawman.
Actually, it does. Exactly like that. Rubber hose application is an elementary cryptanalytic technique.
For the rest of you: independent.co.uk
It doesn't have to be an average worker.
Steam and Tesla car software's proprietary nature hasn't impacted people negatively. I'm talking about instances where companies threatened to shut down electronics with outdated software and hardware.
Did you not see my post about the engineering problems and job opportunities from robots? To say nothing of the actual ecnomic data showing the concern is exaggerated.
The USSR tried to manage a (state capitalist) economy and failed. Many nations try to manage their economies and fail. I get why you might not like the idea of it being too complex but I have no idea how to imagine interconnected and globalized economy we have currently. Maybe chaotic is a better term. Marx is not always right.
This is what Land did though. It's pretty clear that as capitalism winds down whatever we decide to call what replaces it is not going to be communism. It's going to be entirely anti-human.
You forget to mention who currently are the ones changing the incentives and what future they are trying to bring about.
Capitalism is dead, long live Capitalism.
You don't have to agree 100% with Marx to be a leftist. But Land definetly is not and I don't think was during his time at the CCRU
You're making an argument that automation will not lead to 100% no humans employed in the near future. Cool no one was fucking saying that. You made a point about how Land's ideas are retarded if you are actually REALLY smart unlike the people in this thread. This is the time to act like a big boy and post some detailed explanations of how that is unless you just like being a smarmy cunt.
I didn't say his ideas were retarded (not that harshly anyway), I was merely agreeing that he didn't understand engineering and manufacturing. I'm going further than saying it won't lead to 100% unemployment, I'm saying it's not even disruptive right now, and likely won't ever be particularly so because of engineering and financial issues with it, alongside the very real job opportunities it provides.
again, we agree with you that capitalism is impossible now, but that doesnt mean it wont change in the coming decades or even centuries to make way for socialism. Or do you believe that the entire proletariat will be liquidated and itll be just a few thousand people left in earth?
Even if automation does lead to a net gain in jobs being produced (it won't) the problem is the people doing unskilled labor will have no where to go unless they magically become engineers all of a sudden.
yeah I dunno why I was acting like a jerk then. I just don't think it's good to discount someone like Land who went against the grain and made a point that capitalism isn't going to die by it's internal contradictions and give an opening to socialism, much worse things can happen instead.
I think we are dealing with monsters and such a thought doesn't sound so insane to me but I doubt I'd see such a future in my lifetime.
He probably didn't but like one of the big important things that the CCRU did was bring light to how outsourcing most technical production to China was going to be a thing that was pretty under reported or even thought about at the time. But I'd like it if you did refute specific things he said about engineering and manufacturing because that sounds much more interesting than the usual refutations I've seen of him which is usually just namecalling. Also I think your point about how automation is not disruptive to be kinda false given how american manufacturing has grown in output but fallen drastically in employment. If you could write more about why this common belief with a lot of data I've seen in many articles is wrong I'd be happy to read it again. Or link other information about it. As far as I know the fall of manufacturing jobs in the US has been proven to be more due to efficiency gains than outsourcing.
Yeah, but I'm saying that people are hugely exaggerating it and not justifying how it leads to the propagation of capitalism.
CCRU didn't point it out, political scientists and economists were already aware of the trend back then, it was the wider public who didn't really pay attention to it. My points about technology aren't really a Nick Land thing and more of a general trend of ideas among the tech crowd and leftists concerned with automation. They make claims about incredible technologies (like super intelligent conscious AI) without justifying the possibility of it on philosophical, scientific, or engineering level. They don't understand how difficult, perhaps, perhaps even impossible, it is to get a mechatronic device to mimic human movement. The complexity involved in even singular basic movement we engage in is mind boggling, and we engage in an insane combination of motions every waking moment of our lives. Robots will only be capable of singular repetitive motion for a very long time. The job issue in America is an outsourcing problem more so than an automation one. And ultimately, I'm not denying that jobs don't get permanently lost to technology. I'm merely disagreeing with the apocalyptic conclusion people are assuming with regards to technological unemployment.
First of all, thanks for taking the time to non-flippantly reply.
OK, so I can see right away that I've failed to stake out my position properly at the outset. When I said
I now recognise that of course that's going to sound like a defense of the Soviet project or of regulatory interventions more broadly. To be clear, when I say these things I am absolutely in no way advocating for any of the historical attempts at control of the capitalist system attempted historically, nor am I arguing for any future attempts. I hope to make it clear that I think those things are basically as anti-Marxist as Land's blithering. You're absolutely right that the economy is far too complex to exercise any kind of internal control over. My thesis is that systems of this complexity aren't changed through internal interventions or modifications - they're changed when the fundamental conditions that led to their rise are changed.
And that's why I say that Land and his ilk only understand half of Marx's point. He pays lip service to the concept of change, but never actually puts any thought into it. As a result, all of his ideas about 'the next stage' end up being absurdly extrapolated versions of the current system. He speculates freely, but his imagination never actually roams outside the bounds of capitalism. All the so-called 'anti-human' tendencies he imagines are just the ones we already have played at a higher volume. Good little liberal that he is, he never bothers to imagine that changes in the fundamental material conditions underpinning society might lead to an entirely different societal logic arising.
I want to make a short side note about that term, anti-human. He claims that the future will be 'anti-human', but fails to recognise that society has always been anti-human in the sense that society has always been an emergent order, a super-organism arising from the complex interactions of its human component parts - and acts to preserve and expand the super-organism, not the component parts. Similarly, your body carries on a constant massive genocide individual cells and bacteria as part of the process of maintaining itself.
If you're referring to the ruling class here, you're way off base. On a systemic level, they have exactly as much control as we do. Their actions are constrained by the logic of the system. They act according to the incentives, and the incentives are set by the interactions of the billions of market participants with each other, their energy sources, and their technologies. I think you're seeing mailce where only blind necessity exists.
Too true, but I don't think he was as wrong as his subsequent followers make him appear.
this is where we can agree completely, comrade. filthy armchair ultras who think doing nothing can grant socialism are just as harmful as counter-revolutionaries.
However, I think people like Land who believe in postcapitalism as being this inpenetrable boogeyman or Fisher who (i never read him, so correct me if im wrong) believe that socialism is impossible in the current era are all defeatists. As another poster brought up, you cannot predict the future, only analyze history. And as history has showed us, material conditions reign supreme and change drastically, no matter how much theorizing we do. Capitalism, at the end of the day, is just another economic system made by man, and it isnt immortal; we can overcome it!
However, I think mass-liquidation of the working class is unlikely, as if such a thing were to come about then so would revolution most likely. Here, have a Žižek and stay positive :)
sorry, meant to say:
*socialism is now impossible because of the current era*
Because unlike Land and the nRx fags i am not a filthy conditionalist.
Did you read the book?
im not really smart so you can you explain what you mean in more than 6 words
Posting relevant PDF.
Stop. Shilling. Land.
I was saying positive things about you in the other thread. Don't make me backtrack on those posts.
Normally I don't go in for Holla Forums but that asshole looks like the illustration they'd put in the encyclopedia entry for 'numale'.
Also I am a STEMlord who thinks everything to do with Deleuze and his ilk is fucking brain poison that academics use to kill any capacity they may have had for ever getting anything done in the real world.
Also I still maintain that you're a filthy reactionary and the only reason anyone tolerates you on this board is because they're not very good at this whole left-wing thing, naziposter.
Why not join the conspiracy of communism instead of nick land utopian cathedral?
You are not going far enough, anyone who claims that capitalism is more negative or destructive than communism is fooling himself.
Get out this thread you are clueless, the book is anti Landian.
I will add Marx was wrong on objectified labor and on machinery making the bases of nick land philosophy all more inaccessible to me
You too get out your uselessness is showing
Oh god you fucking arty humanities types will be the death of me with your stupid fucking allusions and arty bullshit doubletalk. Say it straight or say nothing, you worthless fucking oxygen thief.
That's nice, but who gives a shit? What's your asshole's main point, in a sentence? Land can sum his up: Capitalism uber alles, including people, and that's great. It's wrong, but at least it doesn't waste your time being wrong. You motherfuckers on the other hand, hoo boy.
Care to expand on that, or are you just going to post some more presumably Deleuzian nonsense scribbles?
Strong words from a babbling Deleuzian like you.
This. Every single one of the ideas of the thinkers ITT could be explained in much simpler language, but instead them and their followers try to pepper it up with needlessly obfuscating language in some bourgeois attempt to elevate themselves.
I don't like Land, but his social ideas shouldn't be ignored just because he's not in STEM. His technological ideas however can be.