This is where I get stuck with anti-anthropocentric readings of capital though, sure capital doesn't care whether the labor is human or not, *but* surely the fact *only* human labor has allowed it to accelerate would be an important factor for it?
-
-
Sure, we're an important historical factor for it. To deny that would veer into fanaticism.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @meta_nomad and
Does capital itself remain human, necessarily?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Ab__Elba @meta_nomad and
Capital was never human, but only symbiotically engaged with the human.
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @meta_nomad and
Capital can refer to the class or to the assets it mobilizes along certain lines—but the latter doesn’t have the character of capital outside the former
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Ab__Elba @Outsideness and
If you’re arguing that, given that the choices of the class are less conspiratorial and more emergent, “capital” as an will-having-object can be conceived of as having a certain difference, I can get that, but even that presupposes human nodes
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Ab__Elba @Outsideness and
The value-price distinction even only obtains when humans are part of the equation, even if that equation isn’t anthropocentric—I guess you could conceive of the assets and lines of mobilization as in some sense “possessing” the class, but that still presupposes humanity.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Ab__Elba @Outsideness and
Even an anti-human capitalism requires some sort of humanity to negate—I don’t see how runaway computer/human extinction capitalism is different than a blender we forgot to turn off on our way out of the house. Capitalism requires human subjects to act on to be capitalism.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Outsideness @meta_nomad and
Agreed—and the symbiosis fits the classical Aristotelian definition of a monster as combination w/o actual unity. From that then, I’m not sure how it can exist w/o human labor—whose value is being extracted by whom?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
It needs robots. From the perspective of Capital Teleology, humans are best thought of as stand-in robots, rather than robots as substitute humans.
-
-
Replying to @Outsideness @meta_nomad and
Can you really extract the “labor” of a robot any more than you could The “labor” of a prehistoric flint knife? That seems like anthropocentrism, some sort of negation-haunting that attributes human categories to inhuman things.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Ab__Elba @Outsideness and
I agree that to the capitalist, workers as laborers are preferably replaced with robots—workers as consumers not so much. Capitalists don’t stamp garbage out of plastic so they can contemplate the product, it’s value extraction.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.