Do you think there's a difference between Postone's 'shearing pressure' and accelerationism's spironomic model of capitalist time?
-
-
Replying to @qdnoktsqfr @EBBerger
Spirodynamics with a wacky Hegelian hair-cut.
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likes -
... "The exploitation of human labor remains inscribed into the core of the system." -- What does 'human' really add that Capital could care about? ...
4 replies 1 retweet 15 likes -
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?
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
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
autonomic minds are capable of replacing the necessary human will (and already are, e.g. in the stock market)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HopefulAbandon @Outsideness and
They’re capable of mobilizing things according to certain human dictates of value that cannot be approach heuristically, and they aren’t consumptive in the same sense—the relevant sense. Nobody to sell to, really.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
This is extremely close to @EBBerger 's argument. It's ultimately about the limits of abstraction for the capitalist mechanism.
-
-
Replying to @Outsideness @HopefulAbandon and
Right. I guess you could argue that capitalism could just become transaction amongst capitalists, or totemistic masturbatory production for production’s sake (tho that places too many bets on nonmaterial factors if you ask me)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Ab__Elba @HopefulAbandon and
The notion that production-for-production is "masturbatory" is a somewhat bizarre consumerist prejudice.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 19 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.