I know, libertarianism has this unreformed humanism that's just too hard to shake off.
-
-
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @jelly2nes and
It wasn't a normatively humanistic statement.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
-
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @mfckr_ and
my point is: it's humanistic to think capital isn't in a centuries long ascent towards autonomy.
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @mfckr_ and
capital is a form of human intersubjectivity. the only ontological autonomy it can have is against competing forms
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @schakalsynthetc @cyborg_nomade and
Capital is machinery ("roundabout production").
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @cyborg_nomade and
machinery doesn't seem to be any easier to define orthogonally to human intersubjectivity than capital. are humans not-machines?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @schakalsynthetc @cyborg_nomade and
Machinery is by far the more extensive category.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Outsideness @cyborg_nomade and
that's what limits its usefulness here (if I'm understanding you correctly)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @schakalsynthetc @cyborg_nomade and
I've no idea why you think that. Your commitment to the conceptual integrity of capital and humanity is not supported by it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
... There's historical integrity, between terrestrial capital and the human species, of course. But that's it.
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.