Ideology, Intelligence, and Capital with Nick Land

Ideology, Intelligence, and Capital with Nick Land

32 thoughts on “Ideology, Intelligence, and Capital with Nick Land

  1. My opinion? This is one of the most masturbatory conversations I've EVER heard. The hubris of "Accelerationism" on the left- ramp up Capitalism in the hope that the system collapses, causing huge suffering, mass civil uprising, civil war, death – all in the hope that some Marxist elites can swoop in and say – "Ha! Ha! I told you so -now let ME tell you how things should be". The way you chaps pussy foot around this point is kind of subhuman.
    Ah yes – and the way Nick Land says the word "Emancipation" causes me to dry heave every time he says it.

  2. In a century, Land will be just as influential and infamous as Nietzsche, Stirner and Heidegger are today.

  3. Great interview.
    question: why do you refer to everything as a capitalistic process? there is no such thing as capitalism. there is only life. thus, the machines will not create their own “capitalism” they will simply try and create more life. machines will not use blockchain to become better amazon shoppers. they will use blockhain to fine tune their algorithms and create a dominance hierarchy. example: the machine with the most btc is the leader.

    life is amazing. stop being a marxist and become a crypto anarchist.

    look into kevin kellys technium hypothesis.

    peace. my brother.

  4. Land's analogies are probably what makes his vision, or at least some of his intuitions, still profoundly interesting. He contextualizes things by giving them a place in a wider (at least, wider than its own) coherent system. This should be philosophy, though: placing concepts in the system that appeals to them the most in order to understand what kind of potential or actual function they carry.

  5. I'm not sure I understand the analogy between critique and bitcoin, but here is a go at it.

    1) So, critique insists on a distinction between objectivity and object, against metaphysics. I take this to mean, in Kantian key, that one cannot confuse the conditions that structure phenomena for those that structure noumena, i.e. we must not confuse things as they appear for-us, and how things are in themselves.

    2) Bitcoin proposes a peer to peer currency exchange system that bypasses the mediation of a trusted third party qua "central commanding hub". The destitution of such centralized command systems, first by the internet and second by Bitcoin, is identified as the overcoming of the "the supreme metaphysical error" analogous to what "objects" are for pre-critical philosophy,

    So I suppose the analogy is: phenomena are to metaphysically postulated objects as bitcoin is to trusted third-party mediated currency exchange protocols.

    4) But this doesn't quite seem to fit. What is the subject, for Kant, if not a "central command system" which produces representations and so determines the conditions of possibility for every object of experience? If Bitcoin is the abolition of such a centralized command system in favor of a distributed system, then it is surely, at least post-Kantian, and thus not analogous to phenomenal constitution. It does not trade third-party trusted constitution by some other centralized constitution.

    5) However, this does not mean it is not still critical. If Bitcoin is the realization of critique, it is because the incipient Kantian apparatus was precisely still overladen with metaphysical assumptions, i.e. the transcendental subject was still a metaphysical construction. But insofar as it dispenses of any notion of centralized command system, the blockchain actualizes a genuine post-metaphysical system of informational exchange, that does not require the unifying agency of a subject, and thus which escapes the lingering metaphysical burden in Kant's first attempt at critique.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *