I'm still missing it, are you saying capital is ownership, or some new definition?
If you are saying capital is ownership, are you saying relationships between owners has created an oppressive conglomeration where even owners are owned?
Is he saying Capitalism is a Lovecraftian entity, not Capital itself?
>>Couldn't you stop this by banning lending at interest?
>10194608
>No because there's other assets that gain money while not losing value, real estate that's rented, stocks,bonds, ext.
But those assets (unlike loans, etc) don't increase in value as a result of lending at interest or usury.
And to the extent that lending at interest and/or usury were banned or limited, the value of real property, etc, would grow more slowly.
So the agricultural revolution? Or even earlier when we were adopted by fruits as seed delivery devices?
Ownership of capital doesn't liberate you from capital, just like political mastery doesn't liberate you from politics. You're trapped in the web of the same negotiations and relations that you were before.
Shit is still being produced, and it's being produced because you want, but not exactly what you want - rather, what the collective wants, or even more precise what will yield the most profit. Profit and maximisation can exist only within scarcity, so scarcity is produced and enforced. Furthermore, it's not just the natural scarcity, but altered scarcity that is the result of totality of capital individually striving to produce conditions in which each cell (or the atom) gets the biggest yield. That's where the Lovecraft stuff comes from.
Creepy cyborgs once made by man's hand and given a utility function surround the playground of remaining humanity, trying their best so the humans fulfill their utility functions. They feed them, because dead people can't make them feel good, but not too much, or otherwise the humans will tell them to fuck off and stop giving them meaningless tokens of value. They can't ditch the hairy apes and play with themselves because their dim-witted creators were smart enough to let them define value, so they continue to toy with the miserable race.
Could it be said that more ownership and power is the way to worship Capital?
Saturn Pagan Satan worship kind of thing?
Baphomet?
Is selling your soul to the devil, getting Capital's blessings?
So automation of production is the main point of Land? He's afraid of the singulatiry?
Automation in the general sense, I'd desribe it as integration. News come out that CEO of X-Corp raped a woman; stocks drop; an outside influence, seemingly. But somebody profits. Soon, media conglomerates publish such things because it's profitable and don't when it's not, and somebody pays them to, one who wants stocks to rise or drop. Later, CEO is a mole inserted in the corporate ladder by somebody who wants to reveal the story when he climbs to the top, or even more curiously CEO plays against the corp by himself, or is subtly programmed to rape somebody, and so on and so forth. That's also automation, in a way, and the process is the eldritch God in question, an eternal drive for everything to be schizophrenically connected and looped to drive profits for somebody inside the system, the pawns of this God.
Automation in a literal sense of course is part of the process.
I think your confusion stems from the fact that Land's capital is synechdochal, inherently connected to the whole. Calling it capitalism obscures the idea that it doesn't have alternatives, so he doesn't. Even Polanyan grass-roots reciprocal sudo-communism races toward integration, for example.
You seem like a retard. Is this what Jung's Ni sounds like?
No, during the agricultural revolution there was still no concept of capital and private means of production. I mean, even in Roman and Feudal times there still wasn't a sense of industry and capitalistic risk taking as we have from the late XVIII century.