Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Let's just say that greed doesn't even exist in an individual sense, but only in a larger material sense. As you said, most people won't come out and say "greed is good," or "I am greedy." Greed cannot be measured based on "an intense, selfish desire for X" except for the presence of the desired object. Greed manifests in no other way. And because of that, I don't care to trace it back to a human actor. Homeless people might be greedy, but since they have no money to be greedy with, they don't show up on charts of capital distribution. That's why I'm relating it to money, since, in our culture, value is measured in terms of dollars and greed can only be discerned via the circulation of capital.

I don't know what else to say.

Because you're equivocating greed with accumulation, and divorcing it from human action, thoughts, etc. May as well start talking about lakes, rivers, aquifers, and oceans and their insatiable greed for water.

You can find a lot of clues about things via "capital distribution", but greed is tenuous, unless you have come to the a priori conclusion that "lots of money" = "greed".

Then this specifically:

they have no money to be greedy with

So spending money is greedy?

 

[Einherjar86]

No, I'm not equating greed with accumulation! I'm saying that the material effects of greed engrave themselves in capital. Amounts fluctuate, so accumulation doesn't simply mean "greed"; but you can follow the amounts, trace where it goes, where it doesn't go, and you can make substantiated claims about greed as a concrete factor in capital dispersal.

Furthermore, it's not being divorced from human action. As I've already said, it's being divorced from human intention and thought; specifically not action. Action is all we have to work with.

You can't measure greed as intention. You can't substantiate it, and you can't verify it. It doesn't exist for investigatory purposes as originating in someone's brain. It exists in action, and in circulation.

You just butchered everything I've said.

 

[Dak]

No, I'm not equating greed with accumulation! I'm saying that the material effects of greed engrave themselves in capital. Amounts fluctuate, so accumulation doesn't simply mean "greed"; but you can follow the amounts, trace where it goes, where it doesn't go, and you can make substantiated claims about greed as a concrete factor in capital dispersal.

I would be willing to agree that in the current system, greed is a large driver of capital dispersal, but that's doesn't tell us what greed is. One problem is only looking at where something goes, to the exclusion of where it starts. First receivers of new money benefit disproportionately from later receivers. So where does money originate, and who sits closest.

On the other hand, a greedy person who works within acceptable bounds is not a problem. Akin to the sports player who wants a/multiple Championship Title more anything, but doesn't cheat to get there. A person who provides a voluntary service/benefit/product to mankind (what others are "greedy" for) in return for what he/she wants. At least this is win/win, compared to the sports analogy (unless you take the marxian/mercantilist zero-sum approach to economics).

Of course, we usually identify greed with those persons who will "stop at nothing". Which is why the megabanks are positioned as strategically as possible between the Fed and Wall St, both figuratively and literally.

Furthermore, it's not being divorced from human action. As I've already said, it's being divorced from human intention and thought; specifically not action. Action is all we have to work with.

Fair enough re:action, but action doesn't come about in a vacuum. This is my primary concern as a(n aspiring) psychologist. Thoughts have real consequences, and "from whence do they spring"?

You can't measure greed as intention. You can't substantiate it, and you can't verify it. It doesn't exist for investigatory purposes as originating in someone's brain. It exists in action, and in circulation.

You just butchered everything I've said.

Sure we can't measure intent. We can only measure action, but assigning "Altruism", "Greed", etc to actions rely on prior frameworks of interpretation. My framework doesn't allow for "True" altruism. No one has yet made the choice they were least happy with given their range of alternatives, hence no "Sacrifice". I also don't see flows pooling in a spot, or flowing in a particular direction and automatically assign greed. I assume one of two things (or a hybridization): Someone is meeting a need/want, and/or someone has achieved success in rentseeking, in it's most robust sense. I would assign greed automatically in the latter, and it doesn't matter in the former since the effect is good.

 

[Einherjar86]

Thanks for the linkedIn endorsement, asshole.

While I don't begrudge us our debates, I also don't think there's more to be gained from this one. Logic doesn't prove everything, but inductive reasoning leads me to believe that neither one of us is going to alter our perspective all that much. The practice is fun, but the topic is stale.

Your rhetoric is impressive as well, you know.

 

[Dak]

Thanks for the linkedIn endorsement, asshole.

While I don't begrudge us our debates, I also don't think there's more to be gained from this one. Logic doesn't prove everything, but inductive reasoning leads me to believe that neither one of us is going to alter our perspective all that much. The practice is fun, but the topic is stale.

Solid induction. I enjoy beating dead horses at times though because it still polishes the stick of truth and reason.

Your rhetoric is impressive as well, you know.

Not impressive enough, as it rarely sways. It either goes over the head of some listeners or smacks into the wall of core beliefs in others.

Edit: New blog post.

 

[Einherjar86]

Nice. That's actually incredibly interesting.

I've started a new blog. I felt like I was starting to move away from the Science fiction theme of Roadside Picnic, which makes sense because I don't have as much time to read SF. Literary theory is taking up far more time, currently; and the way it relates to philosophy and practice. I didn't want to betray the topic of my other blog, so I created a new one. The first post isn't that good, but the second expresses my current fascination with certain brands of critical theory:

http://borrowingfromthefuture.blogspot.com/2013/10/borrowing-from-future-understanding.html

 

[Dak]

Nice. That's actually incredibly interesting.

There's a couple of takeaways that jump right out to me, and one is that the reason a mirror had little affect on time cheating is most likely because time is abstract, so you don't "See" it being cheated with. Money is concrete (although value isn't).

Secondly, is this example of "Seeing yourself" impacting action a sort of proof in what I postulated before as "Advanced consciousness", or "heightened self awareness"? Some people naturally actively self monitor to a degree that others do not. A mirror is an external factor forcing self monitoring. The aforementioned "heightened self awareness" group does not, in other words, need the mirror. The 30~% difference in the study show the number that do.

I've started a new blog. I felt like I was starting to move away from the Science fiction theme of Roadside Picnic, which makes sense because I don't have as much time to read SF. Literary theory is taking up far more time, currently; and the way it relates to philosophy and practice. I didn't want to betray the topic of my other blog, so I created a new one. The first post isn't that good, but the second expresses my current fascination with certain brands of critical theory:

http://borrowingfromthefuture.blogspot.com/2013/10/borrowing-from-future-understanding.html

Well written piece, but I'd take issue with comparing the 2008 crash to HFTA flash crashes/spikes. A market crash due to the popping of a bubble ("easy money" - both from Fed interest rates, subprime lending, and government lending via Fannie/Freddie, etc) is dramatically different compared to HFTA fights in nanosecond timeframes.

 

[Dak]

Remember when I was talking about my intuit/anecdotal submission about a divergence of personal education?

http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/10/08/more-media-wont-solve-political-ignorance/

Well-informed audiences are more likely to avail themselves to the new technologies to become better informed, according to a recent paper (pdf) Somin cites, “News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout,” by Markus Prior. Total minutes of daily news consumption between 1994 and 2012 is down for all age groups, a 2012 Pew study reports.

 

[Einherjar86]

There's a couple of takeaways that jump right out to me, and one is that the reason a mirror had little affect on time cheating is most likely because time is abstract, so you don't "See" it being cheated with. Money is concrete (although value isn't).

Secondly, is this example of "Seeing yourself" impacting action a sort of proof in what I postulated before as "Advanced consciousness", or "heightened self awareness"? Some people naturally actively self monitor to a degree that others do not. A mirror is an external factor forcing self monitoring. The aforementioned "heightened self awareness" group does not, in other words, need the mirror. The 30~% difference in the study show the number that do.

Mirrors are often considered to be one of the most intriguing objects in literary studies. If a work of fiction mentions a mirror, scholars' eyebrows immediately go up.

On a superficial level, the mirror simply allows the cheater to see himself or herself; and if they've become visible to themselves, whom else are they visible to? Expanding on this, the mirror possibly inaugurates the cheaters as subjects of surveillance in a way that they previously had not considered themselves to be. Mirrors are devices of sight, and without the kind of self-sight that they allow, potential cheaters might be able to convince themselves that their actions are more hidden. Put a reflective apparatus in front of them, however, and now their hidden actions are made rudely visible to them (especially because, as the cheaters, they know exactly what they're doing and can see it in the glass). And if they can see it, then others can as well.

This seems connected to your concept of heightened self-awareness.

Well written piece, but I'd take issue with comparing the 2008 crash to HFTA flash crashes/spikes. A market crash due to the popping of a bubble ("easy money" - both from Fed interest rates, subprime lending, and government lending via Fannie/Freddie, etc) is dramatically different compared to HFTA fights in nanosecond timeframes.

That's a good point. Ultimately, I wasn't try to compare them really; I was simply suggesting that if we alter our perspective of the 2008 crash, then other developments (such as the "hidden" crashes) begin revealing themselves that could potentially support that alternative perspective.

Remember when I was talking about my intuit/anecdotal submission about a divergence of personal education?

http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/10/08/more-media-wont-solve-political-ignorance/

Seems about right, although that penultimate paragraph is a bit confusing: "[...] if the American people don’t know anything about their government and they don’t want to know anything about it — that if they’re not interested in monitoring and tending the colossus they’ve built — then maybe it shouldn’t exist on the scale that it does."

If the American people don't want to know anything about their government, than it always will exist on the scale that it does. Quite a conundrum.

 

[Dak]

Mirrors are often considered to be one of the most intriguing objects in literary studies. If a work of fiction mentions a mirror, scholars' eyebrows immediately go up.

On a superficial level, the mirror simply allows the cheater to see himself or herself; and if they've become visible to themselves, whom else are they visible to? Expanding on this, the mirror possibly inaugurates the cheaters as subjects of surveillance in a way that they previously had not considered themselves to be. Mirrors are devices of sight, and without the kind of self-sight that they allow, potential cheaters might be able to convince themselves that their actions are more hidden. Put a reflective apparatus in front of them, however, and now their hidden actions are made rudely visible to them (especially because, as the cheaters, they know exactly what they're doing and can see it in the glass). And if they can see it, then others can as well.

This seems connected to your concept of heightened self-awareness.

"I can see me, so then I must acknowledge that so could others". This is not what came immediately to mind but probably plays a part, at least for some. It also helps prevent the disassociation of the act from the actor in the mind of the actor. Like when you close your eyes when doing something you don't like for whatever reason.

That's a good point. Ultimately, I wasn't try to compare them really; I was simply suggesting that if we alter our perspective of the 2008 crash, then other developments (such as the "hidden" crashes) begin revealing themselves that could potentially support that alternative perspective.

While the 2008 crash was assumably an unintended consequence, it wasn't unpredictable (excluding exact timing). That a bubble was forming was immediately recognized by non-Keynesian/NeoKeynesian economists. The 2008 collapse was similar to basically every other depression in economic history except for A. Global Scope B. Global Policy response C. Total (Fictional) Wealth involved (pointedly referring to derivatives).

HFTAs on the other hand, are not only unpredictable in the same way, they also do not have a counterset of policy prescriptions with different predictions. HFTAs, as it relates to economics, are either "On" or "Off". Probably the only generalization we could make is that as the number and computing speed/power behind HFTAs increases, so does volatility, but it is volatility we may not even be aware of.

Seems about right, although that penultimate paragraph is a bit confusing: "[...] if the American people don’t know anything about their government and they don’t want to know anything about it — that if they’re not interested in monitoring and tending the colossus they’ve built — then maybe it shouldn’t exist on the scale that it does."

If the American people don't want to know anything about their government, than it always will exist on the scale that it does. Quite a conundrum.

Good catch. Mencken would agree.

 

[Einherjar86]

While the 2008 crash was assumably an unintended consequence, it wasn't unpredictable (excluding exact timing). That a bubble was forming was immediately recognized by non-Keynesian/NeoKeynesian economists. The 2008 collapse was similar to basically every other depression in economic history except for A. Global Scope B. Global Policy response C. Total (Fictional) Wealth involved (pointedly referring to derivatives).

HFTAs on the other hand, are not only unpredictable in the same way, they also do not have a counterset of policy prescriptions with different predictions. HFTAs, as it relates to economics, are either "On" or "Off". Probably the only generalization we could make is that as the number and computing speed/power behind HFTAs increases, so does volatility, but it is volatility we may not even be aware of.

I see what you're saying. I just think that as the references stands, it isn't really a comparison:

Instead of seeing technology as a tool at our disposal, we can see it as an intelligence system of its own, coming to slow awareness and seizing at the aspects that do not compute. The more we feed algorithms into the network, the more its neurons begin firing on their own, recording nearly instantaneous market crashes occurring faster than a human can blink its eyes.

All I'm saying is that if we can reorient ourselves toward the 2008 crash and potentially see it as something else functioning beyond our control, then these other phenomena seem to be evidence of a similar development.

You might argue that since there were those who predicted the 2008 crash, it wasn't beyond our control. I'm skeptical of that argument, not in the least because, despite warnings, it still actually happened. We can say it was because people didn't pay attention, or wished to remain ignorant; but as per my usual line of argument, I want to say that that indicates something more largely systematic rather than individually irresponsible.

 

[Dak]

Re:beyond our control. That's difficult.

The fiat nature of modern money is sufficient to cause a bubble (although not absolutely necessary). Bubbles can occur in other things in other ways. "Boom" towns turning into ghost towns when the respective mine is exhausted is an example.

Interest rates set by a central body rather than the market, specifically lower than what a market set rate would be, create the exact same dynamic as a "gold rush". In both cases we have "easy money". A difference would be one is the extraction of physical commodities and the other is the issuance of paper debt.

Easy money in debt form has two vulnerabilities: Exhaustion of customers taking on new debt or the inability of customers to service the existing debt. The lowering of interest rates to zero, subprime interest rates, and government subsidization were/are all measures to increase the pool of customers taking on new debt, to kick the can on the first vulnerability.
Bailouts, to include QE, are efforts to kick the can on the second vulnerability as it affects the issuers, not the customers. In both cases, there reaches a point of complete exhaustion.

It was avoidable in that the US Congress did not have to approve the Fed 100 years ago. Once fractional reserve central banking is the monetary system it is pretty much impossible not to get here. It is this system, not free-market capitalism, which requires infinite, exponential growth for survival. There must be ever more debt to support the old debt, because the money itself is debt.

On the other hand, we have HFTAs fighting it out with if-then contingencies like a blind battle royal.

 

[Einherjar86]

It was avoidable in that the US Congress did not have to approve the Fed 100 years ago. Once fractional reserve central banking is the monetary system it is pretty much impossible not to get here. It is this system, not free-market capitalism, which requires infinite, exponential growth for survival. There must be ever more debt to support the old debt, because the money itself is debt.

They didn't have to, but in some sense they did. I realize that doesn't make a lot of sense, but the Fed was a response to market volatility. While it may be true that the market might have worked itself out otherwise, the Fed contributes to the market in its process of becoming-other. If we look at the market as something evolving into something else, then the Fed merely constitutes an adaptation.

 

[Dak]

They didn't have to, but in some sense they did. I realize that doesn't make a lot of sense, but the Fed was a response to market volatility. While it may be true that the market might have worked itself out otherwise, the Fed contributes to the market in its process of becoming-other. If we look at the market as something evolving into something else, then the Fed merely constitutes an adaptation.

That's the official line, but it's not only incorrect, the market has been massively more volatile since the Fed compared to pre-Fed.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sure, although I didn't say anything about the effectiveness of the proposed purpose of the Fed. I only said that's the reason why it was imposed in the first place (which may not be the entire reason). The mere fact that it was an adaptation signals something about the ontology of the marketplace. But I don't know enough about economics to say exactly what that means; I'm just using it as an example of something to envision differently.

I spit out another quick blog post this very evening, which I hope to be the beginning of a longer project: a rebuttal against the charges of relativism in much postmodernist/poststructuralist theory.

 

[Dak]

Might I suggest you darken the background behind the type on borrowingfromthefuture? It is a pain to pick out the words from the image behind it.

Also, although I'm sure you keep up with OutsideIn, I found this post to possibly be as a synthesis of our respective positions, particularly summarized in these two paragraphs

http://www.xenosystems.net/dark-techno-commercialism/

The Techno-commercial ‘thing’ — catallaxy — is comparably invulnerable. There is no chance that anyone, ever, will successfully prohibit the market, or the associated dynamics of competitive technical advantage (which together compose real capitalism). As with religion and genetic selection, the techno-commercial complex can be driven into darkness, socially occulted, and stigmatized as a public enemy. It cannot, however, be de-realized by political fiat.

and

........It is, therefore, the comprehension of capitalism ‘in-itself’ as an outsider that will never know — or need — political representation. Instead, as the ultimate enemy, it will envelop the entirety of political philosophy — including anything neoreaction can contribute to the genre — as the futile strategic initiatives (or death spasms) of its prey.

 

[Einherjar86]

I actually don't keep up with OutsideIn, primarily because I feel like I would spend too much time commenting on his posts. Barely enough to finish my own work as it is.

The general impetus of that post seems to be that capitalism is un-representable (which I agree with) and that politics is useless against it in the long run and thus futile in the first place (which I don't agree with), and it seems to also suggest that capitalism comprises a certain extra-human totality of which there is no outside. If I read that final point correctly, I disagree as well.

Capitalism is a totality that cannot be cognitively reconciled, but it is not the inevitable culmination of global forces and drives - this makes it sound deterministic, and Land's argument drips with Darwinian determinism. I would suggest against this determinism that capitalism is a contingent entity that has emerged through human existence and that will subsume human existence, thus becoming independent of it (if this hasn't already happened).

According to this argument, as well as your comment - if I read them correctly -, even if capitalism is a predatory outside that will devour those internal to it, we should still pursue the market as the most viable and liberating institution for us while we continue in our existence, or something of this sort. It seems as though Land's immense theory of the market as a predatory entity somehow justifies free-market activity (i.e. the market will devour us all one day, it can't be helped, so we might as well milk it while we're still symbiotic).

To my mind, that justifies political intervention as much as it justifies liberated market behavior. Land's vision is apocalyptic and ultimately not critical in its conclusion (although it is in its evidence); he basically appeals to inevitable destruction as justification for market freedom.

 

[Dak]

The general impetus of that post seems to be that capitalism is un-representable (which I agree with) and that politics is useless against it in the long run and thus futile in the first place (which I don't agree with), and it seems to also suggest that capitalism comprises a certain extra-human totality of which there is no outside. If I read that final point correctly, I disagree as well.

But I thought that you had asserted in the past that Capitalism absorbs everything that is other. (That was my primary reason for posting the above)

Of course while I believe that politics is "useless against it", I don't like the semantic framing of politics as futile in this way. It is futile from the beginning in view of the end of prohibiting flows. It can only temporarily divert, doing potentially incredible damage to mankind in the process (which is of much more concern to me than the actual damming/diverting of flows).

Capitalism is a totality that cannot be cognitively reconciled, but it is not the inevitable culmination of global forces and drives - this makes it sound deterministic, and Land's argument drips with Darwinian determinism. I would suggest against this determinism that capitalism is a contingent entity that has emerged through human existence and that will subsume human existence, thus becoming independent of it (if this hasn't already happened).

Land has made no secret of appeals to Darwinism, although I don't know if determinism is the right word (unless "evolution" itself is merely determined as an ongoing process).

As I see the market defined as a sum of "catallactic actions", capitalism (or the market) could continue while removed from human action, assuming some sort of independent intelligence asserted itself.

According to this argument, as well as your comment - if I read them correctly -, even if capitalism is a predatory outside that will devour those internal to it, we should still pursue the market as the most viable and liberating institution for us while we continue in our existence, or something of this sort. It seems as though Land's immense theory of the market as a predatory entity somehow justifies free-market activity (i.e. the market will devour us all one day, it can't be helped, so we might as well milk it while we're still symbiotic).

I think that is one way of framing Land's theory, but he wouldn't word it as such. His position in general seems to be that there is nature, and human organization that goes against nature is doomed to fail, and so it is in our interest to remain symbiotic. The market is part of this nature as it relates to human (and for the singularity people, postmeldhuman or whatever) action.

To my mind, that justifies political intervention as much as it justifies liberated market behavior. Land's vision is apocalyptic and ultimately not critical in its conclusion (although it is in its evidence); he basically appeals to inevitable destruction as justification for market freedom.

One man's apocalypse is another's Rapture. I don't see any sort of predicted apocalypse predicted in his bloggings other than the end of the current order/the Cathedral/the Human Security System/etc. This does not exactly put him in isolated territory, although his novelty is in that the approach was from the opposite end of the philosophical spectrum than your typical Zero Hedge or Mises.org reader.

 

[Einherjar86]

But I thought that you had asserted in the past that Capitalism absorbs everything that is other. (That was my primary reason for posting the above)

Of course while I believe that politics is "useless against it", I don't like the semantic framing of politics as futile in this way. It is futile from the beginning in view of the end of prohibiting flows. It can only temporarily divert, doing potentially incredible damage to mankind in the process (which is of much more concern to me than the actual damming/diverting of flows).

I have said that capitalism absorbs everything that is other, that's correct; but I also extend that to mean that capitalism is never "itself." The logic that asserts capitalism as a devouring agent implies that it possesses an original set of conditions or attributes that it could ultimately be reduced to. I would challenge this notion and suggest that capitalism had no beginning and has no end specifically because it isn't a thing in that respect. We could describe it as a process, but it's impossible to isolate capitalism to a specific set of parameters within the process. It only comprises the entire process by the very fact that it exists in relation to the process (I'm being very abstract here).

Capitalism may comprise a totality in the sense that it engages in a ceaseless dialectic of mimesis and alterity (or self and other); but we also have to acknowledge that while capitalism absorbs other entities, those entities in turn affect and constitutively change what "capitalism" is.

I also don't necessarily think the uninhibited expression of flows is a positive thing.

Land has made no secret of appeals to Darwinism, although I don't know if determinism is the right word (unless "evolution" itself is merely determined as an ongoing process).

As I see the market defined as a sum of "catallactic actions", capitalism (or the market) could continue while removed from human action, assuming some sort of independent intelligence asserted itself.

I suppose I see the determinism simply in his claim that the market will bury everything it gets its hands on, eventually, especially if it achieves autonomy (if it doesn't already have autonomy). He appeals to determinism in order to justify a free market ideology. The problem is that this actually politicizes the natural state he attempts to decipher. I admire and am seduced by his methodology, I just don't quite buy his conclusion.

I think that is one way of framing Land's theory, but he wouldn't word it as such. His position in general seems to be that there is nature, and human organization that goes against nature is doomed to fail, and so it is in our interest to remain symbiotic. The market is part of this nature as it relates to human (and for the singularity people, postmeldhuman or whatever) action.

See, I don't think you can claim that market behavior is natural or that politics is unnatural. All of this talk of naturalism and artificiality gets really tricky, especially because it assumes that there is some baseline naturalism that, if we discern, would provide us with social answers. But the only natural baseline is one that eschews ethics, cooperation, and intellectualism. Aligning market competition with Darwinian competition gets dangerously close to old-fashioned Social Darwinism, and the problem with old-fashioned Social Darwinism is that it's nothing more than a projection of human values onto an inhuman world.

One man's apocalypse is another's Rapture. I don't see any sort of predicted apocalypse predicted in his bloggings other than the end of the current order/the Cathedral/the Human Security System/etc. This does not exactly put him in isolated territory, although his novelty is in that the approach was from the opposite end of the philosophical spectrum than your typical Zero Hedge or Mises.org reader.

I don't think it's predicted, I just think it's implied. It's not apocalyptic for what theoretical system Land is tracking, but it appears to be apocalyptic for humans (I'm using "apocalypse" in the vulgar, end-of-the-world sense). I'm not sure what Land's theory of symbiosis is. I mean, if he thinks that genuine free markets would allow humans to achieve natural symbiosis with a capitalistic machine and thus allow us to prosper, I would ask him why the hell evolution can't just take an unforeseen contingent turn that has nothing to do with human values. It looks to me like Land is assuming that capitalism has uncovered some basic precedent of natural being. I just don't see that.

 

[Dak]

I have said that capitalism absorbs everything that is other, that's correct; but I also extend that to mean that capitalism is never "itself." The logic that asserts capitalism as a devouring agent implies that it possesses an original set of conditions or attributes that it could ultimately be reduced to. I would challenge this notion and suggest that capitalism had no beginning and has no end specifically because it isn't a thing in that respect. We could describe it as a process, but it's impossible to isolate capitalism to a specific set of parameters within the process. It only comprises the entire process by the very fact that it exists in relation to the process (I'm being very abstract here).

I think that's really the difference. You're interested purely in connotation, or are suggesting there is no denotation. Further, capitalism itself is a compromised word anyway. I like the division of "economic means" and "political means" via Oppenheimer. The sum of the "economic mean" comprises the market. This is denotation. Not the market as in the connotation of stock indexes (they are stock indexes, not the "market"), etc.

However, even a more honest assessment of all economies is that they are "mixed", if we go with a more denotative approach. A mix between, at this point, usually capitalism, mercantilism, and socialism. And yet we blanket this with "Global Capitalism".....which sometimes merely refers to a vague collection of large corporations.....

Capitalism may comprise a totality in the sense that it engages in a ceaseless dialectic of mimesis and alterity (or self and other); but we also have to acknowledge that while capitalism absorbs other entities, those entities in turn affect and constitutively change what "capitalism" is.

I also don't necessarily think the uninhibited expression of flows is a positive thing.

Or we don't use the label of one element in the mixing of disparate types of action to label the whole thing.

I suppose I see the determinism simply in his claim that the market will bury everything it gets its hands on, eventually, especially if it achieves autonomy (if it doesn't already have autonomy). He appeals to determinism in order to justify a free market ideology. The problem is that this actually politicizes the natural state he attempts to decipher. I admire and am seduced by his methodology, I just don't quite buy his conclusion.


See, I don't think you can claim that market behavior is natural or that politics is unnatural. All of this talk of naturalism and artificiality gets really tricky, especially because it assumes that there is some baseline naturalism that, if we discern, would provide us with social answers. But the only natural baseline is one that eschews ethics, cooperation, and intellectualism. Aligning market competition with Darwinian competition gets dangerously close to old-fashioned Social Darwinism, and the problem with old-fashioned Social Darwinism is that it's nothing more than a projection of human values onto an inhuman world.



I don't think it's predicted, I just think it's implied. It's not apocalyptic for what theoretical system Land is tracking, but it appears to be apocalyptic for humans (I'm using "apocalypse" in the vulgar, end-of-the-world sense). I'm not sure what Land's theory of symbiosis is. I mean, if he thinks that genuine free markets would allow humans to achieve natural symbiosis with a capitalistic machine and thus allow us to prosper, I would ask him why the hell evolution can't just take an unforeseen contingent turn that has nothing to do with human values. It looks to me like Land is assuming that capitalism has uncovered some basic precedent of natural being. I just don't see that.

As far as all this goes, maybe you should ask him what he means .

Edit: Land is not an AnCap btw. He is neoreactionary. He outlined a personal theory of government organization recently in the Trichotomy or whatever. /endedit.

But to reiterate my own position in light of your last paragraph: this thing labeled "Global Capitalism" is obviously set as other than free-market-in-itself, and if that is the case, then free markets would ultimately (theoretically) replace Global Capitalism, not the other way around. But given the trend, no matter whether he future is realized in an international North Korean parody or System D exclusively, some will want to call it "Global Capitalism" - which is why I can't take that line of analysis seriously.