CommentStreams:A13f082529dbef0faa284e178e1e37a4

"....Marx has his own ‘accelerationist fragment’ which anticipates the passage from Anti-Oedipus remarkably. He says in an 1848 speech ‘On the Question of Free Trade’:…in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade' In this germinal accelerationist matrix, there is no distinction to be made between the destruction of capitalism and its intensification. The auto-destruction of capitalism is what capitalism is. “Creative destruction” is the whole of it, beside only its retardations, partial compensations, or inhibitions. Capital revolutionizes itself more thoroughly than any extrinsic ‘revolution’ possibly could. If subsequent history has not vindicated this point beyond all question, it has at least simulated such a vindication, to a maddening degree" - Nick Land, basically marx was the first to think capital might be a little to big and scary, he was just glad the bourgeoisie halted it until well it couldn't, and also marx's economic analysis is very imporant to how actual capitalist economics work, like with value being subjective(Albeit I agree with the Austrian economist that marx wanted it to be objective for his communistic and inherently humanist stance) and for debord his analysis was a proto-version of that of camatte and baudrillard that capital had become the ruler of reality, expect with debord. He thought it was a fictional reality even though it wasn't.