/lit/ - Literature

>>9625320
>So by Capital he means something in the way of the Superego but in this case the Id had become superior to the Ego?

Kind of. It's helpful also to consider this through the perspective of Deleuze and Guattari as well as via Freud/Lacan/Zizek, since there are these two paths through psychoanalysis and Land is following from D&G, who are basically trying to explode Freud.

For Freud et al, the conscious mind is under siege from the unconscious, which it is repressing. For D&G, however, the conscious mind is basically throttling the unconscious, which is properly "schizophrenic" - don't read that too literally.

Our own drives feed consumption, which drives capital. This is boilerplate Freudo-Marxism of course. Under the presumption that we are rational Ego-beings we feed it with the Id, and I suppose in the long run it might become Superego when it wakes up in the technological singularity Land anticipates.

That said, trying to look at Land's work using Freudian vocabulary doesn't really do it justice (although in a certain sense I suppose it doesn't matter all that much). Deleuze and Guattari are going to talk about flows, flows of capital and desire that basically overwrite everything.

Check out Anti-Oedipus, it's an incredible read. D&G basically don't separate or draw any lines between capital and desire at all, and this can extend all the way to include theory as well: even criticizing capital can reproduce capital, just as submitting to the laws of Oedipus and castration symbolically reproduces those rules of Oedipus and castration.

For Land Capital is, in a sense, only unconsciously superegoic, I would say - hence the idea of retrochronicity, that it represents the alien attack from the future and so on, the really crazy stuff like Roko's Basilisk. Personally I find there's more than enough meat on the bone as it is without having to dedicate too much time to the really outer-fringe parts of his thought tho.

Maybe that other anon can present a clearer answer tho.