/lit/ - Literature

>>11595180
>How does Land's assertion of the dominance of Capitalism not revert back to identity?
see pic rel. capital has no identity (and may not even have anything like an interior). or, to quote omar little, money ain't got no owners, only spenders.

>How does Land resolve with Deleuze's major critique of identity?
see above

>Land's conception of capitalism seems to be almost a Hegelian subject, but I could be misunderstanding Land.
it's best not to think of any relation of capital to subjectivity, least of all hegelian ideas. there are some similarities between the PoS and land's notion of teleoplexy, but it's kind of hard to tell if things will play out in the same way.