I would be perfectly happy to support your so-called humanity when you are capable of providing a rigorous definition of what it consists of, and one that does not require the concept of a "soul" or otherwise some basically racist, phrenological standard for the body. Because when you say humanity all I see are objects that are standardized almost too closely to the commodities they produce, a single standard that would unify and homogenize everyone in the world. That's why I don't care for "humanity," I care about power, physical power, creative power, what any individual is capable of with the right tools.

> when you say humanity all I see are objects

> I don't care for "humanity," I care about power

Yes, I know. I suppose at least you've read your Alinsky.

I’m not familiar with Alinsky, I’m more broadly influenced by the CCRU, although I suppose that makes my reading of Marx fairly idiosyncratic, though I do remain with him at the letter.

You're calling yourself a Marxist via those guys? Excuse me. Please carry on.

Nick Land moved to China, and AFAIK he teaches there now, so I wouldn't be the only one.

Nick Land has called himself a lot of things. But more interesting to me is this question: in what way may China since Deng be regarded as meaningfully Marxist? (Are they still nominally Marxist over there? Were they really ever? Maoism was its own "deviation.")