Sus Futuros 1/28/26 Sus Futuros 1/28/26

CONSTRUCTIVE VITALISM

PROLEGOMENA: THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL CRISIS

The human being stands at a critical juncture. The Nation-State dissolves into an apparatus without legitimacy. The Corporation extracts value while eroding the organic conditions of its own reproduction. The Church has been morally tested and only offers consolation without nourishing the Soul. The Market commodifies experience until nothing sacred remains. Into this poverty of meaning-making institutions, a new philosophical framework demands instantiation, not as an ideology that requires followers, but as a regenerative system of practices.

This system of constructive vitalism makes no claims about an ultimate reality divorced from immanent life. As such it is a metaphysics but not in the classical sense. Rather, it constitutes an ontology of this life, of empirical transformation–of a reality that can be constructed through disciplined intervention within the material substrate of humankind. Its proof of concept is demonstrative; the practitioner becomes living evidence.

Architectonic realism, its correlate epistemology, designates that knowledge is non-representational and constructed. Truth does not merely correspond to facts but is coherence under transformation. What is real is what resists arbitrary manipulation while yielding to systematic discipline.

PART I. CONSTRUCTIVE VITALISM – GENEALOGY & Definition

Constructive Vitalism emerges from the suffocating conditions of the 2020s; a decade defined by total leveling. Digital universalism mediates all experienes through the surface of a screen. Human decision making becomes outsourced to probablistic models optimized for engagement passive engagement. The institutions which once held civilization together have all dissolved. In this environment the human being flattened into discrete points of data. Humankind has become a species of consumers–whether that be material goods or vacuous content—rather than producers of destiny. Society has lost its vitality because people have lost the constructs that have guided and protected it. To regain vitality, constructive Vitalism asserts that one must build through the postindustrial Dark Ages to a new form of physical and spiritual sovereignty.

Vitalism of the 19th century posited the existence of a living force irreducible to mechanistic explanation. This generated the familiar impasse: either one accepts dualism and forfeit scientific respectability, or embrace reductionism and lose what made life distinctive. Constructive vitalism navigates between these failures by refusing the framing altogether. Life is not a substance or force but a process of organization—specifically, the capacity for self-determining transformation through engagement with constraint. Every organism survives under material limitations: resource scarcity, thermodynamic laws, or developmental pathways. Yet an unpredictable novelty emerges spontaneously from these constraints. This phenomenon does not violate physical law, but is an exploit of unsaturated possibility.

The body is more than a machine animated by a ghostly entity called a soul.

POST-ONTOTHEOLOGY = It affirms the death of God, but maintains the sacred.

To understand what Constructive Vitalism is one must first confront what it opposes.

§ 1.1. Doctrine of Construction – The Necessity of Infrastructure

§ 1.2. Doctrine of Vitalism: – Teleos of the Structure

The telos of all constructive activity is toward Absolute Life, which is not simply reducible to living, biological matter alone, but also in the pure capacity for growth and flourishing. The semiotic regime of The Algorithm is necrophilic. It trades in dead imagery, extracted attention, and the slow liquefaction of human vitality. Our organization exists to defend and cultivate life against the mechanisms, technologies, systems designed to extract it.

TKThe Algorithm requires anxious, malleable subjects. It desires a population with no strong convictions because then one is the perfect consumuer

PART iI. The Aesthetic Conditions – Sacred Brutalism & Hieratic Modernism

§ 2.1 Sacred Brutalism – Metaphysics of Truth, Weight, & Mass

§ 2.2. Hieratic Modernism –

PART iIi. THE ORTHOGONAL THEORY OF PARALLEL INSTITUTIONALISM

§ 3.1 Exhaustion of the HORIZONTAL Axis

For two centuries, political thought operated on a single geometric axis, a linear spectrum extending from Left to Right. Every ideology, movement, and revolution positioned itself somewhere along this line. The Left championed long-term collective benefit over temporary individual gain, equality over hierarchy, the voice of masses over autocracy’s throne, progress over tradition. The Right inverted these values–prioritizing individual success over collective welfare, hierarchy above equality,order over chaos, orthodoxy above novelty. One’s nation supersedes all nations;one’s family above one’s community. Race above the species; and the species dominates all of nature.

This axis generated endless internal permutations. Social democrats sought balance between market efficiency and welfare redistribution. Marxist-Leninists pushed leftward toward total collectivization. Libertarianism pushed rightward toward absolute individualism. Fascists synthesized rightist authoritarianism with leftist mass mobilization. But all remained trapped within the same one dimensional coordinate system. Its political geometry has been incapable of modeling the civilizational crisis actually confronting us.

The exhaustion manifests as pure impasse. The Left wins cultural recognition but loses economic leverage. The Right wins economic dominance but loses cultural legitimacy. Neither can govern coherently. Both resort to purely reactive politics. The Left, defined by what it opposes and the Right defined by what it resists. Neither offers a generative vision of a world worth building.

Left appeals to transcendental authority of History, Reason, or Humanity.

The Right in its narrow-minded obsession with hierarchy and tradition, believes that it wants to capture the machine to deregulate it. In practice, this devolves into feudal, corporate oligarchy, ecological destruction, vulgar mercantilism, and a hyper-individualism that paradoxically undermines its desire for community and a fixed social hegemony. The Left in its kaleidoscopic interests of equality and justice, wants to capture the machine, to rehabilitate or abolish it outright in the name of social progress. However admirable its intentions, in practice, this often devolves into bureaucratic statism, a social politics of fragmented solidarity, and a safetyism that erods individual agence. Both fail to realize that the machine itself is an early modern fossil trying to govern a postindustrial reality that has escaped its grasp. It is too distant and ineffectual to solve the crises of meaning, ecology, and Capital.

The social contract has always been a lie. One pays their taxes, but one’s interests are not represented in legislation. One pays insurace, still one’s claims get denied. One attends university, but financial stability is not a guarantee.

History occurs through material transformation of human practice, and this transformation produces new intellectual capacities, new norms, and alternative forms of organization. Neither Left nor Right possesses adequate theory of this process. Left theory abstracts from the actual practice of transformation, replacing it with philosophical materialism. Right theory abstracts from the actual emergence of novelty, replacing it with appeals to eternal principles.

Late modern, political discourse has been defined by a novel symmetry of Right and Left in terms of their critique despite intensifying polarization. Each derives its legitimacy by opposing the other. This mutual constitution through negation constitutes what may be termed the dialectical oscillation of the political spectrum. More broadly the psychic operation which apprehends the real as a material organized through contradiction, opposition, difference, and eventual resolution. Neither governs coherently, resorting to purely reactive politics based on what the other does. The Left, defined by what it opposes and the Right by what it resists. Neither offers a generative vision of a world worth building.

The political spectrum from Left to Right situates all possible positions on a single axis. This axis functions as an organizing, meta-principle rendering all political positions commensurable. One can plot any offical, party, or legislation on the spectrum from Left to Right. Yet this commensurability itself conceals a profound problem. By forcing all politics onto a single axis, the Left-Right framework necessarily excludes any position that operates according to an orthogonal logic.

PARALLEL INSTITUTIONALISM

The original parallel polis emphasized cultural and intellectual resistance under totalitarianism. Its pillars included alternative culture, residential seminars as parallel education, the samizdat as parallel information system, reciprocity networks as its economic model, and parallel political structures designed to eventually replace the regime. This model was explicitly defensive—protecting human dignity and civil society against state encroachment—and transitional—designed to prepare replacement structures for when totalitarianism fell. The timeframe was generational but ultimately oriented toward regime change, which it achieved in 1989.

The Black Panthers' parallel institutions emphasized immediate material provisioning and community self-defense. They created over 65 "survival programs" including free breakfast for children, free health clinics, schools, housing cooperatives, senior protection programs, and buses to prisons. These were explicitly "survival pending revolution"—satisfying immediate needs while building revolutionary consciousness. The model was oriented toward service rather than cultural; it was racially conscious rather than universal, it integrated with armed self-defense and confrontational politics. Their timeframe was immediate: address hunger today, build revolution tomorrow.

Contemporary examples such as Rojava's democratic confederalism and Zapatista autonomy represent territorial parallel governance. Rojava operates nested commune systems (30-400 households) with parallel women's structures, cooperative economics, and decentralized councils that have replaced state governance in northern Syria. The Zapatistas evolved from autonomous rebel municipalities (MAREZ) with "good government boards" to hyper-localized autonomous governments (GALs) coordinating through voluntary federations. These models are territorial (controlling physical space), post-state or anti-state (rejecting state structures entirely), and militarily defended (armed forces protect autonomy). All three traditions share commitment to building alternative institutions outside state control, but they differ dramatically in context (totalitarian repression vs. racial capitalism vs. civil war), strategy (cultural resistance vs. service provision vs. territorial autonomy), and relationship to violence (nonviolent vs. armed self-defense vs. revolutionary warfare).

§ 3.2. THE ORTHOGONAL AXIS – Generative vs. Parasitic

[An orthogonal position accepts the obsolence of the Left-Right coordinates as truth; bypasing this conflict in favor of unilateral duality. It maintains a relation to both Left and Right, yet this relation is recognized only by the introduction of another political dimension. It is neither a compromise position within the conventional axis nor is it a point on the Left-Right horizon. It is instead a movement perpendicular to this line; opening onto the plane. The orthogonal flows not from progress to reaction, nor from cellective to personal, but from vitality to extraction; hence its axis and that of late 21st century is Generative-Parasitic, not Left-Right. Neither Left nor Right recognizes the orthogonal as constituting a genuine axis perpendicular to their spectrum. From within the Left-Right framework, orthogonality appears as either incoherent or disguised alignment with one's actual opposite. This non-recognition is itself the proof of orthogonality.]

It accepts the truth that Left-Right coordinates have become obsolete; and in its wake introduces another political dimension. It is neither a compromise position within the conventional axis nor is it a point on the Left-Right horizon. It is instead a movement perpendicular to this line; opening onto the plane. The orthogonal flows not from progress to reaction, nor from cellective to personal, but from vitality to extraction; hence its axis and that of late 21st century is Generative-Parasitic, not Left-Right.

It is progressive in its function, orthodox in its form, transformative in its purpose.

TKGenerative systems increase vitality, representing the total capacity for one to thrive across multiple scales of magnitude.

Parasitic systems extract vitality, converting its libidinal potential into dead capital: empty, fungible, measurable, tradeable abstractions that destroy the living systems generating them. They mine the earth until it erodes, harvest abstract labor from bodies en mass until they collapse, atomize communities into particulate matter, game attention until it scatters, and subsumes all meaning until it is evaporated.

Parasitic systems create metrics and concentrated wealth at the cost of destroying worlds. It has manufactured a social relation where life is reduced to an objectified, organic composition and the human is a technological instrument for its soulless theology of growth, productivity, and profit.

TRANSNATIONAL ARCHIPELAGO OF POWER

GENERATIVE PROVISIONING - LOGISTICS OF PARALLEL INSTITUTIONALISM

ECONOMICS OF GENERATIVE PROVISIONING

Spirit integrates wisdom’s generative fruit in the historical community of rational souls. As such its telos is a creative, itinerant motion: absolute knowing as such, or Revelation, the knowing of knowing itself. Capital does the opposite; its teleology is infinite growth or value for value’s sake. As such, it depletes resources for its valorization and the disintegrating movement follows the calculus of M → M' → M'' → ∞. Analogous to Spirit, Capital moves through history, organizing the activities of conscious labor toward its own reproduction until its internal tensions bring it into crisis. Capital represents Spirit’s inversion; a social relation that has achieved autonomy, taking on the form of subject. Capital, concretely and with a lowercase, means machinery of some sort; one whose input is represented by labor and commodities, and whose output is a physical transformation of the commodity’s initial material. This concrete capital is never Capital unconditionally. Capital, when meaningfully defined, requires that the physical transformation be a valuable one. When a machine is creating value, it is Capital meaningfully construed. When that same machine is not creating value, or not valuable, then it exists in the ontological order of stones, sand, or any other inert matter. Nothing physical changes about the machine in the counterfactual, therefore Capital is non-material while capital is material.

Capital is real as Spirit is real, but unlike its counterpart, it is emptied of life-affirming content and filled with extractive logic. As the dialectical inversion of Spirit, Capital strips qualitative specificity from organic matter. Capital receives abstract power from the animated radiance of its organic composition. It appropriates vitality to labor as such measured in time. Nature becomes pure quantity, an exchangeable, common resource for dead, self-expanding value. One cannot point to Capital, yet it acts. Value produced by labor becomes congealed, yet still mobile, expanding, and consuming. Capital objectifies empirical thought; mediating social relationships with money.Value is imminently known to itself, communicating through the language of exchange as money. The conveyance of its information might be given in any particular distribution taken as a relational totality of tokens. The knowing of value happens in the exchange of its tokens, changing the distributional totality, rather than in the totality rendered as itself to see the whole thing at once. The energy for informational transfer is supplied by social organisms performing business. Value is not known to the knower. One might say that value is generated at the point where a person would exchange units of time spent in labor and so ‘value’ is a subjective valuation. But when the mind makes the evaluations in exchange, it guesses at the purchasing power of the money in the future. Therefore, one does not generate value, but hangs on to it as an external epistemology, because there is something outside to the economy.

Value cannot merely be subjective. A totality of aesthetics, say, the world of beauty; or the world of joy, is invented. While it may not lie within the capacity for one’s free will, it is nonetheless individual and discrete. If trade were just subjective valuation, then everyone could just agree to value things more and more every year for infinite growth. If such were the case, there would be no depressions. Because there is something real and sinister just beyond the horizon of knowability, that pushes itself in, causing recession. But there is not a different Gross Domestic Product for each individual. Because the value-world of Capital is discoverable, then it is natural; not of nature, but like nature. Prices aggregate distributed knowledge about supply, demand, scarcity, and preference, thus coordinating economic activity without central planning. Businesses that satisfy demand profit and grow; those that don't contract. The Market self-regulates through this feedback, allocating resources toward profitable uses. Capital generates surplus, which gets reinvested to generate more surplus, which gets reinvested. The circuit is self referential; money talks with itself exclusively and constantly, thus producing more money. Capital generates more of itself but never other than itself, and never to its initial conditions. Each prime notation contains all previous accumulation. The surplus which Capital has generated is amplified in succession. Its transformation comes from within itself, growing unbound, recursively, with no natural endpoint. Capital augmented becomes the base for further accumulation–each endpoint becoming the next iteration's starting point. The arrow to infinity captures its teleological essence: Capital has no other purpose beyond its self-expansion, no final state of completion except the sequential development of its underlying process.

It is a process which shapes the destiny and imperatives of its living substrate. The capitalist is compelled to accumulate wealth; the worker must sell their labor in order to survive. The entire point of its schema is such that Capital must expand or cease to be Capital. It is neither natural law nor is it a conspiracy of elite control; it is not a thing, thus it cannot be reduced to mere money or technology. Most crucially, Capital predates capitalism by centuries and will survive its end. It is a categorical error to condemn or affirm Capital as something morally justifiable. It is, however, necessary to transcend it by constructing toward what comes after. Like all autonomous processes, it can be contested by other autonomous processes.

Through Capital, Man realizes its productive capacity to unprecedented heights. Capital is carried by the velocity of its own mechanism and its relation to the human. Industrial Capital utilized time in order to efficiently discipline labor thus maximizing profit, finance Capital makes time itself a tradeable object of exchange via futures contracts, derivatives, and temporal arbitrage.Its social anatomy is carefully maintained through ritualized parades forming in the shapes of cities. Industrial productivity created the global logistics of markets, supply chains, and communication networks extending through physical space. Its infrastructure of planetary coordination generates the potential for material abundance and reveals its own self-perpetuating nature; making explicit what was implicit in earlier forms. This revelation forces the postindustrial world to confront the ascendant consequences of its political economy. Capital cannot resolve these internal tensions, instead it spatially displaces them in the form of global imperialism, and temporally as financialization or debt. The crisis of Capital is thus the necessary alienated phase of humanity’s productive development, representing that which civilization has historically failed to overcome. Capital is the state in which Man refines technical development at the expense of spiritual direction.

TK It has recapitulated feudal relations within the corporate form, while simultaneously recuperating mercantilist state logic at the level of global finance.

The Nation-State functions as enabler of their domestic monopolies; providing legal framework, diplomatic pressure, and military protection. The Corporation provides the economic engine and apparatus for extraction.

Industrial Capital utilized time in order to efficiently discipline labor thus maximizing profit, finance Capital makes time itself a tradeable object of exchange via futures contracts, derivatives, and temporal arbitrage.

TKWhat ‘is’ capital? The philosophical discussion takes the form of ‘what “is” beauty?’ Something definite, and nothing. I know it when I see it.

Capital, concretely and with a lowercase, means machines of some sort; one whose input is represented by labor and commodities, and whose output is a physical transformation of the commodity’s initial material. This concrete capital is never Capital unconditionally. Capital, when meaningfully defined, requires that the physical transformation be a valuable one. When a machine is creating value, it is Capital meaningfully construed. When that same machine is not creating value, or not valuable, then it exists in the ontological order of stones, sand, or any other inert material. The World subsumes it again. Nothing physical changes about the machine in the counterfactual, therefore Capital is non-material while capital is material.
The whole city, the logistics of Capital extended through physical space, the Metropolis.
Proponents for the separation of meaning and physicality cannot ignore the extent to which physicality shapes itself outside of geological determinism.
Without a fabric of communicated meaning behind it, the physical infrastructure of capitalism is meaningless. If one cannot make sense of it, then it cannot possibly occur. To suggest the opposite case, that manufactured things can be naturally occurring, since the universe exhibits such surprising complexity of energy management, would be to mistake the extension of the process throughout space. All physical, material processes are spatially proximate. Energy transference is local in three-dimensional space and in time. Capital is not, because its physical explicability is dependent upon its relation to the economy, its value.
‘Value’ is this unit of account which is always automatically known to itself.
‘Value’ is not known to the knower. One might say that value is generated at the point where a person would exchange units of time spent in labor and so ‘value’ is a subjective valuation. But when the mind makes the evaluations in exchange, it guesses at the purchasing power of the money in the future. Therefore, one does not generate value, but hangs on to it as an external epistemology, because there is something outside to the economy.
- If trade were just subjective valuation, then everyone could just agree to value things more and more every year for infinite growth. If such were the case, there would be no depressions. Because there is something real and sinister just beyond the horizon of knowability, that pushes itself in, causing recession.
‘Value’ is imminently known to itself (the value-world is Natural)

The conveyance of its information might be given in any particular distribution taken as a relational totality of tokens. The knowing of value happens in the exchange of its tokens, changing the distributional totality, rather than in the totality rendered as itself to see the whole thing at once. The energy for informational transfer is supplied by social organisms performing business.
Value cannot merely be subjective. Any particular individual discovers the totality of value, rather than invent it. A totality of aesthetics, say, the world of beauty; or the world of joy, is invented. While it may not lie within the capacity for one’s free will, it is nonetheless individual and discrete. But there is not a different Gross Domestic Product for each individual. Because the value-world of Capital is discoverable, then it is natural; not of nature, but like nature.

“Nature is itself an entity which is encountered within the world and which can be discovered in various ways and at various stages.” Being and Time

CLOSED CIRCUIT ANTI-MARKET

Value is imminently known to itself, communicating through the language of exchange as money. The conveyance of its information might be given in any particular distribution taken as a relational totality of tokens. The knowing of value happens in the exchange of its tokens, changing the distributional totality, rather than in the totality rendered as itself to see the whole thing at once. The energy for informational transfer is supplied by social organisms performing business. Value is not known to the knower. One might say that value is generated at the point where a person would exchange units of time spent in labor and so ‘value’ is a subjective valuation. But when the mind makes the evaluations in exchange, it guesses at the purchasing power of the money in the future. Therefore, one does not generate value, but hangs on to it as an external epistemology, because there is something outside to the economy.

But there is not a different Gross Domestic Product for each individual. Because the value-world of Capital is discoverable, then it is natural; not of nature, but like nature.]]]]

???? Capital's cybernetic nature is not contingent on specific technologies but inherent to its circular process as self-referential value. Capital predates and will outlast any technological incarnation. The contemporary impulse to classify its current transformation, cyber-capital, names the actualization of its implicit character, materialized through digital networks which enable Capital to approach its theoretical limitations.

TK HYPERSUBSISTENCE

PART IV. PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNANCE PROTOCOL – CONSENSUS WITH TEETH

PART V. ON THE PARADOX OF UNIVERSAL NOBILITY

MORPHOLOGICAL AUTONOMY – ORTHOGONAL THEORY OF IDENTITY

All expressions of gender are honored when artfully executed

PHYLOXENITY – ORTHOGONAL THEORY OF RACE & ETHNICITY

Race is a fictional taxonomy invented by lesser minds in the 17th century to absolve themselves from the moral consequences of bloody mercantilism, colonial extraction, and chattal slavery. As such, race is an alienating sort of human classification.

The orthogonal axis adopts a phyloxenic understanding of ancestry and identity. One’s lineages are not pure essences to be guarded, nor are they empty constructs to be ignored, but foreign bodies within the self. Phyloxenon names this strange element of inheritance—the way race, ethnicity, language, and historical trauma live inside us as something both constitutive and other, shaping perception and possibility without ever being fully chosen. A Phyloxenian stance refuses blood‑myth nationalism and color‑blind erasure. Instead, it treats lineage as an interior xenology: one studies the alienation one carries, the ancestors one did not select, the violences and solidarities that produced the individual. In this sense, phyloxenity is an ethics of ancestral estrangement and repair. One encounters one’s own inheritance as a guest that they are responsible for. Heritage is neither an object to be worshiped nor is it a ghost to deny. Onea works to transform that foreign element into a site of lucid solidarity, especially with those whose lineages bear the heaviest marks of empire, enslavement, and dispossession.

EROTOTROPISM – ORTHOGONAL THEORY OF SEXUALITY

POLYFIDELITY NETWORK – ORTHOGONAL THEORY OF THE POST-NUCLEAR FAMILY

Sus Futuros 1/13/26 Sus Futuros 1/13/26

Constructive Vitalism

PROLEGOMENA: THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL CRISIS

PART I. CONSTRUCTIVE VITALISM – GENEALOGY & Definition

The body is more than a machine animated by a ghostly entity called a soul.

POST-ONTOTHEOLOGY = It affirms the death of God, but maintains the sacred.

To understand what Constructive Vitalism is one must first confront what it opposes.

§ 1.1. Doctrine of Construction – The Necessity of Infrastructure

§ 1.2. Doctrine of Vitalism: – Teleos of the Structure

TKThe Algorithm requires anxious, malleable subjects. It desires a population with no strong convictions because then one is the perfect consumuer

PART iI. The Aesthetic Conditions – Sacred Brutalism & Hieratic Modernism

§ 2.1 Sacred Brutalism – Metaphysics of Truth, Weight, & Mass

§ 2.2. Hieratic Modernism –

PART iIi. THE ORTHOGONAL THEORY OF PARALLEL INSTITUTIONALISM

§ 3.1 Exhaustion of the HORIZONTAL Axis

Neither governs coherently, resorting to purely reactive politics based on what the other does. The Left, defined by what it opposes and the Right by what it resists. Neither offers a generative vision of a world worth building.

§ 3.2. THE ORTHOGONAL AXIS – Generative vs. Parasitic

An orthogonal position bypasses this conflict. It accepts the truth that Left-Right coordinates have become obsolete; and in its wake introduces another political dimension. It is neither a compromise position within the conventional axis nor is it a point on the Left-Right horizon. It is instead a movement perpendicular to this line; opening onto the plane. The orthogonal flows not from progress to reaction, nor from cellective to personal, but from vitality to extraction; hence its axis and that of late 21st century is Generative-Parasitic, not Left-Right.

It is progressive in its function, orthodox in its form, transformative in its purpose.

TKGenerative systems increase vitality, representing the total capacity for one to thrive across multiple scales of magnitude.

ECONOMICS OF GENERATIVE PROVISIONING

Capital generates more of itself but never other than itself, and never to its initial conditions. Each prime notation contains all previous accumulation. The surplus which Capital has generated is amplified in succession. Its transformation comes from within itself, growing unbound, recursively, with no natural endpoint. Capital augmented becomes the base for further accumulation–each endpoint becoming the next iteration's starting point. The arrow to infinity captures its teleological essence: Capital has no other purpose beyond its self-expansion, no final state of completion except the sequential development of its underlying process.

Through Capital, Man realizes its productive capacity to unprecedented heights. Productivity creates a global architecture of markets, supply chains, and communication networks. Its infrastructure of planetary coordination generates the potential for material abundance and reveals its own self-perpetuating nature; making explicit what was implicit in earlier forms. This revelation forces the postindustrial world to confront the ascendant consequences of its political economy. Capital cannot resolve these internal tensions, instead it spatially displaces them in the form of global imperialism, and temporally as financialization or debt. The crisis of Capital is thus the necessary alienated phase of humanity’s productive development, representing that which civilization has historically failed to overcome. Capital is the state in which Man refines technical development at the expense of spiritual direction.