Well it seems that the future of capital is in good hands with people like Carl who do not want to destroy it as such(along with the entire modern/civilized complex) but want to reshape it.

I have somethng of a question for him however. I've read Vs 1&2 of Kapital and one point I remember in V2 is that Capitalism and its crisis points are in Marx's view predicated on falling profit rates as apposed to consumption. It seems the postulate and few others realized this. If you accept this fully you accept the fact that the wellfare state is pretty much not coming back as capitalism does not give a shit about healthy consumers but profit profit profit. This means that if profit can come from sqeezing migrating agrarians into tiny cottages as Marx tragically described in the mid 19th century then so be it. You appear to call for fair consumption, something that capitalism cares not for.

Oh and I would hardly call the markets an acheivment in any linear sense as I suspect you are. It is a contingent phenomena of discourse no more no less. There are no progressions and regressions, only potentialities. I happen to think that the civilized totality of the past 10 K years should be destroyed.

As for Kurt his views on property are of course laughable. The only thinker who came up with a truly amoral, non-utopian conception of property was Max Stirner who rightfully pointed out that property is and should be defined by agency and might. Those precious Lockean laws of yours do not stop me or anyone from entering your property, blowing your head off with a shotgun, and taking it for myself. If you end up dead, I am in the right, if I by you you are in the right. That is how property developed after all. Property if it should be anything should be a non-fixed/spooky extention of your agency. I would no longer call such a thing property, I would call it what it really is to many living things, territory. Something more transient, contingent and most importantly not fixed.