human action, or even human thought, can only take place through some kind of material medium and therefore can’t be understood without taking the qualities of that medium into account. Graeber, Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value, p.83

If one were to insist on seeing all such spheres primarily as domains of human action, it quickly becomes obvious that just as much as the production of food requires thinking, art and literature are really a set of material processes. Literature, from this kind of materialist perspective, would no longer be so much about “texts” (usually thought of as abstractions that can then seem to float apart from time or space) but about the writing and reading of them. This is obviously in every way material: actual, flesh-and-blood people have to write them, they have to have the leisure and resources, they need pens or typewriters or computers, there are practical constraints of every sort entailed in the circulation of literature, and so on. Graeber, Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value, p.54

The neat distinction between immaterial and material, therefore, becomes meaningful only from the perspective of relatively isolated and privileged spheres of practices. From the perspective of a radical paradigm and a possible political recomposition, I think this is an isolation that must be overcome, and it can only be overcome if and to the extent that some forms of constituent commoning across ‘material’ and ‘immaterial’ circuits become a reality and a social force at the basis of transformative politics. There is no panacea, no new invention operating as a silver bullet, only the expansion, multiplication and interlacing of commons systems, especially those that reproduce life (food, care, housing, biodiversity, ...). De Angelis, Omnia Sunt Communia, p. 74