Atlas667

no profile record

comments

28 gün öncediscuss

Monopoly capitalism and finance capitalism took reigns of markets more than a century ago. The state serves these huge interests.

Everybody knows AI firms pirated to train, nothing will come of it. A plain example of classist application of law.

The reason for the willy nilly application of their own laws will always be 'national security', of course, since they own infrastructure their interests are a national security.

So tech may shake things up whenever it makes great leaps, but finance capitalism quickly adapts and absorbs the waves.

geçen aydiscuss

Faking sincerity is hard and being sincere gets you fired.

geçen aydiscuss

There's a few topics I see here:

- Human Value

- Sincerity

- Evolution of technology and social systems with them

Do all humans have value? Yes, but not all humans can realize their own value. Your society is the gymnasium that helps you realize your value.

Think of how technology interfaces with humans and their employment. The more efficient technology gets the less people you need to produce the same amount of goods. And with each technological breakthrough production needs less people to operate. Sure, they may redistribute later, but immediately it manifests as layoffs.

Unemployment means less people can self-realize since work IS part of the realization of individuals. If work were not part of your realization, then how else do you buy a house, experience the world, raise kids, etc, if not through your benefits of your work?

Here we see how human value is tied directly to the ability to provide to society and to provide for themselves and we also see how that is tied to the ability of society to employ.

Now I ask you, will the AI crisis (and how it relates to human value) be solved with a CEO at a board meeting showing that humans have intrinsic value?

Or will it be solved with the one sided truth that us workers possess and only we can espouse? This truth being that our value as humans can only come from our self-realization within and as-part of society.

Can that CEO be sincere about how society works or must he adopt a convenient POV?

Capitalist ideology cannot conceive of society as an interconnected whole. A capitalist frame of thinking cannot be sincere, since its actions are in opposition to the interests of the majority. And I am not saying that the production of goods is in opposition, I am referring to HOW the goods are produced is in opposition.

People will only use AI for the things they must already be insincere for, such as work-related communication, because truth is already relinquished in those environments. Work is just money making (usually for someone else) with some niceties sprinkled around and individualism to seal it all up. Faking sincerity is hard and being sincere gets you fired.

Is the problem our recognition of human value or for-profit production as a whole?

Is the problem AI or how hard we have to bullshit each other to get by?

2 ay öncediscuss

The reason cleaning toilets in america is not that bad is because of socialist and communist labor organizing.

Go to Ecuador to clean toilets and you'll see what capitalism does to workers.

2 ay öncediscuss

Comment OP here. The third way is just capitalism with extra "were different" rhetoric.

Remember capitalism isnt a vibe its the private control of production for profit.

All "third way" people are just capitalists with extra checks and balances for freedom.

What they dont say or realize is that these extra checks and balances can be done away with by the very incentives of the people they think wont.

Power isnt a vibe, its the control of production made policy.

2 ay öncediscuss

Do you really understand class war? Your suggestion is having the state legislate this away as if the state isn't fully compromised by the capitalist class?

This is the main lesson of the 20th century that liberals refuse to accept; that the state is controlled by capitalist class interests. Capitalist democracy is a curated racket.

And even if we were to force legislation exactly as described above it can't and hasn't lasted long due to the incentives ($billions) to undo it. They will go as far as to kill people for this, and they have.

Legislation does NOT fundamentally change existing power relations. They have this shit in their pockets and you're just saying that we should have them take it out of their pockets.

The western allergy towards Marxism is one of the most detrimental cultural positions the working class has EVER faced.

4 ay öncediscuss

Tangentially, this is also the reason why many forms of corruption can be done away with right now with modern technology.

Meaning that democratizing our existing political structures is a reality today and can be done effectively (think blockchain, think zero knowledge proofs).

On the other hand, the political struggle to actually enact this new democratic system will be THE defining struggle of our times.

4 ay öncediscuss

People say that because they are not aware of what Marxism is.

Marxism isnt "lets try something different based on ideas of justice"

Marxism is "Society evolves through general stages: primitive, slave, feudal and capitalist, this is determined by the level production. Capitalism is holding back its current evolution into a society of plenty."

Good luck backing speculation and profit gatekept production.

4 ay öncediscuss

The only way to curb something like that is more democratization. Fraud is a common problem in any system anywhere. A reputation score on top would help, only if it can be kept democratically controlled.

There is no single solution, but public fund usurping is basically a law of capitalism, which is why I critique it in this context. Public money laundering is a developed industry in capitalism.

4 ay öncediscuss

It's the tax-payer funded business model, the NGO trap. Subsidies, grants, tax-breaks, credit, deductions, exemptions, etc. A whole class of profiteers live in this sector. Even though academia funding isn't strictly categorized as an NGO, it still fits/foots the bill. Public funding of private gains is the oldest trick in the book. Ask any capitalist, they know. And I'm not saying I'm against public funding, but this is often codified into a mafia of sorts when enough money flows through.

The real problem here is the fundamental lack of democratic control over our agencies. That our political organization is intensely lagging behind our productive organization. That our whole political will involves TRUSTING strangers to not be corrupt instead of directly democratizing these processes as much as possible.

But besides that, you cannot remove history from historical analysis. The reason socialism countries struggled in the beginning wasn't an inherent flaw in its organization, but the fact that they were under constant war war by capitalist countries through out their existence. Also keep in mind that most socialist countries did NOT have a whole section of the world where-from to extract riches through murder (S.America, Africa, Middle east, etc), like western capitalist countries had. This is convenient for you to ignore. Maybe because you don't know, or don't care about the super-exploitative history of these places and how they tie into western capitalism. But they are inherent to western wealth and these countries' whole history is struggle against this exploitation.

Not to mention that most of the countries on earth are capitalists and are very very very poor.

To add: Socialism has nothing to do with "clamping down" on X or Y industry, as you hypothetically claim would happen. Socialism is almost exclusively about removing the need to generate capital from production. It unleashes production from its historical ball and chain that is profiteering.

In a single sentence: Instead of production being held back by capitalists generating wealth we can produce for our own needs. It is self sustaining production.

Central planning is not fallacious. Your problem is with corruption, not democratic central planning. The US Govt is a pro-capitalist entity that pro-capitalists try to distance themselves from (ironically). So using them as an example isn't saying anything at all.

Central planning is not "allow a small group of people to decide things", as happens in the US Govt. Central planning is to take into account all sources of information on production to plan said production democratically.

This will always beat the highly highly inefficient speculation of capitalism. Where trillions vanish on a whim and cause of a tweet, where crisis occur every 8-10 years, and where its whole trade market is built to hide that it is mostly insider trading. Again, your problem is with corruption not democratic central planning.

And the way to deal with corruption is to create more democratic bodies where avg people hold real power. I don't see you asking for that either. We call that socialism.

4 ay öncediscuss

Almost as if capitalism makes everything into a market, and the profits make it self sustaining.

How many will see the connections between this and our capitalist mode of production? Probably few since modern lit/news is allergic to systemic analysis.

The blatant flaws of capitalism can't be ignored for much longer.

4 ay öncediscuss

Everybody hates capitalism, but no one understands that they do. What you promote as a solution is simply a pebble on the path of the people who want to capitalize.

There are 3 realistic scenarios for your proposed solution:

    - it will not pass

    - it will be reformed later, or, if successful

    - it will just make the capitalists appear at another point in the supply chain

The capitalists design the business models (profit making schemes) and legalize them. This is not an organic development of an industry.

What you hate is capitalism and capitalism will do this to any industry wherever it can attain steady profits.

5 ay öncediscuss

Right, nothing can, but it is harder to corrupt when the state isn't a handful of people with shields of bureaucracy where access to power can only be attained by the richest individuals in that society.

Communism isn't "let the state do more things" as many think. Communism is "make all of the people into the state". Cut out the middle-man, so to say. Direct democracy, peoples councils, peoples courts, all with a worldview that keeps it that way; socialism/communism. It's intention, as a movement is to not to leave political power to an external organization. To organize your workplace, neighborhood, town and city, into its own political power.

5 ay öncediscuss

I believe I have a somewhat unique perspective on this as a communist.

Capitalist governments, even theocratic ones, are trash for the working class. That would explain those previous protests. Corruption is a totally normal thing in western countries as well. It just doesn't get broadcast in a politicized way, if at all, in our media. (not a coincidence)

Our local capitalist media jut makes it seem louder in certain places when there is an interest, such as the downfall of the Iranian state.

Is this sound enough logic for you to approve sending American kids to die over there?

5 ay öncediscuss

Many are protesting because of the sanctions, considered war crimes, imposed by the west onto them.

The US and its allies have attacked the currency and the availability of goods for the common Iranian. This is how regime change works. This is what is happening in Cuba as well. You starve and disenfranchise the average person to make regime change by internal bad-actors more successful.

Therefore many citizens protest against their conditions, not against their government. The misconstruing of this reality is intentional and an essential part of war mongering.

We understand this and we are smarter than the BBC thinks we are. Now ask yourself why must young Americans in the armed forces put their lives on the line for this?

5 ay öncediscuss

Yeah, dude thanks for the good faith.

A lot of people are allergic to this rhetoric and will just assume I have a deep irrational bias, but I was actually a staunch free market supporter before.

Once I decided to be more intellectually honest with myself and read more about what both sides meant historically and currently, it really just made sense.

5 ay öncediscuss

They have the incentive to never chose this.

If we force it upon them by begging politicians, corporations still have the incentive to find a way to remove it or circumvent it.

Youre playing the cat and mouse game because you've been taught that solving it is too extreme (thats not a coincidence).

We dont need to endlessly fight a whole class of people, capitalists, for them not to use the things we require against us. Only socialism can solve that.

5 ay öncediscuss

> Aren't the politicians or their appointed bureaucrats who'd be making all the decisions if these needs were government owned?

Well that would be true under a capitalist government.

> Why would state control lead to less policing?

Its not just "the state runs it", its "we actively become the state".

Collective ownership through peoples councils, peoples courts with a world view that keeps it all open: socialism.

The world view of not allowing individual ownership over collective goods, the world view of socialism, is the life line of the movement. The actual practice of daily democracy, of running production and of deciding social functions is everyones responsibility and it should not be left to what has become a professional class of liars.

Public office members, which should only exist where absolutely necessary, should be locals and serve as messengers with 0 decision making power. All power should be in the local councils. We can mathematically implement this today (0 knowledge proofs).

Every single book on socialism is on theory and practices of acheiving this. Thats what the "dictatorship of the proletariat is", the dictatorship of working people, collectively.

> What incentive structure would lead to innovation without a profit motive, when even the modern communist world relies on capital markets?

We've been innovating for hundreds of thousands of years before capitalism. You dont need to generate money to innovate, the innovation itself is the driver, AKA a better life. No need to lock and limit production behind the attaining of profits of those who lead it.

5 ay öncediscuss

Capitalism is the privatization of human needs. As long as these tech platforms are owned privately they will be used to police and make money.

This view NEEDS to be central to the tech freedom rhetoric, else the whole movement is literally just begging politicians and hoping corporations do the right thing... useless.

5 ay öncediscuss

Meanwhile the NSA and Mossad can see you fapping on your phone and scan your face in real time and you're implicitly fine with it

This is what lack of options does to a MF