7mo ago

Root causes

28 comments

Same goes for any technology, from power loom to AI.
Convincing the working class it's the tools that are the problem, and not the system that abuses them (both working class, and tools), is one of capitalism's greatest achievements.
https://www.globallearning-cuba.com/blog-umlthe-view-from-the-southuml/marx-on-automated-industry
- Yep, I just didn't know how to add that succinctly to the title 😁
  
  You're good, the point is clear, was just adding info. 😊
- Ironically the Luddites were very aware the system was the problem, they made system changing demands.
  Mainstream history has decided to make them into a terrified of new technology pastiche of the truth.
- Convincing the working class that tools the system creates are free of the system’s agenda may be an even greater achievement.
  Conspiring to jack up rent prices is exploitative when people do it. Is it any different when the RealPage algorithm does it indirectly?
  I don’t see any value in saying that human behavior is the problem but then specifically carving out an exception for the automated agents we create to amplify specific behaviors.
  When RedBubble ganks art and sells it on t-shirts, how is that different from when Stability ganks art and sells it at a text prompt?
  
  the RealPage algorithm
  Which was programmed by humans, with biases and vested interests based in and fuelled by capitalism and the rest of the kyriarchy
  I don’t see any value in saying that human behavior is the problem but then specifically carving out an exception for the automated agents we create to amplify specific behaviors.
  Human behaviours. Machines don't have their own behaviours, only those humans have programmed them to have, again, with those same biases and vested interests based in and fuelled by capitalism and the rest of the kyriarchy
  When RedBubble ganks art and sells it on t-shirts, how is that different from when Stability ganks art and sells it at a text prompt?
  It isn't, both are automated systems designed by humans, you guessed it - with those same biases and vested interests based in and fuelled by capitalism and the rest of the kyriarchy
  Convincing the working class that tools the system creates are free of the system’s agenda may be an even greater achievement.
  And only picking examples of ways in which technology is used that are explicitly for profit is cherry picking and twisting reality. The existence of things like FOSS and other ways in which people share technology or otherwise use it to improve society without any profit motive proves you wrong.
  AI isn't intrinsically capitalist, just like computers aren't, nor were steam engines or power looms. Capitalism convincing you that its way is the only way to use tools doesn't mean that's the reality, it only means the propaganda is working.

I'll repost comment I did recently:
I remember how few yesrs ago I said "capitalism exists because perfect replicators do not exist". Eventually I realised that perfect replicators of information already exist and capitalists made sure we can't use them against capitalism.
- When computers became mainstream and all sorts of media got into the open Web, many have seen this as the end of copyright history.
  But it wouldn't be capitalism if it wouldn't build sophisticated instruments and twist legislation in unprecedented ways only to protect publishers.

Nooooo we don't want to do critical thinking and systemic analysis of root causes! Modernity bad! People lived better before antibiotics! Math is evil! /s

Hence the Free Software Movement.

What do you mean capitalism WAS a misstake? Did I miss a memo?
- Yes, Das Kapital by Marx.
  
  Doesn't he specifically say capitalism is an improvement over pre-capitalism and a necessary step for industrialized society to reach socialism? He wouldn't have called it a mistake unless he was really pissed

In debian and graphene we trust

Tech won't save us! (The podcast with the same title is very recommandable)

Capitalism was a necessary step in the development of socialism. It wasn't a mistake, it's just run its course. Just a technicality I know and I shouldn't overanalyze but I felt it was worth stating
- That's like saying "everything happens for a reason" to someone whose whole family has just been murdered.
  No. Capitalism was never necessary.
  
  We were never going to transition directly from feudal society to socialism, the peasant class could not organize in those conditions to rise up against their opressor. Capitalism developed the material conditions necessary for a truly liberatory revolution rather than a passing over of keys from one ruler to another.
  Yes capitalism is responsible for truly horrific things, that is why it needs to be dismantled and replaced. However, it also concentrated the working class into closer quarters and developed the machinary necessary to move past scarcity.
  Sure yeah maybe we could have transitioned from hunter gatherer society to socialist agrarianism and never developed the power structures we see today but that didn't happen for a reason. Agriculture solved the food problem of hunter gatherer societies, feudalism solved the military problem of early agrarian societies that left them vulnerable, capitalism solved the technological development problem of feudalist societies that caused them to stagnate and socialism will solve the resource problem that causes capitalist societies to constantly murder eachother and themselves. Note all of these social structures caused the problems that necessitated the next reorganization of society.
  Also, telling someone who isn't already socialist/communist/anarchist that capitalism was a mistake will seem rediculous if they live a comfortable life.
  
  Yeah, but you're talking to an authoritarian, so lots of people being hurt for the benefit of the few is always "necessary"
  
  But nothing is actually necessary. It depends on what you want to achieve.
  The speed of innovation might have gotten a big impulse by capitalism; I'm not sure if we'd technologically be where we are now otherwise. Of course one could argue that we do not need tech in its current form, which is fair.