4 ms·

Infuriating interview for almost any socialist today, by which I mean the majority of people who identify with the marxist or (real, actually non-hierarchical a

Infuriating interview for almost any socialist today, by which I mean the majority of people who identify with the marxist or (real, actually non-hierarchical and anti-statist) anarchist conception of the word. Not to mention an embarrassingly bad and mystical account of the beliefs of the "enlightened billionaire class" and an astoundingly ahistorical account of how any rights for the marginalized were won in the 20th century. This is the same "englightened billionaire class" whose extractivist industries are pushing the planet ever closer ecological collapse, massive numbers of climate refugees, increasing militarization over resource control, etc.

smadge 8y ago
To be fair to Weinstein, he is saying that the enlightened self interest of the billionaire class to find a solution to capitalism arises from the threat of insurrection and the collapse their power. He describes Occupy as a peaceful warning shot to the ruling class. Next time they might not get off so easy.
- almostdeadguy 8y ago
  It superficially resembles the Marxist account of the bourgeoisie as responsible for their own downfall ("what the Bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave diggers"), but he ascribes it more to a philanthropic change of heart or concern about their legacy. > I think it's a combination of both embarrassment and enlightened self-interest that this class — several rungs above my own — is trying to make sure it does not sow the seeds of a highly destructive societal collapse, and I believe I have seen an actual personal transformation in many of the leading thinkers among the technologists, where they have come to care deeply about the effects of their work. Few of them want to be remembered as job killers who destroyed the gains that have accumulated since the Industrial Revolution. > So I think that in terms of wanting to leave a socially positive legacy, many of them are motivated to innovate through concepts like universal basic income, finding that Washington is as bereft of new ideas in social terms as it is of new technological ones. I mean the entire idea is bullshit to me. UBI is not socialist and Elon Musk talking about UBI is poor evidence of any sensitivity to the plight of workers or even recognition that things will end badly for them if we stay on course by the bourgeoisie at large. Fighting the UAW yet talking about UBI isn't being a "woke billionaire" or something, that's absurd.
  - Thriptic 8y ago
    It plays better than saying that at least some portion of the rich recognize that the current course is unsustainable and will result in violent revolution or asset seizure, and so they are willing to work towards finding some sort of solution out of self interest.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Throughout history the main problem of the ruling class was to find the balance between keeping in power and enriching themselves without the pushing the mob too far and revolting and killing them. This is no different.
maxxxxx 8y ago
It sounds like the current billionaires still think they are entitled to be super rich and should control the world but they also want to feel good about themselves.
jadedhacker 8y ago
It was a frustrating read, but for what it's worth, he does raise the point that capitalism is powered by growth and that the growth began to go haywire in the 70s. He is correct that what comes after capitalism will be very different, he just appears to be completely unaware of the centuries of thinking that has gone into this. He doesn't even mention the nearest socialist idea next to private capitalism, market socialism powered by worker cooperatives. That of course has its own problems, but come on, even a mention of that would have made me feel like he or the interviewer had done some homework. Instead I feel like they've noticed a few of the problems Marx did in the 1800s and are bantering about context free. The media class and their billionaire friends consistently discuss technological change as having completely changed the economy such that Marxist analysis doesn't hold. I'm not convinced. Some of Marx's ideas ware that capitalism would routinely automate and disrupt routinized activity while leaving no safety net for the workers. It would scatter workers, break up every social structure, leave workers alienated from their work and social relations, and leave workers without salable labor with nothing. This is in contrast to pre-capitalist modes of production that tied peasants to the land or to other feudal relations. Today's peasants have nothing securely, not even housing, and are entirely precarious save for the liberal welfare state that is being torn asunder by the capitalist counterattack on labor since at least the '70s. I would posit that we are merely encountering extreme conditions in this analysis, but that our abilities as technologists blind us to this reality as our labor is still salable, and the VCs will help us start companies by lending us their money.
- almostdeadguy 8y ago
  Sure, but a concern about growth and technological revolutions is just as easily found in Keynesian economists works. The conception of socialism here is just regurgitating Hayek's understanding of socialism in "The Road To Serfdom" as fundamentally being about "big government", which is woefully disconnected from the writings of almost every socialist (government centralization is theorized method of implementing the socialist mode of production by some socialists, but it's not fundamentally the point nor is there an understanding of welfare reforms as being "more socialist" by any Marxist I know). Or it's confusing what some socialists agitate for against neoliberal revanchism as their ultimate aims. Either way I wish these people would read a single work by a socialist or have some understanding of the schools of thought within socialism before making these hilariously misinformed pronouncements. It might even challenge their understanding of the "enlightened billionaire class". Definitely agreed that the eagerness to write off Marx is related to a misunderstanding of what Marx actually said though.

smadge 8y ago

To be fair to Weinstein, he is saying that the enlightened self interest of the billionaire class to find a solution to capitalism arises from the threat of insurrection and the collapse their power. He describes Occupy as a peaceful warning shot to the ruling class. Next time they might not get off so easy.

almostdeadguy 8y ago
It superficially resembles the Marxist account of the bourgeoisie as responsible for their own downfall ("what the Bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave diggers"), but he ascribes it more to a philanthropic change of heart or concern about their legacy. > I think it's a combination of both embarrassment and enlightened self-interest that this class — several rungs above my own — is trying to make sure it does not sow the seeds of a highly destructive societal collapse, and I believe I have seen an actual personal transformation in many of the leading thinkers among the technologists, where they have come to care deeply about the effects of their work. Few of them want to be remembered as job killers who destroyed the gains that have accumulated since the Industrial Revolution. > So I think that in terms of wanting to leave a socially positive legacy, many of them are motivated to innovate through concepts like universal basic income, finding that Washington is as bereft of new ideas in social terms as it is of new technological ones. I mean the entire idea is bullshit to me. UBI is not socialist and Elon Musk talking about UBI is poor evidence of any sensitivity to the plight of workers or even recognition that things will end badly for them if we stay on course by the bourgeoisie at large. Fighting the UAW yet talking about UBI isn't being a "woke billionaire" or something, that's absurd.
- Thriptic 8y ago
  It plays better than saying that at least some portion of the rich recognize that the current course is unsustainable and will result in violent revolution or asset seizure, and so they are willing to work towards finding some sort of solution out of self interest.
maxxxxx 8y ago
Throughout history the main problem of the ruling class was to find the balance between keeping in power and enriching themselves without the pushing the mob too far and revolting and killing them. This is no different.

maxxxxx 8y ago

It sounds like the current billionaires still think they are entitled to be super rich and should control the world but they also want to feel good about themselves.

jadedhacker 8y ago

It was a frustrating read, but for what it's worth, he does raise the point that capitalism is powered by growth and that the growth began to go haywire in the 70s. He is correct that what comes after capitalism will be very different, he just appears to be completely unaware of the centuries of thinking that has gone into this. He doesn't even mention the nearest socialist idea next to private capitalism, market socialism powered by worker cooperatives. That of course has its own problems, but come on, even a mention of that would have made me feel like he or the interviewer had done some homework. Instead I feel like they've noticed a few of the problems Marx did in the 1800s and are bantering about context free. The media class and their billionaire friends consistently discuss technological change as having completely changed the economy such that Marxist analysis doesn't hold. I'm not convinced. Some of Marx's ideas ware that capitalism would routinely automate and disrupt routinized activity while leaving no safety net for the workers. It would scatter workers, break up every social structure, leave workers alienated from their work and social relations, and leave workers without salable labor with nothing. This is in contrast to pre-capitalist modes of production that tied peasants to the land or to other feudal relations. Today's peasants have nothing securely, not even housing, and are entirely precarious save for the liberal welfare state that is being torn asunder by the capitalist counterattack on labor since at least the '70s. I would posit that we are merely encountering extreme conditions in this analysis, but that our abilities as technologists blind us to this reality as our labor is still salable, and the VCs will help us start companies by lending us their money.

almostdeadguy 8y ago
Sure, but a concern about growth and technological revolutions is just as easily found in Keynesian economists works. The conception of socialism here is just regurgitating Hayek's understanding of socialism in "The Road To Serfdom" as fundamentally being about "big government", which is woefully disconnected from the writings of almost every socialist (government centralization is theorized method of implementing the socialist mode of production by some socialists, but it's not fundamentally the point nor is there an understanding of welfare reforms as being "more socialist" by any Marxist I know). Or it's confusing what some socialists agitate for against neoliberal revanchism as their ultimate aims. Either way I wish these people would read a single work by a socialist or have some understanding of the schools of thought within socialism before making these hilariously misinformed pronouncements. It might even challenge their understanding of the "enlightened billionaire class". Definitely agreed that the eagerness to write off Marx is related to a misunderstanding of what Marx actually said though.