3 ms·

Likely it isn't necessary to remind that H. G. Wells was something of a genius, but possibly necessary to note that Stalin held his own in this dialogue and in

Likely it isn't necessary to remind that H. G. Wells was something of a genius, but possibly necessary to note that Stalin held his own in this dialogue and in fact comes across as a more mature political mind. There are caricatures of Stalin as being merely a thug but a reminder that he held his own also with Lenin and Trotsky and other very sharp minds (and came on top!) "things would be different if it were possible, at one stroke, spiritually to tear the technical intelligentsia away from the capitalist world. But that is utopia. Are there many of the technical intelligentsia who would dare break away from the bourgeois world and set to work reconstructing society?" Stalin's remarks on the "technical intelligentsia" and its inability to be the leader of socialist change is interesting in context of the past 20 years and the FAANGs. The entire thrust of his argument (now proven to be true) throws cold water on the fire of the techno-utopia promised to us. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/F/bo3773600.html https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/F/bo377360...

Bewelge 4y ago
I also thought about FAANGs at that point but in a different way: I understood the technical intelligentsia to be the actual engineers - the people working at FAANGs. FAANG itself are the capitalist class. Thought this paragraph by Wells was also relevant in that regard: "I remember the situation with regard to the technical intelligentsia several decades ago. At that time the technical intelligentsia was numerically small, but there was much to do and every engineer, technician and intellectual found his opportunity. That is why the technical intelligentsia was the least revolutionary class. Now, however, there is a superabundance of technical intellectuals, and their mentality has changed very sharply. The skilled man, who would formerly never listen to revolutionary talk, is now greatly interested in it. " The past 20 years were a period of economic growth. By Well's logic you wouldn't expect the technical intelligentsia to have many revolutionary thoughts during that period anyway.
- eternalban 4y ago
  Here something for you to consider (and my apolgies to EB for singling him out here): in 1997: https://cypherpunks.ca/~iang/pubs/privacy-compcon97.pdf https://cypherpunks.ca/~iang/pubs/privacy-compcon97.pdf later (working under Eric "if you want something private don't do it on the internet" Schmidt?): https://www.linkedin.com/in/eric-brewer-1031254 https://www.linkedin.com/in/eric-brewer-1031254 So a few points: The leading "technical intelligentsia" were not kids who just entered into the labor market in 2000. Many of them spent the previous decade_s either pushing techno-utopia, or in Brewer and friends case in 1997, actually raising red flags. Most of the tech-utopia ideology came out of 60s and 70s anyway. Technology was supposed to finally solve some long standing issues. Wells doesn't address the fact that "superabundance" of geeks means nothing if these same geeks need access to facilities for their technical-intellectual pursuits that only Capital provides. This very moment I am sure, n AI geeks are internally having a debate over their ideological convictions vs working for one of the AI giants who do not share these convictions (in context of AI, minimally). I do not blame those who don't walk away from their careers and intellectual pursuits. Its a social structure issue that places difficult delimas. Your big brain can only insure your survival if it is working for pay. The entire "do no evil" and primary color theme of Google was imo further signaling (falsely) that "here is a company that is on board with our utopian program". They actually played to that role until it could no longer be taken seriously. Now it would be laughable. I mentioned the "last 20 years" as the QED period, not the actual formation of ideas, promotion of ideas, and finally leading "the common man" down the path of e.g. surveillance capitalism while pretending to those ideas. That process took decades and started in 60s.

Bewelge 4y ago

I also thought about FAANGs at that point but in a different way: I understood the technical intelligentsia to be the actual engineers - the people working at FAANGs. FAANG itself are the capitalist class. Thought this paragraph by Wells was also relevant in that regard: "I remember the situation with regard to the technical intelligentsia several decades ago. At that time the technical intelligentsia was numerically small, but there was much to do and every engineer, technician and intellectual found his opportunity. That is why the technical intelligentsia was the least revolutionary class. Now, however, there is a superabundance of technical intellectuals, and their mentality has changed very sharply. The skilled man, who would formerly never listen to revolutionary talk, is now greatly interested in it. " The past 20 years were a period of economic growth. By Well's logic you wouldn't expect the technical intelligentsia to have many revolutionary thoughts during that period anyway.

eternalban 4y ago
Here something for you to consider (and my apolgies to EB for singling him out here): in 1997: https://cypherpunks.ca/~iang/pubs/privacy-compcon97.pdf https://cypherpunks.ca/~iang/pubs/privacy-compcon97.pdf later (working under Eric "if you want something private don't do it on the internet" Schmidt?): https://www.linkedin.com/in/eric-brewer-1031254 https://www.linkedin.com/in/eric-brewer-1031254 So a few points: The leading "technical intelligentsia" were not kids who just entered into the labor market in 2000. Many of them spent the previous decade_s either pushing techno-utopia, or in Brewer and friends case in 1997, actually raising red flags. Most of the tech-utopia ideology came out of 60s and 70s anyway. Technology was supposed to finally solve some long standing issues. Wells doesn't address the fact that "superabundance" of geeks means nothing if these same geeks need access to facilities for their technical-intellectual pursuits that only Capital provides. This very moment I am sure, n AI geeks are internally having a debate over their ideological convictions vs working for one of the AI giants who do not share these convictions (in context of AI, minimally). I do not blame those who don't walk away from their careers and intellectual pursuits. Its a social structure issue that places difficult delimas. Your big brain can only insure your survival if it is working for pay. The entire "do no evil" and primary color theme of Google was imo further signaling (falsely) that "here is a company that is on board with our utopian program". They actually played to that role until it could no longer be taken seriously. Now it would be laughable. I mentioned the "last 20 years" as the QED period, not the actual formation of ideas, promotion of ideas, and finally leading "the common man" down the path of e.g. surveillance capitalism while pretending to those ideas. That process took decades and started in 60s.