4 ms·

The real AI has been in action for centuries now. It's capitalism. Capitalism is a functioning AI that controls the world, that has had humans serving it. AI

The real AI has been in action for centuries now. It's capitalism. Capitalism is a functioning AI that controls the world, that has had humans serving it. AI is the tool that capitalism will use to remove humans from the equation. The end state of capitalism is slave labor. The end state of technocapitalism removes humans from the labor equation.

almosthere 8mo ago
[flagged]
- gambiting 8mo ago
  I hate communism as much as the next guy, but you couldn't describe it more incorrectly even if you tried I think.
  - almosthere 8mo ago
    That is Literally the definition: society based on common ownership of the means of production They try to hide that away by flowering you with "everything is free" and "communal this and that" but when it comes down to it, the very exact definition is you don't own your labor.
    - wredcoll 8mo ago
      Do you know what "the means of production" actually is?
      - almosthere 8mo ago
        The land, labor, physical machinery and infrastructure that is used to produce goods.
    - palmotea 8mo ago
      >>> In communism the beginning state is slave labor. (your work is owned by the state, not yourself) > That is Literally the definition: society based on common ownership of the means of production So, you're saying in communism, the state is owned by you, and your work is owned by the state. And that somehow is more slave-like than when your work is owned by an employer-organization that's owned by some boss? > They try to hide that away by flowering you with "everything is free" and "communal this and that" but when it comes down to it, the very exact definition is you don't own your labor. It's not any worse than a capitalist company town. And honestly: a nation than banned private business and mandated that all workplaces be worker-owned cooperatives sounds both pretty communist to me and in no way worse to labor than our current system.
      - almosthere 8mo ago
        If you own 1/1000000000 of the state and put in 100% of your labor power, how much of that labor power output is now yours after you perform it? And your reward? If you're lucky and things are not mismanaged, you get to eat and you might have a place to lay your hat.
        palmotea 8mo ago
        > If you own 1/1000000000 of the state and put in 100% of your labor power, FFS dude. How much of my employer do I own now? It's probably less than 1/1000000000 of it. > how much of that labor power output is now yours after you perform it? More than now. Your "argument" seems to be: owning 0 is better than owning 1/1000000000. Like, are you even thinking about what you're saying? Or are you playing LLM and just mindlessly regurgitating slop? > And your reward? If you're lucky and things are not mismanaged, you get to eat and you might have a place to lay your hat. You totally ignored my idea of just wiping out the shareholders and turning everything into worker-owned cooperatives, I, and every worker, would own a helluva lot more in that case (even though I own a fair amount of shares overall), and the economy would keep chugging along, more or less as-is.
        almosthere 8mo ago
    - inigyou 8mo ago
      So like my apartment complex would have a power drill in the basement that anyone can borrow to drill holes in their walls and that means I'm a slave?
      - krapp 8mo ago
        No. Communism distinguishes between private and personal property. Your power drill is personal property. Private property is used to generate profit, in other words, is "the means of production." Private property is communal, personal property is not. As an aside, just once I wish I could see a criticism of communism on this forum made in good faith by someone who actually bothered to read a word of theory. Actual goddamn communists and socialists are more than capable of criticizing themselves, it's kind of what they do (and why they never get anywhere.) But capitalists can never come with anything deeper than "communism is slavery lol."
        joshAg 8mo ago
        Yeah, ok, fine. The bread book is easier to read than das kapital, and the manifesto is far too simple.
      - almosthere 8mo ago
        Communism != Communal.
    - xg15 8mo ago
      Which part of "common ownership" means that you somehow don't own it? The whole idea is that you do own it - in part, but enough to get a say in what to do with it. "It" being the means of production - factories, data centers, farms. Not your personal belongings.
    - piva00 8mo ago
      Common ownership of the means of production literally means you own the place you work for, communally.
    - x3ro 8mo ago
      So you're just upset that you can't own it alone, then? Jeff is that you? Be honest :) Seriously though: I don't know what the latest numbers are, but I think we are around 15 people owning ~50% of the global wealth, iirc. So I don't know about you, but unless you are a billionaire, common ownership of the means of production sounds pretty great to most people.
- thrance 8mo ago
  Are people also slaves under capitalism then? "Their work is owned by their employer, not themselves".
  - milkytron 8mo ago
    No. Because you can quit and work for someone else or work for yourself.
    - harimau777 8mo ago
      Not if everyone else is the same and you don't have capital to work for yourself.
    - piva00 8mo ago
      Realistically many can't. It's a nice illusion of choice to be maintained though, gives the system more power for self-exploitation if you are a true believer.
    - thrance 8mo ago
      That's delusional. The vast majority of people lack the economic and social capital necessary to "work for themselves". Instead, they must compete with each other to work for someone that keeps the majority of their output, or risk falling into the ~10% of the population that is unemployed. I won't defend communism, but claiming that capitalism is the best system for workers is very dumb.
- jochem9 8mo ago
  Why do you bring up communism? It's not true that a society either has to organize as capitalist or communist.
  - jfyi 8mo ago
    Well, the corporatists are generally quiet about things until they have control.

almosthere 8mo ago

[flagged]

gambiting 8mo ago
I hate communism as much as the next guy, but you couldn't describe it more incorrectly even if you tried I think.
- almosthere 8mo ago
  That is Literally the definition: society based on common ownership of the means of production They try to hide that away by flowering you with "everything is free" and "communal this and that" but when it comes down to it, the very exact definition is you don't own your labor.
  - wredcoll 8mo ago
    Do you know what "the means of production" actually is?
    - almosthere 8mo ago
      The land, labor, physical machinery and infrastructure that is used to produce goods.
  - palmotea 8mo ago
    >>> In communism the beginning state is slave labor. (your work is owned by the state, not yourself) > That is Literally the definition: society based on common ownership of the means of production So, you're saying in communism, the state is owned by you, and your work is owned by the state. And that somehow is more slave-like than when your work is owned by an employer-organization that's owned by some boss? > They try to hide that away by flowering you with "everything is free" and "communal this and that" but when it comes down to it, the very exact definition is you don't own your labor. It's not any worse than a capitalist company town. And honestly: a nation than banned private business and mandated that all workplaces be worker-owned cooperatives sounds both pretty communist to me and in no way worse to labor than our current system.
    - almosthere 8mo ago
      If you own 1/1000000000 of the state and put in 100% of your labor power, how much of that labor power output is now yours after you perform it? And your reward? If you're lucky and things are not mismanaged, you get to eat and you might have a place to lay your hat.
      - palmotea 8mo ago
        > If you own 1/1000000000 of the state and put in 100% of your labor power, FFS dude. How much of my employer do I own now? It's probably less than 1/1000000000 of it. > how much of that labor power output is now yours after you perform it? More than now. Your "argument" seems to be: owning 0 is better than owning 1/1000000000. Like, are you even thinking about what you're saying? Or are you playing LLM and just mindlessly regurgitating slop? > And your reward? If you're lucky and things are not mismanaged, you get to eat and you might have a place to lay your hat. You totally ignored my idea of just wiping out the shareholders and turning everything into worker-owned cooperatives, I, and every worker, would own a helluva lot more in that case (even though I own a fair amount of shares overall), and the economy would keep chugging along, more or less as-is.
        almosthere 8mo ago
  - inigyou 8mo ago
    So like my apartment complex would have a power drill in the basement that anyone can borrow to drill holes in their walls and that means I'm a slave?
    - krapp 8mo ago
      No. Communism distinguishes between private and personal property. Your power drill is personal property. Private property is used to generate profit, in other words, is "the means of production." Private property is communal, personal property is not. As an aside, just once I wish I could see a criticism of communism on this forum made in good faith by someone who actually bothered to read a word of theory. Actual goddamn communists and socialists are more than capable of criticizing themselves, it's kind of what they do (and why they never get anywhere.) But capitalists can never come with anything deeper than "communism is slavery lol."
      - joshAg 8mo ago
        Yeah, ok, fine. The bread book is easier to read than das kapital, and the manifesto is far too simple.
    - almosthere 8mo ago
      Communism != Communal.
  - xg15 8mo ago
    Which part of "common ownership" means that you somehow don't own it? The whole idea is that you do own it - in part, but enough to get a say in what to do with it. "It" being the means of production - factories, data centers, farms. Not your personal belongings.
  - piva00 8mo ago
    Common ownership of the means of production literally means you own the place you work for, communally.
  - x3ro 8mo ago
    So you're just upset that you can't own it alone, then? Jeff is that you? Be honest :) Seriously though: I don't know what the latest numbers are, but I think we are around 15 people owning ~50% of the global wealth, iirc. So I don't know about you, but unless you are a billionaire, common ownership of the means of production sounds pretty great to most people.
thrance 8mo ago
Are people also slaves under capitalism then? "Their work is owned by their employer, not themselves".
- milkytron 8mo ago
  No. Because you can quit and work for someone else or work for yourself.
  - harimau777 8mo ago
    Not if everyone else is the same and you don't have capital to work for yourself.
  - piva00 8mo ago
    Realistically many can't. It's a nice illusion of choice to be maintained though, gives the system more power for self-exploitation if you are a true believer.
  - thrance 8mo ago
    That's delusional. The vast majority of people lack the economic and social capital necessary to "work for themselves". Instead, they must compete with each other to work for someone that keeps the majority of their output, or risk falling into the ~10% of the population that is unemployed. I won't defend communism, but claiming that capitalism is the best system for workers is very dumb.
jochem9 8mo ago
Why do you bring up communism? It's not true that a society either has to organize as capitalist or communist.
- jfyi 8mo ago
  Well, the corporatists are generally quiet about things until they have control.