Let's first finish the critique, then we can use its conclusions to talk about what it would actually take to get us out of this mess.
Capitalism has always been a tension between capitalists, who want maximum return on capital and workers, who want pesky things like a living wage, sick leave or safe work conditions.
For the longest time, the only power labor has had to get those things was the power of collective bargaining. No agreement with your workers meant no production happened.
AI threatens to disturb this delicate balance that made things kinda-sorta work for a while.
No more dependence on labor means the capital accumulation flywheel will go crazy. Capital can buy compute can generate capital. Now, once you have a ton of capital, you might start thinking: Hmmm, I wonder if I can use this to tilt the rules of the game in my favor. Wonder which politicians could change some regulations in exchange for a hefty "donation". And so the regulatory capture begins.
In other words, the end state of things as they are is: existing capitalists get converted to near-feudal lords (which is why they're so excited about the prospect!), while the existing working class loses their only leverage to extract an existence.
All solutionist approaches just slightly slow this incentive loop down or make it more marketable, but none change the core mechanism at play.
Now, with this critique in mind, what do we actually do about it?
We won't be able to stop AI from taking over more and more labor jobs, and we shouldn't even try to. But that's not really the problem anyways, the problem is that with the current ownership structure, the only ones really benefiting from AI productivity are they already-owning class.
That is where we have a lever. The only way out of this dystopian path, and into something more appealing, is communal ownership of the means of production. This doesn't have to mean everyone's laptop, this needs to be measured and scaled of course, but as an example, large-scale data centers should not be allowed to be privately controlled.
Now, which mechanism we choose here is up for debate. Maybe government ownership? Maybe worker-owned coops? Maybe something else entirely?
Lastly, how do we get there? Historically, there's been two schools of thought: The electoral and the revolutionary approach. I think both have their merits, but I actually think they best work together.
Think of the Bismarckian example: Why was the conservative German chancellor the one to introduce the German social safety net? To stave off a credible threat of revolution.
I think that while I don't really love the idea of a revolution, the ruling class loves it even less, because historically they are the ones that end up beheaded. That's why I see revolutionary movements as a good way to extract concessions, because they don't need to actually go through with it as long as they're threatening enough.
Thank you, now this is a solid answer. I don't think I agree with everything in it entirely, but it's well written and certainly gives me a lot to think about.
I'm glad you found this articulation of my views useful! I hope you now understand why people can be opposed to getting bogged down in discussing what they see as band-aids on top of a much bigger structural problem.
I'd also be interested in seeing where you do and don't agree - if only to adjust my own mental model, none of us are infallible, critical feedback is always good :-)
> I'd also be interested in seeing where you do and don't agree
I agree that society more or less eventually needs to get to the sort of state you're describing, or at least something resembling it. It should be plainly obvious to anyone that if machines do more and more work, eventually capitalism just isn't going to make any sense. Of course it's a question of when that line is crossed, but we're moving further and further every day.
I mostly "disagree" with regards to how feasible it is in our current global system, or how realistic it is to actually get there. Off the top of my head, a few things:
- It'd probably require international cooperation. If we assume (and this isn't a given, but so far seems likely) that a society that prioritizes ruthless progress at all costs goes faster than one that prioritizes the people and their welfare, the former eventually outcompetes the latter, economically and militarily. You already kind of see this with the EU vs the other superpowers, nobody would question that the EU is a nicer place to live, but they're becoming sort of irrelevant globally. We can question whether this really matters, but it is a factor.
- In the same vein, whatever country decides to nationalize all its data centers (and more) will presumably soon lose all foreign investors. What would be the point of investing anything in that country if it's just going to get taken the next day?
- Public opinion, obviously. The average US voter thinks food stamps are communism, good luck convincing them to nationalize tech companies. Personally I think this is actually less of a barrier than most online people make it out to be, the typical US voter doesn't actually care about economic systems, they just care about aura. Look how many "socialist" adjacent things Trump has done and his party loves him for it. But it is a barrier.
- You have to really trust whoever you actually give control (whether a central government, a more anarchist type thing, whatever) of the data centers, etc to to go with this. Or else they'll just end up abusing that power the same as the companies would.
- It doesn't quite solve the core problem of, in this hypothetical post scarcity future, people no longer having jobs or meaningful lives. It's sure better than a corporate feudal hellscape, but I think fundamentally people are still going to lead pretty depressing lives if there's literally nothing for them to do other than sit around while robots do everything for them. And yes, obviously we're so, so far away from this, but I think one of the points of the OP is that we're getting closer to it every day, and in particular it seems like intellectual labor and art (the fun things!) might be the first to go. Is our future really to do what's left of the manual labor while chatbots (whether privately or publicly owned) do all the thinking for us? I doubt it, but we have to admit it's kinda scary that it's looking like a possibility.
I'm sure there's a few other random things, but that was the few that came to mind. Not explained all that well, but hopefully you find it useful.
Good points, i like them, but i fear you were sucked in by low effort trolling. Your original point was clear, that fiddling with a broken system is a distraction from a better more workable system. If you try to begin to articulate a more workable system you'll then have to contend with a barrage of mindless ad hom and rhetorical rubbish... (ug ug socialism bad) so sometimes critiquing the current system is just easier.
"Critiquing the current system" on its own is nearly useless. Literally everyone can do it. Yes, articulating a more workable system is hard, that's why it's actually meaningful.
The problem is that socialism actually is bad. Neoliberalism is a much better idea that leads to better outcomes, and is based on reason and empiricism and systems thinking. Socialism is pseudoscience, vibes, and cults of personality and ideology.
Socially conscious neoliberalism in democratic countries has led to the most acceleration towards widespread human prosperity in all of history.
Could you elaborate your position, maybe make a structural argument like I did above, or maybe refute mine? I'd argue my post above was pure systems thinking, wasn't it?
So far you have made an assertion, but have not shared anything to back it.
Oh, I just realized you're the same commenter that was arguing that people just want to criticize and not offer any proposals for solutions.
Getting that response to an actual proposal from you is the thickest of ironies.
I initially thought globalnode's comment was a bit cynical and mean spirited. But you... kind of proved his point? Instead of proposing and judging solutions as you initially mentioned, you basically enacted the "ug ug socialism is bad" he predicted.
I didn't completely read your reply. That's not what I'm responding to.
I am critiquing the proposal of socialism as the answer. My initial complaint was answered. My new complaint is with that proposed solution.
Socialism is just empirically and morally extremely bad and will not solve our problems. Mamdani is a great example. Mamdani is mostly solving problems by governing as a wise technocratic pro-social neoliberal. His one main exception - rent control - will very likely backfire and continue to prove my point.
Your reply would require an essay from me much longer than what you wrote to explain why it's mostly wrong and why collective ownership of the AI labs and AI data centers (or almost anything) would be bad compared to private ownership with government oversight and taxation.
For now, I would recommend the latest in the Alexander vs. Pritchard series to help articulate broadly why liberalism is preferable to socialism: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/re-re-re-pritchard-on-liber...
I have read the arguments from each and find Pritchard to have made the best case for socialism I've come across and yet find Alexander far more persuasive and correct, here.
I would also recommend reading OpenAI's social democratic policy proposals: https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/561e7512-253e-424b-9734-ef4098440...
I feel like while this is a slightly better answer, it still fundamentally is a cop-out.
> Socialism is just empirically and morally extremely bad and will not solve our problems
This is a purely ideological assertion, or "vibes and dogma" to use your terms. We were talking about systems thinking, and yet you answer a structural analysis with unbacked claims.
The link dump also feels a bit distractive - we were talking of making concrete proposals and judging them on their merits, now you instead link to some other people talking about vaguely relate topics. Your response did neither of the things you were talking about earlier. I feel like you haven't managed to live up to the standard you have set.
The fact that you ask for specific proposals only to then not even read them is the cherry on top.
As a final ironic twist, you link to OpenAI in response to a critique of power centralization and share their policy proposals as response to a critique about regulatory capture. Why not link a Standard Oil press release about why monopolies are great, actually?
I am fine with socialists who actually try to provide clear arguments and proposals. That's why I'm a big fan of Cassie Pritchard, who is ideologically basically a tankie yet who actually engages in rational discourse (and who agrees with you on what to do with AI labs and data centers). My initial comment and first reply were not responses to you. I am annoyed by people who do not want to grapple with the world. You should separate my "socialism is bad, immoral, and ineffective" from my initial comment about many people not even trying.
>Why not link a Standard Oil press release about why monopolies are great, actually?
My point was that you might very well like OpenAI's proposals, if you were to read them! Because they may not actually be that far off from what you desire. They just won't go quite as far as your ideal scenario. What they describe is arguably a mix of private and public ownership.
This is not to say it's necessarily not just PR talk they'll soon abandon. But it's a starting point, and them disregarding their positions there would be relevant to future government regulation approaches.