Pic related recently came out and it provides a coherent explanation of the technological contradictions in capitalism

Pic related recently came out and it provides a coherent explanation of the technological contradictions in capitalism.

Essentially, automation will continue until a point of unsustainable unemployment which will require a reorganization of the economic system. The problem is that the likely result, if nothing is done to prevent it, is the division of society into "The Gods and The Useless." It's entirely possible that the capitalist class owning the productive forces at this point would realize that they no longer need the rest of society. They then could either abandon us entirely, or begin a genocide of the useless.

Automation has the potential to completely crush the power of labor and eliminate swaths of the already dwindling working class into a 'useless' class of permanently unemployed people and render socialism an impossible prospect. Communism will emerge in this case, but it is going to be the victory of the bourgeoisie, not the proletariat.

The next 20 years or so of automation are going to be the critical period, we ought to focus on ensuring the public oversight of these machines and on establishing a UBI to stave off increasing inequality.

Perhaps a violent revolution would still be possible after the automation of much of the workforce, but what's going to happen when the bourgeois start augmenting themselves and becoming cyborgs?

It's absolutely imperative that we focus on getting a grip on technology, and holding on as tight as we can to that, ensuring that it benefits everyone. If society does get divided between The Gods and The Useless, socialism is finished.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization)
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-hit-where-it-hurts.a4.pdf
cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Wow the whole fucking book is about that? Hell I could have told you that for free!

Every single day the theories of Ted Kaczynski become more relevant and i dont know if its a good or bad thing. (His main concern is that our autonomy will be progressively more destroyed for the sake of our utilisation for the system where will reach a trans-humanist future of perfect docline working force with no sense of own will and an upperclass superhumans as like the Brave New World)

We are being utilised and we will be getting more perfectly utilized as civilisation will progress to transhumanism and eventually post-humanism.

This is a good thing but we have to destroy the utilitarians before they ruin everything for everyone forever.

The utilitarians? why?

They want to turn everything into a hyper-"efficient" society where we are all cockroaches with malfunctioning serotonin receptors.

Like literally, talk to technocrat poster, he's said that he would joyfully take his grandma to the recycling center when she is "no longer of use."

Technology must be used to expand human freedom, not destroy it for "efficiency" and "pleasure."

Well if you like complete dehumanisation and all forms of freedom (even free thought) being pruned then well sure. Its kidna fucked tbh but i think its inevitable that we eventually become post-human AI collective.


And reach that how? All modern technology depends on mass social organisation wich can only exist throught an economy and society. Modern technology can not function in a decentralised way for its depedence on other sectors of the economy.

Hot damn it feels good when leftypol actually discusses leftist politics.
Though, I personally think increasing unemployment will not end capitalism, it'll just drive down the cost of labor even more. The cost of labor is made so low by having a pool of people eager to get the job if someone isnt happy with their pay.
Its the reason why capitalists prefer for workers to work longer hours, to reduce the number of shifts in a day and thus increase unemployment.

In order to make advances in technology more beneficial to us, we – the workers – must lower the ammount of hours in a workday. Lowering the hours from 8 to 6 will add a shift to every day, decreasing unemployment 25%. Lowering the hours from 8 to 4 would add 3 shifts to the day, lowering unemployment by 50%.

ideas and skills are more important than "productive forces" you fucking commie moron. moreover we left production era and entered into service era. are you still in xix?

Exactly, are you some retarded pro-Intellectual-Property Ancap? What do you think the service sector is but Hollywood and advertizing?
The service sector is people paying other people for shit that they would do for free because they need that money to survive.

Link to vid?

stop being a gigantic newfag and look it for yourself.

What does dehumanization even entail. Merging with our creations is becoming more human, we seize control of our own destiny, it has the potential to be the most liberating event in history. I said we needed to kill utilitarians because they want to put the cart before the horse and get utility over freedom because they don't understand maximum freedom will naturally lead to maximum utility. Granted, it is entirely possible that those who control these machines to begin with will subordinate us into nonsentient robot slaves, which is why we need to fight for control.

Part of the nature of freedom is relation to others around you. Society is necessary for freedom, though it concludes when it reaches maximum freedom.

In terms of production, technology can certainly become more decentralized, though never fully, but in use, much technology would highly benefit from decentralization, the internet for example.


I certainly agree Marxists and such are living in the 19th century, but productive forces are certainly going to matter when the fortunate are able to produce most everything they need without laborers.

Forgot flag and pic

...

I was saying just the opposite, it's the most inhuman ideology possible.

That we are reduced to subjects for society and restricted from our natural state of being. (According to Kaczysnki) wich grants us mental health/physical problems (Depression/major stress/anxiety) as our natural body and mind arnt made to function in this techno industrial society. Society reproduces itself by its attempts to fixing the problems that its causing by means of manipulation of our functioing to be better subjects for the system by drugs and mind manipulation by socialisation. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization) And this process will be mutch better improved during our progression with technology. Utilitarianism is inherent in the technoindustrial society.

The last part of freedom you can have is dependence on others instead of pure controle over your own survival by your autonomy and ability to preform sutch.

I strongly disagree as society is inherent collectivist and does not reconsider individual autonomy at any degree with the reduction of the individual to a subject serving his social role to keep the whole society functioning in its state. A morality system needs to set up and a form of coercion to maintain the population towards one interest wich is the interest of society, the individual then is by society and for society.

How can you have technology without an economic system to support sutch? How would you organise the process of turning pieces of rocks to computer parts and transporting them and creating the transport themselfs. Modern technology depends on an economy to exist wich requires mass social organisation only found in technoindustrial society's like we have right now.

Where are you getting these theory's of decentralised trans humanism?

The reason mass social organization is required for economy is based on the fact that labor is generally required for economy, and these advancements are essentially removing human labor from the economy.

Even if the worst-case scenario happens and the bourgeoisie win, they're not going to turn themselves into working machines, they'll shed their arbitrary physical shells and go on to live in freedom. Why would we seek to control each other when there aren't even egotistical reasons for doing so?

You have an unrealistic conception of freedom that has never existed ever even in primitives societies. The supreme irony of your position is that human society has always been collectivist, the individual autonomy you seek to protect is an individual autonomy manufactured, granted, and protected by society. You know what also causes mental health problems? Separation from society. We are cells in the body of society, a diseased society, but society nonetheless. Society is merely the current weapon of reason's evolution. The individual is a total illusion to begin with, the only path to this absolute individualism that you seek is through some radical destruction of nature.

Convergence of consciousness and then the proliferation of consciousness throughout the universe is the fate of mankind, if we don't blow ourselves up or do something stupid and try and get back to some state that never existed and never will.

The freedom you want is the freedom of a pig in the mud, not the freedom of enlightenment.

Kek you are dead wrong and basing your assumption on nothing. According to Ted his criticism on anarcho-primitivism (Wich backs up your claim that the individual doesnt exist outside the collective in a natural state of being) are humans egoistic, value independence, unhierarcial, Competive and selfish and work in according to mutual interest. (For material and spiritual interest)
Check out The Truth About Primitive Life: A Critique of Anarchoprimitivism by Ted Kaczynski.

The supreme irony is that you say society knowing clearly well in my post that i am anti society/civilisation. There can not be an individual in SOCIETY but can in an UNION wich isnt based on social relations based on unity of idea (society) but based on mutual interest (Union) cooperation between humans can happen only in a voluntary way by means of an union wich is flexible and can disolve at interest of the particpant. I am speaking about the Stirnerian sense of Society and Union tho.

I ganne be honest this all sounds like rhetoric you find at the venus project or any psuedo idealogy or movement like that. But guilt by assosiation is silly.

And completely destroy the individual in the process? Oh wait the Individual didnt even exist in the first place!

Enlightment stuck in our current form of reality and pig in the mud in the next one. Being le god of nature and the self will always remain insignificant to all whats beyond our conception of reality. Its like you are an admin on a minecraft server or a message board, you are fully enlightenend in your insignificant existant in this little rhealm.

Anyway where are you getting your ideas from? Cause what you just told me about the individual sounds verry Utilitiarian. As if not all technophiles are Utilitiarians

After this your grammar and spelling makes this kind of undecipherable. I understand if you aren't a native speaker, but there are hundreds of free english textbook pdf's out there.


I'm well aware you're anti-society but you can't have these individuals outside of society. The union you speak of is impossible because of the nature of human relations. Socialization will always occur, from womb to tomb. No human organization can be entirely coercion-free.

As I've said before, we can only lead an individual existence because society grants us muh privileges and protects us from nature and each other. The whole idea of "individual autonomy" and such is a relatively new idea to begin with, one that came into existence because of the development of the high society you seek to destroy.


I'm not utilitarian, I think that freedom is the highest goal of human life, just not your retarded and childish freedom. Agents are free insofar as they as they aren't limited in their decision-making processes and part of freeing ourselves from these limits is becoming more interconnected, a convergence of agency and consciousness. The union that you speak of, the supreme society, is just the outcome of society's agents becoming more and more rational and free, it is the ultimate form of society and precedes the breakdown of it's constituents into one.

The breakdown of the barriers between consciousnesses is just removing a temporary illusion that we aren't all part of the same process of reason. We'd all continue existing and experiencing the world, we would simply be one, from each agent's perspective, they would have become this supreme entity.

Lastly:


Now you're getting it.


Plato please go.

Hegel is a hell of a drug.

That would happen even under socialism, because a lot of people actually value their humanity and do not want to become part of whatever false "progress" that would just lead to our extinction.

Transhumanism and "post-humanism" will probably die out because everyone who wants it will probably be too busy spending time jacking it to their waifu in hyper-realistic VR that they so eagerly waited for.

I don't understand what you mean here. If people don't implement automation and augmentation society wont be divided in such a way, especially under socialism, you contradict yourself.


Pretty spooky comrade. The "human" part of us is our consciousness and mind, your body is a meat shell. Why do you want to be limited by arbitrary physical restrictions?


It says a lot about you that the only use you can see for these technologies is hedonism.


I'm very worried people won't be afraid to afford this technology, that's what the point of the whole post was. I've never smoked, I abstain from drinking, I don't really enjoy Star Trek and I'm not an atheist.

Why the fuck would a robot need glasses?

If you didn't make any typos then we are pretty much in agreement.

Would an unconcious or dead human no longer be human then?

Yes, I thought people were in agreement that once your consciousness is irreparably destroyed you are dead. What makes you "You" is gone even if you're just brain-dead, unless you can be repaired.

Could you actually attempt to explain me why an union is impossible? Are you speaking in the context of coexisting with society or post-society? Do you know what i mean with union?

I know thats why its preverable to move away from sutch after you realize your social conditioning in thus social relation. We are conditioned by society for society and utilized by society reducing us to a subject for society.

We are born wild, socialisation can not occur during sutch an isolated process where langauge doesnt even exist yet to socialize a fetus.

I have seriouse doubts on this assertion as voluntary association is possible. Explain your statement.

Your conception of freedom is exactly the same as the liberal conception of freedom of granted rights and protection of the state. (leviathan) You speak of freedom (Granted to be rid of by something by an authority) and i speak about autonomy. (Taken ownership by own authority)

Sorry but i cant take you seriouse on this if you contradict yourself, I ask AGAIN Where are you getting your theory's from? Are you inventing them yourselfs? If so do you realize you can easily addopt the narrative of the dominant idealogy (Liberalism) upon the things you havent expanded yourself upon?

Granted freedom by the leviathan (Human right) wich you espouce is exactly the same as a child granting his freedom to act on certain things by his father. (Authority in the social relation of family) The freedom i espouce is might makes right, no depedence on any leviathan to grant me but taking by force what i consider mine by my subjectivity.

So a pursuit for pure rationalism by abandoning our inrationality wich holds us back? This is pretty mutch the logicall conclusion of the rational human wich the liberals espouce in their idealogy, trans-humanism it just the continueation of liberalism and its fetish for rationalism.

Wasnt my union impossible? Didnt you say… The union you speak of is impossible because of the nature of human relations...?
Also the union isnt based on rationalism but subjectivity, based on the values that the individuals themselfs create and not on the liberal notion of rationalism or its individualist humanist concept of it.

Rationalism again.

My Godd this sounds orwellian as fuck, sorry but i wouldnt submit to my total enslavement of the self to become the super rational AI God on equal level with my other AI Gods. Thoghetter equal in boring and pashionless ultra-rationality.

I was being ironic.

I am asking again, where are you getting all these ideas and theories from? Are you inventing them all by yourselfs? They seem verry equal to the idealogy of liberalism but only with instead of rationalism you have pure-rationalism by means of trans-HUMANISM. Pretty mutch the next logical step of humanism. Its not that i denounce you for a liberal or something but just that your ideas are kidna old and unorginal and almost exactly the same with socialism and fascism as they are the childeren of liberalism.


Please for the love of god, disregard everything about the le spook meme because Stirner is in giant contradiction with all your ideas you Trans-liberal.

because they're moe and people that design robots are japanese autists

no


but who will make these machines which would be producing goods? protip: labourers

Still fewer and fewer labourers will be needed. And if technology keep progressing, at some point, you can build machines able to self replicate, no more need for workers.

The vast majority of the economy are service jobs. Jobs making machines will not be able to compensate for the loss.

The problem is as I specified, as soon as you're conceived socialization begins, at least when you are born it begins. We're born wild for maybe 30 seconds until our mother picks us up and starts caring for us. It's impossible to escape this cycle and remove the coercion inherent in socialization without radically changing human existence. No relation will ever be completely uncoercive as long as there is scarcity or the possibility of violence.


See above, as long as society exists and is necessary (which it will be as long as we are animals) there is inherent coercion, even if it is just the coercion of parent-to-child. You can't somehow escape these things without leaving society and at that point you're unable to exercise autonomy on a meaningful level as you become preoccupied with your own survival.


My conception of freedom is quite different than the liberal one, it's not about expansion of positive rights that don't exist but the removal of limits. The limits of society happen to exist because of the limits of nature, removing nature's limits allows the removal of social limits.

We do need a Leviathan, in our current state, for as long as people are people as we know them. Since when is Hobbes a liberal humanist?


Think for yourself shmuck.


Then society is going to win every time because society will always rebuild itself if damaged, unless humans go extinct, or destroy themselves. Go outside and try and destroy society and see what happens kiddo.


Literally no argument. What is wrong with being rational? Is being irrational somehow good? Rationality =! emotionless robots. All of our most dear emotions are often highly rational in their motives. Why would you ever want to act irrationally. It literally makes no sense. Rationality is orienting yourself towards an end and working towards that. Perfect rationality is having enough knowledge and wisdom to best orient yourself to be how you want to be, and to take the best path in pursuing that end. How is this not good? If you deny reason you should literally stop arguing.


Not an argument again.

Impossible for regular humans, not post-humans.


Why would this be boring? You could do whatever you wanted, even return to a previous state if you truly were bored, sinking into dreams. You could even leave if you wanted, this is the embodiment of self-determination, but why would you choose to separate yourself from everyone? It simply doesn't make sense. You would be imposing hell on yourself. Hell is closed from the inside as Lewis said. Do you have autism?

What is wrong with being rational as I've defined it. Why would you ever want to be irrational. It's like saying "I want to make bad decisions." It literally doesn't make sense by virtue of being irrational.

Classic argumentation of taking a propersition of the other and making it absolute and grabbing all the silly examples with it Stefan Molyneux style.
Its indeed impossible as >>>>child>self willindependent>>individualtheirmember

Bingo!!! Bingo! Here you go! Imagin if something happens and the techno industrial system collapses by financial crisis or global warming or revolution wich green-anarchists will particpate in and fight with other revolutionary's after the revolution.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-hit-where-it-hurts.a4.pdf

Its impossible to be perfectly rational and with the domination of inrationality in society its silly to keep up rationality. Politicans long have discoverd that with rationalism you willr each nothing among the population thus you appeal to inrationalism. Thats why nationalism and religion and all these things exist.

My god, good and bad doesnt exist.

Implying inrattionality is voluntary, i understand that you want to remove this by trans-humanism but thats just a play of the future. In the future we will have it, gues what the future doesnt exist and thinking about the future is a pure masturbation dream for setting up a false sense of hope that will eb smacked in the face for objective conditions (Unpredicted results of acts in the present).

>Rationality is orienting yourself towards an end and working towards that.
Weird definition you got there, did you make that up. the ….. is orienting yourself towards an end and working towards that is something i Kaczynski calls a powerprocess and its our main drive in life. Note: Power Process cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt

A play of future with the promish of enternal life, this seems like its heavily inspired by christinaity where i have to submit to your idea's and eventually in the Future (So Never) i will get in heaven.

I prever people in their most raw sense of existance, in the most honest sense. No fakeness of pretending to respect me for morality of society or brain implants. I prever experiencing LIFE and not jerk myself off at a computer wishing that i would become that fucking computer. You are the autist here as you share the same stupid power fantasy of becoming 'great''.

Its impossible now and the future doesnt exist.

Dont you smell the giant liberalism here? The universal code of rationalism that all our actions MUST be rational and will be rational.

You are a liberal fam and you made up idea's are just liberalism in a new flavor. Nothing new and has not a single orginal thought or idea attached to it. I will now act inrational (As if its even rational to talk to a religiouse person like you) and not respond to this bullshit anymore. I ganne occupy my life now to making up an idealogy that nobody will care about cause it lacks so mutch substance that it wont even be looked at by anyone.

And this is all coming from an Electrician who with my fellow Electricians all agree (My anti-tech tendecies are heavily inspired by my work and my colleagues) that technology is pure horse shit cause we are the ones experiencing and seeing all the flaws of the whole god damn system BECAUSE WE ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE TO FIX IT.

this is not my problem
GET OUT OF MY PROPERTY

This is what mental illness looks like.

TECHNOLOGICAL SUPERPRODUCTION IS THE PRECONDITION TO GOMMUNISM