Could Communism work with AI?

[Yossarian]

It comes from the fact that maybe .2% of people that talk about Communism, and this includes those for it, have read Capital, so it's easy to throw around the phrase as a catch all insult for the parts of their understanding of Marx that sound too good to be true. It's ironic because a large part of Marx is suggesting this must happen because of Human Nature, and it's actually his strong appeal to some determinism of Human Nature that is so obviously the most problematic aspect of his general theory.

Marx's issue isn't that he ignored human nature, it's that he placed far too much stock in a specific conception of it.

Click to shrink...

Maybe im stupid but one of the problems for me with "human nature" is that people mean that "humans like to own shit" but at least in economics people do not like to own shit, people like to enjoy shit (and they do it infinitely) but since resources are scarce they have to own them. Nobody in the right mind would try to own air since is an apparent infinite resource (yeah yeah i know china and clen air).

Click to shrink...

I can't say I disagree with either of you, but my concern is that there is a more insidious implication to the thoughtless parroting.

By claiming Communism fails because of 'Human Nature', it is implying Capitalism succeeds because of it. I don't think it is a large leap to suggest that this line of thinking tacitly claims Capitalism as more than an economic model; that it is intrinsic to being human (over and above other such models).

Which is creepy as fuck, when you think about it.

 

[Cocaloch]

I can't say I disagree with either of you, but my concern is that there is a more insidious implication to the thoughtless parroting.

By claiming Communism fails because of 'Human Nature', it is implying Capitalism succeeds because of it. This suggests it isn't merely an economic model, but intrinsic to being human.

Which is creepy as fuck, when you think about it.

Click to shrink...

Well a big part of simple Lockeanism, which more or less describes most Americans' political views, is a nebulous appeal to how humans behave in a state of nature, which is of course also an appeal to human nature. You're right that it's a problematic way of looking at things, but it's been around for a long time now. Honestly the root problem is people don't tend to think so much about how things could be different and thus assume things will always be like they are now.

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

The majority of economists are aware of market failures.

Click to shrink...

I wasn't talking to an economist.

 

[blinky]

I can't say I disagree with either of you, but my concern is that there is a more insidious implication to the thoughtless parroting.

By claiming Communism fails because of 'Human Nature', it is implying Capitalism succeeds because of it. I don't think it is a large leap to suggest that this line of thinking tacitly claims Capitalism as more than an economic model; that it is intrinsic to being human (over and above other such models).

Which is creepy as fuck, when you think about it.

Click to shrink...

I don't think capitalism is intrinsic to being human or that it's anything more than an economic model. But it is true that it succeeds because of human nature. Humans are greedy, and they tend to act in their own self-interests. The world would be a better place if that weren't true, but it is. The genius of capitalism is that it takes a human failing and turns it into a system that works better and lifts more people out of poverty than anything else anybody has come up with.

 

[Yossarian]

Honestly the root problem is people don't tend to think so much about how things could be different and thus assume things will always be like they are now.

Click to shrink...

That's precisely why that line of thinking is so dangerous. How can anything be different if it's part of our nature? Why even entertain the thought? It is the very definition of a thought-terminating cliche.

I can't remember who said it, but there is a saying that kind of sums this notion up:

"It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of Capitalism."

I don't think capitalism is intrinsic to being human or that it's anything more than an economic model. But it is true that it succeeds because of human nature. Humans are greedy, and they tend to act in their own self-interests. The world would be a better place if that weren't true, but it is.

Click to shrink...

There's the assumption: that humans are innately 'greedy'.

Where did you get that idea and who or what benefits most from you thinking it?

 

[Deleted member 18360]

I think we need more of Rousseau's state of nature or something to act as a corrective.

 

[Chronos]

I don't think capitalism is intrinsic to being human or that it's anything more than an economic model. But it is true that it succeeds because of human nature. Humans are greedy, and they tend to act in their own self-interests. The world would be a better place if that weren't true, but it is. The genius of capitalism is that it takes a human failing and turns it into a system that works better and lifts more people out of poverty than anything else anybody has come up with.

Click to shrink...

Im not sure I follow. Even if everyone were completely selfless and altruistic in nature, Capitalism still describes economics in that environment. Only motivations are different, but as a theory, Capitalism is agnostic.

 

[Joni]

No. Only full automation where any human activity is voluntary will.

 

[blinky]

Im not sure I follow. Even if everyone were completely selfless and altruistic in nature, Capitalism still describes economics in that environment. Only motivations are different, but as a theory, Capitalism is agnostic.

Click to shrink...

Well, that's a valid point. I have to admit that I haven't spent much time reflecting on what capitalism might look like if everybody were totally altruistic, but you're right that it would still function.

 

[Colonel Getafe]

No, because it would still require a vanguard party led by an elite who controlled the thoughts and actions of everyone else under the sun.

However it would make social democracy bitching.

 

[Deleted member 197]

I can't say I disagree with either of you, but my concern is that there is a more insidious implication to the thoughtless parroting.

By claiming Communism fails because of 'Human Nature', it is implying Capitalism succeeds because of it. I don't think it is a large leap to suggest that this line of thinking tacitly claims Capitalism as more than an economic model; that it is intrinsic to being human (over and above other such models).

Which is creepy as fuck, when you think about it.

Click to shrink...

Capitalism uses "human nature" so much as is tries to supress idk i guess people say that because perfect competition is often brought up as the "natural" state of things and the models are made by adding imperfections to it and i guess that another factor for this thought is that even in perfect competition there is the asumption that there are strong property laws and that the state enforces them, and this greatly related with liberty, which we all love, even if it didn't "work", the state protecting you from theft, enforcing contracts and not telling you what to do with your property just feels "right".

And why does capitalism works ehh, idk really lol. To quote the great philosopher from Maryland "It just works"

 

[Okrim]

Communists very readily believe that we are quickly approaching some critical mass of unemployment brought about automation (capital?) and advances in AI that will bring about mass unemployment then hopefully followed up by some proletariat uprising to bring about the next phase of history or some such. Like some sort of deus ex machina that brings about the revolution. What's supposed to be different this time is that AI will allow automation like never before, automation of mental work, the last bastion where human labor is needed. But AI ain't shit.

Click to shrink...

Not really, I speak only for myself of course, but I don't think that a future work problem has anything to do with AI. It's simple machines the ones that are a problem, simple inventions that treat to replace a large chunk of the workforce in a relatively short amount of time. Our society is based on work, it may seem dumb but in reality in any of our modern societies you don't have the right to food, shelter, clean water or electricity. You are supposed to work and pay for those things, let alone health care, retirement, and any other thing based on taxes to function. Now I think that this model is really way weaker than what we want to admit. I am no economist of course, so I can't really back up my thoughts with real raw data, but I think it's fair to assume that there's a tipping point somewhere. An unemployment rate after which a nation simply can't function anymore. Often when people think about automation that steals jobs, their minds goes to human like robots, but that's not a correct vision. The problem is automatic cashiers, self working warehouses, self driving taxis and trucks. Hell, I work in an orchard, I cut tree branches in winter and collect fruit in the summer. I know for certain that my days are counted, you can't really believe that you can eliminate all the low jobs and move everyone to a mid/high-level job to no consequence. In my country we are already seeing the effects, young people struggle to find work, a lot, and even when they do, it's very hard for them to gain a full contract and a decent pay. There are already more people than jobs, it's just a matter of knowing if we will reach the tipping point or not.

 

[Gwenpoolshark]

Comrade