[ad_1]
However Jack Dorsey determined he wished to get wealthy by turning into one more manipulative-grift promoting platform, and now Elon Musk has set the entire thing on fireplace:
Rakesh Bhandari: You possibly can’t have the cake baked beneath extant manufacturing relations as if these have been pure & ahistorical & then have the cake divided up any manner you need afterwards as if that have been an autonomous political query. How’d you reply to Marx’s critique of Mill, @delong? Other than considering that the concept of a “simply distribution” is as incoherent as a “yellow logarithm”, Marx additionally argued that distribution couldn’t be modified with no change within the construction of manufacturing. He might have been fallacious about that in addition to his skepticism of justice.
One other drawback begins with Habermas. Marcuse had questioned know-how as domination, breaking with productive forces fetishism. E.g., we are able to see how AI strikes in direction of surveillance & extreme automation, not employee empowerment. Habermas appears not wish to query know-how itself.
Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson’s forthcoming guide on “Expertise and Energy” begins with Bentham’s panopticon. They’re keen on these technical selections that take us down a path of surveillance and automation reasonably than employee empowerment. Guide is a good learn to date.
====
Brad DeLong: If I could ask, what provoked this, precisely?
====
Rakesh Bhandari: I’ve been considering for some time now about your concept that we have now solved the manufacturing however not the distribution drawback. And by chance I got here throughout some German theoretical dialogue within the Seventies of the relation of Marx to Mill. So I believed I’d ask in your ideas.Thanks!
Brad DeLong: Sure, the altering technology-driven forces-of-production {hardware} of society drastically constrain and form the relations-of-production and superstructural econo-politico-socio-cultural software program of society that places the forces-of-production to work and does the distribution and utilization of our widespread and collective wealth.
Sure, feudal-era forces- and relations-of-production train people who society is static, hierarchical, with who you’re chosen for you by the function ascribed to you; that manufacturing is small-scale, handicraft, and individually autonomous; and that those that work owe hire to those that defend them and tithes to those that information them to salvation. Therefore the feudal mode-of-production requires that we write feudal-society software program to run on high of it.
Industrial-imperial gunpowder-empire forces- and relations-of-production train people who society is cell, contractual, with who you’re chosen by you if you may make a contractual-network place for your self; that manufacturing is middle-scale, aided by instruments and finance, and interdependent; and that all of us owe one another a peaceable world wherein we are able to make and fulfill the bargains and contracts our interdependence requires. Therefore the commercial-imperial gunpowder-empire mode-of-production requires that we write bourgeois-society software program to run on high of it. We had 700 years—from 1000 to 1700—to do that software-writing, -testing, and -debugging as know-how carried us from the primary to the second. By 1700 we had cobbled collectively operating code, and had a functioning albeit not a very good society.
Steampower forces- and relations-of-production train, or so Freddie from Barmen wrote in… 1880? I imagine… that society is collective, that we’re related, with who we’re on the one hand plastic due to society’s large wealth however then again requiring that we match into the finely-specified slots of the commercial world’s advanced division of labor; that manufacturing is social wherein none of us can declare to have produced something since it’s the division-of-labor community that makes issues with every particular person each important and pointless—important within the community, however unproductive outdoors of it; thus all of us owe one another a recognition of our widespread equal humanity and contribution, and wish to decorate in similar blue denim overalls, create a free society of related producers, and rotate via the executive and coordination jobs, which have been drastically simplified by trendy administration science to require solely information of the 4 guidelines of arithmetic and the flexibility to challenge acceptable receipts.
Freddie from Barmen wrote that we had had solely 180 years to rewrite the software program from the bougeois-society model that had run on high of the commercial-imperial gunpowder-empire forces- and relations-of-production of 1700 for teh forces-of-production of the Steampower age as of 1880. Freddie from Barmen wrote that we had not but completed the job—and so, in 1880, we didn’t but have a operating society. However we might see what the requisite relations-of-production econo-politico-socio-cultural software program rewrite was, or a minimum of we might identify it: FULL COMMUNISM.
Freddie from Barmen… didn’t have the evaluation proper.
And, furthermore, technological historical past didn’t cease with the Steampower age. Second-Industrial-Revolution. Fordist. International Worth-Chain. And now we go into the Information-Biotech age. Every of those a revolution within the energy and elements of our forces-of-production {hardware} as nice because the 1000–1700 leap from feudal to business, or the 1700–1880 leap fro business to steam.
How have the altering technology-driven forces-of-production {hardware} of society constrained and formed the relations-of-production and superstructural econo-politico-socio-cultural software program of society that put the forces-of-production to work and does the distribution and utilization of our widespread and collective wealth since Freddie’s 1880 evaluation?
Freddie’s followers and college students have been of completely no assist on this. In keeping with them, Steampower capitalist society was adopted by “Late Capitalism”. After which “Later Capitalism”. After which “Late-Later Capitalism”. And now, I suppose, the society we’re going to construct on high of Information-Biotech age forces-of-production shall be referred to as “Later Late-Later Capitalism”. That isn’t useful.
However the query stays: How have the altering technology-driven forces-of-production {hardware} of society constrained and formed, et cetera? And the way are we to rewrite that relations-of-production and superstructural econo-politico-socio-cultural software program of society that places the forces-of-production to work and does the distribution and utilization of our widespread and collective wealth, in order that we are able to use our wealth properly and nicely? In order that we are able to equitably distribute the wealth create by the human anthology intelligence’s brains and arms, and have a society wherein folks really feel protected and safe and are wholesome and blissful?
Dylan Riley: /What may be very fascinating about this dialogue is that DeLong is adopting a extremely orthodox Engelsian/Kautksyian interpretation of financial improvement: manufacturing relations are constrained forces of manufacturing which continued to develop at an ever-increasing fee. Then DeLong [asks] a mainly Marxian query: what’s the most rational method to arrange society in order to make the most of these forces of manufacturing?… At the very least one strand of Neo-Marxist theorizing, clearly that popping out of Brenner and Wooden, decisively rejects the forces of manufacturing determinism inherent in DeLong’s posing of the difficulty.
However doesn’t this fashion of posing the issue face severe difficulties? Specifically, what explains the markedly uneven nature of the event of the forces of manufacturing? That’s to say, why did they mainly not develop for many of human historical past? Or, to place the purpose a bit in a different way, why is Ibn Khaldun’s evaluation mainly appropriate for many of human historical past, however then turns into reasonably out of the blue inapplicable? Appears near tautologous to confer with the forces of manufacturing?
Brad DeLong: Effectively, sure… which is why Bob lectured me for 45 minutes final fall.
Terence Renaud: Contemplating the dumb campaign in opposition to “tradition” by some on the left lately, I feel in some ways we’re nonetheless caught in that Nineteenth-century debate over materialism vs idealism: the purpose is to beat the controversy, not perpetuate it.
Dylan Riley: Very true; it as if Gramsci, Labriola, Lukács, Korsch, Marcuse and so on. had by no means written, or reasonably, as if it might have been higher in the event that they by no means had. All that’s wanted is a little bit of Kautsky leavened with Anglo-American Methodological Individualism.
Terence Renaud: Sure! it’s a regression in Marxist idea, which is unlucky!
Brad DeLong: The “improvement” of a idea just isn’t essentially “progress”. Talking as a barely repentant left-neoliberal, a lot of the Marxist cultural flip was an try to construct an orrery to elucidate why Engels’s predictions about how the steampower mode of manufacturing would educate humanity for socialism went fallacious. However, for my part, a lot of the orrery was pointless. The bifurcated world of mass steampower factories rising bigger and bigger because the ruling and center courses grew smaller and smaller would have introduced Engels’s hopes of revolution wealthy nations a lot nearer. (Whether or not these revolutions would have had the specified useful penalties is a deep challenge.) However know-how superior, the mode of manufacturing moved on. The Second-Industrial-Revolution mode of manufacturing was not the Steampower one. Fordism was not Second-Industrial-Revolution. International Worth-Chain was not Fordism. And Information-Biotech is not going to be International Worth-Chain.
Ispeculate that maybe we are able to go very far by returning to Engels’s path and blazing the path ahead. Suppose severely about know-how—as mode-of-production, -distribution, -domination, and -communication—and work out what sort of society-running relations-of-production and different econo-socio-politico-cultural software program we have to write to make a really human world.
To take the cultural flip, after which cease, can be to show us into the Younger Hegelians—those that thought that they younger Germans themselves have been completely key, as a result of whereas the English bourgeosie was constructing the economic system and the French revolutionaries have been constructing the political order of utopia, the younger German Hegelians have been doing the important thing work in constructing the philosophy of utopia.
Eric Loomis: Ron DeSantis Is Overplaying His Hand: ‘The DeSantis increase just isn’t one thing I’m notably apprehensive about. This isn’t as a result of I don’t assume he’s a scary. He’s slimy evil little fascist who desires to be the American Orban. However, like Paul, I feel Trump is nearly definitely the candidate in 2024 if he even remotely tries, which truly appears unclear at this level. In any case, DeSantis could possibly be the candidate, certain. However I don’t see how he wins. First, he has the charisma of a rock. Say what you’ll about Trump or George W. Bush, however the males had sure varieties of charisma that appeals to sure Individuals. Ron DeSantis, like Scott Walker earlier than him, completely doesn’t have a lick of it. He merely comes throughout as horrible on tv. However second, and I feel much more essential, is that he’s massively overplaying his hand on the tradition struggle stuff…
Nicholas MacPherson: Britain shouldn’t settle for its standing because the ‘sick man of Europe’: ‘The nation has financial issues, however there are answers if solely politicians would grasp the nettle…. Britain nonetheless has rather a lot going for it… robust college cities… a thriving analysis base, nice inventive industries… an irrepressible monetary sector… a dynamic labour market…. However there isn’t any denying that Britain has an issue…. Macroeconomic coverage will maintain again development within the brief run. However that’s a worth value paying…. Second, there was a superbly respectable political case for Brexit…. However the proof that Brexit is a drag on financial efficiency is compelling…. Third, the UK has an inefficient and underpaid public sector…. Lastly, the economic system is affected by persistent under-investment…. However all just isn’t misplaced…. The Sunak authorities is exhibiting indicators of eager to deal with issues reasonably than to disclaim their existence…
Heather Cox Richardson: February 3, 2023: ‘Mike Pence got here out and mentioned it: “I feel the day might come after we might change the New Take care of a greater deal.” Pence was speaking about Social Safety—a centerpiece of the New Deal—saying: “Actually give youthful Individuals the flexibility to take a portion of their Social Safety withholdings and put that into a personal financial savings account.” Privatizing Social Safety is his plan to handle the rising nationwide debt…
Duncan Black: 87 Jiminies: ‘This ballot have to be false, as 100% of white pundits over the age of 55 assume these are essentially the most essential points: “And when the Instances/Sienna ballot requested midterm voters to call an important drawback going through America, solely one of many survey’s 1,641 respondents talked about the debt, the deficit, or federal spending.” The deficit scolds took a break because the at all times do throughout Republican administrations and the brand new technology is simply too busy Proudly owning The Libs to maintain attempting to persuade people who the deficit goes to kill them. It is truly a bit bizarre that “deficit politics” type of imploded. Was a fixture my entire life and now…
[ad_2]