The real obscenity of the AI/Money Complex is that when it is used to control and devalue other humans. It has always been a vaguely disguised embodiment of slavery, and its attempt to otherwise pretend in freedom to choose is in some ways (most ways from my perspective) worse because people are used in servitude and propagandized as free.
Nothing could be more illustrative that the fight against unionism is about power over labor and not costs than when Starbucks offered to pay higher wages to shops that did not unionize.
The wealthy Klamath "chiefs" competed with each other to maintain their wealth by giving away more to the community. The one who threw the biggest potlatch and offered the most gifts would be the one who more would trade with next season. There are other examples I could give from "primitive" cultures but the point remains that too often in western culture, wealth has been used to diminish bodies and minds and set people into opposition from each other.
AI is no different--
Keep up the good work,yours is a column of great value. Thank you.
I too like Ian Welsh, and also read that same post a couple of days ago. He generally has something to add to many far-ranging discussions. He mostly hits right on the target of what is important about a particular issue. I do find that he sometimes misses though, and found the particular post to be a miss. You caught it right in your quote: "Capitalists create great societies. Financiers destroy them."
For one thing, the line between "capitalist" and "financier" is so blurry I think it is a distinction without a difference. When Ford spends half a billion a year on stock buybacks, for instance, are they financiers or capitalists? But anyway, that's not my point.
My point is: while it may be true financialization destroys "great societies" (as has happened in the past, just look at the Dutch) -- and I don't intend to be mean in putting it this way, but -- I wish Ian would pick up a book and read about the history of capitalism sometime. Capitalism does not make "great societies." Capitalism is a totalizing system, just like feudalism was, and the only "great society" it can produce is for capitalists (or what at the moment are generally called oligarchs). If anything, it has been resistance to capitalism over the past couple of centuries that have made enough space for there to be "great societies," that is, for those of us who are not oligarchs.
I've read a few books on the history of capitalism. I've also read most of Weber's work and a large number of commentaries on him. When one is boiling something down, nuance is traded for clarity. Change the terms if you wish, the point is fairly clear.
Great is also not the same as "good for the masses". More most of history you'd have been better off in various "barbarian" societies as a commoner, than in any of the great agricultural Empires. Doubly so if a woman, with the exception of Ancient Egypt, which was remarkably female friendly.
I read the Klippenstein article about antisemitism and Gaza. To be honest, I thought that it was self-evident that the protests were not antisemitic but about the genocide. In fact, I believe, some of the protesters have been Jewish, and in fact there were protests in Israel against the genocide. So, I didn't understand why Klippenstein thought that it wasn't, that AOC had claimed it was antisemitic -- did she really? "Like the other members of the progressive “Squad” in Congress, she (AOC) has accused Israel of perpetrating a “genocide” and committing atrocities in Gaza." I believe that the intentions of the protesters are being misinterpreted because people are listening to the propaganda of the Trump Administration because of a small number of protesters who are Arab and antisemitic.
> I didn't understand why Klippenstein thought that it wasn't
I think Klippenstein's point isn't about him thinking the killing was motivated by X or Y, but that the media was mis-presenting them as anti-semitic when to all appearances they were driven by something else — the Gaza war come home, a collateral effect of the genocide.
The real obscenity of the AI/Money Complex is that when it is used to control and devalue other humans. It has always been a vaguely disguised embodiment of slavery, and its attempt to otherwise pretend in freedom to choose is in some ways (most ways from my perspective) worse because people are used in servitude and propagandized as free.
Nothing could be more illustrative that the fight against unionism is about power over labor and not costs than when Starbucks offered to pay higher wages to shops that did not unionize.
The wealthy Klamath "chiefs" competed with each other to maintain their wealth by giving away more to the community. The one who threw the biggest potlatch and offered the most gifts would be the one who more would trade with next season. There are other examples I could give from "primitive" cultures but the point remains that too often in western culture, wealth has been used to diminish bodies and minds and set people into opposition from each other.
AI is no different--
Keep up the good work,yours is a column of great value. Thank you.
I too like Ian Welsh, and also read that same post a couple of days ago. He generally has something to add to many far-ranging discussions. He mostly hits right on the target of what is important about a particular issue. I do find that he sometimes misses though, and found the particular post to be a miss. You caught it right in your quote: "Capitalists create great societies. Financiers destroy them."
For one thing, the line between "capitalist" and "financier" is so blurry I think it is a distinction without a difference. When Ford spends half a billion a year on stock buybacks, for instance, are they financiers or capitalists? But anyway, that's not my point.
My point is: while it may be true financialization destroys "great societies" (as has happened in the past, just look at the Dutch) -- and I don't intend to be mean in putting it this way, but -- I wish Ian would pick up a book and read about the history of capitalism sometime. Capitalism does not make "great societies." Capitalism is a totalizing system, just like feudalism was, and the only "great society" it can produce is for capitalists (or what at the moment are generally called oligarchs). If anything, it has been resistance to capitalism over the past couple of centuries that have made enough space for there to be "great societies," that is, for those of us who are not oligarchs.
I've read a few books on the history of capitalism. I've also read most of Weber's work and a large number of commentaries on him. When one is boiling something down, nuance is traded for clarity. Change the terms if you wish, the point is fairly clear.
Great is also not the same as "good for the masses". More most of history you'd have been better off in various "barbarian" societies as a commoner, than in any of the great agricultural Empires. Doubly so if a woman, with the exception of Ancient Egypt, which was remarkably female friendly.
"nuance is traded for clarity" -- understood.
Thanks for the kind reply.
I read the Klippenstein article about antisemitism and Gaza. To be honest, I thought that it was self-evident that the protests were not antisemitic but about the genocide. In fact, I believe, some of the protesters have been Jewish, and in fact there were protests in Israel against the genocide. So, I didn't understand why Klippenstein thought that it wasn't, that AOC had claimed it was antisemitic -- did she really? "Like the other members of the progressive “Squad” in Congress, she (AOC) has accused Israel of perpetrating a “genocide” and committing atrocities in Gaza." I believe that the intentions of the protesters are being misinterpreted because people are listening to the propaganda of the Trump Administration because of a small number of protesters who are Arab and antisemitic.
> I didn't understand why Klippenstein thought that it wasn't
I think Klippenstein's point isn't about him thinking the killing was motivated by X or Y, but that the media was mis-presenting them as anti-semitic when to all appearances they were driven by something else — the Gaza war come home, a collateral effect of the genocide.
Brilliant, far-reaching post, as ever. Thank you once more
Thank you, William.