[extropy-chat] how partisanship skews perception

[Sean Diggins]

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Lorrey
--- Sean Diggins  <sean at valuationpartners.com.au> wrote:
> ========================================
> 
> No, but the big problem, as even a cursory glance through history by
> anyone with a modicum of political and economic comprehension clearly
> indicates, is we are witness to the endgame of rampant, unchecked
> capitalism. Without wanting to inflame this list with heated debates
> as to the veracity of my claim, one only needs to consider the fact
> the nearly a third of the planet's population does not have running
> water in the home to perceive the undeniable fact that capitalism
> as an economic system is a failure on a grand scale.

A 'fact' which is meaningless outside of the context that that a large
chunk of that third of the planets population lives in non-capitalist
countries, and wrt capitalist countries, there are fewer people with
running water now than at any time in history.... thanks to capitalism.
Please leave the anti-capital agitprop at the door. You won't find any
sympathy here, except maybe from James Hughes.

=-------------------------------------------------------

Choose to see it that way if you wish. But your "and wrt capitalist
countries, there are fewer people with
running water now than at any time in history.... thanks to capitalism." was
actually my point. 
Perhaps I do not possess the tools you possess to convey what I am thinking,
but it is not agitprop.
"capitalist countries"??? what is that?? Do you mean "democratic
countries?". Because capitalism is almost an infinite neural network now. It
crosses all country boundaries. Show me one country completely free of any
systems where capitalism is not a controlling or significantly contributing
component.     

> 
> David's book The Spike missed observing the biggest of ironies - the
> only hope for humanity is The Spike itself, as the paradigm shifts
> urgently needed to reset the course of humanity coincide with the
> hope that such technologies which lie beyond The Spike will actually
> arrive. For me, there is deep irony that technological advances,
> at times the feared enemy of all sides of politics, will be the only
> thing that can promulgate the political and economical paradigm
> shifts which will allow recovery from resource-hungry capitalist
> structures built by the ruling class.

pshaw. Firstly, it is Damien's book, not 'David's.

------------------------------------------
Yes, my apologies. Blame it on my sweeping ignorance eh?  Must be because I
had my head in Das Kapital eh?
Jeez, the condescension is dripping....just a typo - I'm a VERY big fan of
Damien's, even the reviews he used to write in newspapers here in Australia.

I am not a Marxist, nor am I a communist, nor a socialist.
However, I see the increasingly great divide between the "haves/have mores"
and the "have nots"
Marx terminologies still fit the bill when attempting to describe the
divide. At least I did not say proletariat. Or lumpen....
Using the term "ruling class" obviously labels me as an idiot savant commie,
yes? 
Did you actually disagree with the thrust of my sentences, which is that the
singularity technologies represent the best and most hopeful catalyst to
achieve more egalitarian societies?

-------------------------------------------


 Secondly, resource
hungriness is a function of the market. A centrally planned market is
so ignorant of price signals that it cannot help to be inefficient,
hence socialism/communism are more IN-efficient resource consumers than
a free market. Ergo, a capitalist system will use the least resources
in achieving the Singularity. Pull your head out of Das Kapital and
smell the market.

--------------------------------------------

I am and it stinks. Pull your head out of your compassionless "market" and
consider this from a (trans)human perspective.
I work the "the market" every day and am paid well to analyse it. My
signature allows certain activities to occur within "the market" (and no,
I'm not a banker). I get sued if I'm wrong. I fact, that's the only reason
my opinion is sought on paper - so there is someone to sue. Ain't capitalism
grand?
"Resource hungriness is a function of the market" - that is utter twaddle.
It is a meaningless statement. It's like saying "resource hungriness (??) is
a function of the wind and the tide" And since when has it been OK to imply
"the market" is the best road, via capitalism, to achieve the Singularity,
simply because you conclude allowing it to occur via capitalism will consume
less resources? At what human cost? And what other collateral damage is
allowable to hasten down the wind? 
BTW, where did I even mention socialism or communism as being better or even
useful?
I am talking about a new paradigm, not some neocommunist regression. I just
don’t know how to describe my instincts adequately in this respect.

-----------------------------------------------

> Further irony lies in the ruling class being unable to keep this
> technology for themselves (which they will surely try to do), as
> the only way for us to "re-source" the planet's resources is
> through worldwide deployment of technological solutions on a global
> scale, throughout all levels of society, irrespective of class based
> systems. Failure of the ruling elite to recognise this will ensure
> there is no future beyond The Spike (well, not a future which
> includes us). 

WHO let all these commies in the door? Sheesh, they're like Kudzu, as
soon as a bad infestation is more than a decade gone, the idiots are
back to believing in its BS.

The ruling class DON'T WANT TO keep this technology for themselves. If
you'd looked at ImmInst's movie, Peter Voss was clear on this:
technological advances are subsidized by the rich, because they are the
early adopters, they pay the most per unit for tech, subisidizing
development and implementation of mass production so that the poor can
access the same tech at a far lower price.

--------------------------------------------------

Mate, you gotta nice way of engaging in conversation. Trust me, I'm not an
idiot. It may seem so to you, but perhaps I am just not expressing myself in
a way acceptable to you, or maybe my terminologies are setting off your
alarm bells...but it is presumptuous to assume.  
That last sentence of yours above is a doozy. So the motivation of
investment from the rich is "to help the poor access the tech at a lower
price"?
You gotta be kidding, right? And exactly where in this setting does the
ruling class let go of their principle asset: CONTROL?? 

Presumably, you'll next tell me everyone will get free life extending
medical procedures in the mail...
The market is driven by profit. Nothing else. There is NO SUCH THING as an
egalitarian market. Not in capitalist systems anyway.
At the risk of a redundant "repost" can we recap a piece I posted earlier?

<Capital produces surplus value from workers but the surplus value is 
locked into the commodities - thus as you point out a barrier to 
capital reproducing and expanding is a lack of consumption 
therefore, they must encourage people to consume more.
But things are not so straight forward. Capital needs to exploit 
workers but needs to stimulate new needs in consumers so that the 
surplus labour taken from workers can be unlocked from the 
commodities produced and capital can valorise. The problem is that 
workers are consumers. Thus, capital in general is constantly 
stimulating new needs in the working class but is at the same time 
doing everything it can to maximise the exploitation of the working 
class. And this contradiction can't be overcome easily because the 
form that capital takes is in individual capital, thus, individual 
capital sells to the working class as a whole while exploiting its 
own particular workers. Thus, every capitalist wishes to see their 
own workers exploited as much as possible but to see workers in 
general being able to consume as much as possible. This 
contradiction between developing new needs within the working class 
while suppressing it is the seed for class struggle for when the 
working class needs attempts to fulfil its own needs - it needs to 
do so against the will of the capital its tied to, in short it must 
struggle against capital.
Thus, the working class under capitalism has developed the need for 
education, excellent health care, access to culture as well as 
access to consumer goods. That's because workers are humans and the 
logic of humans is develop themselves through their society>

Amah yes, the so called "aspirational class".
It's all becoming a bit like a pyramid scheme....
I feel a simplistic cream and milk analogy coming on, but fear I'll be
ridiculed for that as well.

I'll respond in more detail later. It's late here and I'm gonna sleep.
Bottom line though - drop the "your just a naïve commie crap" and give me
(or list members if I'm not worthy) your ideas on how the "Cross Fade"
(transition between pre and post singularity) I alluded to will occur, if at
all. Presumably, you perceive capitalism in its current form to be
infinitely sustainable? If so, I'd like to hear why and how...and I love to
know how it will exist post singularity.

But lets say, just for example, that the Cross Fade needs to start soon by
necessity, due to flaws in our current systems reaching critical mass and
decaying or distorting into dangerous turf. In your view, what would
propagate such change, if anything? 

Sean