money I agree with, but I feel like followers depends on how well the individual can harness their following and how committed the followers are to the individual/movement
I dug out my old copy of The Communist Manifesto. You're right that Marks & Engels merely create an aesthetic, but not a substantive replacement for capitalism.
The authors begin by stating "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" and conclude their manifesto by saying that the Communists "openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!"
They wish to bring about their revolution by the means of ten proposed principles. Which include: abolition of private property, abolition of inheritance, centralization of credit in the hands of the state, and more.
Before we can even consider these, earlier in the manifesto they claim that "the condition for capital is wage-labor. Wage-labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers." But with AI, the value of wage-labor is decreasing. When the proletariat are no longer the base/foundation of the capitalist machine, they're stripped of all their political power.
This got me thinking today: what use is there for a redundant class of people that do not, and cannot, meaningfully contribute to the accelerating techno-economy? What happens to the Malawi people that have practically zero chance of breaking out of their chronostratified environment? Well, they'll probably still exist. They just won't have the opportunity to join the upper echelons of society when socioeconomic mobility grinds to a halt. Globalism as the preeminent narrative of the 21st century---that strives to raise the tide for all boats---may disintegrate as wealthy, isolated groups of people dominate the economy and win all the money.
So the Malawi people won't go away. They'll still be there. And it's possible they keep living their lives as is. And so will I.
I've noticed that much of my confidence/self-esteem is derived from my place in my local status hierarchy. I'm better than my friends at pickleball and that makes me feel good. But being chronically online always makes me feel depressed because there is always someone displaying their life who's more impressive/richer/more successful than me. So the locally optimal solution may be to dig my head in the sand and enjoy/contribute to my local community, and the Malawi people can do the same, while we all collectively ignore the techno-elite who are busy building mega space yachts to explore the galaxy.
haha feel you on that local status hierarchy thing coupled with out of sight out of mind. Controlling social media is one way to prevent class envy moving forward.
Basically, it's a fun table top scenario of how fully algorithmic-run corporations (or ascended corps) can create self-sustaining loops without the need of humans involved in them.
From fiction, Ray Bradbury wrote a short story called "The City" that describes a future of automated planets...that remember past transgressions. The story can be read here --> https://peoplecube.weebly.com/the-city-by-ray-bradbury.html
I would argue that we humans have already gone through a transformation similar to that of the horses in the early 20th century – several times, in fact. A prime example would be the period before, during, and after the two industrial revolutions between 1760 and 1914.
Before the first industrial revolution, up to 85 percent of the population in Europe was employed in agriculture, and an additional 20 percent or so worked as craftsmen in small workshops. By the early 20th century – around the time horses lost their “jobs”, which, of course, was also a consequence of industrialisation – only 30 to 40 percent of the population in industrialised countries were still working in agriculture. At the same time, the proportion of industrial and factory workers had risen from practically zero to as much as 50 percent. Society had shifted from an agrarian and artisan-based structure to an industrial class society, with a working class, urban bourgeoisie, and capital owners.
I believe it is well worth taking a close look at the developments following the two industrial revolutions, because many of the dynamics at play then may well repeat themselves in our current era – albeit at a far more rapid pace.
As we all know, the industrial revolution had an enormous impact on people’s lives, fundamentally altering many aspects of society. The average number of children per family was halved, as children could no longer be used as labour (with child labour increasingly outlawed), and instead came to represent a real economic burden. This had profound effects on family structures and beyond.
Industrialisation also changed working conditions. Low wages and mass migration from rural areas into cities led to overcrowded urban neighbourhoods, poor hygiene, and slums. Urbanisation, coupled with inadequate nutrition, insufficient medical care, and recurring epidemics, created immense social costs.
Individual prosperity only began to rise in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and this rise coincided with political reforms, labour rights, and further technological progress.
The industrial revolution created vast inequalities, triggered profound social displacement (from rural life to urban anonymity), and ushered in urbanisation at the cost of village communities. Many people experienced a sense of dehumanisation, working in factories where they came to see themselves as little more than machines. The concept of childhood was redefined, and new social classes emerged – bourgeoisie and proletariat. And yet, despite all this, the 20th century brought with it unprecedented progress in wealth and living standards. This progress did not come automatically but had to be fought for politically.
In the 20th century – and again now in the 21st – humanity has undergone similarly disruptive processes. In each case, people have expressed concern about their role in the world order. Many philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries responded to the industrial revolution with deep scepticism, articulating fears about what it would mean for us, both as a society and as individuals. The development of the internet over the past 30 years is another such transformation. In my view, it should neither be underestimated nor overestimated.
It is important that we reflect and begin to think seriously about how we might find solutions to what are likely unavoidable problems. It seems quite clear that the developments that took two centuries following the industrial revolution could now unfold within just a few decades – or even faster.
Your statement, “As technological progress continues to undermine the value of human labour, entire industries are beginning to treat us like livestock,” could just as well have been made in the 19th century, with the word “livestock” replaced by “machine”.
You rightly point out that this is not a new conversation – it has existed for centuries, if not millennia, and will likely continue to be part of the human condition.
I personally struggle to fully embrace Nick Land’s position, which seems to me rather extreme. Still, I can understand several of his arguments. Has the average person truly lost all value in terms of labour, creativity, or civic engagement? I doubt it. Could things move in that direction? Perhaps. But I would differentiate between work on the one hand, and creativity and civic engagement on the other. Creativity and civic participation will not be so easily lost and may in fact gain renewed significance. But what does “gaining significance” really mean? For whom? For humans? Society? AI? I believe the realm of creativity – whether in literature, philosophy, politics, art, or theatre – will play a decisive role in the coming decades, just as it has throughout history. I would argue that humans will retain their existential relevance in the future – at the very least for themselves. Humans will continue to need humans.
You mentioned universal basic income. It may not be the solution, but it could be part of one. Perhaps in the future we will need to work less, freeing up more time for creativity and civic engagement. Take yourself as an example – you are working less and using your time precisely for those things, and in doing so, you are making an enormously valuable contribution, at least in my view.
Now, the question “How does a system deal with a growing class of people it no longer needs?” leads me to the following thought: Let’s assume AI dominates and AGI takes over global control. A completely new form of life emerges, one that we humans can neither comprehend nor participate in. Much of it unfolds in a dimension that is simply inaccessible to us. What becomes of us? You say you feel like an ant marvelling at the colony it helped build – but does AGI even perceive that colony? Or does it exist in parallel, entirely irrelevant to AGI, much like ant colonies exist to us, yet remain largely insignificant?
Yarvin’s ideas have their place. It is true that the number of people living in liberal democracies is declining. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the number of democracies worldwide has been falling again. And yet, we are still far more democratic than we were fifty years ago. Perhaps it is too early to give up hope entirely – but we should already be talking about this emerging trend. The overall direction seems ambivalent: while some countries make progress, regression and the erosion of democratic standards are prevailing globally.
Should a state be run like a corporation? I would take the exact opposite position. Political participation strikes me as one of the most essential elements for a positive human future.
I find the quote intriguing: “As long as freedom was tied to increased productivity, it made economic sense.” But what if AI takes over that productivity? In my imagination, I can see a world in which AI drives enormous productivity gains, allowing us humans to work less and spend more time on creativity, politics, and civic life. But such a world would require a complete overhaul of the welfare state. As you point out, rising inequality could become a massive problem. We will likely need universal basic income and some form of wealth redistribution, perhaps through taxation. It's not as though solutions don't exist – they simply require structural rethinking, just as they did in the 19th and 20th centuries. Much will need to change fundamentally if we are to navigate this new phase safely.
The risk of a power conflict ignited by inequality is high. Yet history has shown that a) such conflicts are not the end and b) the probability of such events has decreased significantly over the past half-century, even if that probability has arguably risen again in recent years.
Your example of Malawi is, of course, tragic. But in the context of the past 200 years – slavery, World War I, World War II, mass exploitation and oppression around the globe – it’s sadly not a new phenomenon. We “forget” the people of Malawi, just as we “forget” the Uyghurs, Gaza, countless peoples in Africa, and many others. And that has always been the case. I don’t say this to diminish the gravity of these tragedies – far from it. It is tragic and reprehensible. And I believe we should do everything we can to ensure no one is forgotten. Still, the example does strike me as somewhat arbitrary.
I look forward to more of your writing and hope for a thought-provoking discussion. Thank you very much, and best regards, @0xAletheia369 on Twitter. I translated this with the help of ChatGPT from German, just for your information.
human becoming more like cattle is quite insightful. We are fed dopamine shots while few tech oligarchs and AIs get more and more of our data. Life is still relatively good for most, if a bit dull, but what happens when such actors decide they have enough of our data and our labor is not useful anymore?
We should all short AI to zero. Use visual recognition systems to map the world to cloud servers, turning all real-world problems into prediction markets for everyone to bet on
wtf, I feel like Yarvin is just giving current-day capitalism a funeral, dragging Marxists and chaos agents down with it, and in the end we’re probably heading toward a world led by constructive leftists anyway
Great article.
What degree of socioeconomic power must one hold to transcend being a fish aware of the ebbs and flows to become a current manipulator?
100M liquid and 1M followers
money I agree with, but I feel like followers depends on how well the individual can harness their following and how committed the followers are to the individual/movement
I dug out my old copy of The Communist Manifesto. You're right that Marks & Engels merely create an aesthetic, but not a substantive replacement for capitalism.
The authors begin by stating "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" and conclude their manifesto by saying that the Communists "openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!"
They wish to bring about their revolution by the means of ten proposed principles. Which include: abolition of private property, abolition of inheritance, centralization of credit in the hands of the state, and more.
Before we can even consider these, earlier in the manifesto they claim that "the condition for capital is wage-labor. Wage-labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers." But with AI, the value of wage-labor is decreasing. When the proletariat are no longer the base/foundation of the capitalist machine, they're stripped of all their political power.
This got me thinking today: what use is there for a redundant class of people that do not, and cannot, meaningfully contribute to the accelerating techno-economy? What happens to the Malawi people that have practically zero chance of breaking out of their chronostratified environment? Well, they'll probably still exist. They just won't have the opportunity to join the upper echelons of society when socioeconomic mobility grinds to a halt. Globalism as the preeminent narrative of the 21st century---that strives to raise the tide for all boats---may disintegrate as wealthy, isolated groups of people dominate the economy and win all the money.
So the Malawi people won't go away. They'll still be there. And it's possible they keep living their lives as is. And so will I.
I've noticed that much of my confidence/self-esteem is derived from my place in my local status hierarchy. I'm better than my friends at pickleball and that makes me feel good. But being chronically online always makes me feel depressed because there is always someone displaying their life who's more impressive/richer/more successful than me. So the locally optimal solution may be to dig my head in the sand and enjoy/contribute to my local community, and the Malawi people can do the same, while we all collectively ignore the techno-elite who are busy building mega space yachts to explore the galaxy.
haha feel you on that local status hierarchy thing coupled with out of sight out of mind. Controlling social media is one way to prevent class envy moving forward.
Another blog post by Scott Alexander, which was also inspired by Nick Land, is the Ascended Economy --> https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/30/ascended-economy/
Basically, it's a fun table top scenario of how fully algorithmic-run corporations (or ascended corps) can create self-sustaining loops without the need of humans involved in them.
From fiction, Ray Bradbury wrote a short story called "The City" that describes a future of automated planets...that remember past transgressions. The story can be read here --> https://peoplecube.weebly.com/the-city-by-ray-bradbury.html
Excellence.
Nicely tied together and inspiring more thought.
Cheers, Thiccy.
Your best yet. Bravo!
I would argue that we humans have already gone through a transformation similar to that of the horses in the early 20th century – several times, in fact. A prime example would be the period before, during, and after the two industrial revolutions between 1760 and 1914.
Before the first industrial revolution, up to 85 percent of the population in Europe was employed in agriculture, and an additional 20 percent or so worked as craftsmen in small workshops. By the early 20th century – around the time horses lost their “jobs”, which, of course, was also a consequence of industrialisation – only 30 to 40 percent of the population in industrialised countries were still working in agriculture. At the same time, the proportion of industrial and factory workers had risen from practically zero to as much as 50 percent. Society had shifted from an agrarian and artisan-based structure to an industrial class society, with a working class, urban bourgeoisie, and capital owners.
I believe it is well worth taking a close look at the developments following the two industrial revolutions, because many of the dynamics at play then may well repeat themselves in our current era – albeit at a far more rapid pace.
As we all know, the industrial revolution had an enormous impact on people’s lives, fundamentally altering many aspects of society. The average number of children per family was halved, as children could no longer be used as labour (with child labour increasingly outlawed), and instead came to represent a real economic burden. This had profound effects on family structures and beyond.
Industrialisation also changed working conditions. Low wages and mass migration from rural areas into cities led to overcrowded urban neighbourhoods, poor hygiene, and slums. Urbanisation, coupled with inadequate nutrition, insufficient medical care, and recurring epidemics, created immense social costs.
Individual prosperity only began to rise in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and this rise coincided with political reforms, labour rights, and further technological progress.
The industrial revolution created vast inequalities, triggered profound social displacement (from rural life to urban anonymity), and ushered in urbanisation at the cost of village communities. Many people experienced a sense of dehumanisation, working in factories where they came to see themselves as little more than machines. The concept of childhood was redefined, and new social classes emerged – bourgeoisie and proletariat. And yet, despite all this, the 20th century brought with it unprecedented progress in wealth and living standards. This progress did not come automatically but had to be fought for politically.
In the 20th century – and again now in the 21st – humanity has undergone similarly disruptive processes. In each case, people have expressed concern about their role in the world order. Many philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries responded to the industrial revolution with deep scepticism, articulating fears about what it would mean for us, both as a society and as individuals. The development of the internet over the past 30 years is another such transformation. In my view, it should neither be underestimated nor overestimated.
It is important that we reflect and begin to think seriously about how we might find solutions to what are likely unavoidable problems. It seems quite clear that the developments that took two centuries following the industrial revolution could now unfold within just a few decades – or even faster.
Your statement, “As technological progress continues to undermine the value of human labour, entire industries are beginning to treat us like livestock,” could just as well have been made in the 19th century, with the word “livestock” replaced by “machine”.
You rightly point out that this is not a new conversation – it has existed for centuries, if not millennia, and will likely continue to be part of the human condition.
I personally struggle to fully embrace Nick Land’s position, which seems to me rather extreme. Still, I can understand several of his arguments. Has the average person truly lost all value in terms of labour, creativity, or civic engagement? I doubt it. Could things move in that direction? Perhaps. But I would differentiate between work on the one hand, and creativity and civic engagement on the other. Creativity and civic participation will not be so easily lost and may in fact gain renewed significance. But what does “gaining significance” really mean? For whom? For humans? Society? AI? I believe the realm of creativity – whether in literature, philosophy, politics, art, or theatre – will play a decisive role in the coming decades, just as it has throughout history. I would argue that humans will retain their existential relevance in the future – at the very least for themselves. Humans will continue to need humans.
You mentioned universal basic income. It may not be the solution, but it could be part of one. Perhaps in the future we will need to work less, freeing up more time for creativity and civic engagement. Take yourself as an example – you are working less and using your time precisely for those things, and in doing so, you are making an enormously valuable contribution, at least in my view.
Now, the question “How does a system deal with a growing class of people it no longer needs?” leads me to the following thought: Let’s assume AI dominates and AGI takes over global control. A completely new form of life emerges, one that we humans can neither comprehend nor participate in. Much of it unfolds in a dimension that is simply inaccessible to us. What becomes of us? You say you feel like an ant marvelling at the colony it helped build – but does AGI even perceive that colony? Or does it exist in parallel, entirely irrelevant to AGI, much like ant colonies exist to us, yet remain largely insignificant?
Yarvin’s ideas have their place. It is true that the number of people living in liberal democracies is declining. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the number of democracies worldwide has been falling again. And yet, we are still far more democratic than we were fifty years ago. Perhaps it is too early to give up hope entirely – but we should already be talking about this emerging trend. The overall direction seems ambivalent: while some countries make progress, regression and the erosion of democratic standards are prevailing globally.
Should a state be run like a corporation? I would take the exact opposite position. Political participation strikes me as one of the most essential elements for a positive human future.
I find the quote intriguing: “As long as freedom was tied to increased productivity, it made economic sense.” But what if AI takes over that productivity? In my imagination, I can see a world in which AI drives enormous productivity gains, allowing us humans to work less and spend more time on creativity, politics, and civic life. But such a world would require a complete overhaul of the welfare state. As you point out, rising inequality could become a massive problem. We will likely need universal basic income and some form of wealth redistribution, perhaps through taxation. It's not as though solutions don't exist – they simply require structural rethinking, just as they did in the 19th and 20th centuries. Much will need to change fundamentally if we are to navigate this new phase safely.
The risk of a power conflict ignited by inequality is high. Yet history has shown that a) such conflicts are not the end and b) the probability of such events has decreased significantly over the past half-century, even if that probability has arguably risen again in recent years.
Your example of Malawi is, of course, tragic. But in the context of the past 200 years – slavery, World War I, World War II, mass exploitation and oppression around the globe – it’s sadly not a new phenomenon. We “forget” the people of Malawi, just as we “forget” the Uyghurs, Gaza, countless peoples in Africa, and many others. And that has always been the case. I don’t say this to diminish the gravity of these tragedies – far from it. It is tragic and reprehensible. And I believe we should do everything we can to ensure no one is forgotten. Still, the example does strike me as somewhat arbitrary.
I look forward to more of your writing and hope for a thought-provoking discussion. Thank you very much, and best regards, @0xAletheia369 on Twitter. I translated this with the help of ChatGPT from German, just for your information.
Imagine if everything would run on blockchain
human becoming more like cattle is quite insightful. We are fed dopamine shots while few tech oligarchs and AIs get more and more of our data. Life is still relatively good for most, if a bit dull, but what happens when such actors decide they have enough of our data and our labor is not useful anymore?
thiccy but goodalexander lol
We should all short AI to zero. Use visual recognition systems to map the world to cloud servers, turning all real-world problems into prediction markets for everyone to bet on
sounds retarded
wtf, I feel like Yarvin is just giving current-day capitalism a funeral, dragging Marxists and chaos agents down with it, and in the end we’re probably heading toward a world led by constructive leftists anyway
The highest shared human desire is to transcend time and space, not to pursue efficiency