charlotte

in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, marx attacks the idea that a society's distribution of goods can be justified by applying an equal standard of labour contribution to everybody. he points out that individuals have different physical and intellectual capacities, different circumstances, and different needs. treating everyone as an abstractly equal worker doesn't make those differences disappear. the famous formulation of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" explicitly states "to his ability" and "to his needs" for this specific reason. he did not fail to account for the fact that different people have different needs, that was own critique of the contemporary social democrats.

marx spent half his lifetime as a philosopher critiquing utopian socialists for trying to model abstract moral ideals to shape society after, and now he's being ascribed the talking points of utopian socialists. what the fuck are we even doing here.

im so tired of leftslop

you're literally arguing against a marx you made up in your head. he was not talking about virtue. the entire point of his entire analytical framework is describing socioeconomic relationships without moral qualifiers. you're bringing the moral qualifiers back in.

https://social.treehouse.systems/@Elizafox/117447764286635943

"tankie" is the most overused and beaten to death term in existence. you'd call the people the tanks were rolled in against "tankies"

https://social.treehouse.systems/@Elizafox/117447793474956221

@drq я не обольщаюсь, я ною

среднестатистический левак, считает что кофе у него горький вышел, потому что есть сговор злых миллиардеров, которые в его зерна подсыпают хреновый кофе, и чтобы это прекратилось, нужно протолкнуть закон о запрете злых миллиардеров, и тогда всё будет заебись

the most irrelevant operating system, possibly ever

if you're recommending literally anybody netbsd seriously you've lost the fucking plot

@ug @hipsterelectron @Flaky excuse my mangling of terms, im not exactly proofreading myself right now lol

@hipsterelectron @ug @Flaky just like a corporation doesn't produce the labor on the factory floor, the workers do! it's not a novel phenomenon, the fact that the product is immaterial just makes it sound rather absurd, but it's been happening since approximately the black death

@ug @hipsterelectron @Flaky a technology that allows anybody to produce any amount of any immaterial product makes the product completely meaningless

@ug @hipsterelectron @Flaky the ai companies themselves absolutely do not threaten copyright, i think they fit greatly in the current system, there's a reason why openai and anthropic both push to reinforce it and opportunistically cooperate with IP holders (see the openai disney deal). but ai as a technology in general does not, which is why you also see them making absolutely sure that the production and inference of ai systems is regulated and limited to a handful of large domestic corporates

@hipsterelectron @ug @Flaky but the fact that results in the alienation of the products of labor from the worker isn't exactly a bug, that's literally the same across any industry under capitalism. it's more visible on the factory floor, but the fact that a large publisher owns the products of their workers and extracts profit out of them (by, say, suing someone creating derivative works without a proper license) isn't a failure, that's the entire design of the system, even if it does result in alienation

@ug @hipsterelectron @Flaky they can sue to the best of their abilities, whether or not their abilities are enough to sue anthropic is another question

@hipsterelectron @ug @Flaky i think the very concept of non-material property is mostly meaningless, and private property relations should be abolished in general, and that artificial intelligence exposes the contractions in them, such as "fair use" as an intentionally extremely limited escape hatch

@hipsterelectron @ug @Flaky but there's absolutely nothing extraordinary happening here. the property owner receives the compensation in the end. nobody's ever promised it's for public benefit

copyright worked exactly as designed, as a system of property on non material goods. whether or not it's a good system, and whether or not intellectual property is even a meaningful concept are two different questions

@ug @Flaky it's meaningless to fight for enforcement of copyright when it's literally already being enforced exactly as it was designed. nothing is broken lol

@ug @Flaky the laws do apply to everyone. anthropic will pay their fine just fine. it's just capex on training to them, nothing more and nothing else

@Flaky i heart reproducing the current socioeconomic relations of the current society