Do you support sustainability, social responsibility, tech ethics, or trust and safety? Congratulations, you’re an enemy of progress. That’s according to the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen.

    • bl4ckblooc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Industrialization happened because of individual efforts to make the lives of workers close to them easier.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, around that time, I’m pretty sure steam engines were literally considered ‘stealing from the worker’.

        The same with many other forms of mechanisation.

        It’s not that the luddites were wrong, just that they were easily beaten, because humans can’t compete.

        There are critics and cynics, but the same is happening now around AI.

        • bioemerl@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s not a worker in the world who will vote away their own job.

          Unchecked control of the workers for industry will harm us all. We don’t need socialism we need strong unions.

          • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s not a worker in the world who will vote away their own job.

            The fuck are you talking about? This happens all the time.

            • bioemerl@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              No it doesn’t, historically people have literally burned down factories and assaulted those who were replacing their jobs.

              There’s not a factory in the world with any significant number of workers that find some new innovation that makes all those workers obsolete where the workers go “oh yeah, let’s do that”

              There are absolutely zero incentives for a worker too to support such a thing. If you think they’re going to somehow magically vote against their own interest and act in favor of the common good no matter the situation…

              Well that’s very socialist thinking from you.

                • bioemerl@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Have you missed the Republican opposition to climate change? Have you missed Republican opposition to globalization in recent years?

                  Those didn’t come out of thin air. They come out of many towns across the country whose entire economy once relied on things like mining coal and heavy dirty industry which was all shipped out to China. They are 100% voting in favor of their jobs still.

                  Also remember that under socialism we are not talking about country level decisions, we are talking about factory level decisions which will largely be decided by the workers. Unless an issue becomes important enough that it becomes a nationwide issue that gets a vote for the larger popular vote, 90% of technologies are going to get trashed.

              • SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                No it doesn’t, historically people have literally burned down factories and assaulted those who were replacing their jobs.

                Because capitalism doesn’t provide a safety net for when you job is gone…damn you are fucking stupid

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s pretty amazing considering Adam Smith didn’t write The Wealth of Nations until well after steam engines were in use in Britain.

      Capitalism must be so powerful it can time travel!

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Modern Capitalism is more a product of the Dutch East India company, chartered in the early 17th century, than Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations which was written as a critique of the subsequent 200 years of capitalist practices.

          • AtmaJnana@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Tell me you never read beyond cherry-picking a headline without telling me. Often regarded as the founder of the field of Economist, Adam Smith was a philosopher who wrote An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, which was the culmination of decades of studying the relationships between labor, capital, and markets (among other things.) This was during the early days of the industrial revolution.

            Claiming he invented capitalism is like saying clouds bring rain. I am no historian, so I don’t claim one caused the other and I don’t really care all that much. But I DO know things are rarely so black and white as to have a single cause. And I know for damn sure Smith didn’t invent capitalism. Capitalism had to already exist for him to write a book studying it.

            • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Trade and markets have existed for a long time, but prior to Hume and Smith the dominant economic model was mercantilism which asserted that there was a finite amount of money in the world and you could only get richer at the expense of others.

              They looked at this and re-interpreted it, subverting the dominant paradigm. That sounds like invention to me.

              • AtmaJnana@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Much ink has been spilled by historians on the roots of capitalism, and while there isn’t a true consensus on precisely where or when capitalism properly emerged, there is a consensus that capitalism existed long before Adam Smith, before the Industrial Revolution, before the field of economics existed, and before the rise of industrial capitalism which you seem to have conflated with capitalism more broadly.

                Industrialization may or may not have been “caused” by capitalism, better minds than I will have to answer that. That said, if you can’t understand how capitalism and the cost of labor were likely factors in the rise of automation and industrialization, then I guess we have nothing more to say to one another.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Industrialization in the USSR didn’t happen? Damn. Where did all those nuclear power plants come from, then? What about that massive agricultural surplus? How did they develop their own computer technologies?

      • kbotc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m amazed that you chose the three worst things you could have picked from the USSR. They literally stole their nuclear tech from the capitalists, did not believe in genetics, period, and created famines from their poor understanding of environmental science and lack of flexibility (Gigantic centralized serf farms are bad if the local weather isn’t ideal! , and their computers were trinary garbage that barely functioned.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They literally stole their nuclear tech from the capitalists

          Soviets had a hydrogen bomb before their Western peers.

          What’s more the world’s first nuclear power station at Obninsk was connected to the Moscow grid in June of 1954. The Soviets outpaced their American peers in nuclear power, rocketry, and advanced electronics well into the 1970s.

          did not believe in genetics, period

          That’s flatly untrue. And it completely neglects their role in eliminating smallpox during the 1950s.

          created famines from their poor understanding of environmental science and lack of flexibility

          https://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/09/world/cia-says-soviet-can-almost-do-without-imports.html

          the average Soviet citizen consumes about 3,300 calories a day, as against 3,520 for an American. The report showed that the Soviet diet consists of far more grain and potatoes than the American diet, but less fish and meat and less sugar.

          They ended famine in Asia. A continent that suffered mass famine every ten to fifteen years was fully fed through domestic agricultural production by the end of the 1960s.

          Stalin was so stacked with grain in the 50s that he was bailing out the English colonies throughout India and Bangledish.