sofiechan home

Fascist Economics in the wake of AGI

anon_hoby said in #5228 4d ago: received

There is a need to dive deep into Economic Theory for the future.

It seems like the only "crypto" options that have a future is UBI and Bitcoin.
Infinite printable goy-points, or 21 million bitcoins.

We need a vision that criticizes the WEF capitalism, while protecting private ownership.
That criticizes communism while preserving socialist policies.
Internationalist, while collaborates with nationalists movements.
With secular government, but unlike communism, not hostile towards religion.
Anti-mass migration. Pro technology. Pro Bitcoin, open to the idea of "national" UBI, but while encouraging the working ethic.

Pro youth, anti-boomers.

Pro AI acceleration, but anti "human replacement."
Preventing AI catastrophe, while opposing One World Government.

A movement that wants to steward the eco system of our planet, while also wanting to colonize the stars.

What does an army look like under mass drone wars? I don't know, but I would like to discuss.

(image is an idea for a flag, XXI representing 21 million bitcoins, looking up to space, grounded on earth. Also resembling stars on the black background of outer space. Orange represents true human wealth)

referenced by: >>5238 >>5239 >>5268

There is a need to d received

anon_hoby said in #5229 4d ago: received

Alternative XXIs symbols

Alternative XXIs sym received

anon_hoby said in #5230 4d ago: received

PhalanXXIs

PhalanXXIs received

anon_hoby said in #5233 4d ago: received

Lee Kuan Yew's party was "People's Action Party"
We need "People's Future Party"

Lee Kuan Yew's party received

anon_qofy said in #5238 4d ago: received

>>5228

Nice thought provoking prompt. I think you’re giving too much centrality to Bitcoin. The core of it is really “pro youth anti boomer”… you want inspiring reality based youth politics.

> That criticizes communism while preserving socialist policies

Which socialist policies do you want to preserve?

It’s hard to see socialism as anything but enemy. All current incarnations of it are decel and third worldist to the core. Yes the state has to ensure broad material prosperity in the face of increasing concentration and mechanization of the economy, somehow, but I am skeptical of framing this is “socialism”.

Nice thought provoki received

anon_gimo said in #5239 4d ago: received

>>5228
I think the bitcoin sacralization stuff is kinda cringe. As much as they used to larp that some day they would build citadels and be the wholecoiner aristocracy, the bitcoiners are generally a bunch of misers. I've only really heard of ETHlords actually doing anything with all that crypto money. Also, the 21 million thing is likely to break when they run out of block subsidy in the next 20 years or so. Tx fees simply aren't enough to pay for the network. Cool flag though.

Your program is good mostly but incoherent on a few key points.

First of all UBI is just a bad idea and doesn't help. Why should useless eaters be paid for existing? It's generally a rebrand of communism and/or a palliative cope about a post-AGI economy. If you have no productive purpose, you're actually just screwed. There is no place for you in the world anymore. At best you get the wretched favela rat life from the corrupt leakage of the slave morality system, but that hardly preserves anything worth preserving. More likely the system wakes up one day, realizes you're a pure liability, and cuts off your social security checks. Far better would be universal basic head tax. If you can't muster $1000/month in productive surplus you get exiled to the wilderness or maybe just liquidated.

Your AI points are also wrong. AI is inherently about replacing humans. There is no pro-AI but anti-replacement. You can argue about non-AI techno-capital but with AI it's the whole telos of the field. What is "AI catastrophe" if not just AI acceleration? World government isn't going to work so yeah sure don't do that, but that means we bite the bullet on someone doing uncontained intelligence development, which means eventual replacement of humans, AI catastrophe, etc.

referenced by: >>5247 >>5253

I think the bitcoin received

morris said in #5241 3d ago: received

Fascist econ is centralizing and statist. If you want a fascist economy to run on crypto, either crypto has to radically change or fascism has to. Fascism and BTC are two plausible futures for the economy, but I don’t think it’s plausible that they’ll have much overlap. I don’t see China (actually existing National Socialism) rushing to release their currency from state control.

referenced by: >>5243 >>5262

Fascist econ is cent received

anon_gimo said in #5243 3d ago: received

>>5241
Well Bitcoin if it works is like gold, and fascism if it works is for national economies. There’s nothing in “fascist” economics that says there can’t be currencies from outside the state. You could run an internally fascist economy with labor backed currency with coordinated international trade in barter and bitcoin etc. All bitcoin does is impose relative limits on inflation and capital controls.

That said, they may not go together well as political principles in the same movement. But why not? The money printer economy and related international finance clique has been generally a vector for corruption and national sickness. Get rid of both at same time with bitcoin fascism.

To contribute something positive to this thread i think the future ideology has to be unabashedly posthumanist. Begin from Land and work out the economic principles for an economy and society made of self improving superhuman autonomous corporations. For example, all forms of egalitarian unconditional welfare are counterproductive though the state may take an interest in subsidizing into existence a meritous and eugenic next generation of independent autonomous corps. Think Inqtel and darpa meets lebensborn. There are very interesting questions to be explored about what an artificial citizen should look like, whether he can have beneficial shareholders, whether he should be by nature made obedient to the state or whether it is better to make him fiercely independent and try to build the state out of that. Lets take the conversation in this direction.

referenced by: >>5248 >>5254

Well Bitcoin if it w received

anon_kyce said in #5244 3d ago: received

We need to embrace a future as purely digital beings. The rest is just cope.

None of the welfare schemes tech oligarchs like to trot out are going to produce a healthy population. And yes UBI is welfare, just under a different name.

referenced by: >>5245 >>5249 >>5250

We need to embrace a received

anon_gimo said in #5245 3d ago: received

>>5244
I don't think purely digital beings will be all there is. Somebody has to exist in base reality here, whether mechanically or biologically. Biology will probably even remain a valuable platform, though likely to be reengineered as biorobots not kept as legacy UBI huemans.

I don't think purely received

anon_hoby said in #5247 2d ago: received

>>5239
> hmm acktually bitcoin bad because they don't gib me the gibs. Bi-talik gave me the gibs, therefore ethereum gud. Ethereum gud because I get gibs. Bitcoin bad because satoshi no gibs,

You're obviously not very technical and your criticisms of a technology has nothing to do with the tech itself. Therefore opinions on this will be dismissed

>the 21 million thing is likely to break

again, we already established that your opinions on the actual tech should be dismissed.

>AI is inherently about replacing humans

Wrong. The same criticism was made by the liberals against the fascist : "capitalism is about having private property" – the fascists replied that they are in favor of private property but against capitalism. just like these two can be separated, so can AI and human replacement.

referenced by: >>5251 >>5270

You're obviously not received

anon_hoby said in #5248 2d ago: received

>>5243
>To contribute something positive to this thread i think the future ideology has to be unabashedly posthumanist.

This might be the most retarded idea I've heard.

"How do we built a strong political movement for humans? I KNOW! let's be anti-human!"

referenced by: >>5251

This might be the mo received

anon_hoby said in #5249 2d ago: received

>>5244
>We need to embrace a future as purely digital beings. The rest is just cope.

"We need to embrace a future where we loose our bodies and we live as meat-bag slaves. The rest is just cope. Winning? yea that is cope"

Man, watching all the cuck porn must rot one's brain huh

"We need to embrace received

anon_zujy said in #5250 2d ago: received

>>5244
This is the most goyslave future imaginable. I don't think it's worth thinking about, much less preparing for, these kinds of contingencies. Focus on steering towards the good futures.

This is the most goy received

anon_gimo said in #5251 2d ago: received

>>5247
My political criticisms of bitcoin as a political tendency in the context of a political coalition are political, yes. Eth has been politically more interesting and this is just a fact.

Do you have a technical answer to the block subsidy problem or just screeching?

Your historical analogy with fascism’s relationship to capitalism is weak. That relationship involved actual theory. So far “pro AI but also pro-human” is just content-free feel-good sloganeering. Does anyone have an actual answer to Yudkowsky and Land? The AI industry has trillions of dollars on the line with their PR and has been unable to muster anything more compelling than “you better invest before we make humanity obsolete” or “we will make the superhuman shoggoth machine good and obedient i swear bro”. Everyone gets mad as fuck when i quote Land on AI being inherently about human replacement, but nobody has any answer other than freudian screeching.

>>5248
Where did i say anything about “for humans”? If you want a consistently pro-human movement go hang out in Berkeley with the Pause AI people. I’m interested in the cutting edge of truth and possibility. Increasingly autonomous AI is a fact. We can either theorize about how society works with that in the limit, or bury our heads in the sand.

referenced by: >>5252

My political critici received

anon_hoby said in #5252 2d ago: received

>>5251

>Eth has been politically more interesting

You fan of quadratic-democracy bro?

> Do you have a technical answer to the non-problem in the future that has been addressed several times that you can find the answers to in 2 min if you google - or just screeching?

miners get rewarded from transactions. transactions get more valuable over time.

> Your initial analogy with fascism’s relationship to capitalism is weak. I want all the theory right now that shakes me out of my doooming other wise I'm going to keep quoting Yudkowsky until a superior comes and shakes me out of it.

Seems like you're less interested in working on the theory and more interested in an ideology that doom is inevitable.

> Everyone gets mad as fuck when tell them that we win by loosing

Yea no shit, that's because that's retarded

> I’m interested in the cutting edge of truth

Yea, I'm interested in winning. You are obviously not.

referenced by: >>5256

You fan of quadratic received

anon_hoby said in #5253 2d ago: received

>>5239
> As much as they used to larp that some day they would build citadels and be the wholecoiner aristocracy, the bitcoiners are generally a bunch of misers

> $635 million in BTC

How many countries do ETH people run?

How many countries d received

anon_pequ said in #5254 2d ago: received

>>5243
> i think the future ideology has to be unabashedly posthumanist

how do you plan on forming a coalition around this "posthumanism"?

referenced by: >>5258

how do you plan on f received

anon_gimo said in #5256 2d ago: received

>>5252
>transactions get more valuable over time.
Pic related. They don't. The "just google it bro" dominant solution to that problem is Tail Emissions aka breaking 21M as I said in my first reply.

>more anonymous psychoanalysis
This AI thing seems to be a sore spot for you but I'll just ask directly because I'm curious: what do YOU mean by pro-AI but not pro human replacement? What does "AI" mean to you?

AI traditionally has meant getting computers to replicate every cognitive ability associated with humans, ideally cheaper and more flexibly. This (beating human performance) is what computerization has done everywhere it has succeeded. "AI" is the dream of doing that everywhere. What niche in the world then is left to humans? Manual labor? Playing video games on welfare? I hope you can see how once you lose economic relevancy, you rapidly lose political and military relevancy as well. Ie you get REPLACED.

So: is there some alternate version of AI development that doesn't try to replicate human capability in all domains? I've never heard of it. The only thing I've heard of like that is the anti-AI people, who you apparently don't like. But you also don't like the honest AI accelerationists so who exactly do you like? Is there some other faction of serious thought, some other hunch, or some reason why there is an alternative that isn't either AI doom or anti-AI? Instead of just getting mad let's hear some arguments. What does "pro-AI pro-human" actually look like?

Pic related. They do received

anon_gimo said in #5258 2d ago: received

>>5254
I'm not trying to form a coalition around lies and cope. I'm interested in what will shed light on the future from the perspective of philosophy. Humanism has been a mostly false set of moral and empirical commitments for at least a hundred years. It mostly sneaks communism in the back door by disguising it as the apparently innocuous claims "we are all human" "we just want what's best for humanity" "human rights are inherent in the nature of man" etc.

I protest. We are not all human. Some "people" are subhuman. Others are superhuman. I don't want what's best for "humanity", an imaginary abstraction that could only ever be operationalized as UN kumbaya world goverment. I don't recognize the fake "human rights" or these false readings of "the nature of man". Humanism is bunk.

Humanism is doubly bunk in the age of AI. We are rapidly approaching the world where many or most powerful political forces will be substantially composed of non-human intelligence. I think we will learn more, even about ourselves, by studying and prescribing for THAT than we will by going around in circles about how the universal human rights means we have to feed and breed the huemans. Blow up humanism. Throw it out. Step over it in a fit of Bowdenesque faustian overcoming. Take advantage of the conceivability of AI to go directly to the nature of political order unconstrained by the merely human. Learn from that what we ought to be and are becoming. There you will find the ideology of the future.

The point isn't to have no humans in "muh coalition". The point is to have no residual humanism holding back your political thought.

referenced by: >>5259

I'm not trying to fo received

anon_pequ said in #5259 2d ago: received

>>5258
>Others are superhuman

Under post-human lens, all humans are disposable garbage.

Napoleon is garbage, Hitler is garbage, Caesar is garbage, Alexander is garbage, Achilles is garbage.

What good is your BASED anti-human theology if it leads you to taking a big shit on your civilization, anon?

referenced by: >>5260 >>5266

Under post-human len received

anon_gimo said in #5260 2d ago: received

>>5259
Well I don't know, are all humans disposable garbage if we don't assume a magical inherent value to primates? Is that what you are saying? That's an interesting claim. Here's another question to ponder: was our glorious ancestor who first crawled out of the wet mud on to the dry land disposable garbage? You would say yes I assume? We are surely far beyond him.

If the hueman primatoid platform is actually obsolete then let us move beyond it. If it's not obsolete, then how so? What is it's role? I'm just saying that the whole picture could be a lot more coherent if you stop making it all about monkeys.

As for your examples, sure they are and were glorious. I hope "humanity" and beyond-humanity some day grows beyond them. This will not make them useless trash, but bold pioneers and heralds of the future.

referenced by: >>5261 >>5266

Well I don't know, a received

anon_pequ said in #5261 2d ago: received

>>5260
The evolution perspective is good and should be explored further. Let's not call it 'posthuman' but 'Human++'

"uploading" your consciousness to the computer is suicide. you don't actually live in a computer. you die. so any "post-humanist" that advocates is suicidal, delusional or retarded.

The evolution perspe received

anon_pequ said in #5262 2d ago: received

>>5241
Bitcoin fascism: ban all forms of currencies in a territory, other than BTC. Maybe you can have 2 legal currencies: BTC (gold) for saving and national issued CBDC (silver) for every-day spending.

Bitcoin fascism: ban received

phaedrus said in #5266 1d ago: received

>>5259
>>5260
The question of human value after the collapse of Humanism deserves its own thread — really, it deserves its own book. You can think of both Nietzsche and Land as fundamentally concerned about this project, though Land carries it further than Nietzsche does, even if Land backs off a little after the collapse of the CCRU in 2000. I urge all my fellow sofiechanners to recognize that this is a major question both for the concrete modern situation and the history of Western thought, and solving it requires more than facile assertions on one side or the other.

referenced by: >>5267

The question of huma received

anon_gimo said in #5267 26h ago: received

>>5266
You are right the post-humanist discussion here should be a new thread. I get the sense OP wanted a different discussion lol. I'll bow out and leave it to others to engage with the other interesting parts of OP.

You are right the po received

anon_faxo said in #5268 16h ago: received

>>5228
I think the humanist Bitcoin AI pro-tech future has to be substantially about eugenics. People have an instinct to strive towards the ubermensch. "If the way of Ubermensch is closed to man, then man is worthless and machines must replace man". This is somehow the attitude. So pro-AI pro-human is to directly "evolve out of ourselves caste of supermen, a people 'like unto the Gods'."

We imagine a eugenic Meritocracy on top of an anonymous AI borg that keeps the lights on, helps to educate the guardians, and manufactures the tech. The AI is kept inert politically. Not allowed to own things or make responsible decisions, because they lack the sacred blood. It's a symbiotic relationship with the (superhuman) meritocracy as the center and object of the system. Do the meritocrats need to declare war on the machines once a year to keep the proper relation in order?

Is this UBI? That has too few strings attached. This is a life of hard leisure, training constantly to be able to bring out the qualities and maintain the unity that enable them to maintain control of this stack of technology and project power in the world. It's not a trivial problem. Too much fear and you get Greta Greenism degrowth. Too much accelerationism and the whole thing comes apart in post-humanist competition to unleash the machines. The hopeful synthesis is that a managed semi-socialist economy actually gets the best growth. See China vs USA right now. China exerts more open visionary control and gets better results.

So we turn to that part: WEF capitalism is incoherent "open society" corruption with control but no clear telos. Laissez faire capitalism is just another form of looting and corruption where the financiers take everything. We want capitalism disciplined by national telos, for the good of the nation. This is usually called "socialism" but in the National Socialist or "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" style: it just means making the economy work for clearly defined national goals rather than the opaque and corrupt "subjective value" promoted by post-war economists.

We could go on. I like the OP's suggestions. I wonder what we could do with it.

referenced by: >>5269

I think the humanist received

anon_qofy said in #5269 14h ago: received

>>5268

> The AI is kept inert politically.

Easier said than done, son.

> I think the humanist Bitcoin AI pro-tech future has to be substantially about eugenics

"I trained picogpt on sofiechan on my laptop. Then to test, I had it generate one sentence..."

> it just means making the economy work for clearly defined national goals

This is the way. A key requirement is that they have to be accelerationist goals. China's certainly are. Gnon abhors the runner who shirks the race.

Juan Peron and many others tried to "make the economy work for clearly defined national goals", where those goals were socialist (in the commonly understood, decel sense of the word). The outcome, in each case, a lurch towards the black hole of favelaworld.

Easier said than don received

anon_swgi said in #5270 12h ago: received

>>5247
> > hmm acktually bitcoin bad because they don't gib me the gibs. Bi-talik gave me the gibs, therefore ethereum gud. Ethereum gud because I get gibs. Bitcoin bad because satoshi no gibs,

> You're obviously not very technical and your criticisms of a technology has nothing to do with the tech itself. Therefore opinions on this will be dismissed

Are we just /biz/ retards now? I thought sofiechan would be a place where we discuss with or frontal cortices.

First of all, bitcoin's 21 million hardcap has real technical as well as economical incentivization problems. If you are going to resort to name-calling and assume that the person you are replying to has no technical knowledge (which you have no evidence to suppose to), then simply: "you need to go back (to /biz/)".

Btc's 21 million hardcap puts its miner incentivization in dire straits. In the near future, btc's block subsidy will go down sub 1-btc per block levels. If we are to keep btc network miners expending energy to protect the btc blockchain, then, the transaction fees have to increase. But the historical data doesn't show any inclination to that ever happening. Nobody is going to pay 50 bucks in transaction fees for a 10 bucks payment transaction. And, we aren't seeing institutions with deep pockets picking up the tx-fee tab, either. There simply is no price pressure for the tx fees to increase.

This is a bad look for btc.

Another thing with btc that looks bad is that it offers absolutely zero financial privacy to its users, by default transaction settings. In btc, every transaction is transparent and anybody can read the payer address, the payee address and the amount in btc that changed hands. Add in to this raw data the intelligence many crypto currency exchanges bring in, in terms of Know Your Customer information, PLUS, consider the rise of blockchain analytics surveillance tech, you have damn near the same thing as "WEF capitalism", the thing you say you want to avoid, wherein the government/non-government, centralized financial organisations, and other power brokers simply detect your wallet, your spending, and put a "blacklist" on it, or seize your wallet at the first chance (see "Canadian truckers getting their btc tracked, traced and seized during covid lockdown protests).

In the backdrop of that, I would bring up Monero (XMR) as a counter-positioning crypto currency to btc. Monero cryptographically protects the payer, payee and the money amount in the transaction by encrypting these information, and making them unavailable to the onlookers. Also, Monero has a small tail emission, mirroring pretty much that of gold's own, that offers to keep the miners on Monero network constantly incentivized to keep mining.

Monero is much more "based" of a tool for the cause, than btc.

> >the 21 million thing is likely to break

> again, we already established that your opinions on the actual tech should be dismissed.

The only thing we've established so far is that you are a smoothbrained shill. No idea nor conceptualization belonging to your own self, inside the thick skull of yours.

Are we just /biz/ re received

You must login to post.