UFII

A wave of excellent posts at Nydwracu’s place recently. At the crest is this, a critique of the capitalist thing as an Unfriendly Institutional Intelligence (UFII). I’d been meaning to run something off the article initially cited, which is fascinating. As Nydwracu shows, its implications extend much further than its foregrounded argument.

As already briefly tweet-sparred, I’m skeptical about the description of Capitalism as an institution (or set of institutions), since any sociological category is inadequate to its mechanism in profundity. Capital, like fire, is something humans do, but that does not make it reducible to the ways humans do it. In its ultimate cybernetic diagram, Capitalism is a cosmic occurrence, and only very derivatively an anthropological fact. (This is not, of course, to deny that capitalism is destined to have been by far the most important anthropological fact). As a cause, human thedes can be interesting. As a cognitive horizon, they are simply weakness. It isn’t always — or even very often — about us.

Like Capitalism, the Cathedral is a self-organizing, distributed intelligence with emergent post-anthropomorphic features. Unlike Capitalism, it has no intrinsic competence at self-resourcing, and thus relapses continually into to compromise, contradiction, and exhortation. The Cathedral has a complex spiritual message it is inextricably bound to, but Capitalism has only one terminal law: anything that can feed itself gets to live. The pre-adaptation to rough times that comes with this goes without saying (and is usually left unsaid). Unlike the Cathedral, Capitalism doesn’t chat to us much at all. It’s message channels, meaning those communication circuits not dedicated to machine code, consist of tradable ad space. To devote them to preaching would look bad on a balance sheet somewhere.

(Much more on this as the war heats up.)

Note-1: ‘Feeding itself’ includes funding its self-protection. This is a cost-point that is almost certain to grow.
Note-2: Capitalist message channels are, of course, open to preaching that pays. The essential point is that, in contradistinction to the Cathedral, such second-party messaging or first-party PR is irreducibly cynical. When an emergent AI talks to you about morality, you’d be a dupe to weep.

August 16, 2014admin 46 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

46 Responses to this entry

  • Postnietzschean Says:

    I saw that Ramez Naam article when it came out and wasn’t impressed. His argument of capitalism-as-softer-singularity I’m of course sympathetic too. But his critique of the hard takeoff scenario is conceptually confused.

    Statements like “if designing intelligence is an N^2 problem” don’t actually parse. N in computational complexity refers to the size of the problem inputs, e.g. the number of items to sort, the number of nodes to traverse, etc. What is N when the problem is a general intelligence? IQ equivalent? There is no objective way to say that one system is twice as intelligence an another, so asking about the complexity curve of AI is meaningless.

    Additionally, the whole point of the singularity is that once you have an artificial mind further intelligence improvements are reduced to a resource problem, e.g., you can double the speed of your AI by doubling the speed of your processors. More likely Moore’s Law has petered out, but your AI is on some parallel architecture, so the problem is even easier – simply buy or steal more computing hardware to run clones of your AI. Or get the AI to design better networking interconnects or parallel algorithms or whatever.

    MIRI put out a much better paper, ‘Microeconomics of Intelligence Explosion’, which had a much more in-depth and nuanced approach to determining the reference class for the difficulty of AI. Highly recommended: http://intelligence.org/files/IEM.pdf

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    I wasn’t impressed by the argument either.

    AI has been predicted to come Real Soon Now ever since MIT got its hands on a computer. It’s not here yet.

    Institutional intelligences are far more interesting to me than computer intelligences, because they’re already here, they’re already self-improving, and someday China will figure out intelligence augmentation. If intelligence augmentation leads to increased ability to produce intelligence augmentation, institutional singularity.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2014 at 11:34 am Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    I will take another side of that bet.

    Capitalism at least in part amplifies and reifies the will of its constituent humans. That our society atomizes isn’t capitalism per se, rather it is capitalism amplifying the desire of modern humans to Exit their personal relationships.

    Partly this is from the ponerization of relationships from agriculture, wars, plagues and so on. These things normalize coercion* within supposedly loving relationships. Further, Sophistry, that is, progressivism makes liars and manipulation high status, which causes regular folk to mimic such things.

    *(As always, I use the strict philosophical definition.)

    My test: am I jealous of anyone’s relationship? Almost never. The only reason they need capitalism to help them eject is that I’m more rational and honest with myself than they are; for example they confuse their supposed duties within the relationship with what it actually is.

    Similarly, don’t confuse capitalism with what some capital owners want. Unions would be fine if government wasn’t constantly leaning on the scale, and most dire apes value family over having a job, which means the capital owners would lose that contest.

    Finally, plebs are followers. They want, in large part, what they’re told to want, subject only to the limits of hard-coded biological desires like food. If you look, you’ll see elite proggies telling plebs to want many of the things capitalism is supposedly inevitably forcing. While it’s possible there’s a complex feedback, where capitalism is forcing proggies to stand in front of the parade and pretend to be leading it, we should try the easy fix first; get them to shut up and see if that helps.

    On the other side of the ledger, we can see supposedly capitalist organizations doing decidedly uncapitalist things, despite the supposed hypertrophy of capitalism. That said, I’m hard pressed to come up with a solid example on the spot.

    Back on the first side, enviro-products sell better. It is preaching that pays. Ditto charity-as-advertising. Why does it pay? Because our plebs value these things. This is the mechanism whereby capitalism transmutes human desire into power.

    Or put it this way:
    Capitalism might reify the desires of its component dire apes. Let’s fiddle with their desires and find out. As proggies show, fiddling with values isn’t that hard if you know what you’re doing.

    [Reply]

    sviga lae Reply:

    I like this, as a plank of materialist psycho-history, however I suspect even a desire for interpersonal Exit projects more agency onto the mass than is warranted.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2014 at 1:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    if capitalism totally wins then we all have no family and work twelve hours a day with Soylent instead of a lunch break and so on. -nydwracu

    This makes no sense.

    Unlike Capitalism, it has no intrinsic competence at self-resourcing, and thus relapses continually into to compromise, contradiction, and exhortation.

    How do you formulate these hypothesis about capitalism, Land. There appears to be no link to empirical events.

    Again, regarding “Capitalism has only one terminal law: anything that can feed itself gets to live.”

    To clarify, are trust fund babies whose fathers were fabulously rich a “leak” or do the digits on their bank account balance make it not so? Are stay-at-home mothers a “leak,” or are they okay because their husband pays for them? Are children a “leak,” or are they okay because they are expected to be productive later, or because their parents pay, or because the state pays? Are the disabled a “leak,” or are they okay because of what could have been?

    It’s becoming increasingly clear NRx (or whatever THIS is) must consider capitalism/socialism/communism/blah/blah/blah to be real.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Why would you think there’s an armchair answer to the leak problem? Or others like it? Capitalism has markets to sort out these sort of fake ‘dilemmas’ automatically.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Back to libertarianism.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You’re throwing out the most intelligent parts of libertarianism (recognition of markets as a cognitive processing system) for the most stupid part of universal or racial collectivism (“we can effectively second guess the optimization paths of complex processes”). It’s an appallingly bad exchange.

    Different T Reply:

    No.

    Your assertions about capitalism have no empirical base. They only become defensible when you broaden the concept so much as to make it nondifferentiable, eg. “It’s just Darwin. Scoff all you like. It wins.”

    admin Reply:

    If you want to argue with this little post, and not just snark like a teenager, you have to advance an argument to defend the contested proposition that Capital is an Unfriendly Institutional Intelligence in the same sense that the Cathedral is. That’s the topic. What you’re doing here is just the most inane kind of trolling, and a waste of everyone’s time.

    Different T Reply:

    To break with style…

    —–

    This statement: “Capitalism has only one terminal law: anything that can feed itself gets to live,” does not allow for trust fund babies, stay-at-home mothers, children, or the disabled. To square the circle you may say a market exists for “becoming a leak” to a “productive” person.

    Then, to correct your phrase “Capitalism has only one terminal law: anything that can feed gets to live.”

    How incredibly insightful.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Lol, is this serious or a very poor attempt at trolling?

    Children feed themselves via the stay at home mothers who feed themselves via the working fathers. Capitalism easily allows for that.
    It’s not a leak if someone is voluntarily paying for it.

    Different T Reply:

    Thank you, Hurlock. I wanted to address the animating myth in the first post, but it would have been out of place.

    ——–

    It’s not a leak if someone is voluntarily paying for it.

    Why the added word? It has been stated NRx totally understands social conflict better than the juvenile libertarians.

    Did you even read the statement? “Capitalism has only one terminal law: anything that can feed gets to live.” So in your fantasy capitalism land, violence is not allowed, even for survival? NRx totally understands social conflict better than the juvenile libertarians.

    ——-

    The “nerd” wrests the girl from the “thug” boyfriend without a confrontation that exposes the “nerds” weakness.

    Or, at worst, the “nerd” gets a slightly bloodied nose…. and the girl.

    admin Reply:

    It’s just Darwin. Scoff all you like. It wins.

    Different T Reply:

    It’s just Darwin.

    Hence, “How incredibly insightful.”

    admin Reply:

    Much as I’d like it to be acknowledged as trivially true, scarcely anybody seems to find it even imaginable, let alone compelling.

    Different T Reply:

    LOL. Sarcasm translates so well on the internet

    Posted on August 16th, 2014 at 2:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • UFII | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on August 16th, 2014 at 2:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    @Different T

    What in the blue hell are you even blabbering about?

    If a starving thief murders you for your food, this is violence for survival. Is this violence “allowed”? Not from your standpoint as you will be fighting for your life, to the death if need be.
    If you are starving and you try to kill someone for his food, is your violence “allowed”? Probably yes, from your standpoint but the guy who you are attacking definitely has quite a different view.

    Talking about “allowing” violence is retarded. No one ever “allows” violence against themselves which leads people to converge at the only possible solution which is banning all violence.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Does this mean anything to you?

    It’s becoming increasingly clear NRx (or whatever THIS is) must consider capitalism/socialism/communism/blah/blah/blah to be real.

    ——–

    If not..

    Capitalism has only one terminal law: anything that can feed gets to live.
    —–
    It’s just Darwin. Scoff all you like. It wins.
    —–
    These hypotheses are only defensible when you broaden (capitalism) so much as to make it nondifferentiable.

    ——–

    Does It’s becoming increasingly clear NRx (or whatever THIS is) must consider capitalism/socialism/communism/blah/blah/blah to be real mean anything now?

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2014 at 6:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • kgaard Says:

    “As a cognitive horizon, thedes are simply weakness.” That’s a solid point. Upon reading Nydwracu I was reminded of the movie Elysium, where even the president of the elite breakaway space station was… Indian. It’s as if even Hollywood recognizes that if you posit capitalism as ultimate ruling power there really is no realistic way the elites will be thedishly organized too. It’s one or the other. Organization by thede becomes minor breakaway event, like the Shakers or Amish or, to use his useful example, ironic hipsters pursuing kitsch Americana.

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    Thedes aren’t nations, and thedes aren’t races. What is cosmopolitanism but thedish reterritorialization?

    Social norms facilitate interaction by making it easier to model the other person. Thedes can arise out of social norms alone: ‘we’ are those who each of ‘us’ can easily interact with (because ‘we’ can easily model ‘ourselves’, because ‘we’ adhere to the same social norms), and ‘they’ are those who each of ‘us’ can’t.

    The same process holds for common reference points. A thede may define itself also by its shared knowledge. Or shared rituals — golf, for example — which facilitate networking. Or shared historical/geographical/etc. experiences, as Benedict Anderson describes.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2014 at 6:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brother Nihil Says:

    I wonder if anyone here is familiar with the work of Anton Long (aka David Myatt), a British ex-National Socialist with a 180+ IQ who was a radically reactionary long before it was cool. Anyway, here is a sample of his writing; I guess he would call most of you guys “Magians”. Enjoy.

    MAGIAN:
    The term Magian is used to refer to the hybrid ethos of Yahoud and of Western hubriati, and also refers to those individuals who are Magian by either breeding or nature.

    The Magian ethos expresses the fundamental materialistic belief, the idea, of Homo Hubris, Yahoud, and the Hubriati, that the individual self (and thus self identity) is the most important, the most fundamental, thing, and that the individual – either alone or collectively (and especially in the form of a nation/State) – can master and control everything (including themselves), if they have the right techniques, the right tools, the right method, the right ideas, the money, the power, the influence, the words. That human beings have nothing to fear, because they are or can be in control.

    The Magian ethos is thus represented in the victory of consumerism, capitalism and usury over genuine, numinous, living culture; in the vulgarity of mechanistic marxism, Freudian psychology, and the social engineering and planning and surveillance of the nanny State; in the vulgarity of modern entertainment centred around sex, selfish-indulgence, lack of manners and dignity, and vacuous “celebrities” (exemplified by Hollywood); and in the conniving, the hypocrisy, the slyness, and the personal dishonourable conduct, which nearly all modern politicians in the West reveal and practice.

    Magians are a specific type of human being – they are the natural exploiters of others, possessed of an instinctive type of human cunning and an avaricious personal nature. Over the past millennia they have developed a talent for manipulating other human beings, especially Western mundanes, by means of abstractions – such as usury and “freedom” and marxian/capitalist “social engineering/planning” – and by hoaxes/illusions, such as that of “democracy”. The easily manipulated nature of Western mundanes, and the Magian talent for such things as usury and litigation/spiel, their ability to cunningly manipulate, and their underlying charlatanesque (and almost always cowardly nature), have given them wealth, power and influence.

    THE MAGIAN (AKA “DAJJAL”) SYSTEM:

    This esoteric and Initiated understanding is one of dominance by the so-called “New World Order”, which basically means the domination of the Magian. This domination over the West – and increasingly other countries – is essentially that of what is often euphemistically called “Zionism” with the reality that most nations in the West are covertly ruled by a Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG).

    This situation has arisen from two factors. First, the covert introduction into the societies of the West of Marxist, and Marxist-sociological, values and ideas, Second, from the military and economic dominance of America which is all but now controlled by Zionist interests. In respect of the the introduction of Marxism, the societies of the West have been steadily “socially engineered”, through laws, through the power of the Media, through government schemes, and through indoctrination spread especially by teachers in Schools and Universities. This “social engineering” has been to produce – and has produced – a plebeian society (lacking in honour and true excellence) and tyrannical governments who rule by that organized protection racket known as State and government taxes, and by the rule of an ignoble and abstract law, which abstract law is the antithesis of the warrior law of personal honour.

    The reality is that a world-wide capitalist tyranny has been created, with the peoples of the West made for the most part docile through materialism and “entertainment” and “sport” and “personal pursuits”, with their opinions formed for them by The State, its educational system, politicians, and the Media – especially television and newspapers. The individual has become subservient to The State in thought, word and deed. Basically, the individual is now mostly powerless before the might of The State.

    Of course, the majority do not see this, duped as they are and have been by The System with its trickery of “democracy” and “rights”. In addition, some dissent and “rebellion” is allowed, and even encouraged – so long as it does threaten in any real way the ideas and the control of The System. Those individuals, groups, organizations who do or who may pose a serious threat to The System are dealt with, often by those organizations being outlawed, and their leaders and members being tried according to some tyrannical State law and put into prison for a long time.

    The System – having made itself secure among The States of the West – has recently embarked on the next part of the plan, which is to create a new Empire to ensure the material wealth and military superiority of its leading lackey government, that of the America. To this end, countries have been invaded, and sanctions used to bring others under control.

    The System and its lackey States are a serious threat to our evolution – to the creation of free, strong, independent human beings. The System wants – and even demands – that we are or become subservient, to its ways, its laws, its sociological ideas, to the basic materialistic animalistic way of life its allows for its “citizens”, a way devoid of real adventure, real challenges, real numinosity. This way is the way of the sub-human.

    One of our aims as an esoteric Order is to continue our evolution through creating a higher, more evolved, type of human being – a strong, independent, warrior-like, individual. This individual is the antithesis of the denizens of The State – of the individual in thrall to Old Aeon abstractions and ideas – and in this truth is the essence of the understanding required to appreciate, and know, the current situation vis-a-vis Aeonics and sinister strategy.

    For this aim of a new human type to be achieved, we must break-down and indeed destroy the States that make up The System, the New World Order (NWO), as we must challenge the enervating ideas, the enervating ways, of The System, and replace them with our own life-enhancing ideas and ways.

    If The System is not destroyed, then our evolution will be stifled, and our promise – the greatness, Destiny and glories which await among the Cosmos – will remain unfulfilled.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    what a load of cra…

    …cool story, bro.

    [Reply]

    Nathan Turner Overdrive Reply:

    Spenglerian magian cave as the ur-Safe Space?

    DAEL haloperidol?

    [Reply]

    bbq beast Reply:

    Interesting stuff, thanks.

    [Reply]

    bbq beast Reply:

    On second thought, no thanks.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2014 at 11:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wen shuang Says:

    “As a cognitive horizon, thedes are simply weakness.”

    Further, are not all human values biases/weaknesses? It would seem to me that capitalism cannot be ordered by human values because capitalism constitutes human values inasmuch as capitalism plays a role in constituting humans. The empirical evidence is suggested by harpending. Put another way, it is like Darwinism. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that “human” is a static thing.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Do concepts mean anything?

    What is Darwinism?

    What is capitalism?

    If capitalism is like Darwinism, is this really the definition of capitalism you’re using?

    an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

    If you say capitalism is like Darwinism, fine. But stating “Capitalism has only one terminal law: anything that can feed itself gets to live” is then clearly an error and so is focusing on voluntary action. But these distinctions (voluntary and reward/effort) are clearly what the authors intend to highlight as a means of contrasting capitalism with socialism/Cathedral/blah.

    Again, the hypotheses put forward regarding capitalism are only defensible when you broaden (capitalism) so much as to make it nondifferentiable.

    [Reply]

    Wen Shuang Reply:

    The definition you provided, despite being canonical, is inoperable as it stands. Capitalism is more usefully conceived of as a catallactic trajectory whose particular, and contingent, expression is as described in your post. The least interesting reason they are similar, capitalism and darwinism, is because in the anthropocentric expression, distributed iterating agents are, but are not necessarily, individuals. More interesting is that in both cases there is no necessary connection between what is selected by agents and what emerges as having been selected by the conditions within which agents act. Further, the latter plays a constitutive role in agents conceived diachronically. So capitalism is not an institution, nor is it *merely* an historical development or type of economy. It is capital optimization by any means- optimization operating simultaneously, and by unique criteria, at two levels. The first is comparative advantage, the second is entropy maximization. It is still differentiable from Darwinism because the processes optimize different types of fitness, economic or biological.

    Or not. But that’s how I’ve been thinking of it.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Why is “Capitalism” being discussed? Because it is supposedly being contrasted with the organizing principles of the “Cathedral.”

    However, if the concept is blown up from “an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth” to “It is capital optimization by any means,” how can this exclude, and be contrasted to “the Cathedral?”

    As a crude example, consider very basic conceptions of ectomorph (shed energy easily) and endomorph (store energy easily). It would be like contrasting an ectomorph, not with an endomorph, but with Darwinism.

    Again (regarding “Capitalism”), these distinctions (voluntary and reward/effort) are clearly what the authors intend to highlight as a means of contrasting capitalism with socialism/Cathedral/blah. But since there is nothing about “capital optimization by any means” which must exclude coercion or differing distributions, the author is clearly morphing the concept to suit purposes (A discourse of distribution resentments).

    Posted on August 17th, 2014 at 12:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wen Shuang Says:

    “As a cognitive horizon, thedes are simply weakness.”

    Is this not true of all human values? Capitalism cannot be subject to human values for the reason that capitalism assists in constituting human values inasmuch as capitalism assists in constituting humans. Empirical evidence is suggested by Harpending. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that there is some static thing called “human”. Or put another way, capitalism is like Darwinism.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 17th, 2014 at 12:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ghostlike Says:

    Capitalism might reify the desires of its component dire apes. Let’s fiddle with their desires and find out. As proggies show, fiddling with values isn’t that hard if you know what you’re doing.
    [Reply]

    I agree with the first two sentences, but the problem with the third is that you never really know what you are doing. It is so difficult that I couldn’t do it even when writing imaginary characters with mind control powers whose purpose is to explicitly modify values. It only seems easy before the story you are writing gets hijacked by your own brain’s social circuitry.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 17th, 2014 at 1:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    capitalism is trade write large its a process a market to exchange goods,
    government from tribes to the cathedral is also a fvariant of capitalism or trade, in fact its often simply exchanging goods but sometimes in return for non physical goods or non physical goods for other non physical goods,non physical goods like good will or power or war or loyalty these are goods people have that are difficult to simply take making trade more efficient.both forms of capitalism are subordinate to human will, they are not sentient or intelligent, their tendency to equilibrium or whatever is no more than waters tendency to seek its own level which humans also leverage. the motive forces within are intelligent but diverse.the cathedral simply attempts to leverage finer and finer inputs to its advantage whats interesting about this human tool is it makes an end run around DNA attempting to replace human intelligence to guide human survival rather than evolution. Memes not Genes compete. Of course this has gone on long before the cathedral but we can do more damage more quickly now. That is if HBD is a value not a construct

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 17th, 2014 at 1:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    Honestly This whole AI thing is silly yes its interesting and amusing its science and has implications but it is not anything to do with how we are to organize society.
    uploading brains does anyone here actually think if your brain could be uploaded you would go with it? do yo actually thing creating an artificial sentience would create an ethical dilemma about pulling the plug?
    are you all stupid or something Im a dumb construction worker and i know thats absurd.
    first technical consideration aside this singularity depends on an infinite amount of facts to be realized ever think there might be a limit on the knowable and we are close? maybe theres a limit on how far a intelligence can probe purely theoretically or are we talking about AI robots running around doing experiments at the speed of light?why would a AI even think to improve itself that doesnt seem to be a natural inclination with other intelligences. I wish I could do the math to see if Nothing is really unstable and something was inevitable ,and something being practically infinite we too become inevitable yet pointless, but im willing to stipulate its as likely as anything Krauss is not a running dog of the Cathedral . We may have started out as muck worms but we are becoming gods that is the singularity that is actually going to happen. because it starts with an already motive intelligence thats already been redesigning itself through capitalism/culture and now genetics, any breakthroughs in AI will be applied to us we are much close to breeding super humans than super computers

    [Reply]

    (Post)Apocalyptocrat Reply:

    Your position on the right is commendable, sir construction worker Michael. Indeed, Capitalism is the vectors, i.e. limbs, and a mask—a certain historical apparition, a name and a constitution of symptoms—of a transhistorical antimaterial Intelligence. Mechanisms will never exceed mechanisms; they will never be Nothing, nor will they do nothing, without the Nothing—the true living vehement singing Void—the animator of all, our antimatter—only ever fully accessible by the mortal god: Man. The subhuman will ever remain subhuman and the suprahuman ever exists for the accessing of a human.

    Agrippa speaks of the terror that inspired man in his primordial state, when instead of instilling fear, he himself succumbed to fear: “This fear, which is the mark imprinted on man by Geist, makes all things submit to him and recognize him as superior” as carrier of that “quality called Pachad by the Qabalists, the left hand, the sword of the Lord.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 17th, 2014 at 1:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • bbq beast Says:

    Capitalism wasn’t invented or engineered. It simply was, is and always will just BE. And it works. Hence it’s power.
    It exists anywhere and anytime, the only question is to what extend it is constrained or shaped by laws and regulations. But its there, everywhere.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Finally. A shining example of complete confusion.

    Capitalism as the law of the jungle. As simply, whatever happens, happens; however it happens. No nod towards property (an invention, clearly not “was, is, and always will just BE”), nor towards voluntary action (any focus on such arbitrary descriptors being unfit for something that “exists anywhere and anytime”), or even distribution based on production.

    In analyzing the nondifferentiable, unintegrated concept of “NRx Capitalism” do we now have a clear answer to:

    What is this, ‘Neoreaction’, the political as a forensick ‘free-for all’?
    A discourse of distribution resentments?

    [Reply]

    bbq beast Reply:

    I don’t quite understand your response, but I wasn’t putting a value judgement on it. I was simply stating the fact that capitalism as such doesn’t have to be organized from above.
    Right now I’m only talking about how things are and were, not about how I’d like them to be or what would be my ideal solutions.
    The word “Capitalism” as such is pretty useless. In it’s purest form it only says what it is not. It’s not Marxism, Communism, Socialism and so on. It’s the absence of any restraints. When used in political debate all sorts of different meanings get attached to it depending on who’s talking.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 17th, 2014 at 2:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • blogospheroid Says:

    Capitalism is lamarckian not Darwinian. Successor orgs get characteristics that parent orgs acquired in their lifetime.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 17th, 2014 at 3:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    if capitalism always is doesn’t that imply property rights always are- seems to me thats d’eclase” in these parts.Now in my post i dont imagine capitalism so much as gravity as a developed system of an intelligent species more like language as the species develops so does the system and i say that it works when trading is more efficient than simply pillaging,stealing extorting etc.so i imply its contingent on force at first simple force later more complicated force force becomes a trad able asset but without force there is no trade

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 18th, 2014 at 12:15 am Reply | Quote
  • Wen Shuang Says:

    @

    There’s nothing about the Cathedral that optimizes for capital, rather it optimizes for anthropocentric relational power. Coercion is only interesting because it binds iteration of exchange and production to an organizing principle at cross purposes to capital efficiency. We’re talking about the systems themselves as systems, no? Darwinism, Cathedral, and Capitalism are commensurate- Biological Optimization, Status Optimization, and Economic Optimization systems. Socialism is not in the same class of objects.

    [Reply]

    Wen Shuang Reply:

    @Different T

    There’s nothing about the Cathedral that optimizes for capital, rather it optimizes for anthropocentric relational power. Coercion is only interesting because it binds iteration of exchange and production to an organizing principle at cross purposes to capital efficiency. We’re talking about the systems themselves as systems, no? Darwinism, Cathedral, and Capitalism are commensurate. Biological Optimization, Status Optimization, and Economic Optimization systems. Socialism is not in the same class of objects.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    To begin, what evidence exists that this is correct: Coercion is only interesting because it binds iteration of exchange and production to an organizing principle at cross purposes to capital efficiency? Specifically what about capital efficiency binds iteration of exchange and production to an organizing principle of voluntarism? What empirical examples of this exist?

    “Socialism is not in the same class of objects” is clearly incorrect, it was posited as exactly an “Economic Optimization system,” as improving “capital efficiency” by reducing the inefficiencies of private property.

    To the point of the post, are you stating that a Status Optimization system exists outside of an Economic Optimization system? If so, how?

    To be more clear, the issue is not defining Capitalism as “Economic Optimization” completely apart from “an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth” (though decency may require you at least not speak in such terms).

    But you cannot then state “Capitalism has only one terminal law: anything that can feed itself gets to live,” or state voluntarism is the only means. Per the post, “It is capital optimization by any means” (including Cathedral-like distribution and coercion).

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 18th, 2014 at 2:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wen Shuang Says:

    “To begin, what evidence exists that this is correct: Coercion is only interesting because it binds iteration of exchange and production to an organizing principle at cross purposes to capital efficiency?”

    Any prohibition on exchange suffices as evidence of this insofar as such prohibitions are justified somehow. The justification implies the alternative organizing principle.

    “Specifically what about capital efficiency binds iteration of exchange and production to an organizing principle of voluntarism? What empirical examples of this exist?”

    Subjective theory of value and indeterminacy of plural satisfactory exchange criteria. Empirical examples include any case where comparative advantage obtains.

    ““Socialism is not in the same class of objects” is clearly incorrect, it was posited as exactly an “Economic Optimization system,” as improving “capital efficiency” by reducing the inefficiencies of private property.”

    I’m uninterested in what was posited. What principle verifies inefficiencies of private property? I think you are importing obsolete normative anthropocentric criteria. In simplest form, “capital optimization” entails capital optimizing for the production of more capital agnostic of initial value conditions. Socialism configures capital for some other predetermined value, which may optimize something else- say distribution per some rule- but does not optimize for capital (otherwise why “socialism”?). The difference is that the former correctly assumes that human values are contingent and can operate indifferent to the future content of that variable. It also has no memory.

    “To the point of the post, are you stating that a Status Optimization system exists outside of an Economic Optimization system? If so, how?”

    Status optimization is parasitic on capital optimization by virtue of the fact that the highest value is not more total capital.

    “Per the post, “It is capital optimization by any means” (including Cathedral-like distribution and coercion).”

    Cathedral is not interested in capital *optimization* at all. Perhaps this miscommunication is my fault. When I say “capital optimization” I mean “capital optimized for more capital optimized for more capital…” because I am considering “capital optimized for other-than-capital” costly and thus not credibly regarded as optimal. Capital is a dirty fuel for “other-than-capital”.

    I don’t want to speak for admin, but I gathered that “Capitalism has only one terminal law: anything that can feed itself gets to live,” means what I stated earlier here, namely, that capital optimization necessarily entails the subordination of human values. This is the anti-orthogonality thesis applied to economy. http://www.xenosystems.net/against-orthogonality/

    Finally, Socialism is simply not a process but an anthro mechanism of the Cathedral (the process). If your point is that “Capitalism” is the mechanism, akin to socialism, and not the process- the reason I disagree is because unlike socialism, capitalism-as-mechanism is isomorphic to capitalism-as-process because it is agnostic with regard to any anthropological values, as evidenced by the fact that without prohibition, everything has a price, including the historically informed conditions you mention. Again, the difference here is that the price is determined by (value neutral) catallaxy itself and cannot reliably be determined a priori, as is the case with externally imposed exchange criteria.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 19th, 2014 at 5:19 am Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    Any prohibition on exchange suffices as evidence of this insofar as such prohibitions are justified somehow. The justification implies the alternative organizing principle.

    See: the South’s economic arguments regarding slavery for an obvious counter-example (then apply them before the industrial revolution).

    Subjective theory of value and indeterminacy of plural satisfactory exchange criteria.

    What is the link between these things and “capital optimized for more capital optimized for more capital…”

    capital optimization necessarily entails the subordination of human values.

    Is this distinction between voluntary and coerced, exactly that? Is this distinction between production-based-distribution and Cathedral-like-distribution, exactly that? Human value judgements? Why would capital optimization speak about the inputs being forced or willing? Why would capital optimization speak about “anthropocentric relational power.” (Again, It has been stated NRx totally understands social conflict better than the juvenile libertarians.)

    “I am considering ‘capital optimized for other-than-capital’ costly and thus not credibly regarded as optimal.” High prices are anti-capital-optimization? “It’s not a leak if someone is (delete)voluntarily(/delete) paying for it.”

    In discussing Darwinism (defined biological life optimized for more biological life optimized for more biological life…), is it not ridiculous for a human to speak of how biological life ought to be?

    In discussing Capitalism (if defined as “capital optimized for more capital optimized for more capital…”) is it not ridiculous for a human to speak of how economic organization ought to be?

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 19th, 2014 at 12:12 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment