Comment by estearum | Hacker News Reader

Comment by estearum | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Precisely because they are dedicated to a particular set of morals, they are unlike the prince. These are morals both of us dislike, yet they believe in them dare I say, naively and idealistically. They view capitalism and profit as an immutable moral truth that others must accept as righteous power.

They actually don't believe in capitalism and profit, because if they did, they'd recognize that extreme concentration of wealth is actually detrimental to capitalism (the system's) performance. Ricardo, Mill, and Smith all saw this dynamic, but "capitalists" like Andreessen have shown zero interest in combatting it for the health of the capitalist system as a whole.

They also wouldn't, for example, try to use government to prevent the market from building housing near their mansions: https://therealdeal.com/san-francisco/2022/08/08/marc-andree...

You're ascribing way, way too much intellectual consistency to these people. They have no moral system.

I concede partially to your point about not believing in capitalism, the issue is I think though Smith sincere I do not think that Smith's moral positions are based on a need to ascribe moral value to the budding industrialists and the moral scorn on the aristocracy and Tory power. The adoption of these ideas by the British empire is that they are the best way to exploit and the talk of free markets by empires both British, American and Chinese? (later no doubt) is that they are to be promoted when it is useful to do so. The best capitalists therefore are the ones who understand subconsciously or consciously that the ability manipulate the market by some means or to have the market already pre-figured in your favor is the purpose of the talk of the good of the free market. It is true how ever that free market no doubt turns against all empires and the economic, political, military reality shifts in a way that is outside the control of the empire.

That is all to say that the cynical attitude of Andreesen or Thiel is what I think it's always been about. I probably sound a little Marxist or just cynical but I am not a Marxist and I do right and wrong, I do think that the modern theories of morality should be understood cynically as their purpose is primarily a political attempt to change or preserve something and in some sense when one examines them deeply we see self interest usually hidden and diffused by moralising prose and sentiments in these modern theories of morality. So techno optimism manifesto is a more brash, bold and crass version of these works of moral theory indeed a making a sort of unintentional parody. None of this is to say that political economy is only moralising (which techno optimism is).

> Ricardo, Mill, and Smith all saw this dynamic, but "capitalists" like Andreessen have shown zero interest in combatting it for the health of the capitalist system as a whole.

They just tried to cope by denying the essence of capitalism, just like wannabe commies cope by proclaiming that "it wasn't a true communism". Andreessen just follows the system to its natural conclusion.

Is saying that cancer is bad and should be mitigated simply "denying the essence of cell division?" Nope.

There is no system on the planet, big or small, that can be stabilized by a reinforcing feedback loop.

The difference is that capitalism is a human creation, whereas mitogenesis is not. And this kind of naturalization is one of the reason we end up in the current situation, where it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism.

Even assuming that difference is real (seems questionable IMO), why is it relevant?

Same thing with a manmade thing: Is saying that you ate too many breadsticks just denying the essence of Olive Garden's unlimited breadstick basket?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com