Semantics do not create meaning, they describe it, poorly in most cases as vernacular evolves.
Claiming something is a semantic dispute by rote when being corrected is different than engaging in a reasonable semantic dispute.
Words do have meaning, and vernacular hasn’t changed enough to completely alter the meaning of an entire economic system…
Most of the people that worked for William Shockley have been interviewed and recorded, along with their protégés. Bo Lojek of Motorola also wrote History of Semiconductor Engineering (Springer).
Are you claiming that certain technologies can only be developed under capitalism? Or that semiconductor engineering would have never surpassed a certain stage without a particular economic system? What does any of that have to do with the division of labour and profits?
Over a long enough time scale, a different economic system would have pressures towards different goods and services.
Why there would be definitely some similarities. A modern economic system such as capitalism and communism would result in two very invastly different things.
While baseline technology would probably look, if not be the same, what is then used for and developed for would be different.
For example, it’s more likely in a communist system that AI would be developed far more rapidly than we saw under capitalism.
While capitalism pushes towards something like ads and monetizing information. Communism would push towards the acceleration and simplification of outmoding the worker entirely.
For capitalism outmoding the worker is just a side effect of saving money. It’s not the goal. Under communism, it would be the goal since it would create the best possible circumstances for people to be able to live a equal life given the highest benefit of the communal progression.
Different systems have different goals to argue that the same things would be created in the same order is just bad faith. Even arguing that things would be created exactly. The same is bad faith.
A quick jump through the history books and even a service level understanding of History can prove that. The concept of simultaneous invention shows as much. The printing press is a fantastic example.
Invented hundred years apart in two entirely different parts of the world. One barely used and quickly forgotten because their system of governance, economy and society did not see much of a point to it. While the other is what revolutionized the world.
Different systems invent different things because they have different goals. Even when they do invent, the same thing doesn’t mean it’ll be used or even valued and thus never improved on.
do not care to argue with you like this. I come here to hang out with digital neighbors, not to have some angry debate.
I don’t think we’re engaging in an angry argument? At least, I’m not upset. I think I’m just rebutting some of your claims and asking for clarification?
I get nothing out of this, and for a disabled guy in social isolation, these have a disproportionate negative impact. On my original LW account I just blocked everyone that argues or down votes as such toxic negativity is unwelcome, unnecessary, and mildly harmful to everyone.
So anyone who disagrees with you is being negative or harmful? I don’t really see how being disabled gives you the right to make inarguable inflammatory claims in a public forum.
The trials of physical disability may include a much reduced margin for adversarial encounters and contention. It is a subtle prejudice that is impossible to avoid.
You may want to talk to someone about that, but In my experience any prejudice you are self aware of are prejudices that can be avoided.
Claiming something is a semantic dispute by rote when being corrected is different than engaging in a reasonable semantic dispute.
Words do have meaning, and vernacular hasn’t changed enough to completely alter the meaning of an entire economic system…
Are you claiming that certain technologies can only be developed under capitalism? Or that semiconductor engineering would have never surpassed a certain stage without a particular economic system? What does any of that have to do with the division of labour and profits?
Over a long enough time scale, a different economic system would have pressures towards different goods and services.
Why there would be definitely some similarities. A modern economic system such as capitalism and communism would result in two very invastly different things.
While baseline technology would probably look, if not be the same, what is then used for and developed for would be different.
For example, it’s more likely in a communist system that AI would be developed far more rapidly than we saw under capitalism.
While capitalism pushes towards something like ads and monetizing information. Communism would push towards the acceleration and simplification of outmoding the worker entirely.
For capitalism outmoding the worker is just a side effect of saving money. It’s not the goal. Under communism, it would be the goal since it would create the best possible circumstances for people to be able to live a equal life given the highest benefit of the communal progression.
Different systems have different goals to argue that the same things would be created in the same order is just bad faith. Even arguing that things would be created exactly. The same is bad faith.
A quick jump through the history books and even a service level understanding of History can prove that. The concept of simultaneous invention shows as much. The printing press is a fantastic example.
Invented hundred years apart in two entirely different parts of the world. One barely used and quickly forgotten because their system of governance, economy and society did not see much of a point to it. While the other is what revolutionized the world.
Different systems invent different things because they have different goals. Even when they do invent, the same thing doesn’t mean it’ll be used or even valued and thus never improved on.
deleted by creator
I don’t think we’re engaging in an angry argument? At least, I’m not upset. I think I’m just rebutting some of your claims and asking for clarification?
So anyone who disagrees with you is being negative or harmful? I don’t really see how being disabled gives you the right to make inarguable inflammatory claims in a public forum.
You may want to talk to someone about that, but In my experience any prejudice you are self aware of are prejudices that can be avoided.
You too.
deleted by creator