I will never downvote you, but I will fight you
ASICs are used to mine crypto, but the ledger itself is on a regular server, more or less. It's also true that LLMs are trained on High throughput ASICs. I don't know what that volume looks like rn wrt AI, but I imagine its still in high demand.
The number of actual active coins has barely changed since the peak. Its a little higher, and there are more coins now, but they are significantly less active. Active trading on exchanges during the peak was about 25T, now its around 18T, a decrease of over 1/4. Are you arguing that 7 trillion dollars in annual exchange volume is inconsequential? At the peak there were about 400 exchanges, now there's a little more than 200 active exchanges. Do exchanges not use any computing power? Are people trading bitcoin by hand somewhere? I'd love to see that.
There's still a good amount of marketing and advertising but it has cooled a great deal. Lots of that business has consolidated and sees significantly less traffic = less computing power.
Added to the post covid lockdown decline in demand for computing services, which affected all of the same subjects of concern, there was a fuckload of unused computing power, just sitting around. This computing power represents a ton of investment in infrastructure, and long term plans that could not be stopped. AI is the justification to buy up a bunch of cheap server space available at the time, and continue growth of data centers and chip manufacturing plants (now stalled for 5 years or more). Why are all these companies who are heavily invested in vast server farms and chip manufacturing going so hard for a service that barely works?
The answer isn't technical, its economic and political. I have no doubt you know more about chips and computing than I do, but if you want to understand what is happening, you have to look at economics and politics. The technical world of these tiny little areas of concerns and continuously manicured definitions is not how you tell what is going on in the world of chips and computing.
Trump is buying 10% stake in Intel, whose stalled manufacturing plant in Ohio was once visited by Biden and heralded at his state of the union. And the justification for it is National Security concerns. The great tech giants all sat right behind Trump at his inauguration. Did you not get the message? Chips and servers are a national security issue, it is incredibly political and as such greatly influences, and is greatly influenced by, the economics of an economic system that has to constantly grow greater returns of profit.
Anyway coin maintenance, ancillary services and subsequent economic activity surrounding crypto uses the same kind of computing power as AI. Its not like once a chip is mined with a ASIC GPU it stops using computing power, quite the opposite, but it does stop using ASIC computing power.
The bubble isn't just the thing itself, its all the services and infrastructure that built up around it. Crypto doesn't have to be awful, its just a tool, a ledger. But it exists in its current form because of what it creates, what kind of economic activity it stimulates. My point is that all the grifty ass economic hype activity around crypto just moved to AI
But I do appreciate the clarification, it gives me a chance to refine my perspective
The crypto bubble is the ai bubble. AI was the answer to "what are we going to do with all these chips and servers now that crypto crashed?"
Wow the problem with modern society is still a sub-culture of women? Its crazy how that's been the main problem with society for the last 1000+ years
nothing being done
Yeah that's its own sort of doomer individualism. I wish I could tell you, as someone who teams up with others to do things that the view disappears in practical work, but tbh it seems like it only increases. Idk. There are def lots of young people joining the movement. Hasn't reached a critical point but it's growing.
I wish we had more artists since most are like political sickos
So I'm a socialist, in that I go to meetings voluntarily and get in trouble all the time. I spend a ton of time heavily invested in this political stuff. And one thing that is like desperately missing from our movements is any kind of culture. So that's something that I'm also thinking about a lot, and I think a lot of people are. Not sure what to do really, still trying to figure that stuff out, but I'm actively trying to figure that out.
Run the Jewels def have some overtly political stuff, a few tracks with Zach de la Rocha even, although Killer Mike is a little disappointing politically, but many artists are. They have newer stuff but I just really like this song
Another group to check out is the Coup. Been making records since before the gangsta rap come up in the 90s even. Their newer stuff is pretty popular with young people too.
Both these songs are over a decade old, fuck me
I took my daughter to a concert some years ago, when she was in middle school, and before any bands went on, "Killing in the Name Of" started up. I told her "at the end of the intro when the song starts up, everyone in the audience over 30 will start bobbing their head" and sure enough, thousands of adult chaperones all at once just start grooving
Well recession pop is back, check out the new Lady Gaga or Kesha albums. So there is that sort of dissonance and syncopated funkier rhythms in pop music which can usually be connected to economic and social downturn.
I know that shit is worlds away from what you're referring to, I think you're looking for something more aggressive.
I think the 2022 Every Time I Die record Renegade goes pretty fucking hard, I listen to Planet Shit about once a month and just rage.
Planet B by King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard goes pretty hard.
You can always check out whatever Napalm Death is doing, much of their stuff is political and social commentary, in fact I love ND lyrics.
No one has the " popular understanding of 'transgender' didn't really exist for gen x but whatever it's going to be, these songs are mostly about needing to transition but feeling unable to" that Kurt Cobain had, but Kurt did once say that early Nirvana was an attempt at copping Gang of Four, and Go4 is very political, critical and high energy. esp their first album "Entertainment!" and "Solid Gold". After that they become kinda disco.
Also consider diving into the incredible wealth of protest music produced before the 60s. The 60s is kind of understood as a high water mark for protest music, but IMO a lot of Dylan and stuff was promoted more because he was actually less political than like Phil Ochs. Woody Guthrie, Victor Jara, The Almanac Singers, Odetta, etc., had much sharper politics than most well known artists who came after.
Finally, last but best, not new but largely undiscovered and forgotten, the Swedish RATM: the 1998 album The Shape of Punk to Come by the Refused. By far, one of my absolute favorite left wing records
there is not one big organised resistance that is taking members
The biggest is DSA
Start contacting local socialist orgs, PSL, DSA, CPUSA, etc., go to their meetings and start talking to people. Look for groups that offer education, seem to have good internal democratic processes, good comradely vibes, and who are actively engaging in campaigns to struggle against injustice, and doing stuff that you want to participate in.
Groups that have lots of political discussion, rather than being obsessed with internal processes, groups that don't work with cops, and don't just follow the dems on everything, is another thing to look for.
Your local conditions are the most important thing to consider. I wish I could tell you what group to join, but it varies quite a lot. A small and very active group is probably better than a large group with mostly inactive members. I'm in DSA, because I want to build a alternative workers political party, and I like DSA, but I also know that not every chapter is the same, there's def some chapters I would not recommend, although my local is very good.
Once you find your political home, you can branch out, keep working with other groups help build coalitions in your city. The most important thing is, you can't affect change by yourself. We need to combine our efforts to be effective. Always speak up, speak your mind and rep your personal perspective, and groups that don't handle good well considered perspectives can be toxic. Then again, we can bring toxic perspectives with us, so always be open to hearing criticism and always be trying to improve yourself. Be patient and assume good intent but find a group you can work well with. Develop your cadres.
Virtually every group needs people who can take good notes and/or can begin meetings on time. Like that bar is so incredibly low, but the people who do it for their own groups are some of the only people who will do that reliably, and they're also often people who are the most committed and experienced. Taking those simple functions off peoples workload or even providing support in those areas can be invaluable to the whole group. Other things, like doing phone/text banking or tabling for like a few hours per month is incredibly valuable work, that helps with turn out to events and allows recruiters to make and build contacts. Very low bar, very high impact. One of the groups I'm involved with actually pays people to make calls so volunteering for that work on your spare time, and being reliable and consistent is another invaluable quality in a new member.
One final tip, it is better to do one thing consistently then it is to try and take on everything that you see needs done. Make room in your life for organizing, and don't take on extra unless you're sure you have time/energy for it. Tell people in your life like "I have a commitment every Thursday from 7-9 pm" and then stick to that for a while. Burn out will fucking destroy you. So check in with your self, and check in with others.
Yes its definitely the major pitfall most comrades make. Fortunately, we also have the most comprehensive theory of change! Today, for example, a local leader in our city who we would only have described as a moderate socialist for many years, someone who once told me "i wouldnt read theory i read enough theory books in school" is pitching hard into Marxism, consuming large amounts of theory and history, and making radical demands for radical action. Very interested to see where he will be in like 6 months. Another comrade who once mocked my "ideological" views has become one of my closest cadre comrades. Honest good comrades learn from experience that we Marxists are consistent in our beliefs and fight the most important struggles, time after time, changing everything around us. The time we live in is so dangerous and frightening, and yet the movement is growing rapidly, and sloughing off opportunism and reformism for revolutionary principles. "Decades where nothing happen, weeks where decades happen," hits pretty hard in this period of struggle.
Anyway thanks for letting me dump, I think I'm just eager to get back to an essay I began a couple days ago!
I wouldn't disparage people for anything that brings them to socialism though I def agree, but the question of how theory is practice gets neglected quite often. There's a dialectical relationship between the two, Marxism is what gives us the capability of fully fusing theory with practice, subject with object, individual with the social. We can read theory and commit to practice and learn nothing, accomplish nothing, because we still have the insidious dualist mindset. Everything we learn gets categorized and atomized. We learn words and phrases to signal understanding to others, but understand very little. Feeling accepted is perhaps the first step for the stubborn individual to let go of individualism and embrace socialization, so its natural for new comrades to want to make themselves sound radical, and they should be accepted by cadre and celebrated for their achievements. But of course radical talk and radical action can be quite distinct, and experienced cadre should know how to tell the difference, and challenge comrades to continually improve and fix themselves. I've seen people able to be very inspiring and educated in speeches, but opportunistic reformists in practice. This must not be how comrades develop, this is not self actualization, it is bourgeois affect.
Theoretical study opens up many avenues to understand material conditions, through practical analysis, discussion and criticism. Then, once the actual conditions have been assessed we can take action -- but based on material conditions and not theoretical abstractions. Taking action changes conditions, changing conditions requires more analysis and critique, which may require deeper understanding of theory in order to assess conditions accurately. Once assessed, we act, rinse, repeat. Evaluate and take action, reevaluate, and take another action.
I've seen too many comrades trying to apply the tactics of 1910s Russia to american struggles. They quote Lenin on a particular tactic or strategy, when Lenin was often changing tactics, and rhetoric, in order to most effectively address changing conditions. Too many comrades read Engel's 3 rules of Dialectical Materialism and apply them like an orthodoxy, but have never closely studied Theses on Feuerbach nor unveiled the human spirit that thrives within Marx's works.
So I'm not contradicting you, or I don't mean to, but theory and practice is not necessarily our objective. Marx explicitly called for theory in practice, which means our theory must itself be practical. Theory helps us to see through the illusions, it must not be made into yet another illusion. But IMO therein is the most important benefit of surrounding ourselves with good cadre, they'll call me out on my shit, and help me up when I stumble. Anyone who encourages us to be better, to be more practical, to center the human perspective in our work is following the same spirit as Marx, and it doesn't matter what they've read if they've read anything at all.
But also, its no coincidence that good cadre Marxists are also exceedingly comradely, good natured, fair and fearless. The practice transforms us, so we can transform the world, together.
Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy is pretty easy, good bones, but Marx revises a lot of his views later, by Capital he's abandoned concepts like "Lumpen Proletariat" and the idea that socialism can only be achieved after a capitalist developmental phase.
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels is one of the best intro Marxist works: comprehensive, practical, and easy to follow.
Wage Labor and Capital is another short and pretty digestible work by Marx that lays out a lot of the economic ideas without a deep dive such as Capital. But "economic Marxism" is kind of its own kind of confusion, and Capital shouldn't be read to understand his economic ideas but his actual methods.
Marx wrote for the workers, not the academy, his works can be difficult but they make more sense as someone trying to learn more to understand about their lived experiences of exploitation, than an academic view that only wishes to compete in an intellectual marketplace, rather than empower the working class to liberate ourselves and each other.
But Marxism isn't a book to be studied or a method to be applied. You can be a Marxist without ever picking up one of his works, I think there are a lot of "organic" Marxists who know through experience but doubt through shame and misinformation. Marx ultimately wanted to teach us to understand material conditions, but without the various distortions that have been introduced by bourgeois philosophers (some of them even considered themselves Marxists!)
Put yourself in touch with people who can get you involved in actual work in your city and community, doing real social work with the people who need supported. You'll get an education from the work and take your time with the written works of Marx and Marxists to let it enrich your actual work, not define your idealistic beliefs.
After all, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it."
I've not read much Kropotkin, I started his book on the French Rev but got pulled into other stuff. Need to get back to it.
I am a huge fan of Malatesta though. Why don't more anarchists recommend him?
What is what you thought? I've encountered lots of people who talk tough about violent class war. And they ain't doing shit.
If you're serious, buy weapons and start a gay worker militia. You will get a bunch of members pretty quickly, and it will teach you how things actually work when you try to organize against forces that are organized against us.
You're right, violent means will be necessary. But that's not the path I'm on, at least not as far as I can tell. If that's your path, then make it meaningful, get people together and throw your collective weight around. My criticism of your methods will be based on your actual tactics and strategy, but like I said, I support the formation of armed defense militias. But I can't form them, its not what I'm committed to, and I'd like to keep a worker defense militia separate from the political influence until they are strong enough to set their own agenda.
But I suspect that you can't think of anything, imagine anything, but total annihilation. After all, its easier to imagine the end of the world than an end to capitalism. So take the easy way out, dream of apocalypse, it is surely coming without all the people locked into toxic spirals of despair, which serves the billionaires. Your hopelessness and impotent threats serve the ruling class. Kill one and there will be a line of people just as depraved and psychotic to replace him.
Or, get off your ass and start a revolution. Put up or shut up. Individual talk is meaningless. Collective action can change history. So if you thought that you are in the first group and I was in the second, then you thought correctly. But I think there's more to you than that. Call it a difference of opinion.
You're so full of shit.
First, I'm older than you think.
Second, organizing is not the same as yelling at empty government buildings for 3 hours on a weekend at a protest. That's mobilizing, not organizing.
Third, all of the anarchists in my city are in orgs and groups, fight cops and engage in mutual aid. You aren't advocating for anarchism, you are advocating for terrorism. And if you talked like this in one of their meetings they would kick your ass out for being a liability. What has terrorism ever accomplished but make the enemy stronger? That's why the billionaires funds terrorist orgs, because they want forever war. You aren't an anarchist. Malatesta was an anarchist, and he said to improve yourself and get organized.
I know dozens of old heads who are organized revolutionaries, and fight like hell on multiple fronts. You don't sound old and wise, you sound like a 17 year old edgelord. Clueless, naive, edgy for the sake of social media interaction .
The idea that getting organized is somehow toothless reformism is just patently, hilariously false. You say you want to spit roast the billionaires, but you are carrying water for them. You are their bitch.
Do better, join an org, fight for the future
I'm not saying pacifism. What is a pacifist going to do when the ruling class uses incredible violence against us? Just like they do every day, with no warning or reason? I'm not a hand-wringing liberal, but mass murder is not a viable option. Violence creates problems that can only be responded to, and solved, with violence. And sometimes, its necessary to defend our selves, our class, our communities. I would recommend a kind of armed nonviolence such as was practiced by the Deacons of Defense and Justice (but don't believe the liberal distortions, they were tough.) Armed defense, shoot at us and we shoot back. The revolutionary activity must be defended. But violence is a tactic, not a strategy.
There are revolutionary socialist orgs you can join. No one here is advocating for reformism. But an individual using violence or not, can't affect change. If you actually care to affect change you will get organized somehow. If not then you can complain online, and make sure your perspectives are never heard or boosted by anyone. Seems like a shame to me, I'd rather you were with us.
But if you aren't organized, you are actually part of the problem, because the default without anyone doing anything, is the billionaires use their violence against us. Sounds like you are tired of being part of the problem, but can't see any options. Well, I'm telling you, there are options.
This is so revealing, I always thought "why not engage with an opinion I disagree with?" Now I see that engaging with it might bring attention to it, even if it were to help us learn and teach.
Instead people want to push the punish button, to be a nameless and unidentifiable avatar of hegemony. Our role in history is to suppress the ideas of others and boost those ideas which we've adopted. Hide what we are uncomfortable looking at, even if it is only an opinion, and let the people who control our own opinions continue to push their own agenda without obstacles.
People actually want to remain ignorant, and not develop discourse; people want a closed discourse away from disagreement. When we create our logins, our online identities, we want to remain anonymous and detached from reality. We don't want those who disagree with us to be considered human with differing opinions, because we don't see our own opinions as human.
Every interaction is a conflict, and conflict is hard, so I'll punish this other person. I'll play my part as a silent executioner, murdering ideas by consensus without a thought as to why I disagree, or why the other person disagrees with me. I'm powerless but at least I can take away someone else's power.