In The Conquest of Bread, Peter Kropotkin makes the argument that all technological progress more or less belongs to everyone.
We simply find ourselves existing in the modern world that inherits the efforts of billions of people to make it livable for us, spanning tens of thousands of years. The very land we live on has been cultivated by our ancestors to make it suitable to farming. Technology created in the past is handed to us to work this land. The crops we grow have been selectively bred for thousands of years to feed us. Animals like sheep and cows exist, which are nothing like their natural selves, having their DNA altered by the long slow efforts of our fore bearers. All this work belongs to all of us, but often the capitalist comes in at the last moment to buy the land, buy the animals, and patent the last 0.0001% of technological improvement to some contraption. From this ownership they are allowed to control everything.
For modern technology, the process has been somewhat shorter (although you can argue that scientific and philosophical thinkers for the last couple thousand years have been necessary to develop any technology, i.e. without Aristotle's labor there would be no Super Nintendo). However the same situation has occurred, literally billions of man-hours have been spent just on the software side to create operating systems which are free and open and given to capitalists (such as the Linux kernel and ecosystem). All of this work, as well as the scientific work to create the hardware, represents 99.9999% of the work to create something like OpenAI, and it belongs to all of us. From this, they spend a small amount of money to create a system, and in their case they also train their model off the additional billions of hours of man-hours in writing text, producing knowledge, and creating art, and then they seize control of the output of this work, and use it exclusively for private gain.
Anyway, I could go on, but the gist of it is that Kropotkin thinks this is bad. Some people would call this a bad system.

"Oh yeah and another thing, not a big fan of the English language, or the lack of Trial by Combat in deciding our differences!"

SMBC did an even more accurate version but I didn't want to copy them too much.

They were making a big mistake though, because they didn't realize that in a securlar society you can actually wear even sillier hats.

The Christian authorities in Holland censored Spinoza several times, sometimes even ahead of time before they had read his new work. Apparently once it was because they heard he had an "irrefutable proof that God didn't exist", which is pretty funny because if true, it would be pointless to censor, and instead you should reorganize society into some kind of Democracy, like Spinoza wanted. But people in charge tend to not want to do that, regardless of the truth. Amazing, I know.
I heard that fact (which is more like a rumor, we hardly know the exact reasons he was censored for the most part, but it was usually along those lines) on Rev Left Radio, which just put out a great episode on Spinoza.

"Is that your absolute free decision though, or are you just saying that because of societal expectations?"
"Oh it's authentic. Also I've authentically called the cops just fyi."

Despite popular imagination, people like Sartre never really talk about "the meaning of life". In fact he only mentions it once as far as I can tell, where "meaning" is used as "interpretation", making the point that we interpret our own lives in the same way we interpret novels - after the fact. So if we die halfway through a project, our interpretation might be totally different, so we shouldn't really be too worried about it, in a sense. What matters is our freedom and the decisions we actually make.
Oh and also he was a huge pervert.

John Brown was a deep Christian too, so I don't know maybe there is something to it after all.

Simone Weil was an early 20th century philosopher, and communist. She dedicated most of her early life to politics doing things like building unions and even working in factories to understand the plight of the common worker, for the goal of communism. At this point she was a dedicated pacifist, having witnessed the horror of World War I. However, around the outbreak of World War II she converted to Catholicism, and far from curbing her political aims, she abandoned pacifism and picked up a gun to try to shoot Fascists in Spain, and later trying anything to help the war effort. I went on Rev Left Radio a while ago to talk about her full biography.

The problem with believing society always progresses is that you must also believe that reason always wins the power struggle against stupidity, which I don't know...I'm just not too sure about these days.