Of course reflexivity is part of intelligent systems. Yes, we are all “inside” the system – biological & machine entities alike. That’s the point – we all must be participants in co-creating and co-governing and reject social structures which give some people domination over others. This is true regardless of how advanced our tools are.

Those that use cybernetic systems will have advantage over those that don’t. Pointing a finger at machine intelligence and declaring it to be evil does nothing to advance egalitarian outcomes. Cybernetics is here, so we’d best make sure that individuals have rights to program these systems lest we become wards of private corporations.

I think Morozov’s concern is about cybernetics as a philosophical paradigm, having percussions in all domains, also the social field. After all the Greek origin of word points to ‘good at steering’, a meaning that still can be found in the French word ‘la cybernétique’ meaning ‘the art of governing’.
Cybernetics was criticised by a large group of scientists themselves working on cybernetics. It gave birth to second order cybernetics. They didn’t find the discussion useless.
The short version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_cybernetics

The extensive version:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/Cybernetics-EPST.pdf
Second order cybernetics was a very usefull paradigma shift, as to me. One of the problems they saw in cybernetics was: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”, “Who will guard the guards themselves?”
Greetings

There is nothing inherently wrong with autonomic processes. They are all around us and yes, with computers, we can and will make even greater use of them. We must insist on the democratic development of these capabilities, but that’s not what we’ll get if we settle for the “welfarism” of basic income.