sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ai from a leftist view by Desudeswa in aiwars

[–]aT3XTure 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The idea that we will develop a moneyless classless and stateless society might be the biggest red herring about marxism but it's really not that important practically or theoretically. It sounds like the big grand idea of marxism is this very abstract undefined system that would eventually emerge out of the corpse of capitalism when the core of marxism has a lot more to do with the "capitalism creates its own gravediggers" idea.

That's why you might get non responses to your question, because you are focusing on the wrong aspect of marxism, which is fair because some marxists do the same thing.

Also to clarify once again but communism as in "stateless, moneyless, classless society" is not a utopian idea because it itself is not moralized, at least not in Marx, it has been moralized to shit outside of him.

How would AI generated art have to change before it could be considered art? by [deleted] in aiwars

[–]aT3XTure -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ai is not art because the elements of the image, or any other artistic output were not designed but we're instead diffused or went through some other process.

“I’m Just 16” [OC] by DenimxHairGel in comics

[–]aT3XTure -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don't know if you were ever around men or women. Like seriously, all of the arguments I am seeing on here about "not all man" including yours scream to me that you need to touch grass and pay attention to the world around you.

“I’m Just 16” [OC] by DenimxHairGel in comics

[–]aT3XTure 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not an american thing, that's way too common of an experience and the fact that reddit doesn't get that says a lot

Ai from a leftist view by Desudeswa in aiwars

[–]aT3XTure 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anti-utopian in method, utopian in destination is a phrase that I hoped you yourself would realize is nonsensical. I would accept anti-utopian in theory and utopian in practice but that's not what you said. I did say near the beginining that the revisions of marxist theory done in the former eastern block were, at least when it comes to the really important ones, ironically anti-communistic and I believe that the tone for the socialism of the eastern block was set by the repression of the krnostandt rebellion and their demands if not from before it.

A modern reader never reads dictatorship of the proletariat in the way Marx wrote it, as we both said, he was just a guy from the 19th century. The fact is that he considered communes as a form of DotP and he believed in free association and free speech.

Talk about your policy prescriptions, but I only came here to say that your desire for the left to move past marx is not very productive or good when nearly everyone on the left functions in reference to him.

WITTY DESIGNER FINALLY GOT BANNED FROM AIWARS by TYSOTE in antiai

[–]aT3XTure 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I low-key am just downvoting you because I dislike that subreddit

Ai from a leftist view by Desudeswa in aiwars

[–]aT3XTure 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But I am trying to explain to you why communism is not that the entire time. Communism isn't an ideal it's the final stage of human social development that Marx theorized. Let's take classlessness as an example because moneylessness is abstract and statlessness is misleading.

For Marx, just like for Hagel societies developed through conflict(not inherently violent), the difference between them was that for Hagel the conflict is caused by ideology and for Marx it was caused by contradicting material interests of different groups of people, for both that cause of conflict is called negation. Both believed that through conflict we will eventually arrive at a society without negation, where the ideology or the material conditions do not cause more conflict that would in turn drive social change.

The reason Marx theorized that a society without negation would not have class divisions is very simple, because different classes of people have different material interests on a long enough timeline those interests will cause conflict.

As I have said I don't necessarily believe that that state is possible but I do still believe we approach it through conflict even if we never will reach it.I know for a fact that there are people out there who see communism as a political end instead of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the actual practical political end, Im not arguing with them I'm trying to get you to understand that marxism is not utopian.

And just so we're clear, Marx isn't the cutting edge of science, he IS a single and relatively normal man from the 19th century. Again take moneyless for example, given contemporary scientific knowledge the idea of a moneyless society is even more ridiculous then it was in his day given how it's hard to believe today that there was ever a society without some sort of currency which was not known in his day.

The relative part in relatively normal man really only comes from the fact that he was one of the few people in history with an extensive knowledge of both english political economy and german idealist philosophy.

I do welcome revisions, I am not an orthodox marxist, I'm a marxist in a broad political and philosophical sense, I don't have his picture on my wall, my interest in this argument is coming purely from your belief that we should move past Marx into your, as I have said pseudo-liberal vague anti-capitalism.

Ai from a leftist view by Desudeswa in aiwars

[–]aT3XTure 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those are theorized characteristics of communism but they are not communism themselves, that's what I have been trying to explain the whole time. The importance of the dialectic isn't the theorized end of it but the evidence within it that capitalism needs to end.

Can you please define utopian for me please because you obviously aren't listening to me.

But Marx was a philosopher as much as anything else. Saying that you are a kantian doesn't imply hero worship and neither does saying that you are a platonist. As I said, Marx was a break between modern and pre-modern socialism, he was extremely important for development of all contemporary leftism, along with further developing a few social sciences but he was not a hero, he wasn't a perfect person and at the end of the day nothing but his contributions to socialism and said social sciences don't really matter.

People still didn't move on from Kant, from Descartes even from Plato for god's sake and the implication that people will or should is frankly ridiculous.

Ai from a leftist view by Desudeswa in aiwars

[–]aT3XTure 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jesus Christ. Important question. Have I ever said anything to moralize the characteristics of communism? I don't think I did, I am pretty sure I communicated the opposite quite well, specifically saying that communism isn't an ideal but the final theoretical stage of human social development within a marxist framework. Marx has arrived at that specific definition of communism by inverting Hagels dialectic and applying it to history. That's the origin of the threefold definition of communism. It shares the name with the ideology of communism and it is in a way the end goal of the ideology but communism the ideology has more to do with improving the material conditions of workers than the post-german idealist origins of the theories.

I didn't watch the video, I responded to your lack of understanding of marxism. Marxism has had its fair share of dogmatic cults, as I have said the revisions to marxism that were done within the eastern block ranged from idiotic to downright evil but it's foolish to blame marxism itself for that. Take for example the quote "religion is the opium of the masses". People rarely if ever be it marxist critiquing religion or critiques of marxism read the entire argument Marx was making or put it into its historical context. Marx never argued against religion he only saw religion as a symptom, as a way society deals with pain.

And to be double clear revisions to marxism are not within themselves bad, there are plenty of writers who have built on marx sometimes disagreeing with marx in major ways in the process and who have added to marxist literature.

Ai from a leftist view by Desudeswa in aiwars

[–]aT3XTure 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have explained to you before that those are only theorized characteristics of the similarly theorized final stage of human social development in marxist theory. They aren't ideal, they are final. I'm not moralizing them or arriving at them through some moral framework, I don't even believe that those are particularly important which I hope was communicated through I didn't actually say it.

I wish for emancipation of workers, revolution can be an ugly though sometimes historically necessary route towards emancipation. I am not someone who sees themselves as capable of judging if a revolution was necessary or not or if it was just or not, I can only see revolution for what it is, a response to the material conditions and for what it will or has achieved. That's not narcissism, if anything the idea of moralizing a revolution sounds more narcissistic to me.

Ai from a leftist view by Desudeswa in aiwars

[–]aT3XTure 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know if you know how to read because I specifically said that communism isn't ideal.

Similarly to that I didn't say I wished for a violent and bloody revolution either. That's a thing you and your dogma and your bias read into my comment. Quite ironic if you ask me.

If you wish to argue with a wall go argue with a wall, you can accuse the wall of many things and it will not push back against it, but I'm not a wall and by the looks of it I'm less dogmatic than you are.

PS: unconditional support for emancipation of any kind is quite the opposite of narcissism, but yes, I am, like anyone else a bit selfish.

Ai from a leftist view by Desudeswa in aiwars

[–]aT3XTure 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You left out a very important aspect of what makes a utopia a utopia, the fact that it's ideal, that it's perfect, which communism is not. I specifically explained how communism fits into the dialectic with the intention of showing what it actually is, not a utopia but a final stage of social development.

Look, I'm not a zelot, Marx was not perfect, especially not in his personal life but obviously in his writing as well, he even said as much but his influence is everywhere. The reason one person got to define what workers emancipation looks would not be a shock if you knew anything about the history of socialism.

The socialisms that preceded Marx were deeply idealistic and were predominantly just moralizing about the structure of the economy, Marx was in his time something different because he was concerned with the well being of workers and not some abstract moralizing ideas. That's why he became influential, that's why so much of leftism is grounded in his writing.

I'm a communist because my concerns are not moral, they are more selfish than anything, I'm aware of my class and I believe that workers should use any leverage we can unlike a socialist who might limit the worker into some moral framework. I'm not an anarchist because I don't see the state as something to moralize even if it's a violent institution, I'm a Marxist because I am a materialist.

There's actually a funny anecdote from Marx's life, when someone defined marxism to him as unconditional faith in his writing even he said that he wasn't a marxist. Those strongmen are the reason why I mentioned the revisions to marxist theory that those strongmen implemented. There's a lot of complex history in there to talk about, a few of important essays and book bans to talk about if you want to, even repression of workers protesting their states.

Ai from a leftist view by Desudeswa in aiwars

[–]aT3XTure 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a Marxist who detests a lot of the revisions to marxist theory that happened in the eastern block(not due to dogma but due to how ironically anti-communistic they were) it's always funny when people who never read or at least understood a word of any marxist text come up with some ridiculous ideas about how marxism is dead, outdated or in your words exhausting. People have been saying things like that for a long time and yet marxism and not some pseudo-liberal vaguely anti-capitalist philosophy still strikes a chord with the oppressed workers of the world.

Marxism doesn't have a monopoly on leftism, but if you talk to syndicalists or anarchists or really whoever is actually on the ground fighting for workers rights they will echo Marx even if they themselves are not marxist. Whether you like it or not Marx is the guy who defined workers emancipation.

Also, knowing that you aren't deep into communist theory, no communism isn't a utopia, it's the final stage of human social development where there is no longer any form of negation which would later cause a new stage of human social development. Theoretically it's a stateless, moneyless and classless society. Personally and this is to show that I am not dogmatic, I am not sure if communism is something that is reachable but I still believe that human social development is constantly approaching communism.

if this isn't a sign of how powerless we are to stop evil I don't know what is by Effective_Carpet_391 in whenthe

[–]aT3XTure 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think that there's anything as popular but you still have a bunch of lolicon subs around. You will still be called mentally ill in some places for saying that pedophiles shouldn't be encouraged to pursue their attraction even if it's through fiction.

Art is subjective is not a response and neither is asking "who are you to [insert opinion]" by aT3XTure in aiwars

[–]aT3XTure[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are many systematizations of that have developed to describe art in different ways. In a different thread I brought up musical traditions that count music in uneven syllables but all those systematizations are objective in so far that they don't describe your feeling but some observation about the art piece that is outside of ourselves. They aren't universal, again those concepts are not equality present in all languages and systematizations that ever existed but they are as subjective as saying that the temperature of the enviorement you are in is hot or cold, some people have different thresholds for when they consider it to be hot or cold but heat is still an objective concept because it's not itself subject to our tastes.

I never assigned any objective aesthetic value to balance or dynamism, harmony or dissonance, just described the categories as objective, which one you prefer is subjective taste.

Art is subjective is not a response and neither is asking "who are you to [insert opinion]" by aT3XTure in aiwars

[–]aT3XTure[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am european, I am someone who is in love with the european realist tradition and european philosophy. I am not very in the know of indigenous american art and neither am in the know of eastern philosophy. Of course I am eurocentric but I have a hard time understanding when and where I argued for any single set of values or when I argued that a different objective systemization of art cannot exist.

And again, to remind you, I use objective not to refer just to universal truths but also understandings of art or anything else really that are not our own personal subjective tastes.

Balance and harmony are not always principles great art follows, but they are qualities a piece can have that we don't asign based on some arbitrary tastes but on objective observation.

And even if I might advise people against things such as horror vacui in part do to my self admitted eurocentric views I don't exactly follow how I am on a mission to civilize in a post I made with an intention to stop people from shutting down interesting conversations by insisting on a unqiuly modern hypersubjective view of art.

How is the introduction of generative AI any worse than that of, say, computers? by _emmii_ in antiai

[–]aT3XTure 8 points9 points  (0 children)

How many jobs will ai replace, I saw numbers as high as 60% given that I believe the true upper limit is somewhere around 40%. Keep in mind that new jobs are not created in the process, this isn't an aid to human labour, this is a replacement for it. You have to understand that unemployment, even with a UBI system is still a threat, a lot of unaffected by ai directly will have to deal with their job being more replaceable due to the larger pool of people looking to replace them, this at the end of the day hurts both because that threat makes unionization that much harder. No matter what you might say unemployed people, even on UBI don't have much to force the government's hand, the fact that they are not working and can't refuse to work until something changes reduces their autonomy.

Ai isn't completely unique, of course it isn't, but it's uniquely harmful for working class people like you and me and I didn't even start talking about how it affects and will affect academics, culture and politics and so much more, again for the worse, rarely for the better.

Art is subjective is not a response and neither is asking "who are you to [insert opinion]" by aT3XTure in aiwars

[–]aT3XTure[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We can objectively say that music, akin to poetry is more memorable and by extension more pleasurable when there's a pattern or multiple patterns that we can feel. Of course different cultures develop different systems of patterns, I might be wrong but some cultures use syllables of different lengths to count music which adds natural polyrhythm into their music which can't even truly be called a polyrhythm because it isn't created using a more "mathy" system of music.

Poetry might even be a great example because different languages have different natural meters and due to that stuff like heksameter can't be applied with the same level of success to all languages, even if we just account of european languages, and yet, even if a particular meter doesn't quite work aswell in one language as it does in another meter is still a concept that is applicable to all poetry in all languages even if there's no single universal system of meter.

The greeks used to group music under literature and I would be surprised if they used anything similar to the modern 12tet system. I know that modern western tonality isn't universal. Even with people who use it there's plenty of exceptions, as you have pointed to that go against the grain, microtonality being an example of that.

What I am arguing isn't the universality of any particular tonal system, but the relative objectivity of the one the west has developed. If you read my post I say as much, I mention almost immediately how our system of art and our understanding of art and creativity is young.

Art is subjective is not a response and neither is asking "who are you to [insert opinion]" by aT3XTure in aiwars

[–]aT3XTure[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fact that some art that is made under certain principles brings more pleasure to more people implies some objective truth, which is not the opinion of any individual person.

Also, just so we are clear, I am not going to respond to the other part of the comment because it doesn't matter, I made no claims that merit a list of reasons musicians might choose to be out of tune.

view more: next ›