Wait, there’s a bio section and insert Parenti quote

  • 6 Posts
  • 25 Comments
Joined 4 年前
cake
Cake day: 2022年3月19日

help-circle





  • Thing with AI is they don’t even need be the ultra intelligent genie in a bottle to have an impact. It’s the quantitative potential which will shape the workforce. I’m speaking on behalf of the creatives, can’t speak for IT but I assume it’s similar.

    Sorry I had giant spiel I was working on but honestly it just deserves to be developed further into an essay lol.

    I’ll just list some points I guess.

    -Portfolio based jobs, learn as you go. Professional artists right now with years of work experience should be fine, as the art from ai is just slop once you start paying attention to anything other than just how detailed it is. Symbolism, meaning, telling a story through the scene. Ai can’t do composition, let alone that. Not to mention of the greatest parts of art is the human connection, but still drawing/painting/whatever is hard to make accurate. And so can do that, eventually, but it can fit dirt cheap and doesn’t strike. Even though beginner artists can do the higher level symbolism and composition, where they fall flat is the detail and AI acts a barrier to entry.

    -Smaller artist “start ups” if you will have a horrible selection process with how much ai junk you have to soft through. Ai has totally bloated the portfolio process.

    -Most main stream garbage is already recycled so AI isn’t even going to change the main stream, but again finding the quality content will be harder and harder.

    -Silver lining is petite bourgeois jobs being the creatives and IT (also already left leaning) will finally be losing their special status.

    -I think in a socialist state AI art could be kept in as a source of raw material for a giant artist organization to train younger artists to work with, so not only are artists elevated to a more abstracted position in the process, but then we won’t have AI art clogging up every single space.

    Sorry I’ve been meaning right around this fir a while so this really just acts as a little brain dump. Also ran out of time lol. I’m a goofball.
















  • Okay this helpful but I have a few more questions.

    So I agree, that non indigenous people are part of the settler state and thus are considered settlers, but why are they (specifically white people) considered non revolutionary? (I mean we are both considered settlers, yet we are communists)

    Is it not in the best interests of both to dismantle the Empire? Is that labour aristocracy exists? Cause I don’t think that is strong as it is anymore and especially with inflation, it seems to be reaching a screeching halt.

    Isn’t it more that the state itself funnels, or least tries to, white people into petty bourgeois positions to separate the working class, instead of every single white person being of petty bourgeoisie class? Because it feels pretty Un Marxist to say blue collar, trailer park types aren’t proletarian, but maybe that’s what you were getting at and I misconstrued. But even then, arent petty bourgeois intrests with the proletariat?

    Now sorta related, but should MLs in North America, especially the US, support every single secession movement or only specific ones? Should we support Texas seceding because it will be less colonized, and will weaken the Empire, plus might get the ball rolling other “states”?

    Again, no malice just questions.


  • Okay you seem to be itching a scratch I have in my brain.

    Good of you to point out that “balkanization” is a dishonest term, and more appropriately it is decolonization.

    But I have a few more questions about Land back.

    Does Land Back view white people as settlers? If so why? is it that they’re descendants of settlers so them existing is a remnant of that, or only those who uphold the ideas that “America” and “Canada” exist, or something else entirely?

    Now is Land Back a movement for ALL of the land to be returned to the different indigenous nations? If the notion is white people are intrinsically settlers, what do they want to do with them? If the notion is that it is just the STATE that’s a settler state, does the majority of white people in these nations dillude them being Indigenous?

    Now when “America” and “Canada” first colonized there wasn’t a proletariat, and it was all settlers. Now as throughout time, the majority of the populations, are wage earners.

    So is it fair to call white people settlers in a STATE apparatus formed centuries ago, that enslaves them?

    Is it Anti Marxist to return to the way things were, discounting the new conditions formed for all working people? Is there any historical example of decolonizing a Settler State? If white people are born on native land, are they apart of that indigenous nation? Is this an issues of Nationhood and borders in general, or the specific parts of a settler state?

    Again, just questions.