The point of "no ethical consumption under capitalism" isn't that we should focus our efforts on being as moral and upright within capitalism as possible, but on actually overthrowing capitalism.
Cowbee
joined 2 years ago
I never for one second suggested that thoughts had no purpose or utility, or that we shouldn't want to change the world. This is, again, another time you've misinterpreted me.
Human thought is what allows us to change our environment. Just as our environment shapes us, and creates our thoughts, so too do we then reshape our environment, which then reshapes us. This endless spiral is the human experience. Art plays a beautiful part in that expression.
I'm a Marxist-Leninist. That means I am a materialist, not an idealist. Ideas are not beamed into people's heads, they aren't the primary mover. Matter is. I'm a dialectical materialist, a framework and worldview first really brought about by Karl Marx. Communism is a deeply human ideology. As Marx loved to quote, "nothing human is alien to me."
I don't appreciate your evaluation of me, or my viewpoint. Fundamentally, it is capitalism that is the issue at hand, not whatever technology is caught up in it. Opposing the technology whole-cloth, rather than the system that uses it in the most nefarious ways, is an error in strategy. We must use the tools we can, in the ways we need to. AI has use cases, it also is certainly overused and overapplied. Rejecting it entirely and totally on a matter of idealist principles alone is wrong, and cedes the tools purely to the ruling class to use in its own favor, as it sees fit.
Yes, I'm aware that the Luddites weren't stupid and purely anti-tech. However, labor movements became far more successful when they didn't attack machinery, but directly organized against capital.
GenAI exists. We can download models and run them locally, and use green energy. We can either let capitalists have full control, or we can try to see if we can use these tools to our advantage too. We don't have the luxury of just letting the ruling class have all of the tools.
Better to treat people with respect and just explain them. If we try to oversimplify everything, we make it confusing and create a section of people that are in the know, and a section that aren't. That disrupts the mass line.
What gives you the impression that those satisfied with the government will drop, in the PRC?
As for pointing out that China has 1 main party and 8 smaller, more focused parties, I point it out because democracy doesn't need to look like a bunch of groups battling it out. Society can be run in a more cooperative manner. In the PRC, the minor parties are focused on specialized areas, and some parties even hold seats in the NPC.
I don't really agree. Most definitions of democracy center the majority, or the people, as the source of political power. I'd agree if you were talking about voting, but we are talking about democracy overall.
Democracy for the bourgeoisie is not democracy for the whole of society. If the bourgeoisie is in control of who and what the proletariat can vote on, it's more theatrics than democracy.
You can actually use syntax for your references, btw. Lemmy has that functionality (though I can never remember it).
Either way, the UK is a democracy purely for the bourgeoisie, the proletariat isn't given legitimate control over the politcal process. It's a bourgeois dictatorship.
There are 8 other political parties beyond the CPC in China. They don't compete with the CPC, but cooperate, and exert their own interests. Over 90% of Chinese citizens support their government. The extent to which the average Chinese citizen can affect policy is greater than that of the average UK citizen, because democracy is more than just picking a party, but having the ability to pick and choose policy.
Why on Earth does democracy have to take the form of competition? Discussion and direction can be cooperative, you've done this hundreds of times in your life without needing to take an antagonistic stance.