I guess that’s a fair thought.

Lol, Im the exact opposite. Showering isn’t torture, obviously [and also very necessary, obviously. I take one every day], but I dont really enjoy the process of it. I do enjoy the feeling after I shower though

I genuinely forgot about that quote, but the irony of it is very interesting. A garden is a small curation of usually visually appealing plants that wouldn’t survive without external conscious input, and are usually not able to contribute much beyond artisnal sustinance for 1-4 people. Meanwhile the jungle is a place with extreme amounts of biodiversity and exoticism, and many garden plants can originate from said jungles. They are also exploited for their wood and other resources. Idk, someone better at analogies can probably expand on this.

I feel like there’s a deeper issue than just “we haven’t had a citizen Kane yet.” I mean, theres been plenty of games with amazing writing on the level of other pieces of genuine art [disco elysium my beloved {Okay I know DE is basically a book, but still}, or Pathologic]

I think the actual problem is trying to mix that story telling with the inherent interactibility and the necessary accommodations that requires. Pathologic is an extremely well made story, and many compare it to Dostoevsky’s works. Unfortunately they also compare it to Dostoevsky in that it’s literal torture to play. Books, plays, movies, etc. Are all designed to be story first, because that’s what keeps you wanting to read the book or watch the actors perform. But you keep playing the video game because the video game is fun. Not saying fun and good art are mutually exclusive, just that it’s a harder balancing act than normal that is partially why it’s still not as respected like movies and TV. Although its definitely gotten better over the years.

I’m not asking for a creation tutorial under every meme. I’m literally just asking for the model/service as a basic thing you should put on there so people dont have to ask and the author doesnt have to answer, unless they want more in depth explanations, like you would with normal art. If you want me to treat ai art like any other art, then let me treat it with the same rules that I treat any other art with.

Also oc notices aren’t just for promotion. It’s a very basic question to ask “who made this.” So you can, yknow, see if they make/have made more and can enjoy more. In order to, yknow, see if they will make or have made more. So, just putting the author/oc answers that question without it being asked.

Youre just purposefully obfuscating and flanderizing the point quam absurdum, and I don’t feel like any more conversation on this topic is going to be productive.

Honestly im shocked Gramsci is popular with bourgeois socialist types. I mean, I really can’t see how you could apply most, if not all, of his ideas without being not only a Marxist, but a Leninist too.

Im not going to litigate this because of a personal opinion on ai [i dont really care], but I think this argument misses material quality of the admirable aspects of “museum level” work [to use your terms] in agitprop. I mean obviously a random meme on lemmy doesn’t need to be held to that standard, but the agitprop made by the USSR is iconic and survives to this day, even after it’s intended audience is dead and outside of even the original language many of these were made in, for a reason.

Reminds me of

"The democratic-bureaucratic system has given rise to a great mass of functions which are not all justified by the social necessities of production, though they are justified by the political necessities of the dominant fundamental group. Hence Loria’s[13] conception of the unproductive “worker” (but unproductive in relation to whom and to what mode of production?), a conception which could in part be justified if one takes account of the fact that these masses exploit their position to take for themselves a large cut out of the national income. "

-Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, “The intellectuals.”

1. Sorry I didn’t find the few comments where he does say so. I didn’t see it in these 3 dozen comments on this post so I guess that’s on me, even though it doesn’t actually prove what i said wrong.

2.Common courtesy. A simple “this art was generated using x program” in the post would have prevented this exchange we’re having now. And isn’t he expending the same, if not more, “brain power” replying to these comments as he would have if he had simply put it in the description of the post?

3. If he had drawn the art himself then I would have the same problem with him not marking it as “oc” for clarity sake and then getting mad at someone who says “hey you should say it’s oc in the post.”

Really? I’m not wholly opposed to ai art but, yknow, that’s just basic common sense to label ai generated things as ai generated. I mean, China even requires it on their social media [https://cadeproject.org/updates/china-enforces-new-ai-content-identification-rules-starting-today/].

Plus, if you want people to use ai for things like this, it’d be nice to know what model you used. You’re just being disrespectful for the sake of being disrespectful.

Moralintern/Mercenaries from Disco Elysium

Edit: Actually scratch the Mercenaries. They’re “just” racist murderers. The moralintern, in propagating a murderous system they will defend with nuclear weapons which is slowly but surely destroying the world is much more terrifyingly relevant. Although it’s so relevant they might be disqualified from the list for literally just being capitalists

Geez I’m getting stressed just reading this. I mean, that’s probably good for the party and all, but somehow I can feel the pressure an ocean away.

To be fair [note: not a doctor, so don’t take my word for this] triage does have a scale of “too costly/not able to save.” I.e, if there’s a mass casualty incident, there’s some people who are too close to dying [someone who has lost too much blood] to try to save, rather than trying to save someone who still has time [someone who is actively bleeding but a treatment can still save them.] This isn’t disagreeing with you, I just want to make that clear since I think some people would classify that as a “Trolley problem.” [That being that saving one person who is already too far gone takes up too many resources, both material and in terms of manpower, that could save multiple people if that one person dies].

And also to be fair, the shipwrecked one actually did happen irl. And on reflection you could probably posit that it is immoral, since any of the other crew could have sacrificed themselves to save everyone else, rather than murdering one of the crew. But like it say, it’s hard to extrapolate this beyond the basic theory of “more people alive is good.”

That’s an issue I have too. Algorithms don’t just spawn out of nowhere. It’s takes both education and, yknow, labor to actually design and code these Algorithms. That’s also not mentioning the IT infrastructure that is maintained, which itself needs resources usually mined by the global south.

And Algorithms also exist outside of computers, at least what we call Algorithms do. Sure there’s not computer code, but there’s psychological and social Algorithms. For example, how Casinos and box stores are constructed to make people lose track of time. How slot machines and such have this and that odds of paying out to entice people while still making a profit. Sure it’s maybe more prominent nowadays but it’s not mystical

I will say Varoufakis is at least listenable. I cannot listen to Zizek for more than a minute because he’s really self important, and the guy really needs a tissue to blow his nose with.

My personal favorite is Chomsky though. Not politically, just that I like listening to him. I know he’s slow foe a lot of people but idk I’m fine with it

He designed what?

“So, just as the Soviet Union generated one kind of feudalism in the name of socialism and human emancipation, today, Silicon Valley is generating another kind of feudalism — technofeudalism, I have called it — in the name of capitalism and free markets.”

Alright this logic has clearly gone off the deepend.

I think is issue is a market first analysis of society. And some if this stuff is critique of the Gotha Programme level stuff. I.e, he describes Amazon as a feudal fief because they control the market place through which other Bourgeois producers sell their products. This really bugs me because in his book he has this really long and winding explanation to why he calls technofeudalism feudalism and not capitalism. He goes on and on about “oh well if you would have looked at society in the 1800s then you would’ve called it “market feudalism” instead if capitalism.” But he’s literally the one doing that. I mean, from Marx himself, “In England, the capitalist class is usually not even the owner of the land on which his factory stands.” I get it’s not a 1-1 example but I feel like it’s apt. What’s even more apt is a quick explanation of how marxist economic analysis actually works by an economist with more than two braincells, Cheng Enfu.

“these ownership forms, under the definite and distinct conditions of Chinese society, are not necessarily the same as their formally identical equivalents in Western society, in exactly the same way that land ownership in 18th-century England, though formally the same as that prevailing in the French ancien régime of the same date, had already assumed capitalist characteristics far removed from those swept away in the revolution of 1789.” [Edit: -Cheng Enfu, the creation of value by living labor]

So I really don’t understand how Amazon, Facebook, Google, etc. Have “technofeudal” characteristics, outside of just focusing on rent. Which was already a big part of society. I mean, why not call banks a “money rent.” If I can extend it, banks don’t provide a service or good, they simply rent out money for a fee. Considering that basically every big company has needed to get loans and pay a money rent, presumably we have been living in Banker-feudalism forever.

I’m 2/3rds of the way through the book rn. Maybe he answers more questions, and I’ll make a post if he becomes more coherent, but I think it’s telling that he has talked more about Adam Smith’s vision rather than Marx’s.

Oops…although now that i look at it again that does explain some of the inconsistencies with certain parts of the image

1.The link I gave you doesn’t actually have that work attached to it, sorry. But here’s a seperate marxist.org link that gives you the section I’m referring too. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/prison_notebooks/problems/intellectuals.htm]. I highly encourage you read it yourself.

2. As the preface to the above link states, the basic ideas are

A. “Intellectuals” aren’t a class unto themselves. They are organizers, leaders, educators, etc. In one word “facilitators.” They serve as the “passive” arm of control, compared to the “active” arm of the violent systems like the police and military, and engage in this by promoting hegemony [a Gramscian concept also found in his works].

B. Intellectuals are split into two categories. Organic and traditional. Traditional Intellectuals are Intellectuals who emerge, through one form or another through history. This includes the scientist, philosophers and ecclesiastics [religous functionaries]. They emerge as organic Intellectuals at the time, but although their social group fades, they dont. However they retain their respected position, and thus have superstructural influence [for example, take scholar officials vs christian priests. Both were organic Intellectuals of the feudal societies, and in fact organically bound to them through the land systems in place at the time. The aristocratic social group has faded since the Bourgeois revolutions in europe and the development of the capitalist mode of production, however the ecclesiastics have maintained a very obvious superstructural influence to this day. In comparison, Scholar-officials in china were extremely influential as organic Intellectuals of However, the examination system was ended in 1905 and, with the death of the dynastic system in china in 1912, the scholar official position died as it had no use to anyone.] Organic Intellectuals are Intellectuals that from from social groups themselves and serve to develop and innovative the function and form of their class society. [ I.e, company board members [CEOs, CFOs, etc.], economists, and factory technicians are organic Intellectuals of the Bourgeoisie. Or a communist party Cadre would be an organic Intellectual of the proletariat.] which “are for the most part “specialisations” of partial aspects of the primitive activity of the new social type which the new class has brought into prominence.”

C.Classes, with the exception of the peasantry, gain and lose power by assimilating parts of the traditional Intellectuals to their class interests. The peasantry doesn’t have organic Intellectuals because…its the peasantry, they can’t ever be simple.

D. Political parties are one of the ways, and in some cases the only way, organic Intellectuals are made for certain social groups. Political parties are then also the way through which the dominant group in a society welds themselves to the traditional Intellectuals.

So overall, in response to your question, I think the answer is that intellectuals aren’t really a class unto themselves, and are more categorized by their systemic interactions. The organic Intellectuals of capitalist society are definitely reactionary [like how many priests were in relation to the Bourgeois revolutions], but overall the reactionary-ness of Intellectuals is Moreso an indication of the quantity of power. At the very least it’s best not to treat them as their own grouping, since that’s exactly what the Intellectuals own idealistic conception of themselves are.

Like I said, it’s probably also best if you read it yourself.

I can’t speak on Lenin, although [if I had to guess, I’m a little frazzled today due to time] he probably talks about it in “what is to be done.”

However, Gramsci talks about it a lot. I would reccomend reading his thoughts on the topic [this is the book I used for him https://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/prison_notebooks/reader/index.htm , there’s a link at the bottom for all of his works, and I think all of the ones listed are there]