خسرو xsro the beginner تازه

zwischen karikaturen aus selfies und den wechselspielen von satzfetzen findet irgendwo spontan die gegenwart statt.

[خسرو xsro the beginner تازه @xesrao]

@elonmusk A paranoid bourgeois certainly knows better than the Venezuelan people what they have voted for

[Haz Al-Din 🇷🇺 @InfraHaz]

HOW AI WILL BRING COMMUNISM

It's very strange how self-proclaimed 'Marxists' on social media are hostile to emerging AI technologies.

This is because one of the most important details which set Marx apart from his socialist contemporaries was both his INSISTENCE on the irreversibility of advances in the productive forces, and the view that they, without exception, hastened transition into socialism.

All Marxists should be familiar with the famous passage:

"At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto." (Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy)

Is this not exactly what is happening with AI? AI is disturbing relations based on 'intellectual property,' which are the main source of income for 'professional artists.' The facts are irrefutable: These parasites who are attacking AI are reactionaries in the most literal and inarguably traditional sense of the word.

Some argue that AI 'steals the labor' of artists. Aside from the fact that this is a ridiculous use of the word 'labor,' it attempts to hijack quasi-Marxist terminology in a way completely antithetical to everything Marxism is about.

Marxism regards challenging the property question as fundamental to Communism. To quote the Communist Manifesto:

"In all these movements, they [Communists] bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time." (Communist Manifesto, Ch. 4)

The notion that Marxist language can rightly be employed to defend 'Intellectual Property' is absurd just on that basis. But worse, Marx himself was an explicit opponent of intellectual property.

In the Grundrisse, Marx regards the shared knowledge, ideas, and by logical conclusion, artistic products as belonging to what he called the General Intellect (Grundrisse, Notebook 7), which is inherently social.

The notion that an individual can turn a part of the general intellect into their own property just because they expended effort to communicate or discover it, is completely opposed to Marx's view.

Why? Because for Marx, all of society participates in this process, as every individual takes for granted the wealth of knowledge, abundance, and precedent created by others before ever creating something unique.

The idea that someone has the right to an arrangement of pixels on the computer screen, is akin to the idea that you can turn language itself into a form of property, and that by using words we obviously didn't invent ourselves, we are 'stealing' others 'labor.'

Hijacking the language of Marxism in order to defend what is the most ridiculous institution of property created by capitalism yet, by comparing the free proliferation of ideas, software, and visual media to 'exploiting the labor' of 'intellectual workers' is a complete mockery of the Marxist outlook.

Violating someone's 'intellectual property' rights is no more akin to 'exploiting their labor,' then expropriating the property of the capitalist class itself.

In fact, Intellectual Property is even more illegitimate than capitalist property. It is a parasitic, rentier-based form of property, which, in contrast to capitalist industry, does not even produce any material wealth.

As a matter of fact, the first defense of the institution of private property was based on the view, even before classical political economy, that private property is the objective product of human labor, and that questioning it as an institution is akin to calling for the theft of others' labor.

Some may protest, and decry the 'loss of employment' by 'thousands' of 'artists' as a result of AI.

But Marx was no stranger to how the mechanization brought by the Industrial revolution devastated many different ways of life and classes within society, a force which helped drive many layers of society into the proletarian class. Anyone familiar with the Communist Manifesto is familiar with the following passage:

"All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind." (Communist Manifesto, Ch. 1)

This process happened on a much larger scale, with far more ruthlessness and ferocity, than anything we could now possibly witness with the rise of AI.

This did not stop Marx from recognizing that it was an objectively necessary historical development. It is not about personal feelings or opinion. To Marx, industrial modernity was irreversible and unavoidable.

And yet, we see a huge outcry over how aspirational 'digital artists,' hollywood writers, and other 'creative' professionals will become unemployed as a result of new technologies.

Keep in mind that leftists barely raised their voices over the decades long automation which destroyed the jobs and livelihoods of tens of millions of industrial workers.

Keep in mind, Pan-leftists constantly cheer on the breakup of small-businesses and small farms, lauding the conquest by monopoly capital as 'progressive' and even using Marxist verbiage to justify this view.

They are somehow ruthless technological and social accelerationists when it comes to small farmers crushed under debt, but become the most sentimental, romantic reactionaries when it comes to 'digital artists.'

Why do they consider 'creative' professionals to have greater moral worth than ordinary people? It's simple: Because many are themselves from this background.

It's very strange how this shamelessly self-serving 'moral outcry' is justified in the language of 'Marxism,' because the Marxist outlook is that of a completely impersonal science of class struggle, which leaves no room for warping reality so that it conforms to ones own feelings.

Some claim that while AI is not inherently 'bad', its present realization will accentuate all the worst aspects of capitalism, therefore, it should be opposed.

This opinion is completely incompatible with Marxism.

Marx and Engels were unambiguous about how, yes, under capitalism, advances in the productive forces are what lay the foundation for ushering in the transition into a qualitatively new era of history, which they identified as communism.

This is because advances in the productive forces centralize, concentrate, and socialize the total productive powers of society, in a way they regarded as an inadvertent result of capitalist accumulation itself. To quote Engels himself:

"Since steam, machinery, and the making of machines by machinery transformed the older manufacture into modern industry, the productive forces evolved under the guidance of the bourgeoisie developed with a rapidity and in a degree unheard of before. But just as the older manufacture, in its time, and handicraft, becoming more developed under its influence, had come into- collision with the feudal trammels of the guilds, so now modern industry, in its more complete development, comes into collision with the bounds within which the capitalistic mode of production holds it confined. The new productive forces have already outgrown the capitalistic mode of using them." (Anti-Dühring)

You may try and argue Marx and Engels were wrong. But if they were wrong, their entire view of capitalism and socialism was also wrong.

This view was not based in feelings, or some narrow moral criticism. It was based in what they regarded as an impersonal scientific outlook.

The notion that AI should be opposed because it will damage the livelihoods of 'workers' is also nonsense. Even if we were to accept the ridiculous view that the 'creative' parasites are 'workers' in any meaningful sense (whose income is IP and rent-based, producing no material surplus out of which capital can valorize itself from scratch), this view is still inarguably reactionary.

It seeks to preserve, against the tide of advancing history itself, antiquated relationships of production, imposing fetters on the development of the productive forces in the name of 'protecting' certain professions. How very charitable! Only, it is reactionary garbage, what Marx called 'bourgeois socialism.'

It's also ironic that social liberals, who demand respect for the diversity of different individual tastes, fashions, sexual orientations, gender identities, etc., simultaneously believe we are immoral scumbags for both consuming and making use of products made with AI technologies.

No one is forcing these social liberals to consume AI art or make use of AI in their own art.

They claim that AI art is 'bad' and that it will lead to 'mass-produced garbage' becoming normalized in media.

Well, that's just like, your opinion, isn't it, Reddit?

I think most normal people, rather than mentally ill people on social media, have reached a clear consensus that there has been a sharp decline in the quality of movies, TV, and popular art in general.

But 'professional artists,' including the mediocre scumbags who are put in positions of power in monopoly media institutions based purely on corporate HR dictatorships, believe that we should all be forced to keep consuming their garbage forever, and that all technology which challenges their monopoly should be banned.

That is really what is at stake in this conflict all-together: What we have all taken for granted, for many decades, as the all-powerful monopoly on mass media controlled by the ruling class.

While Pan-Leftists like to claim that AI will be rolled out to 'increase the profits' of corporations by cutting 'labor' (lol) costs, they fail to understand that the 'professional artists' hired by corporations are not even mainly hired on the basis of profit, ratings, or popularity whatsoever.

This is because mass-media corporations have a monopoly. They don't need to care about 'making profit' when it comes to decisions about who they hire: This is why HR departments have grown so powerful.

The 'layoff' of Hollywood writers only came after YEARS of declining profits by mass media, which reached a point so extreme that it became intolerable, even from the perspective of PRESERVING these institutions. Not 'expanding' them.

The truth is, for the most part, corporations can and have focused on just being 'ethical' and 'inclusive' even if it's unpopular among audiences. How many of us have the technology needed to make a blockbuster Hollywood movie? Who can possibly threaten that monopoly?

Well, we are increasingly close to having that technology: Through the power of AI, which puts the most advanced tools for the creation of visual media directly in the hands of ordinary people.

Gone will be the days of requiring budgets in the hundreds of millions to produce massive blockbusters that can rival the latest Hollywood slop in terms of production value.

The political implications are even more important: Now, dissident political movements will have the ability to make the most state of of the art agitprop, media, campaign ads, and more. This is obviously sending the Security State into a huge panic.

Who benefits from banning freely accessible AI technology? Aside from the parasitic dregs of 'creative workers,' the ruling imperialist hegemony and its mass media corporations do.

Social media was the first major blow to establishment media. AI is going to bring this to a scale not even presently imaginable.

One of the ways power has been expressed in the age of mass media is the monopoly on visual media technology. Advanced special effects, production value, and film quality has long been a sign of elite consensus: It has long exclusively represented the consciousness of those in power.

No longer.

Some claim that AI has terrifying implications as far as the expansion of the powers of the security state are concerned. The truth is that Machine learning algorithms have already long been used by the security state against us.

The difference we are now seeing is that these technologies are beginning to freely proliferate, so that non-state actors can also make use of them.

There also appears to be confusion about the very nature of AI technology itself: People mistakenly believe that it takes the human element out of the production of art and culture.

This is the result of pure ignorance.

Artificial Intelligence is not an 'artificial consciousness.' It is completely meaningless outside the context of socially aggregated patterns, tendencies, trends, and phenomena produced by human beings.

AI has no history, culture, discourse, or society. It is just an unprecedented way in which individuals can interface with the total social reality produced by human beings.

AI-art technologies typically attach prompts to visual phenomena already associated with those prompts in the social aggregate.

It appears to be a 'robot Mind' because rather than an individual 'creating' the desired result, the individual curates, and exercises discretionary authority over results aggregated by what has already been socially produced.

Those who hate AI, hate humanity itself. They hate the possibility that all the wealth of what mankind has produced, can be aggregated in a way that is compatible with the humanity of individuals.

Hating AI is fundamentally misanthropic.

AI proves the inadvertent relationship between words, thoughts and images. No one has direct control over the result, but they have discretionary power to curate according to their taste.

What many ignore is that his holds true even for 'non-AI' produced art. The reason it takes years to master drawing, painting, or even 'digital art' is because there is absolutely no direct relationship between our thoughts and how they are expressed whatsoever.

Artists do not simply 'realize' their imagination directly. Artists have to master techniques which, like AI, only inadvertently produce desired results. In creating a working relationship between these techniques and ones discretionary power or taste, they eventually master the ability to produce intended results.

There is nothing about this that is more 'human' than how AI works. The difference is that rather than needing to spend years mastering techniques, the computer does it for us. What's the big deal?

You want to be a sentimental romantic about how 'it's just not the same' because we aren't doing it the old way? Then please, go back to cave painting. All human history has corresponded to the simplification of artistic methods and techniques. Go cry about it.

The mass production of art in the industrial age and the panic it has induced in 'high art' society is old news. Walter Benjamin wrote about it in 1935. The Dadaists threw a tantrum about it a decade earlier.

What is funny today is how mentally Furry digital artists have adopted such a pretension that they identify themselves with some 'high art' panicking about the 'vulgarisation' of 'mass produced and commodified art.'

Because of course, Furry porn is definitely the result of aristocratic, high-taste and high-society art, and totally unaffected by mass media and consumerism. This is nothing but mental illness and a farcical mockery of the history of art itself.

No, we are not in danger of the 'vulgarisation' and 'mass-commercialization' of art. That ship passed a long time ago. Maybe if you spent more time learning about history than pretending to be an elite artist, you would realize how mediocre and worthless your 'art' is.

The only dignified significance your cliche 'art' might ever possibly have, is contribute to the diversity of data Machine Learning algorithms may train on, in order that people with better taste might be able to produce something better.

This is why the argument that AI art is 'theft' is so stupid. If it's theft, why do we need AI to train on your garbage in the first place to turn it into something else? Because your art does not satisfy the full range of aesthetic possibilities and tastes. And guess what, there is nothing wrong with that.

Anti-AI 'artists' do not produce art, but the phenomenalization of mental illness on a mass scale. Moreover it is not even original.

There is no such thing as a wholly unique imagination. It draws from and is inspired by the wealth of what has already been created. 'Copying' others thoughts, ideas, and works at least to some extent is unavoidable.

An 'individual' 'digital artist' draws from past precedent just as much as AI does. All arguments about intellectual property are bankrupt: Why is it 'stealing' to feed someone's work into a ML algorithm, but not to feed it into your own imagination?

Why should you have to replicate the exact same techniques as an artist you are inspired by? Just to suffer for no reason?

Artists should use these techniques because they enjoy using them, or believe they are necessary. Why prevent others from using simpler ones?

Is there a single rational argument for why this is?

But, some argue, AI will destroy individual artistic techniques. Society will just infinitely recycle content to the point where nothing new will be made.

First of all the recycling is already happening before AI.

Second of all, it's wrong, because AI enables infinite permutations.

Thirdly, it's even more wrong. The rise of digital art did not outmode drawing or painting. Machines did not outmode sculpting. Artists continue to make use of these mediums, and will do so long into the future.

AI does not 'destroy' art. It just filters out valueless and talentless 'artists.'

No 'artist' is entitled to anyone's money. Kids in Africa have to mine rare Earth minerals so these 'digital artists' have computers in the first place. Why should we feel bad for 'artists?'

What gives 'artists' the right to have such a comfy job, rather than cleaning toilets? Why do they feel so entitled it, even if society doesn't want what they are 'making?'

All digital artists who don't want their work to be fed into ML algorithms should just quit, then. Worthy artists, who don't mind contributing to the General Intellect of mankind, will take their place.

The only justifiable concern about AI is the possibility of its use for purposes of fraud, libel and defamation.

But civilization already has a great precedent of rendering defamation and impersonation actionable offenses which the aggrieved can petition to courts of justice.

What will probably happen is the end of anonymity and the mandatory adoption of spoof-resistant blockchain-based signatures in order to verify ones unique identity.

In this way, anyone spreading defamation (including AI based pornography) will, by signing libel with their own absolutely unique cryptographic signature, be wholly accountable for it in courts of law, thereby discouraging it.

Common law systems already take into account the nuances of these situations, so fears of a 'slippery slope' between free speech and defamation are not going to be new. Courts already take into consideration the nuances of this distinction today, before AI.

But the greatest danger of AI also happens to be its greatest benefit to humanity: It has the power to teach society to respect images less, and value critical thinking more.

The truth is, images are already being used to lie about reality on a mass scale, and have been for a long time.

Even without AI, the amount of bad faith and misrepresentation people are subjected to online has really reached its worst limit. Technology shouldn't be blamed for this problem, the rotting and cannibalistic nature of capitalist 'civilization' should.

People, events, and reality is already being lied about on a mass scale.

The difference is that critical thinking skills haven't caught up. When images become unreliable on a mass scale, society will probably 'regress' to reading as the most reliable source of information.

This is a net benefit for society as a whole.

The unreliability of images is likely to force people to spend time reading and synthesizing information critically if they want get a well-rounded view of reality.

Finally, AI hastens the transition into Communism. By 'valorizing' patterns out of the chaos of the world market, the productive forces become socialized to an extent and degree never thought possible before.

Information, rather than profit, becomes the ultimate driving force of production. The inadvertently social nature of the relations of production, enmeshed in the chaotic signals of the market, become impossible to avoid recognizing.

The possibility of real economic planning on scales never before thought possible; and on a basis in the interest of the whole society, ceases to be a dream, but becomes a reality.

Because the 'interest of the whole society' ceases to be based on the 'expert opinion' of some central authority. It can be derived objectively, through the power of Artificial Intelligence.

There is no dichotomy between AI and mankind. This is a silly ideological illusion which is the result of the dying vestiges of capitalism.

If we define 'artifice' by 'man-made,' it is Communism itself which is the ultimate reconciliation between Artificial and natural Intelligence, combining the conscious will of human authority with the inadvertent, unconscious, and social realities of the people intelligible only at the aggregate and collective scale.

AI, like the steam engine, will undoubtedly play a role in participating in the savagery and madness of capitalist 'civilization.'

But the solution is not to blame technology. The solution is to adopt an introspective view about the nature of our civilization itself.

The solution is to unleash the productive forces of technology, and destroy the outmoded vestiges of the past, such as the financial capitalist cartels and banking institutions which are holding back progress.

The parasitic monopoly-cartels must be completely smashed. Only the anti-monopoly movement of the WORKING CLASS can, in tandem with the acceleration of AI technology, usher in a new era of human prosperity an development.

The possibilities opened up by AI technologies are nearly limitless. They should be use to accelerate the destruction of our outdated system all-together.

Under no pretext should the power of AI be surrendered; any attempt to inhibit workers access to AI technologies must be frustrated, by force if necessary

[خسرو xsro the beginner تازه @xesrao]

@DimPatelis @YouTube 🔥

[خسرو xsro the beginner تازه @xesrao]

Yes, of course, it is always about material interests and advantage.

[خسرو xsro the beginner تازه @xesrao]

The PDPA has never been a party of revenge.

As we know, Mrs Karmal ran the orphanage for the children of the deceased reactionaries to give them a normal childhood and a good future in society.

[خسرو xsro the beginner تازه @xesrao]

There are many articles he has written and speeches he has given to spread anti-communism. These, in conjunction with the organisations and groups involved, should be our first sources to clearly identify his political agenda.

[خسرو xsro the beginner تازه @xesrao]

So again, Emran Feruz should not be the target of idealistic revenge, but criticised for what he says, does and how it relates to his fundamentalist family past.

[Fahim Abed @fahimabed]

Muhib in Oxford, after being “grilled” and walked out with “embarrassment”.“Did you come Muhib jan? How are you?” Two curses then. “You are very happy. We heard you have bought a new house? Congratulations on that. You steal the money of AFG and then flee? You have no honor.”

[خسرو xsro the beginner تازه @xesrao]

…

[خسرو xsro the beginner تازه @xesrao]

Sie stellt sie nicht infrage, weil Profit nichts anderes heißt als den geringsten Widerstand mit dem maximalen Gewinn zu nutzen. Sie braucht gerade faschistoide und misogyne Narrative, um auszubeuten, zu missbrauchen und Kriege zu führen.

[خسرو xsro the beginner تازه @xesrao]

Your hero was an ISI puppet who knew nothing about Afghanistan, dealt with drugs and fought for the big landowners because they did not want to pay duty to many mujaheddin groups, which were as fascist and misogynist as the Taliban.

[Wahid Rahimdil @WRahimdil]

#Hero
I was a teenager during Afghan civil war of Mujahideen. To sum it up, they went demonically overboard with violence.

I remember this man stood against all warlords of his time with a very humble beginning.

Of course he didn’t bring renaissance but certainly ended chaos.

[خسرو xsro the beginner تازه @xesrao]

In einem Land, dass demokratische Rechte erfolgreich im Sinne des Kapitals auf der parlamentarischen Bühne vorspielt, kann man kaum von fascho Wählerschaft sprechen, sondern vom imperialistischen System, dass den Arbeitern kaum eine andere Alternative bietet.

[Mohamed Amjahid @mamjahid]

42,4 % französische Faschisten.

[خسرو xsro the beginner تازه @xesrao]

@younasejazi Brilliant arguments
Could you translate some of your sources or are you just playing around?

[خسرو xsro the beginner تازه @xesrao]

We should not speak of Afghans here, because the Afghans had nothing to say as the Afghan inhabitants. They were tockenized, like Hazara, Uzbeks, Women etc.

[خسرو xsro the beginner تازه @xesrao]

Bro, the Western countries have only supported corrupt structures so that they had more opportunities to create and transform terror structures. All of this on the shoulders of the peasants.
It was a win win for both groups: US government and Afghan pseudo government

[Emran Feroz @Emran_Feroz]

It's not just the West. The whole process is sabotaged by former Ghani officials who ran away and pseudo-political voices amongst the Afghan diaspora who exploit a real crisis for personal benefits.

[خسرو xsro the beginner تازه @xesrao]

Of course, they know much more you came from Afghanistan - recently....

Bro you just reproduce neoliberal propaganda and think you are neutral or better yet a democrat. Since these issues are historically correlated, you can't be if you consume western media

[Younus | یونس @yejaazy]

I don't know why all of a sudden he felt attacked? I didn't even mention the US crimes, which happend on far greater magnitude. But when you don't know anything about Afghanistan's realities, you can't even claim to be factually right, let alone in an argument!

[خسرو xsro the beginner تازه @xesrao]

Those who really want to fight grievances and genocides cannot criticize the struggles in this capitalist rhetoric and make flight the only argument. Above all, in this context, Marxists have participated in the construction and struggles for the country until the end…

[خسرو xsro the beginner تازه @xesrao]

Which anarcho-Marxists from the diaspora are you referring to?
Hegel is not important for AM at all 😅

The Soviets were not AM and do not even begin to compare to the cruelty of US imperialism. They didn't bomb villages autonomously on a daily basis.

[Younus | یونس @yejaazy]

The Anarcho-Marxist diaspora in Germany doesn't only white-wash the Soviet-backed regimes' crimes, but also thinks that merely by reading Marx and Hegel they've understood the complexity of Afghanistan and are omniscient of everything that's going on in Afghanistan.

[خسرو xsro the beginner تازه @xesrao]

White-washing of American atrocities is, of course, much better :‘)
Whether diaspora or residents in Afghanistan, the residence story itself should be not the most impactful thing in a factual argument.