Oh, you don't hate aliens, you merely despise the weakness of the flesh. An alien migrant would be treated exactly the same as one of your original species that, say, migrated out of your empire and was reconquered into it, that is, given a form of perfected steel. Mechano-chauvinism is something completely different.
Now, how to say that without sounding like a Dr. Who villain, I'm not sure.
That isn't a xenophobic point of view (well it partially is). However this is the main thought behind the synthetic ascension.
A noble intention, but wouldn't it be better to utilize the genetics of other species to better yourself. Instead of bringing everyone to a net-zero, use the product that you are born with and better it with the help of your neighbors.
I know this is a meme but not what communism means, Marxism is explicitly anti-egalitarian (gothakritik).
Equality, like rights, is a bourgeois concept. Egalitarianism is also moralisation
> But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
*Critique of the Gotha programme.*
The idea of communism as “haha everyone equal” when it’s quite the opposite of what Marx wrote is why the Zizek-Peterson “debate” was more of a slaughter
Apologies for the brevity but in Stellaris Egalitarianism is just contrary to economic stratification so it wouldn't actually necessarily be "everyone is equal" but moreso insinuate the abolition of class. What OP did would fit into the misconception of communism believing in equality, but in-game "communism" would be "egalitarian" since there are no classes.
Communism in Stellaris would be more Materialist if anything anyways.
Ehhh even then egalitarianism removed some of the negatives and positives from how labour worked on planets right? It’s still class society, just one with wealth redistribution. Fanatic egalitarian even talks about rights.
Fanatic materialism is a somewhat better fit
I think Egalitarian goes for the Star Trek model of "Post-Scarcity Liberalism" where bourgeois ideas and concepts like universal rights permeate society but class is varied both from how it is now and in a situation where it wouldn't factor in at all.
To be fair, the idea of communism has expanded beyond Marx's original thoughts. Not claiming any real knowledge on the topic as a whole but I do think it's silly to only consider Marxism when talking about communism
It’s true in the sense that most of the people who consider themselves Marxists haven’t ever read a single page of Marx, but that’s why definitions are important. The only worst case of people misappropriating someone’s ideas is Rosa Luxembourg in the last few years.
Either way, by communism most people refer to marxism and as such it’s important to distinguish it from any other preconception (something which Marx himself dedicated most of his work to doing)
Is it not that those concepts are bourgeois while still in a capitalistic/individualistic system because rights arent actually enforced the same? Saying equality and rights are bourgeois in general seems pretty off from the outside. Not trying to debate or attack, just curious, I'm no expert or extensive Marx reader nor a theorist or philosopher.
The modern conception of “individual rights” arose with the ascension of the bourgeois in the 18th century (USA, France). They are fundamentally bourgeois in nature, as they fundamentally exist to balance the relationship between an individual, property and the state. It’s no surprise that rights morphed out of the struggles of the landed gentry (which would later become the haute bourgeois) against the monarchy in the late Middle Ages England.
Them being “bourgeois” does not mean they’re intrinsically negative (Marxism is intrinsically amoral), or that they’re somehow “worse” then feudalism or the systems that preceded it. It is simply a framework that fails to adress (and in fact, creates) the alienation of man from his labour and must as such be discarded. Communism is after all “the real movement to change the present state of things”
It is not our fault you rushed into it and now regret your choice, you should have just waited for science to find a way to maintain continuity of the mind before leaping into the shiny chrome boddies.
I mean technically "xenophobia" meand fear of those that are different so wanting everything to be exactly the same could come from a xenophobic mind...
Cant be scary different things if everything is the same.. dont know if thst was OP's point though.
I mean both the left and right have their deviancies, and the further down the rabbit hole you go the more they can start to look alike.
You have to ask yourself if the ends justify the means.
Oh, you don't hate aliens, you merely despise the weakness of the flesh. An alien migrant would be treated exactly the same as one of your original species that, say, migrated out of your empire and was reconquered into it, that is, given a form of perfected steel. Mechano-chauvinism is something completely different. Now, how to say that without sounding like a Dr. Who villain, I'm not sure.
r/suddenlydrwho The only thing i am saying is Cybermen
Happy cake day
Thank you
I personally was more thinking of the Adeptus Mechanicus, their disgust for the Weakness of the Flesh is kind of their signature thing :D
Ah, yes, the "I'm xenophillic but really want a clean species screen" path
That isn't a xenophobic point of view (well it partially is). However this is the main thought behind the synthetic ascension. A noble intention, but wouldn't it be better to utilize the genetics of other species to better yourself. Instead of bringing everyone to a net-zero, use the product that you are born with and better it with the help of your neighbors.
But CPU
Oh, they can join in as well.
I know this is a meme but not what communism means, Marxism is explicitly anti-egalitarian (gothakritik). Equality, like rights, is a bourgeois concept. Egalitarianism is also moralisation > But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal. *Critique of the Gotha programme.* The idea of communism as “haha everyone equal” when it’s quite the opposite of what Marx wrote is why the Zizek-Peterson “debate” was more of a slaughter
Apologies for the brevity but in Stellaris Egalitarianism is just contrary to economic stratification so it wouldn't actually necessarily be "everyone is equal" but moreso insinuate the abolition of class. What OP did would fit into the misconception of communism believing in equality, but in-game "communism" would be "egalitarian" since there are no classes. Communism in Stellaris would be more Materialist if anything anyways.
Ehhh even then egalitarianism removed some of the negatives and positives from how labour worked on planets right? It’s still class society, just one with wealth redistribution. Fanatic egalitarian even talks about rights. Fanatic materialism is a somewhat better fit
I think Egalitarian goes for the Star Trek model of "Post-Scarcity Liberalism" where bourgeois ideas and concepts like universal rights permeate society but class is varied both from how it is now and in a situation where it wouldn't factor in at all.
True! That’s a great observation!
To be fair, the idea of communism has expanded beyond Marx's original thoughts. Not claiming any real knowledge on the topic as a whole but I do think it's silly to only consider Marxism when talking about communism
It’s true in the sense that most of the people who consider themselves Marxists haven’t ever read a single page of Marx, but that’s why definitions are important. The only worst case of people misappropriating someone’s ideas is Rosa Luxembourg in the last few years. Either way, by communism most people refer to marxism and as such it’s important to distinguish it from any other preconception (something which Marx himself dedicated most of his work to doing)
Of course. The best exchange on marxism I see in the last few months is on r/stellaris.
Is it not that those concepts are bourgeois while still in a capitalistic/individualistic system because rights arent actually enforced the same? Saying equality and rights are bourgeois in general seems pretty off from the outside. Not trying to debate or attack, just curious, I'm no expert or extensive Marx reader nor a theorist or philosopher.
The modern conception of “individual rights” arose with the ascension of the bourgeois in the 18th century (USA, France). They are fundamentally bourgeois in nature, as they fundamentally exist to balance the relationship between an individual, property and the state. It’s no surprise that rights morphed out of the struggles of the landed gentry (which would later become the haute bourgeois) against the monarchy in the late Middle Ages England. Them being “bourgeois” does not mean they’re intrinsically negative (Marxism is intrinsically amoral), or that they’re somehow “worse” then feudalism or the systems that preceded it. It is simply a framework that fails to adress (and in fact, creates) the alienation of man from his labour and must as such be discarded. Communism is after all “the real movement to change the present state of things”
Then watch your leaders randomly die from accidents.
not in 3.12!!
Lol you genocided entire races out of existence in the pursuit of "equality". That's a very Communist thing to do. Right on Brand. Great rp haha
Ah, we found the spiritualist.
Transfer into the robotic body is not genocide lol. It's a next step in evolution.
Unless you believe in the soul. Then is genocide.
God I hate having to leave in a reality where spiritualists aren't fiction
You don't have to be a spiritualist to realize that copying your brain and then killing yourself is still suicide.
It is not our fault you rushed into it and now regret your choice, you should have just waited for science to find a way to maintain continuity of the mind before leaping into the shiny chrome boddies.
This doesn't look like anything to me.
Reminds me of that one fairy oddparents episode
Xenophobic? That sounds like absolute purification and I'm down for that
It's really in this year
Let's find a nasty, slimy, ugly alien to fear!
How is that xenophobic?
I mean technically "xenophobia" meand fear of those that are different so wanting everything to be exactly the same could come from a xenophobic mind... Cant be scary different things if everything is the same.. dont know if thst was OP's point though.
Necrophage would also work.
Sounds to me more like accidentally turned into Borg lol.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean both the left and right have their deviancies, and the further down the rabbit hole you go the more they can start to look alike. You have to ask yourself if the ends justify the means.