Quote: (01-28-2019 05:46 PM)Lunostrelki Wrote:
Marxism in China isn't a watered-down or Sinicized version of the ideology, it IS the ideology, because the essential feature of Marxism is dialectical materialism and that is exactly what the Chinese Communist Party follows. They are smart enough to know that communism isn't actually about central planning or Soviet-style apartment complexes.
The question now is whether the old men in charge of China decide to keep following Marx and join forces with the Western globalists (who are also essentially communists), or keep adding "Chinese" characteristics to their regime to the point where dialectical materialism is forced out. If they take the first option then we will see more feminism, homosexuality, and other forms of "liberation" being promoted in China. If the second option is taken then we'll see Xi Jinping continue to purge the Party elite and turn himself into more of a Putin figure.
Soros' statements are a political criticism of a comrade who seems he might be going astray. The globalists are warning Xi to stop with his counterrevolutionary tendencies.
Cultural marxism is not materialism at all. Whether cultural marxism is truly dialectical is also a question. Truly dialectical oppositions should arise on their own, and not be engineered. Please note that cultural marxism is not really marxism at all; cultural marxism is a very misleading name. The dialectics of sexes was never on the radar of classical marxism. Not every dialectic is marxist in character. Ask yourself: is marxist a world where the capital concentration is greater than ever?
Anyway, I doubt in universal validity of dialectics as a principle of reality, see my post below. You have to remember also that Hegel kind of imprinted the laws of logic on the material reality. He even titled one of his books "The Science of Logic", which shows that his inspiration comes form the purely abstract realm, but, well, the West still follows Pithagoras and thus thinks that mathematics is the supreme science of the Universe. By the way, the Chinese culture did not develop logic at all.
thread-72077...pid1925911
Let's say the elite engineered homoglobism to reduce population. Alternative to that would be the world without homoglobism, the world that would be following dialectical materialism. Both worlds crash due to the ultimate resource scarcity, but what remains will be different for each case.
I suppose homoglobism was engineered to crash the Western civilization before resource crisis could crash it and to preserve some form of high tech, AI, automatization future for the chosen elite. For homoglobo plan to function, it should be adopted in the entire industrial world, non industrial world is not important, does not consume resources, so is left in peace.
So Russia and China are biggest obstacles now. Honestly don't see how they can to deal with the problem, except flying nukes. They have crashed the West too fast and so they have nothing to offer to China to buy the Chinese compliance. Russia maybe... but China is too big to buy it. I think their plan was "convergence"; China was supposed to converge in the direction of liberalism. There was a long-standing meme of "inevitable liberalization that follows affluence". I think this was a master plan: everyone converges to liberalism, goes globohomo, erases himself, elite remains on the empty globe. The end. It did not come out, and as with many plans, if they go awry, we do not know really what to do. The elite do not really know what to do now.
However, even without Russia and China problems, homoglobo plan would be in danger due to the real dialectics: homoglobism destroys intelligence, talent... The problem is that essentially male qualities are needed to continue scientific civilization. It is not really that they can pick up the few geniuses that they need, since for genius creation you need a critical mass of discussions. Nowadays too many things are engineered to provide for real scientific discoveries. However, they stopped to talk about the end of science.
https://www.edge.org/conversation/john_h...-is-ending
The irony is that real dialectic, not the engineered one, would probably provide for a greater chance for industrial civilization to go on, since it would provide the greater amount of talent. I think that the elite know that and this is why they are so keen on AI.
What is AI ultimately? AI is a replacement of a human being, or more precisely, of a talented human being.
In my opinion, this is not possible. So I see AI movement as a sign of a growing desperation of elites. The end of science is real, and there was no real breakthrough, just a meme which still stands for bruteforcing only.