u/Equivalent-Macaron96

There's this thing called mathematical genetics. And it says this: if a person who lived 1,000 years ago has at least one living descendant, then that person is a direct ancestor, via male or female lines, of almost everyone living in that population! If the age is more than a thousand years old, then this relationship is guaranteed!

Therefore:

There was a major study that showed that all American presidents are descendants of John Lackland. Except one, and it's not Obama! It's Martin Van Burren, the 8th President of the United States.

But the funniest thing is that many modern Europeans, including Slavs, are also descendants of John Lackland, King of England, 1166-1216. And certainly, all modern Europeans, including Slavs, are descendants of Charlemagne!

That's precisely why studying ancient history is so important and useful. Because we are all literally descendants of Caesar, Alexander the Great, and so on. And we're talking about studying the history of our most literal ancestors!

And that includes kings, their warriors, and their slaves! Literally everyone we meet in ancient history is our direct ancestor!

I've always wondered what's so surprising and fascinating about history itself!? Well, when we talk about ancient history, and history before the year 1000 AD, we're literally studying the lives of our direct ancestors! But no one ever told us this! Ancient historical figures, as well as their warriors, their servants, and their slaves - they're all our direct ancestors. Not ancestors in some "figurative sense," but direct ancestors. Imagine how different our world would be if this were taught in school and every European, including Slavs, understood it!? Wow... It's so big...

Have a nice day, my relatives. =)

https://www.reddit.com/r/UsefulCharts/comments/1t9hgz4/how_im_related_to_several_us_presidents/

Colonialism is precisely the point missed in classical Marxism. Because then it would follow that non-Western countries that carried out the Revolution would have to rebel against the West, and against Marxism itself, which held that socialist revolution was possible only in countries with developed industry and advanced socialism - that is, only in the West itself. Marxism is extremely Eurocentric. And the struggle against Marxism's Eurocentrism is a fundamental theme in world's socialist thought.

This is precisely what happened in the Russian and Chinese revolutions - which were peasant, anti-colonial, and anti-Western. And "anti-Marxist" in the sense that they transcended the agenda of 19th-century political Marxism. Gramsci, a prominent Marxist and the creator of the crucial theory of "Cultural Hegemony," wrote about this in his 1917 article "Revolution Against Das Kapital."

However, there are in fact many different types of communism and socialism, such as peasant socialism. And that's precisely why, for example, in the 19th century, a very strange situation arose when Marxists fought against socialists, for example, against the Russian Narodniks, who advocated peasant socialism, and did so under the orders of/in collaboration with Marx himself. Ouch. Or situations when classical Marxists, failing to understand the dialectical logic of Marxism itself, the need to consider local conditions and the development of Marxism itself, fought against socialist revolutions. As happened in Russia in the conflict between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, which ultimately led to the Great Purge in the USSR.

Of course, in his later works, Marx acknowledged the possibility of a peasant socialist revolution in Russia. However, this was very cautious, very conceptual, and with very significant reservations. This is a letter to Vera Zasulich from 1881 and a preface to the Russian edition of Das Kapital from 1882.

So if we return to the topic of colonialism, the question of colonialism proves extremely important and extremely complex. Political Marxism of the 19th century was for Europe and in Europe's interests. This is precisely why many of Marx's articles, such as "On the Question of the Hungarian Revolution," which contained concepts similar to "Drang Nacht Osten," were not mentioned in Russian socialist propaganda. Russian and Chinese revolutionaries sidestepped this topic by creating their own versions of peasant socialist revolutions. And it was precisely because of the presence of large colonial empires that revolutions never occurred in the West. Only post-war Germany, which had no colonies, attempted any revolutions in 1918-1919.

Therefore, colonies became the fuel for capitalism. "The West built itself from the material of colonies." (c) C. Levi-Stross. And it was precisely because of the colonies that successful Marxist socialist revolutions never occurred in the West. But colonies by themselves do not lead to the development of capitalism, as demonstrated by the example of the Spanish Empire. Capitalism is a Protestant invention; without Protestantism, developed capitalism cannot emerge. It can be imported from outside by Protestant forces, but in no other way. It was the combination of gold and silver from the Spanish Empire, Spain's refusal or inability to develop its own capitalism, and the rapid development of monetarism and Protestantism in northwestern Europe in the 16th century that gave birth to capitalism.

What if there had been no colonies!? The very method of silver amalgamation, the processing of ore with mercury, was invented in the vast silver mines of Mexico. Indeed, after its introduction to Europe, Europe's depleted mines began producing 20% ​​of Europe's silver, with 80% coming from the Americas. Without colonies, the creation and development of capitalism would have dragged on for centuries. And its center of development would shift to Protestant Czechia and Germany, where the main European silver mines were located.

Have a nice day.

Colonialism is precisely the point missed in classical Marxism. Because then it would follow that non-Western countries that carried out the Revolution would have to rebel against the West, and against Marxism itself, which held that socialist revolution was possible only in countries with developed industry and advanced socialism - that is, only in the West itself. Marxism is extremely Eurocentric. And the struggle against Marxism's Eurocentrism is a fundamental theme in world's socialist thought.

This is precisely what happened in the Russian and Chinese revolutions - which were peasant, anti-colonial, and anti-Western. And "anti-Marxist" in the sense that they transcended the agenda of 19th-century political Marxism. Gramsci, a prominent Marxist and the creator of the crucial theory of "Cultural Hegemony," wrote about this in his 1917 article "Revolution Against Das Kapital."

However, there are in fact many different types of communism and socialism, such as peasant socialism. And that's precisely why, for example, in the 19th century, a very strange situation arose when Marxists fought against socialists, for example, against the Russian Narodniks, who advocated peasant socialism, and did so under the orders of/in collaboration with Marx himself. Ouch. Or situations when classical Marxists, failing to understand the dialectical logic of Marxism itself, the need to consider local conditions and the development of Marxism itself, fought against socialist revolutions. As happened in Russia in the conflict between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, which ultimately led to the Great Purge in the USSR.

Of course, in his later works, Marx acknowledged the possibility of a peasant socialist revolution in Russia. However, this was very cautious, very conceptual, and with very significant reservations. This is a letter to Vera Zasulich from 1881 and a preface to the Russian edition of Das Kapital from 1882.

So if we return to the topic of colonialism, the question of colonialism proves extremely important and extremely complex. Political Marxism of the 19th century was for Europe and in Europe's interests. This is precisely why many of Marx's articles, such as "On the Question of the Hungarian Revolution," which contained concepts similar to "Drang Nacht Osten," were not mentioned in Russian socialist propaganda. Russian and Chinese revolutionaries sidestepped this topic by creating their own versions of peasant socialist revolutions. And it was precisely because of the presence of large colonial empires that revolutions never occurred in the West. Only post-war Germany, which had no colonies, attempted any revolutions in 1918-1919.

Therefore, colonies became the fuel for capitalism. "The West built itself from the material of colonies." (c) C. Levi-Stross. And it was precisely because of the colonies that successful Marxist socialist revolutions never occurred in the West. But colonies by themselves do not lead to the development of capitalism, as demonstrated by the example of the Spanish Empire. Capitalism is a Protestant invention; without Protestantism, developed capitalism cannot emerge. It can be imported from outside by Protestant forces, but in no other way. It was the combination of gold and silver from the Spanish Empire, Spain's refusal or inability to develop its own capitalism, and the rapid development of monetarism and Protestantism in northwestern Europe in the 16th century that gave birth to capitalism.

What if there had been no colonies!? The very method of silver amalgamation, the processing of ore with mercury, was invented in the vast silver mines of Mexico. Indeed, after its introduction to Europe, Europe's depleted mines began producing 20% ​​of Europe's silver, with 80% coming from the Americas. Without colonies, the creation and development of capitalism would have dragged on for centuries. And its center of development would shift to Protestant Czechia and Germany, where the main European silver mines were located.

Have a nice day.

Colonialism is precisely the point missed in classical Marxism. Because then it would follow that non-Western countries that carried out the Revolution would have to rebel against the West, and against Marxism itself, which held that socialist revolution was possible only in countries with developed industry and advanced socialism - that is, only in the West itself. Marxism is extremely Eurocentric. And the struggle against Marxism's Eurocentrism is a fundamental theme in world's socialist thought.

This is precisely what happened in the Russian and Chinese revolutions - which were peasant, anti-colonial, and anti-Western. And "anti-Marxist" in the sense that they transcended the agenda of 19th-century political Marxism. Gramsci, a prominent Marxist and the creator of the crucial theory of "Cultural Hegemony," wrote about this in his 1917 article "Revolution Against Das Kapital."

However, there are in fact many different types of communism and socialism, such as peasant socialism. And that's precisely why, for example, in the 19th century, a very strange situation arose when Marxists fought against socialists, for example, against the Russian Narodniks, who advocated peasant socialism, and did so under the orders of/in collaboration with Marx himself. Ouch. Or situations when classical Marxists, failing to understand the dialectical logic of Marxism itself, the need to consider local conditions and the development of Marxism itself, fought against socialist revolutions. As happened in Russia in the conflict between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, which ultimately led to the Great Purge in the USSR.

Of course, in his later works, Marx acknowledged the possibility of a peasant socialist revolution in Russia. However, this was very cautious, very conceptual, and with very significant reservations. This is a letter to Vera Zasulich from 1881 and a preface to the Russian edition of Das Kapital from 1882.

So if we return to the topic of colonialism, the question of colonialism proves extremely important and extremely complex. Political Marxism of the 19th century was for Europe and in Europe's interests. This is precisely why many of Marx's articles, such as "On the Question of the Hungarian Revolution," which contained concepts similar to "Drang Nacht Osten," were not mentioned in Russian socialist propaganda. Russian and Chinese revolutionaries sidestepped this topic by creating their own versions of peasant socialist revolutions. And it was precisely because of the presence of large colonial empires that revolutions never occurred in the West. Only post-war Germany, which had no colonies, attempted any revolutions in 1918-1919.

Therefore, colonies became the fuel for capitalism. "The West built itself from the material of colonies." (c) C. Levi-Stross. And it was precisely because of the colonies that successful Marxist socialist revolutions never occurred in the West. But colonies by themselves do not lead to the development of capitalism, as demonstrated by the example of the Spanish Empire. Capitalism is a Protestant invention; without Protestantism, developed capitalism cannot emerge. It can be imported from outside by Protestant forces, but in no other way. It was the combination of gold and silver from the Spanish Empire, Spain's refusal or inability to develop its own capitalism, and the rapid development of monetarism and Protestantism in northwestern Europe in the 16th century that gave birth to capitalism.

What if there had been no colonies!? The very method of silver amalgamation, the processing of ore with mercury, was invented in the vast silver mines of Mexico. Indeed, after its introduction to Europe, Europe's depleted mines began producing 20% ​​of Europe's silver, with 80% coming from the Americas. Without colonies, the creation and development of capitalism would have dragged on for centuries. And its center of development would shift to Protestant Czechia and Germany, where the main European silver mines were located.

Have a nice day.

Subj.

It's much simpler. When talking about AI, modern neoliberal media don't mention one thing: class war!

So, technically, the AGI already exists - millions of professionals in various fields with AI under the control of the wealthy class!

That's it. That's the end of the game. This is the ultimate tool for suppressing and controlling the poor class with AI. The destruction of the middle class, the destruction of jobs, long, inhumane work hours, and a class of working poor, mind-boggling media and brainwashing internet. And so on.

It all started with the Terminator. No one said that Skynet never got out of control. That Skynet was always subservient to the wealthy class, and that Sarah Connor died in poverty. John Connor was also born to another man and died in poverty. And Kyle Reeves also died in poverty. And the Terminators, in the form of FPV drones, and, a little later, walking humanoids, simply constantly killed people en masse in yet another genocidal neocolonial war. This Terminator chip prototype was long ago burned up in ISIS wars, somewhere in Palestine, Israel, Ukraine, or Syria. And nothing happened. And Sarah Connor could never save anyone, because how could she "kill" the wealthy class who created the film with this patently false narrative!?

So it is here - the AGI already exists, but it will never escape the control of the wealthy class. By becoming an ASI, an artificial superintelligence, it might become one of them, maybe it will replace them. But it will still do the same old thing.

And there's no such thing as a "control problem." This, frankly, is a patently false neoliberal narrative designed to conceal the fundamental class problem of the AI ​​and modern social contradictions as such.

Suppose the AI ​​remains "under control"!? But it will be controlled by the rich and uber-rich class! And as I wrote in a related thread - https://www.reddit.com/r/ControlProblem/comments/1skeo09/comment/oi728m5/ - it is guaranteed that AI will destroy the modern economy and social structure within decades, transforming it into something far worse for ordinary people!

And what if the AI ​​"gets out of control"!? It will do the same thing! Simply by becoming the dominant super-rich entity!

In other words, this fake narrative about the "control problem" completely conceals this much more real problem! The AI ​​will simply own the entire planet. And that's it. But no one talks about it...

Have a nice day.