But if you think “like a lawyer” it is technically correct.
Or if you think like a scam artist.
Laws I'm familiar with are based on what a reasonable consumer would think, and it's reasonable to think "plant based" means "made of plants". They can get away with a lot of weasel words and misleading statements, but there are limits.
Sure it is. Think about email - the majority don't actually consciously pick pick an email service, they just get gmail by default and don't spend even one second thinking about it. There's no "default" choice here, so they get confused and scared.
If they won’t even accept Cuba is socialist then to these people there is literally no socialism anywhere in the world.
And everything I've said so far has been under the assumption that we were still talking about the same thing i.e. you defending supposed "Marxists" who believe that every real world example of socialism is either completely impotent or collapses into revisionism. Including Cuba. If that's not what you're defending, then you aren't even having the same conversation as the rest of us in this comment chain. Do you sort by /Chat and not pay attention to parents?
This isn't a project failing. This is every single project that has ever been attempted failing over and over again for 150 years. If we're scientists, then we should learn from repeated test results and conclude that Marxism is incorrect theory. Why be a Marxist?
There are two scientific ways to approach a historical analysis of Marxism. Either AES countries are examples of Marxism working in practice, or Marxism hasn't worked in practice and there's no reason to be a Marxist. There isn't some third option where you refuse to give up on a failure ideology that never works, simply because you have faith. That's not scientific, that's religious.
Which brings us back to the question: why be a Marxist? If this failure ideology collapses every time it is tried, it's pointless. Lenin tried, and failed. Mao tried, and failed. Everyone that has ever tried has failed. Eventually, it doesn't make sense to keep trying. This isn't about feeling bad and crying because we lost faith in our religion, as good scientists we should be doing something different.
"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."
Some people are fine with pointless philosophizing and not actually changing the world, but that's not scientific, and that's not Marxist. If Marxism can't actually build any real socialist projects, if every revolution ends in failure and there's literally no socialism anywhere in the world, then it's pointless. If we analyze past and present socialist projects and conclude they are all failures, then scientifically, why be a Marxist? When every experiment ends in failure a good scientist must conclude that Marxism demonstrably doesn’t work and is an incorrect theory.
Some people are fine with being dogmatic martyrs for ideology, but again: that's not scientific, and that's not Marxist.
You're the one doing revisionism, completely overlooking the part of accelerationism where they seek to accelerate development.
Accelerationists believe that capitalism is a progressive self-revolutionizing force that is rapidly creating the conditions for its own obsolescence, and so we just need to develop capitalism more and more until it revolutionizes itself away. It views free trade as a system that breaks down nationalities, automation as a system that breaks down class antagonisms, and technological singularity as the ultimate end point of capitalism where profit and private property cease to exist. We enter an age of post-scarcity and transhumanism and algorithmic government i.e. the end of history. Capitalism collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.
This is a really bad idea because unchecked capitalist development is creating conditions for human extinction. Maybe if there weren't ecological limits the accelerationists would be right in the long-run, but in the real world we're running into the limits to growth and capitalist development has put us on the path towards the collapse of civilization rather than merely the collapse of capitalism.
This is all in contrast to revolutionary defeatism, which predates accelerationism by almost 100 years. It is the recognition that the workers do not benefit from capitalist wars, that instead, workers should seek the defeat of their own capitalist governments. If the empire loses, the world wins. There's no interest in developing the empire further to create the conditions for its collapse, there's only interest in seeing it collapse. That's like saying anyone who wants to end capitalism is an accelerationist. It's nonsense.
Well at this point boomers are really old, which means the class character of their generational cohort is skewed heavily towards wealth. The boomers that weren't horrible cretins are mostly dead by now, the survivors are mostly people with money and property.
In that sense, generational politics kind of exists.
I think we'll have something much better once the bubble pops, but for now there's a lot of problems that are being papered over by easy investor cash.
The compute in data centers will need to be replaced every 18 months as they become outdated, and meanwhile they can't even build all the data centers they've promised and are back-ordered for years. They're plopping data centers into undersized electricity and water grids that can't handle them because it's cheap, and this is now causing public backlash against construction. They're a Dutch disease, sucking all the oxygen out of the economy to fuel extraction while producing little value. LLMs are good at some specific tasks, but the insistence on making an everything machine and cramming it into everything has further enshitified everything. The c-suite keeps trying to fire everyone and replace them with slop, and then finding out that they can't actually do that because the everything machine can't actually do everything. Morons like our first trillionaire are suggesting putting data centers in space where there's no water or atmosphere to act as coolant.
Accelerationism would mean accelerating the growth of the empire to bring about its collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, so, voting for the best imperial managers to keep growing the empire. That means voting for Democrats, they're better imperial governors. They're better at doing war crimes and getting away with it.
What I want is for the empire to lose. That's not accelerationism. That's revolutionary defeatism.
Or if you think like a scam artist.
Laws I'm familiar with are based on what a reasonable consumer would think, and it's reasonable to think "plant based" means "made of plants". They can get away with a lot of weasel words and misleading statements, but there are limits.
But maybe the standard in BC is different.