theparadox

That's like saying that the bourgeois are just the workers that did really well for themselves.

No, it's not. It's like saying that the leaders and organizers within the working class will lead the working class and ensure that the means of production are managed after they are seized. Someone (an individual or a group) has to do it, and they should know what they are doing.

The person I responded to said "a different group". My point is that it's a subset of the larger group. Yes, it's possible to take advantage of the situation and try to grab power afterward. If that subset seized it to enrich themselves, they are class traitors - they are of the working class but betrayed them. However, some person or group needs to literally lead and manage, usually democratically. It can't be literally the entirety of the working class.

All of this is just twisting terms and concepts to try to sow distrust in communist or socialist theory, assuming there will always be some secret group of elites scheming to take everything for themselves the moment the means are seized.

I am very, very concerned at how widely it is used by my superiors.

We have an AI committee. When ChatGPT went down, I overheard people freaking out about it. When our paid subscription had a glitch, IT sent out emails very quickly to let them know they were working to resolve it ASAP.

It's a bit upsetting because may of them are using it to basically automate their job (write reports & emails). I do a lot of work to ensure that our data is accurate from manual data entry by a lot of people... and they just toss it into an LLM to convert it into an email... and they make like 30k more than me.

The vanguard is not a different group. The vanguard is the part of the group that ends up doing something first.

It's not separate from the group, and it's often not even distinguished from the group in any way aside from the fact that it was motivated enough to act first.

If you had a religion that, as part of it's core system, explicitly yielded to science as it progresses... or a religion that explicitly framed all of its claims in such a way as to avoid all possible future contradictions with scientific discovery.. sure. I'm not a "religion expert" or anything but I'm not aware of any such religions. It sounds like a hypothetical, philosophical proposal.

banks are going to be assessing you for whether you're likely to pay back the loans they provide

Actually, this is not quite accurate. It's more accurately a score that summarizes how much the banks would want to lend you money. It is designed to make sure you are profitable not just in your ability to simply pay back a loan, but also to make them money.

And, statistically, it's also systemically racist.

The problem is that science overlaps religious claims, and will continue to do so as we learn more about the universe.