This stream auto-updates
- Past hour
-
Alright let's do this then. I'll start the sourcing: Encyclopaedia Britannica (2026 update): Socialism is a “social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.” Link: https://www.britannica.com/money/socialism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (peer-reviewed academic reference): “In contrast to capitalism, socialism can be defined as a type of society in which… the bulk of the means of production is under social, democratic control.” Link: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/ Oxford Reference (dictionary/academic reference): Socialism is “an economic and political system based on collective or state ownership of the means of production and distribution.” Link: https://www.oxfordreference.com/abstract/10.1093/acref/9780199533008.001.0001/acref-9780199533008-e-2179 Merriam-Webster (major dictionary): Socialism: “economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production…” Link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (academic philosophy reference): “A socialist economy features social rather than private ownership of the means of production…” Link: https://iep.utm.edu/socialis/ Chat GPT Quote: None of the standard definitions of socialism define it as “taking over the world by socialist states.” That idea describes a particular revolutionary strategy associated with some Marxist-Leninist movements or state foreign policies, not the definition of socialism. The definitional core across Britannica, Stanford, Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and the IEP is social/public/collective control or ownership of the means of production. Your turn. You post any sources you have that indicate the primary core tenant of socialism is the take over of the world, or the removal of all capitalist states, or whatever wording you wish along those lines, and I will counter with three times the sourcing, all credible, all with links. Hint, focus on Leninist philosophy; it'll give you some good ones, and then you'll be stuck. On this Elliot you provably and identifiably incorrect.
-
Just don't confuse them with whatever's true.
-
No it's not, socialism is a stage in marxism. At this point you're just outright lying. You know nothing about Marxism, 4th grade americans know more than you. You're being a troll, perhaps unintentionally.
-
What do you mean @Yimpa? There is Death as an absolute? How is it when YOU face Truth?
-
@Cred this will be my last response to finalise my comment directly above. I write the following purely for your self-education. In an online space it can be so easy to project sometimes, and so I have composed some questions and statements for you to consider concerning. My statements are based on evidence based patterns I have noted in your writing in your reference to me, that are quotable and can therefore be referred to. Nothing else sneaks into my evaluation. Again sincerely, take care Cred. And again, I am done here now. Irrespectively, the encouragement is still behind my words to move onwards and upwards in your journey concerning. You remind me of aspects of myself especially when I was younger and less experienced. I never expressed nor have I shown any misunderstanding. This is projection number one. I raised a point that went unanswered Cred. I never made this claim, and I never denounced it. What went on in your mind the moment you chose this word ‘deluded’ in this context? I genuinely find this intriguing, and let me preface this with the fact that I am extremely hard to offend. What with even the slightest remote detail was ever indicative of any kind of delusion to warrant the selection even by comparison? My words are clear, precise and well resourced with clear reasoning around the sources I provided outside some minor grammar and perhaps for my standards, a little too elongated however it was becsuse I couldn’t get through to you the first few times. But even my elongated response outputted a nil result on moving the needle of understanding there. If you agreed why didn’t you address my critique with even a single word despite pages of text? It depends on psychological primitives. So your statement is inaccurate, and so far aspirational at best relative to the actual literature. Hypothesising, theorisation and abstraction is a lot of fun, however when I am conversing with others, I try to be as strict as possible with myself and where it matters in a social context outside of biting my tongue for politeness, others. Interesting. The pattern of projection has firmly set in now right? It’s okay, I just need to make sure the pattern is now very visible. Stay with me. Holotaxonic is a your own vocabulary, correct? How is a person meant to critique from the ‘Holotaxonic perspective’ when you haven’t yet built the system for them to do that? In what way? What assumptions do you believe you may be making about medical students? What percentage chance is there that all medical students are the same or even that, all medical schools are? Also, in what ways do you believe your own methodology may be better or worse compared to what you believe a medical student follows? Could you improve a medical students approach? Phenomenology and ontological study are uniquely very important to my own personal growth, with a subset to that importance overlapping with my growth as a student of not just medicine, but at the seat of its interconnection with all of life. By the way Cred, I checked out that video you linked. Interesting stuff. Small correction on the video though. It isn’t showing pre-existing axes being discovered mate, it shows axes emerging from accumulated usage. The structure comes from convergence, a pattern I have been asking you to use as a questioning tool over and over now, not from ontologically prior directions. Read that way, it actually undermines irreducible modes rather than supports them. Keep the fire alive though brother, I don’t want to be someone that takes away that inspiration, you gotta keep life’s fire soaring as high as possible. We have many people struggling on this problem, you staying motivated despite some basic set backs that you can overcome is infectious for others, just learn to be more mindful regarding projection thats all, it’s okay we’re human and we’re all growin. Again, best wishes, sincerely. I’m out now.
-
He said epistemically humble. He might have an arrogant style but his work is humble. He doesn't claim stuff that he does not have deep understanding off. A scientist is arrogant because he (it is mostly a he) feels superior to spiritual and religious people just because he believes he is better. He didn't study spirituality or religion deeply, he doesn't even understand the mechanics of science well enough. They are epistemically laughable, they make the same epistemical errors as religious people have. The universe is dumb. Why? because science says so. = appeal to authority The traits of a being are like they are because they helped survival for thousands of years and we know it helped survival because it survives = circular reasoning Consiousness is computation. Category error. Treating statistical significance as equivalent to truth. Reality exists because 1 million people were interviewed and they say they perceive reality to be very real = methodological imperialism anomalies labeled noise instead of signals - confirmation bias we define intelligence as what IQ tests measure because we noticed that high IQ individuals do better in life. If you score low, your intelligence is low - reification I talked to scientific people and they play a humble role in the same way a kid puts a spiderman costume and plays spiderman. They are arrogant as fuck masked by roleplay. I'd rather have an arrogant guy with a humble epistemology than a fake humbe guy with arrogant epistemology.
-
It depends if the ego takes the collective good into its own survival. Which BTW has examples. Much like a good relationship will take the other's happiness and survival as part of their own.
-
You'd think.
-
Agreed. Bureaucracy is usually the way to put power in the hands of people and regulate both corruption and dictators or oligarchs from gaining too much control. So yes, boring the system into submission is a very effective tool Are you willing to design a framework protocol on any particular grassroots idea that can be advocated for or implemented, just the basics in a document or post? I understand you won't whip one out of your hat, and it will be inherently flawed or missing pieces, but as something for consideration and refinement. Because I want you to understand your mind is 1 in 10,000 or more and if you can't start it, we are waiting for our philosopher king.
-
Wilhelm44 replied to enchanted's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
Its just seems so obvious that some kind of balance between capitalism and socialism would be best. -
Firstly your conflating marxism with socialism. It's one branch of it. However, Marx did not propose a plan to “take over the world” or replace all countries as socialist states. He analyzed capitalism; he was not a geopolitical strategist. This is a call for solidarity, not an overthrow of governments or a change to the world order. The idea of a coordinated global revolution was a Leninist idea. Had you set off on that or quoted him, this would be a different discussion. This is a 20th-century concept, not a 19th-century one. Marx's belief was the class struggle was an inherent struggle in all capitalist societies. Not something that needed outside interference. That it would occur naturally, which is somewhat idealistic. Secondly i've given you what socialism means: The most basic meaning of socialism is to replace the means of production. Taking it from private to public. This is the most core tenet of socialism. Do you honestly dispute this? Because we can but its not an argument you can win. Socialism is extremely fragmented and multifaceted and someone who hasn't done a lot of reasearch always risks getting details wrong. I do too, because there are so many opinions and branches in it. Stating its fragmentation is a much better angle of attack or its viability than the one you are currently pursing. Labelling good and bad, cults and psyops, its just not going to get this conversation anywhere.
-
"European attitude: We may be oppressed today, but if we work together, one day we will all be free. US attitude: I may be a work slave today, but if I work hard, one day I will be the slave owner." - Random youtube commenter
-
I'll let you know if I ever transcend beliefs. But in the meantime I'll enjoy them!
-
Hatfort replied to Husseinisdoingfine's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
Noam Chomsky, a respected man on the left for his book Manufactured consent and others. He, at the very least, knew the shady things that were happening. Does this make his books' points invalid? No, but fuck him. Like Woody Allen, he is in the files too, which is not that a big surprise as he married his adoptive daughter. Are his movies bad now? No, but... Another director, Brett Ratner, who had sexual assault allegations before, is in the files and pictures with Epstein. I think he was one of those kicked out of Hollywood when the Me too, like James Franco, Kevin Spacey, or Bill Cosby. Funny that he was rescued by MAGA to do Melania's movie, and the files come out at the same moment her movie is released. Speaking of Melania, her getting to the US rings a bell of those same girl recruiting ways from Eastern Europe. Media executive Steve Bannon had also a huge relationship with Epstein, and was trying to rehabilitate his image. -
Wilhelm44 replied to enchanted's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
And it's also like the opposite of freedom. The fact that you dont have the freedom to start your own business if you want to, is just silly. -
They are friendly little chaps as for the big reds they are so buffed. Remember when we were younger we would ride them to school
-
Hey guys. In the latest blog post, Leo brags about being humble: https://www.actualized.org/insights/jehovahs-witnesses-self-deception How do we know if someone is humble? When he doesn't brag. Especially not about being humble. Just my humble opinion.
- Today
-
....feeling agitated.
-
-
Breakingthewall replied to James123's topic in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
Identity is real. You are a form that reality takes called human. This is not an illusion; it is simply a fact. Regarding God, however, we would need to specify what we mean by God. -
Recursoinominado replied to AmIEvenReal's topic in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
In my experience, they do raise baseline consciousness, but it's not permanent if the person stops there, doesn't continue the work, doesn't do spiritual practices, or uses psychedelics ever again. I guess it also depends on previous work and if the person has insights or not (i had powerful insights, but i guess many people don't). I had my spiritual awakening due to psychedelics, i already meditated, but they opened me up in a way that meditation didn't, i guess you can say i had a kundalini awakening, and i became way more intuitive, sensitive, and conscious in general afterwards. Of course i had many experiences with psychedelics afterward that kept raising my consciousness and i did spiritual practices (although not really seriously). -
i continue worrying about career prospects, what education and job opportunities i'll have this year.... i'm trying to turn this uncertainty into something more positive though - curiosity, excitement, trust, faith? i know there are lots of opportunities out there....which is quite overwhelming....but in turn, it could also mean that one way or another, i'll find something that'll make me feel fulfilled. currently debating my odds of being accepted for education in nutrition/psychology .... i'll figure it out. it's okay and i can relax. it'll be okay, i'll find something.
-
He is right, there is no free will, but this doesn't matter. Maybe god will show you why it doesn't.
-
"philosopher" or a way to justify being a jerk imposing his "truth". I don't need justifications.
-
Marxism fails because it fundamentally misunderstands human nature. It fails to take survival seriously. The ego will not surrender its survival for the benefit of a collective good. The Marxist's own ego will not do it.
(2).thumb.jpg.9c387b2305ceaba12a843253afab43c1.jpg)
