Schizophonia

Imperialism means the exploitation and oppression of one people by another; carrying out a coup d'état is not imperialism. Stalin isn't USSR, even less communism/marxism. Stalin did not "steal" Eastern Europe, eastern europe developed under communism; you can say that Stalin was a dictator and that the Eastern Bloc countries were de facto satellite states yes, but they weren't colonies and these states industrialized. China was broken up into several random states controlled by warlords so the western countries could sell goods especially opium; drugs lol; that's an example of imperialism, as Lenin meant. India wasn't even colonized by the British state but by the British East India Company which was basically the equivalent of FedEx today lol. Then there was the random partitioning of Africa, the settlement of Ashkenazi Jews in Palestine, Rohingya in Burma etc. There was the displacement of Chechens in the USSR because Stalin was afraid of their nationalism and nationalisms in general; but again it was Stalin and this was denounced and reversed by Khrushchev after Stalin's death.

Average french moustache

What are you getting at

Idk because I did and continue to do this and it works; and I see plenty of older people who have socialized a lot and are neurotic. Because socialization isn't just about humans but objects in general, it's the "territorialization" as Deleuze would say so in fact socialization happens everywhere and all the time; when you vape your watermelon-flavored e-cigarette you're socializing with it.

That's about me

https://webmshare.com/play/5JObn

Indeed Lenin made a mistake; he should have pulled the elder wand out of his ass and fixed the collapse in production caused by World War I, the Civil War, and the droughts. Meanwhile in the following decade Stalin's USSR experienced has been the greatest growth in population, living standards, and industrialization in modern history with the semi-planned economy of Deng Xiaoping's China. And you say this as if I were some great defender of Lenin; all I did was post a book of his that addresses the issue raised by OP.

It was a giant, cold, reactionary shithole under a constitutional monarchy. Russia did not become the Soviet Union; the Soviet Union was a federation like the United States, and Russia was a state. The Russian Soviet Socialist Republic

With a harpoon

What do you mean.

De facto of nothing because Imperialism is just a word to which we give a meaning and I've been using the one given by Lenin this whole time. The topic is about the invasion of states by the United States for their resources; I posted this book because it is what Lenin was talking about when using this term; and there is no hypocrisy because the invasions of the Soviet Union—whatever one may think of them—have no pecuniary interest. In the sense of personal benefits for a class of people. The United States wages war because of lobbyists; that's essentially what Lenin described. There were no lobbyists in the Soviet Union, nor was there ethnic domination. Here you're associating warmongering with imperialism; but we don't care what you think because we're not playing with the notion of imperialism you have in your head, but with Lenin's one. Just because you stop waging war doesn't mean production will magically rebound; the USSR wasn't operating in a war economy like it was against Germany. But as you yourself say, there is a geostrategic interest in these interventions. It's a case of "the end justifies the means," as Trotsky would say.

And you have the right not to know how to read. I didn't deny that Lenin was an interventionist and invaded states; I denied that it was for imperialist purposes.

Vladimir Lenin; the most known communist thinker after Marx and Engels; and the one who sponsored rusian revolution and who ruled URSS some years before dying.

There was an invasion of the new Polish state in an attempt to impose Bolshevism. We can think what we want of this intervention but imperialism is a spoiling venture; which was not at all Lenin's objective.

https://www.amazon.com/Imperialism-Highest-Stage-Capitalism-Vladimir/dp/1614271909/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=MUVICS68G54L&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.DxLGVrO7wuaTdbf4tnmcXTO_Qtc4uSOwf6mJcqhs-OKNAh0xndffXlkRAVlaMQdjMV-19-kkTA4kJq92ceiAsMbRryFWr6YybA106XD8EftxOLewjDkDPnwdfNZ1hWF6cuwYRHL9-Zb0rktfNI_WG_LIMX31uYMeWUYAN1W8aI_dhKwACfGzmJiwoV9jnX4XqJ3p66NBP1WvOtih7lhL5Q.cyF8pqaHuKIRQw6Yeb0jyL32hEOnjWWD3wNjjEnb3kY&dib_tag=se&keywords=Imperialism%2C+the+Highest+Stage+of+Capitalism&qid=1766087829&s=books&sprefix=Imperialism%2C+the+Highest+Stage+of+Capitalism%2Cbooks%2C472&sr=1-1 🎁

It looks like some kind of lame cope.

Your post literally says “ I want my object of desire now” That's overestimating your abilities. Like you're being falsely modest, but what's behind this mental structure is the belief that you should normally be able to do it and that it's not normal.

I'm coming to join you in Brazil. To me the big butts

And you have no example to support what you say I mentioned Sadghuru because he's the only yogi I know, and he is ultra active. I also sometime watch Rupert Spira and he does videos, he is a normal person. He's not exactly a spiritual master, but I'm reading Deleuze right now; he was gentle and a communist, and probably the greatest philosopher of the 21st century. The only one I can think of who can get close is Ken Wilber, who's also a regular guy, active on YouTube, and has written a lot of books. Joe Dispenza ! That you like too. So I don't know what you're talking about; there is a confusion here.

Yes! But that requires time, money, and good mental health. So it's social.

Precisely; because wearing a blazer and being unkind is not a man's thing, it's a boss's thing.

Being an idealist means believing that ideas ultimately shape social structures and conditions, rather than the other way around (materialism). One could say that as a non-dualist I am ultimately an idealist myself; but what is implied in the ideas of idealism and materialism, as they are usually understood as philosophical concepts, is the separation of signifier and signified. You emphasize the signifier—that is "white people," "women" or objets like that—whereas I target the signified which is the collective subject; and i assume the nature of the collective subject is essentially social. Therefore there's no point in talking about "whiteness"; "whiteness", "patriarchy" etc is simply what happens when we industrialize.

Sadhguru is one of the most active people for his age. Most spiritual leaders are normal.

The problem for me is that you're completely idealistic; that is to say you're essentializing collective subjects. There are certainly biological differences between Black and White people, but if it had been the Malians who initiated the Industrial Revolution, and if women were more muscular than men in that agrarian then industrialized world that demands greater physical strength, preferably not being pregnant and greater empathy for children, then Black people would also have lost their religion, they would have become capitalist and imperialist, and there would be a "matriarchy" with men who criticize it for the same reasons. So I am not anti-feminist or against anti-racism per se, but if as I believe since I come from Marxism, it is the material question, the distribution of wealth, that essentially influences collective subjects and their relationships with each other; then this framework for interpretation is useless and will tend to create hostility; since it suggests that it is the fault of men, of white people or whatever if something happens, because of their essence or because of what is "contained in them" for "some reason".

It's paranoia. https://fr-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Hypertrophie_du_moi?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp