- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Communism is something very specific, socialism comes in many forms. You can be a socialist and not a Marxist, but socialism is primarily the transition phases towards communism. There is room however, for different systems to be conceived of which cannot be called communist but can be considered a new form of socialism like the RBE. Marxist theory is socialist and communism is a form of socialism as well, but not all socialists are marxists and communism is only one of many forms of socialism, so the term "marxist" or "communist" and "socialist" are not interchangeable. "Socialism" is basically everything on the 1/4 of the political spectrum that is furthest left. But everything from social democracy to center-right politics can have bits and pieces of socialism to varying degrees. Socialism is simply when the resources and land are owned in common, rather than by the state or by private individuals or institutions. Communism is the most extreme form of that where no systemic political or economic hierarchy exists whatsoever. RBE is communism with the added concept that in the future the way humans think will be entirely different and we will no longer have terms like "belief" or "opinion" and instead of relying on our own subjective conclusions and "making" decisions we will arrive at them through methodology. Thus institutionalized authority will be replaced with reason which can only be achieved if the new way of thinking becomes a part of the global culture, and is taught to everyone in the same way that humans universally have laws and taboos ingrained in their cultures.
So in sum, Marxists are socialists by definition, but socialists are not marxists by definition, because Marxist theory is about the progression of society towards perfect equality and socialism refers to varying systems which are on the more collectivized/equal side of things.
I would first like you to fully elaborate on what you believe Plato's Republic to be
It was sort of a hybrid between a republic and feudalism and capitalism and was very authoritarian in certain ways but libertarian in others.
difference is between a Progressive and a Social Democrat.
A social democrat is someone in the transitionary space between capitalism and socialism. "Progressive" doesn't actually have a specific place in the spectrum, and is merely a blanket term for leftists who want to take things further left. In that sense even I'm a progressive but I don't call myself one because it doesn't actually mean anything in and of itself.
I would like you to define the words 'context' and 'application'
Context is how a statement or situation is framed, for example if you say "I want to fuck that chick" while standing over a chicken coup the context is not the same as if you say it while staring at a girls buttocks.
Do these things and you will get permission to gain more wisdom of mine.
Your arrogance will be your down fall.
at least it seems reasonable to believe the universe does exist, though some might disagree
Things obviously exist, even if this universe is a simulation or something, so still the problem remains.
I don't think paradoxes (at least of this sort) can actually exist in reality
It's funny you say that, because I think that literally everything is a paradox and every truth comes with it's polar opposite.
Many people believe in some sort of un-caused first cause, like a God
That makes no sense, especially as an argument for God. If uncaused things can just pop out of nothing it could be anything, who's to say it would happen to be a sentient and omnipotent spirit creature or not?
I never know when I should use a capital 'G,' but certain members of this site will freak if I don't
Technically God should be capitalized because it is both a name and a title.
This would be a supernatural being, so they wouldn't necessarily be bound by natural laws like cause and effect
Something existing without being caused is like something having weight without having substance. But apparently something existed without a cause, and that something is the basis and substance of all that exists. In fact it is still creating things out of nothing, like the virtual quantum foam particles that pop in and out of existence.
which I think seems to be a natural law rather than a logical law
The way I see it nature (i.e reality) is what defines what is "logical". And mother nature is telling me that she doesn't make any bloody sense and that true logic is the opposite of logic. Logic is illogical.
Physics around the Big Bang gets really weird
It was infinitely small and infinitely large because the singularity was everything yet it was nothing, it was the infinitely dense center of nothing and the whole nothing and everything was embodied by a single cell inside of itself that formed the beach of the ocean of paradoxes as one spec of sand that multiplied itself infinitely.
we simply can't trust our intuition about the nature of cause and effect and time and all those things when it comes to that. For example I don't think it makes sense to say "before existence." Given the weirdness it makes sense to withhold judgment, even if you're an expert in the subject.
I agree about cause and effect, that is why it is a paradox. It doesn't just not make sense to us, reality itself doesn't make sense even by it's own rules. Thus logic is illogical and the greatest truth is also the biggest lie. We have a fabric underlying everything we see made of microscopic paradox balls (particles) that pop in and out of existence randomly and only take specific trajectories when they are observed.
Isn't it obvious? An effect needs a cause but when you backtrack all the way back to the first effect that was caused that caused existence itself to exist there is nothing that could exist before existence to cause existence therefore the universe is effectually a causal paradox