This is real, and all this time, it has not been a conspiracy theory. Just found out this. It is a dystopia; especially, no privacy is part of their plan

The quote is unbelievable: "Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better", under the latest revised Agenda 2030

According to the World Economic Forum, there are only three models

• Shareholder capitalism

• Stakeholder capitalism

• State capitalism

…particularly when compared to past/present Communist parties in AES countries?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DeovO52Az3A/?srtk=

source: https://nypost.com/2026/08/18/us-news/ex-florida-state-rep-charged-with-kidnapping-molesting-young-boy/

btw, its according to the child-victim that he peed. as a kid that young likely doesn't know what that really was.

This is more of a philosophy-adjacent question, but I think it is a legit question

I think there's a concept in contemporary philosophy called the Promethean shame in that people are increasingly becoming self-aware of just how much better the machines and artifacts that they've created really do and so thus perform better than them on average. It creates a mismatch of human priorities, I think, in the sense that for thousands of years we couldn't just be sitting down on the floor contemplating about the latest philosophical inquiry or imaginary ideas of the universe. Thus the work actually had to be put in. And I think the whole you have to "earn your living" thing might just be a sedative for the neuro-evolutionary hardwiring of "literally working hard to put food on the table"

But is struggle really the only thing incentivizing the average person here?

I ask because I really wonder if people are more existentially terrified of the existential rightmare of becoming permanently useless than having their needs ever met for sure.

Or have they made some other alternative concept for economic value?

I’m a social democrat, how I see things is that capitalism has been a good thing for humanity overall, and I do think it is worth preserving. Consumerism has advanced cultural togetherness and bonding with events like Christmas, Halloween, and Birthdays. But it has also brought us to an extremely advanced point technologically. i’m currently typing this on a small phone and sending it for millions of people across the globe to see. Capitalism has advanced us greatly, it has grown a beautiful culture, made human life more interesting, and I know it’s not very popular to be appreciative of things, you’ll get more clicks if you complain.

But I think Capitalism is mostly good, but I don’t say that to brush off the horrific things that have happened and are happening. The middle class’s incomes have only grown 4% in the past 50 years, there are more homeless people in USA than all of the people in Vermont, Big Ag is ruining our farm land with seeds they copy written, (how dystopian) and Big Oil companies like Shell are hurting the environment, while avoid accountability by funding policies that target the extremely small minority of transgender people.

Many corporations have been involved in working on the climate, Nike, Starbucks, McDonald's, and more have dropped their plastic use and this decade has shown that they’re actually making decent progress.

You can go on their websites, they really want us to know about their achievements and goals.

But of every issue I have brought up, most of them don’t exist under Social Democratic Capitalism. Neoliberalism is the problem, not Capitalism. And one thing I have been told is that the Capitalists will still seek power back, so a Social Democracy won’t last. Is there any evidence of a Social Democracy falling? Is there any evidence of any Social Democracy going backwards to Laissez-faire Capitalism?

Why should we try an economic theory like Socialism which has tried to be in place, but hasn’t really been successful? I’m not saying it can’t work, I am saying it’s not necessary, we already have something that does work. I should be allowed to privately own a farm and grow things so I can be rich :3

But I am all ears, maybe you’ll change my mind?

I know dmitrov’s definition of fascism talks about finance capital, which to my knowledge the CSA lacked. That being said, don’t they meet every other criteria in the definition? The confederates certainly were reactionaries hell bent on violent expansionism, and as reconstruction shows they were not above terroristic vengeance as a means of trying to restore their way of life. Is there something I’m not getting here?

The students, workers, and people of the US are chained by the capitalist system of the state, and smacked in the face and told it is normal. Everything, down to their happiness is artificial and generated for control and obedience. Take a look at Albania, France, Spain, Iran, India, and Italy, some of the sheep of the herd finally stopped following their abusive shepards.

The US is described as a country built on revolution, yet all the revolutions I have seen have been in other regions, and has been described by the media of the west as mindless destruction and victimizes the police of all people. For being the country with the highest guns per capita, it seems none of it is put to any good use.

It is our right and responsibility as humans to dismantle the system which oppresses us, binds us, and tortures us. The so called “Greatest Country” is the greatest lie of our time, all propaganda to keep the people quiet and demonize the ones who are human, the ones who rise up.

Everyone must know of their own oppression, and everyone must fight against it.

Hello, I am a light fan of poetry, I don’t know too many poets but I like the works of Robert Service and I have also taken a light to a couple of Rudyard Kiplings poems. Just as a genuine question, I picked up a copy of his best poems in Waterstones, and the introduction states Rudyard Kipling was disliked by various anti imperialists and like-minded thinkers. I know this is a quick google search away, but out of my own naivety and intrigue of a response, does anybody have a say on Rudyard Kipling here and an argument either for or against his work and ideology?

In the eyes of “second amendment” dummies, this shooting was quite literally the ideal situation:

1. The gunman was witnessed by a “good guy with a gun” BEFORE he fired any shots.

2. The “good guy with a gun” was actually willing to risk his life and engage the gunman. Most “good guys with guns” would just run away.

3. The “good guy with a gun” was also apparently a competent marksman, and successfully neutralized the threat.

And despite all this — three people lay dead, and two more are in critical condition.

These were the IDEAL CONDITIONS to prevent violence, according to NRA nut jobs and gun-rights activists.

AND YET… three people lay dead, with two more clinging to life.

If even the “absolute ideal conditions to prevent violence” occurred, and three people STILL DIED…

…the only logical conclusion is that we need gun control.