I've heard it described as feudal by some, however, I've heard many others claim that the system predates feudalism for social organization, and constitutes some weird mix of primitive communism and feudalism. Now, this doesn't really sound right to me, so I wanted to ask what others thought about the economic context and society surrounding the organization of society based on scottish clans.

I had this question proposed to me recently, and thought I would give it my best shot. I would love any input you guys have on how I can refine this further, make it more clear, more accurate, more succinct, all that.

Also, this is specifically geared towards Marxist-Leninists and Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, and that understanding of dialectics, just to be clear. I'm not interested in the hyper-orthodox understanding of dialectical materialism.

I don't understand the ins and outs of gravity perfectly, but here goes.

Internal contradiction is what drives all things. This is true for gravity, as much as anything in the world. Gravity could then be analyzed in the framework of the contradictor forces within gravity. What would those forces be?

Well, Einstein's general relativity is probably the best place to start. I will outline the two contradictory forces below.

Again, I don't know a ton about the in's and out's of it, but the way I see it, there are two sets of contradictions at work in "gravity".

First, the contradiction of Mass and Spacetime Curvature. We have the force of attraction, where masses attract each other, but contradictory to that, we also have the resistance of compression, where the curvature of space resists this attraction.

Second, we have the contradiction of Inertia and Graviational Pull. Objects resist changes to their existing state of motion, but the force of attraction seeks to change the motion of objects

In the case of general relativity, I would say the first contradiction is the primary one, since that relationship is what defines the attraction between masses, and the resistances between each one. I would say the second contradiction is the secondary one, since it's still crucial for understanding how gravity works, but, it explains the result of gravitational attraction, rather than the fundamental cause of it.

In the case of the primary contradiction, I would say that the force of attraction is the primary aspect of the contradiction, over resistance to compression, since the attraction of mass to itself is the fundamental reason why spacetime is distorted in the first place. In the secondary contradiction, gravitational pull is of course, the primary aspect there.

Let me know what you think, and thank you.

Been trying to learn about both color revolutions in recent history, as well as the Mongolian People's Republic, but both seem rather scarce on info. Was the protests that led to the collapse of the Mongolian People's Republic as big of a scam as the events that led to, for example, the USSR?

I've heard that 'One Divides Into Two' as a foundational idea in Dialectical Materialism, and I feel like i understand dialectical materialism relatively well. But I'm confused as to why 'Two Combines into One' is not correct? Isn't a foundational idea of dialectical materialism how contradictions are resolved? Why isn't that the same as combining into one? And how is the resolution of contradiction a division into two?

Thanks!

Is this a misguided idea? That different ideologies, such as 'vanilla' Marxist-Leninism are more applicable to more industrialized countries, or perhaps countries closer to the imperial core, while ideologies such as MLM are more applicable to the most imperialized, agragrian/feudal countries of the world?

I think since having become divorced from religion (at least with Christianity, I still find Dharmic spirituality interesting, but I still don't believe in the supernatural), the idea of death has become a bit more difficult for me.

I tell myself that I am okay with dying, since it's inevitable, and out of my control, but I think deep down, when I really think about the end of my existence, there is some deep terror there, perhaps related to the fear of the unknown. I can think of all kinds of fantastic quotes about death and finding peace with it, but when I think about what it will feel like to die, it instills great terror within me.

It's not even a fear of the pain or anything. Just a fear of what may or may not be next. I think part of it too is some sort of fear of missing out. A fear of not getting to see the great things that are to come in this world. A fear of not having the time to learn the innumerable interesting things that there are to learn. So much to learn, and so little time. I think it also has to do with the thought of being forever separated from my loved ones. From my partner. From the person who I share my life with and have created my life with. Imagining being separated from her for an eternity, it brings me to tears.

Interestingly, this is a fear I've always had, ever since I was a child. I remember being 4 or 5 years old and asking my dad what happens after death, what death feels like, where my friends will go after death, and remember him becoming almost frustrated with my questioning, because these are obviously answers he doesn't have and are honestly fairly strange thoughts for a child so young to be pondering.

For some reason, death has always been something on my mind since I was a child, and a very emotional thought at that. I think my brief stint of being religious from early childhood into mid-teen years was an emotional 'band-aid' of sorts, but since I've come to the conclusion that I truly don't know what death will feel like or what will happen after death, these thoughts have again started racing through my head, giving me moderate emotional discomfort.

Have any of yourselves come to term with death? How have you managed to find peace with it besides "just don't think about it"?