Lawrence of Arabia, Paul Atreides, and the roots of Frank Herbert's Dune (2021)

I never said Koreans in general have a slave mentality.

I was saying North Korea is akin to a slave society. In terms of the organization. The other Communist regimes were like this too.

That's funny, because in that supposed slave society workers ('slaves') had more rights than in some capitalist societies. In fact the status of common workers was artificially elevated over anyone working with their brain like management, engineers, scientists or physicians. Lawyers were thought to be unnecessary and soon removed from the society. There were proverbs like 'everybody has work but nobody is working' (because everyone had to be employed, and essentially every employer was a state enterprise or bureaucracy, so no managers with good incentives and very little possibility to force people out), and 'the one who does not steal is robbing his own family' because again nobody in the state enterprises had incentives not to steal, even though it was of course a criminal offense. I know all of this because I lived in one and mention all of this to explain that this is not at all what I would imagine as a slave society.

And it all failed not because 'slaves', it failed because (1) it was planned, and when it was clear the plan is failing, the plans were not shelved but doubled upon, 5-year-plan after 5-year-plan. And (2) it was planned from Soviet Union, centrally, with high preference on weapons, not on normal economy. So the economy was failing on very basic levels and it was not fixable from within, because again the incentives were all wrong. (3) the people had some ways to see that lives are way better in the West and they wanted that. (4) so the system tried to give them some of that but the economy got even worse, and it was either hardliners will take over and make the whole Soviet bloc like NK or (5) Gorbachov said he will not stop anyone leaving the Soviet bloc and that was the end.

And I'm not contesting the fact that NK society is organised as a slave one. But it's not true about the other communist countries.

> I think the issue with Marx is he was an excellent analyst of the status quo.

He really isn't. His analysis of Capitalism was terrible. Pretty much all empirical prediction were either provably wrong or are so nebulous and uncertain that they can never be proven or unproven.

While initially economists were very interested in his writing and read it with great detail, after his complete inalienably to follow up the first Capital, and tons of people point out issues, all issues that he had no credible answer for, only then did economist stop listening. And he was from then on almost exclusively used to inspire social theories.

His best friend had to organize contest with prices in order to crowd source ideas about his ideas could be fixed, and that didn't work.

Even many Marxist inspired economist do not use most of he frameworks, or have modified them so much that they can barley be called the same.

His success was far more that people felt like he said something that was right, because that's what people wanted to hear. His function was that of a public intellectual that gave voice to a movement, that is valuable in his own right, but arguably he massively influenced that movement in the wrong direction massively hurting the actual goals of most people in the movement.

His historical method is absolutely dreadful, its arguably even worse then pure great man theory. When he lived there were already many far better historians with better methods.

His actual history, therefore was also completely nonsensical. Completely over focus on a narrow slice of western history only to then endlessly backpedal when literally everybody all over the world told him how wrong he was. But he never actually came up with a something better.

> source?

Its in his private letters to Engles, I don't remember witch one. These were not published initially for obvious reasons. But should be findable.

> I'm afraid it does. Or maybe at least the execution, if not the idea: There is currently no democracy on earth that is not at least a little bit socialist. And the same is true for nationalism.

No it doesn't, all the ideas for democracy, and modern social democracy can and were arrived at independent of marxist communism.

Nothing that you call 'a little bit socialist' is actually socialist. State intervention in the economy is something every empire had done threw its whole history. The same to a lesser extent for social program.

Of course these ideas were influenced by the history of socialism as well. But so is everything by everything else.

If you actually look at the world that most socialist thinkers before and including Marx, its not that much like Denmark.

You're welcome :) Another thing to keep in mind is, it's very adaptive to have prescience. See the tiger before it comes. Where there might be trouble is if the tap is turned on too much - no training, no framework, no strategy for handling it, maybe even no recognition of what it is - as it sometimes is in people. Then you might be overwhelmed, confused, and maybe fighting back - against something that actually could assist you were you to wield it properly.

I think most people have some amount of this, and have avoided the necessity and possible difficulty of handling it, by it being subconscious - their "gut" - (which is not always this, and may sometimes just be "analytical intuition" rather than "intuitive intelligence"). This arrangement gives them both "plausible deniability" if they want to dismiss psi in general, and protection from responsibility to develop it - which could entail tricky feedback loops etc without proper training.

So it's certainly evolved with us and is very adaptive, but I think the expression is mostly as a "subliminal subsystem" of your normal capacities. Just like training in subtle awareness can make you aware of things you might normally not pay attention to nor realize you have control over (such as heartbeat and breathing), it can also surface this.