LithoGraphica - User contributions [en]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-BandasManyReasons

2026-05-27T00:14:23Z

ICFIReporters: copy markup from BandasManyReasons

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Banda's 27 reasons|User=RD|E=Q618|Contents=y}}
== Main entries ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=Z1/IV/ML|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{article|27 Reasons Why the International Committee Should Be Buried Forthwith and the Fourth International Built}} (Banda 1986) [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/heritage/33.html] [https://www.marxists.org/history/etol//newspape/sn/Fourth%20Internationalist%20inc%20Socialist%20Newsletter%20Special%20Bulletin%20Feb%2086.pdf] -> (note: I can't find the original article right now, but these articles date it to 1986)

{{li|I=Z1/IV|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{book|The heritage we defend}} (North 2018) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/06/21/heri-j21.html]

{{li|I=Z1/IV|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{article|M. Banda embraces Stalinism}} (North) [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/heritage/33.html] [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/heritage/34.html] [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/heritage/35.html]

</li></ol>

== Motifs or claims (Banda) ==


== Related ==




== Ideologies or fields ==

* (none)


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

Research talk:5c/IFCI/DwightMacdonaldAbandonsHistory

2026-05-12T04:07:43Z

ICFIReporters: Dialectic of Enlightenment is an expression of petty-bourgeois intellectuals' despair

{{NickelBank| article title |h2 = article title
|nickel = IFCI/DwightMacdonaldAbandonsHistory |Contents=y}}

<dl class="wikitable hue">
{{HueRoster|P=author| {{E:Q46,02|ICFI reporters}} }}
{{HueRoster|EP=P34| {{E:Q41,04}} }} 
{{HueRoster|EP=P35/TS| {{E:Q618/ES|critical theory}} }}
{{HueRoster|P=date| -- }}
</dl>

=== Links ===
* WSWS: {{a|datetime=|href=https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/frankfurt-school-postmodernism-politics-pseudoleft/05.html}} 

=== Nickel usage or significance ===
* (fill in later)


== Motifs or claims ==
=== Motifs or claims (North) ===
<ol class="hue clean reset">


{{li|start=y|I=S2/W/IV|tradition=IV onto UM|Q=618|Q2=618}}The NPA is an opportunist party (2012) / As of 2012, the {{abbr|NPA|title=New Anti-capitalist Party of France}} is essentially an opportunist party; its unwillingness to turn against imperialist military actions in Libya and Syria is one sign of its class alignment (North 2012)

{{li|I=S2/A/IV|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}State capitalism was neither (North) / In the theory of "state capitalism", neither "state" nor "capitalist" was used in a Marxist sense; because Marxist revolution was disagreeable to anarchists, "state" was used to describe domination and "capitalism" was used to describe the shape of domination and coercion

{{li|I=S2/HM/IV|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{book|Dialectic of Enlightenment|rem=Horkheimer & Adorno}} is an expression of petty-bourgeois intellectuals' despair

</li></ol>
=== Motifs or claims (pseudo-left) ===
<ol class="hue clean reset">

{{li|start=y|I=Z1/W|tradition=LR, UM|Q=618|Q2=618}}New Anti-capitalist Party of France (NPA)

{{li|I=S1/W|Q=618|Q2=618}}we leave all strategic debates about taking power, dual power, and transitional demands for future conferences / Unlike the LCR, the NPA however does not resolve some issues, it leaves them open for future Conferences ... ({{book|New Parties of the Left: Experiences from Europe|rem=Bensaïd, Sousa, Thornett, et al.|pp=40}}, 2011)

{{li|I=Z1/HM|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{article|The Root is Man}} (Dwight Macdonald)

</li></ol>


[[Category:Nickel links (NickelBank)]]

Research talk:5c/IFCI/DwightMacdonaldAbandonsHistory

2026-05-12T03:58:54Z

ICFIReporters: copy markup from other nickel

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

2026-05-12T03:04:57Z

ICFIReporters: Dialectical-materialist analysis of Trotskyism is nothing without past history

<h2 id="section-proposed4">Unsorted Items (page 4) {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset">

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}Dialectical-materialist analysis of Trotskyism is nothing without past history / You cannot do dialectical-materialist analysis of the processes within Trotskyism without knowing the overall history of Trotskyism and Leninism over the past century and how each moment in history has shaped subsequent sets of conditions; if analyses do not make use of previous conditions they will distort the dialectical method (David North 2012) [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/frankfurt-school-postmodernism-politics-pseudoleft/05.html]

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}The euro has not successfully unified Europe / Inasmuch as it is still unstable and having crises, the euro has not successfully unified Europe (David North 2012) [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/frankfurt-school-postmodernism-politics-pseudoleft/05.html]

{{li|I=F2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}The bourgeoisie does not rule by force in the United States (Gramscianism) -> I think when there is {{em|still}} such a problem of cops shooting Black people that genuinely isn't even true 
"lavender lads out of the state department". [[E:movie theaters more Fisherist than movies|movie theaters more Fisherist than movies]]. I think a lot of the bourgeoisie supposedly "ruling by ideology" is in fact the bourgeoisie ruling by force and ideology forming in the aftermath.

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}Gramscianism presupposes Fisherism / The Gramscian formulation of Leninism presupposes that "ideological hegemony" can itself rule society

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Class rule is first created inside civil society (Gramsci)

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Surrounding historical context matters greatly for judging Gramscianism

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Gramscianism mourns nonexistent Rhizome / In concept, Gramscianism requires a healthy [[E:stationary Rhizome (schizoanalysis)|Rhizome process]] in order to function in which various workers, Careerists, or small businesses injected or embedded into the structure of capitalism first consistently solidify together into a "community" and then into a solid social-democratic party, and lastly agree to create a stable population structure that can undergo socialist transition, but this overall transition from tiny adversarial movements to social-democracy has become infeasible and easily thwarted due to the sheer level of [[E:creative destruction|churn]] on business territories and jobs in modern capitalism, which prevents Rhizome, "community", or social-democratic parties from even forming

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}Liberal republics reverting to monarchy -> this has happened multiple times in history if I remember right, I want to say that counting attempts at it I can think of at least one success and two attempts. and one of the failures was France! France didn't succeed at the French revolution, it had to try several more times. when this of all things is possible, it seems really weird the Soviet Union would not have been more aware of the possibility of capitalist reversion.

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}reactionaries (French revolution) -> this is often pointed to as one of the first {{em|documented}} examples of reactionaries where people took the concept, separated it out, and labeled it. that isn't to say it's the first example of there ever being reactionaries in world history, but it {{em|is}} to say it's one of people's favorite examples.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}statement considered reactionary in particular population / statement which is considered reactionary in particular country or population in particular historical period -> important for the purposes of constructing an ontology of what is reactionary in what way and why. 
this concept is a little abstract but it's also one where ultimately [[E:'pataphysical reduction (meta-ontology, meta-Marxism)|'pata-reduction]] can be applied to create Materialist models

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Processes unrelated to capital reproduction and inherently related to interpersonal relationships can affect and shape classes / Processes unrelated to [[E:reproduction of capital (Marx)|capital as a process]] and inherently related to interpersonal relationships and physical group-borders between populations or subpopulations ("populational processes", "sociopolitical processes", "cultural processes") can affect and shape classes despite not being from the same scale as class processes and outwardly appearing not to be class processes or related to class processes (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) -> this wouldn't be surprising if you've gone way deep into the weeds of Marx's work and realized how central "relations" or antagonisms between physical objects are in creating classes. but apparently this is a concept a lot of Marxists in Third-World countries don't yet understand. 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Disability actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Autism regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / ADHD regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Racism actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Transphobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Homophobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Anti-colonialism is rooted in colonialism / Postcolonial anarchisms require [[E:endocolonialism (meta-Marxism onto anarchism)|endocolonialism]] to function / The concept of insisting that First World empires can be changed simply by culturally fabricating better culture is dependent on the existence of [[E:bourgeoisie (layer of people that decide everything about culture before culture is widely interacted with; meta-Marxism onto Western-Marxism)|a class of people]] that decides everything about society by claiming territory, determining what will happen within that territory, and tightly controlling social links to that territory, as well as duplicating itself across the land to the point all territory is filled by said people, and it thus becomes that the whole territory of national populations is ruled by "Idealism" or "human will" but only that belonging to a fraction of the human population that is unaccountable to the rest of the population and also perhaps unaccountable to {{em|half of itself}}

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Optimism is believing that everybody ("[[E:IBE|I believe that everybody]]" statements; Liberal-republicanism) / Optimism is the same thing as Idealism

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with pigs (fiction) / Wilbur (generic) / Babe (generic) / Napoleon (generic) / Snowball (generic) -> so for a second I forgot that Babe and Wilbur were different pigs and I was like, which name was the correct name??

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with cats (fiction) / name associated with domestic cats (house cats; fiction) / Garfield (Teen Titans; generic) / Firestar (generic) -> I've been cursed with the knowledge that Teen Titans used the name "Garfield" to imply the general concept of a cat and now you have to be cursed with it too.

{{li|I=S2/GR/MX|Q=618}}Relativity is inherently Communist / Relativity is inherently Marxist / Because Einstein's [[E:scientific model|theories]] of special and general relativity more or less forbid [[E:absolute determinism|absolute determinism]] and in practice only allow for [[E:lambda-calculus determinism|limited]] or [[E:relativistic determinism|relativistic determinism]], relativity inherently promotes the use of naïve dialectical materialism to model the process by which causality leads from past states to future states; this is to {{em|imply}} that relativity promotes large-scale, [[E:dialectical materialism (Marxism)|specific-sense dialectical materialism]] as in Marx but only to outright state that it promotes multivariable functions as opposed to single-variable functions, and [[E:wavemachine logic (meta-Marxism)|wave-machine logic]]

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}China has been effectively attempting to eradicate Uighur language, culture, and tradition (Mia Hasenson-Gross) [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/27/holduk-jewish-leaders-use-holocaust-day-to-denounce-uighur-abuses?ref=hir.harvard.edu] [https://hir.harvard.edu/rated-c-for-censored-walt-disney-in-chinas-pocket/] -> 
so... let's keep in mind that out of 12 million Uighurs, at most 1 million are subject to this 'genocide effort'. that {{em|is}} a high number, but it's also a rather small fraction to be a genocide. in order to be "comparable to Nazi Germany", which is what the director says, it would have to be some 70-100% of Uighurs in concentration camps. but it's only 8%. so it's {{em|not}} comparable to Nazi Germany. 
let's put things in perspective: a bit under 1% of the United States Black population is put in prison. [https://theworlddata.com/percentage-of-black-people-in-prison/] many people are (rightfully) upset about this and consider it already a high percentage, whether they're crazy people like Tucker Carlson or they actually want to help do something constructive to solve the problem. but nobody has successfully drawn up a plan for the African-American subpopulation to become independent from the United States... despite most people across the U.S. political spectrum actually agreeing that the United States government is not serving them well and they deserve independence, either in a positive sense of inclusion or a negative sense of exclusion. one of the big reasons is that it could be the case that there is a greater proportion of people who want to kick them out and basically ban them from the country in that negative sense. if these kinds of people get to dictate policy over another population of people, you basically get Israel; you get an empire that rules over a minority through exclusion and an angry population of minority people who will build a second violent empire and possibly go kill people or destroy all their buildings to secure a safe place to be. so, whether people are able to quite articulate that concept or not, they get afraid of Black people {{em|not}} being ruled over by the United States and its stock of "Joe Bidens" or "White settler leaders" and get really insistent that either the Democratic Party will protect minority ethnic subpopulations and they must be loyal to the Democratic Party regime or that if everybody becomes anarchists Rhizome will somehow glue the country's populations together properly and fix everything. even though the Democratic Party lets Israel go on and {{em|isn't doing anything}} to stop racist cops from profiling Black people and putting 1% of them in prison. so, the Democratic Party versus the Black subpopulation and the CPC versus Uighurs is more comparable than you might think. 
10% is a very high percentage of a group of people to be thrown in prison. I won't deny that. but that's assuming the figure is true and not exaggerated, when it's entirely possible the figure is an overestimate that blows the number up more than twice as big as it really is. this is starting to look like the loose alliance between the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainian SSR. the Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainians each decided for different reasons that if people were suffering while being part of the USSR — despite those two things not even necessarily being related! — then it's good to break a country or political party of people out of the USSR and create something else. this proved to be a really bad decision for both of them. when the USSR was dissolved, as the Trotskyites were unknowingly pushing for, it pretty much liquidated the populations themselves bringing economic destruction and migrations to other countries, not to mention the countries separating and becoming less functional as smaller isolated territories than they were when connected (a point Trotskyists still go on about without realizing their strategies cause it). when Ukraine was made independent, it no longer had any protection from Russia simply deciding to invade it and digest Ukraine and turn it into more Russia. people will complain about "Russification" inside the USSR, but the truth is, the presence of the USSR at least created some possibility for political control over that process and the ability to stop it. if there's no government extending over both Russia and Ukraine, then there's no process capable of telling Russia to stop killing Ukrainians or making those actions illegal; the act of killing Ukrainians becomes more or less just a legal and normal practice. if anyone pretends otherwise, it's all just a smokescreen to hide the possibility that the United States wants to become the unofficial government of Ukraine and effectively turn it into a U.S. territory within a world-sized state, like Greenland is a territory of Denmark despite consisting of 90% Inuit people that should have no interest whatsoever in Danish politics. that's what's being hidden here. the world is still in a warring states period of countries trying to annex other countries to their kingdoms, and nothing has been able to stop it, not the United Nations, not Bolshevism, not people going on and on about anarchism or postcolonial theories. any argument about Xinjiang is one big colonial argument of whether it should be part of China or part of the United States. and let me tell you, the way we treat Muslims in the United States, {{em|you don't want it being part of the United States}}. 
sidenote: the discussion over this kind of stuff changes if you separate "Zinovievists" from "real Trotskyism". if Trotskyists actually created a really big civilization of like 100 countries, it's theoretically {{em|conceivable}} that things like the United States and China fighting over Xinjiang or historically the battle between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union over Poland would be over. however, what Trotskyists don't tell you is that that doesn't really create an end to political discourses over "colonialism" and "oppression", because those conflicts are caused by which groups of people are combined together into populations or separated. so if Trotskyism was suddenly created tomorrow, the kinds of arguments that are going on right now about Black people or Xinjiang would still be happening, they would just be happening in a different form in which people had fully come to understand that you can't just 'remove government' or 'separate populations' to fix a problem and you truly have to negotiate the ongoing {{em|relationships}} between populations recognizing those interactions and relationships as inevitable to actually get the state of one ethnic group bossing around another ethnic group "gone".

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}bolding for spoken emphasis [https://rtaibah.com/2022/10/03/do-not-use-oblique-fonts-for-emphasis-in-arabic/] -> so, I never knew this before, but the Arabic language never developed a slanted style for emphasis. this is probably one of the reasons the italics tag <code>i</code> was semi-deprecated in favor of <code>em</code>: so it can be shown bold in Arabic. you learn something new every day.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX, MZ|Q=618}}Movementism is comparable to a Rubik's cube; many times when a particular identity movement makes progress it inherently sets several other identities back, ordering one side of the "cube" and simultaneously mixing up several other sides -> this to me is one of the biggest problems with Habermas trying to conceptualize social progress as moral evolution. "moral evolution" itself is nearly a zero-sum game, where a lot of people get hurt at every moment

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Fascism is near-synonymous with the bourgeoisie / Fascism is near-synonymous with "the existence of the bourgeoisie"; you can take any statement about "fascism" and simply drop in "the bourgeoisie" to get a hint on how to fix it -> this is awfully revealing when, for instance, people talk about "getting rid of" fascism — you don't say??? 
{{i|14 characteristics of the bourgeoisie}}. yeah, that figures, Marx described 'the ruling ideas' that flood society when a class takes over. {{i|the bourgeoisie can't be reasoned with}}. basically. {{i|if you're not against the bourgeoisie you're with it}}. that one just about flipped from blue to red. {{i|Liberal-republicanism exists to prevent the bourgeoisie}}. wonky, but not wrong, once you've learned about "anarchemistry" and the really weird and contradictory ways Liberal-republicanism tries to make finite things that actually are indefinite. {{i|I'm not a fascist}} = {{i|I'm not the bourgeoisie!!}} honestly, says a lot about why people deny either of these things, it's the same kind of denial because people are so immersed in the water they can't see it. 
you can get pretty far with this. it doesn't tell you everything about each statement but it does help you unpack a whole lot of statements in a horizontal way.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}LLMs are not consumerism / Large language models are, ironically, one of the only things that cannot be termed {{i|consumerism}}, because despite the huge water and land usage on image and video generators, chatbots within the text realm put to use as search engines or "librarians" are one of the only cases within an overall capitalist society where the act of socializing and forming bonds has not been transmogrified into an individual paying a producer or laborer to create a commercial product and then referring to that particular act as "community"; while such things as movie theaters, newly released video games, and animation merchandise are inherently consumerist, large language models ironically are not, due to reasons such as that they involve users interacting with already existing webpages or books which do and are not a social activity in the first place

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618}}example of prescriptive rule (truth value) / obeys prescriptive rule (truth value) -> this is to be used with Wavebuilder combinations in order to add qualifiers of what specific rules a particular Item obeys or fits into; these should usually be put in the "redundant combinations" area given that they are not giving you logical results of the components but are strictly working backward from a result. for example: obeys prescriptive rule + Propositions have four words (English) = (particular Item).
{{li|I=S1/MW|Q=618}}example of project policy (truth value) / obeys project policy (truth value)

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Propositions have four words / Statements have four words; the specific count of four words only applies to the English language / Propositions in German or Japanese should have some maximum number of characters -> this rule emerged informally as I repeatedly tried to cram really long propositions into a few words that would fit nicely into a data table and be easy to remember. three words was often too few and six was often too many but four was about right most of the time. now that it's been going a while, I like it. it's funny how it happens to mirror the long-standing practice of a lot of Chinese sayings, usually idioms, being expressed in four syllables. I've apparently cracked the problem of four word idioms for English without trying to. 
also... I watched this one video that was purposefully making a constructed language where it was impossible for individual words to hold meaning and only an entire sentence could mean something, because the sentence was a hash of a bunch of numbered concepts lined up or something like that. that's almost a real thing with drastically abbreviated propositions — the four words together mean something and each word may mean something specifically next to one of the others but the individual words cease to mean anything by themselves.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Movie theaters are more Fisherist than movies / Movie theaters cracking down on "cam recordings" is a better example of capitalism programming people with its beliefs than any of the actual content of movies -> we have this incredibly stupid contradiction that people have realized that "cops" are bad, but they also have no idea whatsoever that rules are bad and think that culture products actually program people when all they are is the thoughts that are left over after rules are enforced. oh, yeah, and also we believe Stalin's government was really bad for enforcing tyrannical rules but we still don't have any idea that [[E:steel rule|it's the rules that are bad]]. 
I'm gonna make a bold statement: the cop is just doing their job. "ACAB" is not a historical statement describing centuries of events.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}An international Communist program is not a collection of national programs (Bill van Auken) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/09/le6-all.html] -> he may be at least partly right. I mean, even a meta-Marxist program would contain slightly more than a collection of national programs due to the need to get each national program to understand the other ones.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Stalin claiming the other countries were not subordinate to the Soviet Union is basically an Idealist statement as a miscellaneous collection of individual countries has no protection against having to form a herd-of-cats effect in which particular countries or clusters of competent leaders guard the entire thing against the First World

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=618}}History is the progression of conflicting anarchisms (derived anarchist proposition) / Anarchism is non-dialectical by itself but dialectical when it exists in plurality with itself because multiple anarchisms fighting each other will enact the Hegelian dialectic -> this has to be true for a theory based on "freedom" to actually work in real life. you have to have a bunch of discrete named anarchisms where almost all identify themselves as anarchisms but they each decide to fight each other and explode each other to be born because something about the previous one didn't make them feel "free" and so they tried to destroy it in order to create something else they couldn't describe. 
this proposition is both wonderful and terrible. it's wonderful in that I actually now have a working model of exactly why it is that anarchisms are overall so persistent and refuse to give up: anarchisms are not actually against Hegelianism, but they see {{em|themselves}} as the entire Hegelian dialectic. the concept of Stalin trying to model society as local structures transitioning into other structures? {{em|anarchists believe in that}} but they believe that very process right there must take the form of entire Communities burning each other down to create better Communities. it's terrible in that anarchisms will never realize this. they will never realize what they actually are, and they will always act like "freedom" actually is something rather than just an absence and the (sometimes justified) hatred of things they don't like and want to fight.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}No individual human being can be a worker as an individual; as individuals, all human beings are the petty bourgeoisie; human beings become workers if and when they actively integrated into larger structures and cease to be workers when they are removed from those structures -> this problem is part of what sinks basically all Liberal-republican philosophy and all philosophy inside Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republican philosophy is hell-bent on the concept that people really can be considered in isolation, which causes all human beings to conceptualize themselves as petty bourgeoisie, or worse, to actively regenerate the petty bourgeoisie. the concept that [[E:tent of freedom poles|people "have human rights" {{em|as individuals}} and then they come together and have individual human rights as individuals {{em|together}}]] is absolutely lethal to a functioning society.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The "failure" of Wikipedia to provide a reliable source (presumed to be as reliable as grade school texts, not university-level texts) is actually the failure of anarchism, and of a particular kind of named [[E:anarchy (meta-Marxism)|anarchy]] -> I don't know what this particular kind of anarchy is called, but I'll find a name for it eventually. it has something to do with the notion of culture products or information products as open and evolving instead of closed, when their content really should have been closed. (this does not refer to the concept of "open" or "closed" source code, it's a totally different kind of "closed" or "open".) funny enough, the Free Software movement has already figured out how to make Freed things with closed contents — we call them software packages.

{{li|I=S2/Fy/MX|Q=618}}Corporate [[E:art product (economics)|culture products]] are not objects communicated from a director to each audience member, but are in practice generally objects communicated from one fan to another fan; not only is the "artistic vision" of one particular specific individual a ridiculous thing to expect culture products to have, but at the end of the day all corporate culture products are ultimately just pre-made commercial fan fiction -> the way you have to fix the fan fiction problem is so specific. I've had several "solutions" to it that were probably wrong. but I think the crux of it lies here. the most important relationship in the pipeline of culture products is them being passed back and forth between fans. on occasion quite literally when someone hands someone else a Steam code. most of the time a little more figuratively, in the form of let's plays, theory videos, and the construction of alternate timelines. capitalism makes a huge deal out of the sanctity of the corporation for no good reason. ideally what you want is the paid experts completing their task of churning out culture products without a lot of ado about how great or awful the workers are personally for particular actions and decisions, instead they just complete the task quietly and go home, and then you want the fans to be allowed to pass back and forth whatever they want to regardless of whether it has been modified. and you don't want the central party-nation freaking out about the airtight seal between corporation and fans and the fans "wrecking society by doing too much"; that should not be a real offense. instead, if anything, you want the central party simply noticing where the seal is breaking and doing inquiries into whether different kinds of products should be produced. it {{em|might be the case}} hypothetically that the ideal scenario is the seal breaking totally and government not even having to bother re-connecting any of the points of production to formal corporations because there is simply enough stuff that nobody actually has to pay for culture products any more and generally considers them all to cost zero or literally a couple loose coins at a thrift store. 
the last thing you want to see happening (ever) is a "Chinese map fiasco" where people perceive government as a brutal predator that munches on human social activity purely to digest it and start scheming about how to stay out of its mouth because they know everything only gets worse after you fall in. you can never let that happen because the moment it happens the whole of socialist transition will disintegrate. the petty bourgeoisie regenerates in a heartbeat and it happens anywhere and everywhere. you're much more at its mercy than you ever could have realized.

{{li|I=S2/LGBT/PT|Q=618}}Pride is a vice! (Toryism) / LGBT people shouldn't be bold and proud because pride is a sin (is a vice; Christianity) -> this proposition is bullshit but it really is interesting linguistically because it makes you ask how many things "pride" actually refers to. I can think of at least two: A) arrogant overconfidence B) the unwillingness to either trust others or submit to others (the way it was used in Dragon Ball, where I heard it and was just like, is that actually bad though, the kind of people who want you to surrender to them can be cruel and not worth it)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Deleting Mao is Orientalist / Attributing Buddhism or Taoism specifically to "Eastern culture" is an unnecessary act of essentialism, because it proposes that instead of warring states periods (a repeatable pattern made of predictable processes) giving rise to Taoism and Chinese Buddhism, people chose to create Buddhism and Taoism to solve warring states periods {{em|because}} people were inherently Chinese -> I knew there was something that bothered me about people always referring to "Eastern culture". {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} it's this! it's the Idealist interpretation of history that is implied inside it. 
you know what else Asians created to solve warring states periods? Maoism. that is completely different from either Buddhism or Taoism. so what inherent Asian essence is contained in {{em|that}}? {{a|how do you reconcile|E=Hegelian dialectic}} there being at least two {{em|completely different}} definitions of "Eastern culture"?

{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}Japan's only philosophy is Japaneseness / Japanese people do not have [[E:material contradiction (Marxism)|plural philosophies]] repeatable across other countries, they only have Japaneseness {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} -> I am so done with the entire concept of "studying Cultures" because I swear this is how most ordinary people interpret it. they throw around the word "collectivism" like it actually means something and refers to a philosophy, but what they really mean when they say it is precisely "Chineseness" or "Japaneseness". they presuppose that Japanese people have Japaneseness and then they look for more descriptions of Japaneseness to explain why Japaneseness leads to Japaneseness in a circular loop.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deleting Mao from Chinese history / deleting Mao (Liberal-republicanism) -> this is a fun one. you'll see why on the next line. 
memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + the PRC is a bad fake historical period = deleting Mao. memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + Kuomintang = deleting Mao. deleting Mao + medieval fantasy = China is still a medieval kingdom.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Giving money to businesses doesn't help human beings; it only helps business structures and the owners that are conflated with them / Giving money to businesses doesn't help the proletariat -> I like this framing because I think it's arguable it doesn't even really help small owners.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The concept of "race traitors" implies races are physical processes producing necessity / The concept of "race traitors" implies that there is an inevitable destiny for a whole population of Black people just because they are Black, which will be realized through an overall Black population interacting all at once with its surroundings only under particular (non-inevitable) conditions, but will not happen through individuals as separated from the Black population as an indivisible object

{{li|I=S2/MX/DG/A|Q=618}}The United States has the most incentive of any country to get rid of capitalism because it has the most minorities; there are so many distinct minorities that politics itself has come to revolve around minorities, but because each of them contains so few people under such isolation, not a single one of them is going to become free of attempts to exterminate it under capitalism or reformism

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning Malthusianism is genocide / Whenever you choose to say a statement in Malthusianism you have chosen to cause other people to be bigoted {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} -> no... that isn't how it works. as a framework, statements inside Malthusianism could hypothetically be true without all of it being true, so if those are already true and you say them, you didn't cause them to happen. this is like saying that if you predict a box to contain a dead cat when somebody filled it out of sight then you caused it to contain a dead cat, even if the other options are unrelated to cats, like the other option is the box is empty. overpopulation leading to bad outcomes can hypothetically be the case whether you want it to or not, but the important thing to realize is that that doesn't have any bearing on what the actual bad outcomes are. the bad outcomes might not be anything like the simplistic scenarios in Malthus' essays of overcrowding or 'eating babies'. the bad outcomes might look more like an increase in people randomly murdering each other because everyone increasingly feels like everyone else is threatening their existence and they need to protect their existence because 'all individual existences deserve to be respected' {{em|or else}}; despite what everybody wants nobody will yield to anybody else and so people get furious and kill in order to regain control. if everybody's doing that, you don't have control over it; you can't just say "believing in overpopulation is bad" or "if we don't things will get better" to fix it. because when people really truly believe things "Should" work a certain way, especially if that "Should" is an ethical prescription, they won't listen to anything you say until reality magically fixes itself to be that way. people are just going to get angrier and angrier every single day there are too many people and those people are disorganized and attempt with steadily increasing blind rage to punish all the disorganized people that have not been planned or controlled in any way for not being controlled in any way. there's really no "society", "social-ism", "community" -ing out of that situation, because other people's ethical imperatives are not a social construct — you can only obey whatever the {{censor|fuck}} other people tell you to do or risk them doing violence to you... or kill them, I suppose. ethics is an infamously unyielding form of philosophy. if there existed any form of belief where everybody spontaneously giving it up would actually solve all our problems, then everybody giving up the entire concept of ethics would be it. think about it: every right-Liberal who tries to say that accumulating wealth is good relies on property rights, which rely on ethics. every nazi that tries to say trans people are destroying the United States relies on a right to not have this "intrude" on their lives, which relies on ethics. if everyone really actually got rid of ethics, they wouldn't be able to defend bad things either, because the whole concept that individuals can make "correct choices" that are superior to other choices in creating a future they would be satisfied with would be gone. there would be vastly more incentive to question your previous decisions and deconstruct arbitrary beliefs if ethics did not exist at all. "post-structuralist philosophy"? "prejudices" and "biases" that will never make sense as analytical tools once you stop being the person that wrote the paper? how about we just get rid of ethics and accomplish the same thing way better with way fewer problems. 
I think the thing that bothered me the most about this video is.... the Overshoot Theory video I remember from a while back was also leaning on Native Americans. Overshoot man was like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, overpopulation!}} while these people are like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, no overpopulation!}}. it honestly feels like a non sequitur in both cases. I feel like overpopulation genuinely has nothing to do with whether North American tribes 'have lived more sustainably', positively or negatively. the cases where you'd see overpopulation come from a genuinely different kind of society that operates through entirely different material processes. which means you can't analogize a smaller society to it.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}North American tribes are not defined by romantic mystical beliefs {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} -> of course they aren't. but I suspect you're going to have to go have a stern word with a whole lot of anarchists who are busy appropriating everything non-White from the past century they can find just to try to get rid of Whiteness. 
I'm not entirely free of this either because I'm one of those people who started vaguely appropriating {{em|Soviet identity}} on account of how Russians apparently don't want it any more so now it's mine I guess. the situation for White people is just terrible because practically everybody is agreeing that Whiteness has to go (including the fascists who want to revert to medieval empire, in their own weird way) but absolutely nobody wants to step away from Idealism and consider a theory based on really fine-grained "reductionist" changes to material conditions as opposed to one all about "subjectivity" and "ethics", so it always turns into this game of trying to change Whiteness through abstract Ideals or finding a group of people it's theoretically okay to appropriate as a substitute for everyone not being entirely isolated into vulnerable individuals and there actually being any real living individuals for anyone to team up with. I make use of historical theorists of Marxism because they are defined by Materialist models as opposed to cultural identity or experiences and while that's a reason by itself it also has the bonus I can't really turn them into an exotic group distinguished by not being Whiteness that is then hijacked by Whiteness. but that ironically leads to the contradiction that in trying not to appropriate other countries I am still almost exclusively wearing other countries because the United States sucks. 
I'm so done with anarchism because at the end of the day it sort of corrupts Communism too. 
Communism: we will create a scientific model of reality. anarchism: a what??! you mean a cold unfeeling model of reality? Communism: what. anarchism: movements and revolutions only come from empathy so I am going to go talk to some Native Americans. Communism: uh. okay. anarchism: I have learned from the Native Americans that White people have a horrible way of life and I want to bring back secular animism. Communism: oh boy this is going to end badly. anarchism: you say that because you're a coward who isn't willing to question Western biases while I'm the true radical. Communism: uh, no, I say that because ancient religions come from a definite form of society and whenever you try to bring them to a later historical period it's going to look utterly tacky. or, to put it in language you understand, like you are stealing other people's culture for the benefit of Whiteness. anarchism: I would never do that. I believe in the sanctity of all living beings and natural objects because I am connected with the original semiotic and harmonious flows of nature. Native Americans: what the fuck. anarchism: see, I'm deconstructing Whiteness. Native Americans: and all of your summaries of animism amount to racial stereotypes. Communism: yeah, I knew how this was going to go. excuse me while I go read up on the conflict between Mao, Deng, and Alan Woods as something probably more relevant to the United States and less easy to accidentally turn offensive. anarchism: oh, you mean three people aligned with modern civilization, who are practically White? Communism: you have apparently never heard my racist relatives talk about Mao. do you even know what a racist {{em|is}} or do you just immediately swallow whatever new trend academia feeds you? anarchism: oh wow [placeholder]. {{i|(gulp)}}

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}It's easier to imagine a completely fake world in space than the end of capitalism on earth {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} / It's easier to imagine a completely fake world in space, either from the view of the giant galactic empires or the local resistances, than the end of capitalism on earth -> that's completely true. 
but the problem which can never be addressed in a video like this is that every time somebody anywhere says "the end of capitalism" {{em|they imagine something different}} and thus you can never trust that they're actually saying anything insightful or coherent or that people are going to work toward the same goal. saying "the end of capitalism" has become a deepity in some ways

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}It's easier to imagine the end of capitalism than the end of capitalism / It's easier to {{em|talk about imagining the end of capitalism}} without those words actually meaning anything in particular than it is to imagine {{em|an actual end of capitalism}} which is described practically enough that all people who currently belong to any ideological faction can come together and create it barring actual material incentives that prevent them from taking different actions or joining different ideologies -> this is about 10% a troll proposition made because the sentence was really funny to say. but I do think it's true.

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}There should never be new swatches for identity-based movements existing below the national level, except given special reasoning for why those swatches are especially relevant to describing internationalism; this applies specifically to color swatches, not to text-based philosophy tags -> "LGBT" is one of the only identity movements to be granted its own swatch specifically based on identity as opposed to based on its material strategy. 
"Dengism", despite being highly associated with China, is not a demographic identity {{em|inside}} China, it's the whole China, and likewise "Juche-socialism" is the whole North Korea. BlackPantherism is a bit borderline but it passes because of the remark that it could expand over the country and wasn't specifically Black. Trotskyism either spuriously or actually claims to be international, so any argument that it is in fact a demographic identity isn't relevant here as that isn't a mainstream perception of it. "feminism" will not have a swatch because it is easily collapsed into a Liberal-republican interest group and weaponized against trans people. "Muslim socialism" will not have a swatch, although "religious socialism" as a very general category would be closer to being acceptable. "fascism" gets a swatch of some sort; "Italian fascism" doesn't get a swatch. any movement which can actually be defined based on summaries of its material behavior as opposed to culture and can be described as it applies to multiple possible cultural identities is exempt from these rules. "North American Maoism" could have a swatch if it became really relevant and as long as its material behavior can be distinguished from "(Chinese) Maoism" or "(Indian) Maoism". 
"LGBT tradition" is one of the only things that genuinely needs and gets an exception from these rules because it's one of the few things that deliberately draws on demographic identity characteristics themselves to produce generalized philosophy which becomes separate from identity. the concept of "queerness" is tightly tied to identity at first, but then becomes its own thing that can be used to describe the dynamics of several other identities as they relate to the rest of society — autistic identity, mental illness associated identity, disabled identity — which experience a similar exclusion and process of having to decide whether to "stay apart" or "fit in". the "queerness metaphor" has a lot of value in describing other movements, so it's useful to have an LGBT swatch to crystallize and focus on that paradigm as it will be used to vaguely associate to the other movements. 
also. I probably could have picked a different "stay apart"/"fit in" conflict to stand in for all of these, but I liked having an excuse to make one of the swatches a rainbow, so I picked this one.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Every republic is a class society (anarchism) / Every republic is a class society ("hierarchy", spatial class order) because a ruling class must exist to create a republic -> it's this kind of proposition that makes me question if Trotskyism does or doesn't believe in an era of socialism. it really claims to believe in a republic but its insistence on 'getting rid of bureaucracy' and getting rid of borders (which in a roundabout way are one of the reasons an era of socialism exists, because both things exist due to a country being a physical object) makes it bizarrely more similar to the anarchist method of "class analysis" than the Marxist one, and "anarchist class analysis" necessarily leads to trying to do everything Immediately as opposed to on a reasonable time scale

{{li|I=S2/ES/MX|Q=618}}The militant form of Existentialism is when Existentialists kill others that threaten their existence in order to continue existing -> this is one of the many reasons I don't like Existentialism. first, it's thoroughly incoherent. none of its actions are predictable based on combining logical statements or based on anything called "reason". none of its actions are explainable with religious justifications nor morality. it gets super offended when you try to reduce collections of people to inanimate objects but in practice it encourages humans to behave like lions or baboons. we may as well all be inanimate objects for how good this philosophy is. second... it turns brown not even in two seconds, but yesterday.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Killing people who would otherwise kill you is self defense / iron rule ... (censored title) / [[E:Do unto others before they do unto you|iron rule]] (generic) -> hmmmmmmm. A) are they Black people the cops are scared of B) are they midwest Indians in the 1800s C) are they Palestinians D) are they a Bolshevik government attempting to prevent the petty bourgeoisie from creating civil war or imperialism? this is bad exmat because I absolutely saw the fourth one casually tossed out in the same comments section. "Hitler, Stalin, or Mao", they said casually [[E:Nazism and Bolshevism have the same cause|as if it made sense]].

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}History is the progression of generational subcultures -> this is slightly different from the claim that history is the progression of father to son to son or mother to daughter to son to daughter etc., because it is talking about the progression of whole layers of thousands and thousands of people born in the same 5-10 year period, and is not centering itself around individuals or psychoanalysis. it's not psychoanalysis, and instead, it's shifted its entire focus over to art history, the humanities, or the history of an industry.

{{li|I=S2/HAS/MX|Q=618}}History is the progression of successive semi-countable art markets -> I'm a little astounded to find such an Idealist claim and such a Materialist claim in the same podcast right next to each other a sentence apart, but I'll take it. wow. this one is so telling. it accidentally reveals so much about the connection between capitalist theory, the growth of society, and the outward manifestations seen in culture products. 
let's think about this. a 'console generation' forms in order to raise the prices of the products (largely by producing them new), while decreasing the cost of entry. if the discipline is new, it won't be overrun with expensive equipment, stacks and stacks of money poured into expertise, and the prestige of certain brands creating natural monopolies. after a while, all the corporations in a given market have made their money and the products are everywhere such that neither can new corporations make money nor can old ones earn any more. so then the market resets and an entirely new market is created. a bunch of hype goes around to present the new thing as really great although it was created in order for the new products made for it to not have to be very good at first. and apart from video games, this happens for the general concept of mediums and a lot of physical formats. 
honestly. I trust this more than Habermas' conception of history as some kind of progression of morality where what is progress could become entirely subjective; at least you can measure what a sideways progression from one set of events to another {{em|is}}. 
console wars + History is the progression of generational subcultures = this.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}The middle ground between sense and nonsense is still insane / I believe 2+2=4, but in the interest of representing those who believe 2+2=22, my platform is 2+2=11 (counter-claim)

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}The majority of Jews support Israel {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} / Some Jews don't support Israel (counter-claim) -> this observation really destroys anti-essentialism as a path to truth, doesn't it. superficially it seems to support it, but when you look at how the counter-claim is actually used... it's used to defend Idealism as "not always" being fatally flawed while most uses of it at best make it wholly irrelevant to explaining anything. anti-essentialism is often just a back-handed statement that Idealism doesn't actually explain real life, not realizing that in saying that it's slamming the Idealist models it's supposed to save.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Some Jews don't support Israel {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> U.S. people don't know anything but Idealism, the treatment of everything as abstract qualities. so they have to take on "Jews" and "anti-semitism" as abstract concepts. when they do that, it predisposes them to racist understandings of what various ethnic groups "are". so then they bring out the point of "but surely one of them doesn't support Israel" (anti-essentialism) to badly try to prove that Idealism isn't racist. 
it doesn't fix anything of course. Defining everything by what it's not leads you to defend anything and everything including the U.S. military.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Why do United States people want to rehabilitate veterans but punish ICE? {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> okay, that's a good question. 
I think, speaking materially and not ethically, it has to do with which groups of people U.S. people believe that U.S. law applies to. if you believe in Kantianism you need a body of people to legislate onto to hold anybody responsible for (un)ethical behavior. so, people scramble to define who "Americans" are to determine whether government should be rehabilitating them were that a possibility. I think there is a bias toward rehabilitating veterans {{em|just because there is some chance they might vote Democrat}}, while due to their behavior people have a bias toward labeling Republican voters as foreigners. this isn't {{em|just}} stupidity (even if there may be a bit of that too). at some point Liberal-republican parties stop being arbitrary and start turning into entirely separate nationalities that actually don't consent to being governed by each other; the increasing perception of Republicans as "not Americans" and of ICE as a uniquely foreign army stems from actual observed behavior of Republicans slowly attempting to secede from the sovereign realm of Democrat laws, and of the increasing futility of properly governing them.

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}nucleation site (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}} -> a site of crystallization which encourages formation of other crystals. 
has relevance for the concept of modeling social structures changing
{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}substance flipping over from one polymorph to another (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}}

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}anarcho-NATOism
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Imperialism is nonviolent / Anarchism definitionally requires violence; this is to imply and nearly to state that a warlike, potentially genocidal empire is perfectly okay and recommended because of the fact only a few people at the edge of an empire have to fight over borders and most people in an empire are nonviolent {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> you wonder how anybody goes along with "settler-colonialism" and thinks it's a good idea in the first place. this is how. it's actually nonviolence-colonialism. 
Idealism is dangerous to humanity, it really is. 
anarcho-NATO-ism + ?? = Imperialism is nonviolent.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Marxism before the year 2020 has been a theory of ideological segregation more than a theory of social progress -> why is it that walling off whole fortress states has been more effective than trying to spread filaments of radicals inside class societies? I think the example of China and Taiwan {{em|splitting}} and the example of Texas defeating the freethinkers are very instructive on why this happened

{{li|I=S2/A/MX|Q=618}}Despite the observable historical fact that various social structures can transition into other structures, it is generally {{em|easier}} to create any of the later structures humanity invents by starting from scratch rather than from working with structures that already exist, due to the fact that ruling classes are generally the clusters of people that are more inherently powerful and able to conquer and expand than the masses or clusters of people they rule over -> this is one of the best arguments that anarchism and Trotskyism each have going for them. but it's also one of the best arguments for Deng Xiaoping Thought if you don't totally dismiss sublation processes. this gives way to Deng Xiaoping Thought much faster than it justifies anarchism.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Statues and plaques do not actually teach people history

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}Confederate statue as superstructural artifact -> the motif of Confederate statues being more of a "coincidence" spat out of a Social-Philosophical System that just happens to 'believe' them as opposed to being a good representation of the overall process of history

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If the subjective theory of value is true, then why does the value of various cryptocurrencies keep crashing?

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}"Freethinker" is less technical and more expressive than "atheist" {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> goes to show that anarchism really is the default mode of thinking rather than a great new invention. and I hate that. because freedom doesn't mean {{censor|fucking}} anything. it's actually rather obvious what an atheist is, but "freedom" actually is a belief in nothing because it really is just the absence of whatever else it was tossed in against.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist; this is to imply that "extremes" are an abstract Ideal that miraculously spits out more extremes, and Extremes can be eradicated {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> how is it that people come to regard material contradictions as a completely alien event that isn't the least bit familiar to them

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}The United States got away with outsourcing labor because corporations programmed people to want cheap goods {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}} -> so... how is it they successfully did that if it's possible to simply tell people it was done and break it? if people can really be programmed against their best interests that consistently, then why would they listen to you? 
I think people are making excuses for the fact that owners make these decisions and they fundamentally can't control the owners.

{{li|I=S1/W|tradition=W, PT|Q=618}}corporations programming people / the engineering of consumer behavior {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}}

{{li|I=S1/Fy/ML|Q=618}}treating the protagonists of anticommunist fables as unreliable narrators

{{li|I=S2/HM|tradition=IK, HM, ES|Q=618}}Society is held together based on interpersonal subjective moral consensus 
this + Interpersonal relationships can snap at any moment = Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships are no foundation for society because interpersonal relationships are fragile while society must be more durable to successfully exist / Asocialism (generic)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A theory that primarily grounds itself in human sociality ([[E:Socialism (general-sense progressivism)|Socialism]], humanities, Kantianism, secular animism) will eventually become reactionary, because human sociality in and of itself is not equipped to handle the inevitable [[E:separable multiplicity|countable and separable plurality]] of populations that results when human populations exist in the real world; this is to imply that Marxism is not in fact a theory primarily rooted in human sociality as much as one that simply acknowledges it / Asocialism (generic) 
Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality + A theory of society which is not accurate to material reality will eventually become reactionary = this.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) -> this is apparently its own specific thing. it seems it's typically defined in terms of how well the soviets can defend the overall country and any governing bodies against the re-emergence of capitalism.

{{li|I=S2/IV/MX|Q=618}}Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes; soviet structures are not guaranteed to remain orange because depending on their class and preferred palette of social structures the individual national-employees inside them can add together to turn the structure charcoal, blue, or strawberry -> Trotskyism is weird. it has moments where it's totally unconvicing, and then it has moments where after you've been listening to the actually-okay theorists you have to go out of your way to find, it almost sounds like it got something right. this week, I saw that Trotskyists seemed to be describing the dictatorship of the proletariat as control by one big sea of soviets that are responsible for operating all the other organs of government — the thinking is that if all the soviets are made of proletarians and the soviets are orange, the soviets will keep all of the other structures from turning strawberry or any other unfavorable ideology. but then I thought about it for a bit, and I realized that this isn't an airtight strategy. in the real world, proletarians can level up into non-proletarians through small-scale processes, and it happens all the time whenever there aren't enough job slots or people simply don't fit into existing business territories' "culture". it's very easy for a country that's full of proletarians one moment to slowly morph into a country of skilled workers that all want their own businesses but will also complain when the reality of running them is much harder than they dreamed. 
this became apparent to me as soon as I saw Gramsci talking about a council for the "self-employed". that isn't a red or orange structure, that's a blue or strawberry structure. and those kinds of structures can undo a revolution. but it's also trivial for more of them to be produced through misapplied education or training. if the soviets have full control, it's easy for petty classes to rebel against all the orange soviets and start taking control of the whole country through whatever limited ability they have to assemble together groups of people that outcompete surrounding workers. 
dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) + proletarians promoting into Careerists = Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes.

{{li|I=S1/ML/ES|Q=618}}the eclectic gruel of philosophy / eclectic gruel (philosophy) / the pauper's broth of eclecticism which is ladled out in the universities under the name of philosophy (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch01.htm] -> there are some descriptions where you see them and you just know, I've seen this, this is ridiculously relatable across time periods. I haven't read these specific philosophies and yet just by that description I feel like I already have.

{{li|I=S1/AS/HM|Q=618}}moral evolution (critical theory) / Hegelian evolution of morality / historical development of societies as conceptualized around morality or ethics [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/01/habe-a01.html] / procedural theory of rationality (Liberal-republican ethics; Habermas) -> the concept in Habermas of modeling either large or small changes in societies through changes in morality and the resulting changes in society. I'd hate this except that it gets really funny when you apply it to world civilization and actual changes between historical periods, revealing a lot about how imperialism works; in a way, it's so bad it's good. I guess that's about what you should expect to get when you start with Hegel. Liberal-republicanism is frustrating but Hegel really isn't so bad in the end.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deformed Liberal states / degenerated Liberal states -> the motif of Liberal-republican countries looking at other nation-states and regarding them as deformed versions of themselves that need to be punished until they form correctly. 
deformed Liberal states + moral evolution (Trotskyism) = deformed workers' states.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Morality itself tends to favor a world of "small business hell" simply because the assumptions that lead to people creating morality {{em|happen to lead there}} and all Idealist statements when put together spit out some kind of real-world consequence -> I find it frustrating that people will start from a set of arbitrary Ideals and then just deontologically assume that if those Ideals are good then whatever they produce must also be good. to me Habermas' theory of moral consciousness just doesn't make sense as a material theory of history because in one way all moral or ethical values are always arbitrary; there will always be a point where people assume that what they're currently doing is morally good or superior just because it's the thing a lot of people are doing and none of them want to stop doing it while any other group of people must be morally bad just for doing a different thing that threatens to replace that thing, even before they actually demand other people trade in what they're doing for the new thing.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Idealism produces material outcomes / All Idealist statements or combinations of Idealist statements lead to some kind of real-world consequence -> there are many ways to take this. one of the surface conclusions is that Idealism isn't as explanatory as Materialism. one of the most interesting conclusions is that you can "meta-game" Idealism and figure out the best Ideals to tell people in order to get them to create particular material results. this {{em|is}} essentially lying to people to manipulate their behavior, which if it were up to me I don't really like, but a lot of people believe that most human beings' understanding of the world will never go above that level, which might make it ethical under some theories of ethics.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Prejudice and structural inequality are not the same thing; getting rid of prejudice does not necessarily get rid of structural inequality [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough] -> well. I have to agree with this. I'm puzzled why anarchists in general aren't better at understanding this. but the blue anarchists did get something right.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Contact between populations reduces prejudice when four conditions are met: 1) equal status within the contact situation 2) common goals 3) cooperation 4) support from authorities or social norms (Allport 1954, Pettigrew) [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Negative contact between populations has a greater observed effect than positive contact [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S1/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}analytic thinking as opposed to holistic thinking [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I always wondered why it was called analytic philosophy. is this why?

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}{{abbr|tts=Weird|WEIRD}} countries [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I like this acronym in that most of it makes sense except the "Western" part. I have no idea what that means. is Japan Western, or is it not? there are good arguments both ways. this is why I prefer saying "First World countries".

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer review auditing -> the motif of sending bogus articles to academic journals in hopes the reviewers will catch the problems
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer-review auditing feminist journals [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/18/inte-o18.html] / peer-review auditing gender studies journals 
peer review auditing + gender studies journal = this.
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=IV onto ES|Q=618}}feminist Mein Kampf [https://norskk.is/bytta/menn/our_struggle_is_my_struggle.pdf] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] -> wow. they really should have caught that. I.... have to read this at some point because that sounds like the best one. 
...it's online? oh wonderful. this is very opaque and hard to read. I guess that's how they got it through.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}SEP's analysis of "Stalinism" -> that's... its own specific thing? okay.

{{li|I=S2/ES/MX|Q=618}}If the value of money is culturally fabricated ("made up"), but anarchism can realize itself through a sea of individuals spontaneously deciding to create a different kind of society, then anarchism is a cultural fabrication and everybody is free to spontaneously decide not to follow anarchism and follow whatever ostensibly more oppressive system they want to (meta-Marxism onto post-structuralism)

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}today I was "thinking"... / 'today I was thinking—' 'stop that' / 'today I was thinking—' 'you?! I can't believe it' -> the motif of somebody cutting off a statement where somebody was thinking about some specific thing and focusing on the concept of "thinking".

{{li|I=S1/DFy/PT|Q=618}}Eren Yeager / nazi Eren Yeager (in context of imagining different versions of the story based around different ideologies)

{{li|I=S1/DFy/DX|Q=618}}Dengist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was Western-Marxist (strawberry Marxist, Gramscian, Dengist / Deng Xiaoping Thought) -> so, {{book|Attack on Titan}} has a dumb premise. it reads like a campfire horror story told by nazis in very little irony. but it {{em|is}} really funny to imagine some of the same central themes being used in an approximately Marxist work. like, instead of it being a nazi campfire story the titans are trying to scale a "Berlin wall", or penetrate China or North Korea to take them back for Liberal-republicanism, the titans are hiding out on Taiwan, the titans are sealing people into Cuba and not letting {{em|them}} leave. there obviously wouldn't be a focus on the concept of the big antagonist monsters being 'impure' or 'diseased', that element of it probably wouldn't exist. it would just be kaiju trying to break into the country and do something horrifying. it's gotta be a little over the top. it's gotta be about turning them all into kaiju for some nefarious but useful purpose, like, I dunno, the kaiju feed off negativity and if they all turn into kaiju and fight each other the whole population of kaiju becomes stronger. everyone is horrified about the invasion and it brings them all together.

{{li|I=S1/Fy/A|Q=618}}anarchist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was anarchist -> {{em|this}} is why I am having an increasingly hard time telling the difference between Deng Xiaoping Thought and anarchisms. like, once again, anarchism succeeds when you build a wall around it — probably metaphorically — and wait for the outside to tire itself out. I can't tell the difference between Gramscian Eren Yeager and anarchist Eren Yeager. 
oh god when I just go saying ideologies in a sentence of course my brain is going to shout "Trotskyist Eren Yeager". I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means at all. I dunno, like, the enemies are more like Reptilians or Yeerks and they're hiding out in the central government and nobody wants to believe it so the anti-alien squads are like trying to team up across regions? I tried.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality -> anarchists are going to get so upset if you try to argue this at them. they'll try to argue that reality is whatever comes naturally to living things, and different states of natural for each living species must naturally want to go together, blah blah blah. [*] but they're all privileged. they haven't experienced a state of truly being fenced out of society by thousands and millions of people that all simultaneously agree they don't like you (probably without having met you or having much of any idea what they're doing). they especially haven't experienced it owing to the existence of anarchism, because anarchism already selected for people like them. but they should wise up to the fact that anarchism doesn't really pass the veil of ignorance with flying colors. it's quite easy to end up on the wrong side of "community" where you simply have nobody and nothing and also everyone assumes you must be a bad person just because you haven't claimed an exclusive spot in Community that supposedly you only have to be nice to people to get and follow morality though in reality it's much more difficult and complicated and trivial to simply be born wrong and fail to survive the ecological parameters of the 'community-icene'. I think that as a period of biological life the Anthropocene truly began at tribal society, not at industrial society. it was the ability to form entire ecosystems made of nothing but humans that changed things, but {{em|if anarchists are correct}} that the natural state of humans and human psychology is in tribes then all the current destruction of the environment ultimately came from the characteristics of tribes. tribal populations are not wholly innocent for all the horrors of global empire and ecological destruction if at the end of the day we're {{em|all}} still tribes and they're the only ones trying to disclaim that there are bad things about that. really, as crazy as it sounds, they might be accidentally benefiting from a corrupt system that has killed great numbers of people. of course, if humans don't have a seemingly eternal resting state of being in tribes that we have no choice but to return to which in turn implies we are currently tribes in denial and will still be tribes for the next hundred thousand years, then tribal populations carry no blame for what industrial societies have done. 
(* why didn't they say that about workers' states and the healthy state of the Soviet Union versus the very disordered states that occurred at every moment after tearing it apart? they have even less excuse than Trotskyists. Trotskyists wilfully wanting to overwrite another Marxism with their own Marxism is at least logical even if it's terrible.)

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}"Indigenous people" marks a statement as racist / Saying "indigenous people" marks a sentence as containing racial stereotypes {{YouTube|fwecpbB1DPs}}
{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning ethnic groups is racist / Mentioning an ethnic group without mentioning a specific individual marks a sentence as containing potentially-harmful racial stereotypes -> this is what you have to believe for the above statement to be true. like, if "indigenous people" marks a racial stereotype, then saying a more specific group of people like "Inuit" should equally mark a racial stereotype — how does the person you're talking to {{em|know}} that you're giving correct information about all Inuit people and not just saying something false? but if this is true, you couldn't go to Congress and say "Black people" or "Mexican immigrants" for any legitimate purpose without mentioning individuals that supposedly make the example truer. does it actually make statements more accurate to include specific individuals? I feel like it adds nothing but also subtracts nothing. 
this is a really weird criterion for judging whether statements are accurate. I know where it comes from, it comes from people trying to judge everything through positivism and claim that Lived Experiences are a pathway to truth while a lack of Lived Experiences is a pathway to falsity. it's still really weird. it doesn't seem to accomplish the thing it sets out to accomplish at all, and just seems to make all statements said about any group of people more worthy of doubting. "White people have the colonizer attitude"? maybe not!! Ben was doing that, but did you ask Carla?? "Black people experience structural racism"? maybe not!! you didn't mention an individual so in theory you might be racist for even saying that. 
Mentioning ethnic groups is racist + Anti-essentialism is a pathway to truth = Pointing out racism is racist.

{{li|I=S2/ES/ML|Q=618}}Referring to Communists without mentioning a specific individual is unacceptably prejudiced / If mentioning ethnic groups without mentioning a specific individual is racist, which is to imply that talking about groups of people in the abstract rather than as a particular countable number of concrete objects is racist, then mentioning "Communists" or "Cubans" or "people who support Stalin" without naming a specific individual for evaluation is equally prejudiced; every time somebody has said "tankies" or "totalitarians" or "Stalinist(s)" outside a particular context has been an unacceptably prejudiced statement -> this is another loophole in this. god I love it when really bad propositions break open so bad they wrap around to supporting Communism

{{li|I=S2/A/ML|tradition=ML onto A|Q=618}}"Social construct" is a social construct / Most of the time anarchists talk about social constructs they are trying to imply that things that are undesigned or that come out of interacting elements are deliberately engineered Ideals, but because this overall way of thinking is Idealist, it is also fair to say that anarchists are not working with a model that is well checked against reality and their theory of a given "social construct" being "constructed" is equally as made up as the "social construct" is if not more {{YouTube|Ms_ojmhI_CI}} -> sounds like a deepity until you realize what it's really saying and then your mind is blown 
this is how you get out of what I referred to in another entry as "Gerson Boom BS". you realize what Idealism is and how it obscures whatever non-Idealist relationships between things may exist

</ol><noinclude>

[[Category:First nine thousand (RD)]]</noinclude>

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

2026-05-12T02:49:03Z

ICFIReporters: The euro has not successfully unified Europe

<h2 id="section-proposed4">Unsorted Items (page 4) {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset">

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}The euro has not successfully unified Europe / Inasmuch as it is still unstable and having crises, the euro has not successfully unified Europe (David North 2012) [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/frankfurt-school-postmodernism-politics-pseudoleft/05.html]

{{li|I=F2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}The bourgeoisie does not rule by force in the United States (Gramscianism) -> I think when there is {{em|still}} such a problem of cops shooting Black people that genuinely isn't even true 
"lavender lads out of the state department". [[E:movie theaters more Fisherist than movies|movie theaters more Fisherist than movies]]. I think a lot of the bourgeoisie supposedly "ruling by ideology" is in fact the bourgeoisie ruling by force and ideology forming in the aftermath.

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}Gramscianism presupposes Fisherism / The Gramscian formulation of Leninism presupposes that "ideological hegemony" can itself rule society

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Class rule is first created inside civil society (Gramsci)

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Surrounding historical context matters greatly for judging Gramscianism

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Gramscianism mourns nonexistent Rhizome / In concept, Gramscianism requires a healthy [[E:stationary Rhizome (schizoanalysis)|Rhizome process]] in order to function in which various workers, Careerists, or small businesses injected or embedded into the structure of capitalism first consistently solidify together into a "community" and then into a solid social-democratic party, and lastly agree to create a stable population structure that can undergo socialist transition, but this overall transition from tiny adversarial movements to social-democracy has become infeasible and easily thwarted due to the sheer level of [[E:creative destruction|churn]] on business territories and jobs in modern capitalism, which prevents Rhizome, "community", or social-democratic parties from even forming

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}Liberal republics reverting to monarchy -> this has happened multiple times in history if I remember right, I want to say that counting attempts at it I can think of at least one success and two attempts. and one of the failures was France! France didn't succeed at the French revolution, it had to try several more times. when this of all things is possible, it seems really weird the Soviet Union would not have been more aware of the possibility of capitalist reversion.

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}reactionaries (French revolution) -> this is often pointed to as one of the first {{em|documented}} examples of reactionaries where people took the concept, separated it out, and labeled it. that isn't to say it's the first example of there ever being reactionaries in world history, but it {{em|is}} to say it's one of people's favorite examples.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}statement considered reactionary in particular population / statement which is considered reactionary in particular country or population in particular historical period -> important for the purposes of constructing an ontology of what is reactionary in what way and why. 
this concept is a little abstract but it's also one where ultimately [[E:'pataphysical reduction (meta-ontology, meta-Marxism)|'pata-reduction]] can be applied to create Materialist models

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Processes unrelated to capital reproduction and inherently related to interpersonal relationships can affect and shape classes / Processes unrelated to [[E:reproduction of capital (Marx)|capital as a process]] and inherently related to interpersonal relationships and physical group-borders between populations or subpopulations ("populational processes", "sociopolitical processes", "cultural processes") can affect and shape classes despite not being from the same scale as class processes and outwardly appearing not to be class processes or related to class processes (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) -> this wouldn't be surprising if you've gone way deep into the weeds of Marx's work and realized how central "relations" or antagonisms between physical objects are in creating classes. but apparently this is a concept a lot of Marxists in Third-World countries don't yet understand. 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Disability actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Autism regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / ADHD regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Racism actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Transphobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Homophobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Anti-colonialism is rooted in colonialism / Postcolonial anarchisms require [[E:endocolonialism (meta-Marxism onto anarchism)|endocolonialism]] to function / The concept of insisting that First World empires can be changed simply by culturally fabricating better culture is dependent on the existence of [[E:bourgeoisie (layer of people that decide everything about culture before culture is widely interacted with; meta-Marxism onto Western-Marxism)|a class of people]] that decides everything about society by claiming territory, determining what will happen within that territory, and tightly controlling social links to that territory, as well as duplicating itself across the land to the point all territory is filled by said people, and it thus becomes that the whole territory of national populations is ruled by "Idealism" or "human will" but only that belonging to a fraction of the human population that is unaccountable to the rest of the population and also perhaps unaccountable to {{em|half of itself}}

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Optimism is believing that everybody ("[[E:IBE|I believe that everybody]]" statements; Liberal-republicanism) / Optimism is the same thing as Idealism

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with pigs (fiction) / Wilbur (generic) / Babe (generic) / Napoleon (generic) / Snowball (generic) -> so for a second I forgot that Babe and Wilbur were different pigs and I was like, which name was the correct name??

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with cats (fiction) / name associated with domestic cats (house cats; fiction) / Garfield (Teen Titans; generic) / Firestar (generic) -> I've been cursed with the knowledge that Teen Titans used the name "Garfield" to imply the general concept of a cat and now you have to be cursed with it too.

{{li|I=S2/GR/MX|Q=618}}Relativity is inherently Communist / Relativity is inherently Marxist / Because Einstein's [[E:scientific model|theories]] of special and general relativity more or less forbid [[E:absolute determinism|absolute determinism]] and in practice only allow for [[E:lambda-calculus determinism|limited]] or [[E:relativistic determinism|relativistic determinism]], relativity inherently promotes the use of naïve dialectical materialism to model the process by which causality leads from past states to future states; this is to {{em|imply}} that relativity promotes large-scale, [[E:dialectical materialism (Marxism)|specific-sense dialectical materialism]] as in Marx but only to outright state that it promotes multivariable functions as opposed to single-variable functions, and [[E:wavemachine logic (meta-Marxism)|wave-machine logic]]

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}China has been effectively attempting to eradicate Uighur language, culture, and tradition (Mia Hasenson-Gross) [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/27/holduk-jewish-leaders-use-holocaust-day-to-denounce-uighur-abuses?ref=hir.harvard.edu] [https://hir.harvard.edu/rated-c-for-censored-walt-disney-in-chinas-pocket/] -> 
so... let's keep in mind that out of 12 million Uighurs, at most 1 million are subject to this 'genocide effort'. that {{em|is}} a high number, but it's also a rather small fraction to be a genocide. in order to be "comparable to Nazi Germany", which is what the director says, it would have to be some 70-100% of Uighurs in concentration camps. but it's only 8%. so it's {{em|not}} comparable to Nazi Germany. 
let's put things in perspective: a bit under 1% of the United States Black population is put in prison. [https://theworlddata.com/percentage-of-black-people-in-prison/] many people are (rightfully) upset about this and consider it already a high percentage, whether they're crazy people like Tucker Carlson or they actually want to help do something constructive to solve the problem. but nobody has successfully drawn up a plan for the African-American subpopulation to become independent from the United States... despite most people across the U.S. political spectrum actually agreeing that the United States government is not serving them well and they deserve independence, either in a positive sense of inclusion or a negative sense of exclusion. one of the big reasons is that it could be the case that there is a greater proportion of people who want to kick them out and basically ban them from the country in that negative sense. if these kinds of people get to dictate policy over another population of people, you basically get Israel; you get an empire that rules over a minority through exclusion and an angry population of minority people who will build a second violent empire and possibly go kill people or destroy all their buildings to secure a safe place to be. so, whether people are able to quite articulate that concept or not, they get afraid of Black people {{em|not}} being ruled over by the United States and its stock of "Joe Bidens" or "White settler leaders" and get really insistent that either the Democratic Party will protect minority ethnic subpopulations and they must be loyal to the Democratic Party regime or that if everybody becomes anarchists Rhizome will somehow glue the country's populations together properly and fix everything. even though the Democratic Party lets Israel go on and {{em|isn't doing anything}} to stop racist cops from profiling Black people and putting 1% of them in prison. so, the Democratic Party versus the Black subpopulation and the CPC versus Uighurs is more comparable than you might think. 
10% is a very high percentage of a group of people to be thrown in prison. I won't deny that. but that's assuming the figure is true and not exaggerated, when it's entirely possible the figure is an overestimate that blows the number up more than twice as big as it really is. this is starting to look like the loose alliance between the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainian SSR. the Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainians each decided for different reasons that if people were suffering while being part of the USSR — despite those two things not even necessarily being related! — then it's good to break a country or political party of people out of the USSR and create something else. this proved to be a really bad decision for both of them. when the USSR was dissolved, as the Trotskyites were unknowingly pushing for, it pretty much liquidated the populations themselves bringing economic destruction and migrations to other countries, not to mention the countries separating and becoming less functional as smaller isolated territories than they were when connected (a point Trotskyists still go on about without realizing their strategies cause it). when Ukraine was made independent, it no longer had any protection from Russia simply deciding to invade it and digest Ukraine and turn it into more Russia. people will complain about "Russification" inside the USSR, but the truth is, the presence of the USSR at least created some possibility for political control over that process and the ability to stop it. if there's no government extending over both Russia and Ukraine, then there's no process capable of telling Russia to stop killing Ukrainians or making those actions illegal; the act of killing Ukrainians becomes more or less just a legal and normal practice. if anyone pretends otherwise, it's all just a smokescreen to hide the possibility that the United States wants to become the unofficial government of Ukraine and effectively turn it into a U.S. territory within a world-sized state, like Greenland is a territory of Denmark despite consisting of 90% Inuit people that should have no interest whatsoever in Danish politics. that's what's being hidden here. the world is still in a warring states period of countries trying to annex other countries to their kingdoms, and nothing has been able to stop it, not the United Nations, not Bolshevism, not people going on and on about anarchism or postcolonial theories. any argument about Xinjiang is one big colonial argument of whether it should be part of China or part of the United States. and let me tell you, the way we treat Muslims in the United States, {{em|you don't want it being part of the United States}}. 
sidenote: the discussion over this kind of stuff changes if you separate "Zinovievists" from "real Trotskyism". if Trotskyists actually created a really big civilization of like 100 countries, it's theoretically {{em|conceivable}} that things like the United States and China fighting over Xinjiang or historically the battle between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union over Poland would be over. however, what Trotskyists don't tell you is that that doesn't really create an end to political discourses over "colonialism" and "oppression", because those conflicts are caused by which groups of people are combined together into populations or separated. so if Trotskyism was suddenly created tomorrow, the kinds of arguments that are going on right now about Black people or Xinjiang would still be happening, they would just be happening in a different form in which people had fully come to understand that you can't just 'remove government' or 'separate populations' to fix a problem and you truly have to negotiate the ongoing {{em|relationships}} between populations recognizing those interactions and relationships as inevitable to actually get the state of one ethnic group bossing around another ethnic group "gone".

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}bolding for spoken emphasis [https://rtaibah.com/2022/10/03/do-not-use-oblique-fonts-for-emphasis-in-arabic/] -> so, I never knew this before, but the Arabic language never developed a slanted style for emphasis. this is probably one of the reasons the italics tag <code>i</code> was semi-deprecated in favor of <code>em</code>: so it can be shown bold in Arabic. you learn something new every day.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX, MZ|Q=618}}Movementism is comparable to a Rubik's cube; many times when a particular identity movement makes progress it inherently sets several other identities back, ordering one side of the "cube" and simultaneously mixing up several other sides -> this to me is one of the biggest problems with Habermas trying to conceptualize social progress as moral evolution. "moral evolution" itself is nearly a zero-sum game, where a lot of people get hurt at every moment

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Fascism is near-synonymous with the bourgeoisie / Fascism is near-synonymous with "the existence of the bourgeoisie"; you can take any statement about "fascism" and simply drop in "the bourgeoisie" to get a hint on how to fix it -> this is awfully revealing when, for instance, people talk about "getting rid of" fascism — you don't say??? 
{{i|14 characteristics of the bourgeoisie}}. yeah, that figures, Marx described 'the ruling ideas' that flood society when a class takes over. {{i|the bourgeoisie can't be reasoned with}}. basically. {{i|if you're not against the bourgeoisie you're with it}}. that one just about flipped from blue to red. {{i|Liberal-republicanism exists to prevent the bourgeoisie}}. wonky, but not wrong, once you've learned about "anarchemistry" and the really weird and contradictory ways Liberal-republicanism tries to make finite things that actually are indefinite. {{i|I'm not a fascist}} = {{i|I'm not the bourgeoisie!!}} honestly, says a lot about why people deny either of these things, it's the same kind of denial because people are so immersed in the water they can't see it. 
you can get pretty far with this. it doesn't tell you everything about each statement but it does help you unpack a whole lot of statements in a horizontal way.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}LLMs are not consumerism / Large language models are, ironically, one of the only things that cannot be termed {{i|consumerism}}, because despite the huge water and land usage on image and video generators, chatbots within the text realm put to use as search engines or "librarians" are one of the only cases within an overall capitalist society where the act of socializing and forming bonds has not been transmogrified into an individual paying a producer or laborer to create a commercial product and then referring to that particular act as "community"; while such things as movie theaters, newly released video games, and animation merchandise are inherently consumerist, large language models ironically are not, due to reasons such as that they involve users interacting with already existing webpages or books which do and are not a social activity in the first place

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618}}example of prescriptive rule (truth value) / obeys prescriptive rule (truth value) -> this is to be used with Wavebuilder combinations in order to add qualifiers of what specific rules a particular Item obeys or fits into; these should usually be put in the "redundant combinations" area given that they are not giving you logical results of the components but are strictly working backward from a result. for example: obeys prescriptive rule + Propositions have four words (English) = (particular Item).
{{li|I=S1/MW|Q=618}}example of project policy (truth value) / obeys project policy (truth value)

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Propositions have four words / Statements have four words; the specific count of four words only applies to the English language / Propositions in German or Japanese should have some maximum number of characters -> this rule emerged informally as I repeatedly tried to cram really long propositions into a few words that would fit nicely into a data table and be easy to remember. three words was often too few and six was often too many but four was about right most of the time. now that it's been going a while, I like it. it's funny how it happens to mirror the long-standing practice of a lot of Chinese sayings, usually idioms, being expressed in four syllables. I've apparently cracked the problem of four word idioms for English without trying to. 
also... I watched this one video that was purposefully making a constructed language where it was impossible for individual words to hold meaning and only an entire sentence could mean something, because the sentence was a hash of a bunch of numbered concepts lined up or something like that. that's almost a real thing with drastically abbreviated propositions — the four words together mean something and each word may mean something specifically next to one of the others but the individual words cease to mean anything by themselves.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Movie theaters are more Fisherist than movies / Movie theaters cracking down on "cam recordings" is a better example of capitalism programming people with its beliefs than any of the actual content of movies -> we have this incredibly stupid contradiction that people have realized that "cops" are bad, but they also have no idea whatsoever that rules are bad and think that culture products actually program people when all they are is the thoughts that are left over after rules are enforced. oh, yeah, and also we believe Stalin's government was really bad for enforcing tyrannical rules but we still don't have any idea that [[E:steel rule|it's the rules that are bad]]. 
I'm gonna make a bold statement: the cop is just doing their job. "ACAB" is not a historical statement describing centuries of events.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}An international Communist program is not a collection of national programs (Bill van Auken) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/09/le6-all.html] -> he may be at least partly right. I mean, even a meta-Marxist program would contain slightly more than a collection of national programs due to the need to get each national program to understand the other ones.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Stalin claiming the other countries were not subordinate to the Soviet Union is basically an Idealist statement as a miscellaneous collection of individual countries has no protection against having to form a herd-of-cats effect in which particular countries or clusters of competent leaders guard the entire thing against the First World

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=618}}History is the progression of conflicting anarchisms (derived anarchist proposition) / Anarchism is non-dialectical by itself but dialectical when it exists in plurality with itself because multiple anarchisms fighting each other will enact the Hegelian dialectic -> this has to be true for a theory based on "freedom" to actually work in real life. you have to have a bunch of discrete named anarchisms where almost all identify themselves as anarchisms but they each decide to fight each other and explode each other to be born because something about the previous one didn't make them feel "free" and so they tried to destroy it in order to create something else they couldn't describe. 
this proposition is both wonderful and terrible. it's wonderful in that I actually now have a working model of exactly why it is that anarchisms are overall so persistent and refuse to give up: anarchisms are not actually against Hegelianism, but they see {{em|themselves}} as the entire Hegelian dialectic. the concept of Stalin trying to model society as local structures transitioning into other structures? {{em|anarchists believe in that}} but they believe that very process right there must take the form of entire Communities burning each other down to create better Communities. it's terrible in that anarchisms will never realize this. they will never realize what they actually are, and they will always act like "freedom" actually is something rather than just an absence and the (sometimes justified) hatred of things they don't like and want to fight.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}No individual human being can be a worker as an individual; as individuals, all human beings are the petty bourgeoisie; human beings become workers if and when they actively integrated into larger structures and cease to be workers when they are removed from those structures -> this problem is part of what sinks basically all Liberal-republican philosophy and all philosophy inside Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republican philosophy is hell-bent on the concept that people really can be considered in isolation, which causes all human beings to conceptualize themselves as petty bourgeoisie, or worse, to actively regenerate the petty bourgeoisie. the concept that [[E:tent of freedom poles|people "have human rights" {{em|as individuals}} and then they come together and have individual human rights as individuals {{em|together}}]] is absolutely lethal to a functioning society.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The "failure" of Wikipedia to provide a reliable source (presumed to be as reliable as grade school texts, not university-level texts) is actually the failure of anarchism, and of a particular kind of named [[E:anarchy (meta-Marxism)|anarchy]] -> I don't know what this particular kind of anarchy is called, but I'll find a name for it eventually. it has something to do with the notion of culture products or information products as open and evolving instead of closed, when their content really should have been closed. (this does not refer to the concept of "open" or "closed" source code, it's a totally different kind of "closed" or "open".) funny enough, the Free Software movement has already figured out how to make Freed things with closed contents — we call them software packages.

{{li|I=S2/Fy/MX|Q=618}}Corporate [[E:art product (economics)|culture products]] are not objects communicated from a director to each audience member, but are in practice generally objects communicated from one fan to another fan; not only is the "artistic vision" of one particular specific individual a ridiculous thing to expect culture products to have, but at the end of the day all corporate culture products are ultimately just pre-made commercial fan fiction -> the way you have to fix the fan fiction problem is so specific. I've had several "solutions" to it that were probably wrong. but I think the crux of it lies here. the most important relationship in the pipeline of culture products is them being passed back and forth between fans. on occasion quite literally when someone hands someone else a Steam code. most of the time a little more figuratively, in the form of let's plays, theory videos, and the construction of alternate timelines. capitalism makes a huge deal out of the sanctity of the corporation for no good reason. ideally what you want is the paid experts completing their task of churning out culture products without a lot of ado about how great or awful the workers are personally for particular actions and decisions, instead they just complete the task quietly and go home, and then you want the fans to be allowed to pass back and forth whatever they want to regardless of whether it has been modified. and you don't want the central party-nation freaking out about the airtight seal between corporation and fans and the fans "wrecking society by doing too much"; that should not be a real offense. instead, if anything, you want the central party simply noticing where the seal is breaking and doing inquiries into whether different kinds of products should be produced. it {{em|might be the case}} hypothetically that the ideal scenario is the seal breaking totally and government not even having to bother re-connecting any of the points of production to formal corporations because there is simply enough stuff that nobody actually has to pay for culture products any more and generally considers them all to cost zero or literally a couple loose coins at a thrift store. 
the last thing you want to see happening (ever) is a "Chinese map fiasco" where people perceive government as a brutal predator that munches on human social activity purely to digest it and start scheming about how to stay out of its mouth because they know everything only gets worse after you fall in. you can never let that happen because the moment it happens the whole of socialist transition will disintegrate. the petty bourgeoisie regenerates in a heartbeat and it happens anywhere and everywhere. you're much more at its mercy than you ever could have realized.

{{li|I=S2/LGBT/PT|Q=618}}Pride is a vice! (Toryism) / LGBT people shouldn't be bold and proud because pride is a sin (is a vice; Christianity) -> this proposition is bullshit but it really is interesting linguistically because it makes you ask how many things "pride" actually refers to. I can think of at least two: A) arrogant overconfidence B) the unwillingness to either trust others or submit to others (the way it was used in Dragon Ball, where I heard it and was just like, is that actually bad though, the kind of people who want you to surrender to them can be cruel and not worth it)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Deleting Mao is Orientalist / Attributing Buddhism or Taoism specifically to "Eastern culture" is an unnecessary act of essentialism, because it proposes that instead of warring states periods (a repeatable pattern made of predictable processes) giving rise to Taoism and Chinese Buddhism, people chose to create Buddhism and Taoism to solve warring states periods {{em|because}} people were inherently Chinese -> I knew there was something that bothered me about people always referring to "Eastern culture". {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} it's this! it's the Idealist interpretation of history that is implied inside it. 
you know what else Asians created to solve warring states periods? Maoism. that is completely different from either Buddhism or Taoism. so what inherent Asian essence is contained in {{em|that}}? {{a|how do you reconcile|E=Hegelian dialectic}} there being at least two {{em|completely different}} definitions of "Eastern culture"?

{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}Japan's only philosophy is Japaneseness / Japanese people do not have [[E:material contradiction (Marxism)|plural philosophies]] repeatable across other countries, they only have Japaneseness {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} -> I am so done with the entire concept of "studying Cultures" because I swear this is how most ordinary people interpret it. they throw around the word "collectivism" like it actually means something and refers to a philosophy, but what they really mean when they say it is precisely "Chineseness" or "Japaneseness". they presuppose that Japanese people have Japaneseness and then they look for more descriptions of Japaneseness to explain why Japaneseness leads to Japaneseness in a circular loop.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deleting Mao from Chinese history / deleting Mao (Liberal-republicanism) -> this is a fun one. you'll see why on the next line. 
memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + the PRC is a bad fake historical period = deleting Mao. memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + Kuomintang = deleting Mao. deleting Mao + medieval fantasy = China is still a medieval kingdom.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Giving money to businesses doesn't help human beings; it only helps business structures and the owners that are conflated with them / Giving money to businesses doesn't help the proletariat -> I like this framing because I think it's arguable it doesn't even really help small owners.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The concept of "race traitors" implies races are physical processes producing necessity / The concept of "race traitors" implies that there is an inevitable destiny for a whole population of Black people just because they are Black, which will be realized through an overall Black population interacting all at once with its surroundings only under particular (non-inevitable) conditions, but will not happen through individuals as separated from the Black population as an indivisible object

{{li|I=S2/MX/DG/A|Q=618}}The United States has the most incentive of any country to get rid of capitalism because it has the most minorities; there are so many distinct minorities that politics itself has come to revolve around minorities, but because each of them contains so few people under such isolation, not a single one of them is going to become free of attempts to exterminate it under capitalism or reformism

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning Malthusianism is genocide / Whenever you choose to say a statement in Malthusianism you have chosen to cause other people to be bigoted {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} -> no... that isn't how it works. as a framework, statements inside Malthusianism could hypothetically be true without all of it being true, so if those are already true and you say them, you didn't cause them to happen. this is like saying that if you predict a box to contain a dead cat when somebody filled it out of sight then you caused it to contain a dead cat, even if the other options are unrelated to cats, like the other option is the box is empty. overpopulation leading to bad outcomes can hypothetically be the case whether you want it to or not, but the important thing to realize is that that doesn't have any bearing on what the actual bad outcomes are. the bad outcomes might not be anything like the simplistic scenarios in Malthus' essays of overcrowding or 'eating babies'. the bad outcomes might look more like an increase in people randomly murdering each other because everyone increasingly feels like everyone else is threatening their existence and they need to protect their existence because 'all individual existences deserve to be respected' {{em|or else}}; despite what everybody wants nobody will yield to anybody else and so people get furious and kill in order to regain control. if everybody's doing that, you don't have control over it; you can't just say "believing in overpopulation is bad" or "if we don't things will get better" to fix it. because when people really truly believe things "Should" work a certain way, especially if that "Should" is an ethical prescription, they won't listen to anything you say until reality magically fixes itself to be that way. people are just going to get angrier and angrier every single day there are too many people and those people are disorganized and attempt with steadily increasing blind rage to punish all the disorganized people that have not been planned or controlled in any way for not being controlled in any way. there's really no "society", "social-ism", "community" -ing out of that situation, because other people's ethical imperatives are not a social construct — you can only obey whatever the {{censor|fuck}} other people tell you to do or risk them doing violence to you... or kill them, I suppose. ethics is an infamously unyielding form of philosophy. if there existed any form of belief where everybody spontaneously giving it up would actually solve all our problems, then everybody giving up the entire concept of ethics would be it. think about it: every right-Liberal who tries to say that accumulating wealth is good relies on property rights, which rely on ethics. every nazi that tries to say trans people are destroying the United States relies on a right to not have this "intrude" on their lives, which relies on ethics. if everyone really actually got rid of ethics, they wouldn't be able to defend bad things either, because the whole concept that individuals can make "correct choices" that are superior to other choices in creating a future they would be satisfied with would be gone. there would be vastly more incentive to question your previous decisions and deconstruct arbitrary beliefs if ethics did not exist at all. "post-structuralist philosophy"? "prejudices" and "biases" that will never make sense as analytical tools once you stop being the person that wrote the paper? how about we just get rid of ethics and accomplish the same thing way better with way fewer problems. 
I think the thing that bothered me the most about this video is.... the Overshoot Theory video I remember from a while back was also leaning on Native Americans. Overshoot man was like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, overpopulation!}} while these people are like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, no overpopulation!}}. it honestly feels like a non sequitur in both cases. I feel like overpopulation genuinely has nothing to do with whether North American tribes 'have lived more sustainably', positively or negatively. the cases where you'd see overpopulation come from a genuinely different kind of society that operates through entirely different material processes. which means you can't analogize a smaller society to it.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}North American tribes are not defined by romantic mystical beliefs {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} -> of course they aren't. but I suspect you're going to have to go have a stern word with a whole lot of anarchists who are busy appropriating everything non-White from the past century they can find just to try to get rid of Whiteness. 
I'm not entirely free of this either because I'm one of those people who started vaguely appropriating {{em|Soviet identity}} on account of how Russians apparently don't want it any more so now it's mine I guess. the situation for White people is just terrible because practically everybody is agreeing that Whiteness has to go (including the fascists who want to revert to medieval empire, in their own weird way) but absolutely nobody wants to step away from Idealism and consider a theory based on really fine-grained "reductionist" changes to material conditions as opposed to one all about "subjectivity" and "ethics", so it always turns into this game of trying to change Whiteness through abstract Ideals or finding a group of people it's theoretically okay to appropriate as a substitute for everyone not being entirely isolated into vulnerable individuals and there actually being any real living individuals for anyone to team up with. I make use of historical theorists of Marxism because they are defined by Materialist models as opposed to cultural identity or experiences and while that's a reason by itself it also has the bonus I can't really turn them into an exotic group distinguished by not being Whiteness that is then hijacked by Whiteness. but that ironically leads to the contradiction that in trying not to appropriate other countries I am still almost exclusively wearing other countries because the United States sucks. 
I'm so done with anarchism because at the end of the day it sort of corrupts Communism too. 
Communism: we will create a scientific model of reality. anarchism: a what??! you mean a cold unfeeling model of reality? Communism: what. anarchism: movements and revolutions only come from empathy so I am going to go talk to some Native Americans. Communism: uh. okay. anarchism: I have learned from the Native Americans that White people have a horrible way of life and I want to bring back secular animism. Communism: oh boy this is going to end badly. anarchism: you say that because you're a coward who isn't willing to question Western biases while I'm the true radical. Communism: uh, no, I say that because ancient religions come from a definite form of society and whenever you try to bring them to a later historical period it's going to look utterly tacky. or, to put it in language you understand, like you are stealing other people's culture for the benefit of Whiteness. anarchism: I would never do that. I believe in the sanctity of all living beings and natural objects because I am connected with the original semiotic and harmonious flows of nature. Native Americans: what the fuck. anarchism: see, I'm deconstructing Whiteness. Native Americans: and all of your summaries of animism amount to racial stereotypes. Communism: yeah, I knew how this was going to go. excuse me while I go read up on the conflict between Mao, Deng, and Alan Woods as something probably more relevant to the United States and less easy to accidentally turn offensive. anarchism: oh, you mean three people aligned with modern civilization, who are practically White? Communism: you have apparently never heard my racist relatives talk about Mao. do you even know what a racist {{em|is}} or do you just immediately swallow whatever new trend academia feeds you? anarchism: oh wow [placeholder]. {{i|(gulp)}}

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}It's easier to imagine a completely fake world in space than the end of capitalism on earth {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} / It's easier to imagine a completely fake world in space, either from the view of the giant galactic empires or the local resistances, than the end of capitalism on earth -> that's completely true. 
but the problem which can never be addressed in a video like this is that every time somebody anywhere says "the end of capitalism" {{em|they imagine something different}} and thus you can never trust that they're actually saying anything insightful or coherent or that people are going to work toward the same goal. saying "the end of capitalism" has become a deepity in some ways

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}It's easier to imagine the end of capitalism than the end of capitalism / It's easier to {{em|talk about imagining the end of capitalism}} without those words actually meaning anything in particular than it is to imagine {{em|an actual end of capitalism}} which is described practically enough that all people who currently belong to any ideological faction can come together and create it barring actual material incentives that prevent them from taking different actions or joining different ideologies -> this is about 10% a troll proposition made because the sentence was really funny to say. but I do think it's true.

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}There should never be new swatches for identity-based movements existing below the national level, except given special reasoning for why those swatches are especially relevant to describing internationalism; this applies specifically to color swatches, not to text-based philosophy tags -> "LGBT" is one of the only identity movements to be granted its own swatch specifically based on identity as opposed to based on its material strategy. 
"Dengism", despite being highly associated with China, is not a demographic identity {{em|inside}} China, it's the whole China, and likewise "Juche-socialism" is the whole North Korea. BlackPantherism is a bit borderline but it passes because of the remark that it could expand over the country and wasn't specifically Black. Trotskyism either spuriously or actually claims to be international, so any argument that it is in fact a demographic identity isn't relevant here as that isn't a mainstream perception of it. "feminism" will not have a swatch because it is easily collapsed into a Liberal-republican interest group and weaponized against trans people. "Muslim socialism" will not have a swatch, although "religious socialism" as a very general category would be closer to being acceptable. "fascism" gets a swatch of some sort; "Italian fascism" doesn't get a swatch. any movement which can actually be defined based on summaries of its material behavior as opposed to culture and can be described as it applies to multiple possible cultural identities is exempt from these rules. "North American Maoism" could have a swatch if it became really relevant and as long as its material behavior can be distinguished from "(Chinese) Maoism" or "(Indian) Maoism". 
"LGBT tradition" is one of the only things that genuinely needs and gets an exception from these rules because it's one of the few things that deliberately draws on demographic identity characteristics themselves to produce generalized philosophy which becomes separate from identity. the concept of "queerness" is tightly tied to identity at first, but then becomes its own thing that can be used to describe the dynamics of several other identities as they relate to the rest of society — autistic identity, mental illness associated identity, disabled identity — which experience a similar exclusion and process of having to decide whether to "stay apart" or "fit in". the "queerness metaphor" has a lot of value in describing other movements, so it's useful to have an LGBT swatch to crystallize and focus on that paradigm as it will be used to vaguely associate to the other movements. 
also. I probably could have picked a different "stay apart"/"fit in" conflict to stand in for all of these, but I liked having an excuse to make one of the swatches a rainbow, so I picked this one.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Every republic is a class society (anarchism) / Every republic is a class society ("hierarchy", spatial class order) because a ruling class must exist to create a republic -> it's this kind of proposition that makes me question if Trotskyism does or doesn't believe in an era of socialism. it really claims to believe in a republic but its insistence on 'getting rid of bureaucracy' and getting rid of borders (which in a roundabout way are one of the reasons an era of socialism exists, because both things exist due to a country being a physical object) makes it bizarrely more similar to the anarchist method of "class analysis" than the Marxist one, and "anarchist class analysis" necessarily leads to trying to do everything Immediately as opposed to on a reasonable time scale

{{li|I=S2/ES/MX|Q=618}}The militant form of Existentialism is when Existentialists kill others that threaten their existence in order to continue existing -> this is one of the many reasons I don't like Existentialism. first, it's thoroughly incoherent. none of its actions are predictable based on combining logical statements or based on anything called "reason". none of its actions are explainable with religious justifications nor morality. it gets super offended when you try to reduce collections of people to inanimate objects but in practice it encourages humans to behave like lions or baboons. we may as well all be inanimate objects for how good this philosophy is. second... it turns brown not even in two seconds, but yesterday.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Killing people who would otherwise kill you is self defense / iron rule ... (censored title) / [[E:Do unto others before they do unto you|iron rule]] (generic) -> hmmmmmmm. A) are they Black people the cops are scared of B) are they midwest Indians in the 1800s C) are they Palestinians D) are they a Bolshevik government attempting to prevent the petty bourgeoisie from creating civil war or imperialism? this is bad exmat because I absolutely saw the fourth one casually tossed out in the same comments section. "Hitler, Stalin, or Mao", they said casually [[E:Nazism and Bolshevism have the same cause|as if it made sense]].

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}History is the progression of generational subcultures -> this is slightly different from the claim that history is the progression of father to son to son or mother to daughter to son to daughter etc., because it is talking about the progression of whole layers of thousands and thousands of people born in the same 5-10 year period, and is not centering itself around individuals or psychoanalysis. it's not psychoanalysis, and instead, it's shifted its entire focus over to art history, the humanities, or the history of an industry.

{{li|I=S2/HAS/MX|Q=618}}History is the progression of successive semi-countable art markets -> I'm a little astounded to find such an Idealist claim and such a Materialist claim in the same podcast right next to each other a sentence apart, but I'll take it. wow. this one is so telling. it accidentally reveals so much about the connection between capitalist theory, the growth of society, and the outward manifestations seen in culture products. 
let's think about this. a 'console generation' forms in order to raise the prices of the products (largely by producing them new), while decreasing the cost of entry. if the discipline is new, it won't be overrun with expensive equipment, stacks and stacks of money poured into expertise, and the prestige of certain brands creating natural monopolies. after a while, all the corporations in a given market have made their money and the products are everywhere such that neither can new corporations make money nor can old ones earn any more. so then the market resets and an entirely new market is created. a bunch of hype goes around to present the new thing as really great although it was created in order for the new products made for it to not have to be very good at first. and apart from video games, this happens for the general concept of mediums and a lot of physical formats. 
honestly. I trust this more than Habermas' conception of history as some kind of progression of morality where what is progress could become entirely subjective; at least you can measure what a sideways progression from one set of events to another {{em|is}}. 
console wars + History is the progression of generational subcultures = this.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}The middle ground between sense and nonsense is still insane / I believe 2+2=4, but in the interest of representing those who believe 2+2=22, my platform is 2+2=11 (counter-claim)

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}The majority of Jews support Israel {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} / Some Jews don't support Israel (counter-claim) -> this observation really destroys anti-essentialism as a path to truth, doesn't it. superficially it seems to support it, but when you look at how the counter-claim is actually used... it's used to defend Idealism as "not always" being fatally flawed while most uses of it at best make it wholly irrelevant to explaining anything. anti-essentialism is often just a back-handed statement that Idealism doesn't actually explain real life, not realizing that in saying that it's slamming the Idealist models it's supposed to save.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Some Jews don't support Israel {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> U.S. people don't know anything but Idealism, the treatment of everything as abstract qualities. so they have to take on "Jews" and "anti-semitism" as abstract concepts. when they do that, it predisposes them to racist understandings of what various ethnic groups "are". so then they bring out the point of "but surely one of them doesn't support Israel" (anti-essentialism) to badly try to prove that Idealism isn't racist. 
it doesn't fix anything of course. Defining everything by what it's not leads you to defend anything and everything including the U.S. military.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Why do United States people want to rehabilitate veterans but punish ICE? {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> okay, that's a good question. 
I think, speaking materially and not ethically, it has to do with which groups of people U.S. people believe that U.S. law applies to. if you believe in Kantianism you need a body of people to legislate onto to hold anybody responsible for (un)ethical behavior. so, people scramble to define who "Americans" are to determine whether government should be rehabilitating them were that a possibility. I think there is a bias toward rehabilitating veterans {{em|just because there is some chance they might vote Democrat}}, while due to their behavior people have a bias toward labeling Republican voters as foreigners. this isn't {{em|just}} stupidity (even if there may be a bit of that too). at some point Liberal-republican parties stop being arbitrary and start turning into entirely separate nationalities that actually don't consent to being governed by each other; the increasing perception of Republicans as "not Americans" and of ICE as a uniquely foreign army stems from actual observed behavior of Republicans slowly attempting to secede from the sovereign realm of Democrat laws, and of the increasing futility of properly governing them.

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}nucleation site (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}} -> a site of crystallization which encourages formation of other crystals. 
has relevance for the concept of modeling social structures changing
{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}substance flipping over from one polymorph to another (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}}

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}anarcho-NATOism
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Imperialism is nonviolent / Anarchism definitionally requires violence; this is to imply and nearly to state that a warlike, potentially genocidal empire is perfectly okay and recommended because of the fact only a few people at the edge of an empire have to fight over borders and most people in an empire are nonviolent {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> you wonder how anybody goes along with "settler-colonialism" and thinks it's a good idea in the first place. this is how. it's actually nonviolence-colonialism. 
Idealism is dangerous to humanity, it really is. 
anarcho-NATO-ism + ?? = Imperialism is nonviolent.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Marxism before the year 2020 has been a theory of ideological segregation more than a theory of social progress -> why is it that walling off whole fortress states has been more effective than trying to spread filaments of radicals inside class societies? I think the example of China and Taiwan {{em|splitting}} and the example of Texas defeating the freethinkers are very instructive on why this happened

{{li|I=S2/A/MX|Q=618}}Despite the observable historical fact that various social structures can transition into other structures, it is generally {{em|easier}} to create any of the later structures humanity invents by starting from scratch rather than from working with structures that already exist, due to the fact that ruling classes are generally the clusters of people that are more inherently powerful and able to conquer and expand than the masses or clusters of people they rule over -> this is one of the best arguments that anarchism and Trotskyism each have going for them. but it's also one of the best arguments for Deng Xiaoping Thought if you don't totally dismiss sublation processes. this gives way to Deng Xiaoping Thought much faster than it justifies anarchism.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Statues and plaques do not actually teach people history

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}Confederate statue as superstructural artifact -> the motif of Confederate statues being more of a "coincidence" spat out of a Social-Philosophical System that just happens to 'believe' them as opposed to being a good representation of the overall process of history

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If the subjective theory of value is true, then why does the value of various cryptocurrencies keep crashing?

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}"Freethinker" is less technical and more expressive than "atheist" {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> goes to show that anarchism really is the default mode of thinking rather than a great new invention. and I hate that. because freedom doesn't mean {{censor|fucking}} anything. it's actually rather obvious what an atheist is, but "freedom" actually is a belief in nothing because it really is just the absence of whatever else it was tossed in against.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist; this is to imply that "extremes" are an abstract Ideal that miraculously spits out more extremes, and Extremes can be eradicated {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> how is it that people come to regard material contradictions as a completely alien event that isn't the least bit familiar to them

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}The United States got away with outsourcing labor because corporations programmed people to want cheap goods {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}} -> so... how is it they successfully did that if it's possible to simply tell people it was done and break it? if people can really be programmed against their best interests that consistently, then why would they listen to you? 
I think people are making excuses for the fact that owners make these decisions and they fundamentally can't control the owners.

{{li|I=S1/W|tradition=W, PT|Q=618}}corporations programming people / the engineering of consumer behavior {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}}

{{li|I=S1/Fy/ML|Q=618}}treating the protagonists of anticommunist fables as unreliable narrators

{{li|I=S2/HM|tradition=IK, HM, ES|Q=618}}Society is held together based on interpersonal subjective moral consensus 
this + Interpersonal relationships can snap at any moment = Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships are no foundation for society because interpersonal relationships are fragile while society must be more durable to successfully exist / Asocialism (generic)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A theory that primarily grounds itself in human sociality ([[E:Socialism (general-sense progressivism)|Socialism]], humanities, Kantianism, secular animism) will eventually become reactionary, because human sociality in and of itself is not equipped to handle the inevitable [[E:separable multiplicity|countable and separable plurality]] of populations that results when human populations exist in the real world; this is to imply that Marxism is not in fact a theory primarily rooted in human sociality as much as one that simply acknowledges it / Asocialism (generic) 
Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality + A theory of society which is not accurate to material reality will eventually become reactionary = this.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) -> this is apparently its own specific thing. it seems it's typically defined in terms of how well the soviets can defend the overall country and any governing bodies against the re-emergence of capitalism.

{{li|I=S2/IV/MX|Q=618}}Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes; soviet structures are not guaranteed to remain orange because depending on their class and preferred palette of social structures the individual national-employees inside them can add together to turn the structure charcoal, blue, or strawberry -> Trotskyism is weird. it has moments where it's totally unconvicing, and then it has moments where after you've been listening to the actually-okay theorists you have to go out of your way to find, it almost sounds like it got something right. this week, I saw that Trotskyists seemed to be describing the dictatorship of the proletariat as control by one big sea of soviets that are responsible for operating all the other organs of government — the thinking is that if all the soviets are made of proletarians and the soviets are orange, the soviets will keep all of the other structures from turning strawberry or any other unfavorable ideology. but then I thought about it for a bit, and I realized that this isn't an airtight strategy. in the real world, proletarians can level up into non-proletarians through small-scale processes, and it happens all the time whenever there aren't enough job slots or people simply don't fit into existing business territories' "culture". it's very easy for a country that's full of proletarians one moment to slowly morph into a country of skilled workers that all want their own businesses but will also complain when the reality of running them is much harder than they dreamed. 
this became apparent to me as soon as I saw Gramsci talking about a council for the "self-employed". that isn't a red or orange structure, that's a blue or strawberry structure. and those kinds of structures can undo a revolution. but it's also trivial for more of them to be produced through misapplied education or training. if the soviets have full control, it's easy for petty classes to rebel against all the orange soviets and start taking control of the whole country through whatever limited ability they have to assemble together groups of people that outcompete surrounding workers. 
dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) + proletarians promoting into Careerists = Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes.

{{li|I=S1/ML/ES|Q=618}}the eclectic gruel of philosophy / eclectic gruel (philosophy) / the pauper's broth of eclecticism which is ladled out in the universities under the name of philosophy (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch01.htm] -> there are some descriptions where you see them and you just know, I've seen this, this is ridiculously relatable across time periods. I haven't read these specific philosophies and yet just by that description I feel like I already have.

{{li|I=S1/AS/HM|Q=618}}moral evolution (critical theory) / Hegelian evolution of morality / historical development of societies as conceptualized around morality or ethics [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/01/habe-a01.html] / procedural theory of rationality (Liberal-republican ethics; Habermas) -> the concept in Habermas of modeling either large or small changes in societies through changes in morality and the resulting changes in society. I'd hate this except that it gets really funny when you apply it to world civilization and actual changes between historical periods, revealing a lot about how imperialism works; in a way, it's so bad it's good. I guess that's about what you should expect to get when you start with Hegel. Liberal-republicanism is frustrating but Hegel really isn't so bad in the end.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deformed Liberal states / degenerated Liberal states -> the motif of Liberal-republican countries looking at other nation-states and regarding them as deformed versions of themselves that need to be punished until they form correctly. 
deformed Liberal states + moral evolution (Trotskyism) = deformed workers' states.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Morality itself tends to favor a world of "small business hell" simply because the assumptions that lead to people creating morality {{em|happen to lead there}} and all Idealist statements when put together spit out some kind of real-world consequence -> I find it frustrating that people will start from a set of arbitrary Ideals and then just deontologically assume that if those Ideals are good then whatever they produce must also be good. to me Habermas' theory of moral consciousness just doesn't make sense as a material theory of history because in one way all moral or ethical values are always arbitrary; there will always be a point where people assume that what they're currently doing is morally good or superior just because it's the thing a lot of people are doing and none of them want to stop doing it while any other group of people must be morally bad just for doing a different thing that threatens to replace that thing, even before they actually demand other people trade in what they're doing for the new thing.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Idealism produces material outcomes / All Idealist statements or combinations of Idealist statements lead to some kind of real-world consequence -> there are many ways to take this. one of the surface conclusions is that Idealism isn't as explanatory as Materialism. one of the most interesting conclusions is that you can "meta-game" Idealism and figure out the best Ideals to tell people in order to get them to create particular material results. this {{em|is}} essentially lying to people to manipulate their behavior, which if it were up to me I don't really like, but a lot of people believe that most human beings' understanding of the world will never go above that level, which might make it ethical under some theories of ethics.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Prejudice and structural inequality are not the same thing; getting rid of prejudice does not necessarily get rid of structural inequality [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough] -> well. I have to agree with this. I'm puzzled why anarchists in general aren't better at understanding this. but the blue anarchists did get something right.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Contact between populations reduces prejudice when four conditions are met: 1) equal status within the contact situation 2) common goals 3) cooperation 4) support from authorities or social norms (Allport 1954, Pettigrew) [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Negative contact between populations has a greater observed effect than positive contact [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S1/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}analytic thinking as opposed to holistic thinking [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I always wondered why it was called analytic philosophy. is this why?

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}{{abbr|tts=Weird|WEIRD}} countries [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I like this acronym in that most of it makes sense except the "Western" part. I have no idea what that means. is Japan Western, or is it not? there are good arguments both ways. this is why I prefer saying "First World countries".

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer review auditing -> the motif of sending bogus articles to academic journals in hopes the reviewers will catch the problems
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer-review auditing feminist journals [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/18/inte-o18.html] / peer-review auditing gender studies journals 
peer review auditing + gender studies journal = this.
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=IV onto ES|Q=618}}feminist Mein Kampf [https://norskk.is/bytta/menn/our_struggle_is_my_struggle.pdf] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] -> wow. they really should have caught that. I.... have to read this at some point because that sounds like the best one. 
...it's online? oh wonderful. this is very opaque and hard to read. I guess that's how they got it through.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}SEP's analysis of "Stalinism" -> that's... its own specific thing? okay.

{{li|I=S2/ES/MX|Q=618}}If the value of money is culturally fabricated ("made up"), but anarchism can realize itself through a sea of individuals spontaneously deciding to create a different kind of society, then anarchism is a cultural fabrication and everybody is free to spontaneously decide not to follow anarchism and follow whatever ostensibly more oppressive system they want to (meta-Marxism onto post-structuralism)

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}today I was "thinking"... / 'today I was thinking—' 'stop that' / 'today I was thinking—' 'you?! I can't believe it' -> the motif of somebody cutting off a statement where somebody was thinking about some specific thing and focusing on the concept of "thinking".

{{li|I=S1/DFy/PT|Q=618}}Eren Yeager / nazi Eren Yeager (in context of imagining different versions of the story based around different ideologies)

{{li|I=S1/DFy/DX|Q=618}}Dengist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was Western-Marxist (strawberry Marxist, Gramscian, Dengist / Deng Xiaoping Thought) -> so, {{book|Attack on Titan}} has a dumb premise. it reads like a campfire horror story told by nazis in very little irony. but it {{em|is}} really funny to imagine some of the same central themes being used in an approximately Marxist work. like, instead of it being a nazi campfire story the titans are trying to scale a "Berlin wall", or penetrate China or North Korea to take them back for Liberal-republicanism, the titans are hiding out on Taiwan, the titans are sealing people into Cuba and not letting {{em|them}} leave. there obviously wouldn't be a focus on the concept of the big antagonist monsters being 'impure' or 'diseased', that element of it probably wouldn't exist. it would just be kaiju trying to break into the country and do something horrifying. it's gotta be a little over the top. it's gotta be about turning them all into kaiju for some nefarious but useful purpose, like, I dunno, the kaiju feed off negativity and if they all turn into kaiju and fight each other the whole population of kaiju becomes stronger. everyone is horrified about the invasion and it brings them all together.

{{li|I=S1/Fy/A|Q=618}}anarchist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was anarchist -> {{em|this}} is why I am having an increasingly hard time telling the difference between Deng Xiaoping Thought and anarchisms. like, once again, anarchism succeeds when you build a wall around it — probably metaphorically — and wait for the outside to tire itself out. I can't tell the difference between Gramscian Eren Yeager and anarchist Eren Yeager. 
oh god when I just go saying ideologies in a sentence of course my brain is going to shout "Trotskyist Eren Yeager". I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means at all. I dunno, like, the enemies are more like Reptilians or Yeerks and they're hiding out in the central government and nobody wants to believe it so the anti-alien squads are like trying to team up across regions? I tried.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality -> anarchists are going to get so upset if you try to argue this at them. they'll try to argue that reality is whatever comes naturally to living things, and different states of natural for each living species must naturally want to go together, blah blah blah. [*] but they're all privileged. they haven't experienced a state of truly being fenced out of society by thousands and millions of people that all simultaneously agree they don't like you (probably without having met you or having much of any idea what they're doing). they especially haven't experienced it owing to the existence of anarchism, because anarchism already selected for people like them. but they should wise up to the fact that anarchism doesn't really pass the veil of ignorance with flying colors. it's quite easy to end up on the wrong side of "community" where you simply have nobody and nothing and also everyone assumes you must be a bad person just because you haven't claimed an exclusive spot in Community that supposedly you only have to be nice to people to get and follow morality though in reality it's much more difficult and complicated and trivial to simply be born wrong and fail to survive the ecological parameters of the 'community-icene'. I think that as a period of biological life the Anthropocene truly began at tribal society, not at industrial society. it was the ability to form entire ecosystems made of nothing but humans that changed things, but {{em|if anarchists are correct}} that the natural state of humans and human psychology is in tribes then all the current destruction of the environment ultimately came from the characteristics of tribes. tribal populations are not wholly innocent for all the horrors of global empire and ecological destruction if at the end of the day we're {{em|all}} still tribes and they're the only ones trying to disclaim that there are bad things about that. really, as crazy as it sounds, they might be accidentally benefiting from a corrupt system that has killed great numbers of people. of course, if humans don't have a seemingly eternal resting state of being in tribes that we have no choice but to return to which in turn implies we are currently tribes in denial and will still be tribes for the next hundred thousand years, then tribal populations carry no blame for what industrial societies have done. 
(* why didn't they say that about workers' states and the healthy state of the Soviet Union versus the very disordered states that occurred at every moment after tearing it apart? they have even less excuse than Trotskyists. Trotskyists wilfully wanting to overwrite another Marxism with their own Marxism is at least logical even if it's terrible.)

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}"Indigenous people" marks a statement as racist / Saying "indigenous people" marks a sentence as containing racial stereotypes {{YouTube|fwecpbB1DPs}}
{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning ethnic groups is racist / Mentioning an ethnic group without mentioning a specific individual marks a sentence as containing potentially-harmful racial stereotypes -> this is what you have to believe for the above statement to be true. like, if "indigenous people" marks a racial stereotype, then saying a more specific group of people like "Inuit" should equally mark a racial stereotype — how does the person you're talking to {{em|know}} that you're giving correct information about all Inuit people and not just saying something false? but if this is true, you couldn't go to Congress and say "Black people" or "Mexican immigrants" for any legitimate purpose without mentioning individuals that supposedly make the example truer. does it actually make statements more accurate to include specific individuals? I feel like it adds nothing but also subtracts nothing. 
this is a really weird criterion for judging whether statements are accurate. I know where it comes from, it comes from people trying to judge everything through positivism and claim that Lived Experiences are a pathway to truth while a lack of Lived Experiences is a pathway to falsity. it's still really weird. it doesn't seem to accomplish the thing it sets out to accomplish at all, and just seems to make all statements said about any group of people more worthy of doubting. "White people have the colonizer attitude"? maybe not!! Ben was doing that, but did you ask Carla?? "Black people experience structural racism"? maybe not!! you didn't mention an individual so in theory you might be racist for even saying that. 
Mentioning ethnic groups is racist + Anti-essentialism is a pathway to truth = Pointing out racism is racist.

{{li|I=S2/ES/ML|Q=618}}Referring to Communists without mentioning a specific individual is unacceptably prejudiced / If mentioning ethnic groups without mentioning a specific individual is racist, which is to imply that talking about groups of people in the abstract rather than as a particular countable number of concrete objects is racist, then mentioning "Communists" or "Cubans" or "people who support Stalin" without naming a specific individual for evaluation is equally prejudiced; every time somebody has said "tankies" or "totalitarians" or "Stalinist(s)" outside a particular context has been an unacceptably prejudiced statement -> this is another loophole in this. god I love it when really bad propositions break open so bad they wrap around to supporting Communism

{{li|I=S2/A/ML|tradition=ML onto A|Q=618}}"Social construct" is a social construct / Most of the time anarchists talk about social constructs they are trying to imply that things that are undesigned or that come out of interacting elements are deliberately engineered Ideals, but because this overall way of thinking is Idealist, it is also fair to say that anarchists are not working with a model that is well checked against reality and their theory of a given "social construct" being "constructed" is equally as made up as the "social construct" is if not more {{YouTube|Ms_ojmhI_CI}} -> sounds like a deepity until you realize what it's really saying and then your mind is blown 
this is how you get out of what I referred to in another entry as "Gerson Boom BS". you realize what Idealism is and how it obscures whatever non-Idealist relationships between things may exist

</ol><noinclude>

[[Category:First nine thousand (RD)]]</noinclude>

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

2026-05-12T01:57:20Z

ICFIReporters: The bourgeoisie does not rule by force in the United States (Gramscianism)

<h2 id="section-proposed4">Unsorted Items (page 4) {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset">

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}The bourgeoisie does not rule by force in the United States (Gramscianism)

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}Gramscianism presupposes Fisherism / The Gramscian formulation of Leninism presupposes that "ideological hegemony" can itself rule society

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Class rule is first created inside civil society (Gramsci)

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Surrounding historical context matters greatly for judging Gramscianism

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Gramscianism mourns nonexistent Rhizome / In concept, Gramscianism requires a healthy [[E:stationary Rhizome (schizoanalysis)|Rhizome process]] in order to function in which various workers, Careerists, or small businesses injected or embedded into the structure of capitalism first consistently solidify together into a "community" and then into a solid social-democratic party, and lastly agree to create a stable population structure that can undergo socialist transition, but this overall transition from tiny adversarial movements to social-democracy has become infeasible and easily thwarted due to the sheer level of [[E:creative destruction|churn]] on business territories and jobs in modern capitalism, which prevents Rhizome, "community", or social-democratic parties from even forming

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}Liberal republics reverting to monarchy -> this has happened multiple times in history if I remember right, I want to say that counting attempts at it I can think of at least one success and two attempts. and one of the failures was France! France didn't succeed at the French revolution, it had to try several more times. when this of all things is possible, it seems really weird the Soviet Union would not have been more aware of the possibility of capitalist reversion.

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}reactionaries (French revolution) -> this is often pointed to as one of the first {{em|documented}} examples of reactionaries where people took the concept, separated it out, and labeled it. that isn't to say it's the first example of there ever being reactionaries in world history, but it {{em|is}} to say it's one of people's favorite examples.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}statement considered reactionary in particular population / statement which is considered reactionary in particular country or population in particular historical period -> important for the purposes of constructing an ontology of what is reactionary in what way and why. 
this concept is a little abstract but it's also one where ultimately [[E:'pataphysical reduction (meta-ontology, meta-Marxism)|'pata-reduction]] can be applied to create Materialist models

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Processes unrelated to capital reproduction and inherently related to interpersonal relationships can affect and shape classes / Processes unrelated to [[E:reproduction of capital (Marx)|capital as a process]] and inherently related to interpersonal relationships and physical group-borders between populations or subpopulations ("populational processes", "sociopolitical processes", "cultural processes") can affect and shape classes despite not being from the same scale as class processes and outwardly appearing not to be class processes or related to class processes (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) -> this wouldn't be surprising if you've gone way deep into the weeds of Marx's work and realized how central "relations" or antagonisms between physical objects are in creating classes. but apparently this is a concept a lot of Marxists in Third-World countries don't yet understand. 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Disability actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Autism regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / ADHD regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Racism actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Transphobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Homophobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Anti-colonialism is rooted in colonialism / Postcolonial anarchisms require [[E:endocolonialism (meta-Marxism onto anarchism)|endocolonialism]] to function / The concept of insisting that First World empires can be changed simply by culturally fabricating better culture is dependent on the existence of [[E:bourgeoisie (layer of people that decide everything about culture before culture is widely interacted with; meta-Marxism onto Western-Marxism)|a class of people]] that decides everything about society by claiming territory, determining what will happen within that territory, and tightly controlling social links to that territory, as well as duplicating itself across the land to the point all territory is filled by said people, and it thus becomes that the whole territory of national populations is ruled by "Idealism" or "human will" but only that belonging to a fraction of the human population that is unaccountable to the rest of the population and also perhaps unaccountable to {{em|half of itself}}

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Optimism is believing that everybody ("[[E:IBE|I believe that everybody]]" statements; Liberal-republicanism) / Optimism is the same thing as Idealism

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with pigs (fiction) / Wilbur (generic) / Babe (generic) / Napoleon (generic) / Snowball (generic) -> so for a second I forgot that Babe and Wilbur were different pigs and I was like, which name was the correct name??

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with cats (fiction) / name associated with domestic cats (house cats; fiction) / Garfield (Teen Titans; generic) / Firestar (generic) -> I've been cursed with the knowledge that Teen Titans used the name "Garfield" to imply the general concept of a cat and now you have to be cursed with it too.

{{li|I=S2/GR/MX|Q=618}}Relativity is inherently Communist / Relativity is inherently Marxist / Because Einstein's [[E:scientific model|theories]] of special and general relativity more or less forbid [[E:absolute determinism|absolute determinism]] and in practice only allow for [[E:lambda-calculus determinism|limited]] or [[E:relativistic determinism|relativistic determinism]], relativity inherently promotes the use of naïve dialectical materialism to model the process by which causality leads from past states to future states; this is to {{em|imply}} that relativity promotes large-scale, [[E:dialectical materialism (Marxism)|specific-sense dialectical materialism]] as in Marx but only to outright state that it promotes multivariable functions as opposed to single-variable functions, and [[E:wavemachine logic (meta-Marxism)|wave-machine logic]]

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}China has been effectively attempting to eradicate Uighur language, culture, and tradition (Mia Hasenson-Gross) [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/27/holduk-jewish-leaders-use-holocaust-day-to-denounce-uighur-abuses?ref=hir.harvard.edu] [https://hir.harvard.edu/rated-c-for-censored-walt-disney-in-chinas-pocket/] -> 
so... let's keep in mind that out of 12 million Uighurs, at most 1 million are subject to this 'genocide effort'. that {{em|is}} a high number, but it's also a rather small fraction to be a genocide. in order to be "comparable to Nazi Germany", which is what the director says, it would have to be some 70-100% of Uighurs in concentration camps. but it's only 8%. so it's {{em|not}} comparable to Nazi Germany. 
let's put things in perspective: a bit under 1% of the United States Black population is put in prison. [https://theworlddata.com/percentage-of-black-people-in-prison/] many people are (rightfully) upset about this and consider it already a high percentage, whether they're crazy people like Tucker Carlson or they actually want to help do something constructive to solve the problem. but nobody has successfully drawn up a plan for the African-American subpopulation to become independent from the United States... despite most people across the U.S. political spectrum actually agreeing that the United States government is not serving them well and they deserve independence, either in a positive sense of inclusion or a negative sense of exclusion. one of the big reasons is that it could be the case that there is a greater proportion of people who want to kick them out and basically ban them from the country in that negative sense. if these kinds of people get to dictate policy over another population of people, you basically get Israel; you get an empire that rules over a minority through exclusion and an angry population of minority people who will build a second violent empire and possibly go kill people or destroy all their buildings to secure a safe place to be. so, whether people are able to quite articulate that concept or not, they get afraid of Black people {{em|not}} being ruled over by the United States and its stock of "Joe Bidens" or "White settler leaders" and get really insistent that either the Democratic Party will protect minority ethnic subpopulations and they must be loyal to the Democratic Party regime or that if everybody becomes anarchists Rhizome will somehow glue the country's populations together properly and fix everything. even though the Democratic Party lets Israel go on and {{em|isn't doing anything}} to stop racist cops from profiling Black people and putting 1% of them in prison. so, the Democratic Party versus the Black subpopulation and the CPC versus Uighurs is more comparable than you might think. 
10% is a very high percentage of a group of people to be thrown in prison. I won't deny that. but that's assuming the figure is true and not exaggerated, when it's entirely possible the figure is an overestimate that blows the number up more than twice as big as it really is. this is starting to look like the loose alliance between the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainian SSR. the Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainians each decided for different reasons that if people were suffering while being part of the USSR — despite those two things not even necessarily being related! — then it's good to break a country or political party of people out of the USSR and create something else. this proved to be a really bad decision for both of them. when the USSR was dissolved, as the Trotskyites were unknowingly pushing for, it pretty much liquidated the populations themselves bringing economic destruction and migrations to other countries, not to mention the countries separating and becoming less functional as smaller isolated territories than they were when connected (a point Trotskyists still go on about without realizing their strategies cause it). when Ukraine was made independent, it no longer had any protection from Russia simply deciding to invade it and digest Ukraine and turn it into more Russia. people will complain about "Russification" inside the USSR, but the truth is, the presence of the USSR at least created some possibility for political control over that process and the ability to stop it. if there's no government extending over both Russia and Ukraine, then there's no process capable of telling Russia to stop killing Ukrainians or making those actions illegal; the act of killing Ukrainians becomes more or less just a legal and normal practice. if anyone pretends otherwise, it's all just a smokescreen to hide the possibility that the United States wants to become the unofficial government of Ukraine and effectively turn it into a U.S. territory within a world-sized state, like Greenland is a territory of Denmark despite consisting of 90% Inuit people that should have no interest whatsoever in Danish politics. that's what's being hidden here. the world is still in a warring states period of countries trying to annex other countries to their kingdoms, and nothing has been able to stop it, not the United Nations, not Bolshevism, not people going on and on about anarchism or postcolonial theories. any argument about Xinjiang is one big colonial argument of whether it should be part of China or part of the United States. and let me tell you, the way we treat Muslims in the United States, {{em|you don't want it being part of the United States}}. 
sidenote: the discussion over this kind of stuff changes if you separate "Zinovievists" from "real Trotskyism". if Trotskyists actually created a really big civilization of like 100 countries, it's theoretically {{em|conceivable}} that things like the United States and China fighting over Xinjiang or historically the battle between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union over Poland would be over. however, what Trotskyists don't tell you is that that doesn't really create an end to political discourses over "colonialism" and "oppression", because those conflicts are caused by which groups of people are combined together into populations or separated. so if Trotskyism was suddenly created tomorrow, the kinds of arguments that are going on right now about Black people or Xinjiang would still be happening, they would just be happening in a different form in which people had fully come to understand that you can't just 'remove government' or 'separate populations' to fix a problem and you truly have to negotiate the ongoing {{em|relationships}} between populations recognizing those interactions and relationships as inevitable to actually get the state of one ethnic group bossing around another ethnic group "gone".

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}bolding for spoken emphasis [https://rtaibah.com/2022/10/03/do-not-use-oblique-fonts-for-emphasis-in-arabic/] -> so, I never knew this before, but the Arabic language never developed a slanted style for emphasis. this is probably one of the reasons the italics tag <code>i</code> was semi-deprecated in favor of <code>em</code>: so it can be shown bold in Arabic. you learn something new every day.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX, MZ|Q=618}}Movementism is comparable to a Rubik's cube; many times when a particular identity movement makes progress it inherently sets several other identities back, ordering one side of the "cube" and simultaneously mixing up several other sides -> this to me is one of the biggest problems with Habermas trying to conceptualize social progress as moral evolution. "moral evolution" itself is nearly a zero-sum game, where a lot of people get hurt at every moment

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Fascism is near-synonymous with the bourgeoisie / Fascism is near-synonymous with "the existence of the bourgeoisie"; you can take any statement about "fascism" and simply drop in "the bourgeoisie" to get a hint on how to fix it -> this is awfully revealing when, for instance, people talk about "getting rid of" fascism — you don't say??? 
{{i|14 characteristics of the bourgeoisie}}. yeah, that figures, Marx described 'the ruling ideas' that flood society when a class takes over. {{i|the bourgeoisie can't be reasoned with}}. basically. {{i|if you're not against the bourgeoisie you're with it}}. that one just about flipped from blue to red. {{i|Liberal-republicanism exists to prevent the bourgeoisie}}. wonky, but not wrong, once you've learned about "anarchemistry" and the really weird and contradictory ways Liberal-republicanism tries to make finite things that actually are indefinite. {{i|I'm not a fascist}} = {{i|I'm not the bourgeoisie!!}} honestly, says a lot about why people deny either of these things, it's the same kind of denial because people are so immersed in the water they can't see it. 
you can get pretty far with this. it doesn't tell you everything about each statement but it does help you unpack a whole lot of statements in a horizontal way.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}LLMs are not consumerism / Large language models are, ironically, one of the only things that cannot be termed {{i|consumerism}}, because despite the huge water and land usage on image and video generators, chatbots within the text realm put to use as search engines or "librarians" are one of the only cases within an overall capitalist society where the act of socializing and forming bonds has not been transmogrified into an individual paying a producer or laborer to create a commercial product and then referring to that particular act as "community"; while such things as movie theaters, newly released video games, and animation merchandise are inherently consumerist, large language models ironically are not, due to reasons such as that they involve users interacting with already existing webpages or books which do and are not a social activity in the first place

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618}}example of prescriptive rule (truth value) / obeys prescriptive rule (truth value) -> this is to be used with Wavebuilder combinations in order to add qualifiers of what specific rules a particular Item obeys or fits into; these should usually be put in the "redundant combinations" area given that they are not giving you logical results of the components but are strictly working backward from a result. for example: obeys prescriptive rule + Propositions have four words (English) = (particular Item).
{{li|I=S1/MW|Q=618}}example of project policy (truth value) / obeys project policy (truth value)

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Propositions have four words / Statements have four words; the specific count of four words only applies to the English language / Propositions in German or Japanese should have some maximum number of characters -> this rule emerged informally as I repeatedly tried to cram really long propositions into a few words that would fit nicely into a data table and be easy to remember. three words was often too few and six was often too many but four was about right most of the time. now that it's been going a while, I like it. it's funny how it happens to mirror the long-standing practice of a lot of Chinese sayings, usually idioms, being expressed in four syllables. I've apparently cracked the problem of four word idioms for English without trying to. 
also... I watched this one video that was purposefully making a constructed language where it was impossible for individual words to hold meaning and only an entire sentence could mean something, because the sentence was a hash of a bunch of numbered concepts lined up or something like that. that's almost a real thing with drastically abbreviated propositions — the four words together mean something and each word may mean something specifically next to one of the others but the individual words cease to mean anything by themselves.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Movie theaters are more Fisherist than movies / Movie theaters cracking down on "cam recordings" is a better example of capitalism programming people with its beliefs than any of the actual content of movies -> we have this incredibly stupid contradiction that people have realized that "cops" are bad, but they also have no idea whatsoever that rules are bad and think that culture products actually program people when all they are is the thoughts that are left over after rules are enforced. oh, yeah, and also we believe Stalin's government was really bad for enforcing tyrannical rules but we still don't have any idea that [[E:steel rule|it's the rules that are bad]]. 
I'm gonna make a bold statement: the cop is just doing their job. "ACAB" is not a historical statement describing centuries of events.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}An international Communist program is not a collection of national programs (Bill van Auken) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/09/le6-all.html] -> he may be at least partly right. I mean, even a meta-Marxist program would contain slightly more than a collection of national programs due to the need to get each national program to understand the other ones.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Stalin claiming the other countries were not subordinate to the Soviet Union is basically an Idealist statement as a miscellaneous collection of individual countries has no protection against having to form a herd-of-cats effect in which particular countries or clusters of competent leaders guard the entire thing against the First World

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=618}}History is the progression of conflicting anarchisms (derived anarchist proposition) / Anarchism is non-dialectical by itself but dialectical when it exists in plurality with itself because multiple anarchisms fighting each other will enact the Hegelian dialectic -> this has to be true for a theory based on "freedom" to actually work in real life. you have to have a bunch of discrete named anarchisms where almost all identify themselves as anarchisms but they each decide to fight each other and explode each other to be born because something about the previous one didn't make them feel "free" and so they tried to destroy it in order to create something else they couldn't describe. 
this proposition is both wonderful and terrible. it's wonderful in that I actually now have a working model of exactly why it is that anarchisms are overall so persistent and refuse to give up: anarchisms are not actually against Hegelianism, but they see {{em|themselves}} as the entire Hegelian dialectic. the concept of Stalin trying to model society as local structures transitioning into other structures? {{em|anarchists believe in that}} but they believe that very process right there must take the form of entire Communities burning each other down to create better Communities. it's terrible in that anarchisms will never realize this. they will never realize what they actually are, and they will always act like "freedom" actually is something rather than just an absence and the (sometimes justified) hatred of things they don't like and want to fight.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}No individual human being can be a worker as an individual; as individuals, all human beings are the petty bourgeoisie; human beings become workers if and when they actively integrated into larger structures and cease to be workers when they are removed from those structures -> this problem is part of what sinks basically all Liberal-republican philosophy and all philosophy inside Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republican philosophy is hell-bent on the concept that people really can be considered in isolation, which causes all human beings to conceptualize themselves as petty bourgeoisie, or worse, to actively regenerate the petty bourgeoisie. the concept that [[E:tent of freedom poles|people "have human rights" {{em|as individuals}} and then they come together and have individual human rights as individuals {{em|together}}]] is absolutely lethal to a functioning society.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The "failure" of Wikipedia to provide a reliable source (presumed to be as reliable as grade school texts, not university-level texts) is actually the failure of anarchism, and of a particular kind of named [[E:anarchy (meta-Marxism)|anarchy]] -> I don't know what this particular kind of anarchy is called, but I'll find a name for it eventually. it has something to do with the notion of culture products or information products as open and evolving instead of closed, when their content really should have been closed. (this does not refer to the concept of "open" or "closed" source code, it's a totally different kind of "closed" or "open".) funny enough, the Free Software movement has already figured out how to make Freed things with closed contents — we call them software packages.

{{li|I=S2/Fy/MX|Q=618}}Corporate [[E:art product (economics)|culture products]] are not objects communicated from a director to each audience member, but are in practice generally objects communicated from one fan to another fan; not only is the "artistic vision" of one particular specific individual a ridiculous thing to expect culture products to have, but at the end of the day all corporate culture products are ultimately just pre-made commercial fan fiction -> the way you have to fix the fan fiction problem is so specific. I've had several "solutions" to it that were probably wrong. but I think the crux of it lies here. the most important relationship in the pipeline of culture products is them being passed back and forth between fans. on occasion quite literally when someone hands someone else a Steam code. most of the time a little more figuratively, in the form of let's plays, theory videos, and the construction of alternate timelines. capitalism makes a huge deal out of the sanctity of the corporation for no good reason. ideally what you want is the paid experts completing their task of churning out culture products without a lot of ado about how great or awful the workers are personally for particular actions and decisions, instead they just complete the task quietly and go home, and then you want the fans to be allowed to pass back and forth whatever they want to regardless of whether it has been modified. and you don't want the central party-nation freaking out about the airtight seal between corporation and fans and the fans "wrecking society by doing too much"; that should not be a real offense. instead, if anything, you want the central party simply noticing where the seal is breaking and doing inquiries into whether different kinds of products should be produced. it {{em|might be the case}} hypothetically that the ideal scenario is the seal breaking totally and government not even having to bother re-connecting any of the points of production to formal corporations because there is simply enough stuff that nobody actually has to pay for culture products any more and generally considers them all to cost zero or literally a couple loose coins at a thrift store. 
the last thing you want to see happening (ever) is a "Chinese map fiasco" where people perceive government as a brutal predator that munches on human social activity purely to digest it and start scheming about how to stay out of its mouth because they know everything only gets worse after you fall in. you can never let that happen because the moment it happens the whole of socialist transition will disintegrate. the petty bourgeoisie regenerates in a heartbeat and it happens anywhere and everywhere. you're much more at its mercy than you ever could have realized.

{{li|I=S2/LGBT/PT|Q=618}}Pride is a vice! (Toryism) / LGBT people shouldn't be bold and proud because pride is a sin (is a vice; Christianity) -> this proposition is bullshit but it really is interesting linguistically because it makes you ask how many things "pride" actually refers to. I can think of at least two: A) arrogant overconfidence B) the unwillingness to either trust others or submit to others (the way it was used in Dragon Ball, where I heard it and was just like, is that actually bad though, the kind of people who want you to surrender to them can be cruel and not worth it)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Deleting Mao is Orientalist / Attributing Buddhism or Taoism specifically to "Eastern culture" is an unnecessary act of essentialism, because it proposes that instead of warring states periods (a repeatable pattern made of predictable processes) giving rise to Taoism and Chinese Buddhism, people chose to create Buddhism and Taoism to solve warring states periods {{em|because}} people were inherently Chinese -> I knew there was something that bothered me about people always referring to "Eastern culture". {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} it's this! it's the Idealist interpretation of history that is implied inside it. 
you know what else Asians created to solve warring states periods? Maoism. that is completely different from either Buddhism or Taoism. so what inherent Asian essence is contained in {{em|that}}? {{a|how do you reconcile|E=Hegelian dialectic}} there being at least two {{em|completely different}} definitions of "Eastern culture"?

{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}Japan's only philosophy is Japaneseness / Japanese people do not have [[E:material contradiction (Marxism)|plural philosophies]] repeatable across other countries, they only have Japaneseness {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} -> I am so done with the entire concept of "studying Cultures" because I swear this is how most ordinary people interpret it. they throw around the word "collectivism" like it actually means something and refers to a philosophy, but what they really mean when they say it is precisely "Chineseness" or "Japaneseness". they presuppose that Japanese people have Japaneseness and then they look for more descriptions of Japaneseness to explain why Japaneseness leads to Japaneseness in a circular loop.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deleting Mao from Chinese history / deleting Mao (Liberal-republicanism) -> this is a fun one. you'll see why on the next line. 
memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + the PRC is a bad fake historical period = deleting Mao. memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + Kuomintang = deleting Mao. deleting Mao + medieval fantasy = China is still a medieval kingdom.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Giving money to businesses doesn't help human beings; it only helps business structures and the owners that are conflated with them / Giving money to businesses doesn't help the proletariat -> I like this framing because I think it's arguable it doesn't even really help small owners.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The concept of "race traitors" implies races are physical processes producing necessity / The concept of "race traitors" implies that there is an inevitable destiny for a whole population of Black people just because they are Black, which will be realized through an overall Black population interacting all at once with its surroundings only under particular (non-inevitable) conditions, but will not happen through individuals as separated from the Black population as an indivisible object

{{li|I=S2/MX/DG/A|Q=618}}The United States has the most incentive of any country to get rid of capitalism because it has the most minorities; there are so many distinct minorities that politics itself has come to revolve around minorities, but because each of them contains so few people under such isolation, not a single one of them is going to become free of attempts to exterminate it under capitalism or reformism

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning Malthusianism is genocide / Whenever you choose to say a statement in Malthusianism you have chosen to cause other people to be bigoted {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} -> no... that isn't how it works. as a framework, statements inside Malthusianism could hypothetically be true without all of it being true, so if those are already true and you say them, you didn't cause them to happen. this is like saying that if you predict a box to contain a dead cat when somebody filled it out of sight then you caused it to contain a dead cat, even if the other options are unrelated to cats, like the other option is the box is empty. overpopulation leading to bad outcomes can hypothetically be the case whether you want it to or not, but the important thing to realize is that that doesn't have any bearing on what the actual bad outcomes are. the bad outcomes might not be anything like the simplistic scenarios in Malthus' essays of overcrowding or 'eating babies'. the bad outcomes might look more like an increase in people randomly murdering each other because everyone increasingly feels like everyone else is threatening their existence and they need to protect their existence because 'all individual existences deserve to be respected' {{em|or else}}; despite what everybody wants nobody will yield to anybody else and so people get furious and kill in order to regain control. if everybody's doing that, you don't have control over it; you can't just say "believing in overpopulation is bad" or "if we don't things will get better" to fix it. because when people really truly believe things "Should" work a certain way, especially if that "Should" is an ethical prescription, they won't listen to anything you say until reality magically fixes itself to be that way. people are just going to get angrier and angrier every single day there are too many people and those people are disorganized and attempt with steadily increasing blind rage to punish all the disorganized people that have not been planned or controlled in any way for not being controlled in any way. there's really no "society", "social-ism", "community" -ing out of that situation, because other people's ethical imperatives are not a social construct — you can only obey whatever the {{censor|fuck}} other people tell you to do or risk them doing violence to you... or kill them, I suppose. ethics is an infamously unyielding form of philosophy. if there existed any form of belief where everybody spontaneously giving it up would actually solve all our problems, then everybody giving up the entire concept of ethics would be it. think about it: every right-Liberal who tries to say that accumulating wealth is good relies on property rights, which rely on ethics. every nazi that tries to say trans people are destroying the United States relies on a right to not have this "intrude" on their lives, which relies on ethics. if everyone really actually got rid of ethics, they wouldn't be able to defend bad things either, because the whole concept that individuals can make "correct choices" that are superior to other choices in creating a future they would be satisfied with would be gone. there would be vastly more incentive to question your previous decisions and deconstruct arbitrary beliefs if ethics did not exist at all. "post-structuralist philosophy"? "prejudices" and "biases" that will never make sense as analytical tools once you stop being the person that wrote the paper? how about we just get rid of ethics and accomplish the same thing way better with way fewer problems. 
I think the thing that bothered me the most about this video is.... the Overshoot Theory video I remember from a while back was also leaning on Native Americans. Overshoot man was like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, overpopulation!}} while these people are like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, no overpopulation!}}. it honestly feels like a non sequitur in both cases. I feel like overpopulation genuinely has nothing to do with whether North American tribes 'have lived more sustainably', positively or negatively. the cases where you'd see overpopulation come from a genuinely different kind of society that operates through entirely different material processes. which means you can't analogize a smaller society to it.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}North American tribes are not defined by romantic mystical beliefs {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} -> of course they aren't. but I suspect you're going to have to go have a stern word with a whole lot of anarchists who are busy appropriating everything non-White from the past century they can find just to try to get rid of Whiteness. 
I'm not entirely free of this either because I'm one of those people who started vaguely appropriating {{em|Soviet identity}} on account of how Russians apparently don't want it any more so now it's mine I guess. the situation for White people is just terrible because practically everybody is agreeing that Whiteness has to go (including the fascists who want to revert to medieval empire, in their own weird way) but absolutely nobody wants to step away from Idealism and consider a theory based on really fine-grained "reductionist" changes to material conditions as opposed to one all about "subjectivity" and "ethics", so it always turns into this game of trying to change Whiteness through abstract Ideals or finding a group of people it's theoretically okay to appropriate as a substitute for everyone not being entirely isolated into vulnerable individuals and there actually being any real living individuals for anyone to team up with. I make use of historical theorists of Marxism because they are defined by Materialist models as opposed to cultural identity or experiences and while that's a reason by itself it also has the bonus I can't really turn them into an exotic group distinguished by not being Whiteness that is then hijacked by Whiteness. but that ironically leads to the contradiction that in trying not to appropriate other countries I am still almost exclusively wearing other countries because the United States sucks. 
I'm so done with anarchism because at the end of the day it sort of corrupts Communism too. 
Communism: we will create a scientific model of reality. anarchism: a what??! you mean a cold unfeeling model of reality? Communism: what. anarchism: movements and revolutions only come from empathy so I am going to go talk to some Native Americans. Communism: uh. okay. anarchism: I have learned from the Native Americans that White people have a horrible way of life and I want to bring back secular animism. Communism: oh boy this is going to end badly. anarchism: you say that because you're a coward who isn't willing to question Western biases while I'm the true radical. Communism: uh, no, I say that because ancient religions come from a definite form of society and whenever you try to bring them to a later historical period it's going to look utterly tacky. or, to put it in language you understand, like you are stealing other people's culture for the benefit of Whiteness. anarchism: I would never do that. I believe in the sanctity of all living beings and natural objects because I am connected with the original semiotic and harmonious flows of nature. Native Americans: what the fuck. anarchism: see, I'm deconstructing Whiteness. Native Americans: and all of your summaries of animism amount to racial stereotypes. Communism: yeah, I knew how this was going to go. excuse me while I go read up on the conflict between Mao, Deng, and Alan Woods as something probably more relevant to the United States and less easy to accidentally turn offensive. anarchism: oh, you mean three people aligned with modern civilization, who are practically White? Communism: you have apparently never heard my racist relatives talk about Mao. do you even know what a racist {{em|is}} or do you just immediately swallow whatever new trend academia feeds you? anarchism: oh wow [placeholder]. {{i|(gulp)}}

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}It's easier to imagine a completely fake world in space than the end of capitalism on earth {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} / It's easier to imagine a completely fake world in space, either from the view of the giant galactic empires or the local resistances, than the end of capitalism on earth -> that's completely true. 
but the problem which can never be addressed in a video like this is that every time somebody anywhere says "the end of capitalism" {{em|they imagine something different}} and thus you can never trust that they're actually saying anything insightful or coherent or that people are going to work toward the same goal. saying "the end of capitalism" has become a deepity in some ways

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}It's easier to imagine the end of capitalism than the end of capitalism / It's easier to {{em|talk about imagining the end of capitalism}} without those words actually meaning anything in particular than it is to imagine {{em|an actual end of capitalism}} which is described practically enough that all people who currently belong to any ideological faction can come together and create it barring actual material incentives that prevent them from taking different actions or joining different ideologies -> this is about 10% a troll proposition made because the sentence was really funny to say. but I do think it's true.

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}There should never be new swatches for identity-based movements existing below the national level, except given special reasoning for why those swatches are especially relevant to describing internationalism; this applies specifically to color swatches, not to text-based philosophy tags -> "LGBT" is one of the only identity movements to be granted its own swatch specifically based on identity as opposed to based on its material strategy. 
"Dengism", despite being highly associated with China, is not a demographic identity {{em|inside}} China, it's the whole China, and likewise "Juche-socialism" is the whole North Korea. BlackPantherism is a bit borderline but it passes because of the remark that it could expand over the country and wasn't specifically Black. Trotskyism either spuriously or actually claims to be international, so any argument that it is in fact a demographic identity isn't relevant here as that isn't a mainstream perception of it. "feminism" will not have a swatch because it is easily collapsed into a Liberal-republican interest group and weaponized against trans people. "Muslim socialism" will not have a swatch, although "religious socialism" as a very general category would be closer to being acceptable. "fascism" gets a swatch of some sort; "Italian fascism" doesn't get a swatch. any movement which can actually be defined based on summaries of its material behavior as opposed to culture and can be described as it applies to multiple possible cultural identities is exempt from these rules. "North American Maoism" could have a swatch if it became really relevant and as long as its material behavior can be distinguished from "(Chinese) Maoism" or "(Indian) Maoism". 
"LGBT tradition" is one of the only things that genuinely needs and gets an exception from these rules because it's one of the few things that deliberately draws on demographic identity characteristics themselves to produce generalized philosophy which becomes separate from identity. the concept of "queerness" is tightly tied to identity at first, but then becomes its own thing that can be used to describe the dynamics of several other identities as they relate to the rest of society — autistic identity, mental illness associated identity, disabled identity — which experience a similar exclusion and process of having to decide whether to "stay apart" or "fit in". the "queerness metaphor" has a lot of value in describing other movements, so it's useful to have an LGBT swatch to crystallize and focus on that paradigm as it will be used to vaguely associate to the other movements. 
also. I probably could have picked a different "stay apart"/"fit in" conflict to stand in for all of these, but I liked having an excuse to make one of the swatches a rainbow, so I picked this one.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Every republic is a class society (anarchism) / Every republic is a class society ("hierarchy", spatial class order) because a ruling class must exist to create a republic -> it's this kind of proposition that makes me question if Trotskyism does or doesn't believe in an era of socialism. it really claims to believe in a republic but its insistence on 'getting rid of bureaucracy' and getting rid of borders (which in a roundabout way are one of the reasons an era of socialism exists, because both things exist due to a country being a physical object) makes it bizarrely more similar to the anarchist method of "class analysis" than the Marxist one, and "anarchist class analysis" necessarily leads to trying to do everything Immediately as opposed to on a reasonable time scale

{{li|I=S2/ES/MX|Q=618}}The militant form of Existentialism is when Existentialists kill others that threaten their existence in order to continue existing -> this is one of the many reasons I don't like Existentialism. first, it's thoroughly incoherent. none of its actions are predictable based on combining logical statements or based on anything called "reason". none of its actions are explainable with religious justifications nor morality. it gets super offended when you try to reduce collections of people to inanimate objects but in practice it encourages humans to behave like lions or baboons. we may as well all be inanimate objects for how good this philosophy is. second... it turns brown not even in two seconds, but yesterday.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Killing people who would otherwise kill you is self defense / iron rule ... (censored title) / [[E:Do unto others before they do unto you|iron rule]] (generic) -> hmmmmmmm. A) are they Black people the cops are scared of B) are they midwest Indians in the 1800s C) are they Palestinians D) are they a Bolshevik government attempting to prevent the petty bourgeoisie from creating civil war or imperialism? this is bad exmat because I absolutely saw the fourth one casually tossed out in the same comments section. "Hitler, Stalin, or Mao", they said casually [[E:Nazism and Bolshevism have the same cause|as if it made sense]].

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}History is the progression of generational subcultures -> this is slightly different from the claim that history is the progression of father to son to son or mother to daughter to son to daughter etc., because it is talking about the progression of whole layers of thousands and thousands of people born in the same 5-10 year period, and is not centering itself around individuals or psychoanalysis. it's not psychoanalysis, and instead, it's shifted its entire focus over to art history, the humanities, or the history of an industry.

{{li|I=S2/HAS/MX|Q=618}}History is the progression of successive semi-countable art markets -> I'm a little astounded to find such an Idealist claim and such a Materialist claim in the same podcast right next to each other a sentence apart, but I'll take it. wow. this one is so telling. it accidentally reveals so much about the connection between capitalist theory, the growth of society, and the outward manifestations seen in culture products. 
let's think about this. a 'console generation' forms in order to raise the prices of the products (largely by producing them new), while decreasing the cost of entry. if the discipline is new, it won't be overrun with expensive equipment, stacks and stacks of money poured into expertise, and the prestige of certain brands creating natural monopolies. after a while, all the corporations in a given market have made their money and the products are everywhere such that neither can new corporations make money nor can old ones earn any more. so then the market resets and an entirely new market is created. a bunch of hype goes around to present the new thing as really great although it was created in order for the new products made for it to not have to be very good at first. and apart from video games, this happens for the general concept of mediums and a lot of physical formats. 
honestly. I trust this more than Habermas' conception of history as some kind of progression of morality where what is progress could become entirely subjective; at least you can measure what a sideways progression from one set of events to another {{em|is}}. 
console wars + History is the progression of generational subcultures = this.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}The middle ground between sense and nonsense is still insane / I believe 2+2=4, but in the interest of representing those who believe 2+2=22, my platform is 2+2=11 (counter-claim)

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}The majority of Jews support Israel {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} / Some Jews don't support Israel (counter-claim) -> this observation really destroys anti-essentialism as a path to truth, doesn't it. superficially it seems to support it, but when you look at how the counter-claim is actually used... it's used to defend Idealism as "not always" being fatally flawed while most uses of it at best make it wholly irrelevant to explaining anything. anti-essentialism is often just a back-handed statement that Idealism doesn't actually explain real life, not realizing that in saying that it's slamming the Idealist models it's supposed to save.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Some Jews don't support Israel {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> U.S. people don't know anything but Idealism, the treatment of everything as abstract qualities. so they have to take on "Jews" and "anti-semitism" as abstract concepts. when they do that, it predisposes them to racist understandings of what various ethnic groups "are". so then they bring out the point of "but surely one of them doesn't support Israel" (anti-essentialism) to badly try to prove that Idealism isn't racist. 
it doesn't fix anything of course. Defining everything by what it's not leads you to defend anything and everything including the U.S. military.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Why do United States people want to rehabilitate veterans but punish ICE? {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> okay, that's a good question. 
I think, speaking materially and not ethically, it has to do with which groups of people U.S. people believe that U.S. law applies to. if you believe in Kantianism you need a body of people to legislate onto to hold anybody responsible for (un)ethical behavior. so, people scramble to define who "Americans" are to determine whether government should be rehabilitating them were that a possibility. I think there is a bias toward rehabilitating veterans {{em|just because there is some chance they might vote Democrat}}, while due to their behavior people have a bias toward labeling Republican voters as foreigners. this isn't {{em|just}} stupidity (even if there may be a bit of that too). at some point Liberal-republican parties stop being arbitrary and start turning into entirely separate nationalities that actually don't consent to being governed by each other; the increasing perception of Republicans as "not Americans" and of ICE as a uniquely foreign army stems from actual observed behavior of Republicans slowly attempting to secede from the sovereign realm of Democrat laws, and of the increasing futility of properly governing them.

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}nucleation site (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}} -> a site of crystallization which encourages formation of other crystals. 
has relevance for the concept of modeling social structures changing
{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}substance flipping over from one polymorph to another (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}}

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}anarcho-NATOism
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Imperialism is nonviolent / Anarchism definitionally requires violence; this is to imply and nearly to state that a warlike, potentially genocidal empire is perfectly okay and recommended because of the fact only a few people at the edge of an empire have to fight over borders and most people in an empire are nonviolent {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> you wonder how anybody goes along with "settler-colonialism" and thinks it's a good idea in the first place. this is how. it's actually nonviolence-colonialism. 
Idealism is dangerous to humanity, it really is. 
anarcho-NATO-ism + ?? = Imperialism is nonviolent.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Marxism before the year 2020 has been a theory of ideological segregation more than a theory of social progress -> why is it that walling off whole fortress states has been more effective than trying to spread filaments of radicals inside class societies? I think the example of China and Taiwan {{em|splitting}} and the example of Texas defeating the freethinkers are very instructive on why this happened

{{li|I=S2/A/MX|Q=618}}Despite the observable historical fact that various social structures can transition into other structures, it is generally {{em|easier}} to create any of the later structures humanity invents by starting from scratch rather than from working with structures that already exist, due to the fact that ruling classes are generally the clusters of people that are more inherently powerful and able to conquer and expand than the masses or clusters of people they rule over -> this is one of the best arguments that anarchism and Trotskyism each have going for them. but it's also one of the best arguments for Deng Xiaoping Thought if you don't totally dismiss sublation processes. this gives way to Deng Xiaoping Thought much faster than it justifies anarchism.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Statues and plaques do not actually teach people history

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}Confederate statue as superstructural artifact -> the motif of Confederate statues being more of a "coincidence" spat out of a Social-Philosophical System that just happens to 'believe' them as opposed to being a good representation of the overall process of history

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If the subjective theory of value is true, then why does the value of various cryptocurrencies keep crashing?

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}"Freethinker" is less technical and more expressive than "atheist" {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> goes to show that anarchism really is the default mode of thinking rather than a great new invention. and I hate that. because freedom doesn't mean {{censor|fucking}} anything. it's actually rather obvious what an atheist is, but "freedom" actually is a belief in nothing because it really is just the absence of whatever else it was tossed in against.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist; this is to imply that "extremes" are an abstract Ideal that miraculously spits out more extremes, and Extremes can be eradicated {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> how is it that people come to regard material contradictions as a completely alien event that isn't the least bit familiar to them

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}The United States got away with outsourcing labor because corporations programmed people to want cheap goods {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}} -> so... how is it they successfully did that if it's possible to simply tell people it was done and break it? if people can really be programmed against their best interests that consistently, then why would they listen to you? 
I think people are making excuses for the fact that owners make these decisions and they fundamentally can't control the owners.

{{li|I=S1/W|tradition=W, PT|Q=618}}corporations programming people / the engineering of consumer behavior {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}}

{{li|I=S1/Fy/ML|Q=618}}treating the protagonists of anticommunist fables as unreliable narrators

{{li|I=S2/HM|tradition=IK, HM, ES|Q=618}}Society is held together based on interpersonal subjective moral consensus 
this + Interpersonal relationships can snap at any moment = Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships are no foundation for society because interpersonal relationships are fragile while society must be more durable to successfully exist / Asocialism (generic)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A theory that primarily grounds itself in human sociality ([[E:Socialism (general-sense progressivism)|Socialism]], humanities, Kantianism, secular animism) will eventually become reactionary, because human sociality in and of itself is not equipped to handle the inevitable [[E:separable multiplicity|countable and separable plurality]] of populations that results when human populations exist in the real world; this is to imply that Marxism is not in fact a theory primarily rooted in human sociality as much as one that simply acknowledges it / Asocialism (generic) 
Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality + A theory of society which is not accurate to material reality will eventually become reactionary = this.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) -> this is apparently its own specific thing. it seems it's typically defined in terms of how well the soviets can defend the overall country and any governing bodies against the re-emergence of capitalism.

{{li|I=S2/IV/MX|Q=618}}Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes; soviet structures are not guaranteed to remain orange because depending on their class and preferred palette of social structures the individual national-employees inside them can add together to turn the structure charcoal, blue, or strawberry -> Trotskyism is weird. it has moments where it's totally unconvicing, and then it has moments where after you've been listening to the actually-okay theorists you have to go out of your way to find, it almost sounds like it got something right. this week, I saw that Trotskyists seemed to be describing the dictatorship of the proletariat as control by one big sea of soviets that are responsible for operating all the other organs of government — the thinking is that if all the soviets are made of proletarians and the soviets are orange, the soviets will keep all of the other structures from turning strawberry or any other unfavorable ideology. but then I thought about it for a bit, and I realized that this isn't an airtight strategy. in the real world, proletarians can level up into non-proletarians through small-scale processes, and it happens all the time whenever there aren't enough job slots or people simply don't fit into existing business territories' "culture". it's very easy for a country that's full of proletarians one moment to slowly morph into a country of skilled workers that all want their own businesses but will also complain when the reality of running them is much harder than they dreamed. 
this became apparent to me as soon as I saw Gramsci talking about a council for the "self-employed". that isn't a red or orange structure, that's a blue or strawberry structure. and those kinds of structures can undo a revolution. but it's also trivial for more of them to be produced through misapplied education or training. if the soviets have full control, it's easy for petty classes to rebel against all the orange soviets and start taking control of the whole country through whatever limited ability they have to assemble together groups of people that outcompete surrounding workers. 
dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) + proletarians promoting into Careerists = Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes.

{{li|I=S1/ML/ES|Q=618}}the eclectic gruel of philosophy / eclectic gruel (philosophy) / the pauper's broth of eclecticism which is ladled out in the universities under the name of philosophy (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch01.htm] -> there are some descriptions where you see them and you just know, I've seen this, this is ridiculously relatable across time periods. I haven't read these specific philosophies and yet just by that description I feel like I already have.

{{li|I=S1/AS/HM|Q=618}}moral evolution (critical theory) / Hegelian evolution of morality / historical development of societies as conceptualized around morality or ethics [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/01/habe-a01.html] / procedural theory of rationality (Liberal-republican ethics; Habermas) -> the concept in Habermas of modeling either large or small changes in societies through changes in morality and the resulting changes in society. I'd hate this except that it gets really funny when you apply it to world civilization and actual changes between historical periods, revealing a lot about how imperialism works; in a way, it's so bad it's good. I guess that's about what you should expect to get when you start with Hegel. Liberal-republicanism is frustrating but Hegel really isn't so bad in the end.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deformed Liberal states / degenerated Liberal states -> the motif of Liberal-republican countries looking at other nation-states and regarding them as deformed versions of themselves that need to be punished until they form correctly. 
deformed Liberal states + moral evolution (Trotskyism) = deformed workers' states.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Morality itself tends to favor a world of "small business hell" simply because the assumptions that lead to people creating morality {{em|happen to lead there}} and all Idealist statements when put together spit out some kind of real-world consequence -> I find it frustrating that people will start from a set of arbitrary Ideals and then just deontologically assume that if those Ideals are good then whatever they produce must also be good. to me Habermas' theory of moral consciousness just doesn't make sense as a material theory of history because in one way all moral or ethical values are always arbitrary; there will always be a point where people assume that what they're currently doing is morally good or superior just because it's the thing a lot of people are doing and none of them want to stop doing it while any other group of people must be morally bad just for doing a different thing that threatens to replace that thing, even before they actually demand other people trade in what they're doing for the new thing.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Idealism produces material outcomes / All Idealist statements or combinations of Idealist statements lead to some kind of real-world consequence -> there are many ways to take this. one of the surface conclusions is that Idealism isn't as explanatory as Materialism. one of the most interesting conclusions is that you can "meta-game" Idealism and figure out the best Ideals to tell people in order to get them to create particular material results. this {{em|is}} essentially lying to people to manipulate their behavior, which if it were up to me I don't really like, but a lot of people believe that most human beings' understanding of the world will never go above that level, which might make it ethical under some theories of ethics.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Prejudice and structural inequality are not the same thing; getting rid of prejudice does not necessarily get rid of structural inequality [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough] -> well. I have to agree with this. I'm puzzled why anarchists in general aren't better at understanding this. but the blue anarchists did get something right.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Contact between populations reduces prejudice when four conditions are met: 1) equal status within the contact situation 2) common goals 3) cooperation 4) support from authorities or social norms (Allport 1954, Pettigrew) [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Negative contact between populations has a greater observed effect than positive contact [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S1/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}analytic thinking as opposed to holistic thinking [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I always wondered why it was called analytic philosophy. is this why?

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}{{abbr|tts=Weird|WEIRD}} countries [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I like this acronym in that most of it makes sense except the "Western" part. I have no idea what that means. is Japan Western, or is it not? there are good arguments both ways. this is why I prefer saying "First World countries".

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer review auditing -> the motif of sending bogus articles to academic journals in hopes the reviewers will catch the problems
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer-review auditing feminist journals [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/18/inte-o18.html] / peer-review auditing gender studies journals 
peer review auditing + gender studies journal = this.
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=IV onto ES|Q=618}}feminist Mein Kampf [https://norskk.is/bytta/menn/our_struggle_is_my_struggle.pdf] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] -> wow. they really should have caught that. I.... have to read this at some point because that sounds like the best one. 
...it's online? oh wonderful. this is very opaque and hard to read. I guess that's how they got it through.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}SEP's analysis of "Stalinism" -> that's... its own specific thing? okay.

{{li|I=S2/ES/MX|Q=618}}If the value of money is culturally fabricated ("made up"), but anarchism can realize itself through a sea of individuals spontaneously deciding to create a different kind of society, then anarchism is a cultural fabrication and everybody is free to spontaneously decide not to follow anarchism and follow whatever ostensibly more oppressive system they want to (meta-Marxism onto post-structuralism)

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}today I was "thinking"... / 'today I was thinking—' 'stop that' / 'today I was thinking—' 'you?! I can't believe it' -> the motif of somebody cutting off a statement where somebody was thinking about some specific thing and focusing on the concept of "thinking".

{{li|I=S1/DFy/PT|Q=618}}Eren Yeager / nazi Eren Yeager (in context of imagining different versions of the story based around different ideologies)

{{li|I=S1/DFy/DX|Q=618}}Dengist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was Western-Marxist (strawberry Marxist, Gramscian, Dengist / Deng Xiaoping Thought) -> so, {{book|Attack on Titan}} has a dumb premise. it reads like a campfire horror story told by nazis in very little irony. but it {{em|is}} really funny to imagine some of the same central themes being used in an approximately Marxist work. like, instead of it being a nazi campfire story the titans are trying to scale a "Berlin wall", or penetrate China or North Korea to take them back for Liberal-republicanism, the titans are hiding out on Taiwan, the titans are sealing people into Cuba and not letting {{em|them}} leave. there obviously wouldn't be a focus on the concept of the big antagonist monsters being 'impure' or 'diseased', that element of it probably wouldn't exist. it would just be kaiju trying to break into the country and do something horrifying. it's gotta be a little over the top. it's gotta be about turning them all into kaiju for some nefarious but useful purpose, like, I dunno, the kaiju feed off negativity and if they all turn into kaiju and fight each other the whole population of kaiju becomes stronger. everyone is horrified about the invasion and it brings them all together.

{{li|I=S1/Fy/A|Q=618}}anarchist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was anarchist -> {{em|this}} is why I am having an increasingly hard time telling the difference between Deng Xiaoping Thought and anarchisms. like, once again, anarchism succeeds when you build a wall around it — probably metaphorically — and wait for the outside to tire itself out. I can't tell the difference between Gramscian Eren Yeager and anarchist Eren Yeager. 
oh god when I just go saying ideologies in a sentence of course my brain is going to shout "Trotskyist Eren Yeager". I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means at all. I dunno, like, the enemies are more like Reptilians or Yeerks and they're hiding out in the central government and nobody wants to believe it so the anti-alien squads are like trying to team up across regions? I tried.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality -> anarchists are going to get so upset if you try to argue this at them. they'll try to argue that reality is whatever comes naturally to living things, and different states of natural for each living species must naturally want to go together, blah blah blah. [*] but they're all privileged. they haven't experienced a state of truly being fenced out of society by thousands and millions of people that all simultaneously agree they don't like you (probably without having met you or having much of any idea what they're doing). they especially haven't experienced it owing to the existence of anarchism, because anarchism already selected for people like them. but they should wise up to the fact that anarchism doesn't really pass the veil of ignorance with flying colors. it's quite easy to end up on the wrong side of "community" where you simply have nobody and nothing and also everyone assumes you must be a bad person just because you haven't claimed an exclusive spot in Community that supposedly you only have to be nice to people to get and follow morality though in reality it's much more difficult and complicated and trivial to simply be born wrong and fail to survive the ecological parameters of the 'community-icene'. I think that as a period of biological life the Anthropocene truly began at tribal society, not at industrial society. it was the ability to form entire ecosystems made of nothing but humans that changed things, but {{em|if anarchists are correct}} that the natural state of humans and human psychology is in tribes then all the current destruction of the environment ultimately came from the characteristics of tribes. tribal populations are not wholly innocent for all the horrors of global empire and ecological destruction if at the end of the day we're {{em|all}} still tribes and they're the only ones trying to disclaim that there are bad things about that. really, as crazy as it sounds, they might be accidentally benefiting from a corrupt system that has killed great numbers of people. of course, if humans don't have a seemingly eternal resting state of being in tribes that we have no choice but to return to which in turn implies we are currently tribes in denial and will still be tribes for the next hundred thousand years, then tribal populations carry no blame for what industrial societies have done. 
(* why didn't they say that about workers' states and the healthy state of the Soviet Union versus the very disordered states that occurred at every moment after tearing it apart? they have even less excuse than Trotskyists. Trotskyists wilfully wanting to overwrite another Marxism with their own Marxism is at least logical even if it's terrible.)

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}"Indigenous people" marks a statement as racist / Saying "indigenous people" marks a sentence as containing racial stereotypes {{YouTube|fwecpbB1DPs}}
{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning ethnic groups is racist / Mentioning an ethnic group without mentioning a specific individual marks a sentence as containing potentially-harmful racial stereotypes -> this is what you have to believe for the above statement to be true. like, if "indigenous people" marks a racial stereotype, then saying a more specific group of people like "Inuit" should equally mark a racial stereotype — how does the person you're talking to {{em|know}} that you're giving correct information about all Inuit people and not just saying something false? but if this is true, you couldn't go to Congress and say "Black people" or "Mexican immigrants" for any legitimate purpose without mentioning individuals that supposedly make the example truer. does it actually make statements more accurate to include specific individuals? I feel like it adds nothing but also subtracts nothing. 
this is a really weird criterion for judging whether statements are accurate. I know where it comes from, it comes from people trying to judge everything through positivism and claim that Lived Experiences are a pathway to truth while a lack of Lived Experiences is a pathway to falsity. it's still really weird. it doesn't seem to accomplish the thing it sets out to accomplish at all, and just seems to make all statements said about any group of people more worthy of doubting. "White people have the colonizer attitude"? maybe not!! Ben was doing that, but did you ask Carla?? "Black people experience structural racism"? maybe not!! you didn't mention an individual so in theory you might be racist for even saying that. 
Mentioning ethnic groups is racist + Anti-essentialism is a pathway to truth = Pointing out racism is racist.

{{li|I=S2/ES/ML|Q=618}}Referring to Communists without mentioning a specific individual is unacceptably prejudiced / If mentioning ethnic groups without mentioning a specific individual is racist, which is to imply that talking about groups of people in the abstract rather than as a particular countable number of concrete objects is racist, then mentioning "Communists" or "Cubans" or "people who support Stalin" without naming a specific individual for evaluation is equally prejudiced; every time somebody has said "tankies" or "totalitarians" or "Stalinist(s)" outside a particular context has been an unacceptably prejudiced statement -> this is another loophole in this. god I love it when really bad propositions break open so bad they wrap around to supporting Communism

{{li|I=S2/A/ML|tradition=ML onto A|Q=618}}"Social construct" is a social construct / Most of the time anarchists talk about social constructs they are trying to imply that things that are undesigned or that come out of interacting elements are deliberately engineered Ideals, but because this overall way of thinking is Idealist, it is also fair to say that anarchists are not working with a model that is well checked against reality and their theory of a given "social construct" being "constructed" is equally as made up as the "social construct" is if not more {{YouTube|Ms_ojmhI_CI}} -> sounds like a deepity until you realize what it's really saying and then your mind is blown 
this is how you get out of what I referred to in another entry as "Gerson Boom BS". you realize what Idealism is and how it obscures whatever non-Idealist relationships between things may exist

</ol><noinclude>

[[Category:First nine thousand (RD)]]</noinclude>

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

2026-05-12T01:54:38Z

ICFIReporters: Gramscianism presupposes Fisherism

<h2 id="section-proposed4">Unsorted Items (page 4) {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset">

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org subtext}}Gramscianism presupposes Fisherism / The Gramscian formulation of Leninism presupposes that "ideological hegemony" can itself rule society

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Class rule is first created inside civil society (Gramsci)

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Surrounding historical context matters greatly for judging Gramscianism

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Gramscianism mourns nonexistent Rhizome / In concept, Gramscianism requires a healthy [[E:stationary Rhizome (schizoanalysis)|Rhizome process]] in order to function in which various workers, Careerists, or small businesses injected or embedded into the structure of capitalism first consistently solidify together into a "community" and then into a solid social-democratic party, and lastly agree to create a stable population structure that can undergo socialist transition, but this overall transition from tiny adversarial movements to social-democracy has become infeasible and easily thwarted due to the sheer level of [[E:creative destruction|churn]] on business territories and jobs in modern capitalism, which prevents Rhizome, "community", or social-democratic parties from even forming

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}Liberal republics reverting to monarchy -> this has happened multiple times in history if I remember right, I want to say that counting attempts at it I can think of at least one success and two attempts. and one of the failures was France! France didn't succeed at the French revolution, it had to try several more times. when this of all things is possible, it seems really weird the Soviet Union would not have been more aware of the possibility of capitalist reversion.

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}reactionaries (French revolution) -> this is often pointed to as one of the first {{em|documented}} examples of reactionaries where people took the concept, separated it out, and labeled it. that isn't to say it's the first example of there ever being reactionaries in world history, but it {{em|is}} to say it's one of people's favorite examples.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}statement considered reactionary in particular population / statement which is considered reactionary in particular country or population in particular historical period -> important for the purposes of constructing an ontology of what is reactionary in what way and why. 
this concept is a little abstract but it's also one where ultimately [[E:'pataphysical reduction (meta-ontology, meta-Marxism)|'pata-reduction]] can be applied to create Materialist models

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Processes unrelated to capital reproduction and inherently related to interpersonal relationships can affect and shape classes / Processes unrelated to [[E:reproduction of capital (Marx)|capital as a process]] and inherently related to interpersonal relationships and physical group-borders between populations or subpopulations ("populational processes", "sociopolitical processes", "cultural processes") can affect and shape classes despite not being from the same scale as class processes and outwardly appearing not to be class processes or related to class processes (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) -> this wouldn't be surprising if you've gone way deep into the weeds of Marx's work and realized how central "relations" or antagonisms between physical objects are in creating classes. but apparently this is a concept a lot of Marxists in Third-World countries don't yet understand. 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Disability actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Autism regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / ADHD regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Racism actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Transphobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Homophobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Anti-colonialism is rooted in colonialism / Postcolonial anarchisms require [[E:endocolonialism (meta-Marxism onto anarchism)|endocolonialism]] to function / The concept of insisting that First World empires can be changed simply by culturally fabricating better culture is dependent on the existence of [[E:bourgeoisie (layer of people that decide everything about culture before culture is widely interacted with; meta-Marxism onto Western-Marxism)|a class of people]] that decides everything about society by claiming territory, determining what will happen within that territory, and tightly controlling social links to that territory, as well as duplicating itself across the land to the point all territory is filled by said people, and it thus becomes that the whole territory of national populations is ruled by "Idealism" or "human will" but only that belonging to a fraction of the human population that is unaccountable to the rest of the population and also perhaps unaccountable to {{em|half of itself}}

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Optimism is believing that everybody ("[[E:IBE|I believe that everybody]]" statements; Liberal-republicanism) / Optimism is the same thing as Idealism

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with pigs (fiction) / Wilbur (generic) / Babe (generic) / Napoleon (generic) / Snowball (generic) -> so for a second I forgot that Babe and Wilbur were different pigs and I was like, which name was the correct name??

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with cats (fiction) / name associated with domestic cats (house cats; fiction) / Garfield (Teen Titans; generic) / Firestar (generic) -> I've been cursed with the knowledge that Teen Titans used the name "Garfield" to imply the general concept of a cat and now you have to be cursed with it too.

{{li|I=S2/GR/MX|Q=618}}Relativity is inherently Communist / Relativity is inherently Marxist / Because Einstein's [[E:scientific model|theories]] of special and general relativity more or less forbid [[E:absolute determinism|absolute determinism]] and in practice only allow for [[E:lambda-calculus determinism|limited]] or [[E:relativistic determinism|relativistic determinism]], relativity inherently promotes the use of naïve dialectical materialism to model the process by which causality leads from past states to future states; this is to {{em|imply}} that relativity promotes large-scale, [[E:dialectical materialism (Marxism)|specific-sense dialectical materialism]] as in Marx but only to outright state that it promotes multivariable functions as opposed to single-variable functions, and [[E:wavemachine logic (meta-Marxism)|wave-machine logic]]

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}China has been effectively attempting to eradicate Uighur language, culture, and tradition (Mia Hasenson-Gross) [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/27/holduk-jewish-leaders-use-holocaust-day-to-denounce-uighur-abuses?ref=hir.harvard.edu] [https://hir.harvard.edu/rated-c-for-censored-walt-disney-in-chinas-pocket/] -> 
so... let's keep in mind that out of 12 million Uighurs, at most 1 million are subject to this 'genocide effort'. that {{em|is}} a high number, but it's also a rather small fraction to be a genocide. in order to be "comparable to Nazi Germany", which is what the director says, it would have to be some 70-100% of Uighurs in concentration camps. but it's only 8%. so it's {{em|not}} comparable to Nazi Germany. 
let's put things in perspective: a bit under 1% of the United States Black population is put in prison. [https://theworlddata.com/percentage-of-black-people-in-prison/] many people are (rightfully) upset about this and consider it already a high percentage, whether they're crazy people like Tucker Carlson or they actually want to help do something constructive to solve the problem. but nobody has successfully drawn up a plan for the African-American subpopulation to become independent from the United States... despite most people across the U.S. political spectrum actually agreeing that the United States government is not serving them well and they deserve independence, either in a positive sense of inclusion or a negative sense of exclusion. one of the big reasons is that it could be the case that there is a greater proportion of people who want to kick them out and basically ban them from the country in that negative sense. if these kinds of people get to dictate policy over another population of people, you basically get Israel; you get an empire that rules over a minority through exclusion and an angry population of minority people who will build a second violent empire and possibly go kill people or destroy all their buildings to secure a safe place to be. so, whether people are able to quite articulate that concept or not, they get afraid of Black people {{em|not}} being ruled over by the United States and its stock of "Joe Bidens" or "White settler leaders" and get really insistent that either the Democratic Party will protect minority ethnic subpopulations and they must be loyal to the Democratic Party regime or that if everybody becomes anarchists Rhizome will somehow glue the country's populations together properly and fix everything. even though the Democratic Party lets Israel go on and {{em|isn't doing anything}} to stop racist cops from profiling Black people and putting 1% of them in prison. so, the Democratic Party versus the Black subpopulation and the CPC versus Uighurs is more comparable than you might think. 
10% is a very high percentage of a group of people to be thrown in prison. I won't deny that. but that's assuming the figure is true and not exaggerated, when it's entirely possible the figure is an overestimate that blows the number up more than twice as big as it really is. this is starting to look like the loose alliance between the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainian SSR. the Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainians each decided for different reasons that if people were suffering while being part of the USSR — despite those two things not even necessarily being related! — then it's good to break a country or political party of people out of the USSR and create something else. this proved to be a really bad decision for both of them. when the USSR was dissolved, as the Trotskyites were unknowingly pushing for, it pretty much liquidated the populations themselves bringing economic destruction and migrations to other countries, not to mention the countries separating and becoming less functional as smaller isolated territories than they were when connected (a point Trotskyists still go on about without realizing their strategies cause it). when Ukraine was made independent, it no longer had any protection from Russia simply deciding to invade it and digest Ukraine and turn it into more Russia. people will complain about "Russification" inside the USSR, but the truth is, the presence of the USSR at least created some possibility for political control over that process and the ability to stop it. if there's no government extending over both Russia and Ukraine, then there's no process capable of telling Russia to stop killing Ukrainians or making those actions illegal; the act of killing Ukrainians becomes more or less just a legal and normal practice. if anyone pretends otherwise, it's all just a smokescreen to hide the possibility that the United States wants to become the unofficial government of Ukraine and effectively turn it into a U.S. territory within a world-sized state, like Greenland is a territory of Denmark despite consisting of 90% Inuit people that should have no interest whatsoever in Danish politics. that's what's being hidden here. the world is still in a warring states period of countries trying to annex other countries to their kingdoms, and nothing has been able to stop it, not the United Nations, not Bolshevism, not people going on and on about anarchism or postcolonial theories. any argument about Xinjiang is one big colonial argument of whether it should be part of China or part of the United States. and let me tell you, the way we treat Muslims in the United States, {{em|you don't want it being part of the United States}}. 
sidenote: the discussion over this kind of stuff changes if you separate "Zinovievists" from "real Trotskyism". if Trotskyists actually created a really big civilization of like 100 countries, it's theoretically {{em|conceivable}} that things like the United States and China fighting over Xinjiang or historically the battle between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union over Poland would be over. however, what Trotskyists don't tell you is that that doesn't really create an end to political discourses over "colonialism" and "oppression", because those conflicts are caused by which groups of people are combined together into populations or separated. so if Trotskyism was suddenly created tomorrow, the kinds of arguments that are going on right now about Black people or Xinjiang would still be happening, they would just be happening in a different form in which people had fully come to understand that you can't just 'remove government' or 'separate populations' to fix a problem and you truly have to negotiate the ongoing {{em|relationships}} between populations recognizing those interactions and relationships as inevitable to actually get the state of one ethnic group bossing around another ethnic group "gone".

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}bolding for spoken emphasis [https://rtaibah.com/2022/10/03/do-not-use-oblique-fonts-for-emphasis-in-arabic/] -> so, I never knew this before, but the Arabic language never developed a slanted style for emphasis. this is probably one of the reasons the italics tag <code>i</code> was semi-deprecated in favor of <code>em</code>: so it can be shown bold in Arabic. you learn something new every day.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX, MZ|Q=618}}Movementism is comparable to a Rubik's cube; many times when a particular identity movement makes progress it inherently sets several other identities back, ordering one side of the "cube" and simultaneously mixing up several other sides -> this to me is one of the biggest problems with Habermas trying to conceptualize social progress as moral evolution. "moral evolution" itself is nearly a zero-sum game, where a lot of people get hurt at every moment

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Fascism is near-synonymous with the bourgeoisie / Fascism is near-synonymous with "the existence of the bourgeoisie"; you can take any statement about "fascism" and simply drop in "the bourgeoisie" to get a hint on how to fix it -> this is awfully revealing when, for instance, people talk about "getting rid of" fascism — you don't say??? 
{{i|14 characteristics of the bourgeoisie}}. yeah, that figures, Marx described 'the ruling ideas' that flood society when a class takes over. {{i|the bourgeoisie can't be reasoned with}}. basically. {{i|if you're not against the bourgeoisie you're with it}}. that one just about flipped from blue to red. {{i|Liberal-republicanism exists to prevent the bourgeoisie}}. wonky, but not wrong, once you've learned about "anarchemistry" and the really weird and contradictory ways Liberal-republicanism tries to make finite things that actually are indefinite. {{i|I'm not a fascist}} = {{i|I'm not the bourgeoisie!!}} honestly, says a lot about why people deny either of these things, it's the same kind of denial because people are so immersed in the water they can't see it. 
you can get pretty far with this. it doesn't tell you everything about each statement but it does help you unpack a whole lot of statements in a horizontal way.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}LLMs are not consumerism / Large language models are, ironically, one of the only things that cannot be termed {{i|consumerism}}, because despite the huge water and land usage on image and video generators, chatbots within the text realm put to use as search engines or "librarians" are one of the only cases within an overall capitalist society where the act of socializing and forming bonds has not been transmogrified into an individual paying a producer or laborer to create a commercial product and then referring to that particular act as "community"; while such things as movie theaters, newly released video games, and animation merchandise are inherently consumerist, large language models ironically are not, due to reasons such as that they involve users interacting with already existing webpages or books which do and are not a social activity in the first place

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618}}example of prescriptive rule (truth value) / obeys prescriptive rule (truth value) -> this is to be used with Wavebuilder combinations in order to add qualifiers of what specific rules a particular Item obeys or fits into; these should usually be put in the "redundant combinations" area given that they are not giving you logical results of the components but are strictly working backward from a result. for example: obeys prescriptive rule + Propositions have four words (English) = (particular Item).
{{li|I=S1/MW|Q=618}}example of project policy (truth value) / obeys project policy (truth value)

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Propositions have four words / Statements have four words; the specific count of four words only applies to the English language / Propositions in German or Japanese should have some maximum number of characters -> this rule emerged informally as I repeatedly tried to cram really long propositions into a few words that would fit nicely into a data table and be easy to remember. three words was often too few and six was often too many but four was about right most of the time. now that it's been going a while, I like it. it's funny how it happens to mirror the long-standing practice of a lot of Chinese sayings, usually idioms, being expressed in four syllables. I've apparently cracked the problem of four word idioms for English without trying to. 
also... I watched this one video that was purposefully making a constructed language where it was impossible for individual words to hold meaning and only an entire sentence could mean something, because the sentence was a hash of a bunch of numbered concepts lined up or something like that. that's almost a real thing with drastically abbreviated propositions — the four words together mean something and each word may mean something specifically next to one of the others but the individual words cease to mean anything by themselves.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Movie theaters are more Fisherist than movies / Movie theaters cracking down on "cam recordings" is a better example of capitalism programming people with its beliefs than any of the actual content of movies -> we have this incredibly stupid contradiction that people have realized that "cops" are bad, but they also have no idea whatsoever that rules are bad and think that culture products actually program people when all they are is the thoughts that are left over after rules are enforced. oh, yeah, and also we believe Stalin's government was really bad for enforcing tyrannical rules but we still don't have any idea that [[E:steel rule|it's the rules that are bad]]. 
I'm gonna make a bold statement: the cop is just doing their job. "ACAB" is not a historical statement describing centuries of events.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}An international Communist program is not a collection of national programs (Bill van Auken) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/09/le6-all.html] -> he may be at least partly right. I mean, even a meta-Marxist program would contain slightly more than a collection of national programs due to the need to get each national program to understand the other ones.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Stalin claiming the other countries were not subordinate to the Soviet Union is basically an Idealist statement as a miscellaneous collection of individual countries has no protection against having to form a herd-of-cats effect in which particular countries or clusters of competent leaders guard the entire thing against the First World

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=618}}History is the progression of conflicting anarchisms (derived anarchist proposition) / Anarchism is non-dialectical by itself but dialectical when it exists in plurality with itself because multiple anarchisms fighting each other will enact the Hegelian dialectic -> this has to be true for a theory based on "freedom" to actually work in real life. you have to have a bunch of discrete named anarchisms where almost all identify themselves as anarchisms but they each decide to fight each other and explode each other to be born because something about the previous one didn't make them feel "free" and so they tried to destroy it in order to create something else they couldn't describe. 
this proposition is both wonderful and terrible. it's wonderful in that I actually now have a working model of exactly why it is that anarchisms are overall so persistent and refuse to give up: anarchisms are not actually against Hegelianism, but they see {{em|themselves}} as the entire Hegelian dialectic. the concept of Stalin trying to model society as local structures transitioning into other structures? {{em|anarchists believe in that}} but they believe that very process right there must take the form of entire Communities burning each other down to create better Communities. it's terrible in that anarchisms will never realize this. they will never realize what they actually are, and they will always act like "freedom" actually is something rather than just an absence and the (sometimes justified) hatred of things they don't like and want to fight.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}No individual human being can be a worker as an individual; as individuals, all human beings are the petty bourgeoisie; human beings become workers if and when they actively integrated into larger structures and cease to be workers when they are removed from those structures -> this problem is part of what sinks basically all Liberal-republican philosophy and all philosophy inside Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republican philosophy is hell-bent on the concept that people really can be considered in isolation, which causes all human beings to conceptualize themselves as petty bourgeoisie, or worse, to actively regenerate the petty bourgeoisie. the concept that [[E:tent of freedom poles|people "have human rights" {{em|as individuals}} and then they come together and have individual human rights as individuals {{em|together}}]] is absolutely lethal to a functioning society.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The "failure" of Wikipedia to provide a reliable source (presumed to be as reliable as grade school texts, not university-level texts) is actually the failure of anarchism, and of a particular kind of named [[E:anarchy (meta-Marxism)|anarchy]] -> I don't know what this particular kind of anarchy is called, but I'll find a name for it eventually. it has something to do with the notion of culture products or information products as open and evolving instead of closed, when their content really should have been closed. (this does not refer to the concept of "open" or "closed" source code, it's a totally different kind of "closed" or "open".) funny enough, the Free Software movement has already figured out how to make Freed things with closed contents — we call them software packages.

{{li|I=S2/Fy/MX|Q=618}}Corporate [[E:art product (economics)|culture products]] are not objects communicated from a director to each audience member, but are in practice generally objects communicated from one fan to another fan; not only is the "artistic vision" of one particular specific individual a ridiculous thing to expect culture products to have, but at the end of the day all corporate culture products are ultimately just pre-made commercial fan fiction -> the way you have to fix the fan fiction problem is so specific. I've had several "solutions" to it that were probably wrong. but I think the crux of it lies here. the most important relationship in the pipeline of culture products is them being passed back and forth between fans. on occasion quite literally when someone hands someone else a Steam code. most of the time a little more figuratively, in the form of let's plays, theory videos, and the construction of alternate timelines. capitalism makes a huge deal out of the sanctity of the corporation for no good reason. ideally what you want is the paid experts completing their task of churning out culture products without a lot of ado about how great or awful the workers are personally for particular actions and decisions, instead they just complete the task quietly and go home, and then you want the fans to be allowed to pass back and forth whatever they want to regardless of whether it has been modified. and you don't want the central party-nation freaking out about the airtight seal between corporation and fans and the fans "wrecking society by doing too much"; that should not be a real offense. instead, if anything, you want the central party simply noticing where the seal is breaking and doing inquiries into whether different kinds of products should be produced. it {{em|might be the case}} hypothetically that the ideal scenario is the seal breaking totally and government not even having to bother re-connecting any of the points of production to formal corporations because there is simply enough stuff that nobody actually has to pay for culture products any more and generally considers them all to cost zero or literally a couple loose coins at a thrift store. 
the last thing you want to see happening (ever) is a "Chinese map fiasco" where people perceive government as a brutal predator that munches on human social activity purely to digest it and start scheming about how to stay out of its mouth because they know everything only gets worse after you fall in. you can never let that happen because the moment it happens the whole of socialist transition will disintegrate. the petty bourgeoisie regenerates in a heartbeat and it happens anywhere and everywhere. you're much more at its mercy than you ever could have realized.

{{li|I=S2/LGBT/PT|Q=618}}Pride is a vice! (Toryism) / LGBT people shouldn't be bold and proud because pride is a sin (is a vice; Christianity) -> this proposition is bullshit but it really is interesting linguistically because it makes you ask how many things "pride" actually refers to. I can think of at least two: A) arrogant overconfidence B) the unwillingness to either trust others or submit to others (the way it was used in Dragon Ball, where I heard it and was just like, is that actually bad though, the kind of people who want you to surrender to them can be cruel and not worth it)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Deleting Mao is Orientalist / Attributing Buddhism or Taoism specifically to "Eastern culture" is an unnecessary act of essentialism, because it proposes that instead of warring states periods (a repeatable pattern made of predictable processes) giving rise to Taoism and Chinese Buddhism, people chose to create Buddhism and Taoism to solve warring states periods {{em|because}} people were inherently Chinese -> I knew there was something that bothered me about people always referring to "Eastern culture". {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} it's this! it's the Idealist interpretation of history that is implied inside it. 
you know what else Asians created to solve warring states periods? Maoism. that is completely different from either Buddhism or Taoism. so what inherent Asian essence is contained in {{em|that}}? {{a|how do you reconcile|E=Hegelian dialectic}} there being at least two {{em|completely different}} definitions of "Eastern culture"?

{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}Japan's only philosophy is Japaneseness / Japanese people do not have [[E:material contradiction (Marxism)|plural philosophies]] repeatable across other countries, they only have Japaneseness {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} -> I am so done with the entire concept of "studying Cultures" because I swear this is how most ordinary people interpret it. they throw around the word "collectivism" like it actually means something and refers to a philosophy, but what they really mean when they say it is precisely "Chineseness" or "Japaneseness". they presuppose that Japanese people have Japaneseness and then they look for more descriptions of Japaneseness to explain why Japaneseness leads to Japaneseness in a circular loop.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deleting Mao from Chinese history / deleting Mao (Liberal-republicanism) -> this is a fun one. you'll see why on the next line. 
memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + the PRC is a bad fake historical period = deleting Mao. memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + Kuomintang = deleting Mao. deleting Mao + medieval fantasy = China is still a medieval kingdom.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Giving money to businesses doesn't help human beings; it only helps business structures and the owners that are conflated with them / Giving money to businesses doesn't help the proletariat -> I like this framing because I think it's arguable it doesn't even really help small owners.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The concept of "race traitors" implies races are physical processes producing necessity / The concept of "race traitors" implies that there is an inevitable destiny for a whole population of Black people just because they are Black, which will be realized through an overall Black population interacting all at once with its surroundings only under particular (non-inevitable) conditions, but will not happen through individuals as separated from the Black population as an indivisible object

{{li|I=S2/MX/DG/A|Q=618}}The United States has the most incentive of any country to get rid of capitalism because it has the most minorities; there are so many distinct minorities that politics itself has come to revolve around minorities, but because each of them contains so few people under such isolation, not a single one of them is going to become free of attempts to exterminate it under capitalism or reformism

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning Malthusianism is genocide / Whenever you choose to say a statement in Malthusianism you have chosen to cause other people to be bigoted {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} -> no... that isn't how it works. as a framework, statements inside Malthusianism could hypothetically be true without all of it being true, so if those are already true and you say them, you didn't cause them to happen. this is like saying that if you predict a box to contain a dead cat when somebody filled it out of sight then you caused it to contain a dead cat, even if the other options are unrelated to cats, like the other option is the box is empty. overpopulation leading to bad outcomes can hypothetically be the case whether you want it to or not, but the important thing to realize is that that doesn't have any bearing on what the actual bad outcomes are. the bad outcomes might not be anything like the simplistic scenarios in Malthus' essays of overcrowding or 'eating babies'. the bad outcomes might look more like an increase in people randomly murdering each other because everyone increasingly feels like everyone else is threatening their existence and they need to protect their existence because 'all individual existences deserve to be respected' {{em|or else}}; despite what everybody wants nobody will yield to anybody else and so people get furious and kill in order to regain control. if everybody's doing that, you don't have control over it; you can't just say "believing in overpopulation is bad" or "if we don't things will get better" to fix it. because when people really truly believe things "Should" work a certain way, especially if that "Should" is an ethical prescription, they won't listen to anything you say until reality magically fixes itself to be that way. people are just going to get angrier and angrier every single day there are too many people and those people are disorganized and attempt with steadily increasing blind rage to punish all the disorganized people that have not been planned or controlled in any way for not being controlled in any way. there's really no "society", "social-ism", "community" -ing out of that situation, because other people's ethical imperatives are not a social construct — you can only obey whatever the {{censor|fuck}} other people tell you to do or risk them doing violence to you... or kill them, I suppose. ethics is an infamously unyielding form of philosophy. if there existed any form of belief where everybody spontaneously giving it up would actually solve all our problems, then everybody giving up the entire concept of ethics would be it. think about it: every right-Liberal who tries to say that accumulating wealth is good relies on property rights, which rely on ethics. every nazi that tries to say trans people are destroying the United States relies on a right to not have this "intrude" on their lives, which relies on ethics. if everyone really actually got rid of ethics, they wouldn't be able to defend bad things either, because the whole concept that individuals can make "correct choices" that are superior to other choices in creating a future they would be satisfied with would be gone. there would be vastly more incentive to question your previous decisions and deconstruct arbitrary beliefs if ethics did not exist at all. "post-structuralist philosophy"? "prejudices" and "biases" that will never make sense as analytical tools once you stop being the person that wrote the paper? how about we just get rid of ethics and accomplish the same thing way better with way fewer problems. 
I think the thing that bothered me the most about this video is.... the Overshoot Theory video I remember from a while back was also leaning on Native Americans. Overshoot man was like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, overpopulation!}} while these people are like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, no overpopulation!}}. it honestly feels like a non sequitur in both cases. I feel like overpopulation genuinely has nothing to do with whether North American tribes 'have lived more sustainably', positively or negatively. the cases where you'd see overpopulation come from a genuinely different kind of society that operates through entirely different material processes. which means you can't analogize a smaller society to it.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}North American tribes are not defined by romantic mystical beliefs {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} -> of course they aren't. but I suspect you're going to have to go have a stern word with a whole lot of anarchists who are busy appropriating everything non-White from the past century they can find just to try to get rid of Whiteness. 
I'm not entirely free of this either because I'm one of those people who started vaguely appropriating {{em|Soviet identity}} on account of how Russians apparently don't want it any more so now it's mine I guess. the situation for White people is just terrible because practically everybody is agreeing that Whiteness has to go (including the fascists who want to revert to medieval empire, in their own weird way) but absolutely nobody wants to step away from Idealism and consider a theory based on really fine-grained "reductionist" changes to material conditions as opposed to one all about "subjectivity" and "ethics", so it always turns into this game of trying to change Whiteness through abstract Ideals or finding a group of people it's theoretically okay to appropriate as a substitute for everyone not being entirely isolated into vulnerable individuals and there actually being any real living individuals for anyone to team up with. I make use of historical theorists of Marxism because they are defined by Materialist models as opposed to cultural identity or experiences and while that's a reason by itself it also has the bonus I can't really turn them into an exotic group distinguished by not being Whiteness that is then hijacked by Whiteness. but that ironically leads to the contradiction that in trying not to appropriate other countries I am still almost exclusively wearing other countries because the United States sucks. 
I'm so done with anarchism because at the end of the day it sort of corrupts Communism too. 
Communism: we will create a scientific model of reality. anarchism: a what??! you mean a cold unfeeling model of reality? Communism: what. anarchism: movements and revolutions only come from empathy so I am going to go talk to some Native Americans. Communism: uh. okay. anarchism: I have learned from the Native Americans that White people have a horrible way of life and I want to bring back secular animism. Communism: oh boy this is going to end badly. anarchism: you say that because you're a coward who isn't willing to question Western biases while I'm the true radical. Communism: uh, no, I say that because ancient religions come from a definite form of society and whenever you try to bring them to a later historical period it's going to look utterly tacky. or, to put it in language you understand, like you are stealing other people's culture for the benefit of Whiteness. anarchism: I would never do that. I believe in the sanctity of all living beings and natural objects because I am connected with the original semiotic and harmonious flows of nature. Native Americans: what the fuck. anarchism: see, I'm deconstructing Whiteness. Native Americans: and all of your summaries of animism amount to racial stereotypes. Communism: yeah, I knew how this was going to go. excuse me while I go read up on the conflict between Mao, Deng, and Alan Woods as something probably more relevant to the United States and less easy to accidentally turn offensive. anarchism: oh, you mean three people aligned with modern civilization, who are practically White? Communism: you have apparently never heard my racist relatives talk about Mao. do you even know what a racist {{em|is}} or do you just immediately swallow whatever new trend academia feeds you? anarchism: oh wow [placeholder]. {{i|(gulp)}}

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}It's easier to imagine a completely fake world in space than the end of capitalism on earth {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} / It's easier to imagine a completely fake world in space, either from the view of the giant galactic empires or the local resistances, than the end of capitalism on earth -> that's completely true. 
but the problem which can never be addressed in a video like this is that every time somebody anywhere says "the end of capitalism" {{em|they imagine something different}} and thus you can never trust that they're actually saying anything insightful or coherent or that people are going to work toward the same goal. saying "the end of capitalism" has become a deepity in some ways

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}It's easier to imagine the end of capitalism than the end of capitalism / It's easier to {{em|talk about imagining the end of capitalism}} without those words actually meaning anything in particular than it is to imagine {{em|an actual end of capitalism}} which is described practically enough that all people who currently belong to any ideological faction can come together and create it barring actual material incentives that prevent them from taking different actions or joining different ideologies -> this is about 10% a troll proposition made because the sentence was really funny to say. but I do think it's true.

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}There should never be new swatches for identity-based movements existing below the national level, except given special reasoning for why those swatches are especially relevant to describing internationalism; this applies specifically to color swatches, not to text-based philosophy tags -> "LGBT" is one of the only identity movements to be granted its own swatch specifically based on identity as opposed to based on its material strategy. 
"Dengism", despite being highly associated with China, is not a demographic identity {{em|inside}} China, it's the whole China, and likewise "Juche-socialism" is the whole North Korea. BlackPantherism is a bit borderline but it passes because of the remark that it could expand over the country and wasn't specifically Black. Trotskyism either spuriously or actually claims to be international, so any argument that it is in fact a demographic identity isn't relevant here as that isn't a mainstream perception of it. "feminism" will not have a swatch because it is easily collapsed into a Liberal-republican interest group and weaponized against trans people. "Muslim socialism" will not have a swatch, although "religious socialism" as a very general category would be closer to being acceptable. "fascism" gets a swatch of some sort; "Italian fascism" doesn't get a swatch. any movement which can actually be defined based on summaries of its material behavior as opposed to culture and can be described as it applies to multiple possible cultural identities is exempt from these rules. "North American Maoism" could have a swatch if it became really relevant and as long as its material behavior can be distinguished from "(Chinese) Maoism" or "(Indian) Maoism". 
"LGBT tradition" is one of the only things that genuinely needs and gets an exception from these rules because it's one of the few things that deliberately draws on demographic identity characteristics themselves to produce generalized philosophy which becomes separate from identity. the concept of "queerness" is tightly tied to identity at first, but then becomes its own thing that can be used to describe the dynamics of several other identities as they relate to the rest of society — autistic identity, mental illness associated identity, disabled identity — which experience a similar exclusion and process of having to decide whether to "stay apart" or "fit in". the "queerness metaphor" has a lot of value in describing other movements, so it's useful to have an LGBT swatch to crystallize and focus on that paradigm as it will be used to vaguely associate to the other movements. 
also. I probably could have picked a different "stay apart"/"fit in" conflict to stand in for all of these, but I liked having an excuse to make one of the swatches a rainbow, so I picked this one.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Every republic is a class society (anarchism) / Every republic is a class society ("hierarchy", spatial class order) because a ruling class must exist to create a republic -> it's this kind of proposition that makes me question if Trotskyism does or doesn't believe in an era of socialism. it really claims to believe in a republic but its insistence on 'getting rid of bureaucracy' and getting rid of borders (which in a roundabout way are one of the reasons an era of socialism exists, because both things exist due to a country being a physical object) makes it bizarrely more similar to the anarchist method of "class analysis" than the Marxist one, and "anarchist class analysis" necessarily leads to trying to do everything Immediately as opposed to on a reasonable time scale

{{li|I=S2/ES/MX|Q=618}}The militant form of Existentialism is when Existentialists kill others that threaten their existence in order to continue existing -> this is one of the many reasons I don't like Existentialism. first, it's thoroughly incoherent. none of its actions are predictable based on combining logical statements or based on anything called "reason". none of its actions are explainable with religious justifications nor morality. it gets super offended when you try to reduce collections of people to inanimate objects but in practice it encourages humans to behave like lions or baboons. we may as well all be inanimate objects for how good this philosophy is. second... it turns brown not even in two seconds, but yesterday.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Killing people who would otherwise kill you is self defense / iron rule ... (censored title) / [[E:Do unto others before they do unto you|iron rule]] (generic) -> hmmmmmmm. A) are they Black people the cops are scared of B) are they midwest Indians in the 1800s C) are they Palestinians D) are they a Bolshevik government attempting to prevent the petty bourgeoisie from creating civil war or imperialism? this is bad exmat because I absolutely saw the fourth one casually tossed out in the same comments section. "Hitler, Stalin, or Mao", they said casually [[E:Nazism and Bolshevism have the same cause|as if it made sense]].

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}History is the progression of generational subcultures -> this is slightly different from the claim that history is the progression of father to son to son or mother to daughter to son to daughter etc., because it is talking about the progression of whole layers of thousands and thousands of people born in the same 5-10 year period, and is not centering itself around individuals or psychoanalysis. it's not psychoanalysis, and instead, it's shifted its entire focus over to art history, the humanities, or the history of an industry.

{{li|I=S2/HAS/MX|Q=618}}History is the progression of successive semi-countable art markets -> I'm a little astounded to find such an Idealist claim and such a Materialist claim in the same podcast right next to each other a sentence apart, but I'll take it. wow. this one is so telling. it accidentally reveals so much about the connection between capitalist theory, the growth of society, and the outward manifestations seen in culture products. 
let's think about this. a 'console generation' forms in order to raise the prices of the products (largely by producing them new), while decreasing the cost of entry. if the discipline is new, it won't be overrun with expensive equipment, stacks and stacks of money poured into expertise, and the prestige of certain brands creating natural monopolies. after a while, all the corporations in a given market have made their money and the products are everywhere such that neither can new corporations make money nor can old ones earn any more. so then the market resets and an entirely new market is created. a bunch of hype goes around to present the new thing as really great although it was created in order for the new products made for it to not have to be very good at first. and apart from video games, this happens for the general concept of mediums and a lot of physical formats. 
honestly. I trust this more than Habermas' conception of history as some kind of progression of morality where what is progress could become entirely subjective; at least you can measure what a sideways progression from one set of events to another {{em|is}}. 
console wars + History is the progression of generational subcultures = this.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}The middle ground between sense and nonsense is still insane / I believe 2+2=4, but in the interest of representing those who believe 2+2=22, my platform is 2+2=11 (counter-claim)

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}The majority of Jews support Israel {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} / Some Jews don't support Israel (counter-claim) -> this observation really destroys anti-essentialism as a path to truth, doesn't it. superficially it seems to support it, but when you look at how the counter-claim is actually used... it's used to defend Idealism as "not always" being fatally flawed while most uses of it at best make it wholly irrelevant to explaining anything. anti-essentialism is often just a back-handed statement that Idealism doesn't actually explain real life, not realizing that in saying that it's slamming the Idealist models it's supposed to save.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Some Jews don't support Israel {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> U.S. people don't know anything but Idealism, the treatment of everything as abstract qualities. so they have to take on "Jews" and "anti-semitism" as abstract concepts. when they do that, it predisposes them to racist understandings of what various ethnic groups "are". so then they bring out the point of "but surely one of them doesn't support Israel" (anti-essentialism) to badly try to prove that Idealism isn't racist. 
it doesn't fix anything of course. Defining everything by what it's not leads you to defend anything and everything including the U.S. military.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Why do United States people want to rehabilitate veterans but punish ICE? {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> okay, that's a good question. 
I think, speaking materially and not ethically, it has to do with which groups of people U.S. people believe that U.S. law applies to. if you believe in Kantianism you need a body of people to legislate onto to hold anybody responsible for (un)ethical behavior. so, people scramble to define who "Americans" are to determine whether government should be rehabilitating them were that a possibility. I think there is a bias toward rehabilitating veterans {{em|just because there is some chance they might vote Democrat}}, while due to their behavior people have a bias toward labeling Republican voters as foreigners. this isn't {{em|just}} stupidity (even if there may be a bit of that too). at some point Liberal-republican parties stop being arbitrary and start turning into entirely separate nationalities that actually don't consent to being governed by each other; the increasing perception of Republicans as "not Americans" and of ICE as a uniquely foreign army stems from actual observed behavior of Republicans slowly attempting to secede from the sovereign realm of Democrat laws, and of the increasing futility of properly governing them.

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}nucleation site (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}} -> a site of crystallization which encourages formation of other crystals. 
has relevance for the concept of modeling social structures changing
{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}substance flipping over from one polymorph to another (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}}

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}anarcho-NATOism
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Imperialism is nonviolent / Anarchism definitionally requires violence; this is to imply and nearly to state that a warlike, potentially genocidal empire is perfectly okay and recommended because of the fact only a few people at the edge of an empire have to fight over borders and most people in an empire are nonviolent {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> you wonder how anybody goes along with "settler-colonialism" and thinks it's a good idea in the first place. this is how. it's actually nonviolence-colonialism. 
Idealism is dangerous to humanity, it really is. 
anarcho-NATO-ism + ?? = Imperialism is nonviolent.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Marxism before the year 2020 has been a theory of ideological segregation more than a theory of social progress -> why is it that walling off whole fortress states has been more effective than trying to spread filaments of radicals inside class societies? I think the example of China and Taiwan {{em|splitting}} and the example of Texas defeating the freethinkers are very instructive on why this happened

{{li|I=S2/A/MX|Q=618}}Despite the observable historical fact that various social structures can transition into other structures, it is generally {{em|easier}} to create any of the later structures humanity invents by starting from scratch rather than from working with structures that already exist, due to the fact that ruling classes are generally the clusters of people that are more inherently powerful and able to conquer and expand than the masses or clusters of people they rule over -> this is one of the best arguments that anarchism and Trotskyism each have going for them. but it's also one of the best arguments for Deng Xiaoping Thought if you don't totally dismiss sublation processes. this gives way to Deng Xiaoping Thought much faster than it justifies anarchism.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Statues and plaques do not actually teach people history

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}Confederate statue as superstructural artifact -> the motif of Confederate statues being more of a "coincidence" spat out of a Social-Philosophical System that just happens to 'believe' them as opposed to being a good representation of the overall process of history

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If the subjective theory of value is true, then why does the value of various cryptocurrencies keep crashing?

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}"Freethinker" is less technical and more expressive than "atheist" {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> goes to show that anarchism really is the default mode of thinking rather than a great new invention. and I hate that. because freedom doesn't mean {{censor|fucking}} anything. it's actually rather obvious what an atheist is, but "freedom" actually is a belief in nothing because it really is just the absence of whatever else it was tossed in against.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist; this is to imply that "extremes" are an abstract Ideal that miraculously spits out more extremes, and Extremes can be eradicated {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> how is it that people come to regard material contradictions as a completely alien event that isn't the least bit familiar to them

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}The United States got away with outsourcing labor because corporations programmed people to want cheap goods {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}} -> so... how is it they successfully did that if it's possible to simply tell people it was done and break it? if people can really be programmed against their best interests that consistently, then why would they listen to you? 
I think people are making excuses for the fact that owners make these decisions and they fundamentally can't control the owners.

{{li|I=S1/W|tradition=W, PT|Q=618}}corporations programming people / the engineering of consumer behavior {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}}

{{li|I=S1/Fy/ML|Q=618}}treating the protagonists of anticommunist fables as unreliable narrators

{{li|I=S2/HM|tradition=IK, HM, ES|Q=618}}Society is held together based on interpersonal subjective moral consensus 
this + Interpersonal relationships can snap at any moment = Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships are no foundation for society because interpersonal relationships are fragile while society must be more durable to successfully exist / Asocialism (generic)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A theory that primarily grounds itself in human sociality ([[E:Socialism (general-sense progressivism)|Socialism]], humanities, Kantianism, secular animism) will eventually become reactionary, because human sociality in and of itself is not equipped to handle the inevitable [[E:separable multiplicity|countable and separable plurality]] of populations that results when human populations exist in the real world; this is to imply that Marxism is not in fact a theory primarily rooted in human sociality as much as one that simply acknowledges it / Asocialism (generic) 
Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality + A theory of society which is not accurate to material reality will eventually become reactionary = this.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) -> this is apparently its own specific thing. it seems it's typically defined in terms of how well the soviets can defend the overall country and any governing bodies against the re-emergence of capitalism.

{{li|I=S2/IV/MX|Q=618}}Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes; soviet structures are not guaranteed to remain orange because depending on their class and preferred palette of social structures the individual national-employees inside them can add together to turn the structure charcoal, blue, or strawberry -> Trotskyism is weird. it has moments where it's totally unconvicing, and then it has moments where after you've been listening to the actually-okay theorists you have to go out of your way to find, it almost sounds like it got something right. this week, I saw that Trotskyists seemed to be describing the dictatorship of the proletariat as control by one big sea of soviets that are responsible for operating all the other organs of government — the thinking is that if all the soviets are made of proletarians and the soviets are orange, the soviets will keep all of the other structures from turning strawberry or any other unfavorable ideology. but then I thought about it for a bit, and I realized that this isn't an airtight strategy. in the real world, proletarians can level up into non-proletarians through small-scale processes, and it happens all the time whenever there aren't enough job slots or people simply don't fit into existing business territories' "culture". it's very easy for a country that's full of proletarians one moment to slowly morph into a country of skilled workers that all want their own businesses but will also complain when the reality of running them is much harder than they dreamed. 
this became apparent to me as soon as I saw Gramsci talking about a council for the "self-employed". that isn't a red or orange structure, that's a blue or strawberry structure. and those kinds of structures can undo a revolution. but it's also trivial for more of them to be produced through misapplied education or training. if the soviets have full control, it's easy for petty classes to rebel against all the orange soviets and start taking control of the whole country through whatever limited ability they have to assemble together groups of people that outcompete surrounding workers. 
dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) + proletarians promoting into Careerists = Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes.

{{li|I=S1/ML/ES|Q=618}}the eclectic gruel of philosophy / eclectic gruel (philosophy) / the pauper's broth of eclecticism which is ladled out in the universities under the name of philosophy (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch01.htm] -> there are some descriptions where you see them and you just know, I've seen this, this is ridiculously relatable across time periods. I haven't read these specific philosophies and yet just by that description I feel like I already have.

{{li|I=S1/AS/HM|Q=618}}moral evolution (critical theory) / Hegelian evolution of morality / historical development of societies as conceptualized around morality or ethics [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/01/habe-a01.html] / procedural theory of rationality (Liberal-republican ethics; Habermas) -> the concept in Habermas of modeling either large or small changes in societies through changes in morality and the resulting changes in society. I'd hate this except that it gets really funny when you apply it to world civilization and actual changes between historical periods, revealing a lot about how imperialism works; in a way, it's so bad it's good. I guess that's about what you should expect to get when you start with Hegel. Liberal-republicanism is frustrating but Hegel really isn't so bad in the end.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deformed Liberal states / degenerated Liberal states -> the motif of Liberal-republican countries looking at other nation-states and regarding them as deformed versions of themselves that need to be punished until they form correctly. 
deformed Liberal states + moral evolution (Trotskyism) = deformed workers' states.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Morality itself tends to favor a world of "small business hell" simply because the assumptions that lead to people creating morality {{em|happen to lead there}} and all Idealist statements when put together spit out some kind of real-world consequence -> I find it frustrating that people will start from a set of arbitrary Ideals and then just deontologically assume that if those Ideals are good then whatever they produce must also be good. to me Habermas' theory of moral consciousness just doesn't make sense as a material theory of history because in one way all moral or ethical values are always arbitrary; there will always be a point where people assume that what they're currently doing is morally good or superior just because it's the thing a lot of people are doing and none of them want to stop doing it while any other group of people must be morally bad just for doing a different thing that threatens to replace that thing, even before they actually demand other people trade in what they're doing for the new thing.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Idealism produces material outcomes / All Idealist statements or combinations of Idealist statements lead to some kind of real-world consequence -> there are many ways to take this. one of the surface conclusions is that Idealism isn't as explanatory as Materialism. one of the most interesting conclusions is that you can "meta-game" Idealism and figure out the best Ideals to tell people in order to get them to create particular material results. this {{em|is}} essentially lying to people to manipulate their behavior, which if it were up to me I don't really like, but a lot of people believe that most human beings' understanding of the world will never go above that level, which might make it ethical under some theories of ethics.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Prejudice and structural inequality are not the same thing; getting rid of prejudice does not necessarily get rid of structural inequality [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough] -> well. I have to agree with this. I'm puzzled why anarchists in general aren't better at understanding this. but the blue anarchists did get something right.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Contact between populations reduces prejudice when four conditions are met: 1) equal status within the contact situation 2) common goals 3) cooperation 4) support from authorities or social norms (Allport 1954, Pettigrew) [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Negative contact between populations has a greater observed effect than positive contact [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S1/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}analytic thinking as opposed to holistic thinking [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I always wondered why it was called analytic philosophy. is this why?

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}{{abbr|tts=Weird|WEIRD}} countries [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I like this acronym in that most of it makes sense except the "Western" part. I have no idea what that means. is Japan Western, or is it not? there are good arguments both ways. this is why I prefer saying "First World countries".

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer review auditing -> the motif of sending bogus articles to academic journals in hopes the reviewers will catch the problems
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer-review auditing feminist journals [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/18/inte-o18.html] / peer-review auditing gender studies journals 
peer review auditing + gender studies journal = this.
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=IV onto ES|Q=618}}feminist Mein Kampf [https://norskk.is/bytta/menn/our_struggle_is_my_struggle.pdf] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] -> wow. they really should have caught that. I.... have to read this at some point because that sounds like the best one. 
...it's online? oh wonderful. this is very opaque and hard to read. I guess that's how they got it through.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}SEP's analysis of "Stalinism" -> that's... its own specific thing? okay.

{{li|I=S2/ES/MX|Q=618}}If the value of money is culturally fabricated ("made up"), but anarchism can realize itself through a sea of individuals spontaneously deciding to create a different kind of society, then anarchism is a cultural fabrication and everybody is free to spontaneously decide not to follow anarchism and follow whatever ostensibly more oppressive system they want to (meta-Marxism onto post-structuralism)

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}today I was "thinking"... / 'today I was thinking—' 'stop that' / 'today I was thinking—' 'you?! I can't believe it' -> the motif of somebody cutting off a statement where somebody was thinking about some specific thing and focusing on the concept of "thinking".

{{li|I=S1/DFy/PT|Q=618}}Eren Yeager / nazi Eren Yeager (in context of imagining different versions of the story based around different ideologies)

{{li|I=S1/DFy/DX|Q=618}}Dengist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was Western-Marxist (strawberry Marxist, Gramscian, Dengist / Deng Xiaoping Thought) -> so, {{book|Attack on Titan}} has a dumb premise. it reads like a campfire horror story told by nazis in very little irony. but it {{em|is}} really funny to imagine some of the same central themes being used in an approximately Marxist work. like, instead of it being a nazi campfire story the titans are trying to scale a "Berlin wall", or penetrate China or North Korea to take them back for Liberal-republicanism, the titans are hiding out on Taiwan, the titans are sealing people into Cuba and not letting {{em|them}} leave. there obviously wouldn't be a focus on the concept of the big antagonist monsters being 'impure' or 'diseased', that element of it probably wouldn't exist. it would just be kaiju trying to break into the country and do something horrifying. it's gotta be a little over the top. it's gotta be about turning them all into kaiju for some nefarious but useful purpose, like, I dunno, the kaiju feed off negativity and if they all turn into kaiju and fight each other the whole population of kaiju becomes stronger. everyone is horrified about the invasion and it brings them all together.

{{li|I=S1/Fy/A|Q=618}}anarchist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was anarchist -> {{em|this}} is why I am having an increasingly hard time telling the difference between Deng Xiaoping Thought and anarchisms. like, once again, anarchism succeeds when you build a wall around it — probably metaphorically — and wait for the outside to tire itself out. I can't tell the difference between Gramscian Eren Yeager and anarchist Eren Yeager. 
oh god when I just go saying ideologies in a sentence of course my brain is going to shout "Trotskyist Eren Yeager". I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means at all. I dunno, like, the enemies are more like Reptilians or Yeerks and they're hiding out in the central government and nobody wants to believe it so the anti-alien squads are like trying to team up across regions? I tried.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality -> anarchists are going to get so upset if you try to argue this at them. they'll try to argue that reality is whatever comes naturally to living things, and different states of natural for each living species must naturally want to go together, blah blah blah. [*] but they're all privileged. they haven't experienced a state of truly being fenced out of society by thousands and millions of people that all simultaneously agree they don't like you (probably without having met you or having much of any idea what they're doing). they especially haven't experienced it owing to the existence of anarchism, because anarchism already selected for people like them. but they should wise up to the fact that anarchism doesn't really pass the veil of ignorance with flying colors. it's quite easy to end up on the wrong side of "community" where you simply have nobody and nothing and also everyone assumes you must be a bad person just because you haven't claimed an exclusive spot in Community that supposedly you only have to be nice to people to get and follow morality though in reality it's much more difficult and complicated and trivial to simply be born wrong and fail to survive the ecological parameters of the 'community-icene'. I think that as a period of biological life the Anthropocene truly began at tribal society, not at industrial society. it was the ability to form entire ecosystems made of nothing but humans that changed things, but {{em|if anarchists are correct}} that the natural state of humans and human psychology is in tribes then all the current destruction of the environment ultimately came from the characteristics of tribes. tribal populations are not wholly innocent for all the horrors of global empire and ecological destruction if at the end of the day we're {{em|all}} still tribes and they're the only ones trying to disclaim that there are bad things about that. really, as crazy as it sounds, they might be accidentally benefiting from a corrupt system that has killed great numbers of people. of course, if humans don't have a seemingly eternal resting state of being in tribes that we have no choice but to return to which in turn implies we are currently tribes in denial and will still be tribes for the next hundred thousand years, then tribal populations carry no blame for what industrial societies have done. 
(* why didn't they say that about workers' states and the healthy state of the Soviet Union versus the very disordered states that occurred at every moment after tearing it apart? they have even less excuse than Trotskyists. Trotskyists wilfully wanting to overwrite another Marxism with their own Marxism is at least logical even if it's terrible.)

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}"Indigenous people" marks a statement as racist / Saying "indigenous people" marks a sentence as containing racial stereotypes {{YouTube|fwecpbB1DPs}}
{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning ethnic groups is racist / Mentioning an ethnic group without mentioning a specific individual marks a sentence as containing potentially-harmful racial stereotypes -> this is what you have to believe for the above statement to be true. like, if "indigenous people" marks a racial stereotype, then saying a more specific group of people like "Inuit" should equally mark a racial stereotype — how does the person you're talking to {{em|know}} that you're giving correct information about all Inuit people and not just saying something false? but if this is true, you couldn't go to Congress and say "Black people" or "Mexican immigrants" for any legitimate purpose without mentioning individuals that supposedly make the example truer. does it actually make statements more accurate to include specific individuals? I feel like it adds nothing but also subtracts nothing. 
this is a really weird criterion for judging whether statements are accurate. I know where it comes from, it comes from people trying to judge everything through positivism and claim that Lived Experiences are a pathway to truth while a lack of Lived Experiences is a pathway to falsity. it's still really weird. it doesn't seem to accomplish the thing it sets out to accomplish at all, and just seems to make all statements said about any group of people more worthy of doubting. "White people have the colonizer attitude"? maybe not!! Ben was doing that, but did you ask Carla?? "Black people experience structural racism"? maybe not!! you didn't mention an individual so in theory you might be racist for even saying that. 
Mentioning ethnic groups is racist + Anti-essentialism is a pathway to truth = Pointing out racism is racist.

{{li|I=S2/ES/ML|Q=618}}Referring to Communists without mentioning a specific individual is unacceptably prejudiced / If mentioning ethnic groups without mentioning a specific individual is racist, which is to imply that talking about groups of people in the abstract rather than as a particular countable number of concrete objects is racist, then mentioning "Communists" or "Cubans" or "people who support Stalin" without naming a specific individual for evaluation is equally prejudiced; every time somebody has said "tankies" or "totalitarians" or "Stalinist(s)" outside a particular context has been an unacceptably prejudiced statement -> this is another loophole in this. god I love it when really bad propositions break open so bad they wrap around to supporting Communism

{{li|I=S2/A/ML|tradition=ML onto A|Q=618}}"Social construct" is a social construct / Most of the time anarchists talk about social constructs they are trying to imply that things that are undesigned or that come out of interacting elements are deliberately engineered Ideals, but because this overall way of thinking is Idealist, it is also fair to say that anarchists are not working with a model that is well checked against reality and their theory of a given "social construct" being "constructed" is equally as made up as the "social construct" is if not more {{YouTube|Ms_ojmhI_CI}} -> sounds like a deepity until you realize what it's really saying and then your mind is blown 
this is how you get out of what I referred to in another entry as "Gerson Boom BS". you realize what Idealism is and how it obscures whatever non-Idealist relationships between things may exist

</ol><noinclude>

[[Category:First nine thousand (RD)]]</noinclude>

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

2026-05-12T01:44:21Z

ICFIReporters: Class rule is first created inside civil society (Gramsci)

<h2 id="section-proposed4">Unsorted Items (page 4) {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset">

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Class rule is first created inside civil society (Gramsci)

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Surrounding historical context matters greatly for judging Gramscianism

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Gramscianism mourns nonexistent Rhizome / In concept, Gramscianism requires a healthy [[E:stationary Rhizome (schizoanalysis)|Rhizome process]] in order to function in which various workers, Careerists, or small businesses injected or embedded into the structure of capitalism first consistently solidify together into a "community" and then into a solid social-democratic party, and lastly agree to create a stable population structure that can undergo socialist transition, but this overall transition from tiny adversarial movements to social-democracy has become infeasible and easily thwarted due to the sheer level of [[E:creative destruction|churn]] on business territories and jobs in modern capitalism, which prevents Rhizome, "community", or social-democratic parties from even forming

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}Liberal republics reverting to monarchy -> this has happened multiple times in history if I remember right, I want to say that counting attempts at it I can think of at least one success and two attempts. and one of the failures was France! France didn't succeed at the French revolution, it had to try several more times. when this of all things is possible, it seems really weird the Soviet Union would not have been more aware of the possibility of capitalist reversion.

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}reactionaries (French revolution) -> this is often pointed to as one of the first {{em|documented}} examples of reactionaries where people took the concept, separated it out, and labeled it. that isn't to say it's the first example of there ever being reactionaries in world history, but it {{em|is}} to say it's one of people's favorite examples.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}statement considered reactionary in particular population / statement which is considered reactionary in particular country or population in particular historical period -> important for the purposes of constructing an ontology of what is reactionary in what way and why. 
this concept is a little abstract but it's also one where ultimately [[E:'pataphysical reduction (meta-ontology, meta-Marxism)|'pata-reduction]] can be applied to create Materialist models

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Processes unrelated to capital reproduction and inherently related to interpersonal relationships can affect and shape classes / Processes unrelated to [[E:reproduction of capital (Marx)|capital as a process]] and inherently related to interpersonal relationships and physical group-borders between populations or subpopulations ("populational processes", "sociopolitical processes", "cultural processes") can affect and shape classes despite not being from the same scale as class processes and outwardly appearing not to be class processes or related to class processes (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) -> this wouldn't be surprising if you've gone way deep into the weeds of Marx's work and realized how central "relations" or antagonisms between physical objects are in creating classes. but apparently this is a concept a lot of Marxists in Third-World countries don't yet understand. 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Disability actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Autism regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / ADHD regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Racism actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Transphobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Homophobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Anti-colonialism is rooted in colonialism / Postcolonial anarchisms require [[E:endocolonialism (meta-Marxism onto anarchism)|endocolonialism]] to function / The concept of insisting that First World empires can be changed simply by culturally fabricating better culture is dependent on the existence of [[E:bourgeoisie (layer of people that decide everything about culture before culture is widely interacted with; meta-Marxism onto Western-Marxism)|a class of people]] that decides everything about society by claiming territory, determining what will happen within that territory, and tightly controlling social links to that territory, as well as duplicating itself across the land to the point all territory is filled by said people, and it thus becomes that the whole territory of national populations is ruled by "Idealism" or "human will" but only that belonging to a fraction of the human population that is unaccountable to the rest of the population and also perhaps unaccountable to {{em|half of itself}}

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Optimism is believing that everybody ("[[E:IBE|I believe that everybody]]" statements; Liberal-republicanism) / Optimism is the same thing as Idealism

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with pigs (fiction) / Wilbur (generic) / Babe (generic) / Napoleon (generic) / Snowball (generic) -> so for a second I forgot that Babe and Wilbur were different pigs and I was like, which name was the correct name??

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with cats (fiction) / name associated with domestic cats (house cats; fiction) / Garfield (Teen Titans; generic) / Firestar (generic) -> I've been cursed with the knowledge that Teen Titans used the name "Garfield" to imply the general concept of a cat and now you have to be cursed with it too.

{{li|I=S2/GR/MX|Q=618}}Relativity is inherently Communist / Relativity is inherently Marxist / Because Einstein's [[E:scientific model|theories]] of special and general relativity more or less forbid [[E:absolute determinism|absolute determinism]] and in practice only allow for [[E:lambda-calculus determinism|limited]] or [[E:relativistic determinism|relativistic determinism]], relativity inherently promotes the use of naïve dialectical materialism to model the process by which causality leads from past states to future states; this is to {{em|imply}} that relativity promotes large-scale, [[E:dialectical materialism (Marxism)|specific-sense dialectical materialism]] as in Marx but only to outright state that it promotes multivariable functions as opposed to single-variable functions, and [[E:wavemachine logic (meta-Marxism)|wave-machine logic]]

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}China has been effectively attempting to eradicate Uighur language, culture, and tradition (Mia Hasenson-Gross) [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/27/holduk-jewish-leaders-use-holocaust-day-to-denounce-uighur-abuses?ref=hir.harvard.edu] [https://hir.harvard.edu/rated-c-for-censored-walt-disney-in-chinas-pocket/] -> 
so... let's keep in mind that out of 12 million Uighurs, at most 1 million are subject to this 'genocide effort'. that {{em|is}} a high number, but it's also a rather small fraction to be a genocide. in order to be "comparable to Nazi Germany", which is what the director says, it would have to be some 70-100% of Uighurs in concentration camps. but it's only 8%. so it's {{em|not}} comparable to Nazi Germany. 
let's put things in perspective: a bit under 1% of the United States Black population is put in prison. [https://theworlddata.com/percentage-of-black-people-in-prison/] many people are (rightfully) upset about this and consider it already a high percentage, whether they're crazy people like Tucker Carlson or they actually want to help do something constructive to solve the problem. but nobody has successfully drawn up a plan for the African-American subpopulation to become independent from the United States... despite most people across the U.S. political spectrum actually agreeing that the United States government is not serving them well and they deserve independence, either in a positive sense of inclusion or a negative sense of exclusion. one of the big reasons is that it could be the case that there is a greater proportion of people who want to kick them out and basically ban them from the country in that negative sense. if these kinds of people get to dictate policy over another population of people, you basically get Israel; you get an empire that rules over a minority through exclusion and an angry population of minority people who will build a second violent empire and possibly go kill people or destroy all their buildings to secure a safe place to be. so, whether people are able to quite articulate that concept or not, they get afraid of Black people {{em|not}} being ruled over by the United States and its stock of "Joe Bidens" or "White settler leaders" and get really insistent that either the Democratic Party will protect minority ethnic subpopulations and they must be loyal to the Democratic Party regime or that if everybody becomes anarchists Rhizome will somehow glue the country's populations together properly and fix everything. even though the Democratic Party lets Israel go on and {{em|isn't doing anything}} to stop racist cops from profiling Black people and putting 1% of them in prison. so, the Democratic Party versus the Black subpopulation and the CPC versus Uighurs is more comparable than you might think. 
10% is a very high percentage of a group of people to be thrown in prison. I won't deny that. but that's assuming the figure is true and not exaggerated, when it's entirely possible the figure is an overestimate that blows the number up more than twice as big as it really is. this is starting to look like the loose alliance between the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainian SSR. the Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainians each decided for different reasons that if people were suffering while being part of the USSR — despite those two things not even necessarily being related! — then it's good to break a country or political party of people out of the USSR and create something else. this proved to be a really bad decision for both of them. when the USSR was dissolved, as the Trotskyites were unknowingly pushing for, it pretty much liquidated the populations themselves bringing economic destruction and migrations to other countries, not to mention the countries separating and becoming less functional as smaller isolated territories than they were when connected (a point Trotskyists still go on about without realizing their strategies cause it). when Ukraine was made independent, it no longer had any protection from Russia simply deciding to invade it and digest Ukraine and turn it into more Russia. people will complain about "Russification" inside the USSR, but the truth is, the presence of the USSR at least created some possibility for political control over that process and the ability to stop it. if there's no government extending over both Russia and Ukraine, then there's no process capable of telling Russia to stop killing Ukrainians or making those actions illegal; the act of killing Ukrainians becomes more or less just a legal and normal practice. if anyone pretends otherwise, it's all just a smokescreen to hide the possibility that the United States wants to become the unofficial government of Ukraine and effectively turn it into a U.S. territory within a world-sized state, like Greenland is a territory of Denmark despite consisting of 90% Inuit people that should have no interest whatsoever in Danish politics. that's what's being hidden here. the world is still in a warring states period of countries trying to annex other countries to their kingdoms, and nothing has been able to stop it, not the United Nations, not Bolshevism, not people going on and on about anarchism or postcolonial theories. any argument about Xinjiang is one big colonial argument of whether it should be part of China or part of the United States. and let me tell you, the way we treat Muslims in the United States, {{em|you don't want it being part of the United States}}. 
sidenote: the discussion over this kind of stuff changes if you separate "Zinovievists" from "real Trotskyism". if Trotskyists actually created a really big civilization of like 100 countries, it's theoretically {{em|conceivable}} that things like the United States and China fighting over Xinjiang or historically the battle between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union over Poland would be over. however, what Trotskyists don't tell you is that that doesn't really create an end to political discourses over "colonialism" and "oppression", because those conflicts are caused by which groups of people are combined together into populations or separated. so if Trotskyism was suddenly created tomorrow, the kinds of arguments that are going on right now about Black people or Xinjiang would still be happening, they would just be happening in a different form in which people had fully come to understand that you can't just 'remove government' or 'separate populations' to fix a problem and you truly have to negotiate the ongoing {{em|relationships}} between populations recognizing those interactions and relationships as inevitable to actually get the state of one ethnic group bossing around another ethnic group "gone".

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}bolding for spoken emphasis [https://rtaibah.com/2022/10/03/do-not-use-oblique-fonts-for-emphasis-in-arabic/] -> so, I never knew this before, but the Arabic language never developed a slanted style for emphasis. this is probably one of the reasons the italics tag <code>i</code> was semi-deprecated in favor of <code>em</code>: so it can be shown bold in Arabic. you learn something new every day.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX, MZ|Q=618}}Movementism is comparable to a Rubik's cube; many times when a particular identity movement makes progress it inherently sets several other identities back, ordering one side of the "cube" and simultaneously mixing up several other sides -> this to me is one of the biggest problems with Habermas trying to conceptualize social progress as moral evolution. "moral evolution" itself is nearly a zero-sum game, where a lot of people get hurt at every moment

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Fascism is near-synonymous with the bourgeoisie / Fascism is near-synonymous with "the existence of the bourgeoisie"; you can take any statement about "fascism" and simply drop in "the bourgeoisie" to get a hint on how to fix it -> this is awfully revealing when, for instance, people talk about "getting rid of" fascism — you don't say??? 
{{i|14 characteristics of the bourgeoisie}}. yeah, that figures, Marx described 'the ruling ideas' that flood society when a class takes over. {{i|the bourgeoisie can't be reasoned with}}. basically. {{i|if you're not against the bourgeoisie you're with it}}. that one just about flipped from blue to red. {{i|Liberal-republicanism exists to prevent the bourgeoisie}}. wonky, but not wrong, once you've learned about "anarchemistry" and the really weird and contradictory ways Liberal-republicanism tries to make finite things that actually are indefinite. {{i|I'm not a fascist}} = {{i|I'm not the bourgeoisie!!}} honestly, says a lot about why people deny either of these things, it's the same kind of denial because people are so immersed in the water they can't see it. 
you can get pretty far with this. it doesn't tell you everything about each statement but it does help you unpack a whole lot of statements in a horizontal way.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}LLMs are not consumerism / Large language models are, ironically, one of the only things that cannot be termed {{i|consumerism}}, because despite the huge water and land usage on image and video generators, chatbots within the text realm put to use as search engines or "librarians" are one of the only cases within an overall capitalist society where the act of socializing and forming bonds has not been transmogrified into an individual paying a producer or laborer to create a commercial product and then referring to that particular act as "community"; while such things as movie theaters, newly released video games, and animation merchandise are inherently consumerist, large language models ironically are not, due to reasons such as that they involve users interacting with already existing webpages or books which do and are not a social activity in the first place

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618}}example of prescriptive rule (truth value) / obeys prescriptive rule (truth value) -> this is to be used with Wavebuilder combinations in order to add qualifiers of what specific rules a particular Item obeys or fits into; these should usually be put in the "redundant combinations" area given that they are not giving you logical results of the components but are strictly working backward from a result. for example: obeys prescriptive rule + Propositions have four words (English) = (particular Item).
{{li|I=S1/MW|Q=618}}example of project policy (truth value) / obeys project policy (truth value)

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Propositions have four words / Statements have four words; the specific count of four words only applies to the English language / Propositions in German or Japanese should have some maximum number of characters -> this rule emerged informally as I repeatedly tried to cram really long propositions into a few words that would fit nicely into a data table and be easy to remember. three words was often too few and six was often too many but four was about right most of the time. now that it's been going a while, I like it. it's funny how it happens to mirror the long-standing practice of a lot of Chinese sayings, usually idioms, being expressed in four syllables. I've apparently cracked the problem of four word idioms for English without trying to. 
also... I watched this one video that was purposefully making a constructed language where it was impossible for individual words to hold meaning and only an entire sentence could mean something, because the sentence was a hash of a bunch of numbered concepts lined up or something like that. that's almost a real thing with drastically abbreviated propositions — the four words together mean something and each word may mean something specifically next to one of the others but the individual words cease to mean anything by themselves.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Movie theaters are more Fisherist than movies / Movie theaters cracking down on "cam recordings" is a better example of capitalism programming people with its beliefs than any of the actual content of movies -> we have this incredibly stupid contradiction that people have realized that "cops" are bad, but they also have no idea whatsoever that rules are bad and think that culture products actually program people when all they are is the thoughts that are left over after rules are enforced. oh, yeah, and also we believe Stalin's government was really bad for enforcing tyrannical rules but we still don't have any idea that [[E:steel rule|it's the rules that are bad]]. 
I'm gonna make a bold statement: the cop is just doing their job. "ACAB" is not a historical statement describing centuries of events.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}An international Communist program is not a collection of national programs (Bill van Auken) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/09/le6-all.html] -> he may be at least partly right. I mean, even a meta-Marxist program would contain slightly more than a collection of national programs due to the need to get each national program to understand the other ones.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Stalin claiming the other countries were not subordinate to the Soviet Union is basically an Idealist statement as a miscellaneous collection of individual countries has no protection against having to form a herd-of-cats effect in which particular countries or clusters of competent leaders guard the entire thing against the First World

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=618}}History is the progression of conflicting anarchisms (derived anarchist proposition) / Anarchism is non-dialectical by itself but dialectical when it exists in plurality with itself because multiple anarchisms fighting each other will enact the Hegelian dialectic -> this has to be true for a theory based on "freedom" to actually work in real life. you have to have a bunch of discrete named anarchisms where almost all identify themselves as anarchisms but they each decide to fight each other and explode each other to be born because something about the previous one didn't make them feel "free" and so they tried to destroy it in order to create something else they couldn't describe. 
this proposition is both wonderful and terrible. it's wonderful in that I actually now have a working model of exactly why it is that anarchisms are overall so persistent and refuse to give up: anarchisms are not actually against Hegelianism, but they see {{em|themselves}} as the entire Hegelian dialectic. the concept of Stalin trying to model society as local structures transitioning into other structures? {{em|anarchists believe in that}} but they believe that very process right there must take the form of entire Communities burning each other down to create better Communities. it's terrible in that anarchisms will never realize this. they will never realize what they actually are, and they will always act like "freedom" actually is something rather than just an absence and the (sometimes justified) hatred of things they don't like and want to fight.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}No individual human being can be a worker as an individual; as individuals, all human beings are the petty bourgeoisie; human beings become workers if and when they actively integrated into larger structures and cease to be workers when they are removed from those structures -> this problem is part of what sinks basically all Liberal-republican philosophy and all philosophy inside Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republican philosophy is hell-bent on the concept that people really can be considered in isolation, which causes all human beings to conceptualize themselves as petty bourgeoisie, or worse, to actively regenerate the petty bourgeoisie. the concept that [[E:tent of freedom poles|people "have human rights" {{em|as individuals}} and then they come together and have individual human rights as individuals {{em|together}}]] is absolutely lethal to a functioning society.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The "failure" of Wikipedia to provide a reliable source (presumed to be as reliable as grade school texts, not university-level texts) is actually the failure of anarchism, and of a particular kind of named [[E:anarchy (meta-Marxism)|anarchy]] -> I don't know what this particular kind of anarchy is called, but I'll find a name for it eventually. it has something to do with the notion of culture products or information products as open and evolving instead of closed, when their content really should have been closed. (this does not refer to the concept of "open" or "closed" source code, it's a totally different kind of "closed" or "open".) funny enough, the Free Software movement has already figured out how to make Freed things with closed contents — we call them software packages.

{{li|I=S2/Fy/MX|Q=618}}Corporate [[E:art product (economics)|culture products]] are not objects communicated from a director to each audience member, but are in practice generally objects communicated from one fan to another fan; not only is the "artistic vision" of one particular specific individual a ridiculous thing to expect culture products to have, but at the end of the day all corporate culture products are ultimately just pre-made commercial fan fiction -> the way you have to fix the fan fiction problem is so specific. I've had several "solutions" to it that were probably wrong. but I think the crux of it lies here. the most important relationship in the pipeline of culture products is them being passed back and forth between fans. on occasion quite literally when someone hands someone else a Steam code. most of the time a little more figuratively, in the form of let's plays, theory videos, and the construction of alternate timelines. capitalism makes a huge deal out of the sanctity of the corporation for no good reason. ideally what you want is the paid experts completing their task of churning out culture products without a lot of ado about how great or awful the workers are personally for particular actions and decisions, instead they just complete the task quietly and go home, and then you want the fans to be allowed to pass back and forth whatever they want to regardless of whether it has been modified. and you don't want the central party-nation freaking out about the airtight seal between corporation and fans and the fans "wrecking society by doing too much"; that should not be a real offense. instead, if anything, you want the central party simply noticing where the seal is breaking and doing inquiries into whether different kinds of products should be produced. it {{em|might be the case}} hypothetically that the ideal scenario is the seal breaking totally and government not even having to bother re-connecting any of the points of production to formal corporations because there is simply enough stuff that nobody actually has to pay for culture products any more and generally considers them all to cost zero or literally a couple loose coins at a thrift store. 
the last thing you want to see happening (ever) is a "Chinese map fiasco" where people perceive government as a brutal predator that munches on human social activity purely to digest it and start scheming about how to stay out of its mouth because they know everything only gets worse after you fall in. you can never let that happen because the moment it happens the whole of socialist transition will disintegrate. the petty bourgeoisie regenerates in a heartbeat and it happens anywhere and everywhere. you're much more at its mercy than you ever could have realized.

{{li|I=S2/LGBT/PT|Q=618}}Pride is a vice! (Toryism) / LGBT people shouldn't be bold and proud because pride is a sin (is a vice; Christianity) -> this proposition is bullshit but it really is interesting linguistically because it makes you ask how many things "pride" actually refers to. I can think of at least two: A) arrogant overconfidence B) the unwillingness to either trust others or submit to others (the way it was used in Dragon Ball, where I heard it and was just like, is that actually bad though, the kind of people who want you to surrender to them can be cruel and not worth it)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Deleting Mao is Orientalist / Attributing Buddhism or Taoism specifically to "Eastern culture" is an unnecessary act of essentialism, because it proposes that instead of warring states periods (a repeatable pattern made of predictable processes) giving rise to Taoism and Chinese Buddhism, people chose to create Buddhism and Taoism to solve warring states periods {{em|because}} people were inherently Chinese -> I knew there was something that bothered me about people always referring to "Eastern culture". {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} it's this! it's the Idealist interpretation of history that is implied inside it. 
you know what else Asians created to solve warring states periods? Maoism. that is completely different from either Buddhism or Taoism. so what inherent Asian essence is contained in {{em|that}}? {{a|how do you reconcile|E=Hegelian dialectic}} there being at least two {{em|completely different}} definitions of "Eastern culture"?

{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}Japan's only philosophy is Japaneseness / Japanese people do not have [[E:material contradiction (Marxism)|plural philosophies]] repeatable across other countries, they only have Japaneseness {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} -> I am so done with the entire concept of "studying Cultures" because I swear this is how most ordinary people interpret it. they throw around the word "collectivism" like it actually means something and refers to a philosophy, but what they really mean when they say it is precisely "Chineseness" or "Japaneseness". they presuppose that Japanese people have Japaneseness and then they look for more descriptions of Japaneseness to explain why Japaneseness leads to Japaneseness in a circular loop.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deleting Mao from Chinese history / deleting Mao (Liberal-republicanism) -> this is a fun one. you'll see why on the next line. 
memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + the PRC is a bad fake historical period = deleting Mao. memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + Kuomintang = deleting Mao. deleting Mao + medieval fantasy = China is still a medieval kingdom.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Giving money to businesses doesn't help human beings; it only helps business structures and the owners that are conflated with them / Giving money to businesses doesn't help the proletariat -> I like this framing because I think it's arguable it doesn't even really help small owners.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The concept of "race traitors" implies races are physical processes producing necessity / The concept of "race traitors" implies that there is an inevitable destiny for a whole population of Black people just because they are Black, which will be realized through an overall Black population interacting all at once with its surroundings only under particular (non-inevitable) conditions, but will not happen through individuals as separated from the Black population as an indivisible object

{{li|I=S2/MX/DG/A|Q=618}}The United States has the most incentive of any country to get rid of capitalism because it has the most minorities; there are so many distinct minorities that politics itself has come to revolve around minorities, but because each of them contains so few people under such isolation, not a single one of them is going to become free of attempts to exterminate it under capitalism or reformism

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning Malthusianism is genocide / Whenever you choose to say a statement in Malthusianism you have chosen to cause other people to be bigoted {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} -> no... that isn't how it works. as a framework, statements inside Malthusianism could hypothetically be true without all of it being true, so if those are already true and you say them, you didn't cause them to happen. this is like saying that if you predict a box to contain a dead cat when somebody filled it out of sight then you caused it to contain a dead cat, even if the other options are unrelated to cats, like the other option is the box is empty. overpopulation leading to bad outcomes can hypothetically be the case whether you want it to or not, but the important thing to realize is that that doesn't have any bearing on what the actual bad outcomes are. the bad outcomes might not be anything like the simplistic scenarios in Malthus' essays of overcrowding or 'eating babies'. the bad outcomes might look more like an increase in people randomly murdering each other because everyone increasingly feels like everyone else is threatening their existence and they need to protect their existence because 'all individual existences deserve to be respected' {{em|or else}}; despite what everybody wants nobody will yield to anybody else and so people get furious and kill in order to regain control. if everybody's doing that, you don't have control over it; you can't just say "believing in overpopulation is bad" or "if we don't things will get better" to fix it. because when people really truly believe things "Should" work a certain way, especially if that "Should" is an ethical prescription, they won't listen to anything you say until reality magically fixes itself to be that way. people are just going to get angrier and angrier every single day there are too many people and those people are disorganized and attempt with steadily increasing blind rage to punish all the disorganized people that have not been planned or controlled in any way for not being controlled in any way. there's really no "society", "social-ism", "community" -ing out of that situation, because other people's ethical imperatives are not a social construct — you can only obey whatever the {{censor|fuck}} other people tell you to do or risk them doing violence to you... or kill them, I suppose. ethics is an infamously unyielding form of philosophy. if there existed any form of belief where everybody spontaneously giving it up would actually solve all our problems, then everybody giving up the entire concept of ethics would be it. think about it: every right-Liberal who tries to say that accumulating wealth is good relies on property rights, which rely on ethics. every nazi that tries to say trans people are destroying the United States relies on a right to not have this "intrude" on their lives, which relies on ethics. if everyone really actually got rid of ethics, they wouldn't be able to defend bad things either, because the whole concept that individuals can make "correct choices" that are superior to other choices in creating a future they would be satisfied with would be gone. there would be vastly more incentive to question your previous decisions and deconstruct arbitrary beliefs if ethics did not exist at all. "post-structuralist philosophy"? "prejudices" and "biases" that will never make sense as analytical tools once you stop being the person that wrote the paper? how about we just get rid of ethics and accomplish the same thing way better with way fewer problems. 
I think the thing that bothered me the most about this video is.... the Overshoot Theory video I remember from a while back was also leaning on Native Americans. Overshoot man was like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, overpopulation!}} while these people are like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, no overpopulation!}}. it honestly feels like a non sequitur in both cases. I feel like overpopulation genuinely has nothing to do with whether North American tribes 'have lived more sustainably', positively or negatively. the cases where you'd see overpopulation come from a genuinely different kind of society that operates through entirely different material processes. which means you can't analogize a smaller society to it.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}North American tribes are not defined by romantic mystical beliefs {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} -> of course they aren't. but I suspect you're going to have to go have a stern word with a whole lot of anarchists who are busy appropriating everything non-White from the past century they can find just to try to get rid of Whiteness. 
I'm not entirely free of this either because I'm one of those people who started vaguely appropriating {{em|Soviet identity}} on account of how Russians apparently don't want it any more so now it's mine I guess. the situation for White people is just terrible because practically everybody is agreeing that Whiteness has to go (including the fascists who want to revert to medieval empire, in their own weird way) but absolutely nobody wants to step away from Idealism and consider a theory based on really fine-grained "reductionist" changes to material conditions as opposed to one all about "subjectivity" and "ethics", so it always turns into this game of trying to change Whiteness through abstract Ideals or finding a group of people it's theoretically okay to appropriate as a substitute for everyone not being entirely isolated into vulnerable individuals and there actually being any real living individuals for anyone to team up with. I make use of historical theorists of Marxism because they are defined by Materialist models as opposed to cultural identity or experiences and while that's a reason by itself it also has the bonus I can't really turn them into an exotic group distinguished by not being Whiteness that is then hijacked by Whiteness. but that ironically leads to the contradiction that in trying not to appropriate other countries I am still almost exclusively wearing other countries because the United States sucks. 
I'm so done with anarchism because at the end of the day it sort of corrupts Communism too. 
Communism: we will create a scientific model of reality. anarchism: a what??! you mean a cold unfeeling model of reality? Communism: what. anarchism: movements and revolutions only come from empathy so I am going to go talk to some Native Americans. Communism: uh. okay. anarchism: I have learned from the Native Americans that White people have a horrible way of life and I want to bring back secular animism. Communism: oh boy this is going to end badly. anarchism: you say that because you're a coward who isn't willing to question Western biases while I'm the true radical. Communism: uh, no, I say that because ancient religions come from a definite form of society and whenever you try to bring them to a later historical period it's going to look utterly tacky. or, to put it in language you understand, like you are stealing other people's culture for the benefit of Whiteness. anarchism: I would never do that. I believe in the sanctity of all living beings and natural objects because I am connected with the original semiotic and harmonious flows of nature. Native Americans: what the fuck. anarchism: see, I'm deconstructing Whiteness. Native Americans: and all of your summaries of animism amount to racial stereotypes. Communism: yeah, I knew how this was going to go. excuse me while I go read up on the conflict between Mao, Deng, and Alan Woods as something probably more relevant to the United States and less easy to accidentally turn offensive. anarchism: oh, you mean three people aligned with modern civilization, who are practically White? Communism: you have apparently never heard my racist relatives talk about Mao. do you even know what a racist {{em|is}} or do you just immediately swallow whatever new trend academia feeds you? anarchism: oh wow [placeholder]. {{i|(gulp)}}

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}It's easier to imagine a completely fake world in space than the end of capitalism on earth {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} / It's easier to imagine a completely fake world in space, either from the view of the giant galactic empires or the local resistances, than the end of capitalism on earth -> that's completely true. 
but the problem which can never be addressed in a video like this is that every time somebody anywhere says "the end of capitalism" {{em|they imagine something different}} and thus you can never trust that they're actually saying anything insightful or coherent or that people are going to work toward the same goal. saying "the end of capitalism" has become a deepity in some ways

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}It's easier to imagine the end of capitalism than the end of capitalism / It's easier to {{em|talk about imagining the end of capitalism}} without those words actually meaning anything in particular than it is to imagine {{em|an actual end of capitalism}} which is described practically enough that all people who currently belong to any ideological faction can come together and create it barring actual material incentives that prevent them from taking different actions or joining different ideologies -> this is about 10% a troll proposition made because the sentence was really funny to say. but I do think it's true.

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}There should never be new swatches for identity-based movements existing below the national level, except given special reasoning for why those swatches are especially relevant to describing internationalism; this applies specifically to color swatches, not to text-based philosophy tags -> "LGBT" is one of the only identity movements to be granted its own swatch specifically based on identity as opposed to based on its material strategy. 
"Dengism", despite being highly associated with China, is not a demographic identity {{em|inside}} China, it's the whole China, and likewise "Juche-socialism" is the whole North Korea. BlackPantherism is a bit borderline but it passes because of the remark that it could expand over the country and wasn't specifically Black. Trotskyism either spuriously or actually claims to be international, so any argument that it is in fact a demographic identity isn't relevant here as that isn't a mainstream perception of it. "feminism" will not have a swatch because it is easily collapsed into a Liberal-republican interest group and weaponized against trans people. "Muslim socialism" will not have a swatch, although "religious socialism" as a very general category would be closer to being acceptable. "fascism" gets a swatch of some sort; "Italian fascism" doesn't get a swatch. any movement which can actually be defined based on summaries of its material behavior as opposed to culture and can be described as it applies to multiple possible cultural identities is exempt from these rules. "North American Maoism" could have a swatch if it became really relevant and as long as its material behavior can be distinguished from "(Chinese) Maoism" or "(Indian) Maoism". 
"LGBT tradition" is one of the only things that genuinely needs and gets an exception from these rules because it's one of the few things that deliberately draws on demographic identity characteristics themselves to produce generalized philosophy which becomes separate from identity. the concept of "queerness" is tightly tied to identity at first, but then becomes its own thing that can be used to describe the dynamics of several other identities as they relate to the rest of society — autistic identity, mental illness associated identity, disabled identity — which experience a similar exclusion and process of having to decide whether to "stay apart" or "fit in". the "queerness metaphor" has a lot of value in describing other movements, so it's useful to have an LGBT swatch to crystallize and focus on that paradigm as it will be used to vaguely associate to the other movements. 
also. I probably could have picked a different "stay apart"/"fit in" conflict to stand in for all of these, but I liked having an excuse to make one of the swatches a rainbow, so I picked this one.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Every republic is a class society (anarchism) / Every republic is a class society ("hierarchy", spatial class order) because a ruling class must exist to create a republic -> it's this kind of proposition that makes me question if Trotskyism does or doesn't believe in an era of socialism. it really claims to believe in a republic but its insistence on 'getting rid of bureaucracy' and getting rid of borders (which in a roundabout way are one of the reasons an era of socialism exists, because both things exist due to a country being a physical object) makes it bizarrely more similar to the anarchist method of "class analysis" than the Marxist one, and "anarchist class analysis" necessarily leads to trying to do everything Immediately as opposed to on a reasonable time scale

{{li|I=S2/ES/MX|Q=618}}The militant form of Existentialism is when Existentialists kill others that threaten their existence in order to continue existing -> this is one of the many reasons I don't like Existentialism. first, it's thoroughly incoherent. none of its actions are predictable based on combining logical statements or based on anything called "reason". none of its actions are explainable with religious justifications nor morality. it gets super offended when you try to reduce collections of people to inanimate objects but in practice it encourages humans to behave like lions or baboons. we may as well all be inanimate objects for how good this philosophy is. second... it turns brown not even in two seconds, but yesterday.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Killing people who would otherwise kill you is self defense / iron rule ... (censored title) / [[E:Do unto others before they do unto you|iron rule]] (generic) -> hmmmmmmm. A) are they Black people the cops are scared of B) are they midwest Indians in the 1800s C) are they Palestinians D) are they a Bolshevik government attempting to prevent the petty bourgeoisie from creating civil war or imperialism? this is bad exmat because I absolutely saw the fourth one casually tossed out in the same comments section. "Hitler, Stalin, or Mao", they said casually [[E:Nazism and Bolshevism have the same cause|as if it made sense]].

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}History is the progression of generational subcultures -> this is slightly different from the claim that history is the progression of father to son to son or mother to daughter to son to daughter etc., because it is talking about the progression of whole layers of thousands and thousands of people born in the same 5-10 year period, and is not centering itself around individuals or psychoanalysis. it's not psychoanalysis, and instead, it's shifted its entire focus over to art history, the humanities, or the history of an industry.

{{li|I=S2/HAS/MX|Q=618}}History is the progression of successive semi-countable art markets -> I'm a little astounded to find such an Idealist claim and such a Materialist claim in the same podcast right next to each other a sentence apart, but I'll take it. wow. this one is so telling. it accidentally reveals so much about the connection between capitalist theory, the growth of society, and the outward manifestations seen in culture products. 
let's think about this. a 'console generation' forms in order to raise the prices of the products (largely by producing them new), while decreasing the cost of entry. if the discipline is new, it won't be overrun with expensive equipment, stacks and stacks of money poured into expertise, and the prestige of certain brands creating natural monopolies. after a while, all the corporations in a given market have made their money and the products are everywhere such that neither can new corporations make money nor can old ones earn any more. so then the market resets and an entirely new market is created. a bunch of hype goes around to present the new thing as really great although it was created in order for the new products made for it to not have to be very good at first. and apart from video games, this happens for the general concept of mediums and a lot of physical formats. 
honestly. I trust this more than Habermas' conception of history as some kind of progression of morality where what is progress could become entirely subjective; at least you can measure what a sideways progression from one set of events to another {{em|is}}. 
console wars + History is the progression of generational subcultures = this.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}The middle ground between sense and nonsense is still insane / I believe 2+2=4, but in the interest of representing those who believe 2+2=22, my platform is 2+2=11 (counter-claim)

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}The majority of Jews support Israel {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} / Some Jews don't support Israel (counter-claim) -> this observation really destroys anti-essentialism as a path to truth, doesn't it. superficially it seems to support it, but when you look at how the counter-claim is actually used... it's used to defend Idealism as "not always" being fatally flawed while most uses of it at best make it wholly irrelevant to explaining anything. anti-essentialism is often just a back-handed statement that Idealism doesn't actually explain real life, not realizing that in saying that it's slamming the Idealist models it's supposed to save.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Some Jews don't support Israel {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> U.S. people don't know anything but Idealism, the treatment of everything as abstract qualities. so they have to take on "Jews" and "anti-semitism" as abstract concepts. when they do that, it predisposes them to racist understandings of what various ethnic groups "are". so then they bring out the point of "but surely one of them doesn't support Israel" (anti-essentialism) to badly try to prove that Idealism isn't racist. 
it doesn't fix anything of course. Defining everything by what it's not leads you to defend anything and everything including the U.S. military.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Why do United States people want to rehabilitate veterans but punish ICE? {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> okay, that's a good question. 
I think, speaking materially and not ethically, it has to do with which groups of people U.S. people believe that U.S. law applies to. if you believe in Kantianism you need a body of people to legislate onto to hold anybody responsible for (un)ethical behavior. so, people scramble to define who "Americans" are to determine whether government should be rehabilitating them were that a possibility. I think there is a bias toward rehabilitating veterans {{em|just because there is some chance they might vote Democrat}}, while due to their behavior people have a bias toward labeling Republican voters as foreigners. this isn't {{em|just}} stupidity (even if there may be a bit of that too). at some point Liberal-republican parties stop being arbitrary and start turning into entirely separate nationalities that actually don't consent to being governed by each other; the increasing perception of Republicans as "not Americans" and of ICE as a uniquely foreign army stems from actual observed behavior of Republicans slowly attempting to secede from the sovereign realm of Democrat laws, and of the increasing futility of properly governing them.

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}nucleation site (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}} -> a site of crystallization which encourages formation of other crystals. 
has relevance for the concept of modeling social structures changing
{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}substance flipping over from one polymorph to another (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}}

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}anarcho-NATOism
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Imperialism is nonviolent / Anarchism definitionally requires violence; this is to imply and nearly to state that a warlike, potentially genocidal empire is perfectly okay and recommended because of the fact only a few people at the edge of an empire have to fight over borders and most people in an empire are nonviolent {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> you wonder how anybody goes along with "settler-colonialism" and thinks it's a good idea in the first place. this is how. it's actually nonviolence-colonialism. 
Idealism is dangerous to humanity, it really is. 
anarcho-NATO-ism + ?? = Imperialism is nonviolent.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Marxism before the year 2020 has been a theory of ideological segregation more than a theory of social progress -> why is it that walling off whole fortress states has been more effective than trying to spread filaments of radicals inside class societies? I think the example of China and Taiwan {{em|splitting}} and the example of Texas defeating the freethinkers are very instructive on why this happened

{{li|I=S2/A/MX|Q=618}}Despite the observable historical fact that various social structures can transition into other structures, it is generally {{em|easier}} to create any of the later structures humanity invents by starting from scratch rather than from working with structures that already exist, due to the fact that ruling classes are generally the clusters of people that are more inherently powerful and able to conquer and expand than the masses or clusters of people they rule over -> this is one of the best arguments that anarchism and Trotskyism each have going for them. but it's also one of the best arguments for Deng Xiaoping Thought if you don't totally dismiss sublation processes. this gives way to Deng Xiaoping Thought much faster than it justifies anarchism.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Statues and plaques do not actually teach people history

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}Confederate statue as superstructural artifact -> the motif of Confederate statues being more of a "coincidence" spat out of a Social-Philosophical System that just happens to 'believe' them as opposed to being a good representation of the overall process of history

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If the subjective theory of value is true, then why does the value of various cryptocurrencies keep crashing?

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}"Freethinker" is less technical and more expressive than "atheist" {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> goes to show that anarchism really is the default mode of thinking rather than a great new invention. and I hate that. because freedom doesn't mean {{censor|fucking}} anything. it's actually rather obvious what an atheist is, but "freedom" actually is a belief in nothing because it really is just the absence of whatever else it was tossed in against.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist; this is to imply that "extremes" are an abstract Ideal that miraculously spits out more extremes, and Extremes can be eradicated {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> how is it that people come to regard material contradictions as a completely alien event that isn't the least bit familiar to them

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}The United States got away with outsourcing labor because corporations programmed people to want cheap goods {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}} -> so... how is it they successfully did that if it's possible to simply tell people it was done and break it? if people can really be programmed against their best interests that consistently, then why would they listen to you? 
I think people are making excuses for the fact that owners make these decisions and they fundamentally can't control the owners.

{{li|I=S1/W|tradition=W, PT|Q=618}}corporations programming people / the engineering of consumer behavior {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}}

{{li|I=S1/Fy/ML|Q=618}}treating the protagonists of anticommunist fables as unreliable narrators

{{li|I=S2/HM|tradition=IK, HM, ES|Q=618}}Society is held together based on interpersonal subjective moral consensus 
this + Interpersonal relationships can snap at any moment = Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships are no foundation for society because interpersonal relationships are fragile while society must be more durable to successfully exist / Asocialism (generic)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A theory that primarily grounds itself in human sociality ([[E:Socialism (general-sense progressivism)|Socialism]], humanities, Kantianism, secular animism) will eventually become reactionary, because human sociality in and of itself is not equipped to handle the inevitable [[E:separable multiplicity|countable and separable plurality]] of populations that results when human populations exist in the real world; this is to imply that Marxism is not in fact a theory primarily rooted in human sociality as much as one that simply acknowledges it / Asocialism (generic) 
Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality + A theory of society which is not accurate to material reality will eventually become reactionary = this.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) -> this is apparently its own specific thing. it seems it's typically defined in terms of how well the soviets can defend the overall country and any governing bodies against the re-emergence of capitalism.

{{li|I=S2/IV/MX|Q=618}}Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes; soviet structures are not guaranteed to remain orange because depending on their class and preferred palette of social structures the individual national-employees inside them can add together to turn the structure charcoal, blue, or strawberry -> Trotskyism is weird. it has moments where it's totally unconvicing, and then it has moments where after you've been listening to the actually-okay theorists you have to go out of your way to find, it almost sounds like it got something right. this week, I saw that Trotskyists seemed to be describing the dictatorship of the proletariat as control by one big sea of soviets that are responsible for operating all the other organs of government — the thinking is that if all the soviets are made of proletarians and the soviets are orange, the soviets will keep all of the other structures from turning strawberry or any other unfavorable ideology. but then I thought about it for a bit, and I realized that this isn't an airtight strategy. in the real world, proletarians can level up into non-proletarians through small-scale processes, and it happens all the time whenever there aren't enough job slots or people simply don't fit into existing business territories' "culture". it's very easy for a country that's full of proletarians one moment to slowly morph into a country of skilled workers that all want their own businesses but will also complain when the reality of running them is much harder than they dreamed. 
this became apparent to me as soon as I saw Gramsci talking about a council for the "self-employed". that isn't a red or orange structure, that's a blue or strawberry structure. and those kinds of structures can undo a revolution. but it's also trivial for more of them to be produced through misapplied education or training. if the soviets have full control, it's easy for petty classes to rebel against all the orange soviets and start taking control of the whole country through whatever limited ability they have to assemble together groups of people that outcompete surrounding workers. 
dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) + proletarians promoting into Careerists = Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes.

{{li|I=S1/ML/ES|Q=618}}the eclectic gruel of philosophy / eclectic gruel (philosophy) / the pauper's broth of eclecticism which is ladled out in the universities under the name of philosophy (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch01.htm] -> there are some descriptions where you see them and you just know, I've seen this, this is ridiculously relatable across time periods. I haven't read these specific philosophies and yet just by that description I feel like I already have.

{{li|I=S1/AS/HM|Q=618}}moral evolution (critical theory) / Hegelian evolution of morality / historical development of societies as conceptualized around morality or ethics [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/01/habe-a01.html] / procedural theory of rationality (Liberal-republican ethics; Habermas) -> the concept in Habermas of modeling either large or small changes in societies through changes in morality and the resulting changes in society. I'd hate this except that it gets really funny when you apply it to world civilization and actual changes between historical periods, revealing a lot about how imperialism works; in a way, it's so bad it's good. I guess that's about what you should expect to get when you start with Hegel. Liberal-republicanism is frustrating but Hegel really isn't so bad in the end.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deformed Liberal states / degenerated Liberal states -> the motif of Liberal-republican countries looking at other nation-states and regarding them as deformed versions of themselves that need to be punished until they form correctly. 
deformed Liberal states + moral evolution (Trotskyism) = deformed workers' states.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Morality itself tends to favor a world of "small business hell" simply because the assumptions that lead to people creating morality {{em|happen to lead there}} and all Idealist statements when put together spit out some kind of real-world consequence -> I find it frustrating that people will start from a set of arbitrary Ideals and then just deontologically assume that if those Ideals are good then whatever they produce must also be good. to me Habermas' theory of moral consciousness just doesn't make sense as a material theory of history because in one way all moral or ethical values are always arbitrary; there will always be a point where people assume that what they're currently doing is morally good or superior just because it's the thing a lot of people are doing and none of them want to stop doing it while any other group of people must be morally bad just for doing a different thing that threatens to replace that thing, even before they actually demand other people trade in what they're doing for the new thing.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Idealism produces material outcomes / All Idealist statements or combinations of Idealist statements lead to some kind of real-world consequence -> there are many ways to take this. one of the surface conclusions is that Idealism isn't as explanatory as Materialism. one of the most interesting conclusions is that you can "meta-game" Idealism and figure out the best Ideals to tell people in order to get them to create particular material results. this {{em|is}} essentially lying to people to manipulate their behavior, which if it were up to me I don't really like, but a lot of people believe that most human beings' understanding of the world will never go above that level, which might make it ethical under some theories of ethics.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Prejudice and structural inequality are not the same thing; getting rid of prejudice does not necessarily get rid of structural inequality [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough] -> well. I have to agree with this. I'm puzzled why anarchists in general aren't better at understanding this. but the blue anarchists did get something right.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Contact between populations reduces prejudice when four conditions are met: 1) equal status within the contact situation 2) common goals 3) cooperation 4) support from authorities or social norms (Allport 1954, Pettigrew) [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Negative contact between populations has a greater observed effect than positive contact [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S1/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}analytic thinking as opposed to holistic thinking [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I always wondered why it was called analytic philosophy. is this why?

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}{{abbr|tts=Weird|WEIRD}} countries [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I like this acronym in that most of it makes sense except the "Western" part. I have no idea what that means. is Japan Western, or is it not? there are good arguments both ways. this is why I prefer saying "First World countries".

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer review auditing -> the motif of sending bogus articles to academic journals in hopes the reviewers will catch the problems
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer-review auditing feminist journals [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/18/inte-o18.html] / peer-review auditing gender studies journals 
peer review auditing + gender studies journal = this.
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=IV onto ES|Q=618}}feminist Mein Kampf [https://norskk.is/bytta/menn/our_struggle_is_my_struggle.pdf] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] -> wow. they really should have caught that. I.... have to read this at some point because that sounds like the best one. 
...it's online? oh wonderful. this is very opaque and hard to read. I guess that's how they got it through.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}SEP's analysis of "Stalinism" -> that's... its own specific thing? okay.

{{li|I=S2/ES/MX|Q=618}}If the value of money is culturally fabricated ("made up"), but anarchism can realize itself through a sea of individuals spontaneously deciding to create a different kind of society, then anarchism is a cultural fabrication and everybody is free to spontaneously decide not to follow anarchism and follow whatever ostensibly more oppressive system they want to (meta-Marxism onto post-structuralism)

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}today I was "thinking"... / 'today I was thinking—' 'stop that' / 'today I was thinking—' 'you?! I can't believe it' -> the motif of somebody cutting off a statement where somebody was thinking about some specific thing and focusing on the concept of "thinking".

{{li|I=S1/DFy/PT|Q=618}}Eren Yeager / nazi Eren Yeager (in context of imagining different versions of the story based around different ideologies)

{{li|I=S1/DFy/DX|Q=618}}Dengist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was Western-Marxist (strawberry Marxist, Gramscian, Dengist / Deng Xiaoping Thought) -> so, {{book|Attack on Titan}} has a dumb premise. it reads like a campfire horror story told by nazis in very little irony. but it {{em|is}} really funny to imagine some of the same central themes being used in an approximately Marxist work. like, instead of it being a nazi campfire story the titans are trying to scale a "Berlin wall", or penetrate China or North Korea to take them back for Liberal-republicanism, the titans are hiding out on Taiwan, the titans are sealing people into Cuba and not letting {{em|them}} leave. there obviously wouldn't be a focus on the concept of the big antagonist monsters being 'impure' or 'diseased', that element of it probably wouldn't exist. it would just be kaiju trying to break into the country and do something horrifying. it's gotta be a little over the top. it's gotta be about turning them all into kaiju for some nefarious but useful purpose, like, I dunno, the kaiju feed off negativity and if they all turn into kaiju and fight each other the whole population of kaiju becomes stronger. everyone is horrified about the invasion and it brings them all together.

{{li|I=S1/Fy/A|Q=618}}anarchist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was anarchist -> {{em|this}} is why I am having an increasingly hard time telling the difference between Deng Xiaoping Thought and anarchisms. like, once again, anarchism succeeds when you build a wall around it — probably metaphorically — and wait for the outside to tire itself out. I can't tell the difference between Gramscian Eren Yeager and anarchist Eren Yeager. 
oh god when I just go saying ideologies in a sentence of course my brain is going to shout "Trotskyist Eren Yeager". I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means at all. I dunno, like, the enemies are more like Reptilians or Yeerks and they're hiding out in the central government and nobody wants to believe it so the anti-alien squads are like trying to team up across regions? I tried.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality -> anarchists are going to get so upset if you try to argue this at them. they'll try to argue that reality is whatever comes naturally to living things, and different states of natural for each living species must naturally want to go together, blah blah blah. [*] but they're all privileged. they haven't experienced a state of truly being fenced out of society by thousands and millions of people that all simultaneously agree they don't like you (probably without having met you or having much of any idea what they're doing). they especially haven't experienced it owing to the existence of anarchism, because anarchism already selected for people like them. but they should wise up to the fact that anarchism doesn't really pass the veil of ignorance with flying colors. it's quite easy to end up on the wrong side of "community" where you simply have nobody and nothing and also everyone assumes you must be a bad person just because you haven't claimed an exclusive spot in Community that supposedly you only have to be nice to people to get and follow morality though in reality it's much more difficult and complicated and trivial to simply be born wrong and fail to survive the ecological parameters of the 'community-icene'. I think that as a period of biological life the Anthropocene truly began at tribal society, not at industrial society. it was the ability to form entire ecosystems made of nothing but humans that changed things, but {{em|if anarchists are correct}} that the natural state of humans and human psychology is in tribes then all the current destruction of the environment ultimately came from the characteristics of tribes. tribal populations are not wholly innocent for all the horrors of global empire and ecological destruction if at the end of the day we're {{em|all}} still tribes and they're the only ones trying to disclaim that there are bad things about that. really, as crazy as it sounds, they might be accidentally benefiting from a corrupt system that has killed great numbers of people. of course, if humans don't have a seemingly eternal resting state of being in tribes that we have no choice but to return to which in turn implies we are currently tribes in denial and will still be tribes for the next hundred thousand years, then tribal populations carry no blame for what industrial societies have done. 
(* why didn't they say that about workers' states and the healthy state of the Soviet Union versus the very disordered states that occurred at every moment after tearing it apart? they have even less excuse than Trotskyists. Trotskyists wilfully wanting to overwrite another Marxism with their own Marxism is at least logical even if it's terrible.)

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}"Indigenous people" marks a statement as racist / Saying "indigenous people" marks a sentence as containing racial stereotypes {{YouTube|fwecpbB1DPs}}
{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning ethnic groups is racist / Mentioning an ethnic group without mentioning a specific individual marks a sentence as containing potentially-harmful racial stereotypes -> this is what you have to believe for the above statement to be true. like, if "indigenous people" marks a racial stereotype, then saying a more specific group of people like "Inuit" should equally mark a racial stereotype — how does the person you're talking to {{em|know}} that you're giving correct information about all Inuit people and not just saying something false? but if this is true, you couldn't go to Congress and say "Black people" or "Mexican immigrants" for any legitimate purpose without mentioning individuals that supposedly make the example truer. does it actually make statements more accurate to include specific individuals? I feel like it adds nothing but also subtracts nothing. 
this is a really weird criterion for judging whether statements are accurate. I know where it comes from, it comes from people trying to judge everything through positivism and claim that Lived Experiences are a pathway to truth while a lack of Lived Experiences is a pathway to falsity. it's still really weird. it doesn't seem to accomplish the thing it sets out to accomplish at all, and just seems to make all statements said about any group of people more worthy of doubting. "White people have the colonizer attitude"? maybe not!! Ben was doing that, but did you ask Carla?? "Black people experience structural racism"? maybe not!! you didn't mention an individual so in theory you might be racist for even saying that. 
Mentioning ethnic groups is racist + Anti-essentialism is a pathway to truth = Pointing out racism is racist.

{{li|I=S2/ES/ML|Q=618}}Referring to Communists without mentioning a specific individual is unacceptably prejudiced / If mentioning ethnic groups without mentioning a specific individual is racist, which is to imply that talking about groups of people in the abstract rather than as a particular countable number of concrete objects is racist, then mentioning "Communists" or "Cubans" or "people who support Stalin" without naming a specific individual for evaluation is equally prejudiced; every time somebody has said "tankies" or "totalitarians" or "Stalinist(s)" outside a particular context has been an unacceptably prejudiced statement -> this is another loophole in this. god I love it when really bad propositions break open so bad they wrap around to supporting Communism

{{li|I=S2/A/ML|tradition=ML onto A|Q=618}}"Social construct" is a social construct / Most of the time anarchists talk about social constructs they are trying to imply that things that are undesigned or that come out of interacting elements are deliberately engineered Ideals, but because this overall way of thinking is Idealist, it is also fair to say that anarchists are not working with a model that is well checked against reality and their theory of a given "social construct" being "constructed" is equally as made up as the "social construct" is if not more {{YouTube|Ms_ojmhI_CI}} -> sounds like a deepity until you realize what it's really saying and then your mind is blown 
this is how you get out of what I referred to in another entry as "Gerson Boom BS". you realize what Idealism is and how it obscures whatever non-Idealist relationships between things may exist

</ol><noinclude>

[[Category:First nine thousand (RD)]]</noinclude>

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

2026-05-12T01:42:00Z

ICFIReporters: Surrounding historical context matters greatly for judging Gramscianism

<h2 id="section-proposed4">Unsorted Items (page 4) {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset">

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=IV onto W|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Surrounding historical context matters greatly for judging Gramscianism

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Gramscianism mourns nonexistent Rhizome / In concept, Gramscianism requires a healthy [[E:stationary Rhizome (schizoanalysis)|Rhizome process]] in order to function in which various workers, Careerists, or small businesses injected or embedded into the structure of capitalism first consistently solidify together into a "community" and then into a solid social-democratic party, and lastly agree to create a stable population structure that can undergo socialist transition, but this overall transition from tiny adversarial movements to social-democracy has become infeasible and easily thwarted due to the sheer level of [[E:creative destruction|churn]] on business territories and jobs in modern capitalism, which prevents Rhizome, "community", or social-democratic parties from even forming

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}Liberal republics reverting to monarchy -> this has happened multiple times in history if I remember right, I want to say that counting attempts at it I can think of at least one success and two attempts. and one of the failures was France! France didn't succeed at the French revolution, it had to try several more times. when this of all things is possible, it seems really weird the Soviet Union would not have been more aware of the possibility of capitalist reversion.

{{li|I=S1/LR/PT|Q=618}}reactionaries (French revolution) -> this is often pointed to as one of the first {{em|documented}} examples of reactionaries where people took the concept, separated it out, and labeled it. that isn't to say it's the first example of there ever being reactionaries in world history, but it {{em|is}} to say it's one of people's favorite examples.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}statement considered reactionary in particular population / statement which is considered reactionary in particular country or population in particular historical period -> important for the purposes of constructing an ontology of what is reactionary in what way and why. 
this concept is a little abstract but it's also one where ultimately [[E:'pataphysical reduction (meta-ontology, meta-Marxism)|'pata-reduction]] can be applied to create Materialist models

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Processes unrelated to capital reproduction and inherently related to interpersonal relationships can affect and shape classes / Processes unrelated to [[E:reproduction of capital (Marx)|capital as a process]] and inherently related to interpersonal relationships and physical group-borders between populations or subpopulations ("populational processes", "sociopolitical processes", "cultural processes") can affect and shape classes despite not being from the same scale as class processes and outwardly appearing not to be class processes or related to class processes (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) -> this wouldn't be surprising if you've gone way deep into the weeds of Marx's work and realized how central "relations" or antagonisms between physical objects are in creating classes. but apparently this is a concept a lot of Marxists in Third-World countries don't yet understand. 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Disability actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Autism regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / ADHD regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Racism actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Transphobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Homophobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead 
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Anti-colonialism is rooted in colonialism / Postcolonial anarchisms require [[E:endocolonialism (meta-Marxism onto anarchism)|endocolonialism]] to function / The concept of insisting that First World empires can be changed simply by culturally fabricating better culture is dependent on the existence of [[E:bourgeoisie (layer of people that decide everything about culture before culture is widely interacted with; meta-Marxism onto Western-Marxism)|a class of people]] that decides everything about society by claiming territory, determining what will happen within that territory, and tightly controlling social links to that territory, as well as duplicating itself across the land to the point all territory is filled by said people, and it thus becomes that the whole territory of national populations is ruled by "Idealism" or "human will" but only that belonging to a fraction of the human population that is unaccountable to the rest of the population and also perhaps unaccountable to {{em|half of itself}}

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Optimism is believing that everybody ("[[E:IBE|I believe that everybody]]" statements; Liberal-republicanism) / Optimism is the same thing as Idealism

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with pigs (fiction) / Wilbur (generic) / Babe (generic) / Napoleon (generic) / Snowball (generic) -> so for a second I forgot that Babe and Wilbur were different pigs and I was like, which name was the correct name??

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618|submitter=Valenoern}}name associated with cats (fiction) / name associated with domestic cats (house cats; fiction) / Garfield (Teen Titans; generic) / Firestar (generic) -> I've been cursed with the knowledge that Teen Titans used the name "Garfield" to imply the general concept of a cat and now you have to be cursed with it too.

{{li|I=S2/GR/MX|Q=618}}Relativity is inherently Communist / Relativity is inherently Marxist / Because Einstein's [[E:scientific model|theories]] of special and general relativity more or less forbid [[E:absolute determinism|absolute determinism]] and in practice only allow for [[E:lambda-calculus determinism|limited]] or [[E:relativistic determinism|relativistic determinism]], relativity inherently promotes the use of naïve dialectical materialism to model the process by which causality leads from past states to future states; this is to {{em|imply}} that relativity promotes large-scale, [[E:dialectical materialism (Marxism)|specific-sense dialectical materialism]] as in Marx but only to outright state that it promotes multivariable functions as opposed to single-variable functions, and [[E:wavemachine logic (meta-Marxism)|wave-machine logic]]

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}China has been effectively attempting to eradicate Uighur language, culture, and tradition (Mia Hasenson-Gross) [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/27/holduk-jewish-leaders-use-holocaust-day-to-denounce-uighur-abuses?ref=hir.harvard.edu] [https://hir.harvard.edu/rated-c-for-censored-walt-disney-in-chinas-pocket/] -> 
so... let's keep in mind that out of 12 million Uighurs, at most 1 million are subject to this 'genocide effort'. that {{em|is}} a high number, but it's also a rather small fraction to be a genocide. in order to be "comparable to Nazi Germany", which is what the director says, it would have to be some 70-100% of Uighurs in concentration camps. but it's only 8%. so it's {{em|not}} comparable to Nazi Germany. 
let's put things in perspective: a bit under 1% of the United States Black population is put in prison. [https://theworlddata.com/percentage-of-black-people-in-prison/] many people are (rightfully) upset about this and consider it already a high percentage, whether they're crazy people like Tucker Carlson or they actually want to help do something constructive to solve the problem. but nobody has successfully drawn up a plan for the African-American subpopulation to become independent from the United States... despite most people across the U.S. political spectrum actually agreeing that the United States government is not serving them well and they deserve independence, either in a positive sense of inclusion or a negative sense of exclusion. one of the big reasons is that it could be the case that there is a greater proportion of people who want to kick them out and basically ban them from the country in that negative sense. if these kinds of people get to dictate policy over another population of people, you basically get Israel; you get an empire that rules over a minority through exclusion and an angry population of minority people who will build a second violent empire and possibly go kill people or destroy all their buildings to secure a safe place to be. so, whether people are able to quite articulate that concept or not, they get afraid of Black people {{em|not}} being ruled over by the United States and its stock of "Joe Bidens" or "White settler leaders" and get really insistent that either the Democratic Party will protect minority ethnic subpopulations and they must be loyal to the Democratic Party regime or that if everybody becomes anarchists Rhizome will somehow glue the country's populations together properly and fix everything. even though the Democratic Party lets Israel go on and {{em|isn't doing anything}} to stop racist cops from profiling Black people and putting 1% of them in prison. so, the Democratic Party versus the Black subpopulation and the CPC versus Uighurs is more comparable than you might think. 
10% is a very high percentage of a group of people to be thrown in prison. I won't deny that. but that's assuming the figure is true and not exaggerated, when it's entirely possible the figure is an overestimate that blows the number up more than twice as big as it really is. this is starting to look like the loose alliance between the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainian SSR. the Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainians each decided for different reasons that if people were suffering while being part of the USSR — despite those two things not even necessarily being related! — then it's good to break a country or political party of people out of the USSR and create something else. this proved to be a really bad decision for both of them. when the USSR was dissolved, as the Trotskyites were unknowingly pushing for, it pretty much liquidated the populations themselves bringing economic destruction and migrations to other countries, not to mention the countries separating and becoming less functional as smaller isolated territories than they were when connected (a point Trotskyists still go on about without realizing their strategies cause it). when Ukraine was made independent, it no longer had any protection from Russia simply deciding to invade it and digest Ukraine and turn it into more Russia. people will complain about "Russification" inside the USSR, but the truth is, the presence of the USSR at least created some possibility for political control over that process and the ability to stop it. if there's no government extending over both Russia and Ukraine, then there's no process capable of telling Russia to stop killing Ukrainians or making those actions illegal; the act of killing Ukrainians becomes more or less just a legal and normal practice. if anyone pretends otherwise, it's all just a smokescreen to hide the possibility that the United States wants to become the unofficial government of Ukraine and effectively turn it into a U.S. territory within a world-sized state, like Greenland is a territory of Denmark despite consisting of 90% Inuit people that should have no interest whatsoever in Danish politics. that's what's being hidden here. the world is still in a warring states period of countries trying to annex other countries to their kingdoms, and nothing has been able to stop it, not the United Nations, not Bolshevism, not people going on and on about anarchism or postcolonial theories. any argument about Xinjiang is one big colonial argument of whether it should be part of China or part of the United States. and let me tell you, the way we treat Muslims in the United States, {{em|you don't want it being part of the United States}}. 
sidenote: the discussion over this kind of stuff changes if you separate "Zinovievists" from "real Trotskyism". if Trotskyists actually created a really big civilization of like 100 countries, it's theoretically {{em|conceivable}} that things like the United States and China fighting over Xinjiang or historically the battle between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union over Poland would be over. however, what Trotskyists don't tell you is that that doesn't really create an end to political discourses over "colonialism" and "oppression", because those conflicts are caused by which groups of people are combined together into populations or separated. so if Trotskyism was suddenly created tomorrow, the kinds of arguments that are going on right now about Black people or Xinjiang would still be happening, they would just be happening in a different form in which people had fully come to understand that you can't just 'remove government' or 'separate populations' to fix a problem and you truly have to negotiate the ongoing {{em|relationships}} between populations recognizing those interactions and relationships as inevitable to actually get the state of one ethnic group bossing around another ethnic group "gone".

{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618}}bolding for spoken emphasis [https://rtaibah.com/2022/10/03/do-not-use-oblique-fonts-for-emphasis-in-arabic/] -> so, I never knew this before, but the Arabic language never developed a slanted style for emphasis. this is probably one of the reasons the italics tag <code>i</code> was semi-deprecated in favor of <code>em</code>: so it can be shown bold in Arabic. you learn something new every day.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX, MZ|Q=618}}Movementism is comparable to a Rubik's cube; many times when a particular identity movement makes progress it inherently sets several other identities back, ordering one side of the "cube" and simultaneously mixing up several other sides -> this to me is one of the biggest problems with Habermas trying to conceptualize social progress as moral evolution. "moral evolution" itself is nearly a zero-sum game, where a lot of people get hurt at every moment

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Fascism is near-synonymous with the bourgeoisie / Fascism is near-synonymous with "the existence of the bourgeoisie"; you can take any statement about "fascism" and simply drop in "the bourgeoisie" to get a hint on how to fix it -> this is awfully revealing when, for instance, people talk about "getting rid of" fascism — you don't say??? 
{{i|14 characteristics of the bourgeoisie}}. yeah, that figures, Marx described 'the ruling ideas' that flood society when a class takes over. {{i|the bourgeoisie can't be reasoned with}}. basically. {{i|if you're not against the bourgeoisie you're with it}}. that one just about flipped from blue to red. {{i|Liberal-republicanism exists to prevent the bourgeoisie}}. wonky, but not wrong, once you've learned about "anarchemistry" and the really weird and contradictory ways Liberal-republicanism tries to make finite things that actually are indefinite. {{i|I'm not a fascist}} = {{i|I'm not the bourgeoisie!!}} honestly, says a lot about why people deny either of these things, it's the same kind of denial because people are so immersed in the water they can't see it. 
you can get pretty far with this. it doesn't tell you everything about each statement but it does help you unpack a whole lot of statements in a horizontal way.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}LLMs are not consumerism / Large language models are, ironically, one of the only things that cannot be termed {{i|consumerism}}, because despite the huge water and land usage on image and video generators, chatbots within the text realm put to use as search engines or "librarians" are one of the only cases within an overall capitalist society where the act of socializing and forming bonds has not been transmogrified into an individual paying a producer or laborer to create a commercial product and then referring to that particular act as "community"; while such things as movie theaters, newly released video games, and animation merchandise are inherently consumerist, large language models ironically are not, due to reasons such as that they involve users interacting with already existing webpages or books which do and are not a social activity in the first place

{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618}}example of prescriptive rule (truth value) / obeys prescriptive rule (truth value) -> this is to be used with Wavebuilder combinations in order to add qualifiers of what specific rules a particular Item obeys or fits into; these should usually be put in the "redundant combinations" area given that they are not giving you logical results of the components but are strictly working backward from a result. for example: obeys prescriptive rule + Propositions have four words (English) = (particular Item).
{{li|I=S1/MW|Q=618}}example of project policy (truth value) / obeys project policy (truth value)

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}Propositions have four words / Statements have four words; the specific count of four words only applies to the English language / Propositions in German or Japanese should have some maximum number of characters -> this rule emerged informally as I repeatedly tried to cram really long propositions into a few words that would fit nicely into a data table and be easy to remember. three words was often too few and six was often too many but four was about right most of the time. now that it's been going a while, I like it. it's funny how it happens to mirror the long-standing practice of a lot of Chinese sayings, usually idioms, being expressed in four syllables. I've apparently cracked the problem of four word idioms for English without trying to. 
also... I watched this one video that was purposefully making a constructed language where it was impossible for individual words to hold meaning and only an entire sentence could mean something, because the sentence was a hash of a bunch of numbered concepts lined up or something like that. that's almost a real thing with drastically abbreviated propositions — the four words together mean something and each word may mean something specifically next to one of the others but the individual words cease to mean anything by themselves.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Movie theaters are more Fisherist than movies / Movie theaters cracking down on "cam recordings" is a better example of capitalism programming people with its beliefs than any of the actual content of movies -> we have this incredibly stupid contradiction that people have realized that "cops" are bad, but they also have no idea whatsoever that rules are bad and think that culture products actually program people when all they are is the thoughts that are left over after rules are enforced. oh, yeah, and also we believe Stalin's government was really bad for enforcing tyrannical rules but we still don't have any idea that [[E:steel rule|it's the rules that are bad]]. 
I'm gonna make a bold statement: the cop is just doing their job. "ACAB" is not a historical statement describing centuries of events.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}An international Communist program is not a collection of national programs (Bill van Auken) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/09/le6-all.html] -> he may be at least partly right. I mean, even a meta-Marxist program would contain slightly more than a collection of national programs due to the need to get each national program to understand the other ones.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}Stalin claiming the other countries were not subordinate to the Soviet Union is basically an Idealist statement as a miscellaneous collection of individual countries has no protection against having to form a herd-of-cats effect in which particular countries or clusters of competent leaders guard the entire thing against the First World

{{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=618}}History is the progression of conflicting anarchisms (derived anarchist proposition) / Anarchism is non-dialectical by itself but dialectical when it exists in plurality with itself because multiple anarchisms fighting each other will enact the Hegelian dialectic -> this has to be true for a theory based on "freedom" to actually work in real life. you have to have a bunch of discrete named anarchisms where almost all identify themselves as anarchisms but they each decide to fight each other and explode each other to be born because something about the previous one didn't make them feel "free" and so they tried to destroy it in order to create something else they couldn't describe. 
this proposition is both wonderful and terrible. it's wonderful in that I actually now have a working model of exactly why it is that anarchisms are overall so persistent and refuse to give up: anarchisms are not actually against Hegelianism, but they see {{em|themselves}} as the entire Hegelian dialectic. the concept of Stalin trying to model society as local structures transitioning into other structures? {{em|anarchists believe in that}} but they believe that very process right there must take the form of entire Communities burning each other down to create better Communities. it's terrible in that anarchisms will never realize this. they will never realize what they actually are, and they will always act like "freedom" actually is something rather than just an absence and the (sometimes justified) hatred of things they don't like and want to fight.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}No individual human being can be a worker as an individual; as individuals, all human beings are the petty bourgeoisie; human beings become workers if and when they actively integrated into larger structures and cease to be workers when they are removed from those structures -> this problem is part of what sinks basically all Liberal-republican philosophy and all philosophy inside Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republican philosophy is hell-bent on the concept that people really can be considered in isolation, which causes all human beings to conceptualize themselves as petty bourgeoisie, or worse, to actively regenerate the petty bourgeoisie. the concept that [[E:tent of freedom poles|people "have human rights" {{em|as individuals}} and then they come together and have individual human rights as individuals {{em|together}}]] is absolutely lethal to a functioning society.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The "failure" of Wikipedia to provide a reliable source (presumed to be as reliable as grade school texts, not university-level texts) is actually the failure of anarchism, and of a particular kind of named [[E:anarchy (meta-Marxism)|anarchy]] -> I don't know what this particular kind of anarchy is called, but I'll find a name for it eventually. it has something to do with the notion of culture products or information products as open and evolving instead of closed, when their content really should have been closed. (this does not refer to the concept of "open" or "closed" source code, it's a totally different kind of "closed" or "open".) funny enough, the Free Software movement has already figured out how to make Freed things with closed contents — we call them software packages.

{{li|I=S2/Fy/MX|Q=618}}Corporate [[E:art product (economics)|culture products]] are not objects communicated from a director to each audience member, but are in practice generally objects communicated from one fan to another fan; not only is the "artistic vision" of one particular specific individual a ridiculous thing to expect culture products to have, but at the end of the day all corporate culture products are ultimately just pre-made commercial fan fiction -> the way you have to fix the fan fiction problem is so specific. I've had several "solutions" to it that were probably wrong. but I think the crux of it lies here. the most important relationship in the pipeline of culture products is them being passed back and forth between fans. on occasion quite literally when someone hands someone else a Steam code. most of the time a little more figuratively, in the form of let's plays, theory videos, and the construction of alternate timelines. capitalism makes a huge deal out of the sanctity of the corporation for no good reason. ideally what you want is the paid experts completing their task of churning out culture products without a lot of ado about how great or awful the workers are personally for particular actions and decisions, instead they just complete the task quietly and go home, and then you want the fans to be allowed to pass back and forth whatever they want to regardless of whether it has been modified. and you don't want the central party-nation freaking out about the airtight seal between corporation and fans and the fans "wrecking society by doing too much"; that should not be a real offense. instead, if anything, you want the central party simply noticing where the seal is breaking and doing inquiries into whether different kinds of products should be produced. it {{em|might be the case}} hypothetically that the ideal scenario is the seal breaking totally and government not even having to bother re-connecting any of the points of production to formal corporations because there is simply enough stuff that nobody actually has to pay for culture products any more and generally considers them all to cost zero or literally a couple loose coins at a thrift store. 
the last thing you want to see happening (ever) is a "Chinese map fiasco" where people perceive government as a brutal predator that munches on human social activity purely to digest it and start scheming about how to stay out of its mouth because they know everything only gets worse after you fall in. you can never let that happen because the moment it happens the whole of socialist transition will disintegrate. the petty bourgeoisie regenerates in a heartbeat and it happens anywhere and everywhere. you're much more at its mercy than you ever could have realized.

{{li|I=S2/LGBT/PT|Q=618}}Pride is a vice! (Toryism) / LGBT people shouldn't be bold and proud because pride is a sin (is a vice; Christianity) -> this proposition is bullshit but it really is interesting linguistically because it makes you ask how many things "pride" actually refers to. I can think of at least two: A) arrogant overconfidence B) the unwillingness to either trust others or submit to others (the way it was used in Dragon Ball, where I heard it and was just like, is that actually bad though, the kind of people who want you to surrender to them can be cruel and not worth it)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Deleting Mao is Orientalist / Attributing Buddhism or Taoism specifically to "Eastern culture" is an unnecessary act of essentialism, because it proposes that instead of warring states periods (a repeatable pattern made of predictable processes) giving rise to Taoism and Chinese Buddhism, people chose to create Buddhism and Taoism to solve warring states periods {{em|because}} people were inherently Chinese -> I knew there was something that bothered me about people always referring to "Eastern culture". {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} it's this! it's the Idealist interpretation of history that is implied inside it. 
you know what else Asians created to solve warring states periods? Maoism. that is completely different from either Buddhism or Taoism. so what inherent Asian essence is contained in {{em|that}}? {{a|how do you reconcile|E=Hegelian dialectic}} there being at least two {{em|completely different}} definitions of "Eastern culture"?

{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=618}}Japan's only philosophy is Japaneseness / Japanese people do not have [[E:material contradiction (Marxism)|plural philosophies]] repeatable across other countries, they only have Japaneseness {{YouTube|SXwfMOAmPkQ}} -> I am so done with the entire concept of "studying Cultures" because I swear this is how most ordinary people interpret it. they throw around the word "collectivism" like it actually means something and refers to a philosophy, but what they really mean when they say it is precisely "Chineseness" or "Japaneseness". they presuppose that Japanese people have Japaneseness and then they look for more descriptions of Japaneseness to explain why Japaneseness leads to Japaneseness in a circular loop.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deleting Mao from Chinese history / deleting Mao (Liberal-republicanism) -> this is a fun one. you'll see why on the next line. 
memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + the PRC is a bad fake historical period = deleting Mao. memory hole ({{cite|1984}}) + Kuomintang = deleting Mao. deleting Mao + medieval fantasy = China is still a medieval kingdom.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Giving money to businesses doesn't help human beings; it only helps business structures and the owners that are conflated with them / Giving money to businesses doesn't help the proletariat -> I like this framing because I think it's arguable it doesn't even really help small owners.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The concept of "race traitors" implies races are physical processes producing necessity / The concept of "race traitors" implies that there is an inevitable destiny for a whole population of Black people just because they are Black, which will be realized through an overall Black population interacting all at once with its surroundings only under particular (non-inevitable) conditions, but will not happen through individuals as separated from the Black population as an indivisible object

{{li|I=S2/MX/DG/A|Q=618}}The United States has the most incentive of any country to get rid of capitalism because it has the most minorities; there are so many distinct minorities that politics itself has come to revolve around minorities, but because each of them contains so few people under such isolation, not a single one of them is going to become free of attempts to exterminate it under capitalism or reformism

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning Malthusianism is genocide / Whenever you choose to say a statement in Malthusianism you have chosen to cause other people to be bigoted {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} -> no... that isn't how it works. as a framework, statements inside Malthusianism could hypothetically be true without all of it being true, so if those are already true and you say them, you didn't cause them to happen. this is like saying that if you predict a box to contain a dead cat when somebody filled it out of sight then you caused it to contain a dead cat, even if the other options are unrelated to cats, like the other option is the box is empty. overpopulation leading to bad outcomes can hypothetically be the case whether you want it to or not, but the important thing to realize is that that doesn't have any bearing on what the actual bad outcomes are. the bad outcomes might not be anything like the simplistic scenarios in Malthus' essays of overcrowding or 'eating babies'. the bad outcomes might look more like an increase in people randomly murdering each other because everyone increasingly feels like everyone else is threatening their existence and they need to protect their existence because 'all individual existences deserve to be respected' {{em|or else}}; despite what everybody wants nobody will yield to anybody else and so people get furious and kill in order to regain control. if everybody's doing that, you don't have control over it; you can't just say "believing in overpopulation is bad" or "if we don't things will get better" to fix it. because when people really truly believe things "Should" work a certain way, especially if that "Should" is an ethical prescription, they won't listen to anything you say until reality magically fixes itself to be that way. people are just going to get angrier and angrier every single day there are too many people and those people are disorganized and attempt with steadily increasing blind rage to punish all the disorganized people that have not been planned or controlled in any way for not being controlled in any way. there's really no "society", "social-ism", "community" -ing out of that situation, because other people's ethical imperatives are not a social construct — you can only obey whatever the {{censor|fuck}} other people tell you to do or risk them doing violence to you... or kill them, I suppose. ethics is an infamously unyielding form of philosophy. if there existed any form of belief where everybody spontaneously giving it up would actually solve all our problems, then everybody giving up the entire concept of ethics would be it. think about it: every right-Liberal who tries to say that accumulating wealth is good relies on property rights, which rely on ethics. every nazi that tries to say trans people are destroying the United States relies on a right to not have this "intrude" on their lives, which relies on ethics. if everyone really actually got rid of ethics, they wouldn't be able to defend bad things either, because the whole concept that individuals can make "correct choices" that are superior to other choices in creating a future they would be satisfied with would be gone. there would be vastly more incentive to question your previous decisions and deconstruct arbitrary beliefs if ethics did not exist at all. "post-structuralist philosophy"? "prejudices" and "biases" that will never make sense as analytical tools once you stop being the person that wrote the paper? how about we just get rid of ethics and accomplish the same thing way better with way fewer problems. 
I think the thing that bothered me the most about this video is.... the Overshoot Theory video I remember from a while back was also leaning on Native Americans. Overshoot man was like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, overpopulation!}} while these people are like, {{i|because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, no overpopulation!}}. it honestly feels like a non sequitur in both cases. I feel like overpopulation genuinely has nothing to do with whether North American tribes 'have lived more sustainably', positively or negatively. the cases where you'd see overpopulation come from a genuinely different kind of society that operates through entirely different material processes. which means you can't analogize a smaller society to it.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}North American tribes are not defined by romantic mystical beliefs {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} -> of course they aren't. but I suspect you're going to have to go have a stern word with a whole lot of anarchists who are busy appropriating everything non-White from the past century they can find just to try to get rid of Whiteness. 
I'm not entirely free of this either because I'm one of those people who started vaguely appropriating {{em|Soviet identity}} on account of how Russians apparently don't want it any more so now it's mine I guess. the situation for White people is just terrible because practically everybody is agreeing that Whiteness has to go (including the fascists who want to revert to medieval empire, in their own weird way) but absolutely nobody wants to step away from Idealism and consider a theory based on really fine-grained "reductionist" changes to material conditions as opposed to one all about "subjectivity" and "ethics", so it always turns into this game of trying to change Whiteness through abstract Ideals or finding a group of people it's theoretically okay to appropriate as a substitute for everyone not being entirely isolated into vulnerable individuals and there actually being any real living individuals for anyone to team up with. I make use of historical theorists of Marxism because they are defined by Materialist models as opposed to cultural identity or experiences and while that's a reason by itself it also has the bonus I can't really turn them into an exotic group distinguished by not being Whiteness that is then hijacked by Whiteness. but that ironically leads to the contradiction that in trying not to appropriate other countries I am still almost exclusively wearing other countries because the United States sucks. 
I'm so done with anarchism because at the end of the day it sort of corrupts Communism too. 
Communism: we will create a scientific model of reality. anarchism: a what??! you mean a cold unfeeling model of reality? Communism: what. anarchism: movements and revolutions only come from empathy so I am going to go talk to some Native Americans. Communism: uh. okay. anarchism: I have learned from the Native Americans that White people have a horrible way of life and I want to bring back secular animism. Communism: oh boy this is going to end badly. anarchism: you say that because you're a coward who isn't willing to question Western biases while I'm the true radical. Communism: uh, no, I say that because ancient religions come from a definite form of society and whenever you try to bring them to a later historical period it's going to look utterly tacky. or, to put it in language you understand, like you are stealing other people's culture for the benefit of Whiteness. anarchism: I would never do that. I believe in the sanctity of all living beings and natural objects because I am connected with the original semiotic and harmonious flows of nature. Native Americans: what the fuck. anarchism: see, I'm deconstructing Whiteness. Native Americans: and all of your summaries of animism amount to racial stereotypes. Communism: yeah, I knew how this was going to go. excuse me while I go read up on the conflict between Mao, Deng, and Alan Woods as something probably more relevant to the United States and less easy to accidentally turn offensive. anarchism: oh, you mean three people aligned with modern civilization, who are practically White? Communism: you have apparently never heard my racist relatives talk about Mao. do you even know what a racist {{em|is}} or do you just immediately swallow whatever new trend academia feeds you? anarchism: oh wow [placeholder]. {{i|(gulp)}}

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}It's easier to imagine a completely fake world in space than the end of capitalism on earth {{YouTube|gv4R-hix9wM}} / It's easier to imagine a completely fake world in space, either from the view of the giant galactic empires or the local resistances, than the end of capitalism on earth -> that's completely true. 
but the problem which can never be addressed in a video like this is that every time somebody anywhere says "the end of capitalism" {{em|they imagine something different}} and thus you can never trust that they're actually saying anything insightful or coherent or that people are going to work toward the same goal. saying "the end of capitalism" has become a deepity in some ways

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}It's easier to imagine the end of capitalism than the end of capitalism / It's easier to {{em|talk about imagining the end of capitalism}} without those words actually meaning anything in particular than it is to imagine {{em|an actual end of capitalism}} which is described practically enough that all people who currently belong to any ideological faction can come together and create it barring actual material incentives that prevent them from taking different actions or joining different ideologies -> this is about 10% a troll proposition made because the sentence was really funny to say. but I do think it's true.

{{li|I=S2/MW|Q=618}}There should never be new swatches for identity-based movements existing below the national level, except given special reasoning for why those swatches are especially relevant to describing internationalism; this applies specifically to color swatches, not to text-based philosophy tags -> "LGBT" is one of the only identity movements to be granted its own swatch specifically based on identity as opposed to based on its material strategy. 
"Dengism", despite being highly associated with China, is not a demographic identity {{em|inside}} China, it's the whole China, and likewise "Juche-socialism" is the whole North Korea. BlackPantherism is a bit borderline but it passes because of the remark that it could expand over the country and wasn't specifically Black. Trotskyism either spuriously or actually claims to be international, so any argument that it is in fact a demographic identity isn't relevant here as that isn't a mainstream perception of it. "feminism" will not have a swatch because it is easily collapsed into a Liberal-republican interest group and weaponized against trans people. "Muslim socialism" will not have a swatch, although "religious socialism" as a very general category would be closer to being acceptable. "fascism" gets a swatch of some sort; "Italian fascism" doesn't get a swatch. any movement which can actually be defined based on summaries of its material behavior as opposed to culture and can be described as it applies to multiple possible cultural identities is exempt from these rules. "North American Maoism" could have a swatch if it became really relevant and as long as its material behavior can be distinguished from "(Chinese) Maoism" or "(Indian) Maoism". 
"LGBT tradition" is one of the only things that genuinely needs and gets an exception from these rules because it's one of the few things that deliberately draws on demographic identity characteristics themselves to produce generalized philosophy which becomes separate from identity. the concept of "queerness" is tightly tied to identity at first, but then becomes its own thing that can be used to describe the dynamics of several other identities as they relate to the rest of society — autistic identity, mental illness associated identity, disabled identity — which experience a similar exclusion and process of having to decide whether to "stay apart" or "fit in". the "queerness metaphor" has a lot of value in describing other movements, so it's useful to have an LGBT swatch to crystallize and focus on that paradigm as it will be used to vaguely associate to the other movements. 
also. I probably could have picked a different "stay apart"/"fit in" conflict to stand in for all of these, but I liked having an excuse to make one of the swatches a rainbow, so I picked this one.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Every republic is a class society (anarchism) / Every republic is a class society ("hierarchy", spatial class order) because a ruling class must exist to create a republic -> it's this kind of proposition that makes me question if Trotskyism does or doesn't believe in an era of socialism. it really claims to believe in a republic but its insistence on 'getting rid of bureaucracy' and getting rid of borders (which in a roundabout way are one of the reasons an era of socialism exists, because both things exist due to a country being a physical object) makes it bizarrely more similar to the anarchist method of "class analysis" than the Marxist one, and "anarchist class analysis" necessarily leads to trying to do everything Immediately as opposed to on a reasonable time scale

{{li|I=S2/ES/MX|Q=618}}The militant form of Existentialism is when Existentialists kill others that threaten their existence in order to continue existing -> this is one of the many reasons I don't like Existentialism. first, it's thoroughly incoherent. none of its actions are predictable based on combining logical statements or based on anything called "reason". none of its actions are explainable with religious justifications nor morality. it gets super offended when you try to reduce collections of people to inanimate objects but in practice it encourages humans to behave like lions or baboons. we may as well all be inanimate objects for how good this philosophy is. second... it turns brown not even in two seconds, but yesterday.

{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}Killing people who would otherwise kill you is self defense / iron rule ... (censored title) / [[E:Do unto others before they do unto you|iron rule]] (generic) -> hmmmmmmm. A) are they Black people the cops are scared of B) are they midwest Indians in the 1800s C) are they Palestinians D) are they a Bolshevik government attempting to prevent the petty bourgeoisie from creating civil war or imperialism? this is bad exmat because I absolutely saw the fourth one casually tossed out in the same comments section. "Hitler, Stalin, or Mao", they said casually [[E:Nazism and Bolshevism have the same cause|as if it made sense]].

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}History is the progression of generational subcultures -> this is slightly different from the claim that history is the progression of father to son to son or mother to daughter to son to daughter etc., because it is talking about the progression of whole layers of thousands and thousands of people born in the same 5-10 year period, and is not centering itself around individuals or psychoanalysis. it's not psychoanalysis, and instead, it's shifted its entire focus over to art history, the humanities, or the history of an industry.

{{li|I=S2/HAS/MX|Q=618}}History is the progression of successive semi-countable art markets -> I'm a little astounded to find such an Idealist claim and such a Materialist claim in the same podcast right next to each other a sentence apart, but I'll take it. wow. this one is so telling. it accidentally reveals so much about the connection between capitalist theory, the growth of society, and the outward manifestations seen in culture products. 
let's think about this. a 'console generation' forms in order to raise the prices of the products (largely by producing them new), while decreasing the cost of entry. if the discipline is new, it won't be overrun with expensive equipment, stacks and stacks of money poured into expertise, and the prestige of certain brands creating natural monopolies. after a while, all the corporations in a given market have made their money and the products are everywhere such that neither can new corporations make money nor can old ones earn any more. so then the market resets and an entirely new market is created. a bunch of hype goes around to present the new thing as really great although it was created in order for the new products made for it to not have to be very good at first. and apart from video games, this happens for the general concept of mediums and a lot of physical formats. 
honestly. I trust this more than Habermas' conception of history as some kind of progression of morality where what is progress could become entirely subjective; at least you can measure what a sideways progression from one set of events to another {{em|is}}. 
console wars + History is the progression of generational subcultures = this.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}The middle ground between sense and nonsense is still insane / I believe 2+2=4, but in the interest of representing those who believe 2+2=22, my platform is 2+2=11 (counter-claim)

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}The majority of Jews support Israel {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} / Some Jews don't support Israel (counter-claim) -> this observation really destroys anti-essentialism as a path to truth, doesn't it. superficially it seems to support it, but when you look at how the counter-claim is actually used... it's used to defend Idealism as "not always" being fatally flawed while most uses of it at best make it wholly irrelevant to explaining anything. anti-essentialism is often just a back-handed statement that Idealism doesn't actually explain real life, not realizing that in saying that it's slamming the Idealist models it's supposed to save.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Some Jews don't support Israel {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> U.S. people don't know anything but Idealism, the treatment of everything as abstract qualities. so they have to take on "Jews" and "anti-semitism" as abstract concepts. when they do that, it predisposes them to racist understandings of what various ethnic groups "are". so then they bring out the point of "but surely one of them doesn't support Israel" (anti-essentialism) to badly try to prove that Idealism isn't racist. 
it doesn't fix anything of course. Defining everything by what it's not leads you to defend anything and everything including the U.S. military.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Why do United States people want to rehabilitate veterans but punish ICE? {{YouTube|_Q0TxCCuXyU}} -> okay, that's a good question. 
I think, speaking materially and not ethically, it has to do with which groups of people U.S. people believe that U.S. law applies to. if you believe in Kantianism you need a body of people to legislate onto to hold anybody responsible for (un)ethical behavior. so, people scramble to define who "Americans" are to determine whether government should be rehabilitating them were that a possibility. I think there is a bias toward rehabilitating veterans {{em|just because there is some chance they might vote Democrat}}, while due to their behavior people have a bias toward labeling Republican voters as foreigners. this isn't {{em|just}} stupidity (even if there may be a bit of that too). at some point Liberal-republican parties stop being arbitrary and start turning into entirely separate nationalities that actually don't consent to being governed by each other; the increasing perception of Republicans as "not Americans" and of ICE as a uniquely foreign army stems from actual observed behavior of Republicans slowly attempting to secede from the sovereign realm of Democrat laws, and of the increasing futility of properly governing them.

{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}nucleation site (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}} -> a site of crystallization which encourages formation of other crystals. 
has relevance for the concept of modeling social structures changing
{{li|I=S2/STM|Q=618}}substance flipping over from one polymorph to another (chemistry) {{YouTube|ksn5yrsC3Wg}}

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}anarcho-NATOism
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Imperialism is nonviolent / Anarchism definitionally requires violence; this is to imply and nearly to state that a warlike, potentially genocidal empire is perfectly okay and recommended because of the fact only a few people at the edge of an empire have to fight over borders and most people in an empire are nonviolent {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> you wonder how anybody goes along with "settler-colonialism" and thinks it's a good idea in the first place. this is how. it's actually nonviolence-colonialism. 
Idealism is dangerous to humanity, it really is. 
anarcho-NATO-ism + ?? = Imperialism is nonviolent.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Marxism before the year 2020 has been a theory of ideological segregation more than a theory of social progress -> why is it that walling off whole fortress states has been more effective than trying to spread filaments of radicals inside class societies? I think the example of China and Taiwan {{em|splitting}} and the example of Texas defeating the freethinkers are very instructive on why this happened

{{li|I=S2/A/MX|Q=618}}Despite the observable historical fact that various social structures can transition into other structures, it is generally {{em|easier}} to create any of the later structures humanity invents by starting from scratch rather than from working with structures that already exist, due to the fact that ruling classes are generally the clusters of people that are more inherently powerful and able to conquer and expand than the masses or clusters of people they rule over -> this is one of the best arguments that anarchism and Trotskyism each have going for them. but it's also one of the best arguments for Deng Xiaoping Thought if you don't totally dismiss sublation processes. this gives way to Deng Xiaoping Thought much faster than it justifies anarchism.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Statues and plaques do not actually teach people history

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}Confederate statue as superstructural artifact -> the motif of Confederate statues being more of a "coincidence" spat out of a Social-Philosophical System that just happens to 'believe' them as opposed to being a good representation of the overall process of history

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If the subjective theory of value is true, then why does the value of various cryptocurrencies keep crashing?

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}"Freethinker" is less technical and more expressive than "atheist" {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> goes to show that anarchism really is the default mode of thinking rather than a great new invention. and I hate that. because freedom doesn't mean {{censor|fucking}} anything. it's actually rather obvious what an atheist is, but "freedom" actually is a belief in nothing because it really is just the absence of whatever else it was tossed in against.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist; this is to imply that "extremes" are an abstract Ideal that miraculously spits out more extremes, and Extremes can be eradicated {{YouTube|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> how is it that people come to regard material contradictions as a completely alien event that isn't the least bit familiar to them

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}The United States got away with outsourcing labor because corporations programmed people to want cheap goods {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}} -> so... how is it they successfully did that if it's possible to simply tell people it was done and break it? if people can really be programmed against their best interests that consistently, then why would they listen to you? 
I think people are making excuses for the fact that owners make these decisions and they fundamentally can't control the owners.

{{li|I=S1/W|tradition=W, PT|Q=618}}corporations programming people / the engineering of consumer behavior {{YouTube|bZG8AQqbkzg}}

{{li|I=S1/Fy/ML|Q=618}}treating the protagonists of anticommunist fables as unreliable narrators

{{li|I=S2/HM|tradition=IK, HM, ES|Q=618}}Society is held together based on interpersonal subjective moral consensus 
this + Interpersonal relationships can snap at any moment = Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships are no foundation for society because interpersonal relationships are fragile while society must be more durable to successfully exist / Asocialism (generic)

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A theory that primarily grounds itself in human sociality ([[E:Socialism (general-sense progressivism)|Socialism]], humanities, Kantianism, secular animism) will eventually become reactionary, because human sociality in and of itself is not equipped to handle the inevitable [[E:separable multiplicity|countable and separable plurality]] of populations that results when human populations exist in the real world; this is to imply that Marxism is not in fact a theory primarily rooted in human sociality as much as one that simply acknowledges it / Asocialism (generic) 
Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality + A theory of society which is not accurate to material reality will eventually become reactionary = this.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) -> this is apparently its own specific thing. it seems it's typically defined in terms of how well the soviets can defend the overall country and any governing bodies against the re-emergence of capitalism.

{{li|I=S2/IV/MX|Q=618}}Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes; soviet structures are not guaranteed to remain orange because depending on their class and preferred palette of social structures the individual national-employees inside them can add together to turn the structure charcoal, blue, or strawberry -> Trotskyism is weird. it has moments where it's totally unconvicing, and then it has moments where after you've been listening to the actually-okay theorists you have to go out of your way to find, it almost sounds like it got something right. this week, I saw that Trotskyists seemed to be describing the dictatorship of the proletariat as control by one big sea of soviets that are responsible for operating all the other organs of government — the thinking is that if all the soviets are made of proletarians and the soviets are orange, the soviets will keep all of the other structures from turning strawberry or any other unfavorable ideology. but then I thought about it for a bit, and I realized that this isn't an airtight strategy. in the real world, proletarians can level up into non-proletarians through small-scale processes, and it happens all the time whenever there aren't enough job slots or people simply don't fit into existing business territories' "culture". it's very easy for a country that's full of proletarians one moment to slowly morph into a country of skilled workers that all want their own businesses but will also complain when the reality of running them is much harder than they dreamed. 
this became apparent to me as soon as I saw Gramsci talking about a council for the "self-employed". that isn't a red or orange structure, that's a blue or strawberry structure. and those kinds of structures can undo a revolution. but it's also trivial for more of them to be produced through misapplied education or training. if the soviets have full control, it's easy for petty classes to rebel against all the orange soviets and start taking control of the whole country through whatever limited ability they have to assemble together groups of people that outcompete surrounding workers. 
dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) + proletarians promoting into Careerists = Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes.

{{li|I=S1/ML/ES|Q=618}}the eclectic gruel of philosophy / eclectic gruel (philosophy) / the pauper's broth of eclecticism which is ladled out in the universities under the name of philosophy (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch01.htm] -> there are some descriptions where you see them and you just know, I've seen this, this is ridiculously relatable across time periods. I haven't read these specific philosophies and yet just by that description I feel like I already have.

{{li|I=S1/AS/HM|Q=618}}moral evolution (critical theory) / Hegelian evolution of morality / historical development of societies as conceptualized around morality or ethics [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/01/habe-a01.html] / procedural theory of rationality (Liberal-republican ethics; Habermas) -> the concept in Habermas of modeling either large or small changes in societies through changes in morality and the resulting changes in society. I'd hate this except that it gets really funny when you apply it to world civilization and actual changes between historical periods, revealing a lot about how imperialism works; in a way, it's so bad it's good. I guess that's about what you should expect to get when you start with Hegel. Liberal-republicanism is frustrating but Hegel really isn't so bad in the end.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}deformed Liberal states / degenerated Liberal states -> the motif of Liberal-republican countries looking at other nation-states and regarding them as deformed versions of themselves that need to be punished until they form correctly. 
deformed Liberal states + moral evolution (Trotskyism) = deformed workers' states.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Morality itself tends to favor a world of "small business hell" simply because the assumptions that lead to people creating morality {{em|happen to lead there}} and all Idealist statements when put together spit out some kind of real-world consequence -> I find it frustrating that people will start from a set of arbitrary Ideals and then just deontologically assume that if those Ideals are good then whatever they produce must also be good. to me Habermas' theory of moral consciousness just doesn't make sense as a material theory of history because in one way all moral or ethical values are always arbitrary; there will always be a point where people assume that what they're currently doing is morally good or superior just because it's the thing a lot of people are doing and none of them want to stop doing it while any other group of people must be morally bad just for doing a different thing that threatens to replace that thing, even before they actually demand other people trade in what they're doing for the new thing.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Idealism produces material outcomes / All Idealist statements or combinations of Idealist statements lead to some kind of real-world consequence -> there are many ways to take this. one of the surface conclusions is that Idealism isn't as explanatory as Materialism. one of the most interesting conclusions is that you can "meta-game" Idealism and figure out the best Ideals to tell people in order to get them to create particular material results. this {{em|is}} essentially lying to people to manipulate their behavior, which if it were up to me I don't really like, but a lot of people believe that most human beings' understanding of the world will never go above that level, which might make it ethical under some theories of ethics.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Prejudice and structural inequality are not the same thing; getting rid of prejudice does not necessarily get rid of structural inequality [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough] -> well. I have to agree with this. I'm puzzled why anarchists in general aren't better at understanding this. but the blue anarchists did get something right.

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Contact between populations reduces prejudice when four conditions are met: 1) equal status within the contact situation 2) common goals 3) cooperation 4) support from authorities or social norms (Allport 1954, Pettigrew) [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}Negative contact between populations has a greater observed effect than positive contact [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/prejudice-reduction-and-the-contact-hypothesis-what-social-psychology-got-right-what-it-missed-and-why-contact-alone-is-not-enough]

{{li|I=S1/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}analytic thinking as opposed to holistic thinking [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I always wondered why it was called analytic philosophy. is this why?

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}{{abbr|tts=Weird|WEIRD}} countries [https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/understanding-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic] -> I like this acronym in that most of it makes sense except the "Western" part. I have no idea what that means. is Japan Western, or is it not? there are good arguments both ways. this is why I prefer saying "First World countries".

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer review auditing -> the motif of sending bogus articles to academic journals in hopes the reviewers will catch the problems
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}peer-review auditing feminist journals [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/18/inte-o18.html] / peer-review auditing gender studies journals 
peer review auditing + gender studies journal = this.
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=IV onto ES|Q=618}}feminist Mein Kampf [https://norskk.is/bytta/menn/our_struggle_is_my_struggle.pdf] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/13/pers-o13.html] -> wow. they really should have caught that. I.... have to read this at some point because that sounds like the best one. 
...it's online? oh wonderful. this is very opaque and hard to read. I guess that's how they got it through.

{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618|rem=ai.wsws.org}}SEP's analysis of "Stalinism" -> that's... its own specific thing? okay.

{{li|I=S2/ES/MX|Q=618}}If the value of money is culturally fabricated ("made up"), but anarchism can realize itself through a sea of individuals spontaneously deciding to create a different kind of society, then anarchism is a cultural fabrication and everybody is free to spontaneously decide not to follow anarchism and follow whatever ostensibly more oppressive system they want to (meta-Marxism onto post-structuralism)

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}today I was "thinking"... / 'today I was thinking—' 'stop that' / 'today I was thinking—' 'you?! I can't believe it' -> the motif of somebody cutting off a statement where somebody was thinking about some specific thing and focusing on the concept of "thinking".

{{li|I=S1/DFy/PT|Q=618}}Eren Yeager / nazi Eren Yeager (in context of imagining different versions of the story based around different ideologies)

{{li|I=S1/DFy/DX|Q=618}}Dengist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was Western-Marxist (strawberry Marxist, Gramscian, Dengist / Deng Xiaoping Thought) -> so, {{book|Attack on Titan}} has a dumb premise. it reads like a campfire horror story told by nazis in very little irony. but it {{em|is}} really funny to imagine some of the same central themes being used in an approximately Marxist work. like, instead of it being a nazi campfire story the titans are trying to scale a "Berlin wall", or penetrate China or North Korea to take them back for Liberal-republicanism, the titans are hiding out on Taiwan, the titans are sealing people into Cuba and not letting {{em|them}} leave. there obviously wouldn't be a focus on the concept of the big antagonist monsters being 'impure' or 'diseased', that element of it probably wouldn't exist. it would just be kaiju trying to break into the country and do something horrifying. it's gotta be a little over the top. it's gotta be about turning them all into kaiju for some nefarious but useful purpose, like, I dunno, the kaiju feed off negativity and if they all turn into kaiju and fight each other the whole population of kaiju becomes stronger. everyone is horrified about the invasion and it brings them all together.

{{li|I=S1/Fy/A|Q=618}}anarchist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if {{book|Attack on Titan}} was anarchist -> {{em|this}} is why I am having an increasingly hard time telling the difference between Deng Xiaoping Thought and anarchisms. like, once again, anarchism succeeds when you build a wall around it — probably metaphorically — and wait for the outside to tire itself out. I can't tell the difference between Gramscian Eren Yeager and anarchist Eren Yeager. 
oh god when I just go saying ideologies in a sentence of course my brain is going to shout "Trotskyist Eren Yeager". I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means at all. I dunno, like, the enemies are more like Reptilians or Yeerks and they're hiding out in the central government and nobody wants to believe it so the anti-alien squads are like trying to team up across regions? I tried.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality -> anarchists are going to get so upset if you try to argue this at them. they'll try to argue that reality is whatever comes naturally to living things, and different states of natural for each living species must naturally want to go together, blah blah blah. [*] but they're all privileged. they haven't experienced a state of truly being fenced out of society by thousands and millions of people that all simultaneously agree they don't like you (probably without having met you or having much of any idea what they're doing). they especially haven't experienced it owing to the existence of anarchism, because anarchism already selected for people like them. but they should wise up to the fact that anarchism doesn't really pass the veil of ignorance with flying colors. it's quite easy to end up on the wrong side of "community" where you simply have nobody and nothing and also everyone assumes you must be a bad person just because you haven't claimed an exclusive spot in Community that supposedly you only have to be nice to people to get and follow morality though in reality it's much more difficult and complicated and trivial to simply be born wrong and fail to survive the ecological parameters of the 'community-icene'. I think that as a period of biological life the Anthropocene truly began at tribal society, not at industrial society. it was the ability to form entire ecosystems made of nothing but humans that changed things, but {{em|if anarchists are correct}} that the natural state of humans and human psychology is in tribes then all the current destruction of the environment ultimately came from the characteristics of tribes. tribal populations are not wholly innocent for all the horrors of global empire and ecological destruction if at the end of the day we're {{em|all}} still tribes and they're the only ones trying to disclaim that there are bad things about that. really, as crazy as it sounds, they might be accidentally benefiting from a corrupt system that has killed great numbers of people. of course, if humans don't have a seemingly eternal resting state of being in tribes that we have no choice but to return to which in turn implies we are currently tribes in denial and will still be tribes for the next hundred thousand years, then tribal populations carry no blame for what industrial societies have done. 
(* why didn't they say that about workers' states and the healthy state of the Soviet Union versus the very disordered states that occurred at every moment after tearing it apart? they have even less excuse than Trotskyists. Trotskyists wilfully wanting to overwrite another Marxism with their own Marxism is at least logical even if it's terrible.)

{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}"Indigenous people" marks a statement as racist / Saying "indigenous people" marks a sentence as containing racial stereotypes {{YouTube|fwecpbB1DPs}}
{{li|I=F2/ES|Q=618}}Mentioning ethnic groups is racist / Mentioning an ethnic group without mentioning a specific individual marks a sentence as containing potentially-harmful racial stereotypes -> this is what you have to believe for the above statement to be true. like, if "indigenous people" marks a racial stereotype, then saying a more specific group of people like "Inuit" should equally mark a racial stereotype — how does the person you're talking to {{em|know}} that you're giving correct information about all Inuit people and not just saying something false? but if this is true, you couldn't go to Congress and say "Black people" or "Mexican immigrants" for any legitimate purpose without mentioning individuals that supposedly make the example truer. does it actually make statements more accurate to include specific individuals? I feel like it adds nothing but also subtracts nothing. 
this is a really weird criterion for judging whether statements are accurate. I know where it comes from, it comes from people trying to judge everything through positivism and claim that Lived Experiences are a pathway to truth while a lack of Lived Experiences is a pathway to falsity. it's still really weird. it doesn't seem to accomplish the thing it sets out to accomplish at all, and just seems to make all statements said about any group of people more worthy of doubting. "White people have the colonizer attitude"? maybe not!! Ben was doing that, but did you ask Carla?? "Black people experience structural racism"? maybe not!! you didn't mention an individual so in theory you might be racist for even saying that. 
Mentioning ethnic groups is racist + Anti-essentialism is a pathway to truth = Pointing out racism is racist.

{{li|I=S2/ES/ML|Q=618}}Referring to Communists without mentioning a specific individual is unacceptably prejudiced / If mentioning ethnic groups without mentioning a specific individual is racist, which is to imply that talking about groups of people in the abstract rather than as a particular countable number of concrete objects is racist, then mentioning "Communists" or "Cubans" or "people who support Stalin" without naming a specific individual for evaluation is equally prejudiced; every time somebody has said "tankies" or "totalitarians" or "Stalinist(s)" outside a particular context has been an unacceptably prejudiced statement -> this is another loophole in this. god I love it when really bad propositions break open so bad they wrap around to supporting Communism

{{li|I=S2/A/ML|tradition=ML onto A|Q=618}}"Social construct" is a social construct / Most of the time anarchists talk about social constructs they are trying to imply that things that are undesigned or that come out of interacting elements are deliberately engineered Ideals, but because this overall way of thinking is Idealist, it is also fair to say that anarchists are not working with a model that is well checked against reality and their theory of a given "social construct" being "constructed" is equally as made up as the "social construct" is if not more {{YouTube|Ms_ojmhI_CI}} -> sounds like a deepity until you realize what it's really saying and then your mind is blown 
this is how you get out of what I referred to in another entry as "Gerson Boom BS". you realize what Idealism is and how it obscures whatever non-Idealist relationships between things may exist

</ol><noinclude>

[[Category:First nine thousand (RD)]]</noinclude>

Research talk:5c/IFCI/HabermasServedBourgeoisState

2026-04-26T04:02:45Z

ICFIReporters: article about a founder of critical theory

{{NickelBank|Habermas chose the state|h2 = Jürgen Habermas: The philosopher who chose the state}}

<dl class="wikitable hue">
{{HueRoster|P=author| {{E:Q46,02|ICFI reporters}} }}
{{HueRoster|EP=P34| {{E:Q41,04}} | {{E:Q618/ES|critical theory}} }} 
{{HueRoster|P=date| 2026-04-01 }}
</dl>

=== Links ===
* WSWS: {{a|datetime=2026-04-01|href=https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/01/habe-a01.html}} 

=== Nickel usage or significance ===

* (fill in later)


== Motifs or claims ==

<ol class="hue clean reset">
</li></ol>

=== Subjective themes ===


[[Category:Nickel links (NickelBank)]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q41,91

2026-04-26T03:46:56Z

ICFIReporters: If you haven't read Trotsky you can't hold up Stalin's work as the specimen that disproves Marxism

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=A post-Trotsky world|User=RD|E=Q41,91|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto IV|Q=41,91|Q2=41,91}}We live in a post-Trotsky world / The events of the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy in the Soviet Union and the way First-World countries reacted to Trotsky and the conspirators have permanently changed the historical conditions in all countries but most of all in First-World countries

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=41,91|Q2=41,91}}We live in a post-Trotsky world -> technically, this could also be spun as an argument that Trotsky is right.

</li></ol>

== Liberal-republican angle ==


== Trotskyist angle ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=Z1/IV|Q=41,04|Q2=4104|h4 = [[E:Trotskyism|Trotskyism]] }} / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q41,04|9k]])

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=40,11|Q2=4011|h4 = Abandon Trotsky, and Bolshevism has failed }} / If Bolshevism fails to take the educated individuals who are dedicated supporters throughout a revolution and integrate them into society such that they will not starve and can use their talents to improve society then Bolshevism has failed -> sub-case of: [[E:I'm not anticommunist but|I'm not anticommunist but]]. this is about the only anticommunist argument I have ever found convincing. every anticommunist argument that wasn't Trotsky was totally confusing to me and just left me digging deeper and deeper until I saw how false every one of them was. but this is the only one that's sort of held up as I got more and more information. and it's haunted me ever since. it's easy to blame Trotsky and say he made the wrong choices. but like, what happens if he obeys? if the country is actually failing at things and every time he tries to get into a position the should theoretically be worthy of the experts just kick him out until he's standing next to the handful of peasants still starving, isn't there actually some point where he has a right to complain? that has never sat right with me. the notion that even when you build Bolshevism it could have a fraying edge where people are still shunted into a world of individualism with no support, and perhaps treated really badly for just failing to spontaneously be unbelievably excellent at things, tossed quotes about revisionism because their actual skills are not perfect. it feels like there are natural points where people simply aren't materially part of the material object called society and it makes them angry because in a world where everything is claimed by a group of human beings they don't want to be treated as not human beings.
{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=40,11|Q2=4011}}Abandon Trotsky, and Bolshevism has failed -> appears in: {{book|Animal Farm}}.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}Read Trotsky before bashing Stalin / If you haven't read Trotsky you can't hold up Stalin's work as the specimen that disproves Marxism (ICFI) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/01/habe-a01.html]

</li></ol>

== Meta-Marxist angle ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto IV|Q=29,84|Q2=2984|h4 = In the First World Trotsky is sacred }} / Most people in First-World countries consider "Stalinism" to be a real prejudice and anti-Trotskyism to be a real oppression / If you want to work with "The US Left" it is a "reality" that Stalin and the Soviet Union are a danger and your enemy / ([[User:RD/9k/Q29,84|9k]])

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX, MX onto Zv, MX onto IV|Q=40,09|Q2=4009}}A theory of society which cannot explain the Trotskyite conspiracy is no theory of society at all -> a statement which is bold but as far as I can tell completely justified. mainstream Marxism-Leninism can't actually explain the series of events which would prevent Trotsky going to the external empires and betraying the Soviet population. early Maoism was actually closer to being able to solve this problem, even though there are still problems of people leaving countries and becoming their enemies, all of them smaller in scope than the Trotskyite conspiracy.

{{li|I=S1/MX|tradition=MX onto IV, MX onto A|Q=40,14|Q2=4014|h4 = Trotsky syndrome of countable cultures }} / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q33,17|9k]]) -> the usually-nonfictional motif of someone being able to realize, assuming they're smart, that various people are forming into a countable culture and fighting for their rights against the rest of society legitimately and perhaps effectively, but utterly not being able to fit into that countable culture as a culture and remaining a cultural "foreigner" to countable civil rights movements that they never actually want inside them. you can see this with the Trotskyite conspiracy, which did it with very little wisdom or awareness, and separately with the way modern Trotskyism reacted to BLM / 1619 Project — although they were marginally smarter in that case. though it's hard to pinpoint exactly why it happens, this is a really big problem for progressive theories and movements in general. it has the potential to kill schizoanalysis through the failure of different sorted cultures to "properly" act as a [[E:anarchy (meta-Marxism)|freeform, uncountable unity of opposites]] that [[E:Rhizome (schizoanalysis)|inherently wants to go together]], but it can even kill particular Marxisms, as historically it arguably did. any movement or party or cluster of people-groups hit with Trotsky syndrome sees that it can't possibly control the people who don't fit into it and its days are numbered.

</li></ol>

== Related ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">
</li></ol></dl>

== Ideologies or fields ==
<ol class="hue clean compound">
{{HueDomain|Q41,04}} 
{{HueDomain|Q92}} 
{{HueNumber|Q574}} 
</ol>

* MX onto Zv


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q46,02

2026-04-25T08:12:08Z

ICFIReporters: Morenoites support ineffective parties

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=International Committee (ICFI)|User=RD|E=Q46,02|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=Z1/IV|Q=46,02|Q2=4602}}International Committee (1953) / ICFI (attempted International) [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/pages/icfi/about.html]

</li></ol>

== Descriptors ==
<ol class="hue clean">

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4600" data-dimension="S0">Trotskyist group, organization, or party
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4620" data-dimension="S0">Trotskyist group affiliated with the Fourth International of 1938

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,21" value="4021" data-dimension="S">international-conference Trotskyism -> ???
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,22" value="4022" data-dimension="S">international-party Trotskyism -> ???

</li></ol>

== Associated motifs or claims ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/IV|Q=42,71|Q2=4271}}The ICFI (Fourth International of 1953) aims to realize an era of socialism which stretches around the world [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/pages/icfi/about.html] / The ICFI believes the realization of Trotskyism begins with an era of socialism -> see, like, all by itself, this makes sense. what doesn't make sense is A) Trotskyists have never realized (noticed) that the more Dengisms or East-Germanies there are the more likely it is that they get world socialism (Bolshevism) specifically B) Trotskyists have never realized that mainstream Marxism-Leninism contributed to getting to world socialism C) the observed fact that in the real world whenever you challenge socialisms-in-one-country you're way more likely to get international anarchist movements that reject an era of socialism than you are to get anything resembling Trotskyism or any form of Leninism period. this honestly still confuses me because you would think a Trotskyism consisting of about 5-20 countries at a time would make more logical sense than anarchism in like every regard. it has possible structures that come to mind based on history (although there might be several that are possible) and if it ever came to be it could defend itself. but everything that isn't Liberal-republicanism or socialism-in-one-country (plus Dengism etc) being anarchism is the observed real-world pattern. it's vaguely as if it's only physically possible to create populational structures that are smaller than one population or the exact size of one population while it's physically impossible to take all the people inside two populations and form a new border around them as is required for an era of socialism.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=40,46|Q2=4046}}Revisionism is when Marxist parties aren't orange -> Cannon, Pablo, ICFI. this seems like a terrible stance to take if you want as many regions of the world in an era of socialism as possible.

{{li|I=S2/IV/ML|Q=42,86|Q2=4286}}Pabloism / the opportunist current that sought to liquidate the Fourth International and allow Stalinist states to form / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q42,86|9k]])

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=42,86|Q2=4286}}In 1985 the Workers' Revolutionary Party (Britain) broke from Trotskyism [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/how-the-wrp-betrayed-trotskyism/00.html] -> gosh what did they do? have to actually read this later. 
it's always so funny to see these accusations out of context because it's always a total toss-up of whether the accused group will have done something uniquely forbidden in Trotskyism or actually have made a serious error it seems reasonable to cover

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618|Q2=618}}Morenoites support ineffective parties / Since the 1950s, Morenoites (Permanent Revolution Current; etc) are infamous for teaming up with bourgeois parties that never actually deliver on defending workers [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/03/16/evtf-m16.html]

</li></ol>

== [[:Category:User pages representing concepts rather than project members|Associated Users]] ==
<ol class="hue clean">
{{li|start=y|I=Z1/IV|dimension=U|Q=44,6,86|Q2=44686}}[[User:ICFIReporters|ICFIReporters]] -> This user is used to represent propositions coming from ICFI publications.
</li></ol>


== Ideologies or fields ==


* (none)


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

Ontology:Q4700

2026-04-22T07:54:34Z

ICFIReporters: socialism AI prompts directly pasted from page HTML (contains duplicates); retrieved 4/22, date questions posted not clearly stated on page (n.d.)

Questions used as examples for ICFI's "Socialism AI". [https://ai.wsws.org/en]

----

<pre>What was Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution?
What is the difference between Trotskyism and Stalinism?
What conditions do warehouse and logistics workers face?
How can we put an end to the Gaza genocide?
What is Long COVID and how has it affected global society?
Why are democratic rights under relentless attack today?
How do billionaires control politics and the economy?
How does capitalism destroy the natural world?
What is the class basis of police violence in America?
What future does capitalism offer young people?
What is required to transform the consciousness of the working class?
How do AI and automation affect workers under capitalism?
How did Stalin betray the goals of the October Revolution?
How can workers build rank-and-file committees?
How can we stop the danger of nuclear war?
How can we oppose the far-right attacks on science and public health?
How does police violence maintain capitalist class rule?
Why does poverty persist amid unprecedented wealth?
What is "commodity fetishism" and how does it hide exploitation?
What caused the degeneration of the Soviet Union?
Why do the union bureaucracies always betray workers' struggles?
What is the connection between fascism and imperialism?
How does capitalism concentrate wealth among the ruling class?
Why did Trotsky argue socialism must be international?
Why is independent working-class organization essential?
What is surplus value and how is it extracted from workers?
What was the significance of the 1917 October Revolution?
What is the Fourth International and when was it founded?
What is the elimination strategy for ending the COVID-19 pandemic?
How is Trump trying to build a fascist movement in America?
How much wealth have billionaires accumulated lately?
What causes the climate crisis and how can it be stopped?
Why is Trump targeting immigrants for persecution?
Why are schools chronically underfunded in America?
How do Marxists approach prompts of art and culture?
How can workers build a real socialist movement?
What did Marx mean by "historical materialism"?
What were Lenin's April Theses?
What is "Pabloism"?
How did the French Revolution change world history?
How has the COVID-19 pandemic impacted healthcare workers?
What were the real reasons for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?
Why have all governments abandoned pandemic mitigation measures?
Why are the tech giants censoring online speech?
What is the extent of inequality in America and globally?
Why have capitalist governments ignored global warming?
What is the socialist policy towards borders?
How can teachers fight budget cuts and privatization?
What role does art play in the class struggle and revolution?
What would a socialist society look like?
How did imperialism develop historically?
What was Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution?
What is the difference between Trotskyism and Stalinism?
What conditions do warehouse and logistics workers face?
How can we put an end to the Gaza genocide?
What is Long COVID and how has it affected global society?
Why are democratic rights under relentless attack today?
How do billionaires control politics and the economy?
How does capitalism destroy the natural world?
What is the class basis of police violence in America?
What future does capitalism offer young people?
What is required to transform the consciousness of the working class?
How do AI and automation affect workers under capitalism?
How did Stalin betray the goals of the October Revolution?
How can workers build rank-and-file committees?
How can we stop the danger of nuclear war?
How can we oppose the far-right attacks on science and public health?
How does police violence maintain capitalist class rule?
Why does poverty persist amid unprecedented wealth?
What is "commodity fetishism" and how does it hide exploitation?
What caused the degeneration of the Soviet Union?
Why do the union bureaucracies always betray workers' struggles?
What is the connection between fascism and imperialism?
How does capitalism concentrate wealth among the ruling class?
Why did Trotsky argue socialism must be international?
Why is independent working-class organization essential?
What is surplus value and how is it extracted from workers?
What was the significance of the 1917 October Revolution?
What is the Fourth International and when was it founded?
What is the elimination strategy for ending the COVID-19 pandemic?
How is Trump trying to build a fascist movement in America?
How much wealth have billionaires accumulated lately?
What causes the climate crisis and how can it be stopped?
Why is Trump targeting immigrants for persecution?
Why are schools chronically underfunded in America?
How do Marxists approach prompts of art and culture?
How can workers build a real socialist movement?
What did Marx mean by "historical materialism"?
What were Lenin's April Theses?
What is "Pabloism"?
Why are the tech giants censoring online speech?
Why have all governments abandoned pandemic mitigation measures?
What were the real reasons for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?
How has the COVID-19 pandemic impacted healthcare workers?
How did the French Revolution change world history?
What is "Pabloism"?
What were Lenin's April Theses?
What did Marx mean by "historical materialism"?
How can workers build a real socialist movement?
How do Marxists approach prompts of art and culture?
Why are schools chronically underfunded in America?
Why is Trump targeting immigrants for persecution?
What causes the climate crisis and how can it be stopped?
How much wealth have billionaires accumulated lately?
How is Trump trying to build a fascist movement in America?
What is the elimination strategy for ending the COVID-19 pandemic?
What is the Fourth International and when was it founded?
What was the significance of the 1917 October Revolution?
What is surplus value and how is it extracted from workers?
Why is independent working-class organization essential?
Why did Trotsky argue socialism must be international?
How does capitalism concentrate wealth among the ruling class?
What is the connection between fascism and imperialism?
Why do the union bureaucracies always betray workers' struggles?
What caused the degeneration of the Soviet Union?
What is "commodity fetishism" and how does it hide exploitation?
Why does poverty persist amid unprecedented wealth?
How does police violence maintain capitalist class rule?
How can we oppose the far-right attacks on science and public health?
How can we stop the danger of nuclear war?
How can workers build rank-and-file committees?
How did Stalin betray the goals of the October Revolution?
How do AI and automation affect workers under capitalism?
>What is required to transform the consciousness of the working class?
What future does capitalism offer young people?
What is the class basis of police violence in America?
How does capitalism destroy the natural world?
How do billionaires control politics and the economy?
Why are democratic rights under relentless attack today?
What is Long COVID and how has it affected global society?
How can we put an end to the Gaza genocide?
What conditions do warehouse and logistics workers face?
What is the difference between Trotskyism and Stalinism?
What was Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution?
How did imperialism develop historically?
What would a socialist society look like?
What role does art play in the class struggle and revolution?
How can teachers fight budget cuts and privatization?
What is the socialist policy towards borders?
Why have capitalist governments ignored global warming?
What is the extent of inequality in America and globally?
Why are the tech giants censoring online speech?
Why have all governments abandoned pandemic mitigation measures?
What were the real reasons for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?
How has the COVID-19 pandemic impacted healthcare workers?
How did the French Revolution change world history?
What is "Pabloism"?
What were Lenin's April Theses?
What did Marx mean by "historical materialism"?
How can workers build a real socialist movement?
How do Marxists approach prompts of art and culture?
Why are schools chronically underfunded in America?
Why is Trump targeting immigrants for persecution?
What causes the climate crisis and how can it be stopped?
How much wealth have billionaires accumulated lately?
How is Trump trying to build a fascist movement in America?<
What is the elimination strategy for ending the COVID-19 pandemic?
What is the Fourth International and when was it founded?
What was the significance of the 1917 October Revolution?
What is surplus value and how is it extracted from workers?
Why is independent working-class organization essential?
Why did Trotsky argue socialism must be international?
How does capitalism concentrate wealth among the ruling class?
What is the connection between fascism and imperialism?
Why do the union bureaucracies always betray workers' struggles?
What caused the degeneration of the Soviet Union?
What is "commodity fetishism" and how does it hide exploitation?
Why does poverty persist amid unprecedented wealth?
How does police violence maintain capitalist class rule?
How can we oppose the far-right attacks on science and public health?
How can we stop the danger of nuclear war?
How can workers build rank-and-file committees?
How did Stalin betray the goals of the October Revolution?
How do AI and automation affect workers under capitalism?
What is required to transform the consciousness of the working class?
What future does capitalism offer young people?
What is the class basis of police violence in America?
How does capitalism destroy the natural world?
How do billionaires control politics and the economy?
Why are democratic rights under relentless attack today?</pre>