View source for User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/900

<h2 id="section-900"><span class="mw-headline">901 - 1999</span> <span class="mw-editsection plainlinks"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span>[https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/900&action=edit edit]<span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2>

Historical events, texts, etc.<noinclude><br /> Final live version of this section: [[Philosophical Research:Items 1 to 1,000|Items 1 to 1,000]] / [[Philosophical Research:Items 1,000 to 2,000|Items 1,000 to 2,000]]</noinclude>

<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol start="900" class="hue clean">             <!-- retrieve date of crow behavior -->
<li value="901" data-remark="next to MDem reading list" class="field_ML" data-dimension="S">MAI reading list / Anti-Imperialist Movement Marxist-Leninist reading list

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-remark="feudal order" value="902" data-dimension="Z0">national liberation movement / national independence movement (generic)

</li><li class="number_empty" value="903">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="904">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="905">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="906">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="907">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="908">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="909">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="910">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="911">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="912">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="913">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="914">??
</li><li class="field_nations" data-remark="feudal order" value="915" data-dimension="Z0">noble coup  ->  "noble coup" is my colloquial term for a political phenomenon where some particular socially-linked graph of nobility and their allies plot to replace a particular royal family or top of a feudal order. I'm not totally sure what the standard word for this is. one thing I'm closer to sure about is that in the handful of these I've heard about it seems like the nobility easily get divided. it isn't easy for them to all join together and create a new state around the nobility compared to them splitting into competing factions of nobility which may all be tied to a particular religious sect. it's weird how the patterns of nobility have similarities to the patterns of capitalists, and this seems to be partially responsible for the similarities between Catholic and Protestant conflicts in England versus progressive and Protestant political subpopulations in the United States.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="916" data-dimension="Z0">revolution against feudal order / bourgeois revolution (Marxism)
</li><li value="917" class="field_ML" data-dimension="Z0">revolution against capitalism / revolution that creates non-capitalist state but does not create feudal order  ->  this entry allows for the concept of a revolution forming a charcoal workers' state, although as far as I know that is entirely hypothetical right now and has never happened in real life for a period of longer than 3 years. (to be fair 3 years is pretty good compared to a couple months, but it's definitely not 70 years.)
</li><li value="918" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="919" class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-remark="chunk competition" value="920" data-dimension="Z2">Whenever somebody belongs to a marginalized or imperialized group their current position compounds on any effort to get out of it / Frantz Fanon conjecture / I've been Frantz-Fanon'd (motif phrasing)  ->  this man has been used to argue "prejudices" and the notion that colonialism is in our heads, but if you look at what he's actually describing it would seem it's true. {{YouTube|KpRGOAXSMj8}} I think it isn't too hard to formalize this into a mathematical theory of Populationism or Everybodyism. it's like... you can get this across with two separate quantities and an exponential equation<br />
this was placed next to "revolution" to underscore that it is one of the most important concepts to defining what revolution or progress even is. and so I can fairly say that racism was addressed at a small Item number even though I filled up a lot of Items with US-internal events and highly specific things like mathematical data structures instead of issues. the placement of Items isn't about their importance, it's about putting them next to each other by correlation, but I did think about representing important issues for their own sake before Item 2000

</li><li value="921" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">Every scientific theory should be consistent with previous scientific theories
</li><li value="922" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S2">Models of the same object should not contradict each other
</li><li value="923" class="field_ML"  data-dimension="S2">Physical processes can contradict each other / Processes can contradict themselves 
</li><li value="924" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="925" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">rift, split, separation, schism, expulsion, or fatal controversy / event of serious division between two sets of people / event of serious division between notable individual and group  ->  thanks Trotsky for showing me that expulsions and schisms are really just the same thing

</li><li value="926" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="927" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="928" class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="929" data-dimension="S0">metaphysical thought experiment
</li><li value="930" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">Materialist thought experiment
</li><li class="field_geo"  value="931" data-dimension="S0">scientific thought experiment
</li><li class="field_ML"   value="932" data-dimension="S0">historical-materialist thought experiment
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="933" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q933|existential-materialist thought experiment]]
</li><li class="number_empty" value="934" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="935" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="940" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q940|jamming proposition or question]] / jamming antithesis
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="941" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q941|jamming proposition]]  ->  seems to be a major component of 'pataphysics, but also of meta-Marxism
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="942" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q942|jamming question]]  ->  it bothers me that most people don't think a question is a proposition. it makes the task of non-binary logic unnecessarily difficult.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="943">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="944">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="945">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="946">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="947">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="948">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="949" data-dimension="S2">your-choices {{TTS|html=abbr|tts=versus|vs.}} yours-choice distinction / your-choice versus yours-choices versus yours-choice distinction  ->  a vital distinction to understand before anyone can properly answer whether "your choices matter". when people say "your choice(s)", are they referring to "your choice" individually, "yours choices" as every individual separately in parallel, or "yours choice" as many individuals combined into one group?

</li><li class="field_geo" data-remark="formal logic" value="950" data-dimension="S">tiered levels of grouping / tiered grammatical plurality  ->  the concept of multiple levels of plural objects (seas of free-floating entities) as they are represented in language or propositional logic. I would say the majority of people are not aware of this concept and constantly gloss over it in both writing and comprehending writing. it is dreadfully common to simply toss out the weasel word "we" with no particular meaning in reference to some really vague group of more than one person and assume it makes total sense.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="951" data-dimension="Z0">one-member concept / singular term [https://ourhappyschool.com/philosophy/term-logic]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="952" data-dimension="Z0">group concept / collective term
</li><li class="field_geo" value="953" data-dimension="Z0">subpopulational concept / particular concept / particular term
</li><li class="field_geo" value="954" data-dimension="Z0">populational concept / universal concept / general concept / universal term / general term
</li><li class="field_geo" value="955" data-dimension="Z0">global concept / global term  ->  a concept which applies to the largest possible scales of populations or generalizations, such as worldwide
</li><li class="field_geo" value="956" data-dimension="Z0">concept about many separate individuals in parallel / applying to many separate individuals in parallel
</li><li class="field_geo" value="957" data-dimension="Z0">concept about many separate groups in parallel / applying to many separate groups in parallel
</li><li class="field_geo" value="958" data-dimension="Z0">concept about separate subpopulations in parallel / concept about several separate subpopulations in parallel
</li><li class="field_geo" value="959" data-dimension="Z0">concept about separate nations in parallel / concept about several separate populations in parallel
</li><li class="field_geo" value="960" data-dimension="Z0">method of defining a set
</li><li class="field_geo" value="961" data-dimension="Z0">local characteristics or members / intensional characteristics / localized spatially-unique set members or characteristics of said members
</li><li class="field_geo" value="962" data-dimension="Z0">entailed characteristics or members / extensional characteristics / extensionality across characteristics or subpopulations
</li><li class="number_empty" value="963">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="965">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="970">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="975">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="980" data-dimension="S0">language register / language proficiency level
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="981" data-dimension="S0">local vernacular term  ->  applies to contexts such as fandoms and that phenomenon where gender labels were exploding because nobody knew the difference between common terms, vernacular terms, and university-level terms
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="982" data-dimension="S0">widespread vernacular term  ->  applies to contexts such as dialects of English
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="983" data-dimension="S0">uncommon term
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="984" data-dimension="S0">common term
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="985" data-dimension="S0">technical term taught in grade school / scientific term taught in grade school
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="986" data-dimension="S0">university-level term / technical term taught in four-year degree
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="987" data-dimension="S0">university-level term widespread in particular ideology / technical term widespread in partisan ideology
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="988" data-dimension="S0">graduate-level term / technical term taught in specialist degree  ->  one of the only one of these Items to not use "88" to mean anything whatsoever.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="989" data-dimension="S0">technical term within local research group / field-specific academic jargon term

</li><li class="number_empty" value="990" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="991" data-dimension="S">boxed-in theory  ->  the motif of a theory which has absolutely no idea what meta-ontology is and would never think of analyzing itself as an object
</li><li value="992" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">meta-theory  ->  I at first put "MDem reading list" here, but then I found out about metamathematics, and running across more [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatheory meta-theories] makes me so excited
</li><li value="993" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q993|MDem reading list]]  ->  just so I am not tempted to create another one anywhere else. not the definitive or ultimate one, but one I can compare and contrast with my MDem bibliography entry as a minimal version
</li><li value="994" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="995" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1000" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">plateau (philosophy) / plateau (schizoanalysis) / thing claimed to have no beginning or end / spatially-unique object which does not remain unique

</li><li class="field_geo" value="1001" data-dimension="S0">formatting device  ->  any kind of device which styles, tags, or structures text. Unicode encoding might count as a formatting device
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1002" data-dimension="S0">formatting rule  ->  a specific kind of formatting device which transforms written text into logical structure and possibly renders into some other kind of transcribed logical structure such as TeX or HTML
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1003" data-dimension="Z">basic bop formatting - [[Help:Bop entries|ad-hoc markup language]]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1004" data-dimension="Z">Markdown - markup language
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1005" data-dimension="Z">HTML - markup language
</li><li value="1006" data-remark="Poppy Playtime joke" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">prototype  ->  an early version of anything made for testing. not related to markup languages.
</li><li class="field_internal" value="1007" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q1007|Hue list classname]] - [[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/hue.css|colors]] used in Hue lists, including any color-codings you can see on this one. not to be taken very seriously, often quickly chosen to distinguish nearby blocks of items from each other. instance of: CSS classname
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1008" data-dimension="S0">CSS classname  ->  instance of: formatting device
</li><li class="field_internal" value="1009" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q1009|Item usable as Hue list classname]]

</li><li value="1010" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S0">unique language
</li><li value="1011" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">English (en)
</li><li value="1012" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">French  (fr)
</li><li value="1013" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">German  (de)
</li><li value="1014" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">Spanish (es)
</li><li value="1015" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li value="1016" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li value="1017" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">Russian (ru)
</li><li value="1018" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">Korean  (ko)
</li><li value="1019" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">Japanese (ja)
</li><li value="1020" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S0">Chinese metalanguage (zho)
</li><li value="1021" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">Mandarin Chinese (cmn)
</li><li value="1022" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">Cantonese (yue)
</li><li value="1023" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li value="1024" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li value="1025" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">North Korean dialect
</li><li value="1026" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">South Korean dialect
</li><li value="1027" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">Chinese character   (hani)
</li><li value="1028" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">Traditional Chinese (hant)
</li><li value="1029" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">Simplified Chinese  (hans)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1020" data-dimension="S0">uncommon, constructed, or system-internal language / language possibly coded as <code>mis</code>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1021" data-dimension="S">simple English (en-simple) / en-x-pona / en-basiceng [https://zbenglish.net/sites/basic/words.html]  ->  I want this to be specifically [https://www.bnl.gov/newsroom/news.php?a=23678 upgoer-five] style with a very small list of words, such that it's only a step or two up from toki pona, yet not so <em>simple</em> it's hard to read. the idea is almost to write the <code>en-simple</code> label and use it as guidance for the <code>tok</code> one. Wikipedia's [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Word_frequency 8000-word list] should be useful
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1022" data-dimension="Z">toki pona (tok)  ->  implied to be either sitelen pona or sitelen Lasina
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1023" data-dimension="Z">toki pona, sitelen Lasina (tok-Latn)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1024" data-dimension="Z">toki pona, [https://sona.pona.la/wiki/sitelen_pilin  sitelen pilin] / sitelen emoji (tok-pilin)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1025" data-dimension="Z">toki pona, [https://sona.pona.la/wiki/nasin_pi_sitelen_jelo  sitelen jelo] (tok-jelo)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1026" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1027" data-dimension="S0">taxonomic names dictionary (la-sci) - [https://pigsonthewing.org.uk/marking-up-the-scientific-names-of-living-things/] [https://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2003-February/000574.html]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1028" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q1028|work citations dictionary]] (qww)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1029" data-dimension="S0">Wikimedia message ID (qqx) - [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDummyLanguageCodes]
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1030">(reserved for languages)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1040">(reserved for languages)

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1050">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1055">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1060" data-dimension="Z0">toki pona derivative / tokiponido
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="1061" data-dimension="S">[[E:Q1061|toki pona but with English]] / meta toki pona / <code>en-x-pona</code> (motif) / <code>ja-x-pona</code> (motif) / <code>de-x-pona</code> (motif) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q1061|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1065">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1069">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="1070" data-dimension="S0">fantasy work
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1071" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1072" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1073" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1074" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1075" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1076" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1077" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1078" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1079" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy"  value="1080" data-dimension="Z">speculative fiction
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1081" data-dimension="S">memoir fiction / literary fiction (fiction which is not categorized into a particular genre yet almost invariably becomes a boring slice-of-life story)  ->  the specific kind of fiction that appears uncategorized yet starts with boring accounts of individual lives. overlaps with or contains slice-of-life fiction.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="1082" data-dimension="Z">utopian fiction / utopian literature
</li><li class="field_horror" value="1083" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q1083|dystopian fiction]] / dystopian literature
</li><li value="1084" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S0">anticommunist fable / anticommunist parable / "dystopian fiction" created to attack a progressive theory
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1085" data-dimension="S">socialist realism
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="1086" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q1086|metatransitional literature]] / meta-transitional realism / meta-transitional fantasy  ->  like socialist realism or science fiction, but for meta-Marxism
</li><li value="1087" data-remark="FNaF World" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="S0">afterlife fiction / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangsian_fantasy Bangsian fiction]
</li><li class="field_horror" value="1088" data-remark="Red Ribbon / Shocker I dunno" data-dimension="S0">[[Ontology:Q1088|horror work]]
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1089" data-dimension="S0">anti-imperialist fable / anti-colonial fable  ->  a rising genre of idealistic short stories which is specifically about either a kingdom Freely Deciding not to create global empire or some fictional population fighting against global empire's previous attempt to extinguish it. this concept does not encompass every story with national independence or anti-empire themes. the anti-imperialist fable is distinguished by a bizarrely strong focus on the notion of intersubjectivity and the whole narrative being driven by particular things being <i>morally wrong</i> and/or the universe naturally pushing back against what the narrative considers immoral. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqc8xExUyDY] I am becoming slowly convinced that the use or implication of this story genre is a major reason Pokémon appeals to people.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="1090">hero's journey narrative / adventure story  ->  in practice, the definition of "hero's journey" is almost the same as the definition of "adventure"; that's probably what we would have called it if we'd just started at the everyday examples of a book about a dog finding its way home and then worked back to the Iliad. I feel like things turned out this way because of people trying really hard to justify their degree in classical antiquity. which it may well be they had to get to convince a bunch of crusty imperialists to let them study the arts.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="1091">superhero story / superhero narrative
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="1092">fictional history
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1093">evil empire narrative  ->  distinguishable from hero's journey narrative because it explicitly involves populations. may simultaneously be an anti-imperialist fable, or might not.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1100">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-remark="hypothetical" value="1110" data-dimension="S">quantum water  ->  an imaginary metaphor in which quantum fields are literally water that separates into different puddles, and the point is to show how different water would have to be in order to be like a quantum field
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-remark="ball sport" value="1111" data-dimension="Z">tennis ball  ->  keeps being used as a loose comparison for quarks in MDem scraps, which repeatedly explore how different a tennis ball would have to be to be like a quark.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="1112" data-dimension="Z">cue ball
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="1113" data-dimension="Z">pool ball
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1114">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1115">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1116">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1117">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="1118" data-dimension="Z">eight ball
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1120">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1121">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1122">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1123">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1124">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1125">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1126">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1127">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1128">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="1129" data-dimension="S2">Every physical constant is actually an equation / Every single physics constant is equivalent to an equation in practice, not solely in mathematics  ->  this is one of those moonshot hypotheses I may never ever know the answer to, nor anybody in science who said the same thing. but I think it's very very important to contemplate. what if every constant is just an equation of "ten apples fit in a standard apple basket", meaning that the constant specifically describes the way the apple basket is constructed and what it is? we're used to physics equations being more complicated than "y = 10x", but from the point of view of mathematics nobody said they have to be. from the point of view of mathematics, every equation is our outside perspective on a phenomenon, and science models the phenomenon [[Term:scientific phenomenology|based on what it can observe and test more than what it predicts to be inside]].

</li><li class="field_geo" value="1130" data-dimension="S0">physical constant
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1131" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1132" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1133" data-dimension="S0">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1134" data-dimension="S0">??

</li><li value="1135" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">order of magnitude / scale of particular numerical base / power of ten / power of two / multiple of one
</li><li value="1136" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">multiple of number  ->  subset of: order of magnitude
</li><li value="1137" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">precise order of magnitude / repeatable number of things / stoichiometric number / specific average number of things  ->  counterpart to Property "replicated at order of magnitude"; subset of: order of multiple of number
</li><li value="1138" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S">1/137 problem (physics) / 137 problem (physics)  ->  mysterious constant which keeps showing up in a lot of physics equations. does it have a solution in some kind of physical-mathematical object, somewhat like the hypothetical theta field of axions that was to replace a theta constant? currently nobody knows.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1140">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1145">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="1150" data-dimension="S2">Everything is made of something / Physics is when everything becomes other stuff / Physics is the study of everything being made of stuff  ->  A) the problem of what a black hole is rests on the definition of physics that matter and energy always become something else physical because everything is made of something B) unexpected consequence: knowledge is made of physical arrangements of things, leading to one logical proof against Maxwell's demon.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1151" data-dimension="S2">When matter disappears it becomes something else / When matter disappears from a defined section of reality it usually becomes something else / matter conservation
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1152" data-dimension="S2">When energy disappears it becomes something else / When energy disappears from a defined section of reality it usually becomes something else / energy conservation
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1153" data-dimension="S2">Knowledge is made of physical arrangements of things  ->  seems odd to point out but invariably ends up being true. bits are physical arrangements of things. neurons are physical arrangements of things. printed words are physical arrangements of things. bibliographies and bookshelves are physical arrangements of things. data Items are physical arrangements of things. even signs are physical arrangements of things, although they're split across two substrates: the written work and the brain. both written works and brains are physical. the final leap not included in this proposition: ideologies and policies are physical arrangements of things, just as a written work is. knowledge of how to carry out Bolshevism correctly can be stored in an arrangement of words, or it can be stored in a physical population of people increasingly arranged into Bolshevism. however, a population of people which increasingly arranges itself away from Bolshevism and into another arrangement may lack the stored information of how to create Bolshevism the more it already does not resemble it.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1154">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1155">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1156">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1157">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="1158" data-dimension="S2">Some things can be made of themselves / Some objects are small enough to be made only of themselves and not made out of anything smaller  ->  the claim that fundamental objects may exist in the universe although they are bound to be very, very small. do they exist as quanta? do they exist as whatever quantum fields are made of? do they exist at the Planck length? nobody knows.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1159" data-dimension="S2">History is made of processes / History is made of objects and transformations / History is made of stuff  ->  Everything is made of stuff + series of events = this

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1165">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1170">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1175">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="1180" data-dimension="M3">[[Ontology:Q1180|How do you produce the ingredients of a black hole?]] / What kind of physical stuff would matter change into if it got into the interior of a black hole? / What kind of black hole stuff is matter converted to when it collides with a black hole? / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox black hole information paradox]
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1181" data-dimension="S2">The physical stuff inside a black hole is unstructured energy / Black holes are gravastars; the stuff inside the gravastar is a maximally warped zero point energy  ->  I'm tempted to say the phrase "like one really giant quark" but I'm not sure that's scientifically accurate, since after all black holes aren't constantly disappearing or re-dividing. so I won't.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1182">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1183">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1184">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1185">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1186">??
</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="11,87" value="1187" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q1187|black hole]]
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="11,88" value="1188" data-dimension="S">going back in time to kill Hitler / ([[User:RD/9k/Q11,88]])

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="11,90" value="1190" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="1200" data-dimension="S">alternate history / alternate timeline
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" data-qid="12,01" value="1201" data-dimension="S">alternate-timeline version of figure or character in narrative
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" data-qid="12,02" value="1202" data-dimension="S">alternate-timeline version of real country
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1203">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1204">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1205">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1206">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1207">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1208">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1209">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1210">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1211">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" data-qid="12,12" value="1212" data-dimension="S0">variant of fictional character / alternate-universe variant of fictional character  ->  this is your 
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" data-qid="12,13" value="1213" data-dimension="S">variant of historical figure (historical fiction)  ->  applies to historical fiction works / simulation games like {{game|Hearts of Iron IV}}, and historical-materialist thought experiments.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1214">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1215">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1216">??
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="Fy, MX onto Fy, Fy onto MX" data-qid="12,17" value="1217" data-dimension="S0">Communist variant of fictional character / Communist-ally variant of fictional character / Marxist variant of fictional character (implied to be based on mainstream Marxism-Leninism or other attempts at Leninism, not Deng Xiaoping Thought or Western-Marxism)
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="Fy, MX onto Fy, Fy onto MX" data-qid="12,18" value="1218" data-dimension="S0">Socialist variant of fictional character / "Marxist" variant of fictional character (implied to be social-democracy/Menshevism, Western-Marxism, etc.)  ->  for that off chance there's an edge case which doesn't fit into Q12,17 but sure is a variant of a character.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1219">??

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="" data-qid="12,20" value="1220" data-dimension="S">leitmotif / leitmotif (prose) / leitmotif (music; generic)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="" data-qid="12,21" value="1221" data-dimension="S">leitmotif (music) / character motif (music)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="" data-qid="12,22" value="1222" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="" data-qid="12,23" value="1223" data-dimension="S">using number as leitmotif / using number as spoken or written narrative theme, but usually not as part of music, unless a musical track contains patterns consisting of specific numbers of notes or phrases / number as character motif / numeric sign (Item pages)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="" data-qid="12,24" value="1224" data-dimension="S">using calendar date as leitmotif / numeric sign (calendar date)
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="" data-qid="12,25" value="1225" data-dimension="S">character embodying abstract concept  ->  the prototypical example is "December Holiday" (12/25), or "Piatya Holiday" (11/5), but it can be a little less specific than that. Princess Celestia (sun) would probably be another decent example. the rest of the MLP cast are... weird, because they're presented like they're supposed to be this and then the elements of harmony don't exactly matter to their character and they aren't really their concepts, they either have complexity or are at least about five-note characters. I half feel like Starlight counts though because she does begin at a single abstract concept: "worse Twilight".
<!-- brainstorm file:

2026-01-01T12:53:04H
Q12,20  - leitmotif / leitmotif (prose) / leitmotif (music; generic)
Q12,21  - leitmotif (music)
Q12,22  - ?
Q12,23  - using number as leitmotif / using number as spoken or written narrative theme, but usually not as part of music, unless a musical track contains patterns consisting of specific numbers of notes or phrases
Q12,24  - using calendar date as leitmotif
Q12,25  - ??
-->

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1230">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1240">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1250">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1260">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1270">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1271">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1272">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1273">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1274">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1275">??
</li><li data-qid="12,76" value="1276" class="field_fantasy"  data-dimension="S"><cite>The Good Place</cite>
</li><li data-qid="12,77" value="1277" class="field_fantasy"  data-dimension="S">good afterlife / Good Place
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="12,78" value="1278" data-dimension="S">afterlife
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="12,79" value="1279" data-dimension="S">The Middle Place  ->  appears in work: <cite>Cloud Eight</cite>
</li><li data-qid="12,80" value="1280" class="field_horror"   data-dimension="S">bad afterlife / Bad Place

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1290">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1295">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1300">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1305">??
</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="13,10" value="1310">organization  ->  I feel as if this needs to be described more specifically to make it clear it's a material object and more than just a term
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="13,11" value="1311">action against society by countable group of people / incorrect action by countable group of people  ->  used in defining what protests are about
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="13,12" value="1312">street protest
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1313">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1314">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1315">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1320">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1325">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1330">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="13,31" value="1331" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q1331|Study populations within their own history]] / Populations must be studied relative to their own traditions / cultural relativism proposition
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="13,32" value="1332" data-dimension="S2">Study populations that {{em|will}} exist within their own history
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1333">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1334">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1335">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1336">??
</li><li data-qid="13,37" value="1337" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z0">subculture  ->  refers to any subculture, although QID references internet subcultures.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1338">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1339">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1340">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1341">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1342">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1343">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1344">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1345">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1346">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1347">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1348">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1349">??

</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="13,40" value="1340" data-dimension="S">poll taxes and segregation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxes_in_the_United_States]
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="13,41" value="1341" data-dimension="S">poll taxes in Burkina Faso [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara]  ->  not a thought that crossed my mind before but wholly unsurprising. it's always been a bit like, apartheid is [[E:structural racism|similar to]] racial segregation except at least five times more violent and worse
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR" data-qid="13,42" value="1342" data-dimension="S2">Poll taxes are okay under Idealism / Poll taxes are okay if you operate on a contrived abstract concept of what racial subpopulations actually are rather than a realistic picture of the current (though not eternal) material conditions of the actual subpopulation  ->  think about this one long enough and you realize it's basically the same error made against the Soviet Union. is Trotskyism inherently racist, just in that it is inherently xenophobic?
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="13,43" value="1343" data-dimension="S">poll taxes in Florida  ->  having hyper-specific topics is meant to make it easier to find citations based on observations of specific places.
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="13,44" value="1344" data-dimension="S">poll taxes in Louisiana
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="13,45" value="1345" data-dimension="S">poll taxes in Alabama
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="13,46" value="1346" data-dimension="S">poll taxes in Texas  ->  it's easy to forget the Confederate states can extend to Texas when all of the worst stuff is often happening in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. but Texas had poll taxes.
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="13,47" value="1347" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="LR" data-qid="13,48" value="1347" data-dimension="S2">Poll taxes are unacceptable under Materialism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR" data-qid="13,49" value="1349" data-dimension="S2">Poll taxes violate the 14th Amendment (United States)  ->  one of the better demonstrations of "Washington's filter".

</li><li data-qid="13,50" value="1350" class="field_nations" data-tradition="ES onto PT, MX onto PT" data-dimension="Z">[[E:Q13,50|structural racism]]  ->  material phenomenon as described by real-world evidence, and not whatever papers and books say, should that somehow be a problem
</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="ES onto PT" data-qid="13,51" value="1351" data-dimension="Z">redlining
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1352">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1353">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1354">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1355">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1356">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto PT" data-qid="13,57" value="1357" data-dimension="S">bioempire / subjectivoempire (discarded term; meta-Marxism)  ->  the motif of living, breathing, eating, space-occupying individuals being the building blocks of empire, war, or genocide, although it is strongly implied they can usually only accomplish these atrocities by joining together in Community and friendship. a group as small as maybe two individuals joins together and produces positive feedback loops (think of the "brilliant" undertakers in CEO biographies), and at that point is creating bioempire. it must be noted this is solely talking about The Subject as a living being that makes decisions based on its needs; absolutely none of this motif is about "culture" or "attitudes" or "mentality" in the senses each of those terms tints the others. this motif has the connotation that all of those things are produced as justification after individuals have already joined together into bioempire or socioempire.<br />
it can be argued that the motif of "bioempire" exists in Buddhism, though from what I know, I think it may be missing the concept that {{em|linking individuals together}} results in "unhealthy attachments" as opposed to them somehow existing specifically inside individuals. if I'm wrong about that you can totally put this in the motifs section of a Buddhist text without putting it in the "subjective motifs" area.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="1358" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q1358|existence as empire]] / socioempire / gentrification results from small-scale empire / chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy (near-synonym)

</li><li value="1359" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">critical race theory / CRT
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1400" data-dimension="S">scientific progressivism  ->  half-hypothetical, half-already-real concept that progressivism, <em>as defined by Existentialists and Liberals</em>, can be broken down into falsifiable hypotheses in the same sense as Marxist hypotheses of how nation-sized revolutionary movements succeed
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1401">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1402">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1403">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1404">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1405">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1406">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1407">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1408">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1409">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1410">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1415">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1419" data-dimension="S">drug prohibition / war on drugs / war on drug gangs  ->  there is a deep discussion to be had about how much a war on drugs isn't actually about drugs and is actually a nationalist local-war campaign on the entire existence of criminals
</li><li value="1420" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">drug legalization
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1430">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1440">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1450">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1460">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1470">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1480">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1481">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1482">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1483">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" data-qid="14,84" value="1484" data-dimension="S">chunk competition (motif; meta-Marxism) / all-directional contradiction between individuals / chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1485">??

</li><li class="field_nations" value="1486" data-dimension="S">historical fascisms / nationalist regimes recognized as fascisms by historians  ->  a somewhat deceptive term explicitly excluding the British imperialist framework but including falangism
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1487" data-dimension="Z">Axis powers of World War II  ->  Nazism, Italian fascism, and Japanese global empire
</li><li value="1488" class="field_nations" data-dimension="Z">Nazi germany / Nazism
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1489" data-dimension="Z">Fascist Italy / Italian fascism
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1490" data-dimension="Z">Falangist Spain / falangism / Francoism
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1491" data-dimension="Z">Imperial Japan / Japanese global empire
</li><li value="1492" class="field_nations" data-dimension="Z">British Empire / British imperialist framework (hypothetical)
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1493" data-dimension="Z">United States global empire / United States imperialist framework (hypothetical)
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1494" data-dimension="S">Identitarian fascism / third-positionism / fascisms rooted in definitions of what culture is  ->  clearly includes Duginism; appears to include Francoism and United States Toryism, if you strictly define it as "fascisms which are not obsessed with genetics"
</li><li value="1495" class="field_nations" data-dimension="S">new Russian empire / post-Soviet imperialist Russia  ->  under research; Russia as defined by Napoleonist Bauplan or new regime that took over after destruction of Soviet Union
</li><li value="1496" class="field_nations" data-dimension="S">Duginism
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1497" data-dimension="Z">European New Right
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1498" data-dimension="S0">claimed characteristic of fascism / claimed warning sign of fascism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1499" data-dimension="S0">list of characteristics claiming to define fascism / definition of fascism  ->  there are a ridiculous number of these. it may be worth encoding all the list-entries and connecting list-entries to the list, especially items they share

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1500">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1501" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q1501|Tea Party axis]]  ->  United States Tory movement that emerged in the early 2000s, about 2007 according to some. before the early 2000s United States "conservative" parties had some claim to being right-Liberal parties, but then they went through a hard turn into solely being about taking the United States "back" from immigrants and people of the wrong religion. I use the term Toryism in reference to the concept of a faction that rejects the creation of a parliament because having democracy would give Catholics too much of British society. it's funny. even though the original Tories and Britain's modern Tory party are separate groups of people, they aren't ultimately that different in their values. and it only gets worse when you note the repeated event of some people in the United States choosing a party specifically in the hope it wasn't Catholic. did Toryism ever <em>really</em> have a beginning and an end?

</li><li class="field_nations" value="1510" data-dimension="Z">Umberto Eco's list for fascism
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1511" data-dimension="S">cult of tradition  ->  claimed characteristic of fascism.
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1512" data-dimension="S">rejection of modern culture / descent into depravity
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1513" data-dimension="S">cult of action for action's sake
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1514" data-dimension="S">disagreement is treason  ->  note that this has to be in a nationalist tone. Trotsky saying Stalin does this doesn't mean Stalin's Marxism is fascism. contrary to what some people may think. if you want to say Stalin's Marxism is bad, that's whatever, but you absolutely cannot act like Bolshevism and fascism are the same thing coming from the concept of a [[E:generalized dictator|generalized dictator]]. they are different countable [[Term:sociophilosophy|sociophilosophies]].
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1515" data-dimension="S">fear of difference
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1516" data-dimension="S">appeal against low-ranks / appeal to a frustrated middle class
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1517" data-dimension="S">obsession with conspiracies / obsession with the plot
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1518" data-dimension="S">enemies are too strong and too weak
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1519" data-dimension="S">pacifism is trafficking with the enemy
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1520" data-dimension="S">in-group superior to the weak / contempt for the weak
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1521" data-dimension="S">die a hero or become the weaklings
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1522" data-dimension="S">machismo
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1523" data-dimension="S">selective populism
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1524" data-dimension="S">nationalistic buzzwords / newspeak

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1525">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1530">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1531">??

</li><li value="1532" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Prince</cite> (Machiavelli 1532)

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1540">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1550">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1560">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1570">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1580">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1590"><cite>The Taming of the Shrew</cite> (c. 1590)  ->  Shakespeare play. comedy. notable for "abstract amoral world containing blatant misogyny" structure. trying to explain Dragon Ball made me remember it because I swear this is at least two characters' character arcs

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1600">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1601">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1602">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1603">??

</li><li value="1604" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="Z">Guy Fawkes
</li><li value="1605" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="Z">Gunpowder plot of 1605
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-remark="Moscow Trials" value="1606" data-dimension="S">treason trial / royal action against act of treason  ->  the general concept of a treason trial. I feel like grossly un-regulated royal actions against crimes with no due process should also count under this motif; it's so easy for that kind of grossly unregulated enforcement to be tightly connected to the entire concept of "treason", just by nature of the thing.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="1607" data-dimension="S">act of treason memorialized forever / act of treason memorialized for so long that people have probably forgotten the full original context for why it was bad
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="1608" data-dimension="S">act of treason forgotten forever  ->  not the kind of thing you hear about much, once again by nature of the thing. if it's been erased from the popular consciousness of course you won't hear about it.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1609">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1610">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1611">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1612">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1613">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1614">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1615">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1616">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1617" data-dimension="Z">revisionist history (field)  ->  to be used for actual instances of updating the facts and making them more accurate
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1618" data-dimension="Z">progressive anthropology  ->  subset of: revisionist history (field); in my mind, refers largely to studies of ancient people-groups as done in <cite>Magic: a history</cite>
</li><li value="1619" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">inclusive history  ->  subset of: revisionist history (field)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1620" data-dimension="Z">1619 Project (2019)  ->  attempted education project by inclusive-historians
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1621" data-dimension="Z">Kimberlé Crenshaw  ->  one inclusive-historian off in a corner of the United States surrounded by a bizarre amount of controversy and discourse. I swear the whole PragerU video about "people segregating themselves at Black graduation" grew out of her drifting over to a different university when the group of people at the other university didn't want her there

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1630">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1640">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1650">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1660">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1670">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1680">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1690">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1691" data-dimension="S">witch trial as town court / witch trial as conflict
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-remark="occult / prejudices" value="1692" data-dimension="Z">Salem witch trials  ->  odd how these are constantly used as a symbol of "prejudice" instead of probing the material-historical factors of <em>how</em> they happened. you might wonder why I'd insist on putting it that way. but this is how progressive anthropologists framed the "more traditional" concept of a witch trial before the advent of Christianity and more institutionalized court systems: in terms of the material contradictions operating inside a society and the witch trial actually being a detective exercise to find out who caused the tensions without necessarily bringing a terrible fate on them. I halfway feel like the progressive anthropologists are giving too much credit to people's knowledge when people might just be ancient-style astrologists or something and genuinely not quite get how the universe works and be guessing wildly. but if you wanted to interpret everyone as intending to discover (meta-)Marxism then this kind of interpretation is perfectly fair; ideologies can have wrong surface interpretations of why their model is supposedly correct and yet the model be broadly correct.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="1693" data-dimension="S">witch trial as treason  ->  this appears to develop in response to {{Term:Wasp Swarm}}s. in simpler societal structures, witch trials are less harmful because conflict in society goes back and forth, in all directions, without violence. as First World countries develop and people cluster together "helping each other" build connected Filaments of individual wealth, there becomes an incentive to treat any offense against the Filament as [[E:natural crime|natural treason]], and as always, religion and magic ritual and superstition will then each simply reflect the structure of society.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1695">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1700">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1705">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1710">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1715">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1720">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1725">??

</li><li class="field_horror" value="1729" data-dimension="Z"><cite class="article">[[Ontology:Q1729|A modest proposal]]</cite> (Swift 1729)

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1730">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1735">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1740">??

</li><li class="field_ML" value="1741" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The German Ideology</cite> part 1A: Idealism and Materialism
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1742" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The German Ideology</cite> part 1B: The Illusion of the Epoch
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1743" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The German Ideology</cite> part 1C: The Real Basis of Ideology
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1744" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The German Ideology</cite> part 1D: Proletarians and Communism

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1745">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1746">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1747">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1748">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1749">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1750" data-dimension="S0">United States constitutional amendment / Bill of Rights (United States)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1751" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="1">Amendment 1
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1752" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="2">Amendment 2
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1753" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="3">Amendment 3
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1754" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="4">Amendment 4
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1755" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="5">Amendment 5
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1756" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="6">Amendment 6
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1757" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="7">Amendment 7
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1758" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="8">Amendment 8
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1759" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="9">Amendment 9
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1760" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="10">Amendment 10
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1761" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="11">Amendment 11
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1762" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="12">Amendment 12
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="17,63" value="1763" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="13">United States people will not own slaves (Amendment 13)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="17,64" value="1764" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="14">A Confederate constitution is not legal (Amendment 14) / Black people will not be expelled from the United States population through federal or state law; Congress can block former Confederates from being elected / ([[User:RD/9k/Q17,64|9k]])  ->  If I'm reading this thing right, there's a serious loophole in it that it doesn't really prevent {{em|individual towns}} doing terrible things through force of law.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1765" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="15">Amendment 15
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1766" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="16">Amendment 16
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1767" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="17">Amendment 17
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1768" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="19">Amendment 19
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1769" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="22">Amendment 22
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1770" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="23">Amendment 23
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="17,71" value="1771" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="24">The United States will not charge people for elections (Amendment 24) / The United States will not charge people to enter an election for president, vice president, or House or Senate members, federal or state
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1772" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="25">Amendment 25
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1773" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="26">Amendment 26
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1774" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="27">Amendment 27

</li><li data-qid="17,75" value="1775" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">taxation without representation
</li><li data-qid="17,76" value="1776" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">United States constitution
</li><li data-qid="17,77" value="1777" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">United States independence movement (1776) / American revolution
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="17,78" value="1778" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="18">Amendment 18
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="17,79" value="1779" data-dimension="S2" data-serial="21">Amendment 21

</li><li value="1780" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1781" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1782" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1783" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1784" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1785" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1786" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1787" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="1789" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">French Revolution (1789-1790)
</li><li value="1790" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">democracy (center-/right-Liberalism) / democracy as defined in center-/right-Liberal republicanism
</li><li value="1791" class="field_geo"      data-dimension="Z">metric system / International System of Units (SI) / Système international d'unités (SI)
</li><li value="1792" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">French Revolutionary Wars  ->  right after the French Revolution, the republic brutally occupied a handful of other countries to force them into Liberalism (or at least early republicanism). this part of history is always forgotten especially when talking about World War II and the Cold War
</li><li value="1793" class="field_trotsky"  data-dimension="Z">Thomas Paine treason trial (1792)  ->  there's something to be said about this in relation to the Moscow Trials. I'm not sure what.
</li><li value="1794" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">French First Republic  ->  very notable given there was a second one
</li><li value="1795" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1792 ??]
</li><li value="1796" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="1797" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li value="1798" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_republic sister republics] (c. 1800) / French-revolutionary client states / Napoleonic client states  ->  republics which relied on French occupation to remain republics, or were fitted with monarchies loyal to Napoleon
</li><li value="1799" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">Napoleonic empire  ->  French civilization under Napoleon's dictatorship

</li><li value="1800" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S">Napoleonism (meta-Marxism)  ->  may give this a different name later. a civilizational structure consisting of one republic — in some cases a democratic republic — and several client states under military occupation and/or client regimes controlled by the central republic. the puppet regimes may be republican or monarchist but they must be loyal to the regime of the central republic. arguably, the French Revolution birthed the Bauplan of Napoleonism and it's still alive and well, the United States still doing it
</li><li value="1801" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1802" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1803" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815)  ->  second try at brutally enforcing early-republicanism over all of Europe. the Napoleonic empire walled away many countries' economies and made them so upset the other countries ultimately kicked out Napoleon and restored the French monarchy
</li><li value="1804" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">Hundred Days  ->  Napoleon comes back from exile to rule Europe again; every European country goes to great effort to stop him
</li><li value="1805" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">Bourbon Restoration  ->  restored French monarchy which remained until 1830
</li><li value="1806" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">Sixth Coalition      ->  Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Sweden, and Russia, united to defeat Napoleon at the Battle of Leipzig
</li><li value="1807" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">Seventh Coalition    ->  Sixth Coalition plus Switzerland and the Bourbon Restoration; each alliance contained many smaller territories too
</li><li value="1808" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1809" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1810" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1811" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1812" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1813" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1814" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1815" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1816" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1817" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1818" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1819" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1820" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="1821" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1822" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1823" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1824" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1825" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1826" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1827" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1828" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1829" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="1830" class="field_nations" data-dimension="Z">Indian Removal Act of 1830
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1831" data-dimension="Z">Trail of Tears (1830-1850)

</li><li value="1831" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1832" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1833" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1834" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1835" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1836" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1837" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1838" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1839" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="1840" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1841" class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1842"><cite>Theses on Feuerbach</cite> (c.1845)
</li><li value="1843" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="M3">What is the relationship of Jewish people to German citizens? / Jewish national question / Jewish question (not Nazism)
</li><li value="1844" class="field_ML" data-dimension="Z"><cite>On <cite>The Jewish Question</cite></cite> (Marx 1844)
</li><li value="1845" class="field_ML" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The German Ideology</cite> (Marx 1846/1932)

</li><li value="1846" class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="18,47" value="1847" data-dimension="Z">Communist manifesto / Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) / {{TTS|tts=きょうさんとう|共産党}}{{TTS|tts=せんげん|宣言}}
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="18,48" value="1848" data-dimension="S">United States westward expansion
</li><li data-qid="18,49" value="1849" class="field_nations" data-dimension="S">"Go west, young man"
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1850" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1851" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1852" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1853" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1854" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1855" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1856" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1857" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1858" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="1859" data-dimension="Z"><cite>A Tale of Two Cities</cite>  ->  this book is about the French Revolution. I somehow did not know that until today.

</li><li value="1860" class="field_nations"  data-dimension="Z">Confederate States of America (1861-1865) / Confederacy / The South
</li><li value="1861" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">United States Civil War (1861-1865)
</li><li value="1862" class="field_nations" data-dimension="Z">Jefferson Davis (Confederate president 1861–1865)
</li><li value="1863" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">Emancipation Proclamation of 1863
</li><li value="1864" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">Reconstruction (1863-1877)
</li><li value="1865" class="number_empty">??
</li><li value="1866" class="number_empty">??

</li><li value="1867" class="field_ML" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Capital</cite> volume I   (Marx 1863/1867)
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1868" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Capital</cite> volume II  (Marx 1863/1893)
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1869" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Capital</cite> volume III (Marx 1863/1894)
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1870" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Capital</cite> volume IV  (Marx 1863/[https://marxistleninists.org/M&E/index.htm 1963])
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1871" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Theories of surplus value</cite>  ->  sometimes separated from Capital vol IV, sometimes grouped into it
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1872" data-dimension="S0">(further divisions of volume IV?)
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1873" data-dimension="S0">(further divisions of volume IV?)

</li><li value="1874" data-remark="centimeter/gram/second" class="field_geo" data-dimension="Z">International System of Units (SI)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1875">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1876">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1877" data-dimension="Z"><cite class="article">Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science</cite> / <cite>Anti-Dühring</cite> (1877)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1878">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1879">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1880">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1881">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1882" data-dimension="S0">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lady,_or_the_Tiger%3F <cite class="article">The Lady, or the Tiger?</cite>]  ->  nice example of ambiguity in literature and the concept that ambiguity can be perilous. if you say it doesn't matter what the door is assigned to, there is a 50% chance the tiger will maul you. if you say it doesn't matter what person A <em>believes</em> or <em>decides</em> is behind the door, then person A knows whether the tiger will maul you and you have no idea. similar concept to: quantum Freddy, quantum leopards; see also: Vegeta effect
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1883">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1884">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="1885" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Beyond Good and Evil</cite> (Nietzsche 1886/1913)  ->  not totally sure what this book is arguing but it did sound really interesting. knowing Nieztsche was an Identitarian-fascist type in general, marking it in the Tory color just to be safe. it can be changed to blue if it's actually good
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1886">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1887">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1888">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1889">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1890">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1891">??
</li><li value="1892" class="field_exstruct" data-remark="philosophy of language" data-dimension="Z"><cite>On Sense and Reference</cite> (Frege 1892)  ->  early precursor to structuralist linguistics. discusses the concept of how and whether words refer to anything.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1893">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1894">??
</li><li value="1895" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="Z"><cite>[[Ontology:Q1895|Caesar Antichrist]]</cite> (Jarry 1895)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="1896" data-dimension="Z"><cite>[[Ontology:Q1896|Exploits and Opinions of Dr. Faustroll, Pataphysician]]</cite> (Jarry c.1911)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1900">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1905">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1906">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1907">??

</li><li class="field_ML" value="1908" data-dimension="Z"><cite>[[Ontology:Q1908|The National Question]]</cite> (Luxemburg 1909) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/ch02.htm]  ->  Luxemburg says... the bourgeoisie push for national borders to protect themselves but also to gain an advantage over other countries they are poised to imperialize; "[[E:society as empire|socioempire]]" technically appears in this text. this text sounds mildly against Deng Xiaoping Thought. borders are weird, they keep dividing countries in the middle of ethnic groups. so the proletariat does not have much to gain from borders specifically compared with the bourgeoisie, although a situational social-democrat program can aim to specifically fix (avoid?) badly-drawn borders. nation-states aren't inherently designed to get along (Marx said this). national populations are not made of ideals. 1800s South America fought itself like an utter mess. Poland only unified as a population to resist capitalism but trying to put a nation-state on party programs was a disaster. ok. so what is this saying with regard to the future for Luxemburg? that whenever you try to protect national populations it is all too easy for the bourgeoisie to take over the task and fail to create something that serves the proletariat? we're trying to solve here if she accidentally said anything about Trotskyism in one country. and I think there are definitely implications here that she would have thought that two Trotskyist states forming and then getting into fights with each other over different Trotskyist theories is highly suspect, or even something to drill into class explanations for. then again that is not a surprising conclusion when the statement that different Marxisms shouldn't be fighting each other <em>should</em> be obvious. but it's not materially obvious to actual on-the-ground history. so has she said anything about Trotskyite conspiracies. I feel like in a way she has said that no group of bourgeoisie can protect a population of people, which in a derived way would apply to a fortress Trotskyism considering where the theorists come from and how few you typically start with historically. she has said that workers' movements succeed on understandings of material processes rather than ideas. which makes Trotskyism baffling because their theory and the shape of their movements has never necessarily been matched at all. if you're Trotsky then you are logically pushing an anti-Stalinist nation-state or a bloc of them in Europe to oppose the Soviet Union and all the pre-republican bureaucrats inside it that you seem to believe are a class problem. so if you're Trotsky you need a border. whether you get all the workers together to do it or not you save Europe when the Soviet Union is simply not allowed there. because then you know Stalin can't corrupt East Germany. of course, if Trotskyists don't like not winning the whole Germany I wouldn't blame them there. the imagined scenario where workers somehow keep the United States from dividing Germany so that the various European countries can try to join together to oppose Stalin is at least less depressing even if it also feels strangely unnecessary. I think one of the most notable things Luxemburg says is you can distinguish a workers' government from a proletarian government by imperialism.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="1909" data-dimension="Z"><cite>[[Ontology:Q1909|Materialism and Empirio-criticism]]</cite> (Lenin 1909) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism_and_Empirio-criticism] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach#Empirio-criticism]  ->  a text that had textbook status in the Soviet Union. worth annotating entry with important motifs / propositions / Lexemes.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1910">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1911" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Course in General Linguistics</cite> (Saussure 1911/1959)  ->  approximate benchmark for finding the birth of "general-sense" structuralist philosophy (signifier-based ontologies pretending not to be ontologies) within the literal descriptivist study of linguistic structuralism. despite all the bad things one could say about the "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" that would emerge later, structuralism was not a bad thing in and of itself; it began in the practical study of the elements of language, which is still useful in very similar forms to people of all ideologies to this day.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1912">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1913">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1914">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1915">??

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="1916" data-dimension="S">weeks where decades happen / days into which twenty years are compressed (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/quotes/index.htm] / In the space of a few days ... other countries have required decades (Lenin) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/11.htm]

</li><li data-qid="19,17" value="1917" class="field_ML" data-dimension="Z">Russian Revolution
</li><li class="" data-qid="19,18" value="1918" data-dimension="Z">German revolution of 1918
</li><li class="number-empty" data-qid="19,19" value="1919" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li data-qid="19,20" value="1920" class="field_ML" data-dimension="Z"><cite>[[Ontology:Q1920|The State and Revolution]]</cite> (Lenin 1918/1920) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,85|9k]])
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="1921" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Terrorism and Communism</cite> (Trotsky 1920)
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1922" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The trade unions, the present situation, and Trotsky's mistakes</cite> (Lenin 1920)  ->  this is one of my favorite history texts because it just, is so illustrative of all the incorrect things Trotsky did at many different times all wrapped up in one prototypical incident. every time I learn about some <em>other</em> Trotsky incident my mind comes back to this one. did you know about the incident where he couldn't properly slam a metal door? unrelated but very funny. he was always convinced he knew everything but always making dumb mistakes that showed he didn't even know what Lenin or the workers' movements were actually doing. it's two sided. it's funny Trotsky was so arrogant but sad that he was so bad at contributing to the things he thought he believed in. it makes you ask, is there some point at which having standards becomes being mean to people and saying they <em>aren't good enough</em> to be part of a workers' state, that they simply weren't born to be the kind of people you want? workers' states are supposed to be about uniting everybody and getting everyone to stop fighting, so what is our obsession with leaving people behind?
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1923">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1924">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1925">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1926">??
</li><li value="1927" class="field_geo" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Being and Time</cite> (Heidegger 1927)

</li><li data-qid="19,28" value="1928" data-remark="Q19,20" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Terrorism and Communism</cite> chapter 8 [<b>TC8</b>]
</li><li data-qid="19,29" value="1929" class="field_ML" data-dimension="Z">{{book|On correcting mistaken ideas in the party}} (Mao 1929) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_5.htm#s4] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,85|9k]])

</li><li class="field_ML" value="1930" data-dimension="Z">founding of Communist Party of Vietnam (1930)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1931">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1932">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1933" data-dimension="Z">ministry rearrangements in the USSR  ->  makes timelines of ministries comically unreadable, but makes a lot of sense when viewed as graph theory
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1934" data-dimension="S0">forced population rearrangements in the USSR  ->  complicated. some of this was moving isolated farmers into collective farms & social structures; some overlapped with deportations
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1935" data-dimension="Z">deportations of nationalities in the USSR  ->  mainly I think of the Chechen & Ingush incident
</li><li value="1936" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="Z"><cite>[[Ontology:Q1936|The Revolution Betrayed]]</cite> (Trotsky 1936)
</li><li value="1937" class="field_ML" data-dimension="Z">Moscow trials
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1938" data-dimension="Z"><cite>My visit described for my friends</cite> (Feuchtwanger 1937)
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1939" data-dimension="Z">testimony of Bukharin
</li><li value="1940" class="field_ML" data-dimension="Z">death of Trotsky (1940)
</li><li value="1941" class="field_nations" data-dimension="Z">World War II

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1942">
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1943">
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1944">
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1945">
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1946">
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1947">

</li><li value="1948" class="field_ML" data-dimension="Z">founding of North Korea
</li><li value="1949" class="field_ML" data-dimension="Z">founding of People's Republic of China
</li><li value="1950" class="field_ML" data-dimension="Z">founding of East Germany (1949)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1951" data-dimension="Z">Universal declaration of human rights (1948)

</li><li value="1952" class="field_nations" data-dimension="Z">Lavender Scare / remove the lavender lads from the State Department (1952)  ->  one of the clearer examples which can be used to argue for hegemony politics; hegemony politics + homophobia = Lavender Scare
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="1953" data-dimension="Z">death of Stalin  ->  this is orange in reference to the takeover by Khruschev and the very thin line between the Trotskyite conspiracy and generic anticommunist resistance (which I think is a better label for what happened between about 1953-1970).

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="JC" value="1954" data-dimension="Z"><cite>On the Juche Idea</cite> (Kim Jong-Il 1982) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q19,55|9k]])
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="JC" value="1955" data-dimension="S">Juche concept / Juche idea [https://www.marxists.org/archive/kim-jong-il/works/On-The-Juche-Idea.pdf] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q19,55|9k]])

</li><li value="1956" data-remark="date" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="Z"><cite>On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences</cite> (Khruschev 1956)  ->  major "founding work" of the anti-Stalin movement after 1953.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1957">
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1958">

</li><li value="1959" data-remark="date" class="field_geo" data-dimension="Z">Common Lisp  ->  first serious Lisp compiler completed 1959.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="1960" data-dimension="Z">founding of Cuba (1959-1976)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1961" data-dimension="Z">Bay of Pigs invasion (United States versus Cuba, 1961) [https://www.havefunwithhistory.com/history-of-cuba-timeline/]

</li><li class="field_trotsky"  value="1962" data-dimension="Z">Joint World Congress to reunify the Fourth International (1962)
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1963">

</li><li value="1964" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Wonderful Wizard of Oz</cite> (1900)  ->  the movie was released in 1939. I do not know if they should be the same Item. I'll say for now you can use the same Item for either with different sense-labels.
</li><li value="1965" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland</cite> (1865) / Alice in Wonderland
</li><li value="1966" class="field_fantasy" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Through the Looking-Glass</cite> (1871)

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1967">
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1968">

</li><li class="field_anarchy field_LGBT" data-qid="19,69" value="1969" data-dimension="Z">Stonewall riots (1969)

</li><li data-qid="19,70" value="1970" data-remark="epoch" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Settlers</cite> / <cite>Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat</cite> / Read Settlers (slogan) [https://readsettlers.org/]  ->  Maoist text totally appropriated by anticommunists and stripped of all Marxist content thanks to the existence of Existentialism. until the advent of "read settlers" it wasn't widely apparent that there was a highly established philosophical tradition resistant to change which was opposing Communism. now we know that there is a specific ideology which believes that everything in the world is made of prejudice or non-prejudice as a fundamental building block, way below the existence of the proletariat, way below the fact humans have to eat and have to occupy space, the philosophical tradition where life is primarily composed of morality and culture before you're even a human being or populations even exist. do not trust anyone talking about "hidden biases" or trying to turn "colonialism" into something that's in our minds. do not assume they care about finding out how anything actually works instead of trying to make everything ever about prejudice including things you would never think of, only to find that real people have no empathy and no interest in choosing not to be prejudiced. you think I'm being cynical or hyperbolic, but I'm being highly literal. intersubjectivity is literally an ability many people don't have, and presupposing they have it is sinking all progressivism.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="" data-qid="19,71" value="1971" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li data-qid="19,72" value="1972" class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism And Schizophrenia</cite>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" data-qid="19,73" value="1973" data-dimension="Z"><cite>A Thousand Plateaus</cite> (<cite>Anti-Oedipus</cite> vol. 2)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES/Aa?" data-qid="19,74" value="1974" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Parallax View</cite> (Žižek 2006)  ->  not the movie. though that movie providing a date which was an empty number was a wonderful coincidence. I also wouldn't be surprised if the book was referencing the movie, knowing what I know about the weird memer that wrote it.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" data-qid="19,75" value="1975" data-dimension="Z">Chester Pierce / Dr. Chester Pierce  ->  founder of Black Psychiatrists of America, coined the term "microaggression". [[User:RD/9k/Q19,75|[...]]]

</li><li class="number_empty" value="1975">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1976">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="1977">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1978" data-dimension="Z">German reunification (1989)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1979" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Losing Earth: A Recent History</cite> (Rich 2019)  ->  a recap of climate change investigations and debates. narrative-style and memoir-like, very readable
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1980" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Excessive Subject: A new theory of social change</cite> (2010)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1981" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q1981|<cite>The End of History and the Last Man</cite>]] (Fukuyama 1992)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1982" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Childhood's End</cite> (Clarke 1953)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1983" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Animal Farm</cite> (Orwell 1945)
</li><li value="1984" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z"><cite>1984</cite> (Orwell 1949)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1985" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Anthem</cite>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1986" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Giver</cite> quartet
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1987" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Giver</cite> (Lowry 1993)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1988" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Gathering Blue</cite> (Lowry 2000)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1989" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Messenger</cite> (Lowry 2004)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="1990" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Son</cite> (Lowry 2012)
</li><li value="1991" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q1991|dissolution of the Soviet Union]]  ->  as series of real concrete events
</li><li value="1992" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S">Molecular Marxism / Marxist Molecular Democracy (MDem)
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1993" data-dimension="Z">GNU/Linux operating system
</li><li class="field_geo" value="1994" data-dimension="S0">mathematical simulation / programmatic simulation / simulation program  ->  this is an S0 because it is a data structure style thing, while only specific simulations would be Z
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="1995" data-dimension="S0">virtual pet / virtual pet keychain / virtual pet game
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" value="1996" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Tapers</cite>  ->  really underrated metaphorical story, especially by its creator. fix up the dumb little direct-from-the-author comments into something more stylistic, rewrite the text just a bit, and this is as print worthy as like a third of books I see at thrift stores.<br />
although this is a shorter work it did have chapters; I guess it's like, a beginning writer making a novella, which are italicized.
</li><li value="1997" class="field_horror" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Petscop</cite>
</li><li class="field_horror" value="1998" data-dimension="Z"><cite>3D workers' island</cite>
</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="1999" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?</cite> (Fisher 2009)
</li></ol>

=== 2000 ===

<!-- {{HueCSS}} --><ol start="2000" class="hue clean reset">
<li class="field_internal" value="2000" data-dimension="S0">Item with primarily literal associations / Item with literal meaning  ->  Z items, and S items used as part of fictional facticities
<li class="field_geo" value="2001" data-dimension="S0">Framework believes model to be incoherent or wrong
<li class="field_fantasy" value="2002" data-dimension="S0">Probably no serious symbolism

<li class="field_mdem" value="2003" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q2003|The Subject]] (exmat)
<li class="field_geo"  value="2004" data-dimension="Z">social graph connection (non-unique)
<li class="field_geo"  value="2005" data-dimension="Z">connection weight (society models)
<li class="field_exstruct" value="2006" data-dimension="Z">graph struggle  ->  the state of two or more Social Systems (SGS) competing to secure a finite physical or conceptual territory in order to have exclusive ground to realize their desired material arrangement of things or people (Material System or SPMS)
<li class="field_exstruct" value="2007" data-dimension="Z">material graph struggle / chunk competition (MDem)  ->  individuals or Social Systems (SGS) competing to secure a specifically physical territory
<li class="field_exstruct" value="2008" data-dimension="Z">mutually-exclusive filament-based construction / Filamentism (MDem)  ->  stochastic construction of a larger society through many small localized graph struggles
<li class="field_exstruct" value="2009" data-dimension="Z">violent material graph struggle / violent chunk competition (MDem)  ->  graph struggle at the expense of human life.
<li class="field_exstruct" value="2010" data-dimension="Z">expulsion from social graph / social rejection (mathematical) / cancellation (Toryism)

<li class="field_geo" value="2011" data-dimension="S0">class territory
<li class="field_geo" value="2012" data-dimension="S0">class territory owner
<li class="field_geo" value="2013" data-dimension="S0">class territory resident
</li><li value="2014" class="field_ML" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Communist Necessity</cite> (Moufawad-Paul 2014/2020)
<li class="field_nations" value="2015" data-dimension="S0">feudal order
<li value="2016" class="field_nations" data-dimension="S0">duke
<li class="field_nations" value="2017" data-dimension="S0">marquess
<li class="field_nations" value="2018" data-dimension="S0">earl
<li class="field_nations" value="2019" data-dimension="S0">count
<li class="field_nations" value="2020" data-dimension="S0">baron
<li class="field_nations" value="2021" data-dimension="S0">manor lord
</li><li value="2022" class="field_geo" data-dimension="Z">[[Philosophical Research:Items/Z2022|<cite>Existential Physics</cite>]]

</li><li>duchy
</li><li>march (feudal territory)
</li><li>earldom
</li><li>county (feudal territory)
</li><li>petty nobility
</li><li>feudal manor
</li><li>principality / princedom
</li><li>kingdom

</li><li>emirate
</li><li>caliphate
</li><li>shogunate / bakufu
</li><li>empire
</li><li>global empire
</li><li>imperial colony
</li><li>site of proxy war / buffer state
</li><li>republic
</li><li>supranational federation

</li><li>business territory
</li><li>state business
</li><li>state business ministry
</li><li>party-nation
</li><li>workers' state / countable instance of Marxism
</li><li>countable Marxist movement / countable instance of Marxism
</li><li>Communist International
</li><li>plural Communist Internationals
</li><li value="2044">rival proletarian revolution

</li><li>class subpopulation
</li><li>nationality subpopulation
</li><li>demographic subpopulation
</li><li>ethnic subpopulation / Black community (Existentialism) / Latino community (Existentialism)
</li><li>religious subpopulation
</li><li>historical heritage subpopulation / cultural Christian subpopulation / secular-Jewish subpopulation
</li><li>LGBT+ subpopulation / LGBT+ community (Existentialism)
</li><li>disability subpopulation
</li><li>neurodivergent subpopulation / autistic subpopulation
</li><li>city or town subpopulation
</li><li>industry subpopulation / Artist subpopulation / musician subpopulation / grocery clerk subpopulation
</li><li>capitalist ally subpopulation
</li><li>proletarian ally subpopulation
</li><li>capable subpopulation / capable layer

</li><li>[S] class (spatial rank) / middle class / rich and poor  ->  spatial slot hierarchy; money is capital
</li><li>[S] class (repeated relationship) / Individuals are comparable because they belong to a class
</li><li>[S] class (subpopulation) / Classes become powerful through capable subpopulations

</li><li>[S] unskilled worker
</li><li>[S] skilled worker
</li><li>[S] Artisan type
</li><li>[S] Artisan layer
</li><li>[S] Careerist / social mobility (center-Liberalism)
</li><li>[S] Careerist layer / Careerist class
</li><li>[S] Refuse class / refusariat (outdated term)
</li><li>[S] labor aristocracy (Maoism)
</li><li>Liberal representatives / Liberal legislators
</li><li>Liberal government employees
</li><li>charity employees
</li><li>[S] Bureaucrats constitute a class / professional-managerial class / The Bureaucracy
</li><li>ruling population
</li><li>leaping State
</li><li>[S] shepherd ruling population / shepherd sheet
</li><li>[S] herd-of-cats effect
</li><li>[S] birdcage model / economy separable from republic
</li><li>[S] not a matter of black and white cats

</li><li value="2084" data-remark="accidental but so thematically funny it stayed. the workers reclaimed anticommunist fables" class="field_ML" data-dimension="S">[S] worker / group of people said to qualify as "workers"
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2085" data-dimension="S">proletariat / class of workers / working class / group of people who practically functions as capable subpopulation
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2086" data-dimension="S2">Proletariat includes unemployed
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2087" data-dimension="S2">Proletariat consists of unskilled workers
</li><li class="" value="2088" data-dimension="S2">Proletariat includes skilled and unskilled workers but not unemployed
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2089" data-dimension="S2">Proletariat excludes First-World workers
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="2090" data-dimension="S2">Proletariat excludes Second-World workers  ->  Trotskyism
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="2091" data-dimension="S2">Proletariat is singular and multiple countries can unite at once  ->  Trotskyism, some anarchisms
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2092" data-dimension="S2">Proletariats belong to localized subpopulations functioning as nations / Proletariats include Black-proletariat in prison / Proletariats may include center-Liberal proletariat and right-Liberal proletariat  ->  North-American Maoism, MDem
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2093" data-dimension="S2">Proletariats are plural and belong to specific national populations  ->  Juche-socialism, Maoism
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="2094" data-dimension="S2">First-World workers will form capable subpopulation  ->  Trotskyism, Marcuseanism
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2095" data-dimension="S2">Second-World workers will form capable subpopulation / Second-World countries will become capable subpopulation  ->  Stalin's Marxism, MDem
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2096" data-dimension="S2">Third-World workers will form capable subpopulation
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2097" data-dimension="S2">Any educated people can form capable subpopulation / Proletariat is immaterial to forming capable subpopulation  ->  Marcuseanism
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2098" data-dimension="S2">Third-World countries will become capable subpopulation / First World defined strictly by neocolonialism / First World defined strictly by global structural racism

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2099" data-dimension="S">[[E:multiple capitalisms in one country|multiple capitalisms in one country]] / [[E:multicapitalism|multicapitalism]] (meta-Marxism)  ->  the concept that it is possible for a given country to consist of two or more totally separate populations of capitalists, which only appear to be one population because the borders are fuzzily defined and corporations leak from one side to the other. multicapitalism is suggested as the mechanism for how center-Liberals and Tories can become so divided to the death against each other when all the bourgeoisie should "theoretically" be on the same side. if multicapitalism is real, China would not have multicapitalism but the United States would. one of the few concrete things the CPC would have accomplished in terms of building Bolshevism or transition out of capitalism is not allowing multicapitalism to develop.
<li class="field_exstruct" value="2100" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q2100|countable area of capitalism]]  ->  capitalism as a countable object. in real life, it may be hard to pin down where the boundaries of these are, but that just means it's especially inappropriate to characterize capitalism as a "population". in some senses it can only really be an empire-border.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2101" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2101|Political economy only remains a science so long as nobody breaks out of capitalism]] / Bourgeois economists necessarily have a career of maintaining the rest of capitalism  ->  rock-solid statement by Marx from unfinished Capital vol IV, as well as probably other texts
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2102" data-dimension="S2">Different societies contain the same repeated patterns / societies contain repeated patterns in the manner of quantum fields
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2103" data-dimension="S2">Societies have developmental processes from one set of repeated patterns to another

</li><li class="field_ML" value="2104" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2105" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2106" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2107" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2108" data-dimension="S2">False consciousness isn't false  ->  the claim that the problem with false consciousness is that it is actually the propagation of [[E:shovel dream|<em>true</em> models of a bad structure]] which are thus technically correct, and difficult to dispute. as long as the bad structure is able to regenerate itself physically, it will pour out mountains of technically-true ideology each time tiny bits of it regenerate. single corporations and bourgeoisie are one kind of "tiny bit". Filaments of several connected bourgeoisie belonging to the same countable culture are another kind of "tiny bit". there are several levels of tiny bits, many of which Marxism doesn't currently recognize, much to its own peril.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2109" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q2109|shovel (meta-Marxism)]]  ->  a metaphorical shovel is specifically a kind of object with a particular size and shape which if it were capable of taking a picture of the world and writing a description of it without deep deliberation over the meaning of what it saw would have its intuitive, unfiltered perceptions skewed a certain way by virtue of its shape, size, and composition. a literal shovel is smaller than a car or city block. a literal shovel cannot see anything materially speaking, but a camera can inasmuch as it can take a picture. a black-and-white camera takes a different kind of picture from a color camera. a shovel cannot see anything but a book can record a perception of the surrounding world, so in a sense, a physical book can see and retell what its author can see. a book cannot think or take a photo, and yet it can speak prerecorded messages which are capable of conveying perceptions that somebody once had. a book contains a shovel dream because its author once contained a shovel dream the day before it was written which was passed on to the book. from the point of view of science, the form the shovel dream inside the book takes is <i>ontology</i>: the creation of a graph of points connected by arrows where the definition of any of the points is largely defined by their relationship to other points. some people get lost in the fact that the book's shovel dream is recorded in "language", and unnecessarily start trying to assign all the qualities of ontology <em>to language</em>. this doesn't really make a lot of sense when large language models can reduce any language down to a mathematical graph devoid of words or phrases where, for instance, it might not be easy to tell English from Japanese at a glance. the fact that a whole language ultimately refers to the whole material world at once is part of what makes language language, as this form of reference allows for language to take on the quality of being a unique identifiable <em>named</em> language associated with a particular country or population in the way most languages actually are. ontology, on the other hand, can be totally disconnected from the material world. ontology can shape itself to become abstract art which does not actually refer to the real world even through metaphor, but which is simply a constructed world of its own that people can perceive through a writer's fabricated shovel dream.<br />
this is how I get my possibly controversial definition of "abstract art", where abstract art is not a genre and instead <i>artistic abstraction</i> is simply art which either cannot or should not be read as "coding" itself to something in the real world, and all art is either representational or abstract on a wide continuum between the two. say that abstraction is a slider from 0 to 100%, you could perhaps say {{book|Pokémon}} is 70% abstract art. realistically it's quite difficult to measure it that precisely and ever think you have an accurate number, but reviewers can still break down every part of a piece of fiction that they believe to either obviously refer to reality in the sense it could be conveying social lessons or science facts, or obviously refer to nothing. you know, I have another weird idea. maybe we could have rating questions for art that do nothing but rate how "real" the art is, so you can roughly estimate how abstract things are relative to each other. the questions would go something like: is this piece about real organisms? ({{book|Pokémon}} is not, {{book|Warriors}} is.) does this piece portray the organism's ecology realistically? (you can argue {{book|White Fang}} does, but {{book|Warriors}} only partly does and {{book|Zootopia}} blatantly does not.) do real-world cultural groupings exist in the narrative? (if dogs can be Muslim, the answer is yes. if [[E:My Little Pony gen 4|bison]] are building tepees the answer is yes. if [[E:Animal Farm|pigs invent the USSR]] the answer is yes. if [[E:Garnet (Steven Universe)|rocks are matched up to Black pop stars]] the answer is yes.) and so on.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2110" data-dimension="S">[[E:ShovelDream|shovel dream]] / object or formation ideology / ideology or consciousness associated with a specific repeatable kind of population which is countable and separable and has a particular kind of internal structure / ideology or consciousness associated with a particular kind of materially-definable Social-Philosophical System / embodied cognition (model of objects that perform cognition doing it through studying the relationship of their physical object toward the world, here also applied to groups of people instead of just individuals)  ->  [[Term:hypermaterialism|Hyper-Materialist]] concept. the motif of a particular kind of object having a particular kind of model of the world and ideology <em>because</em> it is a particular kind of object. almost always the object is a countable, separable population of people, but it's funny to figuratively refer to other kinds of objects to get across a concept that somehow absolutely nobody seems to understand. Hyper-Materialism is when all similar shovels have a similar shovel dream, and all similar rakes have a similar rake dream. a collection of rakes may have its own unique collection-of-rakes dream, but in principle it can be calculated by modeling the interaction of the individual rake dreams. individual people, not being shovels or rakes, can change their shovel dream at will, but changing the shovel dream of one individual may not have much effect on a large group. Marcuse thinks it's as simple as changing all the individuals one by one but that doesn't necessarily go fast enough. you have to understand the existing layout of various kinds of material objects producing shovel dreams and think about what changes in the layout of shovels could produce the right ones faster. the terrible thing is there are no shortcuts here. you can't just go "here are the bourgeoisie, here are the proletariat, they only need to become aware of the possibly-wrong model in this text". with the United States objectively not having the class structure described in Leninist texts, organizers really do need to understand the basic concept of shovel dreams and how to identify them and categorize them in the field.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="2111" data-dimension="S2">Material causes of capitalism are reflected in ideological patterns of Existentialism / Capitalism can be characterized by diagramming Existentialism and working backwards to the material causes of the ideology

</li><li class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="field_ML" data-dimension="S">socialism in one country
</li><li class="field_ML" data-dimension="S">socialist transition
</li><li class="number_done field_ML" data-dimension="S">era of socialism / lower-phase communism  ->  workers' state
</li><li class="number_done field_ML" data-dimension="S">era of communism / upper-phase communism
</li><li class="number_done field_ML" data-dimension="S">further transitions (Marx)
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S">[[Philosophical Research:Signifiers/S97 creatorism|creatorism (MDem)]]

</li><li class="number_done field_mdem" data-dimension="S">Particle Theory / Bauplan  ->  ideological nested-graph model
</li><li class="number_done field_mdem" data-dimension="S">Social-Graph System (SGS)
</li><li class="number_done field_mdem" data-dimension="S">Social-Behavioral System (SBS)
</li><li class="number_done field_mdem" data-dimension="S">Social-Philosophical System (SPS) / Particle Theory (MDem) / Bauplan (MDem)
</li><li class="number_done field_mdem" data-dimension="S">Social-Philosophical-Material System (SPMS) / Particle Theory (MDem) / Bauplan (MDem)
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S">realization / construction of society form

</li><li data-dimension="S">"the hand bone is connected to the arm bone" / "Dem Bones"
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S">receiving node
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S">granting node
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S2">Economic processes comprehensible through graph models / Economic processes will one day be comprehended through graph theory / Historical processes comprehensible through graph models
</li><li class="field_geo">economic graph model

</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="2130" data-dimension="S">non-Materialist Marxism  ->  for the longest time I was reluctant to come out and say this phrase. but I think I finally have enough education on Idealism to say Gramscianism and Althusserianism as most people practice them (who are often center-Liberal appropriators, to be fair) are non-Materialist Marxisms. however ironic it may or may not be, Trotskyism is at least Materialist. Trotskyists do correct materialism starting from wrong history. Gramscians begin with at least partial selections of correct history (history about prejudices) and then descend into non-Materialism. ...unless of course they're literally Gramsci, who actually did understand Leninism but just got stuck with too few [[Term:advanced workers|advanced workers]] to pull it off easily. it's funny how every "bad" Marxism usually starts with a good theorist and then everyone else who follows that same path does it badly and turns it into what appears to be not even a Marxism.
</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="2131" data-dimension="S">Western-Marxism about hegemony politics / Gramscianism (motif; meta-Marxism)  ->  a very basic definition of what Gramscianism is.
</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="2132" data-dimension="S">Western-Marxism solely about ideas / Western-Marxism that does nothing but talk about "the cage of ideology" / Fisherism (motif; meta-Marxism)  ->  I needed a term as a foil for "Gramscianism". Gramscianism is the Western-Marxism with at least a tiny bit of potential. Fisherism is the totally inert stuff. named in reference to the book <cite>Capitalist Realism</cite> by Mark Fisher
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="2133" data-dimension="S2">Gramsci is closer to Materialism than Mark Fisher  ->  Gramscianism, however accidentally, carves out a role for competing subpopulations as material objects rather than purely treating nazi subpopulations as "ideas" as you would be tempted to if you treated the love of capitalism as "ideology" rather than the action of toxic Community.
</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="2134" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="2135" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="2136" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_ML" value="2137" data-dimension="S">Mao's theorem / P > C + B  ->  this applies to very few situations that would ever be found in the First World, nearly none of them.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2138" data-dimension="F2">Biden's theorem / W + C &gt; > B  ->  every time people think this it empowers Liberal-republicanism to claim that everyone but billionaires can exert class control over billionaires just by not being them and every time it fails. it only "works" when there is a Marxist party that is making it work and making all the ordinary workers and Careerists irrelevant
</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="2139" data-dimension="Z2">Gramsci's theorem / If the set of Communist allies occupying a sector of industry is greater than the set of Careerist and bourgeois allies, the revolution is unstoppable / W &gt; C + B / capable subpopulation theorem (Gramsci)  ->  Gramsci put forward this nearly mathematical concept that if there is a large enough, strong enough population of Communist allies — workers, theorists, and immediate <em>comrades</em>, he didn't mean for it to be vulgarized into the broad United States concept of issue-principle-believing "progressives" — then the Communist ally subpopulation will defend itself and repel the reactionaries. this is one of the few things he said that I think is most likely correct. throw out all the stuff about "ideas" and "mentality" and "culture" but keep this and anything similar to this, and that form of Gramscianism could maybe succeed given the right country. it would be a molecular Gramscianism using the Lattice model, just by implication of what this mathematical inequality means.<br />
how this got vulgarized: United States sees Gramsci's theorem in various phrasings. United States assumes that "allies" means "progressives". United States starts rounding up every group of nice people who don't like some specific group of mean people and putting them all together, resulting in one big game of musical chairs to take the exclusionary system of the United States and simply make the reactionaries homeless or beaten in prisons instead of the progressives. Gramsci's theorem is vulgarized into "[[E:Arceism|Arceist]]" anarchism.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="2140" data-dimension="S">ink-brush Marxism  ->  the motif of a Marxism which tries to characterize "intellectuals", experts, or Director types that aren't owners as their own entire class, to the point something like the Workers' Party of Korea logo with three objects in it is appropriate. as you can see by a lot of things I say on my prototype I <em>partially</em> believe in ink-brush Marxism but not entirely. I think that it's useful to make fine-grained class distinctions, especially in undeveloped countries where there will be either more real peasants or educated-unemployed peasants, but those distinctions don't give people a free ticket to support the non-proletarians and give them all a pass to do whatever they want. the power of ink-brush Marxism is to hand Trotsky responsibilities and make him obligated to support either the Soviet Union or East Germany at his choice rather than letting him go around claiming both of them "aren't Trotskyist enough" and [[E:newspaper Marxism|they need to do what he says]].

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="2141" data-dimension="S">newspaper Marxism / Marxism is when a single Leninist theorist goes off about Marxism not happening fast enough

</li><li value="2142" data-remark="similar to ES" class="field_gramsci" data-dimension="S2">Socialism is Subjects having means of production [https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=User:RD/9k/Q2142] / Socialism is when people own means of production (Richard Wolff) / Marxism is when people own a co-op (cooperative; Wolff)  ->  
one of those propositions that's obviously dumb on its face but takes a long time and a lot of knowledge to properly unpack to know how to teach people that it's wrong. where it really seems to start is reverse-engineering the Soviet Union and China and realizing they had co-ops once the people were freed, and trying to work backward and forward [[:Category:Charcoal workers' states ontology|from capitalism to that]]. and at that point it isn't obvious where the error would have come from. that's Materialism, isn't it? but the problem would seem to be that it isn't [[:Category:Historical materialism ontology (general-sense)|historical materialism]] or dialectical materialism. materialism it "just is". so why did Wolff think you can have Marxism without either of the interesting materialisms?<br />
and here's what I think is the problem. people like Wolff confuse "The People" with "people — several persons each separately in parallel". they don't know the difference between individual person-objects and groups-of-people objects, much less how to categorize groups-of-people objects as class-structures and separate the workers from the owner. there is a critical gap in Marxism as it's been taught to people where they aren't taught the missing piece that allows them to properly distinguish between a workers-object and an individual-worker object standing next to an individual-owner object that each look identical. but beyond that error made by Marxist theorists in communicating Marxism, it's also fair to say Wolff ate up the old Liberal-republican idea that three individuals can be the majority of all people just because all people are [[E:tent of freedom poles|tent of freedom poles]] with "the same freedoms limited by equal freedom of others". that isn't how Marxism goes. Marxism is based on a literal group of millions and millions of people all actually being able to do stuff because they're physical people; literally, people say Marxism happens "on paper" but the point of Marxism is that it happens exactly because it operates directly off stuff that isn't on paper.<br />
interesting to note: anarchists don't really talk about "means of production" in this same sense. Lenin did, but anarchists don't. anarchists frequently talk about peasant life or tribal populations or some imaginary Kropotkinist city which is holistic but they don't really fixate on the concept of corporate or government social structures as they exist in Liberal republics and rearranging those exact structures to create something better. that seems to be a major divide between anarchists and Existentialists. Existentialists {{em|do}} hijack the concept of means of production or "institutions". Western-Marxists do the same thing for reasons that would be similar, but maybe not identical.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML, DX" value="2143" data-dimension="S2">Teaching Marxism in school is socialism {{YouTube|mMubOw5H-yo}} / Teaching Marxism in school constitutes a part of socialist transition  ->  I think this is technically true. I question how much it accomplishes when it seems like the most important part of Marxism is analyzing the active arrangements and interactions of social graphs on the ground and tipping them over into the next arrangement correctly, going beyond the narrow description of "classes" to see the whole thing.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="21,44" value="2144" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in Disguise</cite> (Olgin 1935) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q21,44|9k]])  ->  Soviet record of the history of Trotskyism up to the first attack. [[User:RD/9k/Q21,44|[...]]]

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="21,45" value="2145" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism is the shovel dream of small owners / Trotskyism is the shovel dream of the petty bourgeosie (small owners; Artisan types; mainstream Marxism-Leninism) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q21,44|9k]])

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="DX" data-qid="21,46" value="2146" data-dimension="S2">Community gardens are socialism {{YouTube|mMubOw5H-yo}} / Community gardens constitute a part of socialist transition  ->  this claim comes from Vietnam. I think it's partly true. I'm doubtful on it being totally true, because on the surface it sounds a bit like "Free buses are socialism".

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ML onto ES, ML onto A, ML onto IV" data-qid="21,47" value="2147" data-dimension="S">this train is too slow, I'll jump off / riding this train together is very slow, if I jump off the train and run alone, I can probably go much faster (Ho Chi Minh) {{YouTube|ULlK5JxJLy4}}  ->  I bet this was aimed more at Ayn Rand types at the time, or maybe anarchists, but to me this is also exactly what was wrong with early Trotskyism and led to a lot of its errors. the word "individualism" doesn't fully capture what the problem is, because it can occur with things that among themselves are bound together into groups and yet shard off the main body and fail to cohere into it.<br/>
gosh, I remember back to the early drafts of my text when I was flailing around trying to describe "Meshonomics". it was this idea that people cohering into larger structures is good for a country materially, besides these kinds of moral or cultural framings of what "solidarity" is. these kinds of ideas have always been intuitive to me since the day I was convinced to study Marxism-Leninism and that it had to be more correct than what I'd been told, although I am such a burnt-out vessel from living in the First World that the emotions I have about them are different.<br/>
Sacrifices must be made to create the Second World + Nothing is more important than Free Will = this train is too slow, I'll jump off

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2148">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2149">??

</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="2150" data-dimension="S">The Spanishness Office  ->  within this wiki, first brought up in <cite>MDem</cite> "[[Philosophical Research:MDem/4.4r/4064 democulture|democulture]]" entry.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-remark="vaguely resembles early, crude Marxisms" value="2151" data-dimension="F2">[[E:ThereIsNoSpanishnessOffice|There is no Spanishness Office]]  ->  the concept that culture cannot be changed through any deliberate effort, even by most movements. one could believe there is no Spanishness Office because culture is defined by the borders between populations, or because culture is produced through deterministic factors that individual will can't successfully pilot without a thorough science of society, or for any other number of reasons.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2152" data-dimension="S2">There are ten million Spanishness Offices  ->  the claim that every time the motif of The Spanishness Office shows up, this is what it is bisimilar to: a bunch of free-floating corporations or institutions which may be conflated with the will of a particular owner, or a Tory Social-Philosophical System that has occupied a free-floating charity, each time raising the problem that the institution has its own "individual will" separate from society which is resistant to Liberal-republican "democracy" and resistant to almost everything. the problem isn't in asserting that there are Spanishness Offices, though there is a serious problem when people think controlling them is as simple as taking over just one when there are closer to ten million they might not successfully secure with perhaps some five million left over and wildly doing their own thing.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2153" data-dimension="S2">Western Marxism is one big distraction  ->  it can be true there are Spanishness Offices and false that Western Marxists remotely understand them.
</li><li class="field_ML"   value="2154" data-dimension="S2">Gramscianism is a grift  ->  the claim that while Gramsci had no ill intentions he created a theoretical system which by its design will mostly be used by grifters.<br />
I would grant this some truth except for the relationship between Gramscianism and Deng Xiaoping Thought.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2155">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2159">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2160">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2161" data-dimension="S2">Every civilization makes philosophy about itself / Every Social-Philosophical System mostly produces philosophy describing the {{TTS|html=abbr|tts=Social-Philosophical System|SPS}} as it is, and not as it isn't
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2162" data-dimension="S2">Capitalism makes philosophy about itself / Liberal capitalism produces philosophy describing Liberal capitalism as it is
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2163" data-dimension="S2">A workers' state makes philosophy about itself / A proletarian civilization produces philosophy about itself / A proletarian subpopulation will produce philosophy describing the {{TTS|html=abbr|tts=Social-Philosophical System|SPS}} as it is
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2164" data-dimension="S2">A worker subpopulation can explode capitalism / A proletarian subpopulation can burst through capitalism / A proletarian subpopulation can burst a capitalist {{TTS|html=abbr|tts=Social-Philosophical System|SPS}} / birth proposition (early-Marxist metaphor)
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2165" data-dimension="S2">A workers' state can create itself from theory / A proletarian subpopulation can be constructed around the same theory that it would later produce if that theory can be preemptively discovered

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-remark="culprit, not discoverer of culprit" value="2166" data-dimension="S2">A problem shovel will burst a workers' state / A subpopulation generating the wrong theory will burst a workers' state / A subpopulation generating the wrong theory, perhaps because old classes have linked together, or perhaps because people have formed into the wrong structures, will burst a workers' state  ->  the corollary to classic statements by Marx that nobody really thought through enough prior to 1937.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2167" data-dimension="S2">Not all problem shovels are top hats / Not every kind of subpopulation which generates wrong theory does so <em>because</em> it is a cluster of individual bourgeoisie  ->  you have to look at this one closely before it makes any sense and doesn't look like garbage. the key is that when classes cause trouble, you need more than classes to do it. Existentialism is more than capitalism, it's the substitution of a few huge corporations with a lot of workers all inside one country for a gigantic formation of millions and millions of petty bourgeoisie across the world all forming one object. Existentialism is a new and rather terrifying kind of object. similarly all kinds of different objects can disrupt the formation of mainstream Marxism-Leninism. detached islands of workers that only consist of workers could pose a problem, especially if there are 5 workers each surrounded by 50 petty bourgeoisie like some kind of minesweeper board. [[E:Zinovievism|a confused Leninist theorist and a hundred peasants]] could form a problem structure, which poses unique problems to everyone because its behavior is not the same as 100 peasants alone. twenty petty bourgeoisie at a time could become convinced they're Leninist theorists although they're not actually forming an overall national movement. you could run into a weird situation where discourse is taking the form of blue, brown, and red petty bourgeoisie on individualized YouTube channels fighting each other over viewers. there are so many more new <em>specific</em> structures we know about now, positive ones and negative ones. it really does come to look like a weird form of chemistry where atoms are trying to form a polymer but some chunks of some sizes or shapes react better and some react worse.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2168">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2169">??

</li><li class="field_ML" value="2170" data-dimension="S">advanced worker  ->  I have been revisiting [[Term:advanced workers|what this means]], for somewhat silly reasons of wondering what is the most appropriate term in other languages and what puns can be made on the word. in the process you invariably dig through some of the most essential stuff for explaining Marxism, and some of the most-high quality sources. in some ways, this is a critically important concept. so it's time to code it.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="2171" data-dimension="F2">Lenin said workers never become class-conscious / Lenin said that workers in trade unions only get to trade union consciousness, therefore within the historical process of a Leninist movement and transition into the beginning of Bolshevism workers never extract themselves from rule by the bourgeoisie [https://libcom.org/article/pretension-class-consciousness]  ->  ooh. this is a very subtle one. this is one of those articles where I should be mad but I'm only excited to take the great new fallacy I found, stow it in the framed moth board, and put a pin through it. so, Marxist movements begin with bourgeois class traitors. that's true. that isn't not true. but what happens next is the workers and the theorists join into a [[E:party-nation|party-nation]] and the party-nation shoves out the bourgeoisie and subsequently the workers don't have to deal with the Liberal-republican, center-Liberal bourgeoisie or the Tory bourgeoisie any more, both of which are a big problem and in the latter case potentially outright violent and terrifying. I think part of the problem here is how crudely old Marxist texts before 1991 described things and how imprecise they were in their language relative to how many levels of complexity real historical processes have. when you look at the real-world historical events nothing is confusing. you see that "class" was a bit of an abstract and misleading word and what specifically happens is particular countable subpopulations filled with a given class have to form. a whole population mostly filled with a new class has to form in order to change a country's ideology. and funny enough the article <em>almost</em> gets that part right. it implies that breaking out of capitalism involves rounding up a lot of workers — so far so good. then... well, it ends, because it wasn't a long article. there's one useful thing here that might be worth focusing on. "Intellectuals receive benefits from the system to toe its ideological line". I'm going to assume because of the premise of the article that this refers to Leninist theorists.<br />
so let's assume that this is true. traditional capitalists are toeing the line and Lenin is toeing the line, and Stalin and Trotsky are toeing the line. Lenin takes capitalism and he replaces it with a new capitalism which is headed by Marxist theorists. logically there would be two of the new capitalism: Stalin's capitalism and Trotsky's capitalism; this is technically a theory of the Soviet Union containing [[E:multicapitalism|multicapitalism]]. to conceptualize Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism as both creating capitalisms you basically need something like a theory of state capitalism to be able to say that because all the state businesses are in the party-nation but something owns them (the party-nation) then it's capitalism. this brings up the classic question: why is a party-nation owning businesses even a bad thing? how is it different from shouting that Liberal-republicanism is no kind of progress from warring states periods because it's "just nation-state {{TTS|tts=local-statism|localstateism}}" and so it hasn't truly made anyone free? one of the only coherent arguments I think exists is the "[[E:world of Alert|world of Alert]]" argument where corporations are groups of people and making groups of people be part of a population that might potentially fight another one is morally wrong. which, we have to be perfectly clear, that argument only even begins to have any legs when you recognize Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism and Maoism as separate parallel Marxisms. without that historical data it would be a stupid argument because there would be no good reason to side with the First World over the Second World. it's only when we get to China and the Soviet Union separating and failing to form an International because at different times they call each other revisionist (if I remember right?) that we start to see that there is kind of an argument to be made <em>only</em> if you somehow know what existential materialism is and you're arguing existential materialism and meta-Marxism. which I am pretty sure anarchists don't typically argue.<br /> 
starting from this article's premises you can argue Trotskyism, but argue anything else and you basically deny the Cold War and the latter half of the 1900s. why is arguing Trotskyism not denying the Cold War? well, because you said the movement was somehow made of a solid base of workers exactly like it totally wasn't the first time. if Trotskyism was made of workers constantly kicking out their theorists for bad Leninism and refusing to split apart versus joining into an increasingly huger population of people, yet also actually accepting at the end of the day that the workers need Marxist theorists and the concept of countable populations to actually defeat borders and become connected, then it actually wouldn't be all that bad. out of all the forms of Trotskyism there are like fifteen I hate and two I like but the problem is <em>nobody advocates the actually good ones</em>. I wonder if the problem is that I'm naming things that aren't Trotskyism Trotskyism. I have [[:Category:Bauplan ontologies|so many civilizational shapes]] to study the history of and properly distinguish and name.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="2172" data-dimension="Z"><cite class="article">Advanced workers and backward opportunists</cite> [https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Term:Advanced_workers]
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2173" data-dimension="Z"><cite class="article">A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social-Democracy</cite> (Lenin 1899/1924) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/dec/trend.htm]  ->  topic: [[Term:filtration|filtration]]. this is interesting because to a particularly naïve anarchist this text would almost seem to stand in contradiction to the very important [[redlink|"Lenin's filter" or "pulleys" text]]. in the pulleys text Lenin tries to explain that unions can't run everything because they aren't the whole movement. in this text he tries to explain that the addition of more things into the movement makes it greater. here he doesn't focus on the filtration step where the movement becomes principled and structured and doesn't go by getting as many progressive bourgeoisie as possible, and instead he focuses on the very simple concept that all the localized movements can combine into one nationwide movement, even if they aren't narrowly about nothing but unions and seem to be taking on new scopes. the localized movements have so much to gain from joining together that it makes less sense <em>not</em> to join them all into one vast Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party than to do it. there's no contradiction in this — the anarchist rejects filtration basically because they can't see the large-scale structure that forms across the two steps.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2174" data-dimension="S">complicated arrangement of pulleys / "an arrangement of cogwheels ... and transmission belts" / Lenin's filter (concept brought up in texts such as "[[E:The trade unions and Trotsky's mistakes|Trotsky's mistakes]]") / filtration (meta-Marxist term; concept in many Marxist texts expressed through different ontologies or metaphors)
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2175" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2176" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2177" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2178" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2179" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2180">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2190">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2195">??

</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="2198" data-dimension="S2">Gramscianism is already molecular {{TTS|tts=Deng Xiaoping Thought|Dengism}}  ->  this is nearly the same statement as Deng Xiaoping Thought being global Gramscianism, but slightly different. the other statement is that Deng Xiaoping Thought has "Trotskyized" Gramscianism by multiplying it over a big area. this statement is that Gramscianism and Deng Xiaoping Thought are the same <em>because</em> they have the same internal structure, and they would be the same on the inside if they each started with only 5,000 people or so. if both statements are true they're synonymous. if exactly one of them is false then they aren't the same statement.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="2199" data-dimension="S">Deng Xiaoping process / Deng process / multiple economies in one population / multiple socialisms in one population (party-nations allowed but no Bolshevism) / multi-socialism (motif) / multiple Deng Xiaoping Thoughts in one population or country  ->  it is so hard to come up with a proper, genuinely non-awkward word for this. this is the motif of subpopulations forming into coherent populations with tightly-connected economies that serve as an "endoskeletal" soft border in order to promote their prosperity and continued survival against other subpopulations, and of China ultimately being not an independent population but a subpopulation of the world population. the "missing step before Bolshevism" is this. multi... multisocialism? the thing is that would be misleading about what this actually achieves, which is mainly a populational border inside a populational border or extent. multieconomy? multisocioeconomy? that's reasonably close but it still sounds weird.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2200" data-dimension="S">retail shelves as global empire / retail empire (MDem)  ->  the motif of retailers always being a kind of star graph connecting to manufacturers that then connect to workers, often in Third World countries; each retailer is a microcosm of the relationship between the United States and other countries itself. "retail empire" is not in the tiny-civilization sense of "imperial republic of Walmart", more in the sense of the global scope of, for instance, the British empire.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2201" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q2201|republic of Walmart]] / people's republic of Walmart  ->  the motif of large businesses behaving like small governments with departments
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-remark="pmc" value="2202" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q2202|imperial republic of Walmart]]  ->  the motif of emerging businesses behaving like small governments with departments specifically in order to wildly expand over everything like some kind of miniature Dutch empire finding the best part of Africa before anyone else can get it. the act of delivering a workable service at any cost and taking all the losses, until taking as great a territory as possible becomes a way to survive against the threat of other structures taking it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqtrNXdlraM] imperial republics of Walmart are not typically broken up because of the way they operate as units against everything else and don't contain clear merger lines. I think the more of these you point out the clearer the nature of capitalism becomes. capitalism is the act of using people as tools to secure frontier empires against other empires, and it always was that way. capitalism is a social-darwinist fight between miniature countable Cultures to determine what kinds of culture are allowed to live and which ones are softly or formally prohibited.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-remark="Deng" value="2203" data-dimension="S2">Socialism cannot endure if it remains poor (Deng Xiaoping, 1979) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping_Theory] [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/deng-xiaoping/1977/200.htm]  ->  if you cross out the world socialism and replace it with "China" or "progressives" I'd wholeheartedly agree with this. my only real issue with it is whether practically speaking it is or isn't Leninism. it feels like one of those things that <em>isn't not Marxism</em> and yet isn't Leninism. the way I see it Leninism has to regenerate the [[Term:Social-Philosophical-Material System|Material System]] of Bolshevism in some form and not just get stuck in capitalism. that does, funny enough, make it questionable whether any Trotskyist has ever practiced Leninism. I give them the benefit of the doubt on being "bad Leninists" rather than non-Leninists only because they haven't turned their backs and said that Trotskyism will never be realized unless all Trotskyists undergo a Deng process and create a functioning economy before ever being able to overthrow global capitalism. you do sometimes see me say this kind of thing inside the scope of countries, but always as a loose guideline and never as a hard requirement that is positively and definitely the first step.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-remark="MX onto DX" value="2204" data-dimension="S2">Bolshevism always defended countable Cultures rather than a class / Deng Xiaoping Thought is not a deviation from Bolshevism because Bolshevism only defended the Soviet or Chinese proletariat specifically  ->  this claim doesn't support ideologies like Trotskyism or global anarchisms by itself. it just as easily supports the claim that Bolshevism is broadly correct but most of the time it can only be realized as Deng Xiaoping Thought, and only sometimes realizes into a proletarian civilization. it would also support the concept of multiple Deng Xiaoping Thoughts in one country.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto DX" value="2205" data-dimension="S2">Early Maoism was actually Dengism / Early Maoism was Marxism-Dengism-Maoism / Early Maoism actually succeeded on the basis of being Deng Xiaoping Thought / Maoism is not actually Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, but Marxism-Dengism-Maoism  ->  this sounds insane at first until you consider the possibility of molecular Deng Xiaoping Thought, where partial pieces of a population join into a Filament surrounding nationalist or bourgeois controlled areas and their mere existence and survival strengthens a Communist party buying it time to build Bolshevism exactly when it benefits the survival of the population. Deng Xiaoping Theorists tend to think that Deng Xiaoping Thought developed out of Maoism. but what if it was really the reverse, that Deng Xiaoping Thought had existed from the very beginning of Maoism and Maoism was an ideology built on <em>it</em> that basically fell off the top of Deng Xiaoping Thought under external pressures on the country? from another angle this does kind of say out loud that Deng Xiaoping Thought is a bourgeois philosophy. it does very much say that. the caveat would be that proletarian philosophies have trouble in an age of the world where chunk competition rules and ethnicities will get annihilated if they forget to structure their populations to defend whole nationalities such as "the population of China" or "the Black population" or "the Democrat voter base" from external attack.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="2206" data-dimension="S2">{{TTS|tts=Deng Xiaoping Thought|Dengism}} is global Gramscianism / Deng Xiaoping Thought is global Gramscianism / Gramscianism is easiest to realize at a global scale rather than inside one country and when it is realized at a global scale it turns into Deng Xiaoping Thought  ->  I've asked myself and asked myself over and over what it is about Deng Xiaoping Thought that is so helpful and effective to China when on the surface it shouldn't make sense. I think this is one of the most interesting possible answers. <!--
plaintext titles: Dengism is global Gramscianism -->

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-remark="meta-Marxism onto Deng Xiaoping Thought, Juche-socialism" value="2207" data-dimension="S2">The key to Leninism is assembling a {{TTS|html=abbr|culture|title=countable cultural population}} / The key to Leninism is creating a countable culture / The key to creating Bolshevism is uniting people into the same countable Culture  ->  I have my doubts about whether this is or isn't true. what this is is a crude, dumbed-down explanation of the Lattice model for normal people. this is the claim that workers unite and possibly or ultimately realize a named Bolshevism when they consider themselves part of the same Culture, while when they consider each other part of different Cultures they fight each other and never form a single proletariat, unless they manage to segregate themselves into groups that do manage to function as the same Culture. if this claim is true, then the most remarkable thing about the Soviet Union was that it united each of 14 nationalities together locally rather than all the nationalities messily fighting each other over the same Russian Empire, and the success of China and North Korea to the extent they had it was partly due to people already wanting to form into the same national population or federation of five major ethnicities.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="2208" data-dimension="S2">Deng Xiaoping Thought has failed because if a country's whole purpose has become exports the First-World owners have still achieved their goal  ->  this one may be subjective, but it's the counter to claims that Deng Xiaoping Thought has fairly replaced Bolshevism — the claim that the point of Bolshevism was not just to prevent a country filling up with foreign investors but to prevent a country turning into an export hub.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2209" data-dimension="S2">Multicapitalism is created when the bourgeoisie fully shove the proletariat out of their turf  ->  after three years thinking about this, all the phenomena actually observed in real life versus the clear existence of classes — the clear existence of a bourgeoisie of some kind containing traditional owners, Artisan types, and possibly Careerist types, and the clear existence of at least a handful of workers — I think this is the core reason for why the United States is so weird. bourgeoisie secure territory. they hate workers and they hate bigger owners so they try their best to link up into Filaments together and push both of those things out. capitalism transforms toward a sea of teeny businesses that are constantly dying or have to all sell their products inside [[E:Amazon.com|one really giant business]]. there is a sea of unemployed people that gets angry for a little while causing noise in universities or making angry YouTube videos or having a homeless protest or a clash between poor towns and cops. this was the 1970s, and it's happening again today. your sea of unused people becomes very progressive although it is mostly defined and linked together by culture — because it has nowhere to work and no money to pay for all the empty houses, there's nothing to strike over and nothing to take back, and you can't practically try to define "the real United States" as all the factory workers brought together in the workplaces who might contemplate Bolshevism but now increasingly don't exist. then after a little while the sea of unused people turns into a second bourgeoisie, a second <em>plural and countable</em> bourgeoisie, and the two bourgeoisies fiercely hate each other for what one did to the other and slowly divide into two separate nationalities. and of course that really only makes things worse because each of those bourgeoisies is incentivized to push everyone who would threaten to create a proletariat off its territory in the name of Freedom — very Afrikaner-style, very "baseline standard of fascism inside Liberalism", very colonial in the particular sense of linking up into a chain of White people that wilfully expands over stuff before anyone else gets it.<br />
the thing that confuses everyone about this historical period or historical form of a population is that one of these subpopulations chock full of bourgeoisie can genuinely be much more progressive than the other. this, to be honest, happens mostly in hypothetical scenarios versus real ones. the Democratic Party or Australian Labor Party doesn't have much revolutionary potential despite being linked to <em>a couple</em> very progressive causes. the time that multicapitalism would be carrying progressive values would be a much weirder situation like one of the component capitalisms being entirely full of Trotskyists or entirely full of Gramscians who are all Communists. this is theoretically possible given that [[redlink|a lot of variant Marxisms amount to bourgeois philosophies designed by a handful of bourgeoisie for the bourgeoisie]]. you'd practically never expect it to happen in real life at least in the absence of some very specific conditions that haven't really been seen before. but, you know. it might be at least marginally more likely if every one of the "nice" bourgeoisie could learn meta-Marxism and they could all horizontally join together into what's essentially a planned economy using graph economics, and start restoring the proletariat. that's kind of a moonshot. I don't necessarily <em>like</em> that plan. I feel like a scenario of workers joining together to restore the proletariat by stemming constant migration and uncertainty and taking back physical towns is more solid if it were possible. I do think we're looking at some variety of country-internal Deng process here where people actually have to all sort themselves into the correct graph arrangement with their feet just to be stronger as a subpopulation that produces and provides its own needs and can survive everything the "bad bourgeoisie" does, just to get to the point where revolution is conceivable.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto DX / A" value="2210" data-dimension="S2">China is secretly a charcoal Marxism / China is secretly a charcoal workers' state  ->  there are certain moments where "charcoal" and "strawberry" [[:Category:Charcoal versus strawberry ontology|become hard to tell apart from each other]] if you assume all the anarchist stupidities are taken out to where they at least make coherent sense.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2211">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2212">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2213">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2214">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2215">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2216" data-dimension="S2">Nation-states are neither natural nor intentionally constructed  ->  the claim that, excluding all Marxist states, the process of people forming into nation-states is both artificial and largely not at all designed. many people make the mistake of turning undesigned-ness into a simple binary where if something is not designed it must be fully natural in the sense of either ecological or human, and if something is not fully ecological it must be as deliberately designed as a computer chip; you see this fallacy in both anarchism and Western Marxism. this is not the case. something can be totally undesigned and also harmful, just as something like indigenous agriculture could be designed and be ecological. some things which are ecological are undesigned, yet The Subject itself is arguably designed by its actions toward its own needs while being a biological animal
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2217" data-dimension="S2">Strikes are acts of courage / Some strike incidents have been absolutely metal / Strikes are perilous  ->  true fact but don't let it scare you. instead think about how crazy it is that owners look at strikes and can't see them as acts of courage.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="2220" data-dimension="S">wave machine  ->  a particular kind of mathematical process or Algebra which provides various ways to describe the interaction of two events. named after Wavebuilder, but is actually the principle <em>behind</em> Wavebuilder.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="2221" data-dimension="S2">[[E:DeterminismFromNonDeterminism|Determinism can form out of non-deterministic elements]]  ->  we already know this is possible, at least in a mathematical sense concerning material things that really appear unpredictable versus material things that really appear predictable. the most widely-accepted example right now is quantum mechanics. nobody really knows much about the individual particles, yet as things scale up all the particles form into predictable patterns. this is the key to building models of society and historical materialism.

</li><li value="2222" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="Z0">study of interacting objects instead of one at a time / study of two or more interacting objects instead of one object at a time  ->  I know the word "system" can be used for this, as in "complex adaptive system", etc. but the word <i>system</i> has been so totally exhausted into meaninglessness in social movements I feel like we really need to break things down more to where they are hard to <em>misunderstand</em>. also, this might be a Z Item because it seems like a realistic description of a kind of scientific field. it seems like it might already exist, even if it exists to a more limited extent than it really should.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2223" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2223|Nature is a multiplication table]] / All physics equations are actually multivariable functions  ->  here we go. one of the most genuinely solid propositions I've come to in <cite>MDem</cite>, that unlike everything else I have very little doubt about, and high confidence in. we teach mathematics and Newtonian mechanics entirely wrong. we should be teaching every physics function from wavefunction collapse to chemical reactions to throwing a rock as multivariable functions of objects colliding in the sense of two number lines colliding in a multiplication table style function to produce a three dimensional graph. this is the beginning to how we fix all of physics. this might lead to unifying quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, and gravity. this is it. it sounds absurdly simple, and ridiculous that this could be the answer, but I think this is it.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2224" data-dimension="S2">Punnett squares can apply to anything  ->  the claim that Punnett squares are just one situational application of a data structure or kind of computation that can be used to model any event with multiple known outcomes

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2225" data-dimension="S2">What if you were the variable x? / What if you could put yourself into a lambda calculus function?  ->  reading the Wikipedia page on lambda calculus, where I shouldn't have been able to find anything new and interesting, I had the weirdest thought. lambda calculus functions just iterate on things. lambda calculus doesn't know what the variable <i>x</i> really is. an individual person could be anything; to Rothenberg this is all The Subject is. so what if people were in lambda calculus expressions? this sounds really silly and yet.... it could be one possible mathematics for existential materialism. you could theoretically use this kind of thinking to describe Bauplans?? could a union be a lambda calculus function. could a movement of a particular shape be a function where people of different ideologies go into it and behave differently. lambda calculus is awkward, and yet... if you had a mathematics with a unified way to define data types and functions relative to each other, and could put any type of object ([[Term:mathematical data structure|Algebra]]) into the right kind of function, you could just throw a person in there. the key to throwing a person into a function is just defining the right kind of data structure to represent the person and then making use of variables that can hold data structures, as well as multivariable functions that can actually work with many free-floating objects.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2226" data-dimension="S">MDem versus RDem (<cite>MDem</cite> 5.1; here MDem literally abbreviates "molecular <em>democracy</em>" and does not abbreviate "molecular Marxism") / destructive versus constructive democracy (<cite>MDem</cite> 4.3) / the problem of Trotskyite democracy (when put in contrast with "constructive democracy"; <cite>MDem</cite> 4.3)  ->  the motif of how every single theory of "democracy" generally does one of two things with the notion of [[E:What if you were the variable x?|people each being a variable "x"]] — when two individuals "x" and "y" come into conflict, the theory either tries to make some group of individuals form together, or tries to defend the right of individuals that start conflict to be separate and quote-unquote "free". absolutely all variants of Liberal-republicanism are RDem. a lot of Existentialism is RDem, meaning that a lot of anarchism is RDem, and a lot of anarchism will naturally generate Existentialism and Liberal-republicanism. Deng Xiaoping Thought performs MDem only on a national scale, and not on the local scale where it's most needed.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="Aqr" value="2227" data-dimension="F2">Materialism can't explain self-awareness / Materialism can't explain how matter can be aware of itself / Science and linear time can't explain how the universe can be aware of itself {{YouTube|1IOo2_JwtJg}}  ->  laughably wrong. as soon as a human being describes a chemical reaction you see how the universe being aware of itself is possible. if it weren't possible chemistry would be a total mystery.<br />
step two: realize that social processes are only a little more complicated than chemistry.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="22,28" value="2228" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q2228|determinism (physics)]] / lambda-calculus determinism / lambda calculus style determinism / mathematical function determinism / necessity (process of individual things being determined by laws of behavior and surrounding conditions) / 必然論 (数学; necessity - mathematics) [https://kotobank.jp/word/%E5%BF%85%E7%84%B6%E8%AB%96-610884]  ->  for some weird reason people always assume that determinism equals Calvinism, where there is one set of conditions that lead to a single ending, rather than determinism itself being the path from a million initial conditions to a million associated endings. this is the intuitive definition of determinism if you've studied enough Newtonian mechanics: if a ball and a ramp start in one particular position they end up in one particular place but it always depends on what position they started in which is not necessarily controllable by an experimenter in the context of daily life. [[User:RD/9k/Q22,28|[...]]]<br />
determinism is when there is an uncontrollable variable "x", similar to a person, or an unknown quantity of water, or a tennis ball of unknown mass, but you know what the "x" object is going to do even if you don't know exactly how. x goes into the lambda-calculus style function, and it pops out some wide array of possibilities based on the wide array of possibilities that go in — a graph of stuff looking like a curve or a filled shape or a volume, not a single point, describing the outcome. the presence of two objects "x" and "y" doesn't change this, it just creates a 3d graph z = f(x,y) containing a bounded cube of possibilities rather than a bounded square. the top thing to ask people who want to deny "cube determinism" is, do you want people to be able to infinitely deny that there is a possibility they will have to stop being racist, or would you be okay with the possibility of a world where them choosing to stop being racist is inevitable? if that possibility or the possibility of finding it inside the bounded cube sounds good to you, certainly that doesn't make "cube determinism" a known fact about reality, but it does mean you should investigate it.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-qid="22,29" value="2229" data-dimension="S">rocket science (Western Marxism) / rocket science (molecular Gramscianism; Western Marxism as seen through meta-Marxism)  ->  the task of getting everyone to realize that the only thing standing between the United States and an eventual proletarian revolution is that people are convinced that the socioeconomy runs on Free Will when it ultimately does not; the task of making a plan to practically persuade everyone to apply this.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2230" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Determinism separates center-Liberals from Communists|Determinism separates center-Liberals from Communists]] / Determinism separates Liberalism from Communism / The greatest difference between Liberal-republicanism and Bolshevism is free will versus determinism  ->  once you understand "determinism" as limited portions of the universe performing "chemical reactions" rather than as universe-wide predetermination, it all clicks into place.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="2231" data-dimension="S2">Action transforms the abstract into the tangible / Practice transforms the abstract into the tangible  ->  the claim that it isn't the desire to do something but the intuitive or educated knowledge of the world and ability to apply that knowledge that allows people to transform their surroundings. this only makes more and more sense when you have a disability: you need knowledge of the reality of your body to dodge it, not just more Free Will.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="2232" data-dimension="S2">Determinism can get populations through war  ->  what is Stalin telling everybody not to fear because Marxist methods will pull through mathematically if not this. Marxism claims, although sometimes fails, to be able to mathematically solve wars and avert them by getting everyone onto the science of the best solution.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2233" data-dimension="S2">Strikes are an act of applied science / Strikes are an act of applied determinism  ->  pretty much what Marx says, just put a little more bluntly. he says basically that workers' movements as a whole are something you can apply determinism to in order to better know the actual requirements to get the outcomes you want. maybe I'm wrong and that's only in Lenin? not sure.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2234" data-dimension="S2">Being wrong means relinquishing wrong models / Admitting you're wrong requires giving up wrong models  ->  could be used in the context of either Marxism or science.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2235" data-dimension="S2">State businesses change the flow of history / State businesses transform the current set of material social processes into a new set of structures and potentially though not invariably set the stage for the development of new consciousness; move the shovels, move the shovel dreams  ->  this isn't a claim that state businesses will cure everything or won't have their failings, only a claim that they are not exactly the same as a historical period without them and will bring a new historical period where {{em|different}} things will happen — Communist parties hope the different things will be better, they may not be better, they will be different.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2236" data-dimension="S2">White-bread fantasy will teach people history / White-bread fantasy is useful for teaching historical materialism through the concept of generalized historical processes that can be labeled  ->  this doesn't stand in contradiction to the concept of teaching people that plural histories exist; both can be done. but people really underestimate the value of a work that narrowly focuses on just one real or hypothetical people-group to tell about historical processes and the development of any one people-group at a time.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2237">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2238">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2239">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" value="2240" data-dimension="S2">Faith actually represents free will / Within religion, faith actually refers to confidence in the unyielding Free Will of an individual / The Neverending Story shows that faith, hope, and Free Will are all actually the same thing [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkO4wOTNYuk]  ->  looking at the bible, looking at Lacanian and schizoanalyst and chaos-magic nonsense, I sputtered to get this out, not sure if anyone had noticed it. then one day Lacanians say it unironically in clear words rather than spaghetti. thanks Lacanianism. thanks much for nothing.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2241" data-dimension="S2">Will transforms the abstract into the tangible / Will is what transforms the abstract into the tangible ->  chaos magic is straight-up Existentialism with a little ritual thrown on. this is one blatant definition of Existentialism. it has also made me realize, unexpectedly, that the "law of attraction" is Existentialism.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2242" data-dimension="S2">Free will can get populations through war  ->  what seems to be one of the biggest claims behind Old Testament bible stories... and a bunch of old-style fantasy books. that the sheer will to not back down and to kill people for the army of Good is what brings victory.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2243" data-dimension="S2">Strikes are an act of applied free will  ->  this is what I was complaining about way back in <cite>MDem</cite> v3. I had no idea how deep into all of this I'd have to go to finally have words for it.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2244" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q22,44|Being wrong means relinquishing freedom]] / Being wrong means giving up freedom (en-x-pona) / Admitting you're wrong requires relinquishing freedom  ->  derived Existentialist proposition, though I don't totally know what it's derived from. the reason people don't like to admit they're wrong. every time people are busy being wrong, they're also busy exerting individual will and effort to do what they want to do and be where they want to be. people are always told, try hard, [[E:Wackytown fallacy|believe in yourself]], and you will surely be allowed to do anything. in practice, this saying isn't remotely correct. it's all too easy for somebody to try hard, go into physics, mess with string theory, create a wrong model, and end up getting bullied out of science simply for not magically being perfect and guessing the correct thing in a world where the material topics of science are getting so utterly esoteric that nothing can properly be tested before it's published. or try hard, try to create art, and suddenly a bunch of Gramscians or anarchists or postcolonial theorists show up and are like, you're not fit to make art, you didn't magically know what every prejudice and microaggression is when speaking in terms of the physical communication of information [[E:Knowledge cannot teleport|you couldn't possibly have known]]. my issue here obviously isn't that there are standards, it's just the way anarchists and Gramscians elevate socially constructed standards to natural law and expect people to automatically know things that require education.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="22,45" value="2245" data-dimension="S2">[[E:State businesses only hand free will to Stalin|State businesses only hand free will to Stalin]] / State businesses are bad because they only shift the locus of Free Will to the state-business-owning structure / ([[User:RD/9k/Q22,45|9k]])<br />
world of Alert + state businesses are incorrect = this.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2246" data-dimension="S2">White-bread fantasy only erases histories / White-bread fantasy can only misinform people  ->  I think it's important to note the difference between "history" versus "histories". plural histories certainly do exist, and they certainly can be erased. but this is used very, very misleadingly by anarchist-aligned types of people to suggest that knowing about plural histories is the only form of knowing about history when knowing about the history of your own group is also a thing that can exist too. it's clearly best to have both, but if you can manage to teach people only about the historical processes that shape their own group, it's better than nothing.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2247">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2248">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2249">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="2250" data-dimension="S">intelligent design
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="2251" data-dimension="S">creationism  ->  intelligent design which is brave enough to admit it's Christian
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="2252" data-dimension="F2">Atheism makes people into Communists  ->  well... kind of, but not directly. it usually doesn't.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="2253" data-dimension="S2">Darwinism makes people into Communists  ->  haven't heard this one but I feel like it's in the back of some people's minds.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="2254" data-dimension="S2">[[E:CreationistsShouldBeCommunists|Creationists should be Communists]]  ->  [[E:this is incredibly silly|this is incredibly silly]] and yet you could totally destroy Idealism by complying with it and successfully arguing this.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="Fy, MX, MX onto ES, MX onto ML" value="2255" data-dimension="S">God is a communist?  ->  the motif of a fictional or hypothetical scenario that explores an afterlife or higher power but where the higher power is in favor of Bolshevism. seen in: MDem 5.1-5.3 entry "scenario", MDem 5.3 entry "and-it-was-good"

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2256">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2257">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2258">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2259">??

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="2260" data-dimension="S">society as intelligent design  ->  with the great prevalence of utopian art and solarpunk alongside anticommunism and these strictly general-sense-psychoanalysis / almost-secular-christian ways of looking like things, I feel this motif is currently very charcoal.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="2261" data-dimension="M3">If markets can't be designed, why can animals?  ->  to be taken as a genuine jumping-off point to different explanations, not as a rhetorical question.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2262">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2263">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2264">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2265">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2266">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2267">??

</li><li class="field_ML" value="2268" data-dimension="S2">Marxism is the least bad system / Mainstream Marxism-Leninism is the least bad system  ->  there's a far better argument for this than Liberal-republicanism. mainstream Marxism-Leninism has its problems but it's better than Trotskyist theories, it's better than anarchist theories, it's better than Existentialism cracking open all the walnuts and treating you like until you are physically able to work to the point where all acts of social bonding with others are optional recreation you could literally decide to never do you aren't even human. and of course, it's better than Toryism, or religion.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2269" data-dimension="F2">Democracy is the least bad system / Liberal-republicanism is the best system only compared with all the worse systems

</li><li class="field_geo" value="2270" data-dimension="S">something better than science / if there was something better than science, I'd want to know  ->  appears in: {{book|Demon-Haunted World|E=DemonHauntedWorld}}.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2271" data-dimension="S2">There <em>is</em> something better than science / There <em>is</em> something better than the scientific method  ->  I think that when you actually get all the way through an overview of everything that is known in science, it's not really easy to invalidate most applied sciences such as evolutionary biology and epidemiology (two that religion typically targets). but if you were aiming at something different from literal ontological models of reality and instead aiming specifically at the scientific method, then there could very well be a decent argument that there is something "better than science". the specific reasoning would be that today's scientific method is bad at actually getting people to accept science. it fails to take into account the <em>scientific</em>, <em>Materialist</em> reasons that groups of people choose unscientific beliefs — drugs are expensive and my unscientific family cares about my life more, my town thinks I'm racist if I don't believe God will save Black people from White people, Stalin's government doesn't have a place to put me so I become useless to everybody if I accept mainstream Marxism-Leninism — and then lead people toward correct answers based on a scientific understanding of society itself and a will to actually <em>structure the process of science based on the findings of science</em>. all of these problems that drive people away from science are real, in that material observational studies could confirm them, and nobody actually needs to invoke "lived experience". the only question is how to present science to people and [[Term:filtration|filter]] people in and out of science in a way that it will be as effective as sheer social links and [[E:Some people prefer poetry to science|the appeal of "poetry" and "culture"]]. often it seems like literally nothing is as powerful as culture and the sheer instinct to <em>sit around campfire mindlessly listening to culture</em> whether it's true or not and whether that particular group actually aids survival or not.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2272" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2273" data-dimension="S2">Voting is not a double-blind study / Voting is not comparable to peer review because participants are not blinded to which identifiable party they receive  ->  Carl Sagan brings up the interesting concept that peer review is blind — "the author doesn't know who the critics are". then in other parts of the book he compares science to "democracy". but when you think about it, voting and peer review is a really weird comparison. it's true that candidates don't know who's voting for them, but for voting to be an actual blind study the ballots would have to hide the names of the candidates and parties so that people have no choice but to vote for policies. that does sound like a better system to be honest. I can already spot a few pain points for it though. you have to describe all policies in language a high-school graduate would understand. you can't let candidates use coded language to describe bad policies; you have to catch dogwhistles and make them spell them out, to the best of your ability. you have to ban listing which policies would raise or lower taxes, or people would find the conservative party from that. things are going to get confusing when it's time to keep ballots from turning into competition between religions. you don't want candidates saying they're Protestant given that this will speak to people's prejudices, but you don't want them using coded language to signal to anti-Catholics as a way of saying the same thing. if the ballots leave off that a candidate is Black or a woman, but the policies say they support Black issues or women's issues, people are going to assume the candidate is Black or a woman "just to be safe" and then not vote for them specifically because of their presumed identity. maybe you would have to ban the policies mentioning specific demographics. but if you do that people are going to hide prejudice behind coded language by saying "school choice" to mean segregation and stuff. I really doubt that there's any way to fix ballots so that they don't inherently encourage scanning the ballot for the most evidently racist option and then voting for it. it seems like it's inherently hard to separate voting from sheer membership in an ethnic group or nationality, and Social-Philosophical Systems always get in the way of Liberal-republicanism ever making any sense.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="2274" data-dimension="S2">Democracy is better than science  ->  this is the fallacy that's hidden deep in [[E:DemonHauntedWorld|Sagan's book]] — arguably in Trotsky's books too. Sagan is totally for the scientific method at a science journal, but when the Communist Party of the Soviet Union adopts the scientific method and it works almost exactly the way it does in science Sagan gets scared and turns around and says that democracy is better than science. this is totally contradictory with everything else he says. everything he says about science literally argues for mainstream Marxism-Leninism.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="MX onto IV" value="2275" data-dimension="S2">Inside fascism, Trotskyist revolution is moral / Inside fascism, Trotskyist revolution is morally right / Inside fascism, it's morally right for Trotsky to lead a Trotskyist revolution even if it does not succeed  ->  Caleb Maupin doesn't believe this. and it seems to be a fatal error in his reasoning. it seems like it's actually true that at some point anybody opposing a bad ideology is okay even if it's Trotskyists. don't try to apply this to center-Liberalism or academic Existentialisms such as poststructuralism and schizoanalysis. it's for Marxisms and non-academic anarchisms only.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2276">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2277">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2278">??

</li><li class="field_ML" value="2279" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q22,79|Sabine Hossenfelder should be a Communist]]  ->  sounds laughable <em>until</em> you see her argument against string theory in universities, and then it's like, put this woman in charge of educating the US or Europe about Trotsky and how he didn't understand the process of coming to scientific consensuses and putting real experts on emerging historical-materialist science in the party, and nobody would get the history of Communism wrong ever again. I swear. everybody would suddenly have a light bulb go off that Liberal-republicanism is based on letting stupid people make objections to real sensible answers and would have this terrible dread-filled vision that <i>oh god, we've been doing everything wrong</i> and there would just be this mass flip over to various Marxisms

</li><li class="field_ML" value="2280" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q22,80|Marxism contains both Good and Evil]] / Both Good and Evil exist inside a workers' state / If Good and Evil exist at all according to some particular definition of what they are, then Good and Evil exist relative to a workers' state population rather than relative to the world outside it / Claims about what is right or wrong within Bolshevism must be evaluated from inside Bolshevism / You are a Communist for the next two minutes (meta-Marxism swatch color)  ->  the claim that when a workers' state is created, all of the people inside it do not become evil, and instead the concepts of Right and Wrong will be defined relative to that country rather than what another country wants. this is a strangely difficult concept for the United States to understand.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2281" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q22,81|Marxist states are people-groups]]  ->  it's crazy that people need to be reminded of this, but they do.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2282" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q22,82|Communist laws are laws]] / Rule of law in a Marxist state is rule of law / When enumerating Communist atrocities, "enforcing Bolshevism" doesn't count  ->  I am so tired of the trope that Marxist states cannot have laws. the United States will go around labeling all kinds of things [[E:natural crime|natural crimes]] and asserting it has the right to beat them up without any established government structure or laws permitting that. in such irony when supposedly absolutely everything inside the United States including its movements has to follow Congress and the constitution and some of us even get mad about case law and try to tear case law out. but as soon as Marxist states have laws that's bad, because they're not United States laws. I'm not sure there even is any such thing as the rule of law when capitalism exists, because the rule of law would be actually accepting that there can be a [[E:plurality|plurality]] of rules of law and they usually are not supposed to disturb each other.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2283" data-dimension="S2">Stalin can speak about what is morally right in the Soviet Union  ->  this doesn't guarantee he will give the right answer, but it is to say that inasmuch as anyone is capable of choosing anything he is capable of choosing to discover the right answer within the information the country knows about itself. inasmuch as anyone can determine what is morally right in the Soviet Union, Stalin can.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="2284" data-dimension="F2">Trotsky can speak about what is morally right in the Soviet Union  ->  this is not an open question due to historical events. Trotsky could perhaps speak about what is morally right inside a hypothetical Trotskyist workers' state, but not about what is morally right in the Soviet Union, because to put it nicely, he blatantly violated that.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2285" data-dimension="S2">Citizens of the Soviet Union can speak about what is morally right in the Soviet Union
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2286" data-dimension="S2">Liberalisms commit natural crimes on Bolshevism / If natural crimes exist, Liberalisms commit them on Bolshevism / If natural crimes exist, then Liberal republics can commit them on Bolshevism

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2287" data-dimension="S2">Anarchism is definitionally Evil  ->  follow me through the logic for just a moment. anarchism says that Communism can never be justified to become a party-nation and rule a country. Communism says back that the purpose of becoming a party-nation and ruling a country is in order for revolution to end, and for the new population of people to have a particular set of morals and laws. anarchism scoffs and says a single standard of morality and laws is unjust and terrible. Communism asks how anarchism can justify enforcing itself. anarchism says that to large swaths of the population it may never be justified, but simultaneously that every individual and small patch of the population is justified to itself for its own well-being. anarchism has just said that the great majority of the population will never call it Right but it thinks to itself it is Right. that is almost a textbook definition of what Wrong or Evil means. therefore, anarchism is Evil. anarchism is like the fun and interesting Disney villain that nobody has the guts to support or frame as having rights like everyone else but that everyone thinks is more interesting than the heroes. it's not a total coincidence that shows shoved so many queercoded villains into them when that was the actual societal position of gay and trans people at the time.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="2288" data-dimension="F2">Mussolini can define what is morally right in Italy / Mussolini can speak about what is morally right in Italy  ->  intuitively false, but a little difficult to explain.
</li><li class="field_horror" value="2289" data-dimension="S2">King Vegeta can define what is morally right for Saiyans / King Vegeta can speak about what is morally right in the Saiyan kingdom  ->  Q22,88 as it relates to fiction.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="2290" data-dimension="S2">Trotsky can speak about what is morally right inside a hypothetical Trotskyist workers' state  ->  very complicated. potentially runs into vaguely similar problems to Q22,88 and Q22,89 — obviously not in terms of bourgeois / Roman-style imperialism, but in its own way. at the same time... do we want to squash Trotskyism and tell them they can't break from capitalism and create their own nation just because they haven't been allies of mainstream Marxism-Leninism? that seems a lot like what Trotskyism has done to us. it would seem the ethical thing is to support Trotskyism determining itself so that Trotskyists don't convert back to right-Liberals, which is definitely something that happens.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2291" data-dimension="F2">Bolshevism is obviously Bad / Bolshevism is obviously Wrong / It is obvious to normal people that Bolshevism is morally wrong  ->  if the bulk of ordinary people in the Soviet Union can be normal, then this statement is false. at the very least, even if Bolshevism actually were bad, <em>it isn't obvious</em> that that's true. the concept that any moral statement is obvious may be one of the biggest errors any philosopher of ethics has ever made. before we go making any statement about what <em>is</em> right or wrong, the very first thing we must establish is that almost nothing is obvious.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2292" data-dimension="S2">How can we identify moral wrong? / How can we know if things are wrong? / How do we truly know whether things are right or wrong?  ->  everyone assumes this question is a hundred thousand times easier than it is. "intuition" has to be ruled out, because it can be terribly intuitive to some people that suffering people must be evil and it's not necessary to help them. "lived experience" has to be ruled out, because it's terribly easy to say based on Lived Experience that Gramscians are being mean and Tories have the moral high ground because they were never mean to people — or simply that the existence of evil greedy George Soros means the Democrats and Gramscians and Mensheviks and anarchists are all evil conspirators. how do you know that the absence of anything happening is immoral? most things that people actually act to stop are each the presence of a bad thing happening. Peter Singer's framing that not doing good things is bad ignores the concept that people have finite ability to choose from a limited number of good things to do, thus doing several "bad" things every time they do a good thing. but, the presence of another person doing another good thing can cancel out the bad things by two people doing one good thing that results in one bad thing. person A didn't have any control over person B turning their bad thing into a good thing, so does that mean person A still did something bad by having finite money or finite attention?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2293" data-dimension="F2">We're all made of matter and energy, therefore soul  ->  the claim that because energy is a substance, human individuals must have souls and humanity must be connected to God. this one is marked false becuase energy in particular does not prove a soul.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2294" data-dimension="S2">We're all made of matter and energy, therefore Communism  ->  the claim that because energy in general is an interaction, an exchanged quantum, bodies and societies must all be made of predictable interactions. atoms exchanging electrons and photons in constant interactions doesn't do much to prove the soul, considering that quarks and photons are kind of the same for every person and they're way too small to be conscious, and they don't prove a god because again, a god would be incredibly complex and fundamental particles are too small and isolated to contribute very much to that, it's like arguing a diode can become a supercomputer just because there are millions and millions of them when they are all separate and not arranged into circuits. however, a whole lot of small things interacting can produce <em>something</em> if it's individuals constantly interacting to produce a society. you'd think societies sound improbable if you were going from the example of quarks and photons, you'd say "societies? how do those remain coherent objects and not just dissolve?", except that we've already observed them existing. so, a whole lot of small things interacting does mean we can be part of something, it's just called a society or a countable culture or a nation-state, and it's wholly material. and also, it's described by general- and specific-sense historical materialism. Communism is more believable than God.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2295">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2296">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2297">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2298">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2299">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2300" data-dimension="S">global empire processes / colonialism (process or motif) / endocolonialism (generic) / exocolonialism (generic)  ->  it will always be the bane of me that they called it <i>colonialism</i> and left the implication that a group of White people existing somewhere is itself bad versus the actual action of doing violence to another population. that makes it especially hard to discuss the purported model that it comes from "greed", because in the case of the United States people left England to avoid having to "greedily" fight and kill other religious sects so they could have at least a little time to "selflessly" exist only through their own work and [[E:tent of freedom poles|tent of freedom poles]]. that's all people are going to see when you try to discuss "greed" and reparations.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2301" data-dimension="S2">Something that exists is more perfect than something that doesn't  ->  true of mainstream Marxism-Leninism versus Trotskyism, not true of God.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="2302" data-dimension="S2">Unicorns are incredible / A unicorn existing is impressive / Something with no way of existing existing is more impressive than something that can easily exist / A unicorn existing is extraordinary, although that does not imply it is likely / A unicorn existing on earth is miraculous / incredible (adjective with the connotation that something totally unbelievable happening is amazing and wonderful rather than just silliness that can be dismissed)  ->  used in Douglas Gasking's joke argument against God in which he "argues" that the most impressive god is one that never even existed and still accomplished everything without there being a god. I love how this overall discussion that was supposed to prove God was so bad at proving God that it instead birthed what is effectively a very useful definition of miracles and fantasy creatures. a unicorn is incredible, and that's what makes it interesting to fantasy readers. Mr. Incredible is incredible, and that's what makes a superhero story. a god is incredible in every way, and that's what makes it "supernatural": the fact that it really cannot be believed.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2303" data-dimension="S2">Extraordinary events must have happened / Incredible events are credible
</li><li class="field_geo" value="2304" data-dimension="S2">Extraordinary events are unlikely / Incredible events are incredible

</li><li class="field_ML" data-remark="approximately what Stalin says" value="2305" data-dimension="S2">A Marxism that exists is more perfect / A Marxism that exists is more perfect than a Marxism that doesn't / actually existing socialism (motif that a Marxism which has been realized to any degree is better than a Marxism which has not been realized)  ->  it's strange how many people get this wrong.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2306">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2307">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2308">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2309">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2310" data-dimension="S2">Awful people also have human rights / Bad people have the same human rights  ->  I don't like it when people use this to prop up Existentialist arguments, for instance that a universal declaration of human rights containing totally contradictory things will be of any use to the world rather than ending in ultimately sacrificing one of them, or that creating an anarchy around Existentialists and nazis all casually exchanging "speech" will surely purify the nazis eventually. but taken by itself I totally believe it. rehabilitate criminals. redirect Trotsky. don't be mean to reactionaries in ways that will not be productive. [[E:If victory is not in sight, it is better to wait|don't be quick to start fights you can't win]].

</li><li class="field_geo" value="2400" data-dimension="S2">Palestine is not complicated / ([[User:RD/9k/Q2400|9k]])  ->  what it says. there are weird philosophical problems that you can get into with the United States and analogies about Ireland or Trotskyism, but there is no real way to complicate Palestine. Palestine is a matter of not killing the Palestinians. and that's it. [[User:RD/9k/Q2400|[...]]]
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="24,01" value="2401" data-dimension="S">needlessly complicating Palestine / ([[User:RD/9k/Q2400|9k]])
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2402">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2403">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2404">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2405">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2406">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2407">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2408">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="24,09" value="2409" data-dimension="S2">In a world where all Palestinians were racist, it still wouldn't make sense to kill them / ([[User:RD/9k/Q2400|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="24,10" value="2410" data-dimension="S2">A monarchy spanning two continents is global empire  ->  not easy to dispute. an empire which is global in scope is global empire.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="24,11" value="2411" data-dimension="S2">A monarchy extending over a sovereign nationality is global empire / A monarchy spanning two nationalities is global empire  ->  murkier but often true. the Russian Empire extending over Ukrainians ultimately revealed itself to be global empire when it happened again. Spain or France conquering Haiti is global empire because even before we get to all the suffering it's an intercontinental distance. tangent: can we acknowledge how stupid arguing over Columbus is? regardless of what Columbus did or didn't do himself he marked the beginning of global empire in Haiti. look at Ireland and it becomes more than obvious that a few people appear before a lot of people appear. arguments about Columbus exist because people hate historical materialism.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2418">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="24,19" value="2419" data-dimension="S2">A country killing populations that stand in its way is empire / A country trying to wholly exterminate other countries or tribes is colonialism  ->  hard to argue with. these days you could demonstrate it with a console RPG and no history books at all.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2420" data-dimension="S2">The United States killing Native Americans in frontier wars was empire  ->  kind of obvious. "Manifest Destiny" describes the shape of an empire speaking in the old medieval sense, so it's kind of an admission of guilt. we get a very important truth from this: killing groups of people that stand in your way is empire.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2421" data-dimension="S2">England occupying Ireland was global empire  ->  straightforward. the definition that filling Ireland with English people so they can all link together and realize the British Empire is global empire or "colonialism" materially. the British Empire is global empire, and the British Empire is the intended result of the process.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2423">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2424">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2425">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2430">??
</li><li class="field_geo" value="2431" data-dimension="S2">Supporting Deng Xiaoping Thought is postcolonial  ->  makes a lot of sense when argued from inside China. if China doesn't maintain a Deng process then practically it gets swarmed by foreign investors, its government gets gutted, it doesn't get to have its own government or be its own nationality or associated group of ethnic groups, and it never gets to have democracy — it doesn't get <em>any</em> kind of democracy. on the other hand, the Deng process allows China to detach from global empire at least to some extent. if one country gutting another country's government and not letting it have a government or democracy is colonialism, then Deng Xiaoping Thought is postcolonial. I don't think there's a good argument against this if you're going to go around claiming that colonialism is simply a physical, material process of the world and of humanity which exists regardless of what ideology everyone has and doesn't need to be analyzed through Marxism. like, that's a meta-Marxist position on history that supports Materialism and supports the notion that countries are material and history is material. it doesn't support Idealism the way everyone wants to think it does. the notion that things can be neutral of all ideologies is kind of an inherently Materialist position, inherently promoting objectivity and the sciences while implicitly suggesting that the humanities could be irrelevant in any particular case and Liberal-republicanism could be utterly wrong about any particular thing.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2440">??
</li><li value="2444" class="number_empty">??

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="MX onto LR, MX onto PT" data-qid="24,49" value="2449" data-dimension="S2">Settler-colonialism outperforms Bolshevism / Settler-colonialism is "better" than Bolshevism / Settler-colonialism is more successful than Bolshevism / The United States succeeded because of settler-colonialism / The United States was successful because of settler-colonialism / The United States succeeded because of a small-scale, molecularized settler-colonialism process in which it opted to toss out all its extra people instead of undergo the considerable strain of incorporating them, in contrast to the Soviet Union where molecular settler-colonialism did not win and people were to be incorporated into the overall federation simply because they were people but because people mattered more than maintaining the imperial structure the system was not robust against the outside / ([[User:RD/9k/Q29,83|9k/Q29,83]], [[User:RD/9k/Q691|9k/Q691]])

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="MX onto PT" data-qid="24,50" value="2450" data-dimension="S2">Colonialism is common sense / To ordinary people, colonialism is the accepted and intuitive way of doing things in the same sense that Liberal "democracy" is, almost to the point that criticizing it is unreasonably extreme / ([[User:RD/9k/Q24,51|9k]])
</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="MX onto PT" data-qid="24,51" value="2451" data-dimension="S2">Prejudices are not obviously bad / It is not inherently obvious to everybody in an equal way through an equal path that prejudices are bad / ([[User:RD/9k/Q24,51|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2460">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2470">??
</li><li value="2476" class="number_empty">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2480">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2485">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2486" data-dimension="S2">South Africa's Black Economic Empowerment program failed / {{TTS|tts=Bee|BEE}} has failed ({{TTS|tts=Black Economic Empowerment; South Africa|South Africa}})  ->  I am not sure if this is true or false but the arguments for it sound very fishy. [https://irr.org.za/reports/the-irrs-blueprint-for-growth/the-irr-blueprint-for-growth-2024/3-the-irrs-blueprint-for-growth-breaking-the-bee-barrier-to-growth] the people making these arguments really want to crack some walnuts. but could it be true that this program amounts to corporate welfare that hasn't done much of anything? maybe. I'd need to look at it more closely.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="2487" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q2487|"modest" proposal]]  ->  a terrible idea framed as a great idea, either for comedy or to make some kind of point. used several times in MDem scraps to create B-Side chapters or scraps. original essay "[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm A modest proposal]" from 1729

</li><li class="field_nations" value="2488" data-dimension="F2">[[Ontology:Q2488|Returning land doesn't work]] / Returning farms to Black South Africans Will Never Work  ->  reactionary tries to claim that there <em>is</em> an equation for what race of people should own farms <del class="dots">...</del> going for the angle that this <em>will</em> make the world worse because being Black is as destructive as being Stalin. (which, if true, would mean that Black South Africans are rebuilding their country and making it stable.) honestly goes to show that when people said Communism "will never work" it isn't unreasonable to think they did mean to imply that Russians or Chinese people controlling industry in their own region instead of people from other countries — I hate the word greed, but — <em>greedily slurping up everything anyone has created</em> will never work. <del class="dots">...</del> ([[Special:PermanentLink/5233|complete prototype notes]] after watching through claim again)
</li><li class="field_nations" value="2489" data-dimension="F2">Freedmen having democracy doesn't work  ->  there was a version of Q24,88 during US Reconstruction because of course there was. and it was even less true. in reality Southern Blacks were almost the ones rebuilding the thing but people still got upset

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2490" data-dimension="S2">The concept of "scarcity" is prejudiced / Scarcity is prejudiced (searchable) / Liberal-republican economics is legalized racism / Liberal-republican economics is the study of how to legally eliminate Black people from the United States / Liberal-republican economics is the study of how to legally wipe China off the face of the earth  ->  the claim that racism, anti-immigration, and other prejudices begin precisely at the concept that human populations can be studied and constructed through "the allocation of scarce resources", because it is ridiculously easy to vulgarize that into kicking some particular group of people off a plot of land and handing it to someone else [[Ontology:Q2488|being "more productive"]] or "more efficient".

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2491" data-dimension="S2">Everyone can change their racist uncle / If Free Will could end colonialism, everyone could change their racist uncle  ->  one of the single greatest ignored contradictions in United States discourse. if individuals have Free Will, then it's safe for everyone to directly debate reactionaries. if individuals don't have Free Will, and all of people's actions are retermined through either interactions between parts of their body or the relaterministic development of Social-Philosophical Systems, then it's fundamentally important to rearrange people at minute social levels to get them to think any differently. even a progressive party taking over a country at large scales will do nothing to change how people think if you don't rearrange the people themselves.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2492" data-dimension="S2">People argue about Columbus because they hate historical materialism / Arguments about Columbus exist because people hate historical materialism  ->  really, really important. Marxists believe that people fail to see global empire because they don't understand the material patterns of history or societal development. Existentialists believe that people fail to see global empire because they are ""prejudiced"". they start invoking this weird little Artisanal ideal of a tiny ring of friends from different countries listening and learning, like that can fix global empire. then the more you look into it, the more you see it's actually just an appeal to Free Will and the notion that a rational actor will Freely Decide not to be Evil. but then you get to the problem of, how do you get somebody to accept any particular definition of Evil as real? you have [[Ontology:Q776|no guarantee]] that any particular human being won't Freely Decide that being whatever you think is Evil is better. so Existentialists believe that Free Will leads to a bunch of people spontaneously Freely Deciding to change history, but in reality, what you get is a bunch of people arguing that Columbus arriving in Hispaniola means nothing for the future arrival of Spanish empire <em>because</em> individual human actions are arbitrary and can't be used to predict history. even after those events have happened, when it's hundreds of years later and we have the results, they say this. this is what Existentialism leads to. denial of global empire. identifying the causes of global empire requires rejecting Existentialism.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2493">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2494">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2495">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2496">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2497">??

</li><li class="field_nations" value="2498" data-dimension="S2">Freeing Lithuania means The South should be free / If Lithuania has the right to be free-floating, so did the Confederacy / If Lithuania has the right to be free through sheer borders instead of being part of anything else, so did the Confederacy  ->  the claim that specifically <em>under Existentialist theories of society</em>, there is no good justification for keeping Confederates from national independence, and only for an anti-slavery treaty, maybe after The North drops a nuclear bomb. let's be perfectly clear: this shows that Existentialist theories are bad theories of history, not that there should actually be a Confederacy. it's more realistic to concede that buffer states have to side with some other country, and hope there's one with a really good philosophical position. if you take that view then you can argue the Confederacy doesn't get to be free because if the United States has a good philosophical position it's good to be part of the United States. in that scenario postcolonial theories <em>of the United States</em> as opposed to of United States territories are dead. really, postcolonial theories of the world are a little bit dead too. but that's not too bad a price to pay because those theories have never made sense. every group of people wanting to make any other group of people do anything is potentially a nationality-subjugating colonizing power and potentially [[E:No dictator is an island|a dictator-haver]] in somebody's eyes. so thinking you can organize a group of people to enact a postcolonial theory to force somebody to stop doing anything and to do anything else is contradictory. anarchism can be totally logically coherent if you allow that its purpose is to also create anarcho-fascism, while postcolonial theories of a First World country just can't.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2499" data-dimension="S2">The US South is a nationality held in colonialism  ->  first of all: I make absolutely no assertion this claim is <em>true</em>, I only think it should be investigated for its accuracy or falsity. what is the definition of a colony? a colony is a population of people forcibly held under the government of an empire for the benefit of that empire. in the prototypical examples, people may be turned into slaves or slaughtered to take whatever "assets" their area "had". colonies in general can be very screwed up. but not all colonies are the same. in some cases, England can [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland  descend on Ireland] and start granting the whole thing to new or existing Protestants, and it takes a while for it to affect the whole country. there's nothing okay about that; it does amount to a medieval cold war where they're trying to eliminate the Irish because the Irish stand in their way. but think about it a bit. after the US Civil War, a lot of the development of the United States has revolved around chunks of socially-linked people trying to control parts of the US so they can further realize their vision of the US over the whole US. most notably racist reactionaries trying to drive people out of areas to have more control, but in modern times, also White center-Liberals trying to occupy as many slots as possible and do the same thing to reactionaries. that realization process of doing hegemony politics to supposedly defeat racism is a lot like the colonial process of realizing the British Empire over Ireland. mathematically speaking. and if you think this sounds really stupid? maybe it is. but I think in general like 90% of the people studying "colonialism" are trying to define an incoherent thing and have no idea how to distinguish it from things that aren't it. empires are real. messed-up wars to snatch people's lands are real. but how do you even tell whether groups of people should be somewhere or shouldn't? there's no Liberal economics for whether an island should be inhabited by one group of people or another group of people; there's no equation that says this island does best when Irish people or English people have it, barring some futuristic Marxist equation about empire bringing inevitable suffering or about the notion of self-contained areas and degrowth. the hard reality is that primitive accumulation is always happening and never stops happening. the sheer biological growth of populations prompts them to senselessly expand into each other and over the areas they each believed they owned and nobody really knows how to properly make sense of that. when do you deserve to live anywhere regardless of who you are, and when are you deliberately refusing to understand the existing population or trying to destroy it? the Protestants leveling Ireland to then realize the British Empire seems like a fairly clear case of going too far. but where does it actually begin? when do people belong to populations and people-groups regardless of how much they think they're individuals? when are people actually individuals who should be considered minority demographics? could Trotskyists be unfair "colonizers" of the Soviet Union just because there's a good argument both that they are taking stuff away from its otherwise united population to build their own rival civilization and they utterly refuse to understand Soviet culture? how do you know what Culture is supposed to own a region? with that in mind, could it be that people's approach to handling United States reactionaries is genuinely incorrect if they never really wanted to be part of the United States at all and yet everyone is trying to bleed their population for social programs and order their people to behave particular ways and say they shouldn't have representatives in the government they were traumatically forced to be a part of? these days Liberal democracy feels more like a weird new form of colonialism people are attempting to use "for good rather than for evil".

</li><li class="number_empty"  value="2500">??
</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="2505" data-dimension="S2">Graph struggle can be used to establish standards / Machiavellianism is the assertion that graph struggle can be used to establish standards  ->  Plantagenet kings; Ukraine war; Gramscianism. model combines or unifies models: social graph - medium or vessel for - code of behavior ; graph struggle - instance of - method for distinguishing Good from Evil ; graph struggle - has logical result - social change
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2506" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2507" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2508" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2509" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2510" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX" value="2511" data-dimension="S2">For the next two minutes, you were born in Kazakhstan
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX" value="2512" data-dimension="S2">For the next two minutes, you were born in Florida
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX" value="2513" data-dimension="S2">For the next two minutes, you were born in Detroit
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="MX onto IV" value="2514" data-dimension="S2">For the next two minutes, you were born into Trotskyism / For the next two minutes, you were born in a Trotskyist workers' state which may be larger than one national population but is not the size of the whole world
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX" value="2515" data-dimension="S2">For the next two minutes, you were born in China
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX" value="2516" data-dimension="S2">For the next two minutes, you were born in Taiwan
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX" value="2517" data-dimension="S2">For the next two minutes, you were born in the Soviet Union  ->  this doesn't actually specify you are aligned with Communism.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="2518" data-dimension="S2">For the next two minutes, you were born into an anarchist population
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX" value="2519" data-dimension="S2">For the next two minutes, you were born into a tribal population

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="25,20" value="2520" data-dimension="S2">For the next two minutes, you were born a woman / For the next two minutes, you were assigned female at birth
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="25,21" value="2521" data-dimension="S2">For the next two minutes, you were born a man / For the next two minutes, you were assigned male at birth
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="25,22" value="2522" data-dimension="S2">For the next two minutes, you were born intersex
</li><li class="field_exstruct field_LGBT" data-qid="25,23" value="2523" data-dimension="S2">For the next two minutes, you were transgender at five years old
</li><li class="field_exstruct field_LGBT" data-qid="25,24" value="2524" data-dimension="S2">For the next two minutes, you were gay at fourteen years old
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="25,25" value="2525" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="25,26" value="2526" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="25,27" value="2527" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="25,28" value="2528" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="25,29" value="2529" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="25,30" value="2530" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="25,31" value="2531" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-qid="25,32" value="2532" data-remark="1532 Machiavelli" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2535" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2540" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2542" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="2544" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2545" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2550" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2555" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2560" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2565" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2570" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2575" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2580" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_horror" value="2584" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2585" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="MX onto PT" data-qid="25,88" value="2588" data-dimension="S2">QAnon is democratic / Despite being fundamentally anti-rational, QAnon was democratic in that it allowed groups of people with grievances that weren't being answered to cluster together, discuss their grievances, and find people who would represent them and force other groups of people in their national population to respond to their grievances; the structure of QAnon is not easily distinguishable from the basic principles of Liberal-republicanism that may include people nominating representatives of their choice and Kantian ethics / ([[User:RD/9k/Q25,88|9k]])

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2589" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2590" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2591" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2592" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2593" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2594" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2595" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2596" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="2597" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2598" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="2599" data-dimension="Z"><cite>[[Ontology:Q2599|How to know a crow: The biography of a brainy bird]]</cite>  ->  non-fiction semi picture book. one of those things I entered in here mostly because I liked the pictures — much like with comics or TV shows. but this is also a simple example of a "nature documentary" and how to pick Signifiers or real-world concepts out of one.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="2600" data-dimension="Z0">animal home territory (ecology)  ->  relevant to describing real-world crow behavior, <cite>Warriors</cite> series, chunk phenomenon.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="2601" data-dimension="Z0">individual animal
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2602">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2603">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2604">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2605">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2606">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2607">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2608">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2609" data-dimension="S2">Animal populations are countable  ->  this is really easy to demonstrate with the distinction between ring species and separate populations capable of speciating.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="2610" data-dimension="S">petty bourgeoisie  ->  the non-fictional motif of a particular definition of a non-proletarian class mainly seen in mainstream Marxism-Leninism but maybe in Trotskyist texts. (that was a weirdly repetitive sentence but I'm not fixing it.) I think Trotskyists might get the definition a bit wrong versus what mainstream Marxism-Leninism says, though I'm not positive about that. I do know Trotskyists have this weird implied belief that them existing cancels out the existence of any other petty bourgeoisie because they're the good ones so bad ones must not exist any more.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="26,11" value="2611" data-dimension="S2">Indie games are the petty bourgeoisie
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="26,12" value="2612" data-dimension="S2">Andrew Hussie is a member of the petty bourgeoisie  ->  again somebody people have become neutral about due to his tone-deaf "very White" writing early on. the [[E:Berdly|Berdly]] style of writing, we've all done it, there's only so much shame in it.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="26,13" value="2613" data-dimension="S2">Scott Cawthon is a member of the petty bourgeoisie  ->  nobody necessarily likes him as a person (and they don't know him, so that's not an insult either, technically) but they definitely talk a whole lot about how a game made by one person can "change the landscape of games".

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="26,14" value="2614" data-dimension="S2">Trotsky was a member of the petty bourgeoisie / ([[User:RD/9k/Q21,44|9k]])  ->  claim given in <cite>Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in disguise</cite> (Q21,44).
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="26,15" value="2615" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Q26,15|If Cuba contains a private sector, it contains the bourgeoisie]]  ->  this should be a prosaic statement but it apparently needs to be said. <em>why</em> does Cuba contain a bourgeoisie? there is a big, sprawling discussion to be had about why exactly workers' states give up and start regenerating the bourgeoisie. is this a process that stops on a particular date in history, or is it more similar to a life history event that occurs in the life cycle of an individual which thus needs to be countered continuously at each moment society regenerates? with meta-Marxism I have been slowly leaning toward the latter, toward the hypothesis that even if defeating the bourgeoisie in a Communist revolution <em>can help</em>, it isn't a one-time process. this does, fortunately or unfortunately, open up vague possibilities of there being methods to block the regeneration of the bourgeoisie in a [[:Category:Charcoal workers' states ontology|charcoal-tinted transition process]]. it had better be pretty good though, given that anarchism itself has a tendency to regenerate the bourgeoisie.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-remark="Deng" data-tradition="DX" data-qid="26,16" value="2616" data-dimension="F2">A private sector is not the bourgeoisie [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping_Theory]  ->  wow! that cannot be true. out of all the things in Deng Xiaoping Thought, a great number of them are up in the air, but this is the first one I've seen that seems false on its face. like, you can claim the bourgeoisie is not bad or is not dangerous, and that maybe gains legs in [[E:Trotsky is your new hero|a Trotsky situation]], but you can't just say the bourgeoisie is not the bourgeoisie, because that's [[E:Most science is not done in reality|a logical contradiction against models that have previously worked]].

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="26,17" value="2617" data-dimension="S2">Toby Fox is a member of the petty bourgeoisie / Toby Fox was a member of the petty bourgeoisie in 2016  ->  let's just drop some uncomfortable truths that should be perfectly obvious to any Marxist but are not obvious to any normal progressive who talks about "trans rights", "abortion", "the Republic of Gilead", and "fascism". (none of these are bad topics by themselves, but the thing is that you can probably already hear in your head the exact framing and the tone they're said in. that's the problem.) the great thing about this ontology project is we can drop as many of these ridiculously-specific claims as needed.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2618">??
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="26,19" value="2619" data-dimension="S2">Everyone in Deltarune is the petty bourgeoisie  ->  Asgore sticks out the most when the word "shop" is put next to him immediately but like, everything is a tiny business or teeny government institution. it's kind of just logically true the second you start thinking about it.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="26,20" value="2620" data-dimension="F2">United States people are born the proletariat  ->  I think there is significant evidence to consider this not true or very misleading. A) Stalin's interview described the United States as full of "skilled workers" that were "not relevant". B) currently the entire concept of progressivism is defined and controlled by the petty bourgeoisie; every "progressive" gets absolutely fierce and hostile at you if you so much as define progressivism starting with Materialism instead of Idealism. C) there is a copious discourse in right-Liberalism and environmentalism about "small businesses" and how there are supposedly enough small businesses to combat climate change by getting rid of big businesses. if true that is an absolute cascade of small businesses, a small business tsunami. D) every piece about "gen z" acknowledges that people are primarily doing gig work instead of actually getting employed. E) YouTube channels have exploded and along with them has exploded a terrible tendency for everyone to conflate tiny businesses with "labor", partly thanks to an unholy alliance between YouTube channels and "artists" that all have no idea what employment is.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="26,21" value="2621" data-dimension="S2">United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie / United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie, not the proletariat  ->  this claim refers especially to people born in suburbs. it may not apply to the entire United States at once. if it applies to significant regions of the United States as considered separately from other regions, then it should be considered true, although more propositions can be created to narrow it down and make it more precise.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="2625" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2630" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2635" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2640" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2645" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2650" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2655" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2660" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2661" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2662" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2663" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2664" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="2665" data-dimension="M3">Why is your hypothesis wrong?  ->  one of the most important questions in science, with little exaggeration. successfully answer it with a statement accurate to reality, and you've gone from hypothesis to factual scientific model<br />
also arguably a very important question for all Marxist models of socialist transition. with models of <em>revolution</em>, as opposed to models of building an unimpeded society, you can push it aside temporarily with arguments that the bourgeoisie isn't answering the right questions and such, although once you have the correct set of literal material questions it may be time to start asking it again

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2666" data-dimension="M3">Why isn't your theory forbidden? / If your theory can overturn all hierarchies, why hasn't it been forbidden as a threat to the existing order?  ->  a question Existentialists never seem to seriously ask themselves. really felt this trying to read Foucault. there are a few anarchists that pass this bar only technically and dubiously by being willing to Zinovievize society for nothing in return. not the way I would prefer that a theory fix itself, but, back to Existentialism. why does it act like it's the most radical thing ever when it never stops to ask what it is or isn't disrupting

</li><li class="field_ML" value="2670" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2675" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2679" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2679|If mathematics is purely arbitrary, Krillin can punch Chiaotzu for any answer]]
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2680" data-dimension="S2">Mathematics is an arbitrary painting from deterministic brushstrokes / Mathematics is an arbitrary house of deterministic cards  ->  equations work only one way but our choice of equations to use as models is arbitrary.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2681" data-dimension="M3">[[Ontology:Q2681|Does two flames plus two ice cubes equal four ice cubes?]]  ->  jamming question to trip up philosophers who say that "two plus two <em>must necessarily</em> equal four" rather than realizing that mathematics is true according to definitions of regular rules. mathematics is one big field of multivariable equations, such as "z = x + y", which always work the way they have been defined to work, but cease to work that way as soon as we use a different definition, which is rather frequent. if we assume one flame melts exactly one ice cube, the flames and ice cubes problem can be phrased with negative numbers, and we have changed the definition of adding objects into subtracting objects just by saying that the same integer that can contain 2 can contain -2.

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2682">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="2683" data-dimension="S2">Amazon bleeding authors is stealing / Letting Amazon bleed authors is stealing  ->  by itself, this isn't <em>not</em> true — I mean, the small shops are hard at work and the big mall owner is bleeding them into the ground with little benefit to them. reads like r/accidentallycommunist
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2684">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2685">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2686">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2687">??
</li><li class="field_nations" value="2688" data-dimension="F2">Amazon bleeding authors is readers stealing / Letting Amazon bleed authors is stealing (implying that the readers did it) / When readers let Amazon take huge cuts of books that readers refund, the readers are stealing rather than Amazon / "Reading and returning a book is stealing" [https://medium.com/@natasjarose/dont-do-this-bb680a5b5445]  ->  there are days when I really wish I could delete "stealing" from the English language. I swear that whenever businesses use the word stealing it absolutely ceases to mean anything at all. I think part of what bothers me so much about the word stealing is.... in daily life, the word "stealing" is racist, and is used to justify shooting criminals to death, basically slamming them out of the United States and this mortal coil supposedly blessed by God straight into Hell. United States people have firmly established that people who "steal" aren't human beings and they all "deserve" to be burned in one big fire. so. uh. I wish people would stop using that word so casually to accidentally imply that every single person who can't afford a book is the spawn of Satan and basically deserves to be put in a gas chamber to protect the White race. that is almost the official, accepted connotation of the word "stealing" now. I'm sick of that, but I don't have the power to change what stealing means, so all I can do is tell people to drop the concept of stealing and not be in favor of that being a concept.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2770" data-dimension="S2">Taxes are the same as buying a product / Taxes are basically the same as buying a product  ->  very common, but seems dangerous. if taxes are just buying a product, and we recall that buying a product is the act of dishing out a fraction of a social slot, then taxes are basically the same as handing out social slots. the withdrawal of taxes is the withdrawal of social slots. partisan arguments over taxes are arguments about the creation of social slots. most importantly, replacing taxes with private funding changes almost nothing; the only thing that changes is exactly one sponsor with one specific partisan viewpoint and set of requirements is connected to the "product" at a time.

</li><li class="field_horror" value="2771" data-dimension="S">dark forest  ->  I mainly know this motif from the context of science fiction. I don't know if it's been widely used before that.<br />
this specific metaphor is thought to have come from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Forest The Three-Body Problem] (2008)
</li><li class="field_horror" value="2772" data-dimension="S2">Smart aliens don't send signals / dark forest hypothesis ({{TTS|html=abbr|tts=Setty|SETI|title=Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence}})
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="Foucault" value="2773" data-dimension="S2">Trans visibility is a dark forest / Transgender visibility makes surveillance and identity policing easier (Beauchamp 2019) [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17416590241312149]  ->  yeah, that's about accurate. sad as it is.
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="ES, W" value="2774" data-dimension="S2">Anti-racism is a dark forest  ->  one of the major motivations that has made Gramscianism so popular.
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2775" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li value="2776" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S2">Goku cannot decide what Vegeta does / Goku cannot Freely Will what Vegeta does
</li><li value="2777" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2778" data-dimension="S2">Vegeta will inevitably do what Goku wants / Shenlong effect / Goku effect

</li><li class="field_geo"  value="2779" data-dimension="S">cat in superposition inside box / Schrödinger's cat
</li><li class="field_geo"  value="2780" data-dimension="S">quantum moons / objects have no color / Reality isn't real / funny metaphors for causality gaps / funny metaphors for stark-divisions jumped by fundamental particle interactions
</li><li class="field_geo"  value="2781" data-dimension="S">quantum dice / quantum coins / funny metaphors for wave functions
</li><li class="field_geo"  value="2782" data-dimension="S">quantum shoes / funny metaphors for entanglement
</li><li class="field_geo"  value="2783" data-dimension="S">box filled with overlapping lions / quantum Social-Philosophical Systems
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2784" data-dimension="S">Starlight Glimmer paradox / Trunks paradox
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2785" data-dimension="S">quantum lions (ally) / quantum Goku  ->  mathematical model in which potential allies that could extend a node into a graph appear in a probabilistic wave function of whether they will actually turn out to be allies; finding out someone is an ally requires quantum measurement
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2786" data-dimension="S">quantum leopards / quantum Vegeta / quantum William Afton  ->  mathematical model in which hazardous enemies of a given graph node attempting to form into a graph appear in a certain probabilistic wave function of whether somebody will turn out to be a hazard or insistently unaligned versus an ally; finding out someone is a hazard requires quantum measurement, and this can sometimes be devastating because it gives said non-ally information and power that could aid the non-ally's graph in expanding and oppressing outsiders of that graph
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2787" data-dimension="S">quantum Freddy  ->  similar to quantum William Afton, but with an absurd extra layer of precision; modeling hazards as unpredictably showing up at some particular point in 2D space according to the collapse of a probabilistic wave function
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2788" data-dimension="S">Communist Bardock
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2789" data-dimension="S">quantum Yamcha  ->  I don't have a good definition for this one but I thought it was funny. my working definition is, a node that when you collapse the wavefunction turns out to be useless for building graphs but is not hazardous
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2791" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2792" data-dimension="S">Lattice model
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2799">??

</li><li>Subject-internal perception / Lived Experience (exmat)
</li><li>Subject-internal interpretation
</li><li>Subject-external interpretation
</li><li data-dimension="S">map and territory fallacy

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2800" data-dimension="S">Every citation should contain price information / Every citation should contain cost information  ->  I really do mean every citation in the world, not just every bop-format citation. field: graph economics.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2801" data-dimension="S">plagiarism
</li><li class="field_mdem"     value="2802" data-dimension="M3">What is plagiarism? / Who owns the ability to repeat factual information? / Who owns the ability to repeat literary motifs? / Who owns the ability to independently repeat culture in another nation-state / Who owns the ability to independently repeat culture in another nation-state without paying another country that it happens also wants to overthrow your government and destroy national sovereignty?  ->  everybody thinks they know what plagiarism is. anyone who owns a business or has a doctorate has absolutely no idea what it actually is or what it isn't; it's almost like the more educated you get the more confused you get about the question of plagiarism. here's the reality: the question of plagiarism is the question of what business territory owners will allow what other businesses or mere individuals to live and exist. that's precisely it. it's all up the whim of who likes who and who hates who. you're never guaranteed a license to exist even if you are willing to pay the money, it's all about personal relationships and court cases. there is no universal rule for what does infringe all copyrights or what doesn't infringe all copyrights. it's all about whether Bob wants Alice to be part of Bob's socially linked countable culture or wants to get rid of Alice. if Alice is Chinese, it's all about how much Bob wants China to exist or wants to wipe it off the face of the earth.
</li><li class="field_geo" data-remark="often seen as anti-humanities, although this contradicts with structuralism" value="2803" data-dimension="S">large language model

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2804" data-dimension="S">AI text generation / generating videos with large language models or advanced neural networks / AI-generated article (social phenomenon, Z0)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2805" data-dimension="S">AI image generation / generating images with large language models or advanced neural networks / AI-generated image (social phenomenon, Z0)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2806" data-dimension="S">AI video generation / generating videos with large language models or advanced neural networks / AI-generated video (social phenomenon, Z0)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto ES" data-qid="28,07" value="2807" data-dimension="F2">If a book is well-sourced, but written by AI, it is a reliable source / If a book looks entirely factual and traces all its statements back to a bibliography containing valid sources, but is written entirely by AI, it is a reliable source  ->  this is the huge problem with everyone's heuristics for what supposedly is and isn't a source. Wikipedia is generally going to be much more reliable than ChatGPT; the same machine beginning with the same data could output entirely factual statements, and total nonsense if that's the path you lead it down. but people have all been taught the heuristic that {{em|individuals}} are what make information reliable — if a book was written by an individual and it can't change, it's good, if it was written by multiple people and it can change, it's bad. this is a really bad rule given that instances of ChatGPT are individuals in the same sense that humans are individuals or house flies are individuals and they all produce static works that don't change. we've effectively taught everyone that ChatGPT is the {{em|easiest}} way to get high-quality information, while anything produced by humans is potentially unreliable. if you don't believe me... would you sooner believe a human-generated rant by me that I carefully checked against all my observations of material reality but didn't have time to add sources to, or a perfectly-formatted essay by ChatGPT that did end with a bunch of valid sources? yeah. think about that. we have a genuine problem.<br />
this is one of the several different reasons I have for creating this Ontology project. I think there needs to be a way for people to check the validity of statements without resorting to specific human individuals or specific books. it's good to take a verifiable concept and put a bunch of examples of reliable books on the entry that confirm it. but books aren't what actually makes things true or accurate. what makes things accurate is their sheer coherence with other understandings about material reality. that's why I am building this big bank of propositions. so you can take the most real and verifiable ones and use them to test the most dubious ones, whether you have books, whether you have experts, whether you can re-test observations of the material world positivist-style. this could one day be more reliable than Snopes because it wouldn't rely on special talented individual human experts versus just anybody who has a high school education and is sufficiently good at reasoning. assuming the claim you're testing isn't too new for all the required information to be recorded in here.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="28,08" value="2808" data-dimension="S">reading arbitrary webpages and books into an LLM  ->  first of all, don't. second of all: the more interesting discussion here is what is being achieved or built up when somebody does this. if the machine isn't truly understanding it then what exactly did it use the data in the texts to create? my hypothesis is that it creates an ontology, while it is currently the case that humans can create ontologies better. the primary reason we haven't already built a good ontology is our obsession as human individuals towards Freedom and against [[Term:filtration|filtration]].
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="28,09" value="2809" data-dimension="S">jumping over paywalls with ChatGPT  ->  it's funny in such a dark way that this exists; if you understood what LLMs automate, you'd see it coming from far away. I refuse to do it. [https://lokeshchoudharyprogrammer.medium.com/how-i-read-medium-member-only-articles-without-paying-a-dime-762d90af2355] you can read a Litho<span style="text-transform: lowercase;"><em>Graph</em>Ica</span> entry to get the same effect, or write one if you have access to the source, and more than one person gets to contribute to that. so, why does this exist? it exists because we've normalized an individual person with a lot of money buying an article being the only way to read articles. you know, a [[E:petty bourgeoisie|small shop]] putting out products assuming that everybody else has money to buy their products regularly when that might not at all be true. this incentivizes AI companies who are the only ones with money to send AIs to read everyone's articles, because even if they had to pay for the articles "legitimately" it would still be that they'd have the money and the readers wouldn't have the money. I am begging you if you have a Medium account with less than 100 followers to make your articles publicly available so an AI <em>doesn't</em> read them for people. ...this makes me realize. we should probably put in every single citation of a source whether somebody paid for it and a very vague idea of how much: new book, used book, paywalled article / paywalled or paid periodical. really, that should be in every single academic citation everywhere. we should push to get that into the official APA citation style guide to be frank. because that information is a fundamental part of publication, as much as the name of the publisher. field: graph economics.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="28,10" value="2810" data-dimension="S">Nebula is a subscription streaming service...  ->  and eventually only AI companies will be able to pay for it, reading all the stuff in it with their machines and spitting it back out at the people who can only pay cents for content through ChatGPT. probably in the middle of a huge number of ads.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="28,11" value="2811" data-dimension="S2">YouTube is turning people into Communists (creating Communists, creating Marxists; abbreviated proposition) / The class structure or inner graph-economics structure of YouTube is conducive to demonstrating why capitalism does not make sense and Bolshevism tends to follow as the next step after capitalism  ->  sub-case of: Q28,17 Patreon types must learn that only businesses can pay businesses
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="28,12" value="2812" data-dimension="S2">Mastodon is turning people into Communists (creating Communists, creating Marxists; abbreviated proposition) / Mastodon is teaching people to use social platforms for their own sake instead of for profit by the platform owner or the individual users, functioning as a sort of "state business" attached to a countable culture, and as such, is creating an environment which is conducive to the emergence of Communist allies  ->  the claim that when microblog newsfeeds are created in a localized way for the people that use them rather than for one giant "mall lord", they turn into a structure where people casually share many things free as opposed to paywalled and unobtainable and the people of each particular localized social platform all operate as non-payers within a larger local government attached to a hunk of capital that acts as the only payer and that none of them directly owns; the localized social platform turns into a kind of generalized "state business", which is incidentally attached to a local countable culture in the form of the instance membership. this is definitely some kind of Bauplan. this is a mathematical structure which could be fit into theories of socialist transition. the only major issue is figuring out what "color" this Bauplan is. I would hazard a guess that it is actually [[:Category:Charcoal workers' states ontology|charcoal]], thinking about the way that people all over are so obsessed with creating these modular "state businesses" independently of existing corporate owners but independently of republican governments. that reads as very anarchist, in the sense of anarchism being connected to motifs of countable cultures extracting themselves from multiple possible [[E:Postcolonial is a euphemism for anarchist|"colonizing" forces]], and these weird [[E:united nonviolence of social oppressions|concepts]] that countable cultures [[E:schizoanalysis|inherently want to stand together just because they're all cultures]].
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" data-qid="28,13" value="2813" data-dimension="S2">Mastodon is turning people into anarchists / Mastodon is turning individual people into anarchists  ->  the inner substance of these two claims is different. they could both be true, unless there is some greater emergent process which is actually moving even the "central" people in a given population to create not a Marxist party-nation but an identifiable large charcoal-colored [[:Category:Bauplan ontologies|societal structure]].<br/>
I wouldn't rule out the possibility of kingdom-sized charcoal Bauplans actually emerging within the next century. the one caveat is... anarchism is infuriating in how it always acts only at the tiniest scales and effectively as the world has shifted into post-structuralist anarchisms you never actually know whether an anarchist transition process is happening or not. I think post-structuralist anarchisms are just confused theories created by cowards who want to spin utter failure as revolutionary adaptation, but at the same time, I think the same people that practice them may be capable of creating society-wide anarchist transition mostly by luck as the unintentional actions of millions or billions of people all just happen to stack up to an emergent process of change. you'd really need meta-Marxism to be able to notice and describe that transition though. most people who go fumbling through life not thinking about bigger patterns make really stupid decisions. these days it's dreadfully common for people to all separately align onto a model of "replacing big corporate structures with networks of indies" when the result would not be any different; people's lives would be ruled by algorithms similar to YouTube and Amazon where individuals keep trying to grab each other's attention, and everyone would face huge pressures to greatly specialize at something while not having any guarantee they wouldn't suddenly be thrown out of society and told to start training at something else all over again, everyone still treating people as disposable novelties.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2814" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2815" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2816" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="28,17" value="2817" data-dimension="S2">Patreon types must learn that only businesses can pay businesses / Every small owner and subscription service must learn to accept that most people cannot buy their product and the only way their business will be viable is many business territories joining together and agreeing that government will decide which businesses pay for what business instead of individuals  ->  in a sense this is just a very long-winded way to describe Bolshevism. the only difference between this and flat-out "businesses will directly be part of the country and national constitution" is that it is a bit more [[Term:molecularized|molecularized]], defining itself through graph economics of a small number of businesses linking to each other in a specific way rather than defining itself based on all the businesses in a whole country at once. honestly, to a smart person it should be totally equivalent though. like, this is just a small scale model of Bolshevism that if it makes sense in the first place would quickly apply to a whole country and not just part of it. this is basically a proposition for molecular Stalin Thought or molecular Maoism, something like that.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="bourgeoisie" value="2820" data-dimension="Z0">Patreon type  ->  we can define this somewhat precisely, it's a specific real-world phenomenon. Z0 Item.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2821" data-dimension="Z0">YouTube creator
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2822" data-dimension="Z0">video creator contractor / YouTube creator contractor  ->  a YouTube creator contractor is a gig worker who is contracted to make something for YouTube creators.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2823" data-dimension="Z0">video creator employee
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2824" data-dimension="Z0">Nebula creator
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2825" data-dimension="Z0">CuriosityStream creator
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2826" data-dimension="Z0">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2827" data-dimension="Z0">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2828" data-dimension="Z0">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2829" data-dimension="Z0">TikTok creator

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2830" data-dimension="S">companies buying subsidiaries to use their content as AI training data  ->  the biggest example is Elon Musk creating a new AI company to own Twitter. in this case, the whole process was controlled by one person. however, this process is interesting for the potential that separate billionaires could show up to buy companies and this could just become the new reason anybody ever buys companies any more.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2831" data-dimension="Z0">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2832" data-dimension="Z0">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2833" data-dimension="Z0">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2834" data-dimension="Z0">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2835" data-dimension="Z0">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2836" data-dimension="Z0">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2837" data-dimension="Z0">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2838" data-dimension="Z0">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="2839" data-dimension="Z0">??

</li><li class="number_empty" value="2840">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2850">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2860">??
</li><li class="number_empty" value="2870">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="28,80" value="2880" data-dimension="M3">If money is infinite, why do we still have poverty? / ([[User:RD/9k/Q2887|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="28,81" value="2881" data-dimension="S">dragon process / ([[User:RD/9k/Q2887|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" data-qid="28,82" value="2882" data-dimension="S2">LLMs cause people to seek authenticity / LLMs will cause people to seek "authentic" work with real reasoning, real voices  ->  this is probably true, but it brings up a lot of slightly different questions. do people always seek rare things, or is there a point where they will truly be content with common things? do people really want the human content because of its quality or are they actually looking for its rarity or novelty?

	
</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="28,83" value="2883" data-dimension="F2">Wealth gets rid of poverty / to each according to his work (Toryism) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,83|9k]])

</li><li class="field_nations" data-qid="28,84" value="2884" data-dimension="S0">statement that could have been said by either D'Souza or Stalin / Tory statement that equally applied to Stalin's government / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,84|9k]])
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="28,85" value="2885" data-dimension="S">to each according to his work / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,85|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="28,86" value="2886" data-dimension="S2">There is a difference between utility goods and rank goods / ([[User:RD/9k/Q2887|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="28,87" value="2887" data-dimension="S">rank good / worker-property (item which is artificially rare yet may be necessary in order to work; {{book|MDem}} 4.3) / treasure (object which has been assigned high value due to gap of labor between most people and it) / collector's item (object which is produced through labor yet treated as if it is somehow a naturally occurring rare item) / cost of living (object which has become expensive but is necessary in order to work or properly reside somewhere) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q2887|9k]])

</li><li data-qid="28,88" value="2888" data-remark="8 as lucky number or wealth number" class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX or ML" data-dimension="S2">All wealth comes from labor / ([[User:RD/9k/Q2887|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="28,89" value="2889" data-dimension="S2">Investment is a form of poverty  ->  I thought for a few minutes about the question of whether people who are having trouble getting jobs or houses but have money should invest it into specific industries to help with the task of forming unions. I thought about the topic, and then I was like, but investment doesn't actually produce anything. if you invest money it doesn't mean you would be capable of working in the conditions or to the standards of the industrial structure, it only means you're obligated to defend that industrial structure against other corporations and basically abuse its workers to put other workers out of work. investment is just a way to bet on what people win graph struggle and which artificially created countable cultures survive or get destroyed. it's terrible but you should maybe save money for literal strike funds or something.<br/>
when you invest money you don't truly have the capital. you don't actually create capital. where the thing that's actually important is to create more capital, not just the capital that's there. growing capital allows workers to be employed and have houses. you see people get this wrong all the time claiming growth is only about "greed", when it's not. if all we did was get businesses to be less greedy there'd be more intense fighting in society over prejudices and immigration and which industries exist and don't exist and what people are "useless". now, if anarchists solve the problem of how to figure out what is the optimal number of babies per town and when having any more babies is inherently greedy, by all means analyze societies, history, and empire that way. but if you don't want to believe that there is a greedy number of babies then growing capital and industry is not inherently bad.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" data-qid="28,90" value="2890" data-dimension="S2">Society are not singular / Society cannot be uncountable / The division between societies occurs at gaps containing no social ties, not at territorial borders / population-society conjecture / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,90|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="28,91" value="2891" data-remark="91: Bolshevism is over" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="R.D.">R.D. has not done meta-Marxism correctly  ->  pre-emptively creating this so nobody can collapse Q28,98 into being false specifically because <em>R.D. has not allowed</em> meta-Marxism to expand to the point it can practically be more than one person. to falsify Q28,98 you have to prove something which does not pivot around R.D., like that meta-Marxism can never become a science, or can never serve the purposes of being a predictive or explanatory model that it is trying to achieve.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="28,92" value="2892" data-dimension="S2">Socialism can have Trotskyist characteristics / Trotsky's Bolshevism would have Trotskyist characteristics / If Trotskyists successfully created a workers' state, its emergence from the countable culture consisting of Trotskyite history, Trotskyite oral tradition, and Trotskyite-to-Leninist allegiances would cause it become a particular new thing of socialism with Trotskyist characteristics / ([[User:RD/9k/Q2892|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="28,93" value="2893" data-dimension="S">the only correct thing Trotsky ever said / the one correct thing Rosa Luxemburg said / ([[User:RD/9k/Q2894|9k]])

</li><li class="field_ML" data-remark="concept of a non-revisionist Trotskyism" data-qid="28,94" value="2894" data-dimension="S">[[E:Q28,94|the only good form of Trotskyism]] / the only good version of Trotskyism / non-revisionist Trotskyism (hypothetical possibility; motif) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q2894|9k]])

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-qid="28,95" value="2895" data-dimension="S">Trotskyism is my favorite fairytale / ([[User:RD/9k/Q2896|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="28,96" value="2896" data-dimension="S">an atheist to Trotskyism (in reference to such phrases as "an atheist to fairies" and "an atheist to Santa Claus") / a-trotskyism (atheism, but for Trotskyism) / the Trotsky delusion (motif) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,96|9k]])<br />
{{book|The God Delusion}} + Trotskyism = this.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="28,97" value="2897" data-dimension="S">an atheist to community / the community delusion (motif)  ->  at this point in my life I believe that the biggest thing holding people back from historical materialism or coming up with sensible ways to form a nation-wide social-democratic movement is the overblown notion of "community". very few things can truly claim the title of "people's new religion"; political parties and ideas and various maligned models like "the scientific method" or "atheism" never quite rise to that level, while Community is one of the only things that actually does. here's the problem with Community. it always thinks it's uncountable, when it's actually plural. Community has its own shovel dream, and it has an incorrect shovel dream, and this is what generates anarchism — the incorrect object-formational ideology that a socially-linked Community of arbitrary individuals happily joining together while ignoring the existence of scales of social reality, as a material object perceiving the world through physical processes, generates. religion has been replaced many times over, such that now we're in a reality where religious groups, fandoms, a circle of Existentialists in academia, Trotskyist parties, anarchist groups, anything, all operate on the same fallacy or incorrect shovel dream that because their group of people is such a nice joining of individuals, groups of people don't actually exist and clearly the whole world is just a bunch of individual human beings that all strive to merge together in any order one by one. and whenever some kind of Maoist shows up and says "I think groups of people exist, for instance the Chinese [[E:working class|w—]]", all the Community people tell them to shut up, and treat it like heresy. they each treat it like heresy that groups of people could exist even though each of them is a group of people that if it were to expand could only really imagine the whole world becoming more of their own group. and if anybody points out the contradiction of Community always being plural even though it's supposedly uncountable, people start making up weird justifications about how supposedly even <em>if</em> "Community are not singular" the inevitable competition and tension between Community processses must be keeping them in balance and merging them all into Community anyway, because after all, <em>everything</em> naturally merges into Community!<br />
Community is the deity of Existentialism, and {{book|Pokémon}} is one of its major religious texts, full of wholly-metaphorical "bible stories" about exactly how Community works.<br />
"religion is the opium of the masses"? not true any more. it's now a much more specific thing variously called either [[E:poetry (literary flair)|poetry]], culture, or Community.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="28,98" value="2898" data-dimension="S2" data-submitter="R.D.">meta-Marxism is a concept, not a person / meta-Marxism is an ontology, not a person / [[User:Reversedragon|R.D.]] is not the only one who can do meta-Marxism  ->  some people are going to need this reminder. meta-Marxism is a pile of hypotheses and a scientific method (in prototype, at least) by which the hypotheses can self-correct and evolve. the meta-Marxism that adjusts itself to match reality is meta-Marxism. if R.D. doesn't update meta-Marxism to be empirically accurate, then R.D. is not a top-tier meta-Marxist. meta-Marxism is an embryonic attempt to create a field of science. one could say this about the original Marxism as well. one could also claim, to varying degrees of success, that Marxism never became a science and always fell back down into the realm of philosophy. that's where meta-Marxism is right now, but if it is successful, it and Marxism will both climb out of the philosophy pit together.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="28,99" value="2899" data-dimension="S0">[[E:Q2899|rejected meta-Marxist hypothesis]]
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2900" data-dimension="S0">[[E:Q2900|meta-Marxist hypothesis]] / Molecular-Marxist hypothesis / MDem hypothesis / existential-materialist hypothesis  ->  category of all MDem axioms/hypotheses. for the 2900s range, focus more on MDem as a hypothetical SPMS inside which these statements are best tested versus anywhere else instead of general meta-Marxist statements that could theoretically be tested by any movement imaginable
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,01" value="2901" data-dimension="S2">Inventions are purposeless without a permanent caretaker or institution / Inventions cannot be valued by any society as a whole

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,02" value="2902" data-dimension="S2">Capitalism dices countries into half a country per person / Capitalism chops countries into half a nation per person (divides, pulverizes, choppifies) / Capitalism is the division of a country into 300 million nations per 300 million individuals / Capitalism is the division of countries into one countable Culture per one individual  ->  this sounds really weird at first, but it is the only good way to explain why Existentialism exists and why it so tightly ties diversity and tolerance to the existence of Artisan types or bourgeoisie. watch <cite>Elemental</cite> (Pixar 2023) and you will really see this as the unintended message - society really needs every Culture specifically because it needs more types of businesses, but also, every Culture is a product for consumption to serve specific purposes needed by others, and every Culture must go through intense "selection" to never ever be similar to others and be exactly what some arbitrary set of un-sorted people needs in order to be successfully fit into society and tolerated. worse than that, some people in the class of Artisan-types/Directors/Careerists/"entrepreneurs" are allowed to think and create countable Cultures, and some people in the layers of customers and employees are strictly not allowed to think, only allowed to join a Culture or leave a Culture<br />
<i>(temporarily copied from "You cannot donate a job":)</i> one of the great advantages that Liberal-republicanism supposedly boasts is that in its outward appearance it is <em>apparently</em> molecularized and is capable of understanding societies as a dynamic soup of different borderless dividing and re-dividing countable cultures which may be any size from 5 people to 5,000 people to 5 million people to 150 million people. but all of this is an artifact of the bourgeoisie initially dividing society into approximately 150 million societies; the [[E:shovel dream|shovel dream]] has been changed by changing the shovel, but not in any way that gives the shovel new agency to change its own shovel dream. meta-Marxism would change the shovel dream in order to become capable of changing the shovel when enough shovels have the right shovel dream regardless of whether it originated from shovel shape or from science.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,03" value="2903" data-dimension="S2">Capitalism is a system where cultures compete to be human / Capitalism is a system where countable cultures compete to be accepted as part of the world, specifically referring to a particular conception of the world pivoting around some particular country population, economy, and territory, and the countries directly connected to this pivot (the world defined as a [[Term:Filament-axis|Filament-axis]]) / Filamentism proposition  ->  a basic definition of capitalism as Filamentism — the process by which multiple possible people swap into an open social node to construct society at the expense of all the people who didn't make it in there — relative to the whole world.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="29,04" value="2904" data-dimension="S2">Messing with free will is messing with culture / Interfering with free will is the same as interfering with culture / An attempt to change Free Will is synonymous with an attempt to change culture  ->   seems random at first, but the more you apply it the more you see it's basically the case. these days, attempts to impose culture on Africa are typically seen as bad because Free Will. attempts to force the hand of any particular individual Subject, defined by Free Will, are frequently taken as a violation of culture, as with "disabled culture" and "autistic culture". the autonomous will of an individual Subject is already understood <em>within Existentialism</em> to be the same as culture. look at Lacanians identifying individual will with an individual human being's tower of signifiers (as deterministic as that might sound on the surface) — individuality is culture. with this said? this hypothesis is also appropriate for meta-Marxism if the definition of culture is tweaked just a tiny bit to refer to an existential-materialist Subject, or socially-linked material populations that can be modeled as containing existential-materialist processes.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="29,05" value="2905" data-dimension="S2">Society is made of smaller pieces / Society has material components / "The social" is made of smaller components  ->  Rothenberg came so close to saying something genius and then swerved back into stupid. so, Existentialists get credit for the notion of an "atomic" model of society as made of individuals, although I'd prefer a less crude "molecular" model which is capable of recognizing groups and structures and also the proletariat. (the "[[Term:capable proletarian subpopulation|capable proletarian subpopulation]]".)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="29,06" value="2906" data-dimension="F2">You can't predict quarks; matter doesn't exist / You can't predict quarks thanks to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, thus there is no matter / Each quark is constantly popping in and out of solidity, thus there is no matter  ->  joking analogy for what Existentialism has done to the analysis of societies. Lacanians think individuals don't assemble into larger objects. if quarks functioned that way, there would be no matter and nobody to write books. when the majority of all free-floating objects in the universe have the capacity to assemble into particular bigger objects or interact in specific ways, shouldn't we consider that people can do this too?

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2907" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,08" value="2908" data-dimension="S2">Hierarchies are material objects / Hierarchies are material objects, not ideas or attitudes  ->  this is one of the major pillars of [[Term:Hyper-Materialism|Hyper-Materialism]]. a population-to-population hierarchy of one population oppressing a whole other population happens for material reasons before people rationalize it with attitudes. what can trip people up about this is that they don't have good frameworks or language for describing two free-floating populations in an all-directional contradiction against each other where because both populations eat and occupy space, their competition produces a dynamic, all-directional spatial slot hierarchy of every individual against every individual which can lead up to real, tangible oppression that appears to be based in whole discrete populations but actually isn't. (the way that sentence will sound like spaghetti to normal people is, by itself, telling as to how uncommon it is for anyone to be taught this or think this way. if anyone already understood this concept it would be a lot easier to describe in plain language.) if every Black individual competes and every White individual competes and it happens only by chance or factors that shouldn't be related that a lot of the Black individuals end up behind, whatever The Media says, all the White individuals will simply continue pushing them out because "locking their doors" is in their best interest as individuals. 2,000 White individuals see one Black individual and they all individually lock their doors and even help each other keep out the Black individual because three White individuals each trust each other although they do not trust him. the creation of racism between whole populations is an emergent effect that easily traces up from the isolated behavior of individuals as they all vie for their daily bread and their finite job slot. unfortunately it seems that many Marxist parties have not figured this out and are still presenting prejudices through Idealist models rather than creating Materialist models. so this proposition has to stay [[E:meta-Marxism|violet]] even though most of its content is fairly [[E:mainstream Marxism-Leninism|crimson]].

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,09" value="2909" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2909|The State is the apparatus of Ideological State "Apparatuses"]] / "Ideological state apparatuses" wield The State as their apparatus, not the other way around / There is no such thing as ideological state apparatuses  ->  see entries such as "[[Philosophical_Research:Molecular_Democracy/4.4r/3556_peanut-butter|pillows are not ideologically neutral]]"

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,10" value="2910" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2910|It's easier to imagine the absence of elephants than the successor to elephants]]  ->  jamming proposition used to get people to realize why "it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism". it's far harder to imagine anything actually having transitioned into or given rise to something else than it is to imagine that thing just being broken or gone. an end-of-the-world scenario is actually just the absence of civilization in the form of Social-Philosophical Systems, which in a sense has definitely been the case on earth before. all civilizations have not been before they've been, and in some cases they've also not been after they've been. in contrast, civilizations transitioning to new class compositions or fundamentally new structures has been rather rare. can most people without a biology or science education make reasonable guesses about the species that could descend from elephants, down to all the physiology and details that make up a Future Elephant, or is it easier to imagine a particular elephant being gone from a photograph, or a photograph of a dead elephant?
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,11" value="2911" data-dimension="S2">It's easier to imagine the end of the world than a correct course of history  ->  the heart of why it's "hard to imagine the successor to elephants". the literal version.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,12" value="2912" data-dimension="S2">It's easier to imagine impossible matter fractals than the end of capitalism  ->  a much funnier realization than the elephant proposition that came to me when [[Ontology:Q2681|explaining Avogadro's number]]. how is it there are multiple sci-fi stories about universes being atoms in bigger universes, or universe-timelines being quantum foam to a bigger universe (thanks [[redlink - SCP entry|Project Palisade]]), but nobody is able to imagine countries being objects and people being chemistry, much less able to imagine that being a neutral thing. <cite>Childhood's End</cite>: horror story. <cite>The Shuteyes</cite>: though neutral about Communism, [[E:world of Alert|still a horror story]]. every center-Liberal-approved theory about many people changing society: treats them as many individuals at once, rather than a larger object. every news article: still thinks people are part of one big object called Our Democracy, even though by every other remark anyone has ever made people are just a bunch of completely unpredictable helium atoms that don't belong to anything bigger? like, if people are all individuals, how are there even countries? why hasn't Canada spontaneously merged into the United States?<br />
edit: wait. this could be a case of "[[E:slash (motif)|what if men could date men??]]". people think of something as being possible in fiction because they don't consider it possible in reality.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,13" value="2913" data-dimension="M3">Why hasn't Canada merged into the United States? / Why hasn't Canada spontaneously merged into the United States?  ->  a question that sounds silly but is actually a really good question, philosophically. if Existentialism is true, Canada is a bunch of individuals, and the United States is a bunch of individuals, and they're all unpredictable and can choose to collectively do anything at any moment, so why do they always wake up every day and form Canada and the United States respectively? as well, you see some anarchisms talking like there could be a world without borders. not the postcolonial anarchisms, clearly, because in those you effectively have to fill up big protest spaces through and around the territory of marginalized people-groups and essentially enforce a populational border. but in <em>other</em> anarchisms... if the world could function without borders why is it the case Canada still exists. the more history that happens, the more it will be that any general category of thing that is actually likely to happen will have already happened before you were even born. so if as many people have already been born as there have, why aren't we already living in the world where there isn't a Canada? a couple billion years go by and you get dolphin-shaped things multiple times. a couple of centuries go by and you get Marxism multiple times, and even the teeniest shred of Trotskyism off in the corner as a possibility that happened. so why don't countries spontaneously merge into each other through a bunch of individuals flooding between them and all the people suddenly saying "I guess we don't have separate governments"? personally, my best answer is that countries are socially-linked graphs of people and labor connects people into structures that are required to be there and function well for workers to ever be able to take them over. so if people started flooding between the United States and Canada it would be harder to work out reasonable solutions to housing them, providing health care, and getting them what they need, even assuming nobody hates each other. every human right depends on people being connected into exactly the correct graph structures to have everybody producing enough stuff, and that's why people don't flood around wildly, because on some level they vaguely understand that they have to contribute to building towns correctly to have what they need, and even if they don't have much agency it still seems like they have more agency staying where they are than through going to a lot of effort to go somewhere else. at least it seems that way.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-qid="29,14" value="2914" data-dimension="S2">Mathematical equations are culture / Mathematical equations are ideas in the same sense that postcolonial anarchist ideas against prejudice to better society through Idealism or poetic solarpunk art or good "culture" are ideas  ->  derived anti-anarchist Gramscian proposition. I cannot think of a single reason this wouldn't be true. especially when people like Lacan and Deleuze are always pulling the trick of <em>misusing</em> math. there has to be some reason Idealists would reject this but I absolutely can't think of one right now.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,15" value="2915" data-dimension="S2">Idealism forbids itself  ->  I first noticed this with Lacanianism a year or two ago before most of this research started. I was so confused how Lacanians could think both that ideologies and political theories were bad because you can't predict The Subject — political theories are so <em>totalizing</em> and <em>extreme</em> that Lenin saying anything other than that people can believe literally whatever ideology and model of society they want to is bad — and yet put out a political theory of their own whatsoever. it just really didn't seem to me that somebody who could do that without at least <em>stopping and mentioning the contradiction</em> had a brain that was working logically. only after doing a whole lot of surface research into Idealism did I finally understand what exactly I'd uncovered. so here's what the actual problem is. Idealism says that everything has to change because people get better ideas. Idealism also often but not necessarily says either that individual minds or countable cultures are sacred, or alternatively that individual minds are not accessible and not possible to easily operate on. this creates the contradiction that to be an Idealist you have to go around ordering people to change the way they think, but at the same time you necessarily believe that every actual method of changing the way people think is inadequate because all the problems arise deep in people's minds where you can never access them. this seems to be the way it always goes — Idealist Bob says that the United States is screwed up because everyone is racist, he proposes a plan to change it, Idealist Alice shows up and gets upset because Bob's plan to stop racism is prejudiced against disabled people, or said another way by acting in the real world Bob is not accessing the real problems in people's minds. and you repeat this infinitely every time another Idealist movement shows up and looks at other Idealist movements. it's like to believe in Idealism and actually fix anything [[E:We don't live in Deltarune|you'd have to live in <cite>Deltarune</cite>]] and jump out of reality into the Dark World where you can stop the Roaring Knight, because if you're in reality you can never access the true source of problems which is the single continuous world formed by everyone's minds. and even there. you look at Deltarune and the Dark Worlds contain contradictions. every time you try to build a model of ideas being the fundamental building block of populations it always comes back to materially separate people and separate groups of people interfering with that and being at least equally as fundamental. I have no idea why people are so determined to make the world into a single mind-plane. is it the core human obsession with [[redlink|culture and poetry]]? is that it? if so, why is nobody smart enough to realize that every single attempt to unite people against "prejudiced culture" for a "postcolonial culture" could always, mathematically, inevitably, as a repeating pattern reproduce the general shape of prejudice just because it is a group of people and because Gödel's incompleteness theorem? what am I missing? why is it forbidden to replace Idealism with math and physics equations? are mathematical models not ideas? or am I thinking about this too hard and is the answer just that Idealism will always destroy itself because Idealism forbids Idealism.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,16" value="2916" data-dimension="S2">Homeostasis is an illusion / Existing as classical matter blinds all human individuals to the non-solid, non-constant, graph-like nature of quantum phenomena and the possibility of a repeated "neo-quantum" scale of human beings assembling into countable objects similar to atoms or tennis balls  ->  this is one of those far-out analogies you think of either late at night or high and yet sometimes it provides insight. the analogy goes like this: quarks are constantly redividing between quark and quark and gluon. they're only stable when they're connected together, at which point they become an atom. at the scale of reality of a tennis ball, you can't see the quarks constantly re-dividing, although they are. it seems like the tennis ball is totally solid, and its natural state is to continue and continue and continue unless something comes over perhaps deliberately and tears it apart. but the tennis ball isn't solid, deep down it's constantly re-dividing, it's a bunch of things linked together that only exist consistently at all because they're linked together and they don't un-graph. at the scale of a living organism, it seems like its natural state is to continue and continue and continue unless perhaps something eats it or attacks it maliciously. but the living organism can't see that it's made of a bunch of constantly dividing quarks that only continue to exist because they're graphed together, and if they weren't the whole organism would go flying apart into quark-gluon plasma. it could have utterly no thoughts or experiences, it couldn't even have solid or liquid physics.<br />
so, even if you totally get rid of the religious origins, natural law is one big fallacy. there's no such thing as the inherent sanctity of any physical object or organism. the quarks inside it aren't constant, they weren't born, they don't have a birth certificate, they don't have a Lived Experience by themselves, you should be glad they don't have consciousness because if they did they might all [[E:anarchism|revolt against the existence of living beings]] and you would never exist again. living organisms being macroscopic and Newtonian gives them a faulty [[E:shovel dream|shovel dream]] and makes them unaware that they are not solid, they are not constant, and when something dissolves them or takes something away from them, in a certain figurative sense none of that existed in the first place; none of it was guaranteed in the future just because it existed for a moment. but living organisms are predisposed to think they are forever, and to label anything that takes away their "inherent foreverness" as their evil malicious cursed enemy that was never meant to exist. all of that, all prejudice, all clinging to Property, all "natural law" and "natural crimes" and general-sense psychoanalysis and religious morality, all of that comes from the false perception that individuals have "inherent foreverness" because they cannot see down to the quantum level where actually everything is constantly re-dividing and only exists in solid form because it's graphed together. this illusion of being solid is what causes the existence of individuals to blind all individuals to the actual behavior of populations and countable cultures. the way populations and countable cultures really work is that they're only solid and in existence when individuals are graphed together. clusters of corporations are a lot like quarks in a way. but the existence of individuals with their strong Newtonian behavior as physical objects has made us so stupid we are predisposed to tear society apart and treat it like a conspiracy just to be "free". I didn't say "quarks revolting could make you never exist again" for nothing. I think that is about what anarchism and Existentialism have done to our understanding of society as a species. society is a weird new neo-quantum scale above the quantum but we refuse to form matter just because it's icky and we don't like it.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,17" value="2917" data-dimension="S2">A revolution strives to become legal / The purpose of revolution is to make revolution legal / The purpose of a revolution is that a particular countable culture is illegal and then it becomes legal / Revolution is always illegal, but the purpose of a revolution is to make itself legal  ->  this is to be contrasted with the anarchist-tinted notion that revolution simultaneously was always okay and will never be okay.<br />
this one proposition goes a long way toward arguing Trotskyism is a plural Marxism, but it also counts toward the concept that Trotskyism isn't a world workers' state at the moment it first starts existing

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,18" value="2918" data-dimension="M3">What is 8 billion times 8 billion? / What is eight billion times eight billion? / What is eight billion factorial?  ->  {{TTS|tts=eight billion factorial|8,000,000,000!}} is a really, really big number. this is the number of, or at least the proper order of magnitude of, ways to arrange eight billion people into social graphs and historical periods. if you can look at the number {{TTS|tts=one times ten to the seventy-five billionth|1×10^75,750,364,046}} and think there are no more possible historical periods or major changes to the rest of world history after the ones that exist right now then you simply don't have any imagination.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,19" value="2919" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q29,19|Is Trotskyism a form of Bolshevism?]] (rhetorical question)  ->  jamming proposition used to get people to evaluate whether Toryism is of the same category as historical European fascisms. if Trotskyism wants a world government of allied Communist-aligned populations, wants to create soviet structures or unions, and wants to make all businesses state businesses, is it Bolshevism? a meta-Marxist would say yes. a Trotskyist would say yes. an anarchist would probably say yes. a Lacanian with enough background information would probably say yes. so, if Toryism believes in binding many arrow people around a strong axe leader, believes in removing immigrants and foreigners and "non-patriots", believes in restoring the empire to its former glory as an ostensibly-unified countable culture, and believes in conquering lands distant from the empire such as Palestine, what do we call that? can we just agree to call it a [[E:named nationalism|named nationalism]], even if it hasn't fully realized into the Material System of fascism yet?? the only real reason people don't believe this and don't believe it in a genuine way is the toxic influence of Existentialism — the philosophy that countable cultures such as "Bob the individual with a particular mind-internal culture and Free Will" and "the gay community" and "the Catholic community" are fundamental units of society but "the class subpopulation of capitalists", "the socially-linked faction of progressives", and "the socially-linked faction of Tories" are not. if countable cultures are the most important thing on earth then "the White Southern-Baptist Christian community who all want to vote for Trump and want the immigrants out" will always inherently be more important than "the political coalition of Black people and gay people", and it will always have the incentive to say "we're not the same demographic identity of people as the people clustered around Mussolini or Franco, so we can't be fascists because those are the people with Fascists on their name tag and we have Tea Party on our name tag" "also, you can't predict what we'll realize into as The Tea Party because historical materialism is bogus, so really how do you know we're fascists, how do you even know".

</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="29,20" value="2920" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2920|Finite packaging facilitates gaining attention]]  ->  pokémon. scp reports. vines. video essays. books. perhaps even propositions. I hope chopping all philosophy into atomic propositions is the thing that works to get people actually thinking.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,21" value="2921" data-dimension="M3">[[E:AntiCommunistTopology|Is topology a threat to Marxism?]]  ->  jamming question used to illustrate the difference between non-Marxist theories that are merely outside Marxism and non-Marxist theories which are anticommunist.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,22" value="2922" data-dimension="M3">Would this have a worse connotation coming out of Stalin's government? / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,84|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2923" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2924" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2925" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2926" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,27" value="2927" data-dimension="S2">Bibles are appealing because they number propositions / Biblical verses and proverbs are just numbered propositions / The way to create a "Communist bible" that people far and wide can easily reference has little to do with compilation into a book and is simply to take a lot of propositions and number them / Science can learn from the bible by numbering propositions in order to keep track of standing versus rejected hypotheses

</li><li data-qid="29,28" value="2928" data-remark="Q1928 TC8" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="M3">How do you build a society from scratch? / Making the assumptions that you have no money and no ready-made capital but hard work can get you any basic thing you want, how would you arrange people to create society? / molecularization question (question on how to transform an amorphous political-economic theory into a molecularized theory)  ->  this is why [[E:TC8|<cite>Terrorism and Communism</cite> chapter 8]] was so big for me. it introduced me to the concept that Bolshevism could really be built up starting from any number of people who have nothing. it also did the unintentionally genius thing of inserting Trotsky and implying that Trotsky can be standing there observing a society of arbitrary size being made from scratch starting at less than a thousand people. having read that first and then looking at the claims of Trotskyism only after that you can see why I was deeply confused when Trotskyism didn't have a well-defined set of instructions to create a section of Trotskyism in an undeveloped area utterly from scratch.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" data-qid="29,29" value="2929" data-dimension="S2">To be free is to be hated / To be free is to defy the expectations that would be required to join with a particular person and create an ongoing relationship, thus detaching from a particular materially defined border of morality and potentially coming across to the other person as rude, Evil, weak, defective, or dangerous  ->  the corollary to Deleuze and Guattari's "escape" theories that they never seem to want to acknowledge. people fear freedom because the only way people judge something as good or bad is whether individuals reciprocally obey each other's arbitrary wants.<br />
not all anarchists are unaware of this idea. the Zinovievist-styled anarchists definitely are. but none of them get the implications of it correct. they typically just decide that being hated is unequivocally okay. none of them realize that millions and billions of people are going to think their whole population is [[E:Anarchism is definitionally Evil|a bunch of Evil demons]] that needs to be exterminated {{book|Undertale}}-style. and when 100 million people show up to exterminate 5,000 people, it's not going to be pretty.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,30" value="2930" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2930|Ethics is almost impossible]] / Morality is almost impossible / Vegeta effect prevents naïve diffusion of morality / Individuals can never be forced to accept morality or ethics  ->  bound to be one of the most controversial ones, but the point of it is to test it and see if there is any way it can be clearly untrue
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,31" value="2931" data-dimension="S2">Every moral statement is a scientific prediction / Every moral statement is a determinist hypothesis  ->  for instance, if we say "all Floridians <i>should</i> learn about the history of racism and stop being racist", that is a prediction that there is a deterministic process of every single Floridian going through education and then doing a particular more-or-less identifiable pattern of behavior to not be racist. if it is not possible to list out a repeatable procedure that can and will be followed by absolutely everyone, however general the outline, "should" becomes meaningless and the moral statement is unenforceable.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,32" value="2932" data-dimension="S2">People accept ethical standards when they wish to maintain relationships / Subjects accept moral standards when they want to maintain relationships / Subjects might reject moral standards when they do not want to maintain relationships
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,33" value="2933" data-dimension="S2">Morality is a form of culture and identity / Morality is carried on Social-Philosophical Systems / Morality is carried in the bonds of social graphs / Morality is an internal characteristic of free-floating groups rather than individuals
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,34" value="2934" data-dimension="S2">Moral oughts are indistinguishable from material imperatives  ->  the hypothesis that "Trotsky must fit himself into Stalin Thought to build the Soviet Union" (a material imperative, to keep the Soviet population from disintegrating and going to other continents) is an equivalent kind of statement to moral imperatives like "Progressives must vote for the Democratic party" or "Floridians must learn a correct history of racism" — they are claimed to be the same because in each case, there are situations where somebody is handed an imperative but in practice that person is horribly suited to materially follow that imperative, and then becomes branded as a terrible person. if this hypothesis is true, then it means some moral imperatives are morally dubious under a more objective, worldwide, and consequences-based formulation of ethics; if the enforcement of morality leads to what logically should be immoral outcomes, the system of morality contains incorrect moral assumptions. to be fair, simply knowing that some moral or material imperatives are incorrect does not tell us what the correct ones are, for instance what one is supposed to do with Trotsky or exactly what should replace Democratic Party campaigning to successfully unify people.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" data-qid="29,35" value="2935" data-dimension="S2">Culture is the opposite of liberty / Authority isn't the opposite of liberty; the opposite of liberty is culture  ->  authoritarianism can't exist without culture, in the sense of individuals joining into a larger material object called a countable culture. however, culture can exist without The State and easily perform the same function that The State does. this would be one of the minimum corrections that would make the right-Liberal political compass closer to accurate.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" data-qid="29,36" value="2936" data-dimension="S2">[[E:AnarchyIsAgainstFreedom|Oppose freedom, and you can build anarchy]] / Turn against freedom, and you can build anarchy / If anarchists become anti-freedom, they can create anarchy / If anarchists realize that capitalists gain their power on the basis of accumulating freedom and not on the basis of malice or greed or "attitudes" or "cultural conditioning", they will become able to build anarchy  ->  this builds on the definition of anarchy as ""community"" and the process of individuals or small groups actively choosing to unify together into a larger clump of people ("Arceism"). on a typical day, I hate this definition of socialist transition and can't stand these theories. but in the end I'm a meta-Marxist, not a career anti-anarchist. so I give you the compromise: a [[:Category:Charcoal workers' states ontology|charcoal workers' state]] may be possible. have your Arceism if you really want it. but the cost of realizing it is that you must genuinely tell people there's too much freedom and purposefully make them give up their freedom. to me that sounds worse than Deng Xiaoping Thought. but somehow I have the weird feeling that there'd be people who just see this, clap their hands, and are like, "exactly!!". let me repeat: you've gotta take people's freedom away and tell them they absolutely have to be loyal to your countable culture or be expelled just because <em>that's better than being free</em>. you have to be more hardcore than Stalin, Mao, or Deng Xiaoping, not to mention many times more hardcore than Trotsky, but approximately exactly as hardcore as a bigoted Southern Baptist church, in the name of non-bigotry. you've gotta be on the level of "if you don't join anarchism and go all in you're hardly even human and you're Satan". you've gotta build a fortress state and fight for your life just like East Germany if there are as many people who don't want to be part of your anarchism as do. you've gotta take back half the bad things you said about Black Hammer (the Identitarian-fascist compound) even though you can keep the other half. does anarchism still sound good to you? if you say yes, then I'll shut up. then I'll shut up and say, okay then, you are ready to create meta-anarchism and maybe the United States really doesn't need meta-Communism.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,37" value="2937" data-dimension="S2">Culture exists as the relationships between individuals / The real uncountable culture was the friends we made along the way

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,38" value="2938" data-dimension="S2">Gramscianism and Deng Xiaoping Thought are related  ->  the more I would think about it, the more I would realize, huh, it's almost like one of them is tiny and one of them is big and that's the only serious difference. aside from that it's only similarities. the bourgeoisie rush to defend the borders or frontiers of a countable culture to protect ethnic groups from being dominated or dispersed across the world by outside populations, and Marxist theorists have to reluctantly let it happen. (or at least they believe they do.) the process of securing frontiers from outside populations naturally results in a [[Term:shepherd sheet|shepherd sheet]] of theorists and bureaucrats, but doesn't naturally result in proletarian structures. (it's only my hypothesis that Gramscianism would produce another China, but I think there's decent reason to think that, as far as the "there's just a capitalism inside it and no Bolshevism" part. you point out that Gramscianism is just a bunch of progressive bourgeoisie squabbling against reactionary bourgeoisie and it's like, yeah, how else could it go? I'm hesitant to say the same thing about Stalin's Marxism though, considering it didn't have the same result as Deng Xiaoping Thought and there was actually some Bolshevism in it. the content that ideologies realize is very important to me. so if Stalin's Marxism realizes Bolshevism even somewhat, there had to be something right in that historical period that Stalin couldn't possibly ruin by getting everyone onto his cause. now, as for Trotskyism... I consider it very suspect for never actually realizing any of its content, but I give it a couple points for constantly claiming the internal structure of the Soviet Union was wrong and thereby implying it does have specific content it wants to realize instead.)

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,39" value="2939" data-dimension="S2">Ethics is the same thing as objective morality  ->  how do I avoid statement definitions turning into word definitions and keep statements independent of what written words they are about

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,40" value="2940" data-dimension="M3">How can Stalin and Trotsky coexist in the same reality?  ->  whenever I run into a question about the United States that's really difficult I come back to this and I ask myself if there's any way to draw lessons out of a Stalin and Trotsky scenario. Black Lives Matter not cooperating with Trotskyists? turn it around a little bit so the Trotskyists are Stalin and BLM is Trotsky — suddenly everything makes more sense.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,41" value="2941" data-dimension="S2">If ideologies can coexist, they should be mutually consistent / If ideologies can exist in harmony, they should be ontologically consistent across each other / Compromise is nothing, ontological consistency is key  ->  one of the biggest, most central claims of meta-Marxism. this is the claim that if Trotskyists and Stalin followers can exist in the same world, then we should expect mainstream Marxism-Leninism to correctly model the historical emergence of Trotskyism and its persistence after being exposed while Trotskyism correctly models the emergence and persistence of socialisms-in-one-country; this is the claim that if US "Democrats" and "Republicans" (center-Liberals and Tories) can coexist, they should each have completely accurate models of how the other behaves which they can use to predict how to peacefully resolve their differences. obviously this sounds rather laughable for Liberal-republicanism. but for Marxism, the notion that mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism could update themselves to correctly model each other and all other ideology-populations as potentially independent entities wouldn't sound anywhere near as far-fetched. it's actually quite baffling why after generating so much new history without prior precedents Trotskyism would never have switched to correctly explaining its own material real-world history as an emerging "nation" or constellation of workers' states and realizing that there are steps in between what has actually happened and the purported end state for Trotskyism of a global civilization that they take out of Lenin's 1920 writings.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,42" value="2942" data-dimension="S2">Every time human beings assign meaning to an image it generates a group of people potentially in fierce conflict with other groups of people  ->  part of the mathematical definition of "Social-Philosophical System".
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,43" value="2943" data-dimension="S2">Leninism does not have a binary truth value  ->  the claim that a theory of Leninist movements or of workers' states can be incorrect on small things without being incorrect on everything, or in a case like Trotsky, incorrect on <em>most</em> things without being incorrect on everything. Leninism is subject to Gödel's incompleteness theorem just like formal logic, physics equations, computers, books, and minds. this makes the judgement methods people use of trying to apply the categories of "proletarian" and "bourgeois" as if they were flat-out categories of Good and Evil or True and False inappropriate for judging the basic possibility of a given theory or movement [[redlink|realizing]] or becoming a historically-relevant entity that must be studied even if such a group is unwanted by some particular Marxism. it's possible to get so caught up in the prospect of realizing a proletarian civilization that you stop doing historical materialism and [[descend into Existentialism]], becoming unaware of things that could completely prevent your success.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,44" value="2944" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Q2944|Applying any claim to Trotsky eventually yields the correct answers]] / Applying any philosophy to Trotsky eventually gets you to the correct answers  ->  one of my very favorite jamming propositions. this one gets me through the hard times. this proposition sounds so stupid at first like it could never be true, and then you try it, and you realize there's something there. I'd give an example, but I have a problem that they're all turning into actually okay propositions that might be worth making into their own Items.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,45" value="2945" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Q2945|Trotskyism is the prototypical oppressed group]]  ->  the claim that focusing on Trotskyists failing to fit into the Soviet Union gives insight into processes such as racists insisting they're oppressed, or movementist movements of marginalized identities horizontally oppressing each other in a circle
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,46" value="2946" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism is the prototypical prejudice  ->  the claim that specifically focusing on Trotskyists refusing to understand mainstream Marxism-Leninism gives insight into processes such as racism and xenophobia

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,47" value="2947" data-dimension="S2">Cold wars are about ethnicity / The Cold War was never about workers / Starting the Cold War was never precisely about destroying workers; it was about destroying every single Soviet individual allied with or connected to a Communist party, and this is why Deng Xiaoping Thought has been the only way to win the continuing global Cold War that never actually ended / The Cold War was about destroying all physical nation-state objects which are not the United States, including China, Russia, or a hypothetical poly-communist workers' state covering half the world  ->  this sounds very "postcolonial theory" on the surface but I have a different explanation for it than you'd think. I don't take this position because anybody is "racist" — even as that's quite fair to say. I take this position <em>because Deng Xiaoping Thought is still going</em>. the fact that this strange at-least-slightly-wrong Marxism is so popular means something is very wrong with this timeline; the major processes of history must not be what we think they are for this to be the most obvious solution.  also? the fact that it's so popular, it gives First World countries exactly what they want, and yet First World countries still hate it. if anything First World countries said against Marxism had been true and not just cover-up lies they would have thrown in the towel once Deng Xiaoping Thought was created, but you see people talking about China's "dishonest" tactics for actually having businesses or the supposed risks of letting Chinese businesses extend into the United States and it's really like they don't want China to <em>have</em> businesses, or by any reasonable definition, have capitalism. they want neocolonialism but China having <em>capitalism</em> and its own national government and unaccountable business-governments is scary. we can't conclude that Deng Xiaoping Thought exists primarily to benefit capitalists, not in an age when it benefits China and all its ethnicities even existing. what this means for actual Leninists is very unclear. the only thing that is clear is that part of the definition of an effective Marxism is winning the forever cold war. the world is beyond the time of simple atomic revolution or permanent revolution, and has entered a contradiction of infinite revolution versus infinite counterrevolution. and this has happened because nobody realized that models of society could be [[Term:molecularized theory|molecularized]], and Liberal capitalism is molecularized, and what any successful theory has to do is actively regenerate populations and accommodate population growth and correctly plan and arrange populations as they grow rather than in advance. China planning its country 100 years in advance could actually be wrong. and that's a little terrifying. because whenever individuals make decisions there's always missing information and we never necessarily know how to make every individual make decisions correctly. but in one sense we kind of utterly have to for any country or would-be workers' revolution to survive forever cold war.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,48" value="2948" data-dimension="S2">The Cold War never ended / The Cold War period was part of a larger completely continuous period of cold war  ->  component claim. like, really, when did it end? when did the whole practice of trying to destroy the Second World and every new workers' state stop? when Reagan said something to the effect that Communism couldn't be allowed to win, do you think he meant for a few years or do you think he meant forever? if he meant forever, as he probably did, then the Cold War is still going.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,49" value="2949" data-dimension="S2">[[E:NonBinaryLogicProposition|No proposition has a binary True or False answer]] / No proposition has a binary True or False value / Propositions generally should not have a binary True or False value / The way to fix logic is to replace binary outcomes with sheer tests of consistency  ->  you don't fully break out of the Gödel trap this way because practically nothing ever could do that anyway. that part is not what matters. ideally the point of logic isn't to derive facts about reality in a vacuum but instead to perform a basic sanity test of whether statements you already have could possibly be correct or are almost definitely wrong. arguably, that is the thing that logic actually excels at even as it is inappropriate for many other things.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,50" value="2950" data-dimension="M3">Is a Saiyan attack a social construct by earth people? / Is Saiyans attacking the earth a social construct by earth people?  ->  field: existential materialism. a question to probe one of the central fallacies of anarchism. anarchists and postcolonial theorists toss around "social construct", "social construct". but the actions of another population outside your population are not a social construct within your own population. if you live in China, all the awful things the United States does can't be regarded as a social construct, because they are materially happening, and material happenings have to be countered with material responses. likewise within the United States, Marxism in other countries cannot be treated as a social construct, it has to be regarded as something the whole country as a material object is doing for material reasons.<br /> 
note that this Item is a question, and ideologies that want to be total blockheads can respond to it with wrong answers as long as those answers fully incorporate all the information in the question. example: "of course a Saiyan attack is a social construct, all culture is made up and every country has the right to forcibly change another country's culture whenever it thinks that culture is bad". you can already see how [[Term:endocolonialism|people's views]] on the origin of imperialism lead to things like beating up the Middle East and making it worse and worse rather than better.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,51" value="2951" data-dimension="S2">Individual choices cannot be ethical / There are no ethical choices under capitalism (in reference to every individual decision, not just products) / Under capitalism, no individual decision each person makes every day is categorically ethical, and it is arguable every single individual decision can be unethical no matter what the question is and what the chosen option is / Ethics is nothing, general-sense historical materialism is key  ->  after years of relatives throwing boxes in the trash before I could even take them out usable for recycling I developed a very negative view of individual choices and how much an individual can do to prevent their daily existence from leading to a bad future. it's meaningless to say individual choices don't <em>matter</em>, but the more important question than whether they matter is whether every single thing you do from sunrise to sunset can be morally wrong no matter how much you try for it not to be. and it's very possible the answer is yes.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto PT" data-qid="29,52" value="2952" data-dimension="S2">the cause of Property is humans setting boundaries / the cause of Property is individual owners seeking to control relationships or interactions with others<br />
this is a neutral statement {{em|about}} Liberal-republicanism and Toryism, but it's important to note it's technically something Tories say and that they can say very misleadingly and spin toward weird fantasies of creating capital-feudalism

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,53" value="2953" data-dimension="S2">Freedom allows oppression to thrive / The more freedom people have, the more freedom they have to oppress each other  ->  something neither Western Marxism nor anarchism really want to acknowledge. the problem of the United States is almost precisely that individuals get upset at each other for various reasons and then they spread out apart from each other so far that they gain more power over each other and become more oppressive. Western Marxism dances in circles trying to find the "ideological state apparatuses" that allow this while anarchism thrashes around trying to find and destroy the Spanishness Office that rules individuals and could do this. it becomes relatively obvious neither of these angles make sense if you simply understand what a [[E:shovel dream|shovel dream]] is. (this may be the same proposition as Q29,54 but I am not totally sure.)

</li><li data-qid="29,54" value="2954" data-remark="post-Stalin" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S2">Anarchy is the most authoritarian thing there is / Anhierarchy causes individuals to become sovereign States over themselves that, through their ability to reject interactions and relationships, remove self-determination or internal "mind democracy" from other individuals, superficially similar to the way anhierarchy between nation-states creates First-World coercion producing Third-World "tyranny" / Anarchy Is The Most Authoritarian Thing There Is (slogan)  ->  slogan associated with unfinished MDem chapter "ProblemOfAnarchy"/"rain". the concept is that when there is no government the horizontal actions of individuals merely <em>replace</em> and <em>perform</em> the same regulatory actions government would do, because all populations of people have similar basic needs and they will all use the means available to them at the moment to achieve those needs. relationships and relationship boundaries are forced to play the role of The State, and in certain senses relationships become "authoritarian". can also refer to more general processes of Filamentism where if there are no central decisions the process of a population structuring itself takes the form of every surrounding individual repeatedly dealing out punishment until the target individual miraculously figures out how to do exactly what they need and have the capacity to do it really well. most technically, this slogan is referring not to particular Anarchist Social-Philosophical-Material Systems called "anarchy", but to the structural open-plurality of <i>anektiry</i> — but very few people throughout recent history have bothered to give the concept of <i>anektiry</i> or <i>anhierarchy</i> its own proper name, hence the colloquial use of "anarchy" in these edgy slogan phrases.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,55" value="2955" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,56" value="2956" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,57" value="2957" data-dimension="S2">Every "Dragon Ball" gets closer to Marxism / The more {{book|Journey to the West}} there is the closer it gets to Marxism-Leninism  ->  China's warring states period: not Marxism. Buddhism adn Xuanzang's journey: not Marxism. Journey to the West: closer to Marxism. Dragon Ball: closer to Marxism. {{article|Bardock}}: closer to Marxism. critiquing Dragon Ball: literally Marxism-Leninism if you do it right

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,58" value="2958" data-dimension="S2">Being right is not a matter of moderation / Being wrong is not a matter of extremes / Being correct or incorrect is not a matter of being moderate or being extreme  ->  field: meta-ontology.<br />
What is progress? + Being right is not a matter of moderation = Progress is what is accurate to material reality
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,59" value="2959" data-dimension="S2">"Moderation" is the shovel dream of empires / The golden mean is the shovel dream of Social-Philosophical Systems (the shovel dream of communities; the structure-thought of factions; the Group-Subject-idea of localized countable cultures) / The golden mean is the shovel dream of socially-linked groups of people operating as political factions that may have the ability to realize themselves over other socially-linked groups of people, including but not limited to a segregated band of White people knitted together into a group of Tories or neocolonial bodies that exploit whole populations of Third World countries and push to be allowed to design their governments to allow that  ->  really simple idea. really hard to explain to stupid people.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2960" data-dimension="S2">"Is", "can", and "should" are different things  ->  a three-way is-ought distinction. first is everything that is exactly as it is, second is what can and will be, the alternate normals at various levels of functional and dysfunctional, third is what you want to happen but may have no existing mechanism of happening. practically nobody these days understands the difference between the latter two. and there's a good reason: everybody tries to define Can and Should through specific ideologies that amount to specific Social-Philosophical-Material Systems. and when two people belong to different sociophilosophies they don't predict each other correctly because they each use their own. they each toss out "I believe that everybody" statements that just plain aren't happening, because they think that Should equals Can.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2961" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2961|Individual decisions cannot manufacture Freedom]]
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2962" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2962|Empowering the individual is impossible without a science of society]]  ->  everyone acts like individual choices can fix everything. <em>everything</em>. but most of the time that's impossible to pull off because making the correct individual choice requires having information about what the choice will result in, that none of us actually have. you can directly throw Gödel's incompleteness theorem at that claim. it's impossible to reason your way to the correct decision when reasoning never perfectly grounds itself in reality. so in effect, it's impossible to use individual decisions to create Freedom. there we go, first decent logical proof against Guattari. as ironic as using propositional logic may be given what I just said. that doesn't matter right now.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2963" data-dimension="S2">Cultures separate due to their internal content / Countable cultures separate due to their internal content  ->  A) FNaF comes out with various series of books, some people love them, some people hate them, people start forming separate circles. B) the internal content of Trotskyism is not the same as mainstream Marxism-Leninism, which ultimately led the Social-Philosophical-System of Trotskyism to fight against it and act like it was oppressed.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2964" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2965" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2966" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2967" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2968" data-dimension="S2">The existiest will rule / When all are existences, the existiest rule / In a society where all existences are nominally equal, people will exist unequally and brutally fight to be the most existiest / In a society made of existences, only the absolute existiest will survive to destroy and take everything from the least existiest / When all people are equally The Subject, in practice the will not Be The Subject equally well and the absolute most Subjectiest will subjugate the others<br />
tent of freedom poles + Subjects eat and occupy space = When all are existences, the existiest rule.<br />
When all are existences, the existiest rule + golden mean = Greedy people are a class.<br />
Greedy people are a class + Zootopia = Zootopia 2 is a good class metaphor.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2969" data-dimension="S2">You cannot donate a job / It is impossible to donate a job / Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for life (framed as meta-Marxist metaphor for the ability of the proletariat or the next generation to form societies and movements precisely when the previous generation is even allowing them to earn anything instead of hogging a bunch of linked teeny business territories for not-becoming-factories-or-institutions and pushing the next generation out of society)  ->  in the United States, one of the most common "ways to help" that people see publicly modeled is donating money. this has to do with the unusual structure of United States society where a public sphere of life which is not people's houses almost does not exist, and the only other adults anyone sees modeling anything amount to businesses. people all over commonly talk about social-democracy like it's some form of generosity where people will give taxes away just because they want to be Good and don't want to be Evil, because prejudice and hatred are Evil and hating the poor is a form of Evil prejudice but donating money is Good. but what they fail to think about whatsoever is that to overcome poverty people require their own income. especially when nobody is actively tearing apart Liberal-republicanism, nobody will defeat the landlord keeping people out of houses without an individual income, and the landlord will keep mobilizing money and lawyers to keep everyone on the streets. to have anyone who actually carries the social-democratic movement and doesn't simply drop it the moment the reactionaries say "no" you have to regenerate the proletariat. but to regenerate the proletariat you have to realize that jobs can never be a gift. jobs are always a matter of individuals competing to exist in a town and be part of a town, where either highly educated people or able-bodied people able to take a whole lot of prejudice and abuse and {{censor|bullshit}} and stay standing are constantly shoving everyone else out and [[Term:Filamentism|they have no option not to]]. the proletarian is in [[Term:all-versus-all contradiction|antagonism against every other individual]], and an owner gifting somebody a job cannot change that — in some ways it only makes the contradiction worse by creating tension between the obligation to be "polite" to someone who gifts a job and pretend they're an ally of the same faction or "family" and the imperative to survive and remain intact and not let that person take advantage of you. if jobs were an item they would be a [[Term:rank good|rank good]] that the strongest people fight over to have money for anything else. so there are two contradictions created when the proletariat is even created: contradiction between the survival of the proletarian and "being polite" to the owner to form the social bond and the society, and contradiction between the separate competing countable cultures that thousands of owners have thus created. there is not just one society, [[E:Capitalism is the division of a country into 300 million nations per 300 million individuals|there are nearly 300 million societies depending on how many connected employees each one has]].<br />
one of the great advantages that Liberal-republicanism supposedly boasts is that in its outward appearance it is <em>apparently</em> molecularized and is capable of understanding societies as a dynamic soup of different borderless dividing and re-dividing countable cultures which may be any size from 5 people to 5,000 people to 5 million people to 150 million people. but all of this is an artifact of the bourgeoisie initially dividing society into approximately 150 million societies; the [[E:shovel dream|shovel dream]] has been changed by changing the shovel, but not in any way that gives the shovel new agency to change its own shovel dream. meta-Marxism would change the shovel dream in order to become capable of changing the shovel when enough shovels have the right shovel dream regardless of whether it originated from shovel shape or from science.

</li><li class="field_ML"   data-qid="29,70" value="2970" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Subjects eat and occupy space|Subjects eat and occupy space]] / A Subject is an autonomous lifeform that eats and occupies space / A Subject is a conscious lifeform that makes decisions based on its biological needs
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,71" value="2971" data-dimension="S2">Existing daily is extreme, not moderate / Existing daily is an extreme position, not a moderate one / It's infinitely more ideologically moderate to not exist than to exist / All mortal lifeforms who eat and take up space are extremists  ->  the claim that because all existence is subject to the [[Term:chunk phenomenon|chunk phenomenon]], nobody can actually "mind their own business" without being considered an extremist by somebody and royally {{censor|piss}}ing somebody off. everyone potentially conflicts with the existence of other people just by existing, because all goals are descriptions of changes to material reality, but some people won't want those changes, and may even be offended. with a particular morality, this transforms into the Buddhist proposition that when people come into conflict it's just better not to have goals. without that particular framing, this turns into the mathematical model of Filamentism, in which people's ability to align onto particular goals either increasingly builds social graphs or leads to vicious competition over who will be allowed to fill each open connection within the structure.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="29,72" value="2972" data-tradition="MX onto MZ" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2972|People destroy what takes away their lunch]] / People will always tear down something that takes away their lunch  -><br />
here's what I think is the crux of people being anti-science. the incentives are wildly misaligned, thanks to material reality. when you want somebody deciding on what science will be funded, you want someone impartial, who can think clearly about what society as a whole actually needs. in today's world a country of material human beings is generally not able to do this. purely because people are living breathing things, they are busy clumping up into microhierarchies and fighting each other over the last scraps while insulting each other with claims that everyone will get paid as long as they perform the right morality and be-human good and clearly [[Ontology:If society is just a bunch of lived experiences existing, the existiest people will own and rule it|people who aren't succeeding are just not good at being human]] and are subhuman monsters. in that environment, people will not be able to make decisions well. so, back to science. it sure would be great if we elected some impartial experts to decide on what science would get funded, who represented the people but weren't under any serious pressure that could cloud their judgement. it wouldn't be as good if we relied on random suffering people clamoring for the last open job who are upset at society spending stuff on random or arbitrary things irrelevant to them and the improvement of living conditions for the people while they suffer. oh wait. oh no. we invented a system where anyone with enough money can persuade everyone to vote for them, and anybody can vote on things despite the entire existence of government and a shared society and rich people asking them to vote every so often being a leech on their existence they just want gone? well no wonder people are voting for everything ever to be defunded. we've left society in shambles to where most people in the United States don't need any more science to increase their quality of life and the one thing they desperately need is money being allocated into things like free health care and public transit, that the life-granting corporations we bleed for money won't give. no wonder they all want to tear down the whole entire government and eat the rich. they need all the science locked up in publishers being released, not more research being done. they need all the corporations that would use that research allocating people to the right towns and workplaces and giving people full employment. they need every single person who is keeping money out of social programs and yet with the ability to fund everything people need anarchically despite neoliberalism {{em|expropriated}}. they need a republic which is robust against the living, growing chunks of society becoming conflated with individuals who wilfully hoard mountains of sheer Subject-existence and keep any more people from being born and living.<br />
of course, there is another side to this coin which explains exactly why people don't take action. people are organisms. chunks or Filaments are the natural state people form into. they go from individual living, breathing organisms to a socially-linked "Community" of a few living, breathing organisms functioning as one. a colonial organism — in both the figurative physical sense of being joined, and in the charged philosophical Anarchist sense. each chunk primarily wants to live, and it wants to be exactly the way it internally wants to be. so when you do anything to interrupt the independent growth and living of a chunk, it will often get upset. simply looking to a bunch of free-floating animal-like beings to stab a spigot into and bleed to fix society can leave people very confused on what they're actually achieving even if it doesn't make them angry. local chunks are coherent, but society isn't inherently coherent. as well as explaining why social-democracy isn't intuitive to people and it's so easy to assemble desperate people into WASP swarms around their oppressors, this explains exactly why there are Trotskyite conspiracies. "Trotsky", your displaced Marxist theorist, is trying to form a chunk. he's trying to form a chunk of allies to him who want to build a workers' state. this wouldn't necessarily be bad, when Lenin can recruit any number of peasants who are there for their own interests and only half understand Marxism. but his differences with the central party and different mental model of a workers' state form a fence between his chunk and the capable subpopulation of workers. the best he can hope for is that he genuinely assembles a second party full of real Leninists that build a second separate workers' state, although most Trotskyists are not smart enough to figure out this is what their theories are aiming at. but if he doesn't understand what's going on, the easiest thing that can happen is for the biological competition between separate clashing chunks to take over and a bunch of local chunks which just hate the central government to start claiming they support Trotsky, or vice versa. it's not "the bourgeoisie" that takes hold exactly, it's [[Ontology:microhierarchy|the separate chunks]], which only sprout them. if Trotsky just lets the chunks go he can't control them. if he could abolish microhierarchies, he would have a chance. but, of course, that requires him to understand the concept of tiny conflicting chunks joining into a bigger society that he can't just choose not to be a part of, and building socialism-in-one-country before he builds poly-socialism in multiple countries.<br />
negative democracy + the science bureaucracy = People destroy what takes away their lunch.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="ES, W, A, DG, MX" data-qid="29,73" value="2973" data-dimension="S2">Underlying subpopulations generate republics / The underlying structure of social networks generates republics / "The social" is made of individuals and psychological interactions (Rothenberg; Lacanian psychoanalysis) / "Liberty is the mother of order" (statement that desirable arrangements of people produce republics rather than republics generating such social structures and arrangements "of freedom"; Proudhon; Proudhonist anarchism) [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alex-prichard-freedom] / Multiplicities exist purely through themselves (statement that geometric surfaces and clusters of subpopulations each do not need to be contained through external means to have an intensional definition of being put together into a single object; Deleuze; schizoanalysis) / Republics contain plural population-societies with inner structure which all together ultimately generate all characteristics of the republic (meta-Marxism) / molecular republic proposition (molecularized; statement that republics form and regenerate themselves through the "molecular" bonds of social interactions or relationships joining individual people into localized groups, rather than through their external border)  ->  one of the first things that made me recognize there could be an "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" — one of the few claims it made that seemed correct and genuinely wasn't stupid. only later did I learn that this one smart Existentialist claim had been coopted from anarchism, like a whole lot of their theory if not "every bit of it, actually".<br />
in my mind any philosophy or group that understands this has the potential to eventually understand Bolshevism, because it isn't quite what we've always thought it was, and making it a reality actually lies more in the gaps between chunks of society than who owns them. the moment people understand that society is actually made of chunks and it isn't just one big land-area that is intrinsically dyed with laws and rights, they are closer to being poised to start putting the chunks together like a puzzle and creating a workers' state.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="29,74" value="2974" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2974|Trotskyists must eat and occupy space]] / Trotskyists must eat and occupy space before spouting Trotskyism / Anarchists must eat and occupy space before building an anarchism / Poststructuralists must eat and occupy space before tearing apart signs  ->  jamming proposition. funny way to say that thought comes after being, or that chunk competition is fundamental. both of those sound pretty abstract. but it's harder to dispute the remark that first of all people eat and occupy space.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,75" value="2975" data-dimension="S2">{{TTS|html=abbr|Liberalism|title=Liberal-republicanism}} is all political systems / Liberal-republicanism is the combination of every possible political faction into one country including Marxism and Anarchisms   <!-- plaintext title: Liberalism is all political systems -->
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,76" value="2976" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2976|Every ideology perceives the absence of others as Freedom]] / Every ideology perceives the absence of other ideologies as Freedom  ->  the major reason I believe that "[[Ontology:Q3076|proposition NO]]" is unlikely. Trotskyists think the absence of mainstream Marxism-Leninism is Freedom, as do Anarchists. but Tories think the absence of Anarchism is Freedom because there are very specific kinds of things they want — some of them very ugly, like deliberate socioempire / Chunk Enterprise. sometimes this goes all the way into the gutter, with White people just thinking the absence of Black people or Palestinians is Freedom, etc. it depends on how much people let "culture" rule their population and buy into the concept of countable Cultures as fundamental to human existence while nation-states are not.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,77" value="2977" data-dimension="S2">Inclusion itself is prejudiced / Inclusion is the choice between two different exclusions / Inclusion has a Shadow which is exclusion (Jungian framing) / You can't spell community without "out" / You can't spell community without "not"  ->  I am so {{censor|fucking}} tired of the word community and people vulgarizing every single graph of people that talks to each other at all into a "community".<br />
there's no "I" in team + Prejudice is a form of freedom = this.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" data-qid="29,78" value="2978" data-dimension="S2">Community is the opium of the masses  ->  a new saying for you. I believe this. I think this is a major part of how "social media" corporations 'ruin peole's lives'. it's not about grabbing people's attention, or maximizing ad views. it's about selling people a false illusion of Community, which in a lonely and isolated world everyone is perpetually addicted to. it's only when you stop being addicted to Community that this kind of stuff truly stops having a hold over you.<br />
Religion is the opium of the masses + the community delusion / Some people prefer poetry to science = Community is the opium of the masses.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2979" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" data-qid="29,80" value="2980" data-dimension="S2">Bad books are instructive / There is a lot to learn from bad books as long as you have a sufficient foundation in what's correct / ([[User:RD/9k/Q2980|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2981" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" data-qid="29,82" value="2982" data-dimension="S2">A nation of ideas is definitionally an empire (United States) / A nation of ideas must control everyone who objects to the current cumulative stack of ideas, which is to say everyone who is excluded by the form of operation of the current overarching countable culture or community and squeezed out into a second subordinate countable culture or community / ([[User:RD/9k/Q2983|9k]])

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,83" value="2983" data-dimension="S2">Idealism is the colonizer attitude / Creating a country based on Idealism requires baking sets of ideals into land areas completely separate of the upper layer of actual people, which in turn requires a designated group of people to actively conquer the land area and force out anyone who does not believe the baked-in sets of ideals, creating a king-of-the-hill situation where the territory-grabbers that make all the rules will ultimately get to send their best politics experts to construct republican structures and give everyone "democracy" / ([[User:RD/9k/Q2983|9k]])

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="MX onto IV" data-qid="29,84" value="2984" data-dimension="S2">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]])<br />
In the First World Trotsky is sacred + ?? = Anything that would kill Trotsky is bad

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,85" value="2985" data-dimension="S2">Trotsky is your new hero / Trotsky is a petty-bourgeois hero, not a proletarian enemy / Socialism is stronger with the fusion of culturally-defined "socialists" into workers' movements than if each of the two stands alone (brought up in relation to theorist types such as Trotsky and Gramsci; framed as urging the theorists to not divide themselves out of the movement, so that every bourgeois progressive can then follow behind them; academics, intellectuals, philosophers) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/dec/trend.htm] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q29,84|9k]])  ->  could be spun as [[E:Trotskyism|orange]]. never let Trotskyists get too carried away with it by themselves though

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,86" value="2986" data-dimension="S2">If Marcuseanism was true, Trotskyism would be true / If subjectivity-Marxism actually worked, nobody would have dropped out of Trotskyism  ->  it suddenly occurred to me, only in the middle of 2025, that, Marcuse's whole concept of people Subjectively choosing not to be part of capitalism? how does that make sense with the observed fact that so many people drop out of Trotskyism and go back to Liberalism? it's actually a very big thing in Trotskyism to go around trying to educate everyone on Marxism and get them to choose not to be members of capitalism any more. so if that hasn't really worked for Trotskyism, why would it work for Marcuseanism?

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2987" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="29,88" value="2988" data-dimension="S2">All ideologies invent direct action / Direct action can be invented by any ideology  ->  this explains a whole lot of actions taken by racists. especially incidents where racists would burn down arbitrary towns of Black civilians basically to prevent Reconstruction. Reconstruction was the unwanted system, and the violent horizontal attack was the direct action. this is why it's worth asking: is the United States paradigm of Liberal-republican nation-states being inherently useful as tools for enforcing morality on individuals a sensical paradigm, or is that concept just a synonym for colonialism which will ultimately generate anti-government, racist violence? is the alternative scenario where the United States never re-fused and the North just holds the separate South in a headlock like Japan and other overseas countries better or is it worse?

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2989" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2990" data-dimension="S2">Existentialism is why we never automate bosses  ->  intersubjectivity-theory Existentialists always insist that society changes because people Freely Decide to behave with empathy, but the contradiction in this is that for that to have any chance of being true you have to deliberately design society in tyrannical ways where the destiny of a lot of people is in the hands of one person that you hope is really really nice. if you truly make society depend on a whole lot of separate people at once it tends to behave in deterministic ways rather than the thoughtful rationalist way a single person might think. intersubjectivity Existentialists are likely to also be fine with the notion of schizoanalytic Escape, so they're going to love the notion of creating more capitalists to absorb people who are unsatisfied with current corporations by virtue of the fact the new ones are really really nice and they're supposedly going to spend their donations toward better political ad campaigns. the whole problem and fallacy of Existentialism is that it is all about dividing society into plural populations where the individuals supposedly see each other "as equals". Existentialism is when Twilight Sparkle and her five friends are such good friends that when they see Starlight Glimmer and how she is not linking up with people and being nice to them in exactly the way Twilight has friends, they mark her out as a threat to all their friends.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2991" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2991|If intersubjectivity actually worked, there would never have been a Cold War]] / If Existentialism actually worked, there would never have been a Cold War  ->  one of the major themes that Existentialism is constantly pounding through people's heads is that the normal, original state of things is for human beings to automatically and immediately experience empathy toward anything different [... <del class="censor">[[Special:PermanentLink/3491|angry]] redacted</del>] Existentialism never caused anybody to experience mandatory tolerance of the USSR in this sense, or any Marxist party-nation.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2992" data-dimension="S2">Inside a proletarian civilization, further transitions are about graph arrangements / After creating the dictatorship of the proletariat, all subsequent transitions are about structure more than class / Red-Structuralism proposition (misnomer, means something more like Red-Existentialism; red republicanism; charcoal Marxism with class-territory analysis; historical-materialist class analysis without class territory owners as part of analysis; headless Marxism; red anarchism with historical-materialist analysis; [[E:meta-Marxism|violet]] anarchism; violet meta-anarchism)  ->  currently controversial but really shouldn't be. a proletarian society has to actually have policies to build itself. and what are those policies going to be? if everyone's the proletariat, you can't make all your policies based on who is the proletariat or who is the owners, because there aren't any owners to pick on, there are only the factors that make your workers or experts able to do their best work. now, if you're a Trotskyist and you also somehow have a brain, you could argue that all the owners are in other countries so the next step is to overcome other countries, shatter their borders, and join the people of various populations together into a single civilization. fortunately or unfortunately, the Trotskyist perspective has more or less been defeated in favor of every single ideology on the planet considering countries fundamentally separate, some arguing that they are actually separate for "cultural" reasons and others simply realizing that populations have to have autonomy for anything else to happen at finer-grained levels. the other major argument you can make is that the division between workers and experts is a problem to be solved, and if you said that you'd be right. the only issue is nobody truly knows how to solve it because it's connected to chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy, networkism, and Social-Philosophical Systems, and up to now nobody understands any of those. defeating Napoleon's Pigs is no easy feat.<br />
further transitions (Marx) + ?? = Inside a proletarian civilization, further transitions are about graph arrangements

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2993" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2993|The Soviet diaspora was a second Trail of Tears]] / The Soviet diaspora was the second Trail of Tears  ->  literally nobody today notices the contradiction that all the progressive theories in the United States are about "culture" and "multiculturalism" and "prejudice" and arbitrary groups of people metaphysically tolerating each other in order to be perfect and not commit sin, but at the same time, the dissolution of the Soviet Union resulted in a bunch of people diffusing out of their towns or national populations to become citizens of other countries, showing that materially speaking nobody really has the inherent right to be part of A Culture and the chunk competition of all individuals to claim their most appropriate spots in the world inherently dissolves Cultures and creates intolerance of identities. on the ground, Cultures are not distinguishable from socially-linked populations arranged into material objects, and arguing to literally dissolve the way people are structured into a population is indistinguishable from declaring people have the wrong culture and a particular named Culture should be illegal.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2994" data-dimension="S2">The United States forced workers' states to consent to capitalism / The United States forced the Soviet people to consent to capitalism  ->  if capitalism is freedom, then {{censor|rape is love}}.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2995" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2996" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2997" data-dimension="S2">Those who control the correct mathematics control the future  ->  the <em>only way</em> "nonviolence" successfully solves anything in and of itself. say we want Stalin and Trotsky to coexist nonviolently. there is going to be a correct way for this to happen, and many incorrect ways which won't result in it happening. if Stalin solves the correct method for Stalin and Trotsky to coexist as part of one structure, he holds the power. there's nothing Trotsky can say. if Stalin arranges all the Trotskyites into the correct structures and all of them are content with those structures, then whenever the two or so that aren't commit violence, all the former Trotskyites which are already coexisting nonviolently will stop them and squash their rebellion. the future is retermined. people don't choose what the future is; it's calculated from the multivariable function of people that surround each other put together. the sheer power of retermination is why Existentialism has worked the way it does and been so effective at stopping anything else from coming into being.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2998" data-dimension="S2">Teamwork is nothing, ontology is key  ->  a little hyperbolic and potentially controversial by itself. but look into it deeper and you'll start to see what it means. people believe capitalists build successful business territories because the capitalist is a capable strong individual. they don't, they succeed simply because the answer was correct and people did the correct answer. at other times, more Existentialist people want to believe that just having a bunch of people together believing in each other achieves something. not necessarily. whether we're talking about a business or a movement, all the people in it have to do the correct answer or nothing happens. the correct answer to a problem simply <em>is</em>. it can be found by one person studying reality tirelessly or it can be found by a bunch of people in a party, but it's correct because it's true to the real world, not because a smart person said it or somebody believed in it really hard. Jeff Bezos is not key. Jeff Bezos' workers are not key all by themselves. Stalin, Trotsky, and Guattari are not key. the correct answer, the correct ontological model of how to arrange people, is what's key.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2999" data-dimension="S2">Power vacuums begin with order vacuums / All class society begins from Filamentism / All class society begins from competition for parts of graphs to be the first to be connected to other parts of graphs

</li></ol><noinclude>

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