View source for User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-2

<h2 id="section-proposed2"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 2)</span> {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-2}}</h2>

<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset">

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}People living in China are deceivers who act to destroy the United States by undermining its cybernetic power of Free Will because they're all required to serve the agenda of the central government and they couldn't possibly be thinking for themselves {{YouTube|bidsXATlClk}}  ->  I can't believe people will say this in zero irony and yet think it's stupid for the historical Soviet Union to have hope in its system and tell people not to let outside forces convince you it's failing. either Stalin can tell the whole country of workers and peasants to have hope and reject foreign narratives or nobody can.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}The CPC periodically audits university professors' houses every three months to demonstrate dominance {{YouTube|bidsXATlClk}}

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Kantianism is the shovel dream of chunk competition / Kantianism is the shovel dream of Filaments of Existentialists stuck within chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy driving out other chunks of people and forming an exclusive dictatorship-of-the-Existentialists in which they can make whatever rules they want

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Storing guns is not the same as owning guns {{YouTube|n-Kg42aoWuc}}  ->  this is really funny. it's one of the many moments you're totally confused why the United States has the political questions it does until you realize that the real issue is whether states or cities should get to make laws. there's no such thing as a country simply having "democracy", it always comes down to the republic and the local-state and the city arguing about {{em|who}} should get to vote about making the laws.

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}I don't care what you want, KMT invader  ->  the channel I found this on in a nutshell. respectable position. bold, but fits the facts about what the bourgeoisie are, so, yeah.<br/>
The bourgeoisie are one possible root of all colonialism + ?? = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto Aa|Q=618}}If the only person I control is myself, then how can I ever expect that anyone will ever be able to organize anybody into a movement? / If the only person you control is yourself, then how can you ever expect or predict that you will ever be able to organize anyone into a movement? (be able to contribute to building a movement; meta-Marxism)

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=EC onto HAS, ML onto HAS, MX onto HAS|Q=618}}Every memoir anyone has ever written about real-life non-fictional experiences takes place in the same universe / Trotsky's autobiography and The Motorcycle Diaries take place in the same universe / Trotsky's autobiography and every anticommunist memoir take place in the same universe / {{book|The Long Walk}} and The Motorcycle Diaries take place in the same universe  ->  this is why "metaverses" of different fictional universes crossing over into each other don't really bother me. it is one of the most capitalist things to say they can't and that like, the people that wrote all of them don't in fact occupy the same shared "multiverse of books" themselves.

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}{{book|My Life}} (Trotsky 1930)  ->  I forget whether this is an autobiography or a memoir but it does exist

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}{{book|Kimba the White Lion}}, {{book|Animal Farm}}, and {{book|Warriors}} all take place in the same universe
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}{{book|Kimba the White Lion}} and {{book|Warriors}} take place in the same universe  ->  I guess this would be based on the manga versus the books? I'm not sure. evidence: despite having fantasy elements both works take animal populations rather literally rather than using them as metaphors.
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}{{book|Kimba the White Lion}} and {{book|Animal Farm}} take place in the same universe, although possibly in different time periods  ->  evidence: both works feature animals implausibly learning human language.

{{li|I=M3/Fy|Q=618}}What if {{book|Animal Farm}} took place in the Russian Empire?  ->  I don't think it does but it's a fun thought experiment to think about what would be different.

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}duplexing something a million times / duplexed a million times (sense label)

{{li|I=S1/DFy|tradition=LR, PT|Q=618}}war is peace ({{book|1984}})
{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}freedom is slavery ({{book|1984}})
{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}ignorance is strength ({{book|1984}})

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=ES onto LR, ES onto ML|Q=618}}running is bravery  ->  it's been so popular to quote 1984, but I feel like modern anarchisms have introduced so many more logical contradictions than that book ever did.
{{li|I=S1/A |tradition=A onto LR, A onto ML|Q=618}}hiding is freedom
{{li|I=S1/W |tradition=W onto PT|Q=618}}conquering is postcolonial / taking is generosity
{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=ES onto ML, ES onto DX|Q=618}}unity is inhumanity / unity is antisocial

{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}fictional anarchist dystopia  ->  I don't know exactly what swatch this should be. like, I guess it could be brown. for me it would be red or violet because those are the philosophies that criticize anarchism constructively. I'll leave it charcoal for now just to be very literal until I find a good example. or, dark green.

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}Existentialism has been disproven / The main early-existentialist proposition or propositions have been disproven because whenever any individual or group of individuals in a Third-World country try to assert something about their place in the universe or their hopes for the future, First-World countries will come along and say they are making entirely the wrong meaning, and make that judgement a reality through use of force<br/>
field: entropicism.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}communicative irrationality  ->  I love to make up words sometimes. this is.... the motif of two people attempting to reach a consensus understanding but where nobody actually wants to agree on a shared morality or shared concept of "emancipation" and as a result you have a process that has the opportunity to be "di-rational" but where every moment of rationalities coming together is warped by one of them relentlessly standing in a powerful or dominating position.<br/> <!-- add to that proposition as sense TM - theme -->
communicative rationality + instructions unclear = communicative irrationality

{{li|I=S1/PT|tradition=MZ onto LR, MZ onto PT|Q=618}}showing up partway through movie about Algeria confused why the FLN attacked the French [https://web.archive.org/web/20250629235019/https://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2023/12/settler-colonial-projection.html]  ->  amazing. one of those things that is a hilarious white card from its unnecessary specificity and clear series of train-wrecked events, if it weren't harmful and tragic. I love a good reasoning disaster as long as people aren't getting actively heated about it.

{{li|I=Z1/MZ|Q=618}}{{book|Methods Devour Themselves}} (Sriduangkaew, Moufawad-Paul) [https://glose.com/book/methods-devour-themselves]  ->  on the interaction between philosophy and fiction

{{li|I=S2/MZ|Q=618}}People newly joining Israel are a violent [[E:herd-of-cats effect (meta-Marxism)|herd-of-cats]], taking on a formal role of having to secure ill-gotten borders against nearby populations

{{li|I=S2/MZ|Q=618}}Comprehend the world from below / Comprehend the world from the position of the oppressed and exploited rather than from the position of the oppressor and exploiter (J. Moufawad-Paul)  ->  this... is mixed. when you already have a Materialist understanding of reality you'll be able to apply it properly. but I think this is one of several vectors by which people slowly distort their way out of Marxism and into Western-Marxism and into critical theory and into post-Marxism and into Existentialism and all the way back into Liberal-republicanism. when most philosophies up to now lack a proper existential materialism, a few people like Lenin and Stalin excluded because they manage to get a crude exmat in there when they talk about things like never being able to rely on the bourgeoisie, it's really easy for people to get lost in these traps of I-believe-that-everybodying people that will never ever listen and then going down long spirals of how through analyzing "culture" or "attitudes" or "media" to 'actually' get the I-believe-that-everybodies to work.

{{li|I=S2/MZ|Q=618}}There is no real division between people and the state under any Marxist analysis  ->  well said. even in meta-Marxism the division is between {{em|people and people}} that exist in [[E:separable multiplicity|plurality]] and The State basically lies {{em|embedded into}} the border between them — if not simply embedded into the subpopulation that has the ability to generate armies and cops.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Populations have an entropy measure in the same sense that rooms of oxygen versus frozen blocks of oxygen do
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The higher a population's entropy is, the harder it is to achieve democracy practically

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Post-Marxism casually accepts neocolonialism / Post-Marxism is the shovel dream of [[E:retail empire (meta-Marxism)|retail empire]] / Post-Marxism is the shovel dream of a republican society-object expanding its outer edges over the world until its peripheries have been tossed into Third-World countries and the whole society is not fully contained or fully functional within one society / Post-Marxist ideas are rooted in the development of the neoliberal era, which had led to destruction of labor organizations, outsourcing, and the arrival of post-industrial social structures in Europe and the United States (Lotz 2018) [https://christianlotz.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/lotz-sage-handbook-frankfurt-school-critical-theory-postmarxism.pdf]  ->  the funny thing about this is that they very nearly said the problem with their philosophy out loud themselves. nothing undermines Existentialism as much as Existentialists' own writings

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX, ES, LR|Q=618}}Politics never ends inasmuch as all levels of societies are constantly churning / The political con-stitutes the most encompassing level of the organization [of society] ... veiled in the visible (Gauchet) / We have to assert the primacy of politics in the structuration of social spaces (Laclau 2006) [https://christianlotz.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/lotz-sage-handbook-frankfurt-school-critical-theory-postmarxism.pdf] / Political activity is not mere superstructure generated {{em|out of}} the socio-economic base and the mode of production, but permeates every physical scale of the entire society  ->  this is correct but not for the reason post-Marxism thinks it is. it's correct in the sense of [[User:RD/9k/Q19,10|Stalin quoting Marx]] and saying that at every moment different things rise, fall, join, and [[E:sublation|transform]].<br/>
field: existential materialism, post-Marxism.

{{li|I=S2/HM|class=field_exstruct field_LGBT|tradition=MX onto HM|Q=618}}Gay rights prove communicative rationality / Because mainstream Marxism-Leninism tends to sort a population into people who are helpful to a society and people who are harmful to it, which leads to the problem of people who are not already integrated into society continuing to be pushed of town facilities and forced to become petty bourgeoisie after which they are double-demonized, gay people are only integrated into a population because gay individuals become directly socially linked to other individuals or unique socially-linked graphs of individuals that agree in groups of one gay person and one ally at a time to care about their problems, and the acceptance of gay people into society provides evidence for [[E:communicative rationality (Habermas)|communicative rationality]]

{{li|I=S2/HM|tradition=MX onto HM|Q=618}}Critical theory is molecularized (Habermas) / Because it contains the concept of communicative rationality as seen in Habermas, critical theory is a molecularized theory; this is to imply that it is probably a pseudo-MDem, not a Molecular Marxism

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=HAS / anthropology, A|Q=618}}The state of nature for the human animal is to form into localized cooperative populations such as tribes or villages
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=HAS / anthropology, PT / Hobbes, PT / Toryism, MX / exmat|Q=618}}The existence of localized cooperative human populations such as tribes or villages does not prevent war
{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=MX / exmat, MX onto IK, MX onto IV|Q=618}}Because the state of nature for human beings is to form into localized cooperative populations before getting to the stage of organisms competing and killing, The only way to actually remove humans from a state of nature is to create a global government  ->  this is a direct consequence of applying Kantianism, but as it's something very few Kantians would actually admit, it's an almost uniquely Trotskyist proposition.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}If human beings cared about being colonized the Soviet Union would not have been dissolved and sold to capitalists; however, it was
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}If human beings cared about being colonized Black people would not have spread across various regions of the United States around the time the Black Panthers were dissolved on the actual timeline; however, they did

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Human beings are neither rational nor moral, and all they care about on a mass scale is individual survival<br/>
this + ?? = Colonized populations don't care about being colonized unless they're being flogged.
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto unknown|Q=618}}Colonized populations don't care about being colonized unless they're being flogged / Colonized populations don't care about being colonized or about remaining a population unless they're being flogged  ->  I really hope this isn't true but there's so much horrible evidence it is true.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Foreign empires care about neocolonialism more than colonized populations do, because they logically must care about their goal in order to physically achieve it

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Economics equals primitive accumulation / Primitive accumulation is economics / Primitive accumulation is a form of economics / All the world is just a bunch of resources to be controlled by the people most capable of using them, including country territories, all possible business territories, slots for immigration from Third World countries to First World countries, science positions in universities, and political parties occupying an office; this is to state that Israel is expected to take over Palestine when it is more capable of acquiring and using the resources  ->  I think a large number of Tories believe this. this is the proposition that won the Cold War, and the underlying reason Tories hate only Mexican immigrants and yet not Indian immigrants. everyone has been poisoned with economics and it changes the way they judge absolutely everything.<br/>
the funny thing is that if this were actually true, it would necessarily mean that economics {{em|is}} a moral issue because significant numbers of people die in a lot of incidents of primitive accumulation. and failing that, the statement that it's not okay for poor people to be controlling the resource of housing instead of "better" people is itself a moral statement. everything is morality now. everything has been tainted with economics and then secondarily infused with morality.<br/>
Primitive accumulation is a form of economics + ?? = The Peter Principle.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}The {{TTS|tts=United States|U.S.}} is composed of direct action / People have been performing anarchist direct action at every second since the founding of the United States (blue-anarchist direct action; Existentialist direct action; direct oppression; {{TTS|tts=meta-Marxism onto anarchism|MX onto A}})  ->  charcoal anarchists are going to hate this but it's the only good way to explain people believing nonsense like "anarchism is acting like you're already free" and "putting the right owner in charge of Twitter is direct action".<br/>
this is part of the definition of [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition|Existentialism]] — how it realizes itself and what it looks like materially or how it operates in practice.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto LR, MX onto ML|Q=618}}Democracy is forged of non-democracy / Democracies require undemocratic materials / Republics were made out of republic before they were made of democracy, both in Liberal-republicanism and in Bolshevism  ->  Liberal-republicans have this weird aversion to the entire concept of a society being made of republic before it has Democracy. but this is ahistorical because the parliaments of France and England formed only after a monarchy formed, and before the republic took over. there was always a stage of undemocratic stuff that was necessary before there could be Democracy, which was required to set up Democracy. so why are people so scared of Bolshevism forming a structure which is pure republic before putting democracy inside it?<br/>
I'm going to say it again: Liberal-republicanism is an anarchism right now. Liberal-republicanism is a period of anarchist transition in the exact same sense that Bolshevism is a period of socialist transition.

{{li|I=S2/AC|Q=618}}Disalienation will come from refusing to consider their reality as definitive (Fanon) [https://antipodeonline.org/2021/08/18/frantz-fanons-geographies/]  ->  it confuses me how this dude that actually glorifies violence has seemingly been so successful in seeping into Western Marxism and all the theories that are strictly nonviolent. it's like they didn't really understand the inner cause and effect of his theory.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES onto AC|Q=618}}Fanon's geographies cannot be theorised as enclosed or contained [https://antipodeonline.org/2021/08/18/frantz-fanons-geographies/] [https://marxist.com/frantz-fanon-s-wretched-of-the-earth-a-marxist-critique.htm]  ->  Fanon's whats cannot be what?<br/>
I think half of this commentary is revolving around the idea of "Black Lived Experiences", so you have to read every word through that. and I think what's being said in the surrounding paragraph is that because the text comes from Lived Experiences it isn't constrained into some highly specific academic philosophy like it's only schizoanalysis or only post-Marxism or only Lacanianism etc — I think that's what "his writings can be discussed collaboratively" is getting at. which.... says a lot doesn't it. I always wondered why Lived Experiences were such a big deal in recent philosophy and, yeah, if your academic philosophies are so dreadfully siloed they hardly interact with anything Lived Experiences are going to seem like the most groundbreaking thing ever because {{i|oh my god, we got actual real-world data!}} it's. this misguided attempt to sort of almost get to Materialism and recounting real events as a shared reality, but stopping just a bit short of quite getting there.<br/>
when they say "reification" they seem to mean White people realizing a particular structure of French towns over here and Black Lived Experience that's suffering over there; just that it's a real system that exists on the ground and not just a "narrative" in people's heads, which would otherwise be super appealing to frame it as so I guess they have to say "reified" to clarify that you can't just Reject Narratives to escape. (they did say "narratives" though after also saying "embodied" and "reified" a bunch? unnecessarily mixed messages there.)<br/>
okay, yeah, geographies is about the totally different conditions in the French town and the colony proper. and also about how radios break up the normal relationship between Europe and the colonies and make the division between the two populations more important than actual geography. apparently.

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}black livingness  ->  synonym, add to "lived experience"<br/>
gosh they come up with the funniest words, gotta add this one

{{li|I=S2/AC|Q=618}}a socialist regime, a regime which is completely orientated toward the people as a whole and based on the principle that man is the most precious of all possessions (Fanon) [https://marxist.com/frantz-fanon-s-wretched-of-the-earth-a-marxist-critique.htm]  ->  the commentator says that Fanon is 'bafflingly inconsistent'. but I feel like the problem is right in here somewhere. he defines "socialism" as "man is the most precious of all possessions". which really sounds like the same thing as [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition|Existentialism]] to me, not like Marxism. sure, China and New Democracy exist and countries like that talk about 'the people', but they don't talk about 'man' in a general sense, they always try these weird little strategies of claiming that academics are actually workers and stuff. Deng Xiaoping Thought doesn't abandon class analysis and try to posit some kind of universal The Subject that all people in a country are. but this mention of 'man' and the concept that 'the class struggle has become less important' said out loud seems like Fanon is sliding into some kind of Enlightenment Liberalism or something which is all about tent of freedom poles and defining people as these identical bags of freedoms even though not everybody can use them. as well as that phrase 'redistribution of wealth'. maybe he's talking about something kind of like "Black Economic Empowerment" where whole plots of land were handed over, I'm not sure. but my diagnosis from just these quotes is he is hiding Existentialism or Menshevism inside the word "socialism". he's just twisting "socialism" over into the category Stalin called "reformism".

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=Trotskyism onto Fanon|Q=618}}Assuming that violence itself binds people together in solidarity will cause your movement to back reactionary forces that allow capitalists to re-take power [https://marxist.com/frantz-fanon-s-wretched-of-the-earth-a-marxist-critique.htm]  ->  the delicious irony of a Trotskyist actually figuring this out but still being a Trotskyist. like tell that one to Zinoviev....

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Compared with peasants, the Soviet proletariat will not side with foreign empires (1910) [https://marxist.com/frantz-fanon-s-wretched-of-the-earth-a-marxist-critique.htm]  ->  that's become a little questionable over the years. it seems like when the country was mostly full of peasants they were eager to side with Stalin but as there came to be more and more workers they became entitled and started skipping work and complaining that there weren't enough consumer goods and providing so much data for endless anti-communist arguments. so... was Fanon actually right? the Soviet proletariats {{em|did}} kind of sell out the country to foreign colonizers, just like he said. is the proletariat actually revolutionary at all or do revolutions actually happen precisely when there's one swath of backward people that are useful only for their numbers (the peasants) and a smaller swath of more educated people (the European bourgeoisie; the proletariat, the theorists) that are useful only for leading them?? one reason that might not be true is that this genuinely didn't really happen with China; people largely remained loyal the whole time with only a few interruptions in that. you don't really get the Chinese proletariat defecting from the party in notable proportions, they mostly actually have loyalty. even when people leave for another country most of the time they don't really endlessly obsess about the CPC as the reason they left, you only really get a handful of those "career defectors" and then shockingly, a lot of Chinese immigrants are just, normal.

{{li|I=S2/AC|Q=618}}The national bourgeoisie are no help in liberating under-developed African countries, so it is not worth even creating them (Fanon) [https://marxist.com/frantz-fanon-s-wretched-of-the-earth-a-marxist-critique.htm]  ->  that is hilariously bold for a non-Marxist, I like it. but I do question if it's true when now literally all national independence is coming down to having corporations before foreign countries try to install them.

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, IV|Q=618}}Third World countries can enter Bolshevism and skip past the capitalist stage [https://marxist.com/frantz-fanon-s-wretched-of-the-earth-a-marxist-critique.htm]  ->  all these years later this is at least half true. somewhat literally. what workers' states have actually ended up with is half the country public and half the country private.

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=MX onto IV|Q=618}}Third-World poly-Trotskyism / poly-Trotskyism formed on the basis of whole Third World countries being productive forces  ->  the motif of a large government formed out of several national Leninist movements, at least one of which is bright orange, and all of which are in Third World countries that formed together to resist the First World because each country functioned as the First World's productive forces. it probably does not consist of every nation-state in the world although it may hypothetically be as big as the entire Third World.

{{li|I=F2/MX|Q=618}}Fanon proposed a form of Trotskyism / Fanon's Marxism is a form of Trotskyism (sic) / Because Frantz Fanon posits [sic] that entire Third World populations function as productive forces to First-World owners, this logically means he is positing a form of socialist transition where multiple countries join together to revolt against the First World in order to free the productive forces from the relations of production into a new combined socialist mono-structure with a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat around it, and therefore, he is positing a form of Trotskyism  ->  I'm pretty sure this is wrong but I couldn't tell you why it's wrong.<br/>
edit: he did sort of say entire countries are exploited in other words, but he didn't say multiple countries. and he didn't say Marxism, not really. I casually threw way more Marxism into what he was saying than he intended. I "should" delete this proposition entirely but I won't because I did really get onto another level even if it was another level of wrong and funny

{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618}}Fanon is not a Leninist (Trotskyism) / Trotskyists do not consider Frantz Fanon a Leninist [https://marxist.com/frantz-fanon-s-wretched-of-the-earth-a-marxist-critique.htm]  ->  so I'm specifically reading an IMT blog here. I think this is some kind of answer to my question of whether he's a Trotskyist (no) but as for whether he's a Marxist I don't know whether this is good or bad.<br/>
...bad apparently, because he actually stepped away from classes.

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, IV, MZ|Q=618}}Deng Xiaoping Thought will successfully transition to Bolshevism through a revolution

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Capitalism requires Shovels to program people / Capitalism doesn't program employees to support the bourgeoisie directly through Ideas and Conditioning, instead it only achieves this end of giving people new ideas by first physically arranging them into a {{TTS|tts=Wasp|WASP}} Swarm which then generates particular ideology by virtue of the physical constraints on its operation  ->  this is one of the major points where Western-Marxism goes off the rails, and why it believes that "culture" and "conditioning" are such a big deal.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}The United Nations cut off nearly all imports to North Korea  ->  and we're to believe that North Korea "killed" millions of people when one of the major differences between North Korea and South Korea is what countries decide to be friends and all simultaneously trade with it? it's this dumb game of recursive definitions where people that don't fit into something for its own arbitrary reasons are deemed inherently bad and blamed for not being chosen.

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}Obama doing deal with Cuba to win capitalist reversion

{{li|I=F2/ES|tradition=ES|Q=618}}Humanity unquestioningly worships technology {{YouTube|C04B-GGaBEU}}  ->  this video was like, Existentialism bingo. it's so many stupid things people commonly say all crammed into one video like it's profound.<br/>
this statement is just dumb because the reason people leave technology unquestioned is that technologies are made by separate chunks of people but we don't question or attack the separate chunks and make them do different things out of the belief they deserve inherent Freedom. that's it. this allows people to go study technology knowing they are Free and will never be attacked as long as they follow the Existentialist rules of trying really hard to predict exactly what other people are currently driven to buy (whether they truly want it or not) and agreeing they will have wasted all their training and effort if nobody buys it and they have to go gamble thousands and thousands of dollars and time they don't have on another degree. that's it. that's all technology is. technology is [[E:marketist mode of production (meta-Marxism)|marketism]].

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}Existentialism bingo card  ->  while many of the entries on here are very serious, we can still have some fun sometimes.<br/>
let's see, there are 25 spaces on a typical bingo card. A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z<br/>
A) Somebody is stealing your time; Somebody is stealing your ability to manage time or attention. B) Everything runs on technology, not capitalism; Everything runs on "technology", not bourgeoisie or corporations or chunk competition.
{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}Trotskyism bingo card  ->  this should only contain the stupidest things Trotskyists shouldn't be saying that they still keep saying.<br/>
<s>A) Cubans are secretly Trotskyist.</s> A) Stalin wasn't a Leninist [false] B) Trotsky didn't attack CPSU [false]. there are definitely 25 of these, fill them in later

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}Marxism is about personal responsibility / Marxism isn't about orchestrating "[[E:revolution (abstract quality)|revolution]]", and it isn't about drumming up "[[E:resistance (abstract quality)|resistance]]", it's about making individuals aware that they are still required to do everything in their own lives but they are required to act in tandem with other people to achieve anything, including acting in tandem with other people to build all the specific elements of a republic or 

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}I'm dreaming that Bucky took my piggy bank [https://web.archive.org/web/20180328131958/http://www.gocomics.com/getfuzzy/2006/06/10]  ->  excellent example of why "you can't know anything but your own experience" is a deepity

{{li|I=S1/W|Q=618}}The revolution will not be televised [https://web.archive.org/web/20180328132857/http://www.gocomics.com/getfuzzy/2005/12/27]

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}it's easier to ask for antacids than to ask for permission [https://web.archive.org/web/20180328134051/http://www.gocomics.com/getfuzzy/2005/04/26] [https://web.archive.org/web/20180328134028/http://www.gocomics.com/getfuzzy/2005/05/04]

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}I'm not a cat Bucky, I'm a woman [https://web.archive.org/web/20180328134119/http://www.gocomics.com/getfuzzy/2005/04/16]

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}a properly me-centric world / viewing the whole world through a proper me-centric frame / "I realized the world has never presented itself to me in anything other than a Bucky-centric way" ({{book|Get Fuzzy}}) [https://web.archive.org/web/20180328124754/http://www.gocomics.com/getfuzzy/2008/03/12]  ->  this 2008 comic strip has figured out a lesson that a lot of modern philosophers still haven't figured out

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}dollar dollar asterisk ({{book|Get Fuzzy}}) [https://web.archive.org/web/20180328124740/http://www.gocomics.com/getfuzzy/2008/03/17]  ->  the motif of somebody, usually young people, absorbing censored media and not learning about whatever word or concept was censored. this is one of the stated use cases for censorship. the other one is to visibly distinguish between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable even though everybody already knows what's being censored.

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition=MX onto PT|Q=618}}Reactionaries reject narratives / Reactionary conspiracy theorists — specifically within categories such as anti-vaccine advocates, trans-exclusionary feminists, and people who believe mainstream media to be some kind of secret anarchist or Gramscian conspiracy to create a social transition — are just people who reject narratives (conservative conspiracy theorists; Tory conspiracy theorists; refuse to believe narratives; refuse to believe ontologies, which are narratives; meta-Marxism)  ->  I don't know how it took me this long to word it this way.<br/>
by one definition, postmodern philosophy is {{em|definitionally}} a kind of conservatism specifically because it allows people to reject true accounts of things for the reason that they're "narratives" or "grand narratives".

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition=MX onto PT|Q=618}}Philosophies that reject true accounts of objects or processes may be conservatisms  ->  I have to say "may be" because there are edge cases like Marxisms failing to show up with true accounts of homosexuality or gender identity and causing harm. in that case, what's going on is rather complicated. it's a collison of two plural and countable philosophies (a Marxism, an identity movement) that each contain steps forward and steps back such that neither one can really be characterized as progressive or reactionary and they are both simply {{em|alternate}} and {{em|plural}} to each other. you can call the Marxism a conservatism only if and when you're a top-of-the-barrel [[E:Q92|violet Marxist]] that knows exactly how to unify Marxisms together with each other or other movements toward an international scope without any of them splitting from each other. which is really really hard. so don't go assuming you must be at that level already, because I'm not even sure I am. judging this correctly every time requires a super theorist who probably doesn't yet exist.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Society is an ecosystem of humans / Society is merely an ecosystem full of nothing but human beings  ->  you hardly ever hear this from Marxists. you may occasionally hear it from right-Liberals and Tories with an implied positive or neutral connotation. (that's not the connotation I mean it in. god no.) but until several countries are {{em|actually}} in an era of Bolshevism again it's a hard truth I think we all have to swallow.<br/>
appears in: {{book|MDem}} 5.1(?), {{film|The Lorax}} (2012)<br/>
Society is an ecosystem of humans + agriculture = corporations as people farms.<br/>
Society is an ecosystem of humans + garden of Eden = Arceism.<br/>
Society is an ecosystem of humans + meme theory = Identitarian fascism.<br/>
Society is an ecosystem of humans + monopoly (economics) = corporate ecosystem (Apple, Microsoft).

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto DX|Q=618}}Deng Xiaoping Thought is neither a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat nor a dictatorship-of-the-bourgeoisie / Deng Xiaoping Thought is a dictatorship-of-the-unified-country / Deng Xiaoping Thought is a dictatorship-of-the-[[E:Careerist layer (meta-Marxism)|Careerists]] / Deng Xiaoping Thought is a dictatorship-of-the-petty-bourgeoisie

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto DX|Q=618}}Socialist transition has three stages: pre-Bolshevism, Bolshevism, and post-Bolshevism  ->  this is the most generous reading of Deng Xiaoping Thought and the fact basically every workers' state ever that hasn't died has turned into it

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}{{book|Childhood's End}} is backhandedly accurate / By portraying a world where many small subjective intelligences have merged into one mind, {{book|Childhood's End}} is backhandedly accurate to real workers' states in that it has portrayed a world where many small fragmented things (businesses or chunks of people) have merged into one thing (a Marxist party-nation)

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}Cuban exile terrorism {{YouTube|d_LcevNFHP0}}

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Media have power over people purely or specifically because capitalists, the people who control the bulk of a population's wealth, territory, ability to hire people, and ability to act first, control them  ->  there is so much effort in Western-Marxism to obscure this simple fact for unknown reasons

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Fisherism is a form of anarculture / Because Fisherist formulations of Western-Marxism concentrate on single specific surface offenses all the way at the end of an [[E:relativistic determinism (meta-Marxism)|emergent process]] and attempt to crudely pluck out the final symptom to solve the entire problem, there is some chance that hypothetically or [[E:epistemic possibility|epistemically]] they could be anarchism, and either way, because they focus on plucking away the immediate influence of surrounding culture on people in hopes that surrounding culture is itself an immediate source of Domination and its removal will immediately create Freedom, they qualify as an instance of anarculture

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618}}Moral panics serve a political function (Stuart Hall) [https://thesociologyguy.com/2025/10/27/stuart-hall-understanding-the-media-power-and-representation/]  ->  that's probably true. the impact of media on creating this is probably really overstated though. I mean, you don't need any TV sets or radios just to spread a rumor through an Alabama town and get people to organize a {{censor|lynching}}. people do that kind of thing just on the basis of knowing and trusting each other and doing whatever their friends tell them. and that's also basically why people keep listening to Fox News: they see Tucker Carlson as a friend. I am not joking, that is a real line I heard from my reactionary relatives. people form into Community just because they like each other and know each other, then they start exploiting each other's trust to mobilize each other against other ethnic groups because "but you are my friend, aren't you? those non-friends are going to hurt our friends". that's how it really works. it isn't media bias that generates nazis, it's [[E:Twilight Sparkle|the magic of friendship]].

{{li|I=S1/A|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618}}heuristic definition of anarchism

{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=MX onto IV|Q=618}}Anyone who was allied with Leon Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg was a member of early Trotskyism  ->  this graph-theory style of definition is just about the only way to define and distinguish ideologies that isn't at some point going to fail in comical ways.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto A, MX onto ES|Q=618}}Anarchism is crude republicanization / Anarchism is mere-republicanization / An anarchism is a sociophilosophy that removes some highly specific pain point in a spatial hierarchy (such as a king, duke, nameless petty noble that rules a town, or perhaps a business territory owner or landlord) and crudely molecularizes its model of the rest of the structure in order to figure out how to keep the same structure standing with minimal change  ->  this sounds superficially like a good definition until you see what it leads to and then it's bound to ignite some controversy.<br/>
Any ideology which would toss one specific Archon in prison to fix a population and change nothing else is an anarchism + ?? = Anarchism is crude republicanization.<br/>
Anarchism is crude republicanization + ?? = Christian theocracy is an anarchism.
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto PT|Q=618}}Christian theocracy is an anarchism / Christian theocratic-monarchy is a form of anarchism because it takes global empire and puts "God" in the spot of emperor, effectively creating a global empire with no emperor at all that rationalizes its existence through the fiction of a morally-justified emperor

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition=MX onto PT|Q=618}}Tories equal grand narratives / It is impossible that great narratives have already ended because every time somebody thinks that has happened a bunch of people unite into proto-fascism under a grand narrative and proceed to rule the era through being stronger and more difficult to control than any group of people that believes that there are no great narratives

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}War will end fossil fuels / Humans will only stop using oil because of war / Everything except imperialist war at the national scale over national sovereignty or territory is ineffective at changing fossil fuel use; real sustained climate movements will only emerge through conflicts between First World and Third World countries over oil that, as countries become deadlocked in cutting each other off from buying any oil in order to kill industry or lock up all their oil and refuse to sell it overseas in order to price-gouge and become the powerful controller of a rare resource, become so intense that nobody wants to buy or sell oil any more  ->  my dad used to say that the world would keep using oil as long as it didn't run out of oil and I don't think that's true but in a weird way it may be backhandedly true as countries "run out" of oil through all oil becoming locked behind war and then everybody increasingly stops using it.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}The Cuban people don't like Deng Xiaoping Thought [https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxcKCAdjIcqoVp3HFtoVG3CMRMKu3oLIKJ]  ->  this is fairly common every time a country turns into a Deng Xiaoping state. many people don't really like it.<br/>
but I really wish Trotskyists would stop saying that must mean people are Trotskyist allies.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}In 1960, foreign-aligned oil companies in Cuba refused to refine oil from the Soviet Union [https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1961/08/08.htm]
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}In 1930, the United States loaned money to its companies to gamble on Cuban sugar production
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}In 1960, the United States refused to buy sugar from Cuba if it was not produced by U.S. people [https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1961/08/08.htm]

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}American-made in Cuba / American-made in Vietnam / American-made in Cambodia  ->  the motif of efforts to "make things in the United States" being inherently connected to efforts to put down United States corporations and corporate owners in Third-World countries.<br/>
thankfully "American-made in China" is something of a thing of the past, but there are a ton of countries that haven't escaped that fate yet.

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}Copyright preserves national borders (Ocean Press)  ->  this is a rather Deng-Xiaoping tactic. it's always confused me a bit whenever I see the copyright notices on Che Guevara works.
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Economics and politics are one / Economics cannot be separated from politics (Che Guevara 1961) / This is far more than an economic discussion ... it is a demonstration of the capacity of free nations [Liberal-republicanism] to meet the human and material problems of the modern world (John F. Kennedy) / Delay in accepting the responsibility ... to defend the essential values of our civilization [at the economics conference] ... would signify irreparable damage to [Liberal-republican] society and the imminent danger of the disappearance of the freedoms enjoyed today, as has occurred in Cuba

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Marxists can't orchestrate revolutions / Revolution cannot be exported (statement that expecting Marxist theorists to invent and initiate revolution rather than predicting what local elements and processes the bulk of a revolution will form out of is anti-Materialist)

{{li|I=F2/PT|Q=618}}Slave chunks belong to Jefferson / Chunks of humans belong to Thomas Jefferson / Thomas Jefferson has the right to breed chunks of humans for his own purposes in order to harness the power of multiplying chunks  ->  generally rejected now; that almost goes without saying. the really interesting thing to examine about this though is, has humanity really moved beyond particular individuals owning chunks of humans and benefiting from their reproduction?

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Every ideology of national scope goes through a phase of being an anarchic ideology centered around direct action, vaguely conceptualizing a new future or set of principles, and [[E:Zinovievizing|dismantling the current statism]] before it's a statism; this means that all ideologies that fail to change society remain anarchisms, and suggests that many anarchisms are anarchisms by virtue of being failed attempts at revolution / Every ideology of national scope is an anarchism before it's a statism  ->  this is one of the only good explanations for blue anarchisms existing and continuing to flourish without anybody ever realizing they're stupid. oppression alone and culling out Communists alone can't explain why people actually continue to fall for blue anarchisms, nor can so-called "capitalist conditioning". the fact that people will keep constructing nonsensical ideas of "resistance" as soon as they see a history book where Black people died and they don't stop doing that no matter how much anyone tries to obscure things shows that people are able to tell the difference between different social processes and are definitely thinking. it's not like people aren't smart enough to identify blue anarchisms as a particular set of ideologies and distinguish them from Liberal-republicanism or Marxisms.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}Liberal-republican direct action  ->  this sounds like an oxymoron because Liberal-republicanism commonly defines its scope specifically to the construction of local states and federal governments. but if that were really true, how would there be color revolutions? somebody has to be performing Liberal-republicanism at a tiny scale of two or three people or a hundred people before a Liberal-republican government gets created. and I posit that this behavior constitutes anarchic Liberal-republicanism or Liberal-republican direct action<br/>
Every ideology invents a form of direct action + Liberal-republicanism = Liberal-republican direct action.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Soviet Union and foreign goods smugglers / blat (in sense of forming Community unofficially beneath the table so that people can trade for black market goods whenever they want)<br/>
Liberal-republican direct action + Deng Xiaoping process = Soviet Union and foreign goods smugglers.

{{li|I=S2/DFy|Q=618}}The Twilight movies veered into epic fantasy plots because Bella died {{YouTube|YOwj6tmIi4I}}  ->  there is a specific reason for these kinds of theories coming to be. there's this tension between Materialism and the creation of fictional narratives as models of real-life phenomena with this bridge in between that separates reality from religion, mythical narratives, and fantasy stories. when different parts of the narrative match really badly we start wondering if part of it is an inaccurate model rather than the reality

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}union-made quality  ->  claim increasingly seen on goods. appears to be an effort to make everyone believe that consumers can regulate capitalism.
{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=618}}reverse anticommunist sanctions / sanctioning Third-World countries for not transitioning to socialism  ->  wholly hypothetical situation that came into my mind when I thought about what the world would look like if "union-made quality" actually worked. like, the best way to make sure goods are made in a union is to only import goods from "North Koreas" that sign everyone up for a union as a policy. it's weird to imagine any workers' party approving that though. they usually have a principle of 

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Gene Sharp and nonviolent resistance {{YouTube|K22OouNvVvM}}
{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=unknown|Q=618}}"Nonviolence" models color revolutions (United States) / The window of nonviolent resistance has closed, because the entire modern concept of nonviolent resistance in the United States was based on capitalist reversion in the Second World and color revolutions rather than the actual conditions that United States people would be resisting {{YouTube|K22OouNvVvM}} / There is no difference between color revolutions and stopping Toryism (generic)<br/>
Nazism and Bolshevism come from the same cause + revolution (abstract quality) = "Nonviolence" models color revolutions

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=unknown, MX|Q=618}}The United States civil rights movement wasn't complete without a defensive army {{YouTube|K22OouNvVvM}}

{{li|I=F2/IV|tradition=HAS, IV|Q=618}}A global culture of teaching empathy is better for stopping human rights violations than examining human rights through foundationalist rationality (Rorty) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty]  ->  I feel like this has been shown to be false after so many people have been talking about empathy empathy empathy and it still leads to horrible abuses on workers' states which are readily supported by "nice" people.<br/>
it doesn't really help that this guy is a Trotskyist ally and like, they ended up supporting a lot of those abuses. I hesitate to bring that up immediately when he at least had some humility enough to say (jokingly? seriously? don't know) 'I'm a bourgeois liberal' in reference to writing a bunch of philosophy books that sound like deepities and being a literature teacher. but independent of that context the problem is still there

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}A particular layer of mediators (media) take hold of individual lives (lifeworlds) to enforce the division of rationality into three major spheres of science, arts, and law and the division of societies into contradictory industries and careers, thus shattering people's underlying capability of multi-sided Socratic reasoning (intersubjective rationality) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action]  ->  this is a very unusual anarchism. it at least isn't falling into the usual dumb tropes many of them do but man this is weird. it's trying to take the classic notion of a faceless "{{caps|They}}" that caused everything and it's made the They very complex but it's still something kind of specific. it posits that there is this process of people coming together onto a shared conversation but the awful Mediators came and broke it up. I actually kind of like the way it complains about fragmentation as opposed to complaining about "centralization" or "totalization". fragmentation is the real problem ultimately, and a lot of anarchisms just reinforce it. if all the other ones would be more like this I would be way less angry at them

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Do human beings ever get "transformed" into thing-like beings, or were they always thing-like beings as well as humans? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(Marxism)]  ->  I lean toward the latter. I feel like the concept of people being something more than animals is a little overstated sometimes. mainly when anarchists are trying to sneak anarchism into theories of society and they have some very articulate descriptions of things and then suddenly there's a weird assumption about Domination or state apparatuses in there and it's like, I feel like we're overcomplicating this. people expand over each other chunk competition bad

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}We can no longer give substantive answers to the question "How should I live?" (Habermas)  ->  correct. but only because both Stalin and Trotsky can exist, throwing off the prospect of all countries transitioning to one specific sociophilosophy, to solve a few of society's questions anyway. Habermas gives a lot of propositions that are right for the wrong reasons.

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}intersubjective Materialism / doing Materialism on an intersubjective basis in which two different parties lock onto a shared increasingly detailed understanding of the world as it actually functions  ->  intersubjectivity in reasoning isn't really the problem I have with critical theory. like, intersubjective rationality would be an okay idea if it wasn't based on weird anarchist standards of how to assign truth values rather than just describing things as they are.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=HM|Q=618}}Socratic dialectic in critical theory / communicative rationality / intersubjective rationality / di-rationality (sense Habermas)  ->  the concept of two people reaching a conclusion though attempting to present arguments without force while seeking to reach a shared understanding. this just sounds like Habermas reinvented the Socratic dialectic to me. is there something I'm missing?

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=HM|Q=618}}Intersubjective rationality may not be possible in practice because individuals' position in society may lead to coercion or exclusion before the process properly begins [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_action]  ->  that is actually a good criticism. critical-theorists probably don't know how to fix it but I'm going to ignore that because this {{em|is}} true

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=HM|Q=618}}Communicative rationality is not utopian enough (Kompridis) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_disclosure]  ->  I have no idea what this is intending to say, but it sounds fascinating.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=ES / phenomenology|Q=618}}The ontological understandings and internal experience of other people behave like noumena, which will have to be strained through a particular person or group's ontological understandings and internal experiences / The alien cannot be fully incorporated into the lifeworld as-such (Husserl) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeworld]  ->  this is actually true. the notion of treating reality as a bunch of lifeworlds usually drives me up the wall but this is fine, it's just saying that each countable culture or Social-Philosophical System will inevitably strain everything else through its own worldview and individuals do the same thing. well done Husserl, you're one of the only critical theory affiliated people to achieve violet

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=HM|Q=618}}Society is made of language (Habermas) / Language is a foundational component of society, to the point a theory of language can be inserted into Marxism; it is implied this will be inserted in the context of societal systems or psychology [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action]  ->  "don't do this to me," I say to myself every time I have to read just about anything about critical theory and what critical-theorists believe.

{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=HM|Q=618}}It is possible to build a model of reason specifically based on the concept of people seeking Freedom from Domination (Habermas) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action]  ->  this is weirdly Kantian. it's trying to be new but it feels like it's just formalizing Kant's weird concept that intuition is the same thing is logic just because we decided to apply it to morality

{{li|I=S2/STM|tradition=STM / formal logic, HAS / analytic philosophy|Q=618}}True and False are artifacts of the existence of propositions / True and False are byproducts of the existence of reason and do not originally exist in nature before there is a person or instrument to create ontological models of nature (Rorty) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty]  ->  this is fine. this is just an acknowledgement that systems of logic are something that have to be created and have made-up rules in order to function for interpreting the world. which is accurate. anyone who's ever seen Gödel's incompleteness theorem will realize it has to be the case on some level that logic or reasoning is made up in order to be designed for its task.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=|Q=618}}postanalytic philosophy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postanalytic_philosophy]  ->  a lot of Wikipedia articles on philosophy just feel like garbage — by no fault of the people writing them, it's just that the stuff they have to read and cover is garbage — but this seems like a legitimate category

{{li|I=Z1/IV|tradition=HAS / Social Gospel movement|Q=618}}{{article|Trotsky and the wild orchids}} (Richard Rorty)  ->  so this is a biography but gosh it sounds juicy in terms of Christian theological propositions<br/>
so for an Ironblood story I had made up this movement in irony that was trying to gradually replace US Christianity with Trotskyism but it wasn't religious, it was just sort of secular-humanist and trying to do its part to get people onto Marxist values of the power of humanity. and wow. it's such a find to see Christians actually trying to weave together Christianity and Trotskyism, or somebody like Rorty who is actually taking this position, and what would have been the surrounding historical context.<br/>
gosh I am going to have to add him to my 'cast of recurring characters' in propositions and {{book|MDem}} chapters. even if I might not like his position on basic ontology and logic, he has one of the most interesting positions on religion and literature I've ever seen

{{li|I=S1/IV|tradition=HAS / Social Gospel movement|Q=618}}Philosophy is what sits between Trotskyism and aesthetic beauty / Philosophy lies in the reconciliation of the celestial beauty of orchids with Trotsky's dream of justice on earth (Richard Rorty) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty]  ->  this is one of those propositions that sounds like an absolute drug trip, like it is on so many planes above anything that makes sense and that's what's wonderful about it. I think the thing that is the most hilarious about it to me is that most of the dumb propositions about Trotskyism on here I made up in some kind of irony as a thought experiment to prove some specific point, but this one I didn't make up myself and that was made completely seriously (by my standards anyway*) happens to be the most bizarre one yet by far.<br/>
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Rorty has this weird thing about not actually believing anything but I'm just going to ignore it for now. he is not one of the believers in the movement, he was a literature professor.

{{li|I=S2/Fy|class=field_horror|tradition=Fy|Q=618}}Pokémon fighting each other is comparable to feudal Japan ({{film|Drawn Together}})  ->  none of the characterizations of main characters in {{film|Drawn Together}} are all that good, except for Foxxy in the first few episodes. especially Ling-Ling. but I'm gonna try and save this. let's look at the statement being made by creating Ling-Ling and see if it's good or bad. Ling-Ling's character has a few steps to it. 1) kaiju are about violence. technically true before Pokémon 2) violence equals feudal Japan: Kurosawa's films, etc 2b) violence equals Japanese global empire, attacks in either direction during the WWII era 3) Ling-Ling is that legend about swordsmen killing a random person to test their power<br/>
the portrayal of the proposition on the show is a little lame. but distilled down to its essentials it's actually not that bad. console RPGs in general are often based on medieval fantasy stories which are often based on history books. so the line through from Japanese history to console RPGs is straighter than you'd think. Pokémon Conquest / Pokémon × Nobunaga's Ambition is an awfully telling bit of evidence in this, in that it was strangely easy to just transplant Pokémon into the timeline of feudal Japan and use them as units.<br/>
another point of evidence is examining the portrayal of the relationship between Japan and China in {{film|Drawn Together}} and then in {{game|Pokémon}}. in {{film|Drawn Together}} we see the United States exploiting China and Vietnam, we see Ling-Ling being a tryhard with the vague implication he is striving to be read as Japanese instead of Chinese or at least that he is like one of those really competitive parents you still find in China. in Pokémon there is like this comical avoidance of bringing up China in a serious way until gen 8 when the Silk Road Pokémon finally appear. fans are convinced that this is because Game Freak wants to avoid the games being banned or edited for China. which, it probably wouldn't be censorship. I wish censorship was split into two words so that one of them was in reference to Ideals and tradition and one of them was in reference to social-scientific facts and updating incorrect information. it's probably the most appropriate that {{i|censorship}} gets the tradition one because the concept of censors dates back to ancient Rome and what did they really know scientifically back then. there was a bit of time where {{i|revisionism}} would have been an appropriate word but that one has really slid and taken on entirely different meanings within Marxism. uh who's the person who updates the actual facts for government but who doesn't do original research. theorist? director? librarian? archivist? historian? I'm gonna come up with another word so it's possible to stop calling factual corrections censorship. I swear that when stuff got censored in {{book|1984}} it wasn't even getting censored and it was the other word. that's the crazy thing, that Orwell's book about censorship isn't even about censorship.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX, ML|Q=618}}The material resolves the immaterial / The immaterial resolves in the material / The material calculates the immaterial / Whenever any two groups of people come together to argue over something strictly immaterial which is not simply a fuzzy description of the material, the immaterial is more or less completely arbitrary and the interaction of strictly-immaterial concepts relies on interactions between strictly-material things to decide what its resolution is going to be  ->  this is basically what Marx did to Hegel but said much more clearly. I might change it to crimson if I find a Marx or Engels quote, etc, that matches it close enough

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES|Q=618}}All ontologies are merely narratives (are just narratives; are simply narratives) / When people form mental models of what "a friend" is or what "normal" is they are essentially writing fictional stories which are either hypothetical or counterfactual [https://psyche.co/ideas/your-life-is-not-a-story-why-narrative-thinking-holds-you-back]  ->  Existentialism, stop it.<br/>
when you unpack this into what it practically means, it's easy enough to see why somebody invented it. in one sense, all mental models {{em|are}} hypothetical. but that doesn't mean they're wrong! like, Trotsky isn't wrong because he has a hypothetical picture of what will happen. he's wrong because the reterministic operation of real elements of material reality against each other is the real calculation of what happens, and the calculation he's doing of how history is formed doesn't line up with the real calculation. but there are correct calculations for all physical objects whose definition has been given as entirely material and not immaterial. the immaterial is arbitrary and finds all its resolutions in the material. like, every time, this is why Protestants and Catholics had to fight wars before coming to an agreement, and why Liberal-republicanism is more of a war than a proper process of reasoning and it keeps progressively breaking down because it doesn't even work. the transition from Liberalism to Bolshevism on the other hand is very sensible. the biggest change that occurs politically is that progress is something everyone constantly participates in through regular activities, where it's possible to create progress by physically aligning more and more people together; instead of voting at elections, people vote just by going to work in a particular way. the whole "Kim Il-Sung put out a ballot with just a 'no' on it!!" accusation is actually a good thing, in concept. because if you do it right the notion of resisting progress becomes more pedestrian and less violent. you no longer have reactionaries trying to kill people for 'taking over The Real America' just because they are trying to bring different Ideals to the nation's biannual Idea Fight, instead the whole process becomes about the central government picking what it believes to be correct answers and actually collecting the reasons that people don't want to accept them to start negotiating about them in a material way and hopefully pulling some people back in.<br/>
god you know what gets me about this "non-narrative thinking" bullshit. {{i|"viewing our lives in such a narrow way ..."}} - here the psychologist is trying to get rid of the concept that "you're the main character of a story" but completely undoes that entire exercise in a second by saying "our lives", which gives the implicit assumption that everything that happens while you exist happens inside your head and has anything to do with your individual choices. if you truly believe people aren't main characters then stop saying "Life" and "Our Lives". you have many other options such as "the world", "material reality", and "history". so why do they always fall back to "Our Lives"??

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=ES, LR, Aa|Q=618}}"tacit knowledge" as euphemism for intuition [https://psyche.co/ideas/your-life-is-not-a-story-why-narrative-thinking-holds-you-back] / tacit knowledge (Existentialism)  ->  I swear right-Liberals use this word to launder non-supernatural superstition about the economy, linguists use versions of it to launder non-supernatural superstitions about meaning, reference, and learning that ultimately led to people thinking building artificial intuition into large language models was the only way to get better at modeling knowledge, and psychology and psychiatry are also misusing it somehow.<br/>
tacit knowledge (Existentialism) + ?? = unsupervised machine learning. tacit knowledge (Existentialism) + ?? = large language model.

{{li|I=S1/LLM|Q=618}}weak-to-strong generalization  ->  it doesn't work because LLMs aren't practicing intelligence

{{li|I=F2/W|Q=618}}Mx. Stills can choose students' vote (who students vote for; exmat) / If some arbitrary individual Bob Stills or Bobbie Stills is a teacher, and they and the school board go to school and teach some particular curriculum, grade school teacher Mr. or Ms. Stills can choose who all their students will eventually vote for (teacher Mx. Stills; existential materialism)  ->  nearly everybody in the United States gets this one wrong.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The German language was unintentionally designed to promote Marxism (was accidentally designed; linguistics) / Because the development of written German texts went through various stages as texts were distributed to people of different social classes, noun capitalization spread across speakers of the language as each social class began to become aware of its existence as a class until every identifiable social class was capitalized, leading in turn to the majority of all German nouns being capitalized in modern times, but still leaving behind a rather obvious history of the existence of various social classes fossilized into the overall corpus of older German texts; this is to suggest that for a German speaker such as Marx and Engels or even Trotsky and Luxemburg, etc., the act of conceptualizing statements in the German language makes the presence of social classes and class processes more immediately obvious than the act of conceptualizing statements in other languages [https://deutsch.wtf/german-nouns-capitalised/#the-fascinating-history-behind-capitalised-nouns]  ->  there is nothing special about languages that inherently changes the way you think {{em|except}} the tiny rituals that ride along with speaking language like having the option to use deliberately gender-neutral words or marking social classes every single time you say a sentence.<br/>
this is ultimately why I designed color swatches and the experimental in-text highlighter system for this wiki, so that just by writing sentences you can start tagging nouns by their approximate class association and start to really think about what each class of people is doing each day within the overall structure of society and historical processes. I made it based on factions rather than classes per-se as a matter of phenomenology and epistemological caution, so things don't get labeled with the {{em|wrong}} class too quickly as that can be [[E:attributing minority identity to the bourgeoisie|very damaging]], but yeah, tagging things red, orange, or blue is supposed to help get you thinking about what ideologies come from what classes by starting at the more general point of what ideologies are most worker-friendly, the distinction between red, orange, mauve, and violet versus blue, with strawberry kind of oscillating in the middle. you can go further into believable arguments that only crimson is actually any good while orange and strawberry are just nothing and mauve and violet vary in quality from good to bad (on violet a lot of the "dumb" propositions are just purely experiments that I don't defend as truth, but I might improperly think a couple of them are more likely than they are, and then they're wrong), but again, I didn't want to make the swatch system take a hard position on that too quickly.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Anarchemistry is a blue-anarchist concept because of how closely associated it is with "regulating the power of capitalists"

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Because gaining immortality by taking something away from others is immoral, if God gives people who kill Palestinians immortality in heaven (for believing in God but being against Arabs or Muslims), then supporting God is immoral  ->  this is why I hate all discussions of fictional immortality. it's a deepity! while this is the good stuff.

{{li|I=S2/DFy|Q=618}}The worst dystopia is one where everybody's happy and there is no catch but all of it comes at the expense of killing off or enslaving all of the world's other populations; this is the worst form of dystopia because nobody would ever want to end it

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Arguments about immortality are a deepity compared to arguments about the maintenance of First-World conditions  ->  First World people are entirely mortal, First World countries are destructible, and yet they can go on and on and on and on anyway at great expense to other populations. this is a much more profound question than how bad it is for a fictional being to drain other things to achieve an immortality that is impossible or how to prevent that

{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}game console plurality / console war (First World)  ->  this is one of the craziest case studies in how economics really works on the ground, and due to all the information it provides about the connection between economic phenomena and national culture, perhaps one of the most important case studies

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Menshevism is now nailed to AI / Social-democracy generally relies on capitalism existing, and taxing capitalism, but one of the limits of capitalism is that its [[E:mode of production (meta-Marxism)|core purpose]] is to add new people to a population as a population grows, and to do this, it has to keep adding more and more categories products to society, which it has to do to prevent the population as a whole from losing interest in buying more products and thus preventing corporation growth and preventing employment and preventing population growth, but unfortunately, First-World economies are now maxing out on the sheer number of categories of products they can get investors for or make Third-World factories produce without people realizing that countries have so many unnecessary products it's beginning to become tacky and annoying, and this has caused an explosion in First-World corporations putting all their money into LLMs because they are one of the only things that is genuinely new and that society doesn't have, in turn meaning that a lot of economic production is going to just become making LLMs, that a lot of corporate income is going to be based on LLMs, and that social-democratic policies for nationalized health care and housing are going to come from taxing LLMs, meaning that everyone is essentially forced to use and live with LLMs just so everyone can have health care and housing and the country can still continue to operate on capitalism; this is to imply that unequivocally negative uses of LLMs, like in creating intelligent unmanned bomber planes to attack Palestine, are almost necessarily required to exist just because a country wants to have both universal health care and housing and also have capitalism
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Menshevism is now nailed to expensive health care  ->  if LLMs are defeated, whatever brings the most income will become the new foundation of society. it could be the process of continuously producing rare and expensive pharmaceuticals and new types of surgeries, to the benefit of people's physical health but to the dismay of right-Liberal economists who want to believe actual health care prices could be made less expensive<br/>
I swear that macroeconomics is a great new untapped subgenre of science fiction because you could get the craziest predictions about the future of society just out of the consequences of how economic phenomena actually connect materially and what widespread socio-cultural consequences are inevitably going to come out of them. crimson or sky, people say culture doesn't come from the economy, but it depends on how large a scale you're defining "culture". on a scale of national phenomena it almost definitely does

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=MX onto LR|Q=618}}If gold is actually better than fiat currency, then why are there multiple national currencies?  ->  these things seem unrelated at first but actually have everything to do with each other. the supply of a valuable item is inherently related to whether people can be pushed into using or selling a completely different item. when one valuable resource is split in two, it effectively both avoids going through an undesirable value ceiling where [[E:dragon process (meta-Marxism)|relatively few people have it]] and it's a severe status symbol, and also avoids going through a value floor where there is too much of it for it to be meaningfully valuable. the solution of staving off inflation by splitting currency in two sounds insane, but it's actually quite logical when you think about the fact that one of the purposes of currency is to divide human activity into finite slots and divide society into particular areas of products and corporations. one of the best ways to keep video game consoles from becoming too abundant to drive interest in new games was to create multiple console brands. one of the best ways to keep people from realizing Bitcoin wasn't going to work out was to divide it into multiple currencies. this could be true of all national currencies in general. plurality in a pool of objects dividing that pool in two 

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto IV|Q=618}}disproving particular Trotskyist model using Trotskyist history  ->  whether you're able to do this is the true crash course in what "cultural relativism" and "country characteristics" mean<br/>
the one that stands out to me the most: Trotskyists generally subscribe to "Society are singular", but that doesn't reflect the historical events of the Trotskyite conspiracy. if the interests of all workers of the world were the same, then you'd expect the interests of all the workers in the Soviet Union to be the same, but if the interests of all the workers and peasants in the Soviet Union were the same (at least per class), then you wouldn't expect there would be two clearly distinguishable groupings of red workers and orange workers, red peasants and orange peasants. the existence of the Trotskyite conspiracy and a few disillusioned workers taking Trotsky's side but a large number of them not would seem to disprove that Trotskyism across multiple countries can ever happen without first creating one orange country.
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto IV|Q=618}}The Trotskyite conspiracy proves that Trotskyism cannot happen in multiple countries without creating Trotskyism in one country one or more times

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Defeat imperialism by telling White people they matter / Contrary to intuition, White people are not actually arrogant beings that believe they are important, 

{{li|I=F2/ES|tradition=ES, DG|Q=618}}Rhizome is the shovel dream of marketism / Rhizome is an idea generated by the marketist mode of production<br/>
Rhizome (schizoanalysis) + shovel (meta-Marxism) = this.

{{li|I=F2/ES|tradition=ES, DG|Q=618}}Anything which can be packaged up and sold as a self-contained product is inherently objective; something is objective because it can be sold for money to further Lived Experiences that ostensibly make a connection to it only out of Free Will and Freedom, and not because it accurately describes several biased subjects each stuck within material objects (physical human bodies, or larger groups of people in particular arrangements) without taking any of their individual perspectives specifically; something is objective when it takes all individual biased perspectives at once without criticizing any of them  ->  this is the fallacy which kept coming in with all early attempts to criticise Marxism, and to a lesser extent with Althusser's failed attempt at creating meta-Marxism.<br/>
I swear this is why people think gigantic media series like Pokémon inherently serve the people that keep buying them, and why people think Liberal-republicanism is at all functional.<br/>
on a different note, I've basically created this propositions project as the world's last-ditch effort to hijack people's bias toward self-contained products as "objective" just because they're self-contained, and turn that around into a way to steer people to appreciate the statements that actually are correct<br/>
Anything which can be packaged up and sold as a self-contained product is inherently objective + shovel (meta-Marxism) = marketist mode of production.

{{li|I=Z1/IV|Q=618}}Socialist Alternative<br/>
Socialist Alternative + ?? (divisive issue) = Revolutionary Workers.
{{li|I=Z1/IV|Q=618}}Revolutionary Workers (circa 2023)
{{li|I=Z1/IV|tradition=IV|Q=618}}Kshama Sawant [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshama_Sawant]  ->  marking her orange only because she was a {{em|member}} of Trotskyism, can update swatch depending on actions and positions<br/>
Kshama Sawant + ?? = Socialist Alternative. Kshama Sawant + ?? = Revolutionary Worker.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto A, IV onto A|Q=618}}Bookchinism suffers from the problem that capitalists from multiple cities can team up at the state level to prevent anything passing in individual cities; each city that wants to try anything has to be prepared to act at state legislatures, and overcome state-level attempts from other parties at the same pro- city policies bill [https://www.socialistalternative.org/2025/07/16/behind-enemy-lines-lessons-for-elected-socialists/]  ->  Trotskyists demonstrated something really cool recently. this is exciting. finally I have like nothing bad to say about them, just that as small-scale as this is I'm impressed.<br/>
I wonder if we're eventually going to get any information on orange chunks out of this. this is a lot of information already. we know in general that chunks of capitalists take over everything if they can, but other kinds of chunks can take things over under the right conditions — crimson dictatorship-of-the-proletariat, Deng Xiaoping state. orange group almost succeeded at something by stopping capitalists from pre-emptively taking up legislature at higher levels; the higher levels are really hampering the smaller levels from doing much of anything.

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML onto LR|Q=618}}The point of winning Liberal-republican elections is to implement policies and to stop the wrong policies from getting implemented, not to put in the right party and have the wrong policies / Your job isn't to support the best you've got, but to change the circumstances so that something better is viable {{YouTube|AvOmhEqaDO4}}  ->  a statement that's somehow obvious to everyone except the people who actually vote.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto LR, MX onto ES|Q=618}}U.S. democracy is just a market / First World countries operate on an anti-politics that resembles a marketplace; people are programmed to wait for politicians to be spontaneously produced like commodities and then help the politician-producers push for everyone to "buy" them {{YouTube|AvOmhEqaDO4|lc=UgxASVhMXGBy5e1GXn54AaABAg}}  ->  couldn't agree more. good going commenter, I think this statement is violet.

{{li|I=S2/HAS/Fy|tradition=HAS|Q=618}}'Pataphysics describes creativity (arts)
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=EC, MX|Q=618}}Using 'pataphysics to describe creativity is embracing the ways of thinking that it was intending to make fun of (using for art; Materialism) / 'Pataphysics has two major interpretations, unironic-Idealist and ironic-Materialist; the former easily originates from layers of bourgeoisie realizing that embracing Idealism and abandoning the limits of physics gives them endless possibilities and freedom that understanding the material world could never provide, thus they put themselves into the shoes of the 'pataphysician characters created for parody or satire and unironically take on their perspective  ->  a harsh but true statement about the podcast that gave me a lot of historical context on 'pataphysics.<br/>
there is a bright side to this, though: the chosen content and ideologies {{em|portrayed in}} art before editorializing are subjective. it isn't a bad thing if and when you entirely know what you're doing and are only doing it as a deliberate aesthetic or narrative choice for the setting or assumptions underlying the art rather than an out-of-universe ideological choice. Communists can write medieval fantasy or Westerns; when you know about real history and have more facts you only have more options rather than fewer. if you are responsible enough to handle endless possibility without "being so open-minded your brain falls out" then you can have it.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto LR, MX onto IV|Q=618}}Acting like you're the true owner of a region of land and the only people ever justified to govern it, purely because you're the most moral group of people according to your own logic, is the colonizer attitude (is colonialism; is imperialist ideology; meta-Marxism onto center-Liberalism)  ->  this statement implies that early Trotskyists were imperialists but I don't see any problems there. it also implies that tribal populations can perpetuate imperialism if and only if they insist on forms of philosophy that are solely based on making other people accept their own Lived Experiences and internal reasoning. if they simply point out historical facts or ask for remedies on a material basis of transforming what currently is into something that's better, that doesn't fall into this particular trap, and it doesn't count. but if Israel tries to present itself as the only people justified to govern Palestine because Israelis inherently have the moral high ground and that's all you need to establish a government over any arbitrary group of people who "might commit crimes", that's a problem. Tories treat Palestinians in a way they'd never treat 1930s Trotskyites. like, if "committing crimes" or "taking someone's country" is so bad it's worth remedying with imperialism, then Stalin is justified to shoot as many Trotskyites as he wants, and for barely any reason compared with the more solid justifications he actually would have used. they really didn't think that through.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MZ, MX, A, W, ES, LR, IV, BP|Q=618}}The justifiability of enforcing government on any particular individual or group of people depends not on whether some external party believes it's justified, but on what are the observed results of enforcing it (consequentialist ethics, existential materialism)  ->  this seems to be part of a lot of different ideologies, but I think historically you can most legitimately pin this one on Mao. you find versions of this in anarchism and right-Liberalism and indeed Trotskyism but none of them are very good. whereas Mao and Deng are like the only ones that have {{em|ever}} made letting people loose when they complain about things work out. Western-Marxists like Althusser have never both denounced Stalin and been able to prevent neoliberal policies across their entire country; Deng Xiaoping achieved far more than they ever did. he is like the only good strawberry theorist, which is part of why I put Deng Xiaoping Thought and Western-Marxism in the same swatch.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto IK|Q=618}}Marxism is a less bad basis for forming new populations than Kantianism  ->  I think there's a pretty good argument for this. {{em|if}} the United States exists because of Kantianism {{em|then}} people expanding over the continent and putting down an American flag wherever they like and calling it the domain of the U.S. constitution exists because of Kantianism, because this was a crucial part of the development of the United States — after all, 2/3 of the United States and all the things that go on inside the United States wouldn't exist without this potentially unnecessary process of making more and more United States. therefore if Kantianism is going to take responsibility for the United States it has to take responsibility for westward expansion and brutal frontier wars. but, historically, Marxism has generally been about defending territories from empire rather than taking them. part of this difference is historical, not ideological. but either way, you can't really justify Kantianism these days, in this historical period, as a philosophy that's not morally bankrupt. while Marxism shockingly holds up a lot better.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}No legitimate or useful philosophy has been attached to the term {{i|meta-Marxism}} before the year 2020, therefore it is acceptable to reclaim the term for violet Marxism  ->  I hadn't realized how many bad but thankfully obscure philosophies had tried to be "meta-Marxism" before now. there were like three or four. but they were all very bad. so bad I think most Communist theorists would flat-out want to forget them. but the bright side of that is that if nobody remembers them the term can just come to mean something much better

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto Aa, MX onto PT|Q=618}}The United States is worse than the British Empire because the British Empire only expanded onto North America in order to multiply but the United States threatens to create colonies simply because it believes other countries are no longer qualified to have sovereign governments and will "commit natural crimes" if they 

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Al-Qaeda is psychoanalytically wrong, therefore violence on another country is justified  ->  why psychoanalysis and Kantianism are not harmless.
{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Vietnam is psychoanalytically wrong, therefore violence on another country is justified

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=MX onto LR|Q=618}}The right-Liberal political compass exists because both center- and right-Liberals want to believe that there is no meaningful boundary between different ideologies and all ideologies within Liberal-republicanism are instead part of a single ideology  ->  the problem is that it really isn't true because charcoal anarchism and Toryism really are separate, additional ideologies.
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto LR|Q=618}}The right-Liberal political compass contains critical theory and psychoanalysis  ->  prosaic statement about whose theories were used to create it. just so we know what identifiable things are actually represented on the chart.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Gender-criticals are extremists / Gender-critical "feminists" are extremists (United Nations) [https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/un-women-calls-gender-criticals-an] / TERFs are extremists  ->  that is... a very blue analysis. to believe this you have to first believe there's a single mandatory ideology everybody in an entire country can't stray from. sounds kind of [[E:Leninism (top-level category)|Communist]] out of context, until you're told it can't be against the values of Liberal-republicanism because it is Liberal-republicanism.
{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}How would one know that transgender rights are not competing with women's rights? / How do you know that transgender rights are not opposed to women's rights?
{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why do LGBT+ movements threaten civilization? / Why do LGBTQIA+ movements threaten civilization?  ->  if we're going to question why transphobia is bad then it goes both ways.

{{li|I=Z1/LR|Q=618}}Richard Stallman  ->  one of the only right-Liberals that doesn't double as a Tory. Stallman, Masnick, and Paley inadvertently made me question all of capitalism and end up down the path to Communism just because they tried way too hard to present capitalism as a rational system and accidentally revealed unfixable cracks in it.
{{li|I=Z1/LR|Q=618}}Larry Lessig / Lawrence Lessig
{{li|I=Z1/PT|tradition=LR|Q=618}}Nina Paley  ->  she gets the Tory swatch for committing to transphobia
{{li|I=Z1/LR|Q=618}}Mike Masnick

{{li|I=Z1/PT|Q=618}}gender-critical movement  ->  I'm not coding this to make it more legitimate. I'm coding this to permanently associate transphobia with the brown Tory swatch.
{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}Objectivism (Ayn Rand)  ->  this is here to be used as an ideology code. an ideology code for neoliberal {{censor|tts=[BS]|bullshit}}. to be honest, I still don't understand what "objective" actually means within this word. it absolutely doesn't mean "objectivity", as much as it's easy to get fooled into thinking that from the context given by {{book|Anthem}}. each time it's used it sounds like it's some variation on Jungian psychoanalysis which is like, only for Tories; they've taken a diagram of society and labeled {{em|themselves}} The Real. is that what it means?

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618}}A Leninist party allows Marxism to break from ideology (Lukács) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q21,29|9k]])
{{li|I=S2/IV|dimension=F2|Q=618}}A Leninist party allows Trotskyists to break from ideology  ->  the best I can remember from the last Trotskyist text I saw I {{em|think}} they were trying their best to claim the whole thing about Marxism not being ideology also applied to them. so this can be an orange proposition.<br/>
it's a little conceptually funny you have to give Trotskyists totally different advice about how Marxism works than you have to give other Marxisms, but when they tend to have trouble actually understanding things changing and developing, and you do have to break through their revisionism on basic concepts, it's not like it doesn't make sense. this is [[E:existential materialism|existential materialism]] at work.

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition=PT onto HM|Q=618}}A lot of why U.S. people become progressives is to enhance their reputation without doing any of the productive work necessary {{YouTube|ex-bUC1wXyg}}  ->  Jordan Peterson says something backhandedly true. I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean what it weirdly sounds like he's saying, I think he's trying to push some argument that only capital owners contribute anything to society and are the real society. I see that all the time. but it's conceptually funny to imagine that what he really means is that critical-theorists don't bother to do all the work to be Leninists and he wishes people would at least have the conviction to be Communists again.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}U.S. leftism is little more than video essays on toxic masculinity in kids' shows  ->  I mean, true. the interesting thing about this statement is that you could replace the observation with the category it's talking about, critical theory, and it would still be broadly true. the "U.S. Left" is mostly critical theory, a.k.a. anarchism beneath a trench coat. that's just what it is.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Democracy is when a society/government is beholden to the will of the people, while voting is merely the means to achieve that goal  ->  this is one of the only definitions of democracy I find semi-reasonable.<br/>
it still has enough problems that I'm beginning to become convinced that the entire concept of democracy is incoherent nonsense created by anarchism, and only material models of how individuals assemble into society-objects are actually going to be able to create better socio-economic systems. like. people don't even have a will really, not individually and not collectively, because external threats can always start trying to engineer it and make you choose survival over what you really want or think.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Republics will work (anywhere) if the government, military, courts, and police are entirely sworn to the protection of democracy and the integrity of democracy as well as the constitution over {{em|all else}} {{YouTube|CJVHO1gNauY|lc=UgyFHNbwbvJo-eLw4Ht4AaABAg}}  ->  this feels terribly moot when individual wills can always be engineered through torture.<br/>
there have been a lot of operations to just flat out destroy countries' civil society and make people move elsewhere, in theory to all be replaced exclusively with individuals who vote for capitalism or the interests of First World countries. when you change out the whole population for one with a different ideology, through coercion or neocolonialism, is there any way to protect "democracy" at that point, or to make it mean anything?<br/>
what does "democracy" or love of democracy even mean in the context of a whole country getting stuck with terrible living conditions and being told to read a bunch of stuff and obtain materials to build education systems that surely cost something instead of supply basic needs?<br/>
amorphous as hell. if this fails it spontaneously transforms into new systems whenever people don't get along, constitution be damned. if it succeeds, this is the ideology of a country that was fenced in by ten people who are determined to run it on a particular set of Ideals until the end of time but don't care if it has any residents other than the statesmen who own the nation and require you to believe certain things to connect to them and use their property. this is Gramscianism but on crack

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ML|Q=618}}Bolshevism is a mode of production / Bolshevism is a mode of production — it is a specific way of adding new people who recently were born or arrived to a country in a particular numerical or spatial order without immediately stirring up chunk competition / When Lenin or Stalin led people to construct the Soviet Union what they created effective at the end of the revolution was a different mode of production  ->  this statement follows from the way I've defined capitalism as a mode of production. I think Lenin actually did say this in the second form here, but there's an important nuance to this proposition that it's defining mode of production in terms of population growth and the threat of competition between populations, such that the concept of a mode of production either defines or lingers after class society.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Existentialists believe that all behaviors and mental models are metaphysical sliders because they cannot conceive of personality or behavior characteristics except in the context of one-on-one relationships and the concept that keeping those relationships is inherently always better than losing them — despite the fact they will quickly tell you that not all relationhips are worth keeping {{YouTube|T1gUR2KzP0Q}}

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}You can't make a bully happy without making their victim sad  ->  bold statement from Existentialists. probably a total deepity in practice.

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}What is the difference between Jungian solidarity and Deng-Xiaoping-state solidarity?  ->  meta-Marxism: where there's room for really really sophisticated questions and analyses, but because things get so detailed and precise, sometimes there are holes to go back and re-examine.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition = MX onto IV|Q=618}}Trotskyists don't do anything but tail anarchists and claim it's Leninism  ->  I was confused why recently Trotskyists suddenly turned around and apparently changed their position on Cuba. it isn't because they're sensible, or they would have given a lot more weight to James P. Cannon before today and not said the things about Cuba they kept saying. so what changed? I had to think about it and then I realized that what probably happened was in order to gain anything resembling a mass of people they were probably hanging around anarchists, and the anarchists probably forced them to behave. really ironic when anarchists don't like Cuba either, but they {{em|are}} obsessed with the concept of prejudices and very annoying. for better or for worse once they get something in their heads they don't give up.

{{li|I=Z1/ML|Q=618}}{{book|Socialism and War}} (Lenin)

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML, MX|Q=618}}Marxism sets out to describe transformations that can happen in any country, thus it is not a cultural value of any specific country  ->  this is weirdly contested even by sky-blue people, although contesting it is to everybody's detriment.<br/>
one reason I think this happens is the insistence that philosophy is always subjective. this doesn't make sense, because if philosophy can only turn objective by becoming science, there has to be a point where it was still philosophy but turned objective enough to create science before it actually created science.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}People will always choose the amount of freedom and human rights that is the least unaffordably expensive

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Kantian ethics is one of the definitions of statism

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is just Existentialism but imperialist

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition = MX onto LR, MX onto A / meta-Marxism onto Bookchinism|Q=618}}Any micro-sized Liberal-republicanism is a form of Bookchinism / Any micro-sized Liberal-republicanism attempting to do the exact same things as the United States constitution but consisting of less than about 200,000 people is a form of Bookchinism

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}equivalent military power (meta-Marxism)  ->  the abstract concept of a numerical metric which determines how likely a country is to win a cold war. this concept would represent a country's overall capacity to fight off 1900s-style military invasions as seen in the early Soviet Union, Vietnam, and Korea, impending enforcers paid by a mountain of capital as in the United States, unconventional weapons such as poisoned clams, blood-exploder vaccines, attacks that take down electromagnetic networks and power grids, and powerful sovereign citizens who simply decide they are going to bend reality to make it follow them and not obey any form of regulation, as in the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy and select parts of the United States, as well as the threat of 25 external rich countries all joining together and attacking your civilization as a team.<br/>
China would score well on this, the historical Soviet Union would score good but not the best (it was easy for other countries to engineer disasters), BlackPantherism gets a score that is a little bit nonzero, and most anarchisms would score abysmally.
[MX onto DX, MX onto BP] A country's equivalent military power is what determines whether it gets to keep its internal form of social organization, not whether that civilization is effective internally or whether its Ideals are the world's most morally righteous Ideals

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The only way to successfully vote third-party in the United States is to move to another country and align with one of that country's parties (and vote for; meta-Marxist hypothesis)

{{li|I=S1/ML|tradition = ML|Q=618}}Hollywood ideology (Marxism) {{YouTube|NjQgn_CBi44|lc=UgxrDERRa1c2WB7mHjJ4AaABAg.ATpUkQ6YFsqATpxUJw0BMK}}  ->  I don't have full context on this term but it seems the idea is something like, improperly applying the concept of heroes and villains to ignore the actual material conflicts in the world and the historical reasons why they happen. colloquially calling the best or least bad outcome "heroic", ok, makes the act of Soviet ministries commissioning propaganda easier. actually treating history as operating based off Good and Evil like in the Narnia books, Hollywood ideology.

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition = ML, ML onto DX|Q=618}}As long as a viable people is held in bondage by a foreign conqueror, it necessarily directs all its strength, all its efforts, all its energy against the external enemy; thus, its inner life remains paralyzed, and it remains incapable of working for social emancipation (Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels - On Poland)  ->  seems weirdly applicable to Deng Xiaoping states in a different way

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}The world of {{cite|Naruto}} is very normal / The world of {{cite|Naruto}} is very normal except for the fact "Japan" uses ninja as its military; businesses exist, and ninja are only a small part of the country, in a world of several countries (Kishimoto)  ->  I don't have a link to the actual interview right now because I found this in a video comment but I believe this as something a manga writer would say. they don't think too hard about the logic behind things sometimes.
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}{{cite|Naruto}} is designed without respect to the [[E:historical materialism (general-sense)|historically-understood]] [[E:historical materialism|material development]] of technologies or the relationship of technologies to other technologies<br/>
{{cite|Naruto}} + anarchronistic technology = this.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}What does the (not-) United States look like in {{cite|Naruto}}?  ->  this of course doesn't refer to the literal United States, it refers to whatever the counterpart is, like how Pokémon introduced Unova.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}What does (not-)China look like in {{cite|Naruto}}?  ->  this is quite a legitimate question to ask because as I remember Rock Lee & Might Guy literally bring up traditional Chinese medicine and are designed like they came from another country, so China totally exists, that is not disputable. but this opens up a can of worms, because we have the statement from Kishimoto that the world of Naruto is "basically like our world". and in our world Communism existed. so, like, did Lee and Guy flee the CPC or what the hell happened in the history of these two countries
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Does the {{abbr|tts=Communist Party of China|CPC}} exist in {{cite|Naruto}}?  ->  this question sounds silly but is a legitimate question as far as how the series conceptualizes history.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Did the Soviet Union exist in {{cite|Naruto}}? / Did the (not-) Soviet Union exist in {{cite|Naruto}}?  ->  people have pegged Naruto as taking place in "the 90s" so I suppose "did" is a somewhat more appropriate word than "does". it's gotta be asked though

{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}The {{cite|Naruto}} world contains radios / The world of {{cite|Naruto}} contains radios
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}The {{cite|Naruto}} world contains TVS / The world of {{cite|Naruto}} contains television sets
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}The {{cite|Naruto}} world contains VCRs / The world of {{cite|Naruto}} contains VCRs
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=618}}The {{cite|Naruto}} world contains {{TTS|tts=air conditioning|ACs}} / The world of {{cite|Naruto}} contains air conditioning units

{{li|I=S2/Fy|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618}}Sasuke is an anarchist (Naruto) / Sasuke wanted to kill the Kages and lead a mass revolt against the system  ->  for a long time I thought nothing could make Naruto interesting enough to me at this age to add propositions about it but this made me laugh so here we are. nobody in Naruto is going to be a Communist because there's no modern industry, there's not going to be a Marx. and if I remember anything (maybe I have this wrong?) Sasuke and Itachi hardly have any principles. right? it was like the only thing they believed in was power if I remember right. this overall sets them up to be anarchists if they are going to be anything, because to be an anarchist you only have to assemble an almost bullshit tiny list of values of just freedom and destroying what already exists. certainly the more credible anarchisms go further than that but that's all you need if you want to be an orange anarchist. an obsession with freedom and a knife. I think Sasuke might just have that.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}What is the social significance of the term "cult behavior"? (United States)
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}What is the social significance of the term "cult behavior"? (Japan)

{{li|I=S2/Zv|Q=618}}media Trotskyites  ->  the motif of people who believe that media series will improve specifically from a lot of criticism and negative coverage as opposed to direct attempts at competition and disconnection
{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=LR, ES|Q=618}}media Existentialists  ->  the motif of people who believe that media series will improve specifically from fans disconnecting and refusing to engage with the new entries or connecting to entirely different series and jumping over to a different fandom to punish the first fandom

{{li|I=S2/DX|tradition=MX, MZ, DX|Q=618}}Avoid creating martyrs (Marxism) / Marxism must avoid creating martyrs<br/>
Marxism must avoid creating martyrs + ?? = Don't turn religion into a martyr (Lenin)<br/>
Marxism must avoid creating martyrs + Trotskyism is the prototypical oppressed group = Don't turn Trotskyism into a martyr (meta-Marxism)
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Don't turn religion into a martyr (Lenin) / Marxists must propagate atheism among the masses, but not make it a legal ban, as that would turn religion into a martyr (Lenin)  ->  I feel like you could take this sentence and cross out "atheism" and "religion" and replace them with other things such as "anti-Trotskyism"/"Trotskyism" and it would turn into a surprisingly viable violet proposition. that's New Democracy though, that's Mao's violet proposition
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Don't turn Trotskyism into a martyr (meta-Marxism) / Marxists must propagate anti-Trotskyism among the masses, but not ban Trotskyism legally as that would turn it into a martyr (meta-Marxism)

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance with its quantity and quality (Article 118)
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Citizens of the USSR have the right to rest and leisure (Article 119)
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Citizens of the USSR have the right to education (Article 121)
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Women in the USSR are afforded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social, and political life (Article 122)
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Equality of rights of citizens irrespective of nationality or race is an indefeasible law (Article 123)
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens (Article 124)
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}The citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech (Article 125)  ->  I think there's an implied "under certain conditions" in there but, wow, what's that doing in there

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}The Soviet Union failed on all its guarantees by 1960  ->  the original instance of this claim didn't give a year so I'm going to take a guess on what year is most reasonable

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition=PT|Q=618}}Global superpowers rise and fall in a 9-stage cycle (Ray Dalio) / ([[Philosophical_Research:RatingHub/YT/KimIversen|rating sheet]])  ->  one of the most darkly honest models anyone has ever had without endorsing war or genocide. not bad, really.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Arceism is part of blue anarchism {{YouTube|OsUFNGY1rcY}}
{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto A |Q=618}}Arceism is part of charcoal anarchism

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}The existence of small businesses regulates big businesses  ->  hasn't been true for a while. it can be that tons of independent products exist and not a single one of them will cause the bigger products to change. one of the only things that has is taking Nintendo to court for using the law in a way that shouldn't be legal — essentially accusing them of a would-be legal wrong.<br/>
I know this is a classic part of Liberal-republicanism, but.... it's very weird when you think about it. it's asking for an unregulated process to regulate other parts of itself by running normally.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}The economy filling up with corporations and not letting any new corporations be created is exactly like ecosystems losing diversity {{YouTube|OsUFNGY1rcY}}  ->  no. humans literally exist inside an ecosystem. they are a single species still competing against other species; "one species monopolizing resources" happened well before a single corporation existed, much less before any of them got "entrenched" or "big". it may feel boring to point that out and crush metaphors under the brick of literalness, but ecosystems and species aren't the same thing, and it's very important to understand that to understand either of them. in ecosystems, it's normal for one species to kill individuals of another species and eat them one by one. it's normal for a fox to catch a rabbit, break its neck, and eat it. but foxes and rabbits are individual organisms, like human beings. foxes commit homicide, or in this case predation, to make sure populations don't "monopolize" an ecosystem, or perhaps more accurately that there are not so many rabbits that they are wasted because they die in some remote burrow and won't be eaten. so here's the thing. human individuals multiply at the same time corporations grow, almost but not entirely in step with them — kill some human individuals at one corporation, and you'd probably limit its growth at least a little bit. this generally isn't allowed. the next best way to limit a corporation's growth is to toss people out of employment. this, again, is almost a weapon you can use to kill people. you could forcibly take workers or subsidiaries away from one corporation and assign them to a different corporation, but there you run into the problem that the actual structure of each corporation builds up because of its use to the rest of the structure. it's a bit like tearing an arm off a body and expecting the arm to be as functional as a body, under some kind of cartoon physics where it doesn't actually die but still can't do much of anything. the real problem is the sheer process of leaving corporations alone to assemble themselves without any interaction or cooperation. it doesn't leave any way for big corporations _to_ decide they've gotten too big and shouldn't take on any more workers. just like biological evolution doesn't leave any way for species to decide they've gotten too big and shouldn't destroy the environment; the environment can't actually talk to humanity, and it can't overpower humanity after humanity has already attained the traits that make it more powerful. competition ending in a bunch of corporations that are big and stable but about equally sized is about the best outcome you could ask for. competition is competition, and competition going on for a long time doesn't make it any fairer, it only really makes it less fair. if you try to encourage any more competition at that point, you only risk getting fewer corporations that are bigger and more powerful. it's only stopping competition and recognizing that the big compartments are basically there forever barring an accident that can actually stop the individual compartments from getting fewer and bigger.<br/>
here's the danger of believing this kind of thing. if you believe corporations shouldn't get any bigger, people will keep being born, and it's entirely possible for the country to fill up with small businesses before it runs out of people who need businesses. at that point, every time someone tries to "compete", entrenched or new, some number of people are just plain going to have to accept that they don't belong in that country and they have to go to another country and start the whole "competition" thing all over again. that's if your population _isn't_ so crazy they're turning into nazis and wanting to kill those extra people and have what's there for themselves. if your population _isn't_ crazy, the more it believes in "competition" the more it will become colonial, trying to carve bits out of other countries and try to somehow justify that it's really the one who deserves to own that country, not those nasty other-country people who were there before. Chinese people are doing civilization all wrong you see, you're not supposed to let the corporations get big, it's time to boot those nasty [[E:Drawn Together and racism|Orientals]] out and fill the area with Americans so all the businesses can be small like they're supposed to be. do you see the problem? first you have right-Liberals claiming small businesses are the gateway to freedom and it's tyrants and The Left with their Too Many Genders that believe in big businesses. the next thing to happen will be this. an attempt to fill everything up with small businesses and Arceism that absolutely doesn't work but keeps eliminating other ethnic groups in pursuit of one day suddenly discovering the key to always having small businesses. sometimes it's bad to [[E:Idealism|keep believing in your dreams]].<br/>
this + ?? = Arceism

{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=LR|Q=618}}If one business is milking the system then, strategically undercutting its prices, another business will surely out-exist it and make it go away / ([[Philosophical_Research:RatingHub/YT/KimIversen|rating sheet]])  ->  note the theme of the most powerful actor in the system crushing the others before the system can be reset or the "imbalance" "corrected".<br/>
the pattern of Wal-Mart putting its prices way too low and driving out all the others and enjoying a monopoly is awfully, bizarrely similar in shape to the way things are "supposed" to work, if not perhaps the exact same shape.<br/>
what if everyone was interpreting Liberal-republicanism wrong and every case of antitrust laws and supposed defeat of businesses that violate Arceism was actually just another case of a business becoming the most powerful and then using The State to eliminate the others in order to reset the system

{{li|I=S1/LR|tradition=LR|Q=618}}I don't fall in line when the line leads to bullshit (motto spotted on news channel) {{YouTube|@=UCoJTOwZxbvq8Al8Qat2zgTA}} / ([[Philosophical_Research:RatingHub/YT/KimIversen|rating sheet]])  ->  if that isn't the most Liberal-republican thing I've ever heard. {{i|conform conform conform conform conform conform you're stupid you're stupid you're stupid for saying anything I don't already believe I don't think so I don't think so I don't think so I don't think so have you really seen all of them black-and-white thinking prejudices is that really always the way it is I don't think so I don't think so I don't think s— oh god where did I end up I don't believe in {{caps|That}} thing I am a reasonable rational person who only believes in sensible common sense things not Bad things you see so I always come to good decisions I don't think so I don't think so I don't think so extremist how could you ever think that way I don't think so I don't think so holy shit why is our president demanding to use LLMs to pilot military vehicles I didn't ask for that}}<br/>
it's never the assemblages of people or the individual positions on issues that lead to Liberal-republicanism being doomed, it's... this thought process. whatever {{em|this}} is.

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}{{abbr|tts=Deng Xiaoping Thought|Dengism}} is better-molecularized than Trotskyism / Deng Xiaoping Thought is currently better molecularized than Trotskyism because it contains a description of large strawberry chunks — whole countries with central parties that as a unified object are in a somewhat campist(?) arrangement — while Trotskyism does not contain any useful definition of orange chunks of any size that would contribute to creating the level of success that Deng Xiaoping Thought has achieved  ->  I'm thinking about that probably brown-aligned guy who laid out a kyklos theory that focused on global superpowers. I do think he's kind of sort of right a little bit if you don't take the theory as having a partisan character toward one ideology or country. but the thing he didn't acknowledge is that {{em|if he is correct}}, then global Gramscianism is possible, and an era of socialism similar to or containing Deng Xiaoping Thought could just take over the global empire slot there's always been without being a traditional aggressive global empire and bring the cycle to an end by making sure all further contradictions happened inside it. global empire stops crumbling and being replaced by becoming global structure or global republic.<br/>
this is quite boring compared to Marx, Lenin, or Trotsky's theory of world transition to an era of socialism. but it does acknowledge the fundamental realities that countries and subpopulations of workers can just be scattered or destroyed through the fact that workers are precisely the groups of people who are worse at reproducing themselves and taking over everything as fast and more vulnerable to dying. the true gap between owners and workers is the ability to chunk-compete each other off the face of the earth. so in some ways the best way to win a world that's better for workers is to make sure that blue or brown countries that are absolutely aggressive and whose large-scale behavior and expansion are too much for workers are controlled beneath the power of several very large strawberry regions of the world inside of which the workers actually can survive. is the actual first era after capitalism? not Bolshevism, but sheer defense against imperialist control and populational scattering, which is not hostile to Bolshevism.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}Deng Xiaoping Thought is currently better molecularized than Trotskyism  ->  {{i|"straining when you try to separate the parts of a whole structure so the owner end you drove out to another country just goes angrily crashing back into the factory end"}} (MDem scrap "accountability")

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Campism is truer than Trotskyism  ->  to be honest, I still don't entirely know what campism is. I'm recording this proposition so I can find out before I investigate the proposition further<br/>
also: the Trotskyists in South Africa who attempted to stand up to external capital are at least half exempt from this accusation. rarely you find the only good form of Trotskyism.

{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}Trump to city: let's build / Mamdani charms Trump with "let's build" / Trump hates affordable housing until he can take credit for it [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA6Oze5yyDg]  ->  this does not feel real, it feels like something somebody created to make fun of Trump

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=HAS|Q=618}}"Nadezhda" and Catholicism  ->  I was wondering why like two important people in the history of the Soviet Union were named Nadezhda [https://min.news/en/history/4749be6a40004e831fd40d3f2a0b3bef.html] — why is everybody named Nadezhda?? — and the answer seems to be that it was associated with three saints named after "faith", "hope", and "charity". you learn something new every day.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}The United States is taking advantage of the dollar's status as global reserve currency to print more dollars and have whatever foreign products it wants [https://min.news/en/world/7c21690aefd7c2bb593c5262c0478ac3.html]  ->  god I love min.news, it's far from perfect in terms of framing things well, but the questionable claims coming out of it are incredibly different from US news sources.<br/>
it's... fun. I went about 6 years where I wanted nothing to do with the entire concept of news and suddenly I actually want to read news again. I no longer believe there's any such thing as a neutral news station or that any news station delivers facts as opposed to entertainment, but now that I can start sorting them by ideology in a fine-grained way it's at least become much better entertainment

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Only industry, food, energy, and technology are true hard currency [https://min.news/en/world/7c21690aefd7c2bb593c5262c0478ac3.html]  ->  sounds mostly true but I doubt the last one because it's frighteningly easy to devalue just by a circle of capitalists seeing they can't make any more profit and arbitrarily deciding something is no longer trendy.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Capitalism is an anarchism / Capitalism — not Liberal-republicanism — is a blue anarchism because it is composed of molecularized socioeconomic processes which form [[E:The State is the apparatus of ideological state apparatuses|before]] formal government is [[E:Pillows are not ideologically neutral|generated out of them]]; the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition is the ideology of capitalism-proper, spat out of the daily operation of the blue anarchism sitting below Liberal-republican government; this is to vaguely imply that all successful anarchisms are [[E:garbage MDem (meta-Marxism)|pseudo-MDems]], thriving on molecularized physical processes but neglecting to model the physical generation of government out of a molecularized economic Base or mode of production  ->  this makes a lot of sense but the one question it leaves open is what the true relationship between anarchisms and anarchy is. is [[E:anarchy (meta-Marxism)|anarchy]] only the [[E:stationary combination of heterogeneous elements (meta-Marxism)|stationary combination of heterogeneous elements]]? are there other materially definable things that can fairly be called anarchy? where is anarchy in the pseudo MDem? what part of the pseudo MDem is anarchy? it clearly isn't the lack of a formal oppressive State. if anarchy exists {{em|inside}} capitalism-proper there has to be some weirdly specific thing that it actually is that many people neglect to label correctly.<br/>
what I'm thinking right now is that maybe Arceism is the anarchy inside capitalism. you see it turn up in capitalist theory, you see it bafflingly turn up in Liberal-republicanism totally unexplained, you also see a more violent version of it used to supposedly explain international relations. personally? the violent global-scale version is the only version I believe to be materially effective. every other version is hiding something, it's too good to be true.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Arceism can be expressed materially as a stationary combination of heterogeneous elements  ->  seems true, but only in a very wonky way where Arceism is defined by believing the elements are stationary when they're not.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}Arceist reset  ->  the motif of a process of many things competing radially leading to an incident of violence or devastation that knocks everyone down and supposedly punishes all the free-floating individuals for their "greed". seems to exist in both models of capitalism and models of global geopolitics

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Mass shooters were created by the government (conspiracy theory)

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition=MX onto PT|Q=618}}Tories want you to vote Republican (United States) / Tories and right-Liberals are never actually going to believe that center-Liberals and Menshevik types support "Our Democracy" or "United States democracy"; they believe only the Republican party to be the actual United States

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}China can't innovate / Why can't China innovate? (rhetorical question)  ->  this was a particular article I saw once, so it's important to find actual articles explaining this proposition

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Marxisms marked with the strawberry swatch are Marxisms that tend toward addressing things too slowly  ->  this applies in somewhat different ways to both Gramscianism if you think the United States is currently doing it, and to Deng Xiaoping Thought. Deng Xiaoping Thought is afraid to disrupt chunk competition, Gramscianism is afraid to disrupt the existing process of the United States splitting into two nationalities and is kind of just passively waiting for it to happen
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Marxisms marked with the orange swatch are Marxisms that tend toward addressing things too quickly  ->  sometimes I have trouble explaining what the difference between the orange and strawberry swatches are because it was all based on these phenomenological patterns, but I think this is one of the actual material differences. the orange-swatch Marxisms go too fast, even if what they're saying may be technically correct

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=ES,LR|Q=618}}tacit knowledge  ->  this is one of their new favorites for justifying "decentralized decision-making" and The Free Market.<br/>
but there's a big problem. a lot of tacit knowledge isn't knowledge; a lot of stuff people do and decide intuitively is wrong answers. so if you think decentralized loci are inherently good at deciding compared to "the government" or "the capital city" or "the ministry" then you run into the problem that decentralized loci can have their decision-making abilities corrupted just as easily. and if those screw up they're completely unaccountable for their mistakes; there's no person-constitution you can invoke on a person.<br/>
okay, also? tacit knowledge is what tells a fund with a whole lot of money to buy up all available houses because the more money it has the better a bargain having all the houses is and the more houses it has the more money it can make. this is perfectly logical but it benefits nobody. people believe that decentralized decision-making will ultimately lead everyone to converge onto the same reasonable decisions, such as in open competition supposedly dropping prices (it doesn't, it just makes products go out of print) and in elections supposedly teaching people to converge onto better candidates (they don't, they just result in the worst candidates with the fewest policies that are the best at nothing but winning, and the more candidates are reduced to solely being about winning the more people hate each other and refuse to compromise). but every time people make decisions there are always decisions that are more "powerful" and that have the ability to destroy all other decisions whether they're good decisions or not, and those are the decisions that tend to win the entire game.* those "winning" decisions simply become so powerful that nothing that tries to regulate them and reset the system back to the beginning is necessarily going to work, and they pretty much just get to smash the system whatever you do. the only bright side to this is that sometimes Communist revolution has that status as the "powerful" decision and then you're set because at least everything from before isn't coming back.<br/>
<nowiki>*</nowiki> wow, that game theory phrasing makes me wish there was a video game or tabletop game that had {{em|that}} as its premise because I swear it would be more interesting than Deltarune's premise, the craftsmanship of the rest of the game aside

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}city control of food and housing — the people who want to destroy you and own everything  ->  it's very interesting how Tories conceptualize this. "the people who" already implies that everybody who wants affordable housing is a separate population. "destroy you and own everything" implies that the Socialist nationality is actively chunk-competing with the Tory nationality, one of them lives and one of them dies, one of them multiplies and one of them dies. Tories don't see themselves and the Socialist subpopulation as even being a single population, nation, or "democracy" at all.

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}What is socially-necessary labor in the arts? / What is socially-necessary labor time in the arts?  ->  in any other industry socially-necessary labor time is partly defined by which products and corporations other people want. but there's a very entitled attitude in the arts that you should just get to make whatever you want and force people to decide between what there is. how do you apply the concept of socially-necessary labor in light of that?

{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}Capitalism is the only system where wealth was not acquired by looting or force and was acquired by production (Ayn Rand)  ->  now that Deng Xiaoping Thought exists that isn't even true. it's also debatable whether any European country's capital "wasn't acquired by looting". in Europe, World War I happened when all the European countries tried to steal from each other at once as the easiest way to grow. in the United states the land had to be cleared of other people groups before it could be "productive". the US used force to gain better access to Vietnam and Vietnamese factories, which is its own kind of wealth. force is a vital ingredient in capitalism. the reason workers' states fall apart is they {{em|don't}} put much force on people to make them stay.<br/>
Capitalism is the only system where wealth was not acquired by looting or force + primitive accumulation (early Marxism) = Capitalism is a system where wealth is first acquired by looting or force.<br/>
Capitalism is the only system where wealth was not acquired by looting or force + Deng Xiaoping Thought is a postcolonial theory = Deng Xiaoping Thought is the only system where wealth was not acquired by looting or force and was acquired by production<br/>
The universe revolves around you + ?? = Capitalism is the only system where wealth is acquired through production

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Deng Xiaoping Thought is the only system where wealth was not acquired by looting or force and was acquired by production
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}North Korea is the only system where wealth was not acquired by looting or force and was acquired by production  ->  these propositions are hilarious because of how much more meaningful and insightful they are. on the surface, they're more true than the original. but the more you delve into them you see that weaknesses in each of them can be used to try to prove the other one. oh, no, see, China acquired wealth by force because something something Mao and landlords something something Tibet, so, you see, North Korea is better because they were only ever defending their population. but you can try to disqualify North Korea on technicalities like that it hasn't had excellent production or something. so both of them are viable candidates as "the only" good system, in exclusion to each other.<br/>
certainly there are other workers' states and edge-case government efforts, but like, you couldn't really use South Africa for this cluster of propositions because you can argue on a technicality that wealth was "acquired by force" to distribute the land to Black South-Africans. there's not a strong argument that that's bad, but the original proposition disqualified the use of force, so, no Che Guevara forcefully fighting capitalists out of countries in these propositions.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}To increase the availability of houses, just build more houses without disturbing capitalism  ->  a lot of houses have been built, but every time they get built somebody immediately buys them, knowing that houses are inherently desirable and if all the houses are owned the few parties with money that own all the houses can price them the way they want. or turn them into Airbnbs just as another way to make money.<br/>
once there is enough wealth the whole concept of supply and demand breaks because for the parties with the most wealth the same supply looks like infinite supply and zero demand, they can buy as many things as they want and mark them up to make money all they want, but once they buy them the demand goes way up and the supply goes way down for everyone else. the only limit on price becomes how small a margin the owner is okay with making on the houses by having fewer people to sell them to.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Competition leads to planned obsolescence  -><br/>
<i>producing things always costs money, so won't there be a point where competition causes a bunch of businesses to go out of business because they're making very little money or losing money?</i><br/>
<i>I feel like this is why a lot of technologies like VCRs and DVDs and laserdiscs and movies made without CGI have gone out of use. but when competition drives prices and profits way down and forces new products to be made, eventually people end up with products they didn't want, like live service desktop applications and phones and doorbells that spy on them and generative AI. is that a good outcome of fighting Communism?</i>

{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}Nothing can be a right if it must be provided by someone else  ->  but literally all human rights are provided by someone else. even when the United States military is attacking a country because of human rights they're being provided by someone else.

{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}enshittification (Cory Doctorow)

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Building affordable housing is enshittification  ->  there are a lot of Tory propositions where I should be mad but I just start laughing because when there's actual creativity in them they're weirdly funny<br/>
enshittification (Cory Doctorow) + affordable housing / The Projects (United States) = Building affordable housing is enshittification.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}The problem with center-Liberalism is you eventually run out of taxes and there isn't enough money to win the rest of the non-Tory vote  ->  harsh but probably true.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Zohran Mamdani should have to live in affordable housing  ->  honestly? that's actually fair. the early CPSU lived in basic housing so I support that one

{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}Affordable housing causes Detroit  ->  no.<br/>
this is the kind of thinking that has led everyone across the United States to gut the proletariat and leave literally no proletariat. not "the labor aristocracy profiting off the Third World individually". this.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Housing prices came from too many regulations; this is to imply that the Massachusetts plumbing fixture roster and the lead paint inspector requirement made housing unaffordable  ->  god why are their arguments this bad. this argument is so bad it could be like a South Park episode or something. look I bought a new house for cheap... dude that house is chock full of lead. lead poisoning becomes butt of joke

{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}Democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority but a republic is decentralized and doesn't do that  ->  then why does the United States have a president, and why are there political parties?

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Menshevik types come from wealth and comfort, while people who created businesses are less privileged
{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}People vote for the Democratic Party or Republican Party due to their membership in class subpopulations, but the Republican Party holds all the granting nodes and the Democratic Party holds all the receiving nodes (Toryism)  ->  there was effort put in here, but, I don't think so. this is a similar error to Trotskyism thinking the internal structure of the Soviet Union is to blame for everything they hate about Stalin instead of the interaction between First World and Third World countries. I think that by about the year 2000 or something class structures are genuinely not the reason that people sort into United States Liberal-republican political parties.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}It's better to tax hedge funds than tax New York City  ->  that could actually be true. the problem is that whenever you try to do federal taxes you get wild pushback telling people to do things as locally as possible. then someone actually starts doing things locally and people lose their minds.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Tories believe New York is full of proletarians  ->  should we trust their assessment, or are they factually wrong?

{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=M3|Q=618}}How can I own my body if there are no property rights?  ->  okay. I mean, that question is stupid, but it's also legitimately thought-provoking, so sure, let's add it.<br/>
my answer is that property in relation to land is not actually ownership but the right to drive other people away from something. so unless people are living inside your body the concept of land ownership in particular doesn't apply to it.<br/>
whether your body is part of ordinary belongings is a more complex question. in practice, belongings are usually materially owned by houses; you don't actually have much control over your belongings if there are disputes over your housing, which can happen for a lot of ordinary everyday reasons unrelated to "crazy" mayors being elected. is your body materially owned by your house? arguably. you are safe from all of civil society in there. but your body being forced out of a house doesn't really mean somebody owns it already. it only really turns it into something of a disputed territory, where you may be fighting someone else over your body but you can only really die in that, nobody ever actually wins that.

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why don't Tories refer to overturning workers' states as stealing other people's money?  ->  if they think this way about landlords then there is no reason they shouldn't say the same thing about stealing state capitalism. whether the Bolsheviks stole anything doesn't matter when we're talking about the raw course of historical events.
{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why don't Tories refer to overturning the Soviet Union as stealing other people's money?
{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why don't Tories refer to overturning Chinese sovereignty as stealing other people's money?
{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why don't Tories refer to overturning Cuban sovereignty as stealing other people's money?
{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why don't Tories refer to overturning Chinese sovereignty as slavery?
{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why don't Tories refer to overturning Cuban sovereignty as slavery?

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Claiming the right to use a landlord's territory is slavery  ->  the more I fail to block every single {{censor|fucking}} news article ever written and let a single sentence by a right-winger slip into my feed the more I question whether human rights were a {{censor|fucking}} mistake and some people just {{em|shouldn't}} get an equal right to exist in the first place. this is why you can't tell somebody like me to use prescriptive "I believe that everybody should" ethics rather than descriptive historical theories of meta-ethics — there are going to be some very nasty "I believe that everybody" statements relating to landlords and specifically the ones who say this

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Territory is the only thing that can make people free<br/>
People use property to gain freedom + ?? = Territory is the only thing that can make people free.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Lowering the value of people's houses is the same as seizing physical objects  ->  this can't actually be true.
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Lowering the value of people's houses is not taking physical objects because case law, and because Agins v. Tiburon  ->  oh boy. on one hand they're thinking. on another hand. court cases don't mean much. they get overruled by other court cases and the other branches of government a lot. I feel by now like a large portion of US voters don't think they're legitimate at all. you see disproportionate weight put on state legislatures, when they're just as unstable. maybe [[E:horizontal balancing (meta-Marxism)|horizontal checks and balances]] were a stupid idea and we actually should have had 100 constitutional amendments with a bunch of back and forth for a bit and then permanence
{{li|I=Z1/ES|tradition=LR|Q=618}}{{i|Agins v. Tiburon}}
{{li|I=Z1/ES|tradition=LR|Q=618}}{{i|Lingle v. Chevron}}  ->  ruled that regulating rent is taking property, overruling {{i|Agins}}

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition=Aa|Q=618}}Communists only blame the wrong people for problems, and that's why they turn around and harm their own allies  ->  this is true for like, five people in all of history. you can single out Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Bukharin as {{em|maybe}} being real cases but yeah otherwise this is nonsense

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES onto MZ|Q=618}}assuming that Mao's concepts of contradictions, knowledge, and practice apply to "life" in the sense of an isolated individual and the contradiction between murky, abstract Ideals [https://min.news/en/culture/89b1033bd324a12bcb97a3c01d21dae3.html]  ->  it's so abundantly obvious when you read Mao texts that he's talking about multiple material objects operating together and how to understand your place within a larger object. but when you search and find pages about "Mao's philosophy" you rather quickly get hit in the face with [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition|Existentialism]]<br/>
looking at this site... the perspectives on China are pretty good but everything that isn't a personal experience is just Existentialism. very blue site. the article that compared the stock market to Buddhism (?) was both maddening and funny

{{li|I=S2/MZ|tradition=MZ|Q=618}}It's not time to implement democratic reforms in Tibet (1955) / In 1955, it was not time for the Communist Party of China to pursue democratic reforms in Tibet [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_58.htm]  ->  I need to know what exactly democratic reforms means here. are they talking about, like, taking a relatively medieval structure and trying to republicanize it, but the Tibetans might be upset about implementing democracy from the outside in at that time? I don't even know. but this is one of the first believable statements I've ever found about Tibet that I know isn't a lie.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MZ|Q=618}}The {{abbr|tts=Communist Party of China|CPC}} has no reason to reject other parties if they are actually willing to serve the people and show up in difficult times without stopping halfway (1955) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_58.htm]  ->  Mao's justification for allowing the eight comically similar Liberal parties. a basically violet statement from Mao. New Democracy was one of the major influences for meta-Marxism so any number of propositions related to it can be marked violet as long as they don't contradict some of the most important meta-Marxist methods such as [[E:existential materialism|exmat]]

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MZ|Q=618}}correct ideas pampered in hothouses / correct ideas pampered in hothouses and never exposed to the elements [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_58.htm]  ->  what a phrase. funny enough that I'll admit I'm guilty of it, it's not insulting to put the violet swatch on this, it's just true<br/>
gosh you could use this as a proposition truth value. imagine that

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=MZ|Q=618}}hypercorrecting "non-revisionist" to "dogmatic" [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_58.htm]

{{li|I=S2/MZ|Q=618}}For Communists Han chauvinism is intolerable (1953) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_25.htm]

{{li|I=Z1/ES|Q=618}}{{article|Where Mao Went Wrong: Epistemology and Ideology in Mao's Leftist Politics}} (Womack 1986)

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}the good Mao and the bad Mao [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2158774]  ->  I just can't get over some of the things bourgeois writers say. some of them are maddening, some of them are just plain hilarious like this one. it sounds like he has two little sprites on his shoulders telling him about Liberal-republicanism versus Bolshevism or something<br/>
edit: what's actually going on is the article identifying Mao departing from Maoism, but it appears to be implying that wanting Mao to go back to early Maoism is wrong, so there is an idea of good Mao and bad Mao in there as much as the article is attempting to say it ironically

{{li|I=Z1/ES|Q=618}}In the United States, the accepted way to oust ruling classes is to spend another whole population's money on an army and violently beat them up  ->  this is the great irony in everyone acting like United States Liberal-republicanism is "nonviolent" and "more civilized than a revolution". at best, the United States existing {{em|is}} a violent revolution, against the leadership of every single other country than itself.

{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}It's bad to be a traitor to your country / It's always bad to be a traitor to your country / It's usually bad to be a traitor to your country (generally bad; Toryism, monarchism)  ->  appears in: Space Battle Lunchtime, The Divine Comedy (? this is from memory), Valle Verde<br/>
one of the easiest ways to deliberately create a stupid argument in irony is to create a statement containing "always" or "never" and then delete the outward manifestation of those words while silently keeping them in there. you see many people half understand this when they pick up the concept of "logical fallacies" or "cognitive biases". and then you see the same people still creating their own "hidden always" statements over and over such as "democracy is good", or further abbreviating that widely generalizing value statement to the single word "democracy"
{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}If you consider Al-Qaeda your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country
{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}If you consider the Trotskyite conspiracy your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country
{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}If you consider the Nazi party your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country
{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}If you consider the Republican party your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country (United States)
{{li|I=S2/PT|dimension=F2|Q=618}}If you consider West Germany your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country
{{li|I=S2/ML|dimension=S2|Q=618}}If you consider East Germany your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country
{{li|I=S2/Fy|class=field_fantasy|dimension=S2|Q=618}}If Goku considers earth his country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country (Dragon Ball)
{{li|I=S2/Fy|class=field_horror|dimension=S2|Q=618}}If you consider the Saiyan empire your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country (Dragon Ball)
{{li|I=S2/ML|dimension=S2|Q=618}}If you consider the Soviet Union your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=UM|Q=618|Q2=618}}Manifesto of the International Communist Current (1975) [https://en.internationalism.org/manifesto-1975]
{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=UM|Q=618|Q2=618}}Manifesto of the International Communist Current (1991) [https://en.internationalism.org/manifesto-1991]

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}It is more feasible for a revolution to happen on the basis of joining only one First World country to many exploited countries than on the basis of joining the workers of several First World countries together / more feasible to join one First World country to many exploited countries than to join several First World countries together (abbreviated)  ->  Sometimes I bite off a gigantic proposition I'll never be able to falsify. but I just have to do it because it's important to discuss all the possibilities versus each other.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}The way to reject culturally fabricated narratives is to move to another city and get a different job or business / "More and more people are reflecting on what they want out of life, they're quitting their job, they're moving cities ... Once you wake up and feel that lie you've been fed and see it for what it is ... you stop optimizing your time and you start owning some of it ... What's authentic to you?"  ->  the most honest and blatant statement I've seen of this pattern, yet everything I've been underlining in other things ironically because it was questionable was put together and said perfectly unironically.

{{li|I=S2/ES|dimension=F2|tradition=ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Economics isn't conformity {{abbr|tts=versus|vs}} individuality / The category of economics doesn't contain conformity versus individuality / "When I first wrote this video I thought it would be about economics, but it was really about the entire structure of life"  ->  this is like Mike Masnick claiming economics is "not a moral issue". would you say either of those things in the historical Soviet Union? most people wouldn't. they'd immediately start claiming both that economics is a moral issue and economics favors individuality just so they can shatter the Communist mono-structure that was very much part of economics in that period. you can't just say that's not economics without denying [[E:I am therefore I am|the {{em|physical existence}}]] of millions of people who are okay with the concept that it is.

{{li|I=S2/ES|dimension=F2|tradition=ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}In life there are no answers  ->  this is just bogus because while no, there usually aren't going to be any big ones, there are always a lot of small ones. most people who become researchers at universities go there to slowly answer things there previously weren't answers to. what is the use of educating everyone if it doesn't leave them with more answers to how to live their lives than if they weren't educated? teaching people that vaccines are safe and lead to a better life is giving them answers on how to life their life. it may sound like I'm taking this hyper-literally, and I am, but I feel like it's necessary because if anyone truly believed there weren't any answers to life they'd definitely overlook areas where there were answers and make bad decisions either factually or morally.

{{li|I=M3/MX|dimension=M3|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}If there are no answers in life, then why are there therapists?  ->  think hard about this. there would be no psychotherapists if there weren't at least sometimes correct answers to how to live life.
{{li|I=M3/MX|dimension=M3|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}If there are no answers in life, then why is there Christianity?  ->  it doesn't make logical sense to both believe there are no answers in life and believe that God can identify anything as being a more correct answer morally or otherwise. one of those has to go.
{{li|I=M3/MX|dimension=M3|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}If there are no answers in life, then why are there elections?  ->  if there are truly no answers in life then you would be equally happy or equally miserable with anyone who got elected and you wouldn't need democracy. so why don't you go around telling everybody democracy is unnecessary? you probably believe there are at least some correct answers in life.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}Therapists exist / In the United States and Europe, from approximately to 2020, therapists have existed  ->  this could be useful for any number of chains of reasoning, actually.
{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}The United States constitution can be amended / In the United States, there are constitutional amendments (statement about possibility)

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Because the greed of class society has slowly destroyed the bulk of First World populations to leave only the upper classes, and thereby begun to balance out the comparative numbers of populations across the overall world, Arceism is technically true

</li><li class="field_BPP" data-tradition="BP" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The world is a single civilization (BlackPantherism) / The world is already a single civilization / reactionary intercommunalism proposition (BlackPantherism) [https://viewpointmag.com/2018/06/11/intercommunalism-the-late-theorizations-of-huey-p-newton-chief-theoretician-of-the-black-panther-party/]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Money was made off of the strife of others, which, simply put, is wrong [https://fnewsmagazine.com/2019/03/the-modern-day-blaxploitation-behind-black-panther/]  ->  I clicked onto this article looking for something else, but this is an unexpectedly powerful quote

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto LGBT / meta-Marxism onto queer theory" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gay characters in movies are Evil because antinormative queer theorists give themselves the same definition as Evil

{{li|I=S1/ML|tradition=ML, DX|Q=618}}stay together like a pomegranate  ->  I was looking for physical objects that could be used as crayola-style names for the swatches, and one thing that occurred to me was "pomegranate". I looked at it and was like, huh, when you think about it, it keeps things connected together like a central party. and then I saw on Wikipedia that (it claimed) the CPC had also said that. and I was like, wow. so that's just obvious, huh?

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}There have been two major types of ideologies that have existed both before and during the time of republics: ideologies which physically act through the state, and ideologies which physically act through individuals or small localized formations inside civil society; it is possible but not necessary that the first category are called statisms and the second category are called anarchisms  ->  this statement is subtle, but very important, because it's setting up the idea that creating republics doesn't stop people from totally forgetting they're in a republic and generating localized ideologies that are specifically the shovel dreams generated by civil society itself as a material object while government itself generates different ideologies. this is one possible "origin story" of how Liberal-republicanism became weirdly molecularized and birthed Existentialism, as well as how Toryism turned totally secessionist as it became uninterested in compromising with center-Liberalism and allowing democracy to meaningfully exist

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto ES|Q=618}}Che Guevara has been coopted by postcolonial theories  ->  how is it that everybody hates Marxism and yet you see him brought up anyway as if he wasn't a Marxist. something is off here. it also confuses me why people bring up the Black Panthers and hate Marxism; Malcom X was very much like Stalin, he was basically an unlikeable bigot by modern people's standards (anarchist standards) except for the mitigating force that he was a Marxist and it made him open up to criticism

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=MX onto ES, MX onto LR|Q=618}}blue multipolarity / Arceism (violent international version where everybody in a sea of blue chunks is supposed to respect each other As Equals but ultimately the process of blue chunks destroying a blue chunk that got too powerful can only be achieved by one or more blue chunks also becoming Too Powerful temporarily or permanently in order to take them down)  ->  the motif that multipolarity of blue chunks where all the blue chunks fight each other the moment they think one of them is too big or too powerful or "doing something unfair" is enough to ensure that a free-floating sea of blue chunks is actually regulated.<br/>
I feel like a lot of fantasy stories run on this. the assertion that destroying something useful for evil is trivial and easy but where in practice somebody has to become terrifyingly powerful themself to actually destroy the terrifying power used for evil, with no actual need to justify that they're good people or that it's okay for them to use their power literally however they want to even if they do something bad because in the end there's no actual abolishing power and no actual regulating what the person or group powerful enough to destroy power does.
{{li|I=S2/LR|tradition=MX onto DX, MX onto LR|Q=618}}By Liberal-republicans' own logic, global capitalism should be broken up into many plural capitalisms fully caged inside self-contained workers' states in order to uphold the Liberal-republican value of blue multipolarity where no one party can chain everyone into the same universal structure they control — a problem which has happened with axes of First-World countries or global mountains of capital many times over  ->  they love it when you break up populations and give pieces of them the ability to stubbornly object, but for some reason they never apply this to the problem of having material objects that stretch around the earth that can actually hurt people.

{{li|I=S2/ML|dimension=ML, MX|Q=618}}Despair is a form of capitalist ideology  ->  heard this one many times before. this is one of the only things that kept me going when I was locked-in working on the book, that the first sliver of Molecular Marxism was always creating hypotheses with meta-Marxism, charting out the Lattice model, and not giving up.

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618}}Analyzing the economic structure of the US is a good way to see where the world is heading  ->  I really doubt _that's_ true. feels like it ignores the concept of country characteristics. there are at least two kinds of countries, the countries full of retail stores and the countries full of factories.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}using Humpty Dumpty to change the constitution  ->  ok, the people who write these things are clearly Tories but this one got a laugh out of me.<br/>I'll let them point it out only because a lot of center-Liberal arguments today just don't logically cohere together regardless of whether the end goal is good. center-Liberalism is eating itself to everybody's detriment. don't try to "Vaush" this. it's really actually so ineffective that believing in it and wasting time on it is causing harm and killing people. nobody needs it. there are rare seconds of the day when I'll decide that center-Liberalism is so terrible I _hate anarchism less_ than it, although I don't really _like anarchism more_.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The Holy Roman Empire was a series of self-contained Social-Philosophical Systems in the form of principalities with a specific religion as their Philosophical System

{{li|I=S2/W|Q=618}}Iraqis have been committing imperialism against Kurds [https://rojavainformationcenter.org/background/key-facts/]  ->  this is what it sounds like when you take religion out of it.<br/>
is the problem with Iraq and the concept that Marxism supposedly needs Islam that people in Iraq are as stuck in the middle of imperialism as the United States and can't see it?

{{li|I=Z1/W|Q=618}}Kurdistan Workers' Party  ->  defeated.
{{li|I=Z1/W|Q=618}}Democratic Union Party [https://thekurdishproject.org/history-and-culture/kurdish-democracy/rojava-democracy/]  ->  these parties have temporarily been given the strawberry swatch due to containing both at least crude Marxist principles and things that stand out as charcoal anarchism. it isn't common to see strawberry and charcoal together, it's more common to see strawberry and blue, but either of them counts as strawberry.

{{li|I=S2/W|tradition=A, W|Q=618}}Rojava will end war in the region on the basis of Democracy  ->  seems doubtful.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Rojava is evidence that revolutions are more likely to occur on the basis of nationality or demographic identities than on the basis of simply not believing in the things that currently exist  ->  anarchists will keep denying the idea they believe in nothing but whenever you talk to them they're like, protests bring people together, revolutions bring people together, it's best not to believe in anything at all until the people united by resisting shit win

{{li|I=S1/ES|Q=618}}black-ball white-ball demonstration  ->  it won't work on anyone now it's documented but oh well
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}A meta-Marxist wouldn't be fooled by the black ball, white ball demonstration  ->  if you have the ability to model different sets of material conditions side by side, you'll understand that it's possible for locality to produce different results that don't come from "perspective".

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618}}Because anarchists' outward behavior is not predictable from any material model of reality, every value anarchists try to have is in effect an arbitrary narrative  ->  this is important to point out when it's become so common for blue anarchists to focus on "narratives". to actually get away from arbitrary narratives you'd have to throw away Idealism and make a physically, materially correct model that predicts the real world. at least on the level of how quantum mechanics does it with a bunch of fuzziness. physics which is finally aware of retermination is the only thing that can actually be nonpartisan and not impose potentially harmful or limiting narratives. even things like nebulous squishy definitions of gender that claim not to squash The Subject impose narratives inasmuch as they fail to be predictive. what is objective is what can be physically known. probabilistic wavefunction or otherwise. what is objective contains no debatable or partisan narratives in and of itself.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX|Q=618}}Russia is the country equivalent of a college dropout  ->  in this metaphor, the Soviet Union is college, and China and Cuba stayed in college.

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618}}How can anarchists have free time if combating prejudices is a full-time job? / If anarchists want a world with time open for mostly leisure, and they want it as fast as possible, but writing good philosophy about gender identity and anti-racism and other prejudices or forms of "domination" takes a lot of hard work, and yet it's necessary to ever achieve a functional anarchism where people aren't bigots, how will anarchists have time for leisure instead of getting stuck with effectively a day job of working on getting people to stop being bigots for 40+ hours a week with no way to negotiate fewer hours or time off?  ->  the whole idea of being able to collectively bargain on labor and have any say about the specific conditions of it is a very modern thing that emerged with capitalism and large businesses. abolish capitalism and you're left with a whole lot of tasks of building a country all over again from the beginning that are back-breaking in their amount but non-negotiable. I would know this, as much as these are smaller things than a whole country, from having to build large parts of a giant database plus visual theme and large parts of a linux distro from nothing just to get an experience that contained no disappointment. the sheer state of something not existing yet can be tyrannical because nobody is going to give you a day off until you get a lot of people to see how good it is and put in gigantic amounts of work before you get people to actually use it and maybe finally care about you. it's possible to be exploited more than a worker in terms of the crude numerical ratio of how much you work versus how much you're paid or rewarded. try "you don't have a single damn thing you can be paid for and are constantly trying all day to construct the equivalent of a business to work at or public facility that serves people and always failing".

{{li|I=M3/LR|Q=618}}Would it be more just to forcibly break Russia up into multiple nation-states?  ->  it sounds like the way things are, the governments of Russia don't care about the people and the people don't care about the government. for previous historical periods, people complain that the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union was too big and bloated. but really, Russia is still about that geographically big and as much of a logistical nightmare. the only factor left an Existentialist can "fix" to try to break up Generalized Authoritarianism and take power away is to forcibly chop up the country so the sheer number of connected people isn't able to produce as powerful a government. from here, the claim would be that because Russia had a hard time getting through Bolshevism and everybody only really understands the notion of quietly subverting rules and not playing along, the only way to save Russia is to get rid of overarching authority itself, but because nobody really has the strength to do that right now and some people don't want to, somebody has to break up the country by force.
this is the reason I really don't like rhetoric usually in the context of fiction that if there is a locus of power that can hurt people it's easy to solve the problem by destroying it. like, holy cow, that's like saying that because Liberal democracy can be used to legislate against trans people and Mexicans it's necessarily to abolish Liberal democracy and make sure there will never be a Congress with power over the whole United States region as opposed to a tiny part of it. in the real world you pretty much need more power to be able to destroy power, and then when you destroy power you've just given someone more power.

{{li|I=M3/Fy|Q=618}}How do you know what a Digimon will turn into? / Given a particular Digimon, and a stage which for some reason you know has characteristics of the base form, how do you know what other characteristics are going to be part of the design of that stage, and predict an Ultimate stage with Piyomon characteristics? / Given a particular Digimon, how do you know what seemingly unrelated Digimon will be chosen as its evolution instead of another?  ->  silly question to make you think about the concept of things transforming into other things while retaining what they already were. it helps that it applies to beings that are essentially civilized or artificial and not to natural ecosystems. it's like asking a question about a country transforming, only fractalized down to the individual. normally I would say that's an improper form of analysis but the shows don't actually define real consequences for only one Digimon reaching the next stage versus a lot of them, so like, it's within canon as written, if not within what's generally a good form of analysis for the real world
{{li|I=M3/Fy|Q=618}}How do you know what a Pokémon will turn into?

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}the other side of Bolshevism / post-Bolshevism (historical period which succeeds and further develops Bolshevism) / era of communism (generic) / upper-phase communism (generic) / crimson anarchism (generic)  ->  the motif of a general category of things that happens once Stalin's Marxism is "complete" but isn't any of the things from before that stage including capitalism. it's clear from history that 1920s predictions about what might happen here weren't necessarily correct. but also, it only seems more likely with time that it was possible for Bolshevism to actually transform into something, and for even Deng Xiaoping states to transform into something. what's unclear is what either of them turns into. it's like trying to peek past an event horizon, or see into a wave function; you have no idea what's on the other side of there unless you were somehow able to mathematically start out inside there instead of enter from the outside.

{{li|I=S2/Zv|Q=618}}Russia was never going to get all the way through Bolshevism to the other side  ->  there are a lot of historical facts to go over here. I'm not sure what the most appropriate conclusion is. I know it's popular to try to claim the few people qualified to administer the Soviet government were too powerful and did nothing to change the power dynamic that had existed before. I know from another, more reasonable angle you can say that the country was under too much strain to hold together without coercion. but what's the actual answer to how people should have descriptively predicted the history of Russia going in 1920? starting in 1920, what's the actual best outcome that could have happened, not synonymous with "the outcomes Lenin wants to happen"? is it Russia becoming a Deng Xiaoping state and all the border states flying off it and possibly forming separate associations? what is it?<br/>
I obsess about the trajectory of the Soviet Union because I don't want to hate Russians. it's so easy to if you assume that everyone in Russia simultaneously chose the way it generally is today, like what kind of fucking asshole would choose that. it's convenient for everyone that that is literally not what culture is or how it functions and in fact all things referred to as national culture are produced through a heterogeneous soup of processes and strata. but yeah these are the stakes of not {{em|materially succeeding}} at anarchism, everyone hates your entire nationality and thinks it's going to kill them so you had better fucking get it right if you don't want millions of people to be perceived that way effective the day you get it wrong

{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If you can't promise someone that all Australians are nice people who want to follow a particular ethical principle, how can you know that all human beings in existence want to follow that ethical principle? / If you can't promise someone that all Russians want to follow a particular ethical principle, how can you know that all human beings in existence want to follow it? / Australia rule (ethical proposition)  ->  this is based on a conversation with [[User:Vidak]] from I think over a year ago where he determined that there were too many bad Australians to build a workers' state. which is a funny thing to say out loud especially out of context, but I'm only exaggerating or skewing what was said a tiny bit.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=ES, A, PT|Q=618}}Communism as ignoring reality / if the Party says that it is not four but five — then how many? (1984) [https://mimiandeunice.com/2018/11/07/1984/]  ->  it's very common to act like workers' states ignore material conditions and _if they could only see the reality_... no Communism? it's often unclear what exactly people think the reality _is_ and what kind of whole-country system they would realize instead. (Arceism?) "democracy" doesn't explain anything, because the ultimate point of democracy is to select actual policies, so there has to be some material outcome you actually want to vote for over something else - if all policies were qualitatively the same you would be equally as happy if there was no democracy at all.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Trans suicide is basically BPD / A transgender person verging on suicide is basically the same as someone threatening suicide to try to take active control of the fear of abandonment [https://mimiandeunice.com/2018/11/07/abusive-relationship/]  ->  well. this one's at least creative. you usually hear gender identity compared to wanting to cut off limbs. to come up with an assertion that sounds accurate to a DSM entry is at least more interesting

{{li|I=S2/HAS|Q=618}}What you defend against you make real [https://acim.org/acim/lesson-170/there-is-no-cruelty-in-god-and-none-in-me/en/s/576] [https://mimiandeunice.com/2012/08/07/what-you-defend-against-you-make-real/]  ->  so it seems this page was trying really hard to teach people not to be bigots without saying anything specific that might upset them. but... I don't think it succeeded. this is a bunch of nonsense that doesn't really make any sense in a physical world. it assumes that there is no such thing as relationships or people that aren't in relationships and that everyone has literally a million friends. that's simply not true.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618}}A world full of newly-created anarchisms would be a horrific world filled with war  ->  the first thing to remember about anarchism is that what anarchisms say is their ultimate goal is different from what their material process of anarchist transition from a fledgling anarchism to a completed anarchism will be. and personally.... what it seems to me is that anarchism wishes for total sovereignty of countable cultures unfettered by Liberal-republicanism or Bolshevism, such that the world would be a patchwork of separate countable cultures neatly separated at the borders of arbitrary socially-linked graphs (Social-Graph Systems). the problem with that is that if any SGS did anything bad according to any other SGS, this would effectively open countable cultures to Darwinian selection where some of them would obliterate each other through bigoted military invasions, sanctions, or other means, and only some of them would survive. one strong pattern throughout history so far is that when you get rid of spatial hierarchies instead of transforming them, or no joined structure forms, they're often replaced by groups of people existing in mutual exclusion and trying to totally eliminate each other. I feel like suddenly turning the whole world into anarchisms would lead to a lot of that. the individual anarchisms would be lawful inside themselves, they'd create internal peace like any society, but they'd have basically zero respect for any other anarchisms outside them because every anarchism simultaneously believes in forming a tiny local Community that transitions to serve itself and has a rather dogmatic list of demands for every other place on earth.

{{li|I=S2/Zv|tradition=MX onto Zv|Q=618}}People prefer unaccountable systems (anarchism) / People prefer systems that are fully unaccountable to them to ones that are accountable, because seeing a human in a position of power with the theoretical ability to reason and empathize approve bad things even once is especially insulting, while when you see an inanimate object perpetuate bad things it is impossible to connect it back to any concept of morality or ethics and therefore people are forced to just stop shouting at an inanimate brick and let it go  ->  I think this is the true reason people prefer Liberal capitalism to Bolshevism. the concept of having humans in charge of your country that can be removed with a little effort instead of unstoppable inanimate objects is inherently terrifying, and people are predisposed to only be able to conceptualize [[E:Zinovievizing|crushing and exploding systems out of fear]] to save themselves before they ever think of new ones to build to prevent the old one from coming back and occupying the same space.

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}The Democratic Party is Communism lite {{YouTube|yNeDhTPE7bA}}  ->  the Democratic party isn't even Gramsci or Malcom X or Picasso. at "worst" it's Marcuse, who qualitatively is an anarchist.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES, LR|Q=618}}The CPC controls China but isn't the real China {{YouTube|yNeDhTPE7bA}}  ->  how do you even determine what the real China is? really think about that. back in the time China had emperors some people probably thought the emperors could be the real China. so why is it that now in the age of republics people are so obsessed with with finding the real United States or the real China like that actually means anything? it's one thing to try to construct the concept of a generalized dictator and try to get rid of that, but I feel like people who outright say "not the real China" at least partly mean exactly what they say.

{{li|I=S2/PT|tradition=ES, PT|Q=618}}BRICS is one big conspiracy by an alliance of Generalized Dictators  ->  by this point, people who argue against China are so fucking unconvincing at putting together a coherent point that makes any sense that if China actually was oppressive I still wouldn't believe them

{{li|I=S2/PT|Q=618}}Gender identity should be like freedom of religion [https://mimiandeunice.com/2018/11/12/meanwhile/]  ->  this is why freedom of religion is a traumatic concept for me and I don't like it when blue anarchists try to inject it down to the Spanishness Office layer as a part of the bill of constitutional amendments all humans are bound to follow when they're born. normal people really have no barrier between political beliefs, religion, and ethnic traditions. tell them to respect gender identity and they'll get offended you didn't accommodate all Cultures and nearly call you racist.

{{li|I=Z1/LR|tradition=LR, PT|Q=618}}Mimi and Eunice [https://mimiandeunice.com/]  ->  there are a lot more TERF comics on here than I remember. oh well, they do get a lot better when you swap out the third panel for one of the other comics

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}If speech isn't offensive, you can never prove it deserves free speech protections  ->  it's weird how most of the time free speech discussions revolve around speech that outright offends somebody, and how when something is offensive it always seems to have a slam dunk case to prove it's okay. people who don't really like South Park suddenly got behind it when it was slamming Trump. Drawn Together got to air basically because it was offensive, while many other things that are similar to other things get hit with lawsuits, and few of them ever get an adequate defense.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}TV channels with total free speech are generally safer than social platforms with total free speech  ->  I think this is true, at least mostly, but it's worth asking why. I feel like to some extent something that's an entire business like an animation studio or a room of TV executives has an incentive to think about what is worth creating — what actually has a point to keep putting out week after week, and what betrays the overall goal of the organization. the same isn't really true for arbitrary individual human beings, who will never have a Spanishness Office inside them that's inherently accountable to outside forces.

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}If the earth was populated by immortals, capitalism would be okay  ->  this is a weird consequence of the way I argue about chunk competition. I've created a scenario where in conditions not very similar to reality my arguments might not hold up any more, and you could only really get through it with anarchist arguments that Domination is bad because {{em|it just is}} {{censor|dammit}}.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618}}It's impossible for anarchists to have charcoal allies who are not part of the core demographic of anarchists  ->  if true, this is a double-edged sword. from the anarchist point of view everybody who is an anarchist is equally an anarchist. but {{a|in practice|E=Having everybody equal in the United States means an inferior position for entire populations of people in other countries}}, it means that if there is any segment of the population that is [[E:Trotsky syndrome of countable cultures|not suited to be anarchists and has a hard time with the task]], that segment of the population will just be permanent enemies of anarchists that are never treated as first-class citizens or perhaps citizens at all. the exact implications of what will happen to these people are not clear, given that anarchism so often rejects any way of dividing individuals into groups other than whether they are anarchists or not. one possible outcome is Zinovievization I guess, where every single structural element of these people's society and structuring element of culture binding them together is torn apart and they are left like that without anything and forced to either build anarchism or migrate to another continent or kill each other over the last scrap of food, as in the early days of Soviet dissolution. I just watched Drawn Together and they had this nightmare challenge where the half of contestants that won the competition got all the food from both halves. that's kind of exactly what happens to Third World countries that get Zinovievized.

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=ES, Zv|Q=618}}indie culture {{YouTube|PDSYmbXwLXg}}  ->  what the hell does this mean. people intuitively think it's better but I can't promote it if I don't even know what it practically is

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES, Zv|Q=618}}The big franchises you love were once small companies {{YouTube|PDSYmbXwLXg}}  ->  generally true. also generally spun into totally the wrong significance.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES, Zv|Q=618}}Tencent puts money into a bunch of business, some of them succeed, some of them fail {{YouTube|PDSYmbXwLXg}}  ->  okay, but that's just how all capitalism works. the core process that makes capitalism capitalism is that different businesses go out and make a product although it's impossible to know if they'll succeed or lose all their money, and the only real way to mediate that is for businesses to buy each other or hand each other money. that's one definition of the entire system of capitalism: the point of capitalism is to waste huge piles of individuals and small teams finding the only ones that are especially popular and productive and then letting those go on to be the businesses that compose society.
so... China has taken capitalism and distilled it down to its most basic patterns

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=unknown|Q=618}}The parasite fears the visionary / Lacking its own ingenuity, the parasite fears the visionary. What it cannot plagiarize, it seeks to censor. What it cannot regulate, it seeks to ban (Andrew Ryan)  ->  brought up in the context of small businesses supposedly "regulating" big businesses

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES, MX|Q=618}}All philosophy is subjective / Because every philosophical text is an opinion piece, no philosophy is actually objective and all philosophy is subjective until it eventually turns into scientific models and applied science  ->  I don't think this is very controversial. there are ways to spin this that absolutely twist me in knots (please throw all post-structuralism in the trash) and there are also ways to play it that are more reasonable.

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=MX|Q=618}}What exactly are socially reactionary capitalists in reaction against? / If reactionary right-Liberals seek to dismantle Menshevism (in their own country) and Bolshevism (in other countries) because they are in reaction against various countries' capable proletarian subpopulations, then what exactly are people who are socially conservative or reactionary in reaction against?  ->  it's super easy to disprove right-Liberalism and argue for Communism on the basis of objective observation and Materialist philosophy, but it's never easy to actually face the kinds of reactionaries the United States is full of because they always start arguing about stuff where the actual "correct" literature is absolutely nebulous and squishy and it's unclear what anybody is truly arguing about.

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto W, MX onto A|dimension=F2|Q=618}}People pushing to get reactionary capitalists out of the corporate social platforms they use is Gramscian Marxism; they said so themselves  ->  when I first started all this around 2021 and had no idea what was going on on the inside of a lot of United States movements due to how exclusive and secretive and supposedly-not-a-movement-centered-in-a-consistent-organization they can be, I started out just listing out the outward characteristics and processes that were going on, and then just a little later, I matched that up with the description of Gramscianism because materially they really {{em|looked like}} they matched. only in 2025 was I stunned to realize that ordinary people probably don't consider these movements or ideologies at all, not even subconsciously, not even within the framework of Liberal-republicanism.<br/>
to ordinary people even Liberal-republican political parties are not distinct ideologies but just something which is emergent — you wouldn't think this is true from how much people slam "Republicans" (or "Democrats") and the specific things they believe that "nobody" "should" vote for, but what I really think is true now from all my observations is that ordinary people believe the United States primarily runs on morality, the thing that is universally moral to all human beings is supposed to win, and people form into Liberal-republican political parties only as a matter of separating one position on an issue from another, in order to figure out which one is Good and which one is Evil, after which everyone is supposed to vote for the Good one and discard the Evil one. you may think the terms Good and Evil are hyperbolic to use there, but what else are phrases like "right side of history" and "basic human decency" supposed to mean? a great many people don't believe in objectivity, and consequently can't believe in objective morality or ethics, so that's just another way of saying "the nationally-universal cosmically-true Platonic ideal of Good".<br/>
(mentioned in MDem v3: 3-101a_INTRO.txt, 3-101r02_elon.txt)
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto A|Q=618}}People pushing to get reactionary capitalists out of the corporate social platforms they use can only be labeled direct action; it is charcoal, blue, strawberry, orange, or totally colorless, but specifically building itself into a Gramscian Marxism is not the only possible outcome of it, and not even necessarily the most likely outcome

{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}the price society forks over for false emotional reassurance (MDem v3)  ->  one of the few places where I totally hit the mark in MDem v3 and it carried over into MDem v4 and MDem v5 instead of being nonsense. (v3/ 2-32 "classes")

{{li|I=S2/LR|dimension=F2|Q=618}}The government is against local farmers  ->  false on a technicality. large farms are [[E:chunk competition (meta-Marxism)|against]] local farmers, and government only [[E:Pillows are not ideologically neutral|emerges out of the substrate of those large corporations]]. whether you consider large farms the same thing as government depends on whether your political-economic analysis is using [[E:early Trotskyism|orange Marxism]] or [[E:Molecular Marxism|violet Marxism]]. but it's violet meta- versions of every Marxism here.

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Existentialism leads to nazism / Existentialism leads to fascism
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Having everybody equal in the United States means an inferior position for entire populations of people in other countries; the act of making every individual equal to other individuals on paper through philosophy, constitutions, and human rights is illusory because it always takes something away from other individuals out of sight  ->  this is less in reference to situations like White people vs Black people or gay people vs straight people or neurotypical people vs autistic people than it is in reference to situations like Oklahomans vs Californians or philosophy majors vs or Twitter artists vs Elon Musk. it's about the notion that Existentialist totally flatten class territories and class territory mono-structures in favor of claiming everything is about a cloud of disconnected individuals with no structure and how classes supposedly only exist at all because billionaires are "greedy".

{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The existence of greed is a superstition / greed as superstition (motif) / the greed delusion (motif)

{{li|I=Z1/ES|tradition=unknown|Q=618}}The Case Against Education  ->  tradition unknown. investigate later

{{li|I=S1/ES|tradition=ES, LR|Q=618}}greedy billionaires colonizing mars / why don't billionaires solve our problems on earth  ->  I am so fucking sick of this talking point because it achieves absolutely nothing toward stopping billionaires and even leads people in the wrong direction away from stopping them. it's the stupidest fucking thing you can say to say "our problems on earth,,," because guess what, billionaires on mars is a problem on earth. it's the same fucking problem going on on earth that you can never solve because you refuse to understand Materialism. so put your money where your fucking mouth is and tell me what produces billionaires and how you would interrupt the actual creation of billionaires. I bet Existentialists can't do it. I bet they can't stop checking out and focusing their energy on the final results of destructive processes or the metaphysical Ideals that supposedly but not actually start them.<br/>
you know I'm really mad about something when I start talking like Hazbin Hotel. I don't usually do that.

{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES|Q=618}}Autistic men are a different demographic identity from neurotypical men / I never thought I was actually a man until I understood after reading a whole lot of books that I was an {{em|autistic}} man and {{em|autistic}} men can't be identified by the criteria of a group of neurotypical men  ->  
this is... a lot to unpack. if you take the working hypothesis that gender is a countable culture baked into the brain, then this statement would come across as nonsense on several levels. what's the point of specifically identifying yourself as a man if the more important thing is that you're autistic? how do you know that analyzing gender through animal data is useful if you're still going to analyze everything as personal identities and individual Lived Experiences? isn't there a mild paradox here? the speaker was initially confused about gender due to being too deeply absorbed in his own individual thoughts, but he's solving it with a bunch of personal individual identity talk which is effectively just more of the same thing, so what actually made the difference between the two?<br/>
it's one of the great ironies that like, Existentialists don't want you analyzing identities with science but then the way Existentialism operates through individual actions, it's impossible for Community to actually accommodate all identities, and in order to every be able to leave their house and function in a way that pleases Community people are still stuck analyzing and dissecting the hell out of exactly what they individually are exactly as if it had to be done by science and perhaps more invasively because it doesn't stop at a single journal article about all autistic people, every autistic person has to dissect and probe their own psychology until they know exactly.

{{li|I=M3/ES|tradition=ES|Q=618}}Does your Black friend have Black friends? / Is the person pointed out as evidence against racism actually interchangeable for the people who would hypothetically be affected by racism?  ->  many people don't properly explain what the problem with the "Black friends" excuse is. the real problem is that any particular "Black friend" can be a terrible example of the person things are actually supposed to be tested against, or simply not know what other people want. one person simply isn't other people, in general.

{{li|I=S1/PT|Q=618}}Kanye West with Black friends / Kanye West saying "I have Black friends", to the disgust of other Black people

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S">horizontal balancing (meta-Liberalism) / countervailing power (Liberal-republicanism) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervailing_power] / checks and balances (Liberal-republicanism)  ->  Liberal-republicans like to do this supremely annoying thing of claiming that horizontal competition across the area of a country is the one and only way that anything can be regulated or held in check. this is not only untrue but dangerously false, because in real life the things that most want to stop the advance of another thing are the things that most want to eliminate that thing and take over anyway. competition in and of itself is wholly incapable of balancing things, because it asks the precise things that destroy balance to create balance. ask anybody who plays fighting games — you can program characters to be essentially equal despite having different abilities or styles, and you'll see one group of players who plays a particular character manage to find ways to exploit the mechanics to make their character overpowered to the point nobody else is able to find exploits for the other characters fast enough to change the rankings and everybody simply considers that a higher-tier character. competition did that. this is not about what is "fair". whether in the context of Liberal republics or fighting games, the presence of competition means that nothing will ever be fair per se. so, we have to take the question of fairness as separate from the question of balance. but it's hard to argue that competition actually balances anything. most of the time, the longer it runs the more you see things separate out into permanent strata of less powerful and more powerful. the Pokémon designers can design .
<br/>
horizontal balancing + Pokémon types = Arceism. horizontal balancing + The Subject (meta-Marxism) = anarchemistry. anarchemistry + Pokémon types = Arceism. anarchemistry + Legendary Pokémon = Arceism.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">vertical balancing (meta-Marxism)  ->  this is the concept of sociophilosophies having antagonisms fully inside them that allow for getting rid of improper uses of power. in China this is well known: there are measures to get officials consequences, some of them especially effective carryovers from the feudal era that somehow didn't need much updating, and they operate without having to concentrate people into toxic factions first; majorities of people simply turn against the officials and the system is vertically balanced.<br/>
a lot of people in the United States and Europe seem to like to believe that vertical balancing doesn't exist and the only way to put safeguards into a system is to create artificial horizontal antagonisms at the top layers of the system. in reality this might be one of the worst things you could do to fix a system. United States people generally love to believe that political factions are illusions and the system operates wholly on morality, "reason", and "common sense" where the competition of the representatives will surely determine what is objectively Right and Good and what everyone has to believe. however, it's impossible to do something like expect the elite representatives at one end of the country to balance the other end of the country without actually getting large numbers of people behind every representative and defeated representative such that large numbers of regular people from different ends of the country are all actively fighting each other every time the Congress starts operating; representative democracy fails to ever actually become symbolic or representative, and just turns into an all-out battle where everyone is still fully invested in the outcome and nobody actually gave up responsibility for the outcome to the people they voted for.<br/>
ironically, refusing to divide people into parties like in China is actually a better way to ensure people don't become polarized, that they all align onto a single set of solutions to issues more often, and that the system doesn't actively try to unbalance itself and destroy one geographical section of the population's freedom to protect another part. that feels like a bizarrely charcoal thing to say, like I suddenly believe in "Community" and the notion of Rhizome fixing everything just because people in the same population inherently want to go together. but it's a legitimate, actually-functional part of any number of Third World Marxisms, at least three of them between North Korea, Cuba, and the vaguely shared Deng Xiaoping Thought of China and Vietnam. if charcoal Community is bogus, then crimson Community somehow works for reasons I don't quite understand. blue anarchism is worse than both of them inasmuch as it preaches that division and fighting is inherently good and there can't be freedom without processes that over time promote literal actual illegal extrajudicial murder.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto W, MX onto MZ" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gramscian hegemony politics has been more effective than North American Maoism / Blue-anarchist hegemony politics has been more effective than North American Maoism

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto MZ" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The concept of the "labor aristocracy" allows people to be complacent and keep contributing to imperialism; because it gives no material process of transition, it gives no way to hold people accountable or change their behavior  ->  I hate hearing this term because it's one of the most ineffective models you could have besides Mark Fisher's. this model makes anarchism look effective. really, meta-Marxist analysis of the effectiveness of this model gives arguments that anarchist schemes to 'improve society by forcefully booting out bad person from slot a million times' have <em>actually</em> been more effective. that's really bad. the more you let anarchism take over things the lower the probability you have of getting a country that is compatible with other countries' Marxisms and that doesn't hate other countries. anarchism is a death spiral that claims to be the most progressive system possible but in practice dismantles everything that acts as a safeguard around imperialism and leads everyone back around to imperialism. it doesn't just take the perfect and throw out the good, it takes Freedom and Human Rights and throws out lack of genocide.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Capitalism makes human rights materially exclusive between different chunks of people; this is to suggest that copyright is an almost prototypical example of what capitalism is, a perfect simplified test case, even if not the most representative example of the average "case of capitalism" at any given corporation
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The means of production is the means of producing more raw masses of population, though not necessarily of producing more <em>repeated individuals</em>, because the capitalist means of production specifically produces one chunk of population at the expense of other chunks of population being born  ->  this is one of the flaws in the Existentialist model of strikes. Existentialists believe strikes are about winning the human rights of an individual many times, because the only reason human beings don't have rights is someone believed they should be taken away, while the actual way capitalism takes them away is to take away the rights of whole chunks of people at a time by giving whole chunks of people those rights exclusively. it's possible to fix the problem incorrectly by giving all the workers at Alice corporation and Bob corporation rights while in the process accidentally taking away the rights of everybody who works at Zhangsan corporation and Iye corporation somewhere else. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_placeholder_names]<br/>
{{film|Drawn Together}} got it half right in the episode about enslaving "China" taking employment away from Vietnam — yeah, in a sense that's {{em|kind of}} how it works. if you look at it on a level of income, people have the right to housing and groceries specifically when and because other people don't have them, so naïvely trying to I-believe-that-everybody your way to magicing people having rights will ultimately result in depriving someone else of rights.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The means of production reproduce the mode / The means of production is the means of producing the mode of production  ->  sounds circular at first but is very important

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The bourgeoisie are unemployed people who think they can tell the rest of society how to be spatially ordered if they only have enough money  ->  this is the crux of why Bolshevism hasn't succeeded yet: nobody has figured out the best way to get society to order itself in a relativity-based universe. this is the thing the bourgeoisie actually own. not some means of creating wealth or means of existing as individuals, but the means of ordering the population; the means of production is the means of producing the mode of production. this is why Deng Xiaoping Thought was begrudgingly tolerated while Bolshevism was slammed: Deng Xiaoping Thought doesn't own the means of ordering and leaves the bourgeoisie contained in an isolated capitalism to do ordering. the bourgeoisie own relativity. they falsely take credit for relativity. but they didn't invent relativity, the universe did.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">the pirates who don't do anything<br/>
the pirates who don't do anything + Western Marxism = the Communists who don't do anything.<br/>
the pirates who don't do anything + eurocommunism = the Communists who don't do anything.
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="W, IV, MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">the Communists who don't do anything  ->  the motif of parties or theorists who have a lot to say and spend a lot of time on media outlets or academic circles but really do absolutely nothing anybody can remember.<br/>
you can hit me with this one, I don't even care because I know the reasons are external and they aren't my fault. I'm really doing more than I should be able to do, any "sensible" person in my position would be a reactionary.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The System is when a bunch of businesses have to compete over making exactly the same thing the most skillfully and many newcomers lose the race and go out of business, so all you have to do to get out of The System is step out of that market and make a different incomparable product that thus can make you money without all the stress and expense that comes from competition / category of one (motif; right-Liberalism) / cokegender and pepsigender (motif; meta-Marxism)  ->  
you may have wondered why I slammed anarchists talking about "The System" so hard on other entries. this is why. a system is just a group of parts. anyone can use it to mean anything, so it empowers the worst definitions to keep spreading around. you can tell you might actually have a useful definition of a problem when somebody gets angry. in the current historical period, when nobody gets angry about your position it's a bad sign.<br/>
also. I just can't believe US people live in a country where both, people widely made fun of trans people and flowery language describing a million "genders" when we also have businesspeople literally going around talking about a "category of one". they're seriously just inventing their own gender flag in different words. I get Cokegender or Pepsigender, you get absolute and utter transphobia.<br/>
oh god it's turning into a B-side before my eyes. like, an r/AmITheAsshole post or something where somebody accidentally failed to use a business's neopronouns and is working through whether that's bad. Existentialists go on about how businesses possess every human right and they almost can't tell the difference between them — "shoot, is my co-worker actually an entire overseas subsidiary?" business in China goes on the news literally as just this weird sculpture of humans producing verbal utterances by moving people around as its lips, and demands to know why Chinese businesses can't vote in the United States yet. "we really are the most oppressed demographic of person. there are only 189 million of us out of a thousand times that. we'll never have adequate representation in the CPC, they always keep giving it to those investor guys or the tiny people, so we should at least get to vote for the president of the United States. we're just asking for what's realistic." the future Republican president from Florida replaces Black history month with business history month where exclusively these weird human sculpture amalgams are the ones talking on PBS.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Molecularization isn't anarchism / "Small-scale social processes existing" should not be labeled anarchism / If anarchists don't want to be responsible for inventing capitalism, they shouldn't claim ownership of every process that is molecularized as part of their own particular theory  ->  anarchists have a particular way of trying to assert that society always changes one individual making a decision and taking an action at a time. Deleuze and Guattari for instance were weirdly explicit about this, going so far as to suggest that the process of an individual or tiny free-floating indiviudal group of people changing was itself "a revolution" — many tiny revolutions happening consecutively {{em|is}} the big one. it's hard to argue with the notion that this is more or less required to happen for any large-scale process to go through; sure, okay, if one bundle of workers go on strike and one business turns into a state business hundreds of thousands of times you get Bolshevism. the one thing I think it's necessary to push back on is that that localized, molecular-scale process of transition is not inherently "anarchism" or "anarchist". it's just the way any societal transition happens, including a transition from monarchy to capitalism, or historically, a reversion from a republic to monarchy (France had it rough, look it up). I feel like to a great number of self-labeled anarchists, implying "revolutionary anarchists", only charcoal anarchism and maybe orange anarchism are anarchism, and they don't even want to consider blue anarchism their own. so unless you want to say capitalism is literally a form of anarchism right now, today, already, just as much as Peter Kropotkin's charcoal-black anarchism, you really shouldn't call things changing at a small scale one by one "anarchism".

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, MX onto STM, MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Climate change is undesirable / Anything that leads to global climate change is universally unethical  ->  I feel like it's [[E:Ethics is nearly impossible|nearly impossible]] to create an actually objective theory of ethics that isn't so biased it doesn't function to produce ethical outcomes. you can't explain prejudices to people objectively, so you can't treat prejudices as obviously, universally, cosmically bad. one of the only things you can even do to explain ethics to prejudiced people is to appeal to the material consequences of people's actions. this is why you should start out with values like "global climate change is bad" rather than values like "greed is obviously bad" (what is greed? how do you know what greed is? how do you know you got this definition from a reliable source? it's frighteningly easy for somebody to just start saying Black people and Mexicans are greedy for wanting there to be a government, at which point it's easier and better to simply throw away the concept of greed and hyperbolically say that being greedy is impossible because there are different underlying causes that produce the apparent phenomenon of greed).

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gender identity is physically stored as culture; asking where gender identity is in your body is as silly or as sensical a question as asking where nationality is in your body  ->  it's occurred to me within the past few years. when we try to do brain scans to identify gender, are we literally just dissecting culture? are we effectively trying to look for the biological underpinnings and signals that carry culture? if that were the case, it would actually explain why the brain scans were so inconsistent. some of them would be the same because the same signifier-based cultural content was being stored. some of them would be different because different cultural content was being stored over decades of existence despite people theoretically belonging to the same demographic.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The way to get out of the question of categorizations being defined by scattered clouds of disembodied Platonic Ideals versus objective and potentially "essentialized" definitions of what is inside something versus sheer identity sets of what things are connected to each other is to ask what commonalities are directly exchanged from an existing group of things to its newest members and back / molecularized ontology proposition  ->  I don't know what the best word or phrase is to describe this concept but I just had such a killer insight right now. whenever people try to define what exactly race is or what exactly gender is or even what exactly jazz music is versus early rock, it's tempting to try to start listing out essentialized characteristics disembodied from anything (especially in the music example, maybe sometimes in the gender example) but those are never what defines the category. if you try to take an arbitrary track from a game soundtrack and tell someone it has all the techniques of a particular genre therefore it belongs to it (I tried this once) people are unlikely to categorize it with detached objectivity based on the essentialized characteristics used to practically create it, and are more likely to categorize it by its console generation or perhaps its game genre. the groups things physically interact with in the actual course of history are critical to their definition as part of a group; things truly belong to identities in the form of physical groups, not to sets of performances or sets of techniques. this is to say that gender identity cannot be objectively defined without reference to whole groups of people of a particular gender as material objects. it is possible to define a dialectical (reterministic) process of new members interacting with an entire group to produce that group, but not to objectively predict what members will be admitted into that group if they never join it at all and there is no information about what will likely happen if they attempt to join it. thus, the reterministic process of group membership can be quantized into the exact Ideals, rituals, and requirements that are exchanged between the group and the new member at the time the new member is added or at the time a member is expelled.<br/>
let me tell you, once you understand this it makes the system of United States Liberal-republican political parties look really, {{em|really}} bad.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gender binaries exist because of the fact membership in a physical group of people is largely binary / Gender binaries exist because in every intra-populational demographic (every demographic subpopulation) which is not hereditary and which requires doing some activity in an ongoing way, membership in a physical group of people usually must be in a binary state of either obtained or not present, and this characteristic of most everyday experiences of demographics is transferred over to gender subpopulations  ->  if you doubt this... is it possible for people to "sort of" be part of a closed spiritual practice?<br/>
is it possible for people to "sort of" have decided a show was worth watching all the way through to the end and they want to have enough information on it to write fully lore-compliant fan fiction? is it possible for people to "sort of" be a legal citizen of a country? (I mean, normally that would exist, but Donald Trump really doesn't want it to.) is it possible for people to "sort of" be allies of Bolshevism?<br/>
is it possible for people to be "sort of" unemployed, or do they have to be employed within a particular group to not be unemployed? is it possible for people to "sort of" not go to church, or can they only stop not going to church by fully going to church once? is it possible for people to "sort of" never have smoked, or "sort of" quit smoking? is it possible for people to "sort of" have never watched baseball?

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Is it possible for anyone to "sort of" have never watched baseball to the point it is impossible to select on a census whether they do or do not watch baseball?
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Is it possible for anyone to "sort of" not go to church to the point it is impossible to select on a census whether they do or do not go to church?  ->  I don't think it is. you could say it's possible to "sort of" go to church if you have some standard on what is a little or a lot, but I don't think it's possible to "sort of" {{em|not}} go to church, because there's only really one way to not do something at all.<br/>
now, if you have an essentialized view of what demographics are, it's easy to start splitting hairs on this, and saying that every category must be non-binary because it's possible to take every activity and break it down to infinite shades of doing or not doing, so surely there must be infinite shades of whether somebody actually is a member of a demographic or not. but that is attempting to define demographics solely through the activities and inner life of individuals rather than actually trying to observe the overall population itself in the physical world. this gives rise to strange definitions of demographics like {{censor|Kero}} getting to say he's a furry because he {{censor|actually fucks dogs}} but believes he can be "sort of" connected to the furry fandom with just a bit of belief he is, or Donald Trump getting to say he's a true American because he can be "sort of" connected to any group of United States people he wants to through the ritual of following all the rules to run for president, or , or Trotsky getting to say he was a real member of early Bolshevism because he was "sort of" connected to the Bolshevik party and "sort of" knowledgeable on Leninist theory. there really aren't infinite shades of being a member of something, because at a certain point the people who are most tightly connected to a thing will push back and attempt to create a hard threshold where some people are expelled.<br/>
this also explains why exactly Tories are becoming so toxic as far as what citizens of their countries will be retained or killed. Tories accumulate the "existiest" people who are the best at competing to secure money, businesses, and territory and multiplying all of that on itself. in one sense, the "existiest" people are the most inherently connected to a country, because they gradually monopolize all the activity within that country to the point they're all you can practically think of when you think of it. this enables them to start controlling the threshold of what people are defined as part of the group that is the overall nationality and what people are to be expelled. they operate through the same process as all morality, friendship, standards, culture-based community, and identity formation or liberation, only they use {{em|the very process of defining society and defining what is right}} for violence. Tories very literally misuse society and Community themselves for genocide. you have to fucking [[E:Asocialism (meta-Marxism)|opt out of society and morality and friendship and standards]], if only for a second, to actually break out of their ongoing programming and stop them.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There's only one way to not do something at all / There's only one way to not be part of an optional demographic of people at all
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There are always multiple ways to stop not doing something / There are always multiple ways to stop not being part of an optional demographic of people at all, because whenever there are identifiable groups to join, there are always multiple groups by virtue of identifiable groups being inherently plural  ->  this is more of an axiom than something I know for sure to be true.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Socioeconomic classes are the only reason that Tory and "conservative" mean the same thing

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">the compatible left  ->  is this the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition's real name? or are there meaningful differences in the definitions of these two things when you set them out objectively? I wonder.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Picasso was a Communist / Pablo Picasso was a Communist ally

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">growing the Yelp community  ->  it really sticks with me every time I see corporations try to refer to a customer base as "the Yelp community" or "the Reddit community" or "our platform's liminal spaces community" or such. (or in a smaller way, Patreon creators referring to their subscribers as "the BobExampleYoutuber community". or seemingly refusing to stop and dissect the relationship between product creator, fanbase, and "community".) why do they do this? what material factors lead to them doing this? what does it materially achieve?<br/>
one thing I feel is that this is inherently connected to the concept of [[E:blue Communitarian chunks|blue Communitarian chunks]]. I don't fully understand the genesis of these chunks or how common they are or [[E:existential materialism|how they exist day-to-day]] over a 50-year time span where some of them will come and go.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX / existential materialism" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Whatever destructive thing is done by one free-floating individual person or individual group now will be done by other individual entities before long  ->  this is the part of the golden rule that I wholeheartedly agree with, even if I think there are some fundamental problems with the concept of ethics. I'll have to find a name for this "rule" later

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Why didn't people invent meta-Marxism sooner?  ->  this question haunts me every day.<br/>
one of the only meaningful reasons I can find is that (in the regions it was active) Trotskyism refused to look outside its own local named-Marxist models of the whole world. no other factor I've found has really been satisfying to me as an explanation. "capitalists spread deceptive ideology!" okay, but that doesn't Actually stop people from thinking and one or two meta-Marxist theorists from being produced; if that were true Marxism itself would be impossible. "the CIA cultivated the compatible left!" that doesn't explain why nobody stepped outside the "compatible left" and analyzed how it worked as its own self-contained system.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Bōbobo was created for {{film|Drawn Together}} / Bobobōbo Bōbobo was invented for {{film|Drawn Together}} and whether he is depicted as a contestant in any particular episode all the Bōbobo lore takes place within that metaverse or multiverse; you must disprove this proposition without appealing to any Doylian factors including the release dates of the animated or print cartoons, who directed them, what language they are originally in, or the chapter or episode structure of each show  ->  this is the kind of question that will get people to actually understand how to reason with people that won't accept facts on {{caps|Covid}} vaccines. this is, in an abstract sense, exactly the kind of reality they live in<br/>
difficulty to refute: trivial / difficulty to falsify: very hard<br/>
I think one of the only solid pieces of evidence you can find on this is the presence or absence of crossover characters as background gags. at a certain point of taking in all the information from each series you start to understand how things are "coded" or ontologically bisimilar — do the background characters very literally represent proprietary characters they couldn't show, or are the appearances and identities of the background characters diegetic? there are episodes where Captain Hero says Superman exists or hints he is a distinct character. the portrayal of shadowy Mickey Mouse also seems like it's supposed to be taken literally as a Disney AU where the same Disney characters exist and actually look different, much like if Kingdom Hearts and Disney cartoons really did take place in the same canon and actual Disney characters could get Nobody'd, not as if Nina Paley is drawing ink pen doglike characters who are new, different people, or like when Freddy Fazbear is on stage in a pizza restaurant but it is conceptually a separate place from Chuck E. Cheese that got worse reviews while both of them were in the phone book.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML / Communist aesthetics" value="618" data-dimension="S2">adults-only comedy for Communists / adult cartoon for Communists  ->  the motif of a fictional work of some kind that is presented in a writing style similar to Family Guy, Fionna and Cake, Drawn Together, whatever, you have a lot of options, but takes a sudden left turn every time anything about a workers' state or repeated historical process comes up into just saying what's actually true instead of inaccurate old stereotypes, and generally making whatever First World countries are involved look bad

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Depression and adulthood are basically the same thing  ->  a motif you see in a whole lot of adults-only cartoons or shows as well as their adjacent "cartoons about being 40" like {{book|Garfield}}.<br/>
the most earth-shattering thing you'll probably hear all week is that this motif that is in absolutely everything doesn't have to exist and doesn't have to be unconsciously accepted by everyone in a workers' state, and it doesn't take something as full-on stubborn as anarchism to get rid of it.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{film|Drawn Together}} illustrates the basic set of general problems that make Rhizome difficult  ->  Rhizome is hard to explain at first unless you have this show in front of you and then it's like, yeah, look, archetypcial cartoon protagonists from different universes with totally different approaches and ways of doing things or ways things are. this is almost exactly how different your set of hetereogeneous elements that schizoanalysts will ask to form Rhizome without resorting to countable groups and without questioning anything about their differences {{em|actually is}}. even something like {{film|Zootopia}} isn't a truly good metaphor for Rhizome because settings like that always have to make the characters have something in common. real life is a whole lot more like trying to get Clara and Spanky Ham in the same room to agree on something. that's almost exactly it. in the absolute weirdest way there are brief moments where this show really is more true to reality than either an ordinary animated movie or a reality TV show.<br/>
it's a bit like the "So Sorry factor" in Undertale where only a self-insert based on a real furry-fan was capable of acting as a really genuinely accurate Media Representation of what the furry fandom is actually like — a fat loser who is slightly absorbed in drawing themself in odd fetish art and has no sense of boundaries in where you are supposed to put your effectively modern-day-historical-fiction, real-people-fiction, cartoon-reality-show type characters who are porn stars only in some universes but not in others, and yet assuming they weren't Sam, would probably still not be a bad person in most cases, and would come off as endearing despite everything.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">LLMs are bad because they codify concepts and signifiers into numbered countable objects for someone's use as a tool but only a few people can have the sea of numbered signifiers for [[E:chunk competition (meta-Marxism)|producing and expanding over everybody violently]] rather than the sea of signifiers being created back and forth together in a communal social way by Commu-nity which is inherently nonviolent and nice and not destructive (rather than signifiers being audited; derived blue-anarchist proposition)  ->  the way normal people would probably describe this project. I'm so tired of people thinking [[E:anarchemistry|Community inherently regulates chunk competition]], but I'm a meta-Marxist, so I'm obligated to recognize all [[E:sociophilosophy (meta-Marxism)|forms of logical reasoning which physical societies use to describe themselves]].

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Wooldoor Sockbat has inadequate lore / Wooldoor has inadequate lore (abbreviated; {{film|Drawn Together}})  ->  I confess that sometimes I like to make propositions because a particular string of words is hilarious to say out loud.<br/>
this is the claim that while Spongebob is pretty well thought out, it's all coherent and world-built — or for that matter, the Spyro games pass at least the minimum bar on that, when Tom Kenny voice acted them too — there is vaguely something lost in the transition from having what is a very themed character to a character that is literally in some scenes set up as unspecific. it's arguable the specificity is a big part of what defines what Spongebob is. and really the problem is not that Wooldoor looks bad visually or cannot have a good concept but just that his setting is not really very set up. you think about Hazbin Hotel / Helluva Boss and even if those shows are bad they do worldbuild their supernatural settings. I expected something kind of vaguely like those shows or The Good Place because like he looks like some kind of angel-demon or something. maybe he's actually supposed to be more of like, a fever dream or this world that fundamentally doesn't make sense. but whatever he's supposed to be, that should have been established better at every moment he's being characterized. you can tell what Xandir is supposed to be and what his setting is, or Captain Hero, or Foxxy I guess. that's approximately what all the characters should have.<br/>
ok, honestly, I think they dropped the ball on both Wooldoor and Toot. Ling-Ling's story is like, sloppy, but if you've watched one episode of Pokémon you know what's going on, so I'll let that slide. And Spanky Ham might be the only character that could get by without any lore whatsoever, he just makes dumb poop jokes so what does it matter.
(although to be quite honest an episode about Spanky unexpectedly having lore and it not being more lowest-tier internet jokes but it being the only Serious episode that effectively loss.JPGs him with some kind of Actually Interesting "start of MLP season" plot and unlike loss actually succeeds at it would be legitimately funny. it would probably have a bunch of stupid imagery like toilets or whatever is offensive tossed over the visuals like a South Park plot but, you know, that doesn't necessarily ruin it. like oh my god do a Pokémon OVA type plot but it centers around Spanky Ham maybe with Ling-Ling along for the ride so people get the hint and make it actually better than most of the episodes but then wedge it in the middle of the show on a random two-parter episode and like that would be the best episode because of all those decisions taken together.)

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Wooldoor Sockbat does not die (cannot be killed) / Wooldoor has plot armor, as applying to an episodic sitcom  ->  he died at least twice or three times and there were no consequences.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Wooldoor Sockbat can only die if he is killed in a major historical event  ->  so, there's this episode where the show actually tries to give Wooldoor lore, and they go the disturbing route of trying to detail a "Sockbat genocide". I'm neutral about that plot point; history is dark sometimes. but I find it a little strange that in this particular cartoon setting some characters can die permanently by being killed and some characters are basically unkillable. you don't really introduce a contradiction when characters die of old age, because that isn't the same thing as being killed. but if characters that are logically supposed to be unkillable get killed things get confusing.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every election is a repeated revolution  ->  this sounds stupid when you first hear a Liberal-republican say it, but then it takes on a whole new meaning when you start imagining it applying to Deng Xiaoping Thought. then you stop and go, oh... oh wait. maybe it is true. maybe it really is the case that republics are continuous processes that continuously create themselves over and over, and the key to getting to new stages is to actively stop realizing that specific process while actively beginning a new one.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, MX onto IK" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If Black people were conquered into the population of the United States on rationale of stopping as many human individuals as possible from being violent or destroying parts of society (houses, corporations, etc), then Black people were colonized  ->  this is a somewhat uniquely anarchist model of what "colonialism" is. look closely at how often anarchists claim it's unnecessary to put people into nation-states and how rarely anyone else says that. between Liberal-republicans, right-Liberals who insist that a State actually is necessary to have businesses, and Bolshevism holding that republican States are needed until people stop harmfully diffusing over the top of each other and simply stay in populational layouts naturally without being told to, the concept that populations are conquered into populations {{em|as individuals}} is not really a common one.<br/>
the context of this statement changes entirely when you talk about Native Americans / American Indians because you can argue materially that there was a process of assimilating individuals one by one. this doesn't apply to that. this applies to the concept that basically Reconstruction was immoral to Black people rather than arguing it was immoral to Confederates. personally... this issue is very complicated but my intuition right now is you can't win that argument.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If Black people were stolen as a population and tossed into the United States then Black people were colonized  ->  this one seems more reasonable at least if you're standing on the 1600s. I think the status of United States populations actually changed over the decades and their relationships are different by now, although I couldn't fully tell you what they currently are.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">In practice, the word {{i|colonialism}} doesn't really mean anything; it has too many precise definitions by different groups of people to be useful ({{i|colonized}}; {{i|colonization}}; {{i|decolonization}})

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If two kingdoms are warring for decades, one of them is justified to conquer the other to stop the wars  ->  in a time before Liberal-republicanism it's reasonably easy to argue that this is true, but if it's true even at that time, then it implies Kantianism is very medieval in its insistence that the people who rightfully belong to a country are whoever is committing violence on a group of people that agree to be part of a State, rather than people who want to be horizontally associated.<br/>
god, yeah, this was my problem with Dragon Ball. that the people of earth trying to assimilate Vegeta, even after he doesn't have any subjects and isn't really a prince any more, just because they should have the right to stop him doing violence or tracking in mud doesn't really make any sense. when you realize that his own reasoning processes and needs as a different species... {{em|would not}} be respected might be the best way to put it, it's not really like he typically makes good decisions after all, the whole idea of Sun Wukong scrambling to protect his population from outside invaders suddenly makes a lot more sense, when it shouldn't have made sense. Dragon Ball turning everything Materialist in its attempt to make things modern reveals a number of uncomfortable truths about real feudal orders and transitions out of them. wow, it's almost like the reason kings cling on to the power to conquer people and put them under questionable laws is actually to prevent a nation of people from getting forcefully assimilated into another one in a time when nobody can actually control the passive reproduction and expansion of countable cultures. it's almost like Europeans came to the New World half expecting that American Indians would have a king and a line of knights or gunmen if they didn't want to be conquered, because that was the only way to establish consent to be under a government in medieval Europe. it's almost like Kamehameha actually kind of knew general-sense historical materialism.<br/>
it's almost like Kant and Rousseau just flat-out lied about what consent to be under a national government is (intentionally or unintentionally lied, I'm doing hyperbole because extending the reach of words is fun) because they hadn't actually gotten out of medieval thinking. and I think we've been paying the price for that in people believing that nation-states are illegitimate and it's better to be an anarchist.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="MX, MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">direct oppression (meta-Marxism)  ->  thought today: "for every act of direct action by charcoal anarchists, there are several acts of direct oppression that came before it. how do you stop people from spontaneously starting over on committing direct oppression again and undoing the whole thing?"<br/>
direct oppression is the concept of people making spontaneous individual actions that are able to oppress people without the use of formal government or even coherent social structures. this is one of the things that causes people to invent the concept of 'overcoming the Spanishness Office'. arguably, it's one of the biggest obstacles to anarchism ever succeeding; no matter how deep you try to extend the concept of 'purging the world of domination' (sounds like something you'd hear villains say on a [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Team_Rocket_Motto Pokémon cartoon]) you never get so deep that external individuals are fully within your grasp and you can control everything that they want and are; the 'anti-totalitarian principle' of anarchism kind of basically makes anarchism realize it's bad under its own principles and [[E:Idealism forbids itself|forbid itself]]. there's no easy way to draw a line between direct action and direct oppression, because materially they operate on the same principles. the false belief that you actually can is part of what's caused Gramscianism to accidentally re-spawn in the United States after all Marxisms were eradicated. Marxism is fundamentally being generated out of disunited individual action rather than any structure or strategy that truly unites people, and most people are not prepared to work with those drastically different conditions and analyze them — even Althusser and Western-Marxists don't really get it because they are trying to act like ideology is collectively rained down on people when there really isn't anything collective, even mass media is narrowcasted and interpreted individually by each person, and not actually collective in the way they believe. basically to give a crude summary I think you need to look at the physical emergent effects like a cloud of people attempting "direct action" and regenerating Gramscianism before you look at what's generating them, because if you don't start from the effects you discard the wrong information and get the causes wrong

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="A onto MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every single ideology that completely succeeds ends in an anarchism of the same color that particular ideology is / Trotskyism ends in orange anarchism / Mainstream Marxism-Leninism ends in crimson anarchism / Liberal-republicanism ends in blue anarchism / Deng Xiaoping Thought, if considered a strawberry ideology, ends in strawberry anarchism / Western-Marxism, if considered a strawberry ideology, ends in strawberry anarchism / A hypothetical statist charcoal ideology would end in charcoal anarchism  ->  I think this is what an actual anarchist might agree to if they fully understood meta-Marxism. some of them would insist that no ideology can actually complete except charcoal ideologies, or some of them might say that everything turns into charcoal anarchism. but the ones that actually understand the material conditions of the Soviet Union would say this, and that everybody needs to {{em|accept}} the notion of most of the characteristics of their chosen sociophilosophy falling away and it turning into an anarchism

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">crimson anarchism  ->  the concept that something can be an anarchism despite perfectly conforming to the history and society models of mainstream Marxism-Leninism. this set of criteria would almost exclusively apply to the concept of upper-phase communism being considered a form of anarchism.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S">wave machine rock-paper-scissors / wave machine rock-paper-scissors game  ->  the idea here is simple. you start with a basic wave machine that can take concepts and combine them, and attempts to guess unspecified results from the characteristics of the concepts inside each concept. then you add a second layer of rock-paper-scissors strengths to all the concepts, which again inherits from the concepts inside a concept unless corrected. then you just kinda look at it go, and hilarity ensues<br/>
mainstream Marxism-Leninism is weak against Trotskyist direct action; Trotskyism is weak against anarchist direct action; anarchism is weak against the continuous realization of Toryism; Toryism is weak against atheism

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S">Liberal-republicanism is just a bunch of individuals who wake up and individually decide to Dominate each other; this implies that if everyone spontaneously individually decided not to Dominate each other, things would change

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Abolishing hierarchy naturally results in approximate equality of wealth and power  ->  oh boy the Arceism is strong. see, my problem with this is that you haven't defined hierarchy clearly enough for this to be true. you've defined hierarchy super muddily as this vague 'domination' {{em|thing}}. where various abstract concepts of prejudice like misogyny, homophobia, racial prejudice, ableism, and The Colonizer Attitude are examples of domination and examples of hierarchy. none of these are material definitions that actually explain where the levers of power come from or how to stop them. none of these definitions explain what structures are in place now and what structures you're supposed to turn them into to practically result in a population of approximately equal people and the dissolution of old forms of power. Bolshevism can explain that: the gaps between corporations are a lever of power, you take away the gaps and make them into a mono-structure, the antagonisms between countries to fill each other with neocolonialism are a lever of power, you put a central party around the country to defend it, and these two old forms of power are gone, even if there is a new form of power. then you look at the new levers of power, and you transform those into a new structure. rifts in the Soviet Union splitting it into two parties are one lever of power. remaining antagonisms from other countries or mountains-of-capital or axes of countries that don't want to believe capital exists and are convinced they're just nice little circles of friends that beat up on other individual countries are another lever of power; that one's hard to face but at least it's materially defined. where are the material definitions inside anarchism?

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Ukraine was almost freed from Communism (historical claim)  ->  this.... doesn't sound {{censor|fucking}} correct. for one, this would contradict against the popular claim that the Soviet Union not fully occupying Poland was a form of cooperating with Nazi Germany rather than just a matter of buying time and avoiding confrontation. it should be much better known by now than it is that Communist parties stretch over their home regions almost specifically to defend them from external military attacks; that's a major reason Deng Xiaoping Thought hasn't failed despite everything. if you oppose Bolshevism then you get the crudest systems that cover only the most basic needs and maintain potentially harsh authority over people for the sake of guarding that minimal set of needs, where one of the most basic non-negotiable needs populations have is surviving or avoiding war and disconnection attacks on the whole population to deny every kind of aid.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If under attack, an anarchism might defend itself with strategic guerilla war  ->  finally, the first real claim I've ever seen about what an anarchist border looks like. this is.... interesting. I can imagine it happening. I can actually imagine the North Korea or Vietnam moment for anarchism. you have the caveat to get past that if your society is built on free association, people can just all drain out of it and say they don't feel like defending it any more and they want to be wherever there's food and safety — the "bluing" of anarchism, just like the "orangeing" or "strawberrying" of Marxism. but if that ceases to be a problem for some reason and you make it to the day people are going to fight, okay. I think the biggest problem with this claim is actually just the possibility that somebody could fit 90% of the characteristics of anarchism and be an anarcho-Tory, and then you'd get one of these guerilla wars where Tories are defending their sundown towns and telling you to just leave them alone. though it's rare, whole populations of people can be bigoted at once, especially when the population is small. that's the one thing that anarchism genuinely doesn't have an answer to as far as I know.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">People who move to the Second World have disgracefully strawberried anarchism (derived anarchist claim)  ->  here "strawberried" is a verb meaning "to desert a revolution to move to a place of safety underneath imperialist armies etc". I sort of get this impression from real anarchist writings but, it doesn't make logical sense to me with the idea that freedom of association and voluntary participation are core values. to a (meta-)Marxist, the notion of people compromising on their values and leaving to survive being a historical process that can happen to Marxist states and anarchist societies in different ways makes a lot of sense. but is there any way for anarchists to meaningfully construct that within their own theories?<br/>
I guess logically they're going to somehow try to claim that if you literally side with imperialism that as an individual you are standing behind figures of "domination" and that in particular is the bad thing to do. but there my main problem is, so why don't anarchists think Trotsky siding with Liberal-republican countries was a bad thing? those are the loci of Domination. he sided with them. why isn't it logically better {{em|within anarchism}} if Trotsky commits to staying in the Soviet Union but somehow building Trotskyism, and thus not aiding Domination? the facts are on the table. even if you hate historical materialism and seeing countries as countable objects the facts are still right there on the table that having Trotskyism-in-one-country would be less bad than trying to push for anarchism at all costs but never getting it and only actually getting Domination and death.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A, MX onto Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Fan game development is an anarchist secret operation  ->  this proposition is for the purpose of discussions on whether to disallow linking to fan game project pages under the project rule that anarchist secret operations shouldn't be documented. I feel like linking YouTube videos of fan games is probably okay but I am unclear whether linking project pages or wikis or basically first-hand sources is bad.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every human activity which is illegal is unspeakable  ->  if you think this isn't true, think about what emotion you feel when you hear something is currently illegal in a Communist country even for a temporary time and re-evaluate what you already believe "regulating" things does to them.<br/>
this doesn't have a lot of direct applicability to most issues in the United States — homosexuality being one of the really notable exceptions. what it's actually useful for is probing larger discussions around whether Kantianism and Liberal-republicanism actually make any sense.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every human activity which is not productized is violent  ->  don't let people get away with talking about "originality" and "plagiarism" and "integrity" and "infringement" casually. hiding under all that is a really nasty claim that every act of creating art that doesn't become a business and turn the creator into a business owner must be destroying society.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Liberal-republicanism is an attempt to improperly carry out Deng Xiaoping processes on individuals rather than countries  ->  this sounds insane but follow along with me. Deng Xiaoping processes involve materially defending a populational border by filling up a population with businesses and extensive party structure as solidly as possible, so that it can't be taken over by filling it up with foreign businesses nor upset by installing individual foreign officials. escape-route Existentialism, where supposedly everyone gains Freedom from all the connections between things shifting around and changing constantly, believes that drawing a firm territory line around every individual and saying it can never be crossed is the way to peace in much the way that China becoming impregnable against outside attacks is the way to peace. there is one big problem with this: the supposed firm boundaries are terribly, horribly unstable. they can crumble at any moment, they can fail to protect individuals at any moment, chunk competition can resume at any moment. Deng Xiaoping Thought and post-structuralist Existentialism are both attempts at ending chunk competition of a very specific type — the chunk competition between nations and the chunk competition between individuals respectively — but their effectiveness at their task is wildly different. the former has been relatively successful, the latter has been a disaster.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">Communist aesthetics / Communist propaganda (arts) / proletarian culture (in terms of art styles and art movements)  ->  this is the ideology code for Items I've marked crimson just for their outward flavor. it applies most prototypically to like, the paintings of workers facing a bright future that were put up historically in various countries. so, there's an actual logic behind Items belonging to this ideology code. in my opinion, things that don't understand the actual reasoning behind these kinds of art or slogans and simply try to appropriate them don't belong under this ideology code, and instead belong under the brown swatch or such.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="STM onto MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Ender's Game but for Communists / simulation presented as arcade game or training tool which actually turns out to be a useful simulation that helped a country win some kind of revolution or in any event solve some very difficult challenge of social transition  ->  aside from being a really funny image, this is kind of what I hope my [[:Category:Wavebuilder|silly combination game / math experiment]] turns into. Ender's Game except it's a building game rather than really being violent, and on the other side of the game is a workers' state that it accidentally yet intentionally built.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">In the 2020s, class consciousness includes identifying when countries are already in a form of anarchism  ->  anarchism totally muddles everything up once it starts realizing. to understand class processes {{em|at all}}, {{em|whatsoever}} any more, it's pretty much necessary to study the actual on-the-ground structure of the full set of people who believes anarchism and look at how that cloud of people is materially behaving and predicted to behave

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto DX" value="618" data-dimension="M3">What mode of production does the People's Republic of China have?  ->  you know meta-Marxism is getting serious when it steps out of making up new terms to describe observations phenomenologically and actually starts using the correct words and making new claims about what they practically mean in the real world.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A mode of production contains a particular economic base / A mode of production is wholly or partially composed of a particular economic base  ->  setting down some clear definitions of concepts whether the concepts themselves might be a bit vague.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A mode of production is partly defined by how new people are integrated into a population after birth or migration  ->  this wasn't necessary to point out in the time of Marx, but when critical theory has taken over and tried to replace Marxism and made everything about "prejudice" while a bunch of other people are trying to stop new developments for the purpose of stopping 'prejudice' and 'greed', it's now critical to inform everybody that far from "empathy" coming naturally, one of the only factors keeping people everywhere from being wildly "prejudiced" at the drop of a hat is the ability to put people into a capitalist structure of workers or businesses. abolish capitalism naïvely and like, no women will have jobs any more and White people will start claiming that because their small, local "Commmunity" is already complete there's no space left over for Black people or Mexicans. there's a decent argument that one of the major mistakes of the Soviet Union was taking away swaths of corporate development or development into cities that people ideologically believed to be excessive and in need of regulation and bam, suddenly everything got worse for women because with little exaggeration cities were the only thing making it better.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="IK, ES, LR" value="618" data-dimension="S">Kantianization / Kantianizing (parallel to "Zinovievizing")  ->  a generalized process where a bunch of people attempting to form a countable culture all get together and form a State that they [[E:leaping State process (meta-Marxism)|leap over]] anybody somehow captured into the same population with them. may be considered synonymous with [[E:democulture (meta-Marxism)|democulture]], or just a subcategory of possible kinds of democulture.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto Aa" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Lacanianism formalizes the concept of Kantianization; they are actually the same concept
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto Aa" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Lacanianism molecularizes the concept of Kantianization; they are different concepts because one is genuinely more elaborate

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Can we really trust companies to use their technology for good?!  ->  this is one of the biggest glaring contradictions in the whole of blue anarchism. that government must be used to contain """technology""", the place power supposedly comes from, but that we're really not supposed to think about government and nearly supposed to forget it exists after an election, and that society must be developed through people spontaneously creating technology with no guidance from anyone else. that feels like a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.<br/>
"power comes from technology" "we only have society when we regulate technology" "well you have to have businesses" "businesses don't have anything to do with anything" "they're a business, they have to make a profit" ""<br/>
honestly, like... anticommunism is one of the most dangerous technologies ever invented, because it makes your government secretly build atom bombs whether you want them. can we ban anticommunism just because it's dangerous and acts as a material process that causes the creation of corporations and institutions thus making it a technology?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anticommunism is a technology
</li><li class="field_gramsci"  data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anticommunism is a dangerous technology / Anticommunism is a dangerous technology that must be banned or regulated  ->  this is so stupid it's hilarious and yet it's one of those moments where I'm like, did I have a moment of dark genius...? would this actually work?<br/>
I know this would be a fun B-side chapter though. {{i|Hello, U.S. Congress. This is the Emancipation Party for statist anarchy. I may be an anarchist, but I don't believe in letting dangerous technolgies run around freely. This is why you have to regulate anticommunism as a dangerous technology...}}<br/>
Anticommunism is a technology + ?? = Anticommunism is a dangerous technology

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchism means abolishing domination / Anarchism is partly defined by the concept of abolishing domination (2003) [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/morpheus-basic-principles-of-anarchism#toc5]  ->  so, there are some people who already believe critical theory is a form of anarchism. noted.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="F2">There is a difference between expertise and irrational authority, and anarchists are able to make this distinction and honor legitimate authority  ->  there really isn't though, as far as anarchist movements are concerned. Stalin had "socially acknowledged expertise". but anarchists didn't like him. and the whole reason capitalism is a problem is that many or all of the people who "irrationally" dominate people first get into positions of power because they do have legitimate expertise in something that other people don't have; capitalism comes to exist because expertise becomes a matter of quantity rather than quality and the "expertiest" people within the few areas that capitalism actually values come to define what facts everyone is allowed to acknowledge as real and to "own" everyone else. in practice anarchists don't actually like experts being in charge if they violate other conditions that are much more important to anarchists than this distinction without a difference.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Being an authority is good, having authority is bad [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/morpheus-basic-principles-of-anarchism#toc5]  ->  when I read this I automatically assumed the anarchist would call the opposite of the two things bad. being an authority is bad because class territory owners and bigots clinging to positions and generalized dictators etc, having authority is okay because anarchism has to enforce its structure and Ideals somehow. and I was like, oh, wow, maybe anarchism actually makes sense and I'm being too harsh on it. and then, like it always does, it pulled a left turn and ceased making sense, and I was genuinely baffled. though unsurprised, because what came next was very familiar to the kinds of nonsense I'd already heard.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, Zv" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Giving orders is having illegitimate authority [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/morpheus-basic-principles-of-anarchism#toc5] / It is illegitimate authority to divide society into order givers and order takers  ->  god if this isn't one of the [[E:Zinovievism (meta-Marxism)|orangest]] things I've ever heard. not one of anarchism's highest moments in my mind.
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Social sanctioning is caused by hierarchies [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/morpheus-basic-principles-of-anarchism#toc5]  ->  {{em|no.}} it's pretty {{censor|damn}} often caused by Communities.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">dividing society into order givers and order takers (anarchism) [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/morpheus-basic-principles-of-anarchism#toc5] / The ideas of the ruling class become the ruling ideas of the age (Marx)  ->  this is a legitimate description of society in the end, but anarchists always seem to get the causality behind it wildly wrong.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="IV" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Noam Chomsky is a Trotskyist
</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Noam Chomsky is an anarchist  ->  I've heard both of these now and I don't know what {{censor|the fuck}} is true. is he an orange anarchist? is that what you're telling me?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If wages rise, corporations cut each worker down to a small number of hours to avoid having to pay health insurance or paid sick time, and occasionally threaten to fire people  ->  this is interesting. there seem to be a number of interactions between different scales going on here. I might have to come back to this. the thing that stands out at me the most is, it's like although [[E:marketist mode of production (meta-Marxism)|marketism]] is supposed to benefit tiny businesses it's like really big businesses equally benefit from it and are using it to become lethal and untouchable.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX, ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The point of working at businesses is so public facilities don't close  ->  whenever you ask me to explain how society works I have always had these kind of quintessentially Communist definitions of society. I see things very structurally. the idea that people could genuinely think that town social structures are an accidental artifact of individuals accumulating wealth in order to live and that making money was a definition of living was shocking and alien to me.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Cuba cannot buy anything that has 10% U.S. made parts / Cuba cannot buy anything that has 25% U.S. made parts {{YouTube|1ykeYsIRqKQ}}  ->  this gets more sinister when you realize that capitalist allies gloat about everything including pencils being made across multiple countries.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Almost every country on earth voted to end the blockade of Cuba / 165/172 countries voted to end the blockade of Cuba {{YouTube|1ykeYsIRqKQ}} [https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/11/03/embargo-blockade-cuba-un-vote/]

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="UM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">During the Great Leap Forward the United States hit China with sanctions, causing a "Communism No Food" scenario  ->  I don't have facts on this currently but even so it already sounds uncannily like something that could have happened.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="UM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{TTS|tts=Bricks|BRICS}} has already failed

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The threat of the United States putting other countries under siege will surely be gone if a whole bunch of countries just connect to each other and excise the United States  ->  this has happened so many times in history and now, even though we have all the technology and education to realize that Filamentism/marketism is the actual problem and this very statement is self-contradictory, I swear people have learned nothing.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Venezuela can't help Cuba because the United States stole the oil tankers {{YouTube|1ykeYsIRqKQ}}  ->  my first question hearing about "Cuba embargo level 2" was why Venezuela couldn't help if generally it had almost nothing but oil. the actual answer is crazy. the United States has {{censor|fucking}} privateers and if you want to help Cuba it's coming down to {{censor|fucking}} sea battles

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML, W, MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">scattered-loci-of-capital repression / scattered-locuses-of-capital repression, as opposed to capital-having-generated-a-state doing repression / "[even on campuses] ... shouldn’t we always expect the ruling class to use repression" [https://jacobin.com/2025/10/palestine-gaza-solidarity-us-strategy]  ->  one of the most Marxist utterances to come out of Jacobin in a while. that weird little nexus of theories where anarchists, Gramscians, Marxist-Leninists, and meta-Marxism are all unified

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="UM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Most [U.S. people] are horrified by Israel's actions but don't yet understand Palestine primarily through the lens of Zionism" (2025) [https://jacobin.com/2025/10/palestine-gaza-solidarity-us-strategy] ->  this... seems like a claim that's testable against observational evidence. I don't know if it's true but when it's been a year since this article I think it's testable.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES / Liberal-republican morality" value="618" data-dimension="S2">U.S. people can be persuaded to put money going to Israel into schools and health care [https://jacobin.com/2025/10/palestine-gaza-solidarity-us-strategy]  ->  uh... now this is going to sound terrible, but I genuinely don't think that would work. people are absolutely racist as hell and the overall United States populace genuinely hates funding schools and funding Medicare at all out of fear that Black people or Latinos will have it; I feel like whenever people try to fund those things it just gets taken out by Tories and put back into bombs. so, cynical as this is, I feel like if you truly want to save Palestine, especially with a "broad coalition" or a "united front", and that's one of your top priorities ever, you really have to metagame this. propose something utterly insane like handing everyone a dividend that in all likelihood is going to only pay rent for a lot of people and probably end up withheld from minorities somehow, basically improving the lives of privileged White people. that's something people would probably eat up. especially if you handed it out to each state and said states could choose to put the money into school vouchers or whatever they want that isn't weapons (so, no handing it to police or ICE). put the money into school vouchers, business subsidies, Media Representation art grants, nuclear power plants, or baseball, but not federal schools or healthcare or housing or anything that makes people think "that's a Black people thing so it can't be federal". subsidize thrift stores; pay for a bunch of textbooks to properly teach kids phonics as long as they aren't purely in state schools and are also being shipped to libraries and general retailers; pay hospitals directly to hire more staff; do absolutely anything but federally-based old-style Menshevism. you kind of have to backwards wall jump off people's prejudices to where the prejudices themselves accidentally do good. the Palestine conflict has me really tired because you really do need an absolutely {{em|stupid}}-sounding plan like this to win it. you need to basically slash the federal budget and set up a generic cash flow from federal government into states and when they get the money let the states vote on what all the government programs will be within their state plus other states that vote for the same thing, but refuse to let them vote for lower taxes and destroy the programs-fund under harsh penalties of basically like suing the top 5% of the state population in court for the taxes it owes and doing whatever bad things happen to you if you ignore a lawsuit, until people actually settle onto what programs they truly wanted when they were mad at the federal government making the wrong ones. it's like... I kind of don't think Menshevism has mass support any more, I think if you want a 'mass Socialist movement' with broad support across the population you really need to think in terms of orange anarchism, where it's all based on the idea of getting mad at the federal government and axing it as much as possible. it's pretty damn popular to hear rhetoric that basically The Government is broken but only small businesses in particular are the people and the Democracy and are oppressed. people everywhere absolutely love the idea of Our Democracy empowering a sea of Free Wills when people vote, but they hate the idea of federal taxes, so I think what would actually be popular is transitioning from a federal budget model to a model where all that budget is divided into states and you just {{em|hope}} they work together to build the same nationwide programs. it would be a mess, but you didn't say you primarily wanted to transition the United States to a better system or make people any less racist before taking immediate action on international issues, you said you primarily wanted to take money away from arming Israel. so that's the bed you'd have to sleep in. so, are you {{em|sure}} "we need to work with people we don't agree with on everything" and "we can't afford to be ultraleft" from orange anarchism?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="IK" value="618" data-dimension="S">Kant and free will as noumenon  ->  second critique

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto IV, MX onto Zv" value="618" data-dimension="S">denounced as ultraleftist by Zinoviev / denounced as an ultra-leftist by Zinoviev  ->  knowing how shaky early Trotskyists were on actually understanding Lenin's theories, this has to be one of the sickest burns in the history of Marxism

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">To defeat Toryism, aid Cuba / One of the best ways to defeat anticommunism is simply to make sure Cuba survives and remains functional despite [[E:marketist mode of production|marketist]] disconnection attacks — most organizations who are not connected to Cuba probably benefit more from being connected to Cuba and refusing to stop sending things there and to other allies of Cuba regardless of the penalty than they do from being connected to their own abusive First-World republics  ->  some of the most effective movements are movements the size of a whole national population which are not broken up by fractures inside individual countries. theoretically one unbroken country plus other populations should be even more effective, although this is often undermined by the external populations fracturing in or between themselves. as for Cuba, it's been shown time and time again that the measurement of a society's success is the ability to survive the 

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, PT" value="618" data-dimension="Z">second Cuba embargo (United States) / Cuba embargo level 2

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Center-Liberals don't actually believe in realizing the capitalist mode of production, they believe in realizing the [[E:marketist mode of production (meta-Marxism)|marketist mode of production]]; this is why so many people simultaneously go on and on about "capitalism" as if it's synonymous with neoliberalism or "greed" and is only an "extreme", but somehow accept the term "capitalism" and believe in "Socialism" and 'getting rid of billionaires'; these apparent class expressions are not good omens, and actually suggest that people everywhere are unifying onto making everyone into Filaments of small businesses arbitrarily linked together by countable cultures, Kantian or Lacanian visions of ethics, in-groups versus social drama and fractures, and the mysterious, nebulous historical force of "Community"

</li><li {{IS2/PT/class}} value="618">Brown anarchism is partly defined by pulling chunks of people out of some greater structure or population when they are dissatisfied with their relationship with that population

</li><li {{IS2/IV/class}} value="618">Trotskyism and Kant  ->  what exactly do Trotskyists think of Kant? do they try to claim he's correct because they often think of borders as fake, or is absorbing traditional philosophy only a thing Western-Marxists do?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Dissension and strife do not inhere in man and society [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1952369]  ->  sounds great but the problem is that man are not singular and society are not singular.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Goku is utopia as a person / Goku is the human version of a utopia (sic) / A utopia is a hypothetical place that is so much not like any actual place that it is not a place; a mythical hero is a hypothetical person that is so much not like any actual person that they are not a person

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All republics are created because a population of people is oppressed  ->  this seems to hold broadly true for Liberal-republicanism, Bolshevism, and Deng Xiaoping states, if you consider the ongoing threat of countries being turned into neocolonies.<br/>
the really shocking part is this: it rather neatly explains why morality is incapable of truly creating a progressive movement and improving Liberal-republicanism further. a bunch of people can congregate around morality and try to assert that they are uniquely oppressed and that means they get to put a president over the population and rule it and enforce Kantianism over it to get rid of [[E:domination (critical theory)|Domination]]. but in practice, if you build your whole philosophy off everybody being The Subject and basically being the same and Liberal-republicanism working "because we all suffer and all have empathy", there is never any actual leverage for one political party to be preferred as the group of oppressed people who forms a republic to protect against its surroundings, and materially speaking there can't actually be any objective morally-correct side or "right side of history". you can say a bunch of rhetoric about needing to get everybody to vote to "create a republic" to protect Black people and Latinos, but practically speaking everybody in the population has been raised with an ideology that seeks to eliminate the existence of the proletariat and squash everybody into a Careerist or small owner, and once that has been going on for generations, everybody basically has the same standing in terms of who can form a republic-per-se to protect people; everything looks exactly the same and everything turns to mush, nothing able to stand up as a new physical object and become distinct. you can try to assert that Kantianism is a basis for Normal People to group together and form a republic to protect against Abnormal People, but that's about all you can do, make some inherently prejudiced statement about who belongs to a superior or inferior culture and what dangerous cultures have to be conquered.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Communists will solve quantum gravity  ->  it sounds like a joke but the reasons nobody has figured out quantum gravity are similar to the reasons most people don't accept Marxism and haven't put it into practice.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="Zv" value="618" data-dimension="S">gravity Trotskyists  ->  motif Items are actually meant to be able to be really fine-grained. I just haven't been doing that so far because it makes it harder to get them all organized than if I stuck to things that seem "important".

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">functions are apples being equal / gravity is gravitons being equal / people oversimplifying other disciplines the same way they oversimplify Marxism  ->  this is just a splendid comedy sketch waiting to happen.<br/>
{{i|ethics doesn't work. you really think you can make all people have exactly the same values and behave exactly the same??}}<br/>
{{i|mathematical functions? do you really think you can find the area under a sine wave with just two plus two?}}<br/>
{{i|quantum gravity? oh, like, apples falling to the earth, but smaller? I have no idea how you'd ever pull off a theory of that. like, all the cells in the apple are basically the same, so how can there ever be differing amounts of gravity? how are there even different-sized objects like an apple and the earth in the first place? quantum physics says when you go really small there are just quarks and photons and Higgs bosons and everything is just the same. how do you ever get variety and atoms and different clumps of mass out of that? why isn't the universe just a bunch of identical red apples with identical amounts of gravity?? when I was back in college hanging out with feminists I was considering the idea of gravity but as soon as I found out about quantum gravity and all the ridiculous assertions you had to make at the smallest levels to put together a transition from things being in one place to things accelerating into each other I started to realize that gravity doesn't actually work.}}<br/>
gosh I love the gravity one. who are the gravity Trotskyists though, is the question. wait, no, I know. those are the people who decide to claim that gravity still works because you just have to stick to Newtonian gravity, the original stuff that Newton wrote; we nearly lost physics because Einstein screwed everything up. also the string theory bureaucracy is still busy ruining it, we could totally explain gravity to people because we totally definitely understand how to teach it if those selfish string theorists would just stop gatekeeping everybody else trying to come into academia and solve the same problems better. (that last part is based on Trotskyists complaining that they're not effective enough to overcome labor union bureaucracies. it's funny because the same problem really is at play in both cases, if Trotskyists really understood how to unify workers together into a body of people capable of permanent revolution instead of every collection of 10-20 workers periodically scattering and losing all their relationships just to find a new place to be because corporations are constantly collapsing or unpredictably losing ground to each other, then at a certain point booting out the 'labor union bureaucracy' would be no problem for them. the real problem is basically just that Bolshevism could handle that unpredictability and carve things up a little more predictably or at least re-assign people, but when a country isn't unified there's kind of a continuous negative feedback loop where the division keeps scattering society keeps scattering society and like, you really just need an actual rupturing process where things suddenly go from a negative feedback loop of scattering to a positive feedback loop of unification.)

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Similarities between the Russian Revolution and East Germany reveal the functional purpose of Bolshevism
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Similarities between BlackPantherism and East Germany reveal the functional purpose of Bolshevism  ->  it's a little... "interesting" how if you want to teach a bunch of White people about imperialism you can't really put two non-White populations in the same comparison like BlackPantherism and North Korea, or you'll get a few strawberry anarchists with Black friends absolutely convinced that the chief commonality is getting mad at White people and having racial animosity for the sake of racial animosity (substitute 'White' for 'British-French-German axis of people' or 'Japanese people' as appropriate), rather than looking at the situation honestly and seeing it as a small population of people trying to survive against a large aggressive population of people. people really easily look at the presence of separate racialized populations and race relations being a topic at all and contort it in their minds into 'people actually being racist'. so you almost need to have a population full of White people in there such as East Germany or Soviet Russia just to show that a given process of transition to Bolshevism isn't actually predicated on the concept of race relations or populations being racialized.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Similarities between BlackPantherism and Deng Xiaoping Thought reveal the functional purpose of Deng Xiaoping Thought

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Christian nationalism and Christian "{{abbr|tts=Ideological State Apparatuses|ISAs}}" don't {{em|cause}} Toryism and fascism, they come into being out of a country's obsession with individual morality and I-believing-everybody into the same code of behavior  ->  this is the next level of Marxism. level 1 is realizing that all philosophies and ideologies emanate from, or at least develop while locked inside and restricted by, the material arrangements of people into economic base [[:Category:Bauplan ontologies|elements]] and modes of production. level 2 is realizing that current modes of production don't directly generate ideologies themselves, and speculating on how exactly new or different ideologies can emerge through methods like social graphs (Toryism), the over-application of ethics to all behavior (Existentialism / blue anarchisms), fractures in large populations (Trotskyism), improper joining of populations (postcolonial anarchisms / transition of tribes to tribal society), and the desire of a lot of totally fragmented people with no state to protect them from state violence to form a single nation-state or federation with an actual presence of laws and which actually functions together more than they want 'freedom' from each other (Bolshevism). any particular sociophilosophy operates on class structures inside it, but it isn't necessarily classes that start the ball rolling on what will ultimately be a class-based process. why do some members of the same class join together to consider a new system at any given moment while some don't? that's one of the most critical parts of the process, and class analysis can't really explain it. in my mind, exmat does finally explain it. it's the whole sum of people joining together that does anything, not individuals, not even small islands of individuals. as the islands get bigger the whole Lattice structure begins to spread knowledge about itself across itself and start trying to build accurate models of its own development and physics in order to predict the best ways for it to form fully and thus win. the capable proletarian subpopulation or proletarian Lattice never fully turns into a person but it does gain a very minimal ability to pilot its body almost like a person does only if it has collectively created and spread a map of itself. in a sense, a proletarian Lattice is several times smarter than ChatGPT. it is an inanimate object that contains an ontology of things, mainly of itself, but is actually able to act on that and respond to events based on that in a reasonable amount of time.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">center-Toryism

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Homeostasis generates Idealism

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The purpose of labor is to manufacture more class territories in order to turn everyone into small owners  ->  I like works written in irony as nickels more than unironic examples [https://archiveofourown.org/works/43773657]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Hero and villain are physical categories that materially emerge out of the stream of history; the state of being Good or Evil, Right or Wrong, is a physical process in and of itself which can be computed without human consciousnesses; this implies but does not guarantee that an actor's moral position can be calculated with a mathematical equation  ->  what absolutely everyone seems to believe, with a slight twist. this is what I imagine would be produced if somebody found out about exmat but didn't want to believe it could be used to invalidate [[E:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition|blue anarchism]] and tried to co-opt it into being an [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialist]] concept. trying to turn morality into a Materialist mathematical equation in order to still get away with it in a world where philosophers are increasingly secular and physics-based.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="" value="618" data-dimension="S2">An LLM is a philosophical zombie  ->  LLMs are one of the first machines that can kind of pass a Turing test by fairly closely replicating one specific kind of human behavior, but they replicate that behavior without having any inner experience. philosophical zombies have finally been realized.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Roll a square number with square root dice / A die roll from 1 to a square number can be substituted for two die rolls of horizontal and vertical coordinate without changing the probability of each outcome

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchists benefit from empires smashing national sovereignty and independence  ->  they like to deny it. but if your theory truly revolves around daily individual actions and shuns the idea of establishing any new power structures as a material way of obtaining freedom because supposedly the world has too many and the easiest way to stop propagating class society is just to immediately stop making power structures... the easiest way to accomplish that is to stand by and let the United States bomb Vietnam and do several very violent things to it so that at the end of it, without having to lift a finger yourself, you have your precious disappearance of borders and freedom of movement, association, and thought. when you believe that society is uncountable, it's easy to get that effect [[E:Society are not singular|in a world of countable societies]] by just expanding a single countable society over the world.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Never run LLM experiments using online LLMs  ->  there are three ways this statement can be taken: as a project policy stating that {{em|online}} LLMs should never be used for this project (fully offline LLMs are approved for experiments as long as you never ever leave any generated text or reasoning that hasn't been checked manually on pages; use an LLM to generate a Wavebuilder combination, and if you give a really good manual reasoning not from the LLM for why that's totally the answer you won't get caught), as a statement that even outside this project online LLM experiments can never be as useful as offline LLM experiments, or as a prescriptive statement to basically never use online LLMs. all three statements seem sound to me, really.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Power comes from technology / Power comes from material inventions and philosophical technologies, including corporate structures, government institutions, and ideological conditioning  ->  {{em|no.}} now, I like the definition of technology here. that part is not really the bad part — honestly, it's pretty cool and fitting to be able to call something like Marxist historical materialism a technology. that said, this is an Idealist model of where power comes from. it doesn't look like it at first, when it appeals to material objects like spears, bomber planes, and datacenters full of LLMs, but the telling part is when it considers policies to be technologies on the same level as physical inventions. while that shouldn't be a bad thing it's definitely being done for the wrong reasons. what's being implied is that technologies are something that are deliberately created as social constructs by individuals based on what they personally want — based on individual knowledge, individual ideology, and individual will. the article says that individual actions and decisions can never fully be prevented, which is correct, but then it claims that they can be contained anyway, based on some oddly specific between-the-lines reasoning that if people decide to do something it must then be possible to tell them not to decide to do it. this is not correct. people are countably separate material objects capable of multiplying their capital and capacity for destruction before they are rational agents, so if you try to believe that Ideas and Free Will are the basis for government then you'll end up at the conclusion that [[E:government is almost impossible|government is almost impossible]]. all you can really claw back from the harsh facts of reality is the concept that because people have the capacity for destruction that in itself means that there's the right for a nation-state to assert government over them. but nation-states are countable, so you have to decide which nation-state has the inherent right to capture which people. and if you decide it wrong, the United States will forcibly assimilate a bunch of individual Native Americans into the United States identity and culture just so they are incapable of waging a war against it. or, for a more fun example, if you decide wrong the Communist Party of the Soviet Union will forcibly assimilate a bunch of Trotskyists that would rather create their own countably separate Marxist party, and make them operate within and construct the Soviet Union even as they don't really want to. this really is not how government works or where it comes from.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Government is nearly impossible  ->  the concept that everything that Liberal-republicanism seeks to "moderate" is something that has the inherent power to multiply itself and continuously become stronger than all it oppresses and simply destroy all that wishes to contain it.<br/>
here, the problem is in looking at objects in isolation and thinking, I need to control that individual object, let's pass a law, rather than looking at the entire overall sea of objects and their interactions. and please don't say the word "system"; too many systemic analyses of seas of objects only end up assuming there's something special about a particular sea of objects and the processes it contains and letting all the objects in the sea continue to interact the same way. you have to understand reterminism, the way things interact all-directionally into each other to produce an actually interesting process which changes the system's resting state. people always go around claiming they don't like determinism, and then, like, nothing about their understanding allows them to get beyond single-variable determinist models that assume a system will never actually change and predict it will keep doing the exact same thing.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">marketist mode of production  ->  in early {{book|MDem}} entries I was a little reluctant to say the phrase "mode of production" because I was afraid I would be misusing it, but I think I'm now at a point of understanding where I've begun to accurately recreate the concept in [[E:existential materialism|exmat]] such that however I use the term will be close enough and it's okay.<br/>
the marketist mode of production is a [[E:mode of production|method of adding new people to a population]] where the graph connections in markets are more powerful than wads of capital. there may be a ton of separate similarly-sized businesses and it looks superficially egalitarian, but there are powerful forces of control at work inside it. the simple ability to reject people and say "no" leaves people in fear and has them constantly playing mind games and punishing themselves before the people with power, the receiving nodes, really have to do much of anything. nobody can be authentic, because you have to calculate exactly what everyone expects you to do before you do anything just to be sure you'll be added to society and not thrown out or locked away in your house; your identity and self-concept in your house is drastically different from your self-concept in town or your self-concept on a public internet platform, or even on public internet platform B. leave your house, talk to anyone, and you're a product, to be thrown out if you're defective for a narrow purpose.<br/>
this is the specific mode of production which invades Third-World countries. it isn't even capital per se (except in cases that capital is buying drones or bomber planes and sending them in or something; that's capital). it's just little Filaments of friends forming market connections that explode borders in harmful ways. Existentialism and blue chunks and Filamentist oppression are the surface manifestation, marketism would be the actual Base process beneath all that that a Lenin type figure would be interested in.<br/>
the word "marketism" is already in use to describe a kind of right-Liberal worship of markets, [https://candobetter.net/taxonomy/term/8398] but the funny thing is that the definitions are fairly similar such that "advocating marketism" and "advocating marketism" would basically mean the same thing, so I think with a chapter defining it it's at least pretty safe to use this term in the book. much like "Careerist layer"/"Careerist system"/"careerism", where the biggest difference is just that the standard usage of "careerism" is this [[E:methodological individualism|individualist]] model of individuals selfishly building up a career and the alternate usage is fairly close to just duplexing that concept so it means a whole bunch of people doing that at once.<br/>
tangent: when I searched marketism I found... a very interesting little thing. [https://cwre.org/w/Small_government] its theories of society are often pretty spot on, it managed to understand the basic ideas of chunk competition and the mountain of capital that slams down The State, but its actual remedies for problems are weirdly Kantian and center-Liberal. I suspect critical theory wrote this thing, though I can't be mad because this is kind of a collection of its greatest hits. so... my one issue is this. it claims government has the power to fix the underlying processes in the [[E:socioeconomy (meta-Marxism)|socioeconomy]] which actually create power. [https://cwre.org/w/Political_power_comes_from_technology] but... how do you know the destructive processes aren't just going to immediately dismantle government as fast as they can with their outsized actively-multiplying power and make government impossible? this is kind of a paradoxical, self-defeating model.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The United States partly contains imperialist-capitalism and partly contains marketism

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="M3">I just woke up in Molecular Marxism. What does it look like? / I just woke up in a violet Marxism, in some form of workers' state or dictatorship of the proletariat. What does day-to-day life look like?  ->  one of the most basic beginner questions anyone would want to know. they say you can't tell people anything and you have to show them; I think that's also true of Marxism.<br/>
first of all. there are going to be a lot of {{em|stupid}} questions from people that are like, "[[E:China banned yaoi|can I write BL]]" "can I contribute to OpenStreetMap" "can I write Existentialist philosophy books you claimed were dumb" "can I talk about Indian tribes transitioning to tribal society instead of to Bolshevism" "can I insult {{film|Steven Universe}}" "can I say nasty things about the founders of Molecular Marxism and accuse them of a bunch of {{censor|crap}}" "can I write poetry" "can I run a fediverse instance from my house" "can I believe in a deistic god" "can I stick with basic accounts of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie instead of going deep into [[E:existential materialism|exmat]]" "can I call early Trotskyists criminals" "can I form a social circle where reactionaries aren't allowed". and the answer to these is generally "yes".<br/>
 the main thing that a Molecular Marxism is going to restrict or crack down on is improper fragmentation, like trying to take a public facility and tear it out of society to gut it for money, or trying to take a business and use it to effectively build a separate nation-state with its own laws without having proper cause for that. (these days most populations are made out of smaller Particle Elements so every national independence movement will probably just be made of a bunch of linked businesses, but there are still ways to tell which ones are legitimate and which ones aren't.)

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="M3">I just woke up in Bolshevism. What does it look like? / I just woke up in a Marxist civilization founded by mainstream Marxist-Leninists, in some form of workers' state or dictatorship of the proletariat. What does day-to-day life look like?
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="MX onto IV" value="618" data-dimension="M3">I just woke up in Trotskyism. What does it look like? / I just woke up in a Marxist civilization founded by Trotskyists, in some form of workers' state or dictatorship of the proletariat. What does day-to-day life look like?  ->  this is probably something of an umbrella question with several variants because I'm convinced by now that there are multiple forms of Trotskyism that would all have different eras of socialism and the fact that they have conflicting descriptions is part of why Trotskyist groups keep breaking up and failing to unify.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">When Marx claimed that the British conquest of India would "improve" India, the practical Materialist statement that is implied in what he said is that it's worse for a population if another population doesn't even recognize it as existing and tries to totally exterminate its people and culture off the face of the earth than if the imperial population decides to conquer it into another structure, and thus in leaving the colony nation alive accidentally gives it the opportunity to transform from being a colony into being a republic and developing a modern mode of production specifically for itself  ->  if this is really what Marx said he doesn't deserve this nice of an interpretation of his error. and yet, either way, this is what I've always seen the core purpose of Marxism as being — that we can never change the past but we can find ways to make awful things the past has created into better things. looking at the United States and seeing it break out of the British Empire you can sort of see how a European would naïvely think that maybe India could just break out of the British Empire something like that. it's not a totally illogical thought, it was just horribly incomplete in its details. Marx was never going to get to a correct description of India without at least China and North Korea happening, in actual conditions where the theorists are observing a population fighting off empire. but now that that's happened and we're in the age of Maoism, there's not really any denying that Marxism can happen in India any more.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Confederacy came to be by stealing a population of people / The United States Confederacy came to be through as a population owning another population of people that it had no real reason to own; colloquially, it might be said that the Confederacy "stole" the Black population from itself, in the sense of it once being a free-standing population or populations that belonged only to itself as an independent object, but then losing that general-sense ownership or membership into itself to become owned by another population

</li><li {{IS1/Fy/class}} data-tradition="Fy, ES" value="618">we don't need more ads, we need better games!  ->  it's amazing how at a certain point even the most normal people get tired of capitalism that you'd think are far too trapped in capitalism to notice. people who won't question Liberal-republican party systems, won't strike, won't protest, will just one day suddenly notice the fact that throwing money into marketing instead of the product is a horrible use of capital and they don't really like some arbitrary person being able to decide where the capital goes.<br/>
just watching enough videos about Pokémon has really convinced me that some of the stuff Fisher and Althusser say is flat out wrong. people are smarter than Western-Marxists think they are. it's just that "the Superstructure" doesn't really work the way they think it does as some kind of ocean of propaganda or something. "the Superstructure" is in some ways just the arrangement of the Base, like the unarranged set of workers that goes into a video game company might be called the Base, or the specific arrangement of subsidiaries and teams they're in, but the actual finished video game is the Superstructure. they aren't separate things, they're woven together like spacetime. actually that's a very apt analogy, because spatially arranged particles bumping into each other are the cause and time is the effect.

</li><li {{IS2/MX/class}} value="618">Whenever you claim that every country specifically has an "LGBT+" subpopulation (and not simply a "two-spirit subpopulation" or a "T subpopulation [China]" or a "hijra subpopulation [India]"), you are proving Marxism very slowly; what Marxism actually says is that independent societies develop inner subpopulations independently through the society's internal interacting elements, but that there are a limited number of processes that keep happening repeatedly inside different societies as long as their overall characteristics prior to that development are somewhat similar

</li><li {{IS2/MX/class}} data-tradition="MX onto ES / existential materialism onto post-Marxism" value="618">Superstructure is a physical object / The point of "the Base" in Marxism is that it represents [[E:Subjects eat and occupy space|individual people]] before assembling into large [[E:Social-Philosophical System (meta-Marxism)|ideology-objects]] that are "the Superstructure", such as ministries or political factions, so to claim that "the Base doesn't dictate all social relations" is somewhat nonsensical as it implies some human individuals don't physically exist or don't actually assemble into populations; this is not a sensical thing to say about minority subpopulations successfully assembling together, because in the case of LGBT+ subpopulations for instance something is already assembling them together into "a community" on a daily basis, and if a town populated entirely by gay and trans people living there through their own power is mathematically possible then there has to be a Base inside the town such as retail stores or Artisanal practices where people draw art commissions, etc. / If a physical town composed entirely of lesbians exists for years at a time then it has a Base  ->  if a gay town is sky blue it still contains money, it still contains incomes, it is still a chunk, and it still has a Base.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" value="618" data-dimension="S2">fediverse nickel bank  ->  I don't totally trust this wiki project to be the central, "most reliable" place to collect nickels. it's a rather general-interest, wide-scope activity; this wiki has a somewhat narrow ultimate purpose before technically it could be transformed into multiple proposition wikis each handling a specific conceptual area, much like the difference between Wikipedia and Fandom wikis.<br/>
so here's an idea. somebody puts up a fediverse instance, conceptually kind of like a mastodon instance, whose purpose is specifically to capture links. the data structure for links should have a few features tailored for keeping track of YouTube videos (and PeerTube videos if those are relevant), as well as other particularly common kinds of links. (any link or searchable post identifier which is or was publicly accessible can be posted, from videos and Reddit threads to news articles, old versions of pages on wikis, and anything else.) people sign up to the instance, get a username, and then they can post links. other people can edit the links. (whether the post is truly edited or replaced with a new version doesn't actually matter, though in principle I feel like the post should store all the previous IDs it had when it gets re-made because this isn't person-to-person messaging and we want the posts to have permanent links.) once the links are posted and finished, people can assign the links to tags. the tags represent something you want to gather evidence for, or demonstrate as a phenomenon. then as a silly gimmick every tag gets a "nickel score" in U.S. dollars so you can roughly judge how common it is or at least how popular it is on the site.<br/>
the fediverse compatibility would be that the tags have their own posts that like the nickel posts can be remade, and it's possible to share the tags with their current description, nickel score, and other details. this is the "API": when you want to know about a particular tag, you pull the post and read the fields inside the JSON data. if there is a lot of traffic, there could be a mirror that simply serves all the posts as static JSON files, and each post edit could archive the post to the write-only version of the mirror that the read-only versions periodically update from daily or weekly or something based on a list of post IDs that have changed.<br/>
the nickels themselves would not be federated to "truly social" instances, to make moderation easier and limit potential for abuse. you just know people are going to archive weird {{censor|shit}} like a private Twitter message on this thing, so, best to stop that at the source before it leaks out.<br/>
there are a very broad number of things you could track on this thing. you could make a tag like "Elder Scrolls fans being misogynistic", or you could make a tag like "Deltarune theory: Susie is half human" to compare the popularity of different Deltarune theories. there would have to be localized rankings for specific kinds of tags so you can see which ones are actually comparable or conceptually related.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">dignity (Marxism)  ->  a Materialist definition of dignity? okay. nice. [https://mronline.org/2022/07/16/on-marxism-and-decolonisation/]

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Marxism would experience a forced encounter with the Other that challenged its prescribed trajectory [https://www.postcolonialweb.org/poldiscourse/spivak/kinkead.html]  ->  this is.... right but for totally wrong reasons. if early Trotskyism or the collison between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Maoism counts as ""the Other"" then yeah, that actually did happen.<br/>
if they don't... why are postcolonial theories so keen on erasing neocolonialism and the concept of Third-World countries. sure, I only bring up China as an easy example, and not because it's inherently important. but if you're failing on the easy examples it becomes dubious to trust you with the hard ones with a bunch of racial baggage. their example is India. but it doesn't matter what Marx said about India because a bunch of tiny Maoist parties have sprouted up in India. that wouldn't have happened if anything this is saying about Marx is actually valid. like, Marxists in India are right there and the postcolonial theorists are flat-out speaking over India. which is the thing they effectively said you have to throw theories out for. bye?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">decolonization (post-Marxism)  ->  after seeing what they did to the word "power", I'm nervous what they'll do to this one.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">class essentialism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q79|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">power beyond the factory floor / to theorise power beyond the factory floor (theorize; post-Marxism) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q79|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">symbolic politics / ([[User:RD/9k/Q79|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Robber barons were militant Existentialists  ->  the biggest wads of capital that are laying important structure in the industry of a country or globally aggressively protect themselves. in this sense, they are similar to blue anarchist concepts that minorities deserve to exist 'just because they exist and are'. on some levels all societies are anarchic no matter how violent or "hierarchical". this is the nexus between capitalism or capital {{i|per se}} and blue anarchism {{i|per se}}

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Transition from early capitalism to upper-phase communism involves [[E:proletarian (Bolshevism)|workers]] constructing various compartments of public life — applying labor to useful ends to each task of transforming a society of tiny shops and Artisanal practices into larger enduring public structures — and creating a society that finishes each compartment and lets it stand rather than continuously tearing them down and starting over again, steadily producing at all popular compartments until a lot of common things drastically drop in price and are sometimes free  ->  I know "compartment" is a weird way to put it, "public facility" would be just as intuitive, but what do you really call something like Wikipedia where there are basic questions and procedures and then task forces and then there's just a bunch of content and everyone comes and reads it and it just {{em|is}}? there are a bunch of things within societies that have similar life cycles to idealized businesses that just... don't sell anything, and just {{em|are}}. and I feel like analyzing {{em|those}} things gives a lot of insight into what is supposed to be done with businesses.<br/>
look at YouTube. one stage of developing society is for there to be books, but there won't always be enough of them, especially if they're rather dense books and there are only a few people you'd logically sell them to, counter-intuitively keeping them expensive. but then another wave of people starts making videos about the books that are available free and easier to understand. the fact that manages to happen within capitalism is a lesser miracle. the proliferation of capitalists would seem like it doesn't guarantee {{em|anything}} is affordable as long as all the capitalists make enough money to sell to each other expensively. (see: Switch 2 and ascending video game prices.) but the fact that capitalists can never fully run away from parts of society being complete to where they're all over thrift stores or otherwise old news and anything that tries to add anything more to that having to be available free can work wonders. one of the only tricks they have left is either constantly reinventing the same exact products under different proprietary brands to sell them new and turn them rare again, or putting lots of emphasis on the arts and trying to make everyone believe that despite genre fiction, despite there being things like TV Tropes that create long lists of works containing one highly specific detail, despite everything, that every single TV show is totally unique and you've gotta buy it new.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="MX onto A, MX onto PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Mexicans occupy Indian lands / If nobody should act entitled to the West half of the United States who wasn't there in 1780, Mexicans aren't entitled to come into it either / If the most important factor in the United States is the presence of "stolen land", then Native Americans benefit from keeping Mexicans from coming into the United States so there are fewer European descendants to fight to see the land returned / ... autonomous agents are scary (censored title)  ->  I don't really like "stolen land" rhetoric because beyond clearly-specified plans that will be able to turn over specific areas to reservations — which are fine because they can actually produce something — Mexicans were once a European empire, just like the United States. logically all European-descended Mexicans are on stolen land, but they can still be oppressed by internal class conflicts and relationships between countries. the conflict between individual Mexicans and individual United States people over the overall area of the United States and Mexico somewhat overshadows the original conflict of that area once having been taken by Europe. if anyone were to actually take the side of eliminating Mexican immigrants from the United States it would only empower the worst and most powerful corner of White people to eliminate anybody they want, and in effect make the "land thieves" more able to take land because it's only the most powerful ones operating outside anyone's control that matter in the first place. which is a counter-intuitive result if land is truly the big thing or the United States truly benefits specifically from {{em|land}}. if "stolen land" is truly as simple as 'land that belonged to somebody that was taken and needs to be returned because it's theirs', then that would logically imply that driving all Mexicans out of the stolen land would be a worthwhile activity as long as by the end of it you get enough White people out of the land for it to be returned, and once it is returned the whole problem is solved. but that isn't the way things actually work. the way it really works, there are three sets of White people and one of them is hostile and violent but the other isn't, and when a third set of White people comes in they join up with the second neutral set of White people or the minority groups and it actually makes things less bad. how about driving Mexicans out of Hawaii to protect stolen Hawaiian land? you never hear that proposed either. because once again, people can be descendants of European empires that once arbitrarily took the continent and perhaps even be flooding into a place like they're entitled to it but still end up as minority groups that are aligned with other minority groups.<br/>
the key thing here is that populations operate anarchically and populations chunk-compete. when White people decide to get aggressive towards immigrants, it's directly a group of people versus a group of people almost for the sake of there being more of one group of people, and none of it is really dependent on how much land there is — European empires can get very aggressive over what should be plenty of land. people just genuinely get tense about the existence of other groups of people and feel the need to "make sure" that they're the only group of people so future conflicts won't happen. it's really that ugly. "Manifest Destiny" is more of a lie than you even think it was. in some ways it's just very much like the United States wanted to be the only population. but the real crux of it is the ability or inability to predict other populations. if you can't imagine peacefully coexisting with the Soviet Union in 1950, and can only imagine the threat of an actual nuclear attack, then you understand why White people are so keen on killing anything that moves. autonomous agents are scary. you don't {{em|know}} they'll be nice. and perhaps it's horrifying to you that anyone would see tribal populations that way; it should be. but your task is get everyone to understand all populations as predictable entities. if you don't do that, you'll never be able to control autonomous chunks of hostile White people, and you'll never be able to get them to stop seeing people as the enemy.<br/>
with all that said, I haven't actually heard this specific example posed seriously as something real people get mad about. it's just a counterexample for where particular kinds of rhetoric can lead.<br/>
knowing how almost-real they are, I don't especially like anti-Mexican hypothetical scenarios. when I can I'll always take a "stupid" hypothetical scenario where somebody is prejudiced against or facing the prejudices of Trotskyists, or modern Russians.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Native Americans would have benefited from preventing the dissolution of the Soviet Union, because if people aren't forced to move out of the Soviet Union to the United States, it would shut off one of the actively-running faucets of new White people trying to claim land in the United States and make it easier to return land  ->  this is like the Mexico proposition except not from the vantage point of bigotry. the major difference is that a lot of people wanted to remain in the Soviet Union, so if they stay where they are, "keeping them out of the United States" is not oppressing them.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto DX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">China is a top-down trend (statement that the People's Republic of China was founded by experts who figured out the correct way to put together a functional country before regular people would fill up the new republic, inexplicably said in the tone of a "gender critical" blog claiming that gender identity is engineered, but only in irony within the context of meta-Marxism)  ->  sometimes language makes me mad. but sometimes I love language because of the absolutely dumb ways you can phrase things.<br/>
the point of this statement is that if you actually knew about the topic you'd know it's wrong for subtle reasons — exactly like with gender identity. and here's why: experts can sometimes show up with correct models. in this case because Materialism exists. as with gender... the explanation of how the experts know is a little harder. that has always frustrated me. that it's literally easier to explain the entire history of China than it is to explain gender. and yet that the impossible questions are the ones we have to argue about, not the possible ones.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">stopping {{caps|CoIntelPro}} with a lawsuit  ->  it's super weird to me that that even worked. what, in principle, obligates the FBI to tell anyone what it was doing or pay up? every part of the U.S. government is just a piece of paper except maybe the military and ICE.<br/>
I think this event reveals something non-obvious. it doesn't reveal that Liberal-republicanism is inherently honest or fair. instead what it actually reveals is something like that human beings are inherently arranged into countable cultures and if you step entirely inside a particular countable culture and play by all its specific rules no matter how {{censor|shitty}} they are then you can get people that agree to be connected to that countable culture to do what you want. this has good implications, and dark implications. one of the dark implications is that you have to be completely jacked into QAnon and genocidal imperialism or whatever people genuinely believe on the ground and think all of that is genuinely okay to stand by and condone to reach Republicans; you have to believe literally everything they believe except one little thing that would improve that specific countable culture strictly under its own reasoning. one of the good implications is that if the United States just went and talked to the CPC and played by its rules a lot of the things people find scary about China could probably be solved. medium-shade implication? if U.S. people were just smarter and less stupid within the fraction of people who get law degrees nobody would truly need democracy, the experts would just figure out what they're supposed to do themselves, they'd stop fighting other countries, and this messed-up country would just steadily run itself. I don't like it but sadly it's probably true.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Humans reason inside cultures / Human beings will not respond to reason unless they are compatible as individuals and both fully contained within loyalty to a single countable culture

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Human culture is inherently campist  ->  populations aren't as sturdy and are more fragile than Marxists think they are; arbitrary free association, in motion, is stronger than Marxists think it is.<br/>
this statement isn't focused on workers, parties, or movements — it's specifically a statement about national borders, interpersonal relationships, and countable cultures, and how those underlying things affect workers, parties, and movements. like, the term "campism" usually applies to Marxist parties, but this is literally applying it countable cultures before bringing in any "Marxism per se" (by which I mean models of Marxist parties or movements, so you could also call it "meta-Marxism per se"). the proposition is what it says on the tin, rather than implying anything else.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Your love for characters cannot save them, but taking those lessons to the real world is valuable {{YouTube|bAyKoCH8ADc}}  ->  ten years playing after Undertale I feel like this idea is something of a deepity. it's vaguely wrong on both of its points.<br/>
A) people can and do write AUs. there's another side discussion to be had about whether there's a point to doing that, but I think all in all it has about as much point as the original text did, you either come to an interesting insight about how the elements of the story interact or you fail to and you just don't, and because fanfiction "doesn't really matter" either one is okay even if succeeding at pulling the new narrative together is better.<br/>
B) the more interesting and more controversial problem. leaving behind a tragic happening isn't inherently good, and taking your emotions somewhere else doesn't inherently help you make anything better. the reason I have such a dark interpretation of this is I feel like it encourages people to interpret real-world historical events wrong. to a limited extent there's only so much of a different between history and fictional stories — you see it the most clearly with either fantasy stories that are silently drawing from history books, or stories that are so mundane real people look at the fake story and say "I remember this happening to me". so there are some cases where even leaving a fake story behind and saying "well that was tragic, I guess I can only learn lessons" is encouraging people to trivialize real events. {{book|Animal Farm}} stands out as one, by literally turning real history into a fable about individual behavior instead of presenting a Materialist style framing of the overall picture of what is happening globally in the scenario. but equally, there could be a book about the United States Civil War and a White person could read it and get really focused on the characters and their individual emotions and actions and put the book down deciding to "learn abstract lessons" while forgetting that racism is a large-scale ongoing issue and that slavery isn't a metaphor and was a real societal problem that was happening through material processes above the scale of individuals. — I feel as if you always have to spontaneously start talking about the United States Civil War or slavery for anyone in the United States to understand basic concepts, but there you go.<br/>
as for Undertale... I think it is primarily meant to be taken a bit figuratively as some kind of dream that projected out of the world of Deltarune, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with taking it literally. before Deltarune was released, it sort of encouraged and misdirected you to take it literally. I think fun things come out of taking it literally when you're not entirely supposed to, like imagining silly scenarios of monsters trying to form a workers' state so they don't have to go to war, or comparing the rhetoric used in designing Undertale to real-world anti-war movements. or {{book|Handplates}}. the literal interpretations of Undertale can get really dark, but that's part of what's fun about them.<br/>
I may be inclined to give very specific interpretations of this topic as someone who is taking real-life history and essentially fanfictioning it to create historical fiction. the point of historical fiction is partly to realize that history actually has moving parts to it and it isn't just  a fable somebody made up. that it's a material situation, that if you put something in there there are particular things that can and can't happen and if for instance you want to tell the story of a social movement there is a particular "[[User:RD/9k/Q53,73|challenge run]]" associated with that with a particular difficulty and particular success and failure states, with tension, with ways to win or lose. it's not just that we make stories and whatever authors want to happen happens, the reason guides about writing go on and on about "conflict" is that stories are simulations of particular situations or ideas and whether you are making a story or an actual simulation game it's equally the case you have to make a good simulation of difficulty, success, and failure to get people invested into it. that was really wordy. anyway, I think historical fiction has the power to fix history in certain teeny tiny ways purely by showing people the inner workings of a particular historical era, not simply by showing people how you personally think it could have gone better, but specifically by giving them a functioning simulation of what success and failure actually meant back in that particular time. that's quite valuable, and I think it's an insult to the power of stories to try to say that the Material components of the story functioning together don't actually mean anything unless you walk away from the story and grind everything down to abstract Ideals. maybe taking stories literally isn't a bad thing. sure, sometimes they have incorrect facts in them and you basically have to fix them or frame them in context to get anything out of them. but I honestly don't get what is so bad about taking the material pieces of FNaF or Deltarune and trying to solve them, or how "themes" are somehow different from that. themes are just repeated patterns of material objects doing stuff! they help put each individual event in the story in better context and connect each instance of a motif to all the other instances and tell you they operate similarly or point to the same thing, but that's all themes really do.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Enlightenment reason is 'pataphysics / Enlightenment "reason" is actually 'pataphysics  ->  follow along with me. 1) 'pataphysics is creating physics models by combining arbitrary working models, usually Idealism, sometimes fictional Materialism, in total detachment from reality 2) Enlightenment reason often bases itself in assuming that humans can never actually check things against the external world just {{em|by virtue of}} it existing first, and that even empiricism is necessarily solipsistic in its own way 3) Enlightenment reason and 'pataphysics are equally as related to the material world; depending on your set-theory definitions the first is part of the second<br/>
it's important to note that there is a super easy way out of this, which is to stop doing 'pataphysics by checking your {{censor|goddamn}} models against real-world physical processes so they actually have something to predict. it's not hard. you can operate off old recorded information in the beginning until you get something that's at least self-consistent, and then if you have a really good model, you actually run controlled tests on totally fresh information with no ability to re-do, and you keep doing that until you have a predictive model. there are ways to take tests and make them smaller so you don't have to run them "intrusively", and can just run your test mathematically to reconstruct what the data will be, and then observe and record the actual pattern. this is what equations are. this is what [[E:determinism (physics)|determinism]] is. you guess what the graph will look like using an equation, whether two-dimensional or multi-dimensional, and then you plot some data and see if you correctly predicted the overall shape.<br/>
it's a little atrocious that Marxism hasn't landed onto any pretty, presentable equations yet that summarize the major processes of country development. I think that will be possible eventually. you have to actually characterize country layouts in a fine-grained way so it's like you can tell apart different Marxisms and different anarchisms and predict what category of Marxism is going to happen if any of them does happen. but given the right ways of categorizing structure and creating "buckets" of pieces of countries suitable for graphing, it's possible to graph any specific social transition from system A to system B so it has its own visual pattern. the only challenge in that comes down to like, how do you coarse-grain a complicated process of individuals forming into specific structures of different colors and then the varying numbers of each color of structure versus each other without losing the most important small-scale variables. saying "proletarians", "bourgeoisie", "crimson people", "blue people", "orange people" works in text, it's just a matter of finding something that works well on a graph, and ideally also doesn't give the illusion of individuals being more important than structures as wholes. like, do you do f(x,y) = t, with x and y being things like number of big businesses and number of small businesses? I think there's something to the idea of having t be a dependent variable instead of an independent variable, so somewhat like in material reality the material pieces colliding leads to time rather than the other way around.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Relativity changes the intuitive definition of determinism
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Relativity changes the intuitive definition of reductionism  ->  thanks to wave functions and measurements, which are ultimately kind of just special relativity but really tiny. in theory, we could talk about galaxies in the conceptual vocabulary of wave functions because of how long it takes most causal events to travel between them, we just don't. and of course, then there's gravity, which appears to happen on a different scale from quantum particles.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Individualism is a country characteristic (United States) / The presence of individualism might as well be a permanent country characteristic of the United States national population / A "collectivist mindset" does not inherently bring any change or ability to bring change, so it's ultimately more productive to think about individualism as a permanent country characteristic until new structures are actually created that cause collectivist thinking

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MZ onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">fake general strike / Marxists knocking a general strike because it isn't truly taking a position or making sacrifices (North American Maoism onto blue or charcoal anarchism)  ->  I can't believe we're actually at this point. both because A) Marxists are reluctant to actually identify the extent of blue anarchism and the damage it's done versus standing around and hoping any 'mass movement' people come up with with actually be useful and B) it's surprising to me blue anarchism can manage to "do" this much at this scale and yet not do anything<br/>
I think we're learning that class struggle can actually happen in the form of protests horizontally protesting protests, in the form of one [[E:Social-Philosophical System (meta-Marxism)|Social-Philosophical System]] fighting another one due to a holistic opposition to its actual internal structure and basic principles more than due to the action of many individuals in one group on many individuals in another group; a whole blue group can fight a whole strawberry or crimson group as named groups.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Hypocrisy is not as important as lack of understanding / The problem with hypocrisy is not that individuals don't follow principles in a "what about" context, but specifically that when individuals fail to follow principles it shows they have no understanding of a given concept in any context including both their own "pot" context as well as the other "kettle" context where they attempt to falsely apply or enforce a concept they don't even understand in the first place; the objective of invoking hypocritical situations is to present a concept in the form people will find simplest and avoid having to explain books and books of history or material facts within the other context just to get people to apply concepts correctly in the other context when it's probably the case they [[E:Ask questions, don't give facts|wouldn't even want to absorb all those facts]] in the first place

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">anarchy! ...how do you say Guattari? / speaker attempts to talk about politics or history in terms of the imperative to be friends with other Cultures and not have prejudices, fails to correctly pronounce Italian-French name "Guattari"  ->  I can only remember seeing one specific instance of this in a video but that's still too many.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Tribes are basically the same as countries or civilizations  ->  this is just an axiom I go by, but I think it makes it a lot easier to do material analysis of history without fully committing to a single [[E:sociophilosophy (meta-Marxism)|ideology]] as definitely correct.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES, MX onto IK" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Individuals can't have rights / Individuals can't actually have rights / Aside from the question of whether it is ethical or desirable, it isn't {{em|physically possible}} for individual people to have human rights because human individuals are unpredictable and human rights belonging to individuals would require the ability to control all other individuals on earth; this suggests that populations can possess human rights to distribute among their individuals but individuals themselves cannot possess human rights without being part of a population  ->  if this is true it explains a whole lot about why people are anticommunist far beyond all benefit to them — their incorrect belief that human rights can belong to individuals rather than tribes or nation-states is ruining everything.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto W, MX onto PT, MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S">quiver (meta-Marxism) / tightly connected bundle of co-ops, capital chunks, or individual Artisanal practices functioning as permanent formal government with obligations similar to a Liberal republic and permanent citizens all locked into it exactly as much as a birth certificate or passport means republican citizenship  ->  I call this a quiver due to the potential capacity of it to simply foster anarcho-Toryism and turn into basically fascism without a violent army that's just a bunch of equal arrows passively believing shitty things without a central axe.<br/>
almost every scenario I can imagine where critical theory and its seemingly nonsensical concepts of 'stopping all things that cause resistances' or 'overcoming Fascism specifically defined as a violation of the totally abstract concepts of justice and dignity' actually succeeds tends to end up with some weird new thing of "capital states" made of arbitrary floating chunks of industry that broke out of a larger republic and became two or more new nations specifically based on particular local chunks' horizontal affinities with these blue chunks over here and against these brown chunks over there — this very molecularized scenario where unfortunately the molecularization doesn't actually get rid of the core processes of capitalism and kind of just solidifies most of them except the notion that entire chunks of subsidiaries have to be owned by somebody versus just agreeing to be connected into an object and subsequently having to become an actual fully-featured republican government if they want to prevent sudden violence or contentious competition over scope and allowed and prohibited behaviors between separate capital chunks. like, it's not one of those scenarios of totally free corporations with no government. this is something different and new that I feel like a lot of people are not ready for. it really sounds like a mess compared with Bolshevism if you ask me. assuming they live in peace and don't kill each other you'd have interdemocracy going off constantly and any number of chunks trying to prevent the others from doing anything they want to do much to their confusion; there wouldn't be protests, there would just be localized capital-states showering each other in a bunch of un-vote envelopes, sometimes justifiably, sometimes at moments that just feel like everyone is making the wrong choice and things are a mess. one day you get an avalanche of un-votes about pollution, another day you get one about banning polyamory from representation in ads.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The lack of anarchist-equality allows people to be unified  ->  it is so completely bizarre how, out of people who hate Marxism and whose worldview shouldn't contain the existence of classes you will just suddenly start hearing class analysis about some set of business territories with some oddly exact number of employees like 0 or 15 or 100. they hide it in words like "small businesses" and "indies". and there is this weirdly widespread assumption that somehow even though it's impossible all businesses should choose to magically hover around the mark of having 50 employees forever and they should all just fall to equilibrium and never become Big and never disappear. you'd have to successfully turn businesses into fully-formed political states with permanent citizens to pull that off, complete with bills of rights decked out to every single imaginable concept of anti-discrimination, "government programs" and everything.<br/>
(and I'm not knocking the idea of someone laying out an anarchism and trying to actually make it make sense, I mean, if anarchists would do anything strictly Materialist that isn't Idealism I would love to see that so much more than what they're always doing today. as a theory book, it sounds cool. my problem is that none of the fake-anticapitalists ever have that kind of commitment to even design a society that has no "stock market" or "labor market" or "business-territory market" and contains no chunk competition, like the allocation of people to borders can change, but gamified competition over borders just doesn't exist.)<br/>
this thing of having a ton of perfectly consistent non-vanishing businesses with exactly 20 employees doesn't happen. and yet when it doesn't, utterly gigantic fandoms form that appear to unify people around the world, I've multiple times heard the phrase "Pokémon Go was the closest we got to world peace". people everywhere seem to have a totally wrong model of what unifies people and allows people to coexist. they all keep tossing out this "Arceist" model and it's all wrong, even Pokémon advances that model and it doesn't match the structure of the business saying it. what's up with that?

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A, MX onto PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All Idealisms are nationalisms / All hypothetical Idealist civilizations are secretly micro-scale nationalisms  ->  follow me here for a moment. attempts to design Idealist civilizations (countries, tribes, etc) often begin at notions like "Moralities are a fundamental layer of reality", "Nothing should be done unless everyone thinks it wonderful". when these frameworks are met with any framework that builds a different kind of civilization, like Mainstream Marxism-Leninism, Juche-socialism, or Trotskyism, they try to assert that any framework that isn't basically identical with theirs is Actually an affront to universal cosmic ideals, as if they had any idea what those were, and that if you don't conform to universal cosmic ideals immediately you actively chose to be evil, and must be conspiring to take away people's Freedom and use them as tools. but if it really was the case that Ideals could unify people despite all of them wanting to smash other countable civilizations, Ideals must be unifying them into a countable civilization. that countable civilization claims to be based on the sheer description of the essence of humanity and on the concept of universal human individuals. but any actual social connection between two "universal" human individuals is a nearly tangible object. people forming into a healthy social group is inherently countable, if only because everyone in that group rejects Communism and "totalizing" country structures. every group of people attempting to be a universal humanity is first a group of people that is physical and very countable, that speaks a particular language or languages, and contains finite social links which are localized in space and not shared with other people, links which are identifiable. and the more those people all have particular Ideals that at least some countable group of people doesn't have, the more they possess a countable culture which describes the conditions of their specific countable social group, because we've established that any moment of being human and socially behaving as humans, when taking place in a specific bounded population, becomes countable. the more a set of ideals about what is supposedly universal has a history and is simultaneously bounded inside a countable patch of humanity, the more it's a {{em|national}} history. people can't run from the way that as soon as they form one social link with one isolated person they're potentially part of a nation. that's just how populations actually work. humanity can never be uncountable. it's always countable because it's always made of countable and tangible individuals. so it's not possible to be anticommunist and uncountably the only universal humanity at the same time. you can only do one of those. you can have the future where Bolshevism dissolves only because all ideologies have dissolved and equally become one because they've all actually accepted each other and suppressed nothing, a few reactionary ideologies excepted. but you can't have anticommunism {{em|and}} have that. if you choose anticommunism you ultimately divide the world into hostile nations one way or another.<br/>
to be perfectly clear, it's not even being a nationalism that makes critical theory or anarchisms bad. center-wing nationalisms can, surprise, lead to national independence and the ability to counter empires. what makes nationalisms bad is when they explicitly form themselves around being bigoted against other things. I don't want to hear about "[[E:totalization (Lacanianism)|totalization]]" or "[[E:centralization and hierarchy (anarchism)|central authority]]" if your goal is to totalize your region and the world with anticommunism and the underlying wearer of that cloak, sheer anti-Chinese and anti-Russian/Ukrainian and anti-Vietanese and anti-Cuban sentiments. that's not simply hypocritical, that's flat out lying to people, attempting to dissolve ethnic groups, and erasing ethnic history. the more you try to pretend it's actually a way of {{em|preventing}} those things for other populations the worse it gets. you're just using Native Americans as pawns to justify other populations' destruction. I will {{em|not}} accept that they're saving the world with critical theory and "indigenuity" until Existentialists stop pulling this on multiple thousand million people in the Third World.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Economics" and all social behaviors are not possible to separate / socioeconomy proposition  ->  (my laptop ran out of battery and I lost about three lines of prototype notes.)

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto IV" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyists are projecting / Trotskyists have to accuse other people of being bad Leninists or being "Stalinists" because they're afraid of being thrown out of movements or organizations and don't want to realize it's actually them that are the bad Leninists  ->  I literally dreamed this one. I woke up too early and went back to sleep and the dream was pretty boring but one of the things that happened in it was just me idly laying out this proposition. but, it's not really wrong? so I added it. I find it a little funny that like, most of the time I am not this ruthless and often I try to be nice to them and somewhat hear them out... but it looks like the filter came off and the dream was just like, so here is the basic concept unprocessed

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="unknown" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Empire will never be coherent (Fanon) / According to Frantz Fanon and Homi Bhabha, empire will never actually make coherent sense if asked to justify itself  ->  I'm just taking a wild guess on the swatch based on what motifs it resembles. there are actual sources to dig up to properly pick the swatch color and examine the concept but I'll get to it some other time<br/>
my first thought is this: in the way I saw it formulated, it's false. empire can come from the raw logic of physical objects colliding before they even think, it doesn't necessarily even come from conscious decisions. this isn't as relevant for frontier wars and genocides because those take effort, but when it comes to neocolonialism and capitalism seeping through whole Third World countries and draining them of people and making the people assimilate into the margins of the First World, yeah no, empire doesn't need any thought whatsoever that could {{em|possibly}} lead to that moment of 'why am I doing this', because there's not really any "I" "doing this" in the first place. neocolonialism performs all the tasks that colonialism asks for — stealing land entirely, exterminating other groups of people, erasing nationality, erasing national culture and identity — but it requires no active choice to do violence. there's no moment of actively choosing to stab Sans. it really just {{em|happens}}. it really just creates that Peter Singer situation where if you don't choose to act two objects run into each other and violence causes itself and happens automatically.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">What is oppression? / How should oppression be defined or modeled for the purposes of assuming that any oppression leads to resistance?   ->  words can be used a lot of ways, but this is specifically in relation to the proposition below, "Oppression leads to resistance".

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Oppression leads to resistance / where there is oppression there will be resistance (motif; incomplete thought) {{Youtube|cpP1EX8kK0o}}  ->  my only problem with this is how you define what oppression is. you can't identify it just from seeing resistance. Tories can be legitimately upset about things that aren't really oppression. Trotskyists can be legitimately upset about things that... might maybe be oppression, but that they respond to in totally wrong ways. I have a lot of problems with any attempt to 'save morality and ethics from the iron grip of science' because almost any time you introduce the concept of oppression versus resistance you actually {{em|lose}} the ability to tell what's right and what's wrong.<br/>
say a gay man lives in the Soviet Union in 1930. the government is not in favor of autonomous gay movements (although 'autonomous' is the intended key word in that sentence, not 'gay'). a great number of people accept and side with the government. the gay man participates in an unauthorized movement. the public responds with resistance as if hurt. if the public produces resistance in response to someone's actions and choices, does this mean [[E:democulture (meta-Marxism)|the public is oppressed]]? did the individual in fact choose wrong? should he have fully sided with the central government on the position of defending the Soviet Union from division and external attack in order to not be oppressive and dominating? this particular scenario actually gets a lot easier if you know the historical context and that it's not actually scary to say the answer is "yes". but for most people looking at workers' states from the outside this scenario is really difficult, and it shows that a simple rule from anarchism / critical theory is quite unsuited for real situations.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Regarding two individuals with guns or knives as produced by the interaction of two self-contained physical reterministic mechanisms is The Scientific Mindset {{Youtube|cpP1EX8kK0o}} / Dialectical materialism can only operate at the scale of exactly two people but not more  ->  no. this is totally wrong because it ignores the possibility that interacting populations are material objects. {{em|that}} would be The Scientific Mindset.<br/>
it's funny how this is almost the perfect demonstration of the Trotsky test. border trolley problem: seems to be one immigrant or one guard, actually turns out to be 1,000 immigrants or 10,000 guards. Trotskyite conspiracy: seems to be one wrecker or one cop, actually turns out to be 100,000 wreckers or 1,000,000 citizens. problem that seems like it should be mathematically solvable when analyzed at the wrong scale turns unsolvable because the content and size of populations are both incomparable.<br/>
methodological individualism + dialectical materialism = this.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">Idealist reason vs Materialist reason / Cartesian reason versus Marxist-Leninist reason / 'pataphysical reason versus physical reason  ->  this is such a critical distinction and yet I never see anyone actually split the word "reason"/"rationality" this way. what you always see is people arguing over the definition of the word "reason" and arguing that reason "isn't really" Cartesian reason "when people use it correctly" without even explaining why not.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Morality is beyond Idealist reason  ->  technically correct, because at the end of the day {{em|almost everything}} is beyond Idealist reason.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Morality is beyond Materialist reason  ->  no.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Right hates freedom / Conservatives maintain traditional race and gender hierarchies while opposing movements for equality  ->  that's a word soup. it sounds like it should mean something but it takes books and books and books to understand any of the words and then they still don't clearly mean anything.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A population of slaves has no leader / A population of people literally held in slavery has no leader  ->  one of the major holes in modern anarchism. people get hung up so much on "[[E:Greedy people are a class|big greedy]]" and "hierarchy" that they forget that simply freeing people from society doesn't make everyone free.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Marxism-Leninism recognizes factions / Mainstream Marxism-Leninism recognizes Social-Philosophical Systems / Each class [subpopulation] is guided by its own ideology (Stalin 1906) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm]  ->  a little surprising to realize, because I don't think it fully recognizes Philosophical Systems by themselves (hypothetical Bauplans) or Social-Philosophical-Material Systems (real Bauplans).

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, ES onto HAS" value="618" data-dimension="S">methodological individualism  ->  so this is the fancy word real Existentialists use to describe Existentialism and act like they don't have an ideology. this is the thingy in Rothenberg's book that I called an "atomic theory of society" or "room full of helium atoms"

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Anarchism is a form of Idealism / Anarchism is an exaggerated and mad idealism (Georges Palante 1909 / prototypical Existentialism) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/palante/1909/individualism.htm]  ->  I don't think this is actually controversial. give an extensive description of Idealism in the right way without saying "Idealism" and anarchists would probably just say "yeah, we believe in that"<br/>
it's. funny and ironic that someone who is a prototypical Existentialist (supposedly not against Socialism, but strictly modeling societies as clouds of isolated individuals to the point of being anticommunist) would dislike Idealism. like, that kind of model of society is very hard to divorce from Idealism and turn material regardless of how much you want to.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Idealism can't actually model itself / A faction based on Idealism can't actually model itself  ->  I'm pretty sure Marx said this in different words.<br/>
Anarchism is a form of Idealism + Idealism can't actually model itself = Anarchism can't actually model itself.<br/>
?? + ?? = Trotskyism can't actually model itself.

</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Pure Crystal is a Black Shard (Deltarune) / The Pure Crystal is actually a Shadow Crystal concentrated or distilled until it becomes a Black Shard; it is called the Pure Crystal so it will be a unique key item that has to be obtained a specific way instead of allowing you to use regular Black Shards without learning where they came from  ->  what if we're all overthinking the Twisted Sword? the description seems a bit deceptive. Seam is full of despair. So how do we know that "purified by the cat" wouldn't just purify a Shadow Crystal into a Black Shard, which is being called a "Pure Crystal" for story purposes so it's a key item and we have to see how it was made? and when you combine it with the Thorn Ring you just get a Thorn Ring you can equip to Kris.<br/>
the Twisted Sword might actually just be for players who uniquely hate Kris and want to put the Soul back in them and divert Noelle's suffering back onto them. we don't know what the sword looks like but it could be some gnarled thing totally made of spikes — a bit like the grass blade in Adventure Time where it winds around your arm and if you use the sword it's basically going to take your arm.<br/>
the only hole in this is that there isn't a combination for Black Shard and Thorn Ring to make the Twisted Sword. maybe the lore rationalization would be that the Pure Crystal is even more concentrated than the Black Shard or something to a perfect degree, to where the Thorn Ring and the Pure Crystal are both these perfect 'elemental' representations of pain.

</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Shadow Mantle boss is {{caps|Image_Friend}} (Deltarune)

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Everyone will buy a Switch 2 to play Pokémon generation 10 {{YouTube|3Nw49YIi278}} / Large numbers of people will buy a Switch 2 to play Pokémon Winds/Waves  ->  this could really, really go either way. it's possible it could happen. it's also possible it won't. it would be crazy if Pokémon gen 10 was the first in the main series to get ported to another system just because people aren't buying the Switch 2. but it could happen. I feel like it wouldn't be backported to Switch 1. I think it's kind of possible it would be ported to the PS5. a bunch of people really don't like the Switch 2 but it could also be an iPhone 7 situation where many people end up with one anyway.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Fy, PkMn" value="618" data-dimension="S">unseen force propels people forward ({{game|Pokémon}}) / the world has been going on from generation to generation and will keep going on; an unseen force creates life in tides and destroys in storms; driven by an unseen force people are propelled forward {{YouTube|3Nw49YIi278}}  ->  this is a hell of a statement to make a Pokémon game based on. this quite literally sounds like that weird thing Slavoj Žižek said which he pulled from Ilyenkov

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S">deep time

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="Zv" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Communism must come because humans mirror the universe, where creation and destruction are intertwined (Ilyenkov) {{YouTube|7nMrhjegIoA}}  ->  I'd have to reread the source text to figure out if I processed that proposition correctly, because the full one was complicated and confusing. what I'm much more confident on is that Žižek revealed a lot about how he understands Marxism. he thinks that it's primarily about destroying things; [[E:Zinovievism (meta-Marxism)|Zinoviev burning down a building]] is the best Communist to him.<br />
the problem is that this ignores about 66 years of historical events. it ignores the goals of Stalin, Deng Xiaoping, and whoever brought Dengism into Vietnam, as well as the failed goals of the Black Panther Party. it's an almost uniquely Trotskyist position to think Marxism is about destroying things instead of protecting things, if you're standing on the year 1953. it's only in about 1990 it starts {{em|maybe}} becoming a legitimate position again (and even there I doubt it, because I doubt anything good can come of advancing it). I blame Marxism saying proletarians have nothing to lose, when in reality Materialism requires the understanding that one of the major reasons you'd choose to nudge everyone into allying to create Bolshevism is to preserve material lives and keep them from being lost in a populational genocide to systems that inherently limit population size and exterminate excess population. and which don't even do any of that in any "good" way because it's all just a limited number of people being as wasteful as they want that kills the excess people, it's not to be more efficient or have a lighter footprint or anything. the pain of capitalism is the pain of individualized systems (corporations, countries, [[:Category:Chunk competition ontology|populational chunks]] or "communities") casually operating in mutual exclusion such that they all harm each other and then punish each other for operating, getting furious that they can't make each other choose to be "considerate" before they crash into each other when because they have no control over each other that is utterly impossible.<br />
this + ?? = Ilyenkov is the only Soviet Marxist who deserves to be taken seriously (Žižek)

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="Zv" value="618" data-dimension="S2">... creation and destruction are intertwined  ->  misinterpretation of Marx/Stalin? "continual motion and development ... an eternal process of destruction and creation" [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Ilyenkov is the only Soviet Marxist who deserves to be taken seriously (Žižek)  ->  ok, like, the only good thing about Žižek is that {{em|when}} he's not making a statement that's utterly terrible his boldness is entertaining. this is one of those where I'm left going "huh, this has to be something said so boldly it's gotta be wrong, but I currently don't know the actual reasoning why, I just know the ideology swatch color or code is very suspicious".

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="Aa" value="618" data-dimension="S">cosmological perspective (Žižek)  ->  so everything Žižek says is hard to understand because after the first seconds where you get past his accent and the particular way he slurps words it's always stream of consciousness. he starts by contrasting "the naïve realism of dialectical materialism" with "the transcendental in [[E:Western-Marxism|Western Marxism]]", which sounds like he thinks the division between Materialism and Idealism is more arbitrary 'than people want to believe it is'. then he starts to say something about subjectivity and overdetermining. then he starts to say that stepping outside humans to look at the universe can tell us something, which devoid of any god concept is a relatively Materialist idea. what?

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">canonical statement (truth value) / statement explicitly made within fictional text (truth value)

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ML onto ES / specific-sense historical materialism onto Existentialism" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Vietnam surrendered to the U.S. army / Terrified of the U.S. army, Vietnam surrendered / When faced with bombs and horrifying weapons, Vietnam gave up the fight against global empire and surrendered to the United States  ->  this fact is so much more powerful when you put it in the negative as a counterfactual statement. [https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=User:NickelBank/YT/-H5m_BeJoQA]

</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="" value="618" data-dimension="S">Black Panthers becoming Che Guevara  ->  today I read a post where somebody described 'the United States scattering the Black Panthers by bombing cities' after I think it was a different post saying 'it's Black people who end up doing all the work'. [https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=User:NickelBank/YT/-H5m_BeJoQA] and thinking about the Ironblood setting my imagination went wild thinking about history in war game or action movie terms. just the Black Panthers trying their damnedest to survive the city bombing and save the United States from itself. sounds like a pretty {{censor|kickass|tts=[awesome]}} vignette story honestly

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="IV" value="618" data-dimension="S">Trotskyists losing internal election and leaving party [https://redmole.substack.com/p/the-swp-reforms-its-elections-a-dozen]  ->  wow, now there's a social process. knowing everything I know about Trotskyists I don't know how this is something I'm newly recording — it's kind of exactly how they would behave if they were just a bit better than they were in 1930. that said. I'm not sure it's something I can really insult them for per se. as any resident of the United States knows well, any republican process that operates specifically on factions conquering each other can be really frustrating. so maybe they aren't unjustified to start getting tired of their own party when it's specifically operating on a unified block of things you have to contest? I don't really know. I'm not sure if this is the usual thing that democratic centralism means or not. I thought it was usually mostly about positions on issues.<br/>
I do find it mildly funny that they just focused on the actual processes and managed to get through an article without calling an uncontested block of delegates "Stalinist". not bad. I wish they'd do that more often. also. the usage of generic parliament terms like "loyal opposition" is... interesting, though I have no opinion on it.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="IV" value="618" data-dimension="S2">party conducting structural renovation on empty building [https://redmole.substack.com/p/the-swp-reforms-its-elections-a-dozen]  ->  I'm laughing. great metaphor

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">When everyone is talking about campism versus non-campism they've lost the plot / When everyone is talking about campism versus non-campism everything has already been pushed into the arena of international Liberal-republican politics and is not really in the hands of proletarian subpopulations or Marxist parties at all  ->  it's kind of cool to see Trotskyists actually attempting to talk about an international issue with substance, but I think they subtly dropped the ball yet again. [https://redmole.substack.com/p/fighting-campism-requires-understanding] they're singling out campism as "Stalinist", i.e. related to Stalin's Marxism, but even if you're talking about the effects of something historically, that just doesn't really make sense when countries change so drastically in the absence of Stalin's Marxism that basically the whole playing field changes into capitalists versus capitalists and ethnicities versus ethnicities and there are no longer any good answers {{em|at all}}, not just a lack of good answers on how Stalin should carefully weave together with other countries to create the biggest bloc of proletarian allies. how bad was "Frelimo in Mozambique" that modern "Stalinist" parties are supposedly defending? I have no idea. one of the only things I know about Africa is that Burkina Faso is trying again after previous attempts so even if it has problems there are a few points toward supporting it. I think it's possible this blog is getting a bit too lost in details about situations with no actual good outcome within a world full of capitalists versus capitalists. to be fair, the "campists" are doing that too, but I am not sure if there's an actual good way to correct that when it's an artifact of the real world scenario, not necessarily an artifact of party policy.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Novels are phenomenological; their main and most effective purpose is to catalogue possible phenomena within society or otherwise without truly passing judgement on them

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Sparks, a tale of ink (unfinished) [https://sparks-fvn.itch.io/sparks-a-tale-of-ink]  ->  are these two stories connected? they feel like drafts of each other but I have no idea if that's really the case.<br/>
the only clear bit of evidence I have is that they both released blog posts in January 2025, which seems to point to them being separate.<br/>
so far if I had to choose one I think I like Sparks better. it may be verbose but it at least gets more of the lore out there faster and gives you something to chew on, while Spark Hearts barely got started at all.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Spark Hearts (unfinished) [https://sparkheartsdev.itch.io/spark-hearts]

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="M3" data-submitter="R.D.">Is it an anarchist pipe dream to want a world where people can create concepts for fictional settings which are simply "community concepts" or "an additional thing created by me" without anyone who creates such things having necessarily created a new cycle of exclusive, closely-guarded bourgeois culture?

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It is necessary and unavoidable to compare yourself to other people in everything that you do if you wish to be part of society  ->  I'm sick of people acting like "comparing yourself to other people" is something you can just stop doing. in everyday situations there is no other way to know if you're moral or if you're a bad person than to ask other people and compare yourself to other people. it's terrifying, when other people can just be cruel, but if you don't do it you don't earn other people's trust and you never get positive feedback.<br/>
even when it comes to activities that are about individual expression you still have to study what other people are doing and understand exactly what it is they're doing and why they're doing it really well, deeply, entirely, to be able to stop doing nothing and do anything yourself. you have to understand the exact goals of it and the exact emotions it makes normal people feel and significance it has to them even if you don't feel them. you can't just have your own opinions and emotions for their own sake without first knowing what other people's are, or other people will feel like they haven't been heard and they're being cruelly overlooked. if you don't compare yourself to other people you just retread what's already been done and fail to fit yourself in socially and just sort of waste everyone's time. any particular genre of art emerges due to actual socially-linked circles of people and the needs particular groups of people have collectively, and not due to the overall space of unexplored possibilities not being filled in; the seemingly repetitive patterns that emerge in genre fiction or within a long-running media series are because large portions of people really genuinely want to see those core things and don't want them left out.<br/>
I am actually talking generally and not about anything in particular, but maybe an example will help bring all of this around. Pokémon. if you don't understand what people who are just naïve fans of it actually want to see in Pokémon you won't be able to design a better Pokémon game, no matter how many emotions you have about what {{em|you'd}} like to see. you have to really put yourself in the place of somebody who unironically liked Pokémon gen 8 and wasn't swayed from gens 8 or 9 by bad performance or the limited dexes. you have to know that fan in and out and effectively be a step ahead of their own specific thinking process to predict what would actually impress them. there is a certain art to creating an unexpected or improved version of a particular thing rather than just something totally unrelated.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="ES onto PT" value="618" data-dimension="S">vice signaling {{YouTube|o2lQ42hy9TU}}

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="unknown" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Tiananmen Square "Massacre"? - The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence {{YouTube|HmIvfqIQ_O0}}

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">When communities are under attack, the thing that will save them is community {{YouTube|S_a3INMK_g0}} / When countable subpopulations are under attack, the thing that will save them is subpopulations miraculously coming together just because they are all subpopulations and all of them being subpopulations somehow turns them into a [[E:anarchy (meta-Marxism)|stationary combination of heterogeneous elements]] (I tried my best; not canonical)  ->  blue anarchism is so out of control it's now just regurgitating definitions of itself sometimes.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="ML, IV, W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Erich Fromm  ->  "psychologist". claimed to be a Communist ally — named Marxism unknown. {{YouTube|rP1_cyxD1LA}}

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The alternative to socialism in one country is living in one of multiple countries  ->  the way Existentialists think is fundamentally different from the way Communists think. Communists want to take a country and see it improve. Existentialists want to falsely equivocate everything as being as good as everything else, at the cost that you actually have to take nationalities and rank them by which ones you think are better and then go live there — and the second cost that populations are material objects and run out of empty canvas, further ranking nationalities as better or worse according to who meets the local standards of which ones. quite literally everybody is equal but some ethnic groups are more equal than others. the nerve to put that in a book when you have no idea what concepts mean or how they apply

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto HM, MX onto IK" value="618" data-dimension="S2">If something in a secondhand reading, retelling, summary, or analysis of a work of fiction {{em|feels}} controlling to a commenter, then it actually is immoral (feels like domination; feels bigoted; critical theory adjacent proposition; Kantian ethics adjacent proposition) / If Mr. J posts a fan theory that unintentionally sets a story up to be coded as an incestuous relationship, but one thread commenter out of 200 feels unsafe or like the retold narrative is setting up Loci of Hierarchical Control and Domination, this one person's action is immoral with respect to all of society or all human beings / If Ms. Y posts an analysis of a narrative that claims it contains a metaphor for rape and 20 thread commenters out of 200 feel unsafe at the concept of the metaphor meaning that, regardless of whether the analysis is accurate to the influences of the work, Ms. Y's action is immoral with respect to all of society or all human beings  ->  internet posts really shed light on how Kantian ethics just fundamentally doesn't make a lot of sense. so you created a society with a social contract. where does "society" actually begin and end? what people does it actually control? what people is it obligated to listen to and take orders from? how is it not [[E:separable multiplicity|countably plural]]? how is it not the case that "society" in a Kantian framework is just a bunch of little clustered islands that arbitrarily agree on the same morality and formed through the people that can tolerate those particular rules staying there and people that hate those rules and like other rules going elsewhere to their own [[E:Social-Graph System (meta-Marxism)|rules]] [[E:Social-Philosophical System (meta-Marxism)|island]]?<br/>
Kant has this notion that reason is just this one thing and being moral and being rational aren't different even though his notion of morality seems to be intuitive rather than logical and clashes against what I would think reason is, and I am always at such a loss for how Kant thought that the concept of falling back to whatever is morally intuitive would ever unite people into a single society rather than multiple societies.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">small-scale internationalism

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="LR" value="618" data-dimension="S">CIA-funded union {{YouTube|6E89qUXTX-k}}  ->  the United States has a very big problem with hegemony politics and Tories carrying out hegemony politics. what many people don't acknowledge is the real mechanism is that there is a mountain of capital because the United States is a First World country, and that mountain of capital comes down on anything the United States wants to quietly influence. usually hidden all the way over in other countries, but sometimes inside the United States. capital often doesn't confront workers directly, it does this horrifying thing of hollowing out people's allies and turning them into puppets that can't be ignored but can't be trusted. on the big scale and on the small scale it's hegemony politics with a mountain of capital on top of one side.<br/>
the really frustrating part is that the great majority of blue anarchists in the United States recognizes hegemony politics but fundamentally doesn't understand the concept of a huge avalanche of capital. that isn't created by values or attitudes or "domination". it's created by simply [[E:The existiest will rule|existing and existing and existing]] and some people building up more money. which means you really can't stop it by focusing on The State or The Cops, capital is properly anarchic, and yet while it doesn't belong to any one faction it can also become an avalanche that comes down all at once and turns unions into nazis. the only thing you can do is survive that. you fundamentally have to survive. you fundamentally have to avoid Zinovievization, you have to avoid somebody cracking the walnut, you have to avoid the whole walnut being [[E:A State is so 100,000 Trotskyists don't die|eaten and devoured]], or you're just a genocide victim, full stop. how is it that anarchists are all about countable cultures and "communities" but they never give the correct answer on self-genocide?

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="DX" value="618" data-dimension="S">Gini coefficient [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient] {{YouTube|6E89qUXTX-k}}

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="DX" value="618" data-dimension="S">central contradiction of China {{YouTube|6E89qUXTX-k}}  ->  this is a floating label that applies to whatever major issue is the most important currently. sort of the way "central contradiction" has always been used, but just a little different in that it's inside the context of Deng Xiaoping Thought and the specific kinds of five-year plans that happen there

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, PT" value="618" data-dimension="S">Communism (empire) / Communism (forcing one population to be part of another when it would prefer to be independent)  ->  one of the rare but very uncomfortable overlaps between genuine charcoal-anarchism and Toryism. this concept that a bunch of individuals clustered together has a group individual-will applying to the group as an object and the structure or central government imposed on it by a larger population is the improper abuse of a living self-aware entity, stomping over its [[E:desire (Lacanianism)|emotions]] — and also, that this conflict is a defining feature of Communism. for anarchists this just means it is a fundamental flaw baked into the definition of Bolshevism though not necessarily the objective of it. for Tories, who sometimes just plain don't know anything, this means Bolshevism is founded on and created for the purpose of sapping away Free Will and only either big nationalism or teeny tiny local nationalism can fix it.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Left hijacked schools to introduce a Communist agenda {{YouTube|78XR4i0OH6c}}  ->  the key to this proposition is to realize that "Communism" doesn't refer to Bolshevism or Stalin or Mao or like, anything that you'd think it refers to. "Communism" refers to {{em|maybe}} the Black Panther Party specifically, not because they're Marxist but almost specifically because they're Black and they took local action against racism. remember, Tories don't understand the ideological content of Communism at all, so they can't define it based on its actual content, they can only define it based on people they don't like being Communists. step one is to identify Communists as never being your friends. step two is to construct a confusing argument about how their existence is an infringement on humanity [[E:natural law|and almost on biology and ecology]] because their ideology is grounded in slurping up Freedom and decision-making and creating a decision "asymmetry". step three is to turn vast numbers of decent people into racists because nobody likes the limitation of Freedom — even if you inform them that people are talking about it for racist purposes they'll still turn around and say "okay but it was still a good idea". humans are addicted to freedom and have almost zero tolerance to anything attacking it once they notice the thing and they just don't care. god I hate Existentialism.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Reconstruction is Communism / Reconstruction was basically Bolshevism  ->  once again, one of those concepts you laugh at when you see it, until you decode it and see what it's really saying. this is an anarcho-Tory proposition. by Communism, they somewhat literally mean "violation of anarchist values". they're working with the Existentialist concept of [[E:generalized dictator|generalized dictators]], and they are totally incapable of defining what Bolshevism actually is and why anyone would create it, so they think it's actually deliberately created for the purpose of taking away Freedom and creating suffering, as nonsensical as that is if you have read a {{censor|fucking}} history book. starting from that "understanding", they begin putting together an argument that .

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">empty room of wonders {{YouTube|F0K2DnI1TDk}}

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="IV" value="618" data-dimension="S">Trotskyist pyramid scheme {{YouTube|VFzQB9EYRVw}}  ->  one of the funniest phrases I've heard all week. it's just a little bit terrible that this motif applies to the "IV" code, not the "Zv" code and it's still quite an accusation. sometimes there is just no saving Trotskyism

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">There is an inherent asymmetry between decision-making bodies and the people subject to decisions that makes states unstable {{YouTube|VFzQB9EYRVw}}  ->  the surface claim here has a certain amount of logic to it. what I don't really like is how if you believe this you sort of inherently fall into baking people into countable Cultures and racializing them. maybe that will sound wild to people who are new to meta-Marxism. but a population has to be materially united by something to be a population. a state is the easy way; if people are united by a state, or at least a thoroughly Materialist understanding of a population as might hypothetically replace a state in the future, it's easy to be anti-essentialist about who is part of the population. if a society is "decentralized" then, like, social connections and cultural traditions are inherently going to be a big part of defining its shape and how or if it fragments. and if that's the case it sort of becomes a game of building a superior culture, just while ostensibly not being bigoted against anything except Third World countries' national independence.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A revolution cannot immediately abolish authority in that it contains authority (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm]  ->  fairly classic proposition.<br/>
also might be good for the purposes of defining what "Zinovievizing" is: it involves the collision of two separate Social-Philosophical Systems / "[[Term:crab|crabs]]" which can't resolve their problems peacefully because resolving them requires colliding and colliding might bring violence.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="A, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">When a council meets the individual members are not exercising authority [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm]  ->  this one would seem to apply to the way people talk about the US Congress, making me think it's actually blue. but it would also seem to be false in both cases as soon as you think of how upset people get at having rust-tinted congressmen. every one of them has a small amount of authority as the overall Congress has a bigger amount. that's why [[E:hegemony politics (Gramscianism)|hegemony politics]] is so tempting: to control that authority.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">anti-filtration  ->  the motif in anarchist writings or news events of groups of people distinctly doing the opposite of [[Term:filtration|filtration]] — attempting to join together while distinctly disregarding each group's principles and pretending they don't matter whatsoever to the point that the joining of the two groups might or might not create a toxic or dangerous relationship but it is still asserted to be necessary and good on the principle of overcoming divisions and becoming closer and more connected just for the sake of it.<br/>
this motif is not synonymous with "Rhizome", due to that Item representing usages of "rhizome" in schizoanalyst texts where it was originally created. basically: Rhizome - case of - anti-filtration

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Liberal-republicanism Zinovievizes countries in the same sense that Trotskyism Zinovievizes countries, despite the difference of wanting to replace their content with blue content instead of orange content

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Factories have superseded small proprietors (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm]  ->  this was definitely true from about 1870 to 1930. but somewhere around maybe 1960 weird stuff happened in First-World countries to make everything go the opposite direction. it wasn't just outsourcing. this is another process that happened after outsourcing and the replacement of factories by retailers. and it seems weirdly correlated with an explosion of anarchists and blue and charcoal anarchisms. I am not fully sure if blue anarchists actually caused it or not. the only thing I know is that the sheer amount that they justify everything that's happened is annoying.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to destroying the power loom to return to the spinning wheel (Engels) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm]  ->  thank you Engels. I often feel like I'm going crazy because nobody sees this and it seems like everybody actually does want to go from the factory back to the spinning wheel, only to end up having to work just as long selling Artisanal products through Jeff Bezos.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">AI is no more reliable than an undergrad entering in unproven conjectures on a wiki / LLMs are no more reliable than somebody with an undergrad level of knowledge in a subject at most entering in untested hypotheses or conjectures on a wiki  ->  this would take {{em|time}} to test by picking a few propositions that editors are supposed to reason through and then an LLM claimed to be a good one is supposed to reason through, but it would technically be testable. that is the real beauty of this project. I enter in "stupid" propositions all the time. this project doesn't exactly claim to be so much better and smarter than an LLM, but it doesn't have to, because all it really has to do is demonstrate that LLMs are much worse and humans doing non-binary logic are adequate.<br/>
the funniest thing here is imagining coming up with a problem that current language models genuinely wouldn't be familiar with because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability threshold and isn't already in a bunch of ingestable articles, and really struggling against the "AI" to get it to understand it. I remember when just out of curiosity while I was waiting for the wiki to come back up, I went to the only LLM I use which is duckduckgo's that they somehow thought was a good idea to put in search results (ChatGPT 4o-mini/5). every time I test that model against a task it literally always disappoints and hardly ever gives an answer to the question; it's like it can really only handle summarizing the search results and nothing else. so, out of curiosity I asked it to define [[E:meta-Marxism|meta-Marxism]] and explain how it's used to create an [[E:Molecular Marxism|MDem]]. it got everything wrong. it hasn't been reading this wiki, for better or worse. it sort of correctly guessed the connotations of the words in context, notably v5 got "meta-" basically right, but it only got "molecular" half right, coming up with a bunch of stuff that sounded like [[E:meta-Marxism versus Existentialism|critical theory]] or anarchism. it also thought "MDem" stood for "meta-democracy" — which was a decent guess but no. it couldn't make the leap to guessing that the "M" actually contained a description of what making things "meta" would do to them qualitatively (molecularize), that there was literally a hint in the question that it just wasn't on the right "MatPat" level to be able to predict. (Just think of how Deltarune fans were only given the letter C and a significant number of people managed to guess it stood for "Carol". it's possible.) I would have actually been impressed if it had been able to reason through the word "meta-Marxism" and the historical context leading up to the probable reasons for creating that concept so well that it guessed by chance that out of three or so possible expansions M stood for molecular. but it didn't. it had this unique inability to realize that if you wanted to improve Marxism you'd be doing it to solidify the grasp of Materialism over Marxism and keep the Idealism out. which, like... for a human, {{em|if you'd only read Marx}} you would have enough information to see that "reducing" things to arrangements of material objects was a key theme; one of the major differences from Hegel to Marx was that Marx was always tying ideologies and models back to the material arrangements of objects that produced them. it almost would have to have read a lot of Western-Marxist texts to {{em|forget}} that. (I say that neutrally, but also from experience, because as much as I have nothing bad to say about him I know [[User:Vidak|Vidak]] has done that sometimes — read all the Western-Marxism, didn't quite pick out the emphasis on making everything into material objects in meta-Marxism. I guess this nuance is just much too hard for AI.)<br/>
the only good thing about ChatGPT is it offers this weird lens into exactly how people can be dense and fail to understand what you're saying. it's almost a good model of stupidity, in a really weird way. I still refuse to use it as a test reader until I figure out how to run it locally and it has to either complete on limited RAM or crash my computer. at that point it could be fun to see how badly it understands my book chapters but yeah, I will put no verbatim generated text on this wiki. not even on pages about testing the AI. you only get manual summaries of the stupid, which funny enough would probably waste your time less by getting to the point much faster. you've seen how I write, rambling wildly, and yet, like, you know how in only a couple sentences LLMs get seemingly nowhere, they {{em|actually}} waste space.<br/>
ok ok I am done "bragging", I will actually avoid that on the Ontology pages. but just imagine how much ChatGPT would struggle to solve the simplest true/false problems. I feel like even if you asked it a fully verifiable question that just isn't usually asked prior to meta-Marxism, that's explained in multiple existing sources but actually requires synthesizing propositions instead of purely treasure-hunting, it would absolutely sputter; you could break down the question carefully into a lot of smaller propositions and it still wouldn't get easier.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="MX onto MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The Lattice model does not describe the United States  ->  the more that events unfold the more colossally confused I am. especially every time I read more about the things that are supposed to explain what I don't understand. literally nothing makes sense. mainstream Marxism-Leninism blatantly doesn't match some things and you see people improperly apply statements like "the United States is mostly proletariat, all the businesses are consolidated, it's not going backwards into big businesses shattering and being replaced with a bunch of tiny businesses" - no. but every time I read about anarchism nothing makes any sense, it never gets to making any more sense than it did before. anarchists are constantly going on about how the United States will never work or function because it's too racist and you just have to tear it apart or run away from it. they manage to vaguely understand the concept that Liberal-republicanism isn't defeating "fascism". but then all the protests are about everybody sort of spontaneously standing together across the exact lines of oppression that makes things not work? the exact shit that anarchists tell people not to expect — sometimes vehemently like you're a bad person to even think it would work — just kind of unpredictably happens after consistently not happening and not happening and not happening. I don't know what to believe or how to understand any of this.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Why are the most taxing kinds of work paid the least? (most damaging kinds of work; theme in Marx) / "The longer, more painful and more disgusting the work they are given, the less they are paid" (Buret) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/wages.htm]  ->  there are going to be multiple reasons. Marx pointing out the pressures to pay as little as possible and profit as much as possible is one correct answer. but I think there is another answer: the "easier" jobs that get paid more are simply scarcer and harder to get. many of these people are lesser experts at something, and as a commodity it takes time to produce them. some people will try to spin Careerist salaries as some kind of respect, but I think there are much colder processes determining them — Careerists are capable of sending labor through the [[E:dragon process|dragon process]] to make it uniquely rare and more costly, thus circumventing having to do any actual class struggle through their sheer process of building up themselves as greater wealth. it's easy to point to how common or "low cost" the things produced at low-paying jobs are, but it's always an unsatisfying answer when really, in comparison to workers only getting "what's logical" the owner getting a bunch of extra pay looks quite like an arbitrary social construct that if extended out could fix everything. but if you look the other direction up to rare things, things start to make more sense. to some extent common things are valued relative to rare things. gold in particular was a currency at times and people used it as a comparison against more common things like silver or cloth or eggs. fiat currency is still a little bit rare in a certain sense that only a small group of people gets to carefully decide when to print it. (I still have a video dancing around in my head that claimed fiat currency has never been successful when like..... okay, but a bunch of countries are measuring their own currency by the U.S. dollar, and that's a fiat currency. so what's up with that? it'd seem like fiat currency is actually doing pretty good right now.)

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A many-to-one relationship is not a function (algebra)  ->  I was always told this in grade school but I don't see why it has to be true, and <code>f(x,y) = z</code> can't be considered a function. it's definitely different from single-variable functions but I feel like the better way to distinguish these graphs is just by what kinds of coordinate systems they use, or two-dimensional versus three-dimensional.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Taking any action is gambling / Whenever you take any action as an isolated individual you are gambling  ->  people are somewhat predisposed to believe in Free Will, and hate to give it up. this is one of the only good retorts that should make any reasonable person pause and go "oh, that's terrifying".<br/>
Individual actions contribute to the future + You can't predict The Subject = Taking any action is gambling.<br/>
Individual actions contribute to the future + No point in space can measure the state of any other point from a distance that would need to be accessed faster than the speed of light (general? relativity, Einstein) = Taking any action is gambling.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The existence of Free Will would make you responsible for other people's actions, always having to steer around them, apologize for them, or commandeer them, even though you do not have the power to predict them or replace them with the ones you would prefer  ->  any attempt to save Free Will that denies this essentially crumbles into arguing for non-absolute determinism. if you are not responsible for other people's actions, then up to 300 million things happen every hour that you aren't in control of, and the future you will have to face tomorrow morning is essentially mostly determined by factors other than you. the thing most people miss in discussions of Free Will is that physicists' determinism isn't scary, and gives you more control than you'd otherwise have. if your future is determined then you can predict it and survive it better, because absolute determinism does not apply and only clusters of things are determined relative to each other. there's a little extra complexity that comes from separate clusters actively trying to outwit each other, but that's the only real problem left.<br/>
Individual actions contribute to the future + Taking any action is gambling = this.
this + ?? = Free will is incompatible with the golden rule

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX: exmat" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The golden rule can be formulated in the third person without assuming that anyone has Free Will: the golden rule is an overall system-wide process that is in effect when individuals do not behave differently toward others than they expect others to behave toward them in order to create a single coherent society  ->  when you define the golden rule this way, it becomes clear that there are situations where you can {{em|predict}} that people will stop following it; only heading off those situations will actually cause the state of people following it.<br/>
people seem to {{em|sort of}} understand this when it comes to the Trotskyite conspiracy, often proposing remedies to prevent it albeit usually misguided ones, but they totally don't understand this when it comes to anarchists or Black Panthers stepping away from the United States, even though the motivations are similar. {{i|those people aren't just shearing off into a new society and dissenting against society, those are evil enemy terrorists!}} what's the difference? what's the real, substantial difference between Trotskyites and Black Panthers? for a Tory at their particular level of understanding [[E:Ideology are not singular|different ideologies]] and the development of [[E:Society are not singular|plural societies]] there shouldn't be any difference.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Is wanting to commit suicide abnormal or expected?  ->  we often assume it's abnormal but really at a certain point we're just pathologizing the desire to leave society and create a new society or go to another country. this is the second time I'm basically going to therapy for Communism and non-patriotism, and I'm tired.<br/>
the thing that really gets me is that Deleuze was trying to solve this kind of thing but ultimately, like, he doesn't get out of the paradigm of psychology, he's still just producing psychology, and it's still going to pathologize forms of society that it isn't equipped to model.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Nationalities and ethnic groups are basically the same thing  ->  this is one of those propositions that sounds really weird and out of the blue at first, but I do have a stack of careful reasoning as to why this {{em|might be}} true.<br/>
one thing that is notable is how the people of the Soviet Union did not merge into a single nationality despite some people thinking they eventually would — in line with, if not necessarily identical to, some of the earliest ideas way back in the "Trotskyist" period of Leninism circa 1906 that national borders and divisions between nations were arbitrary and imposed. or in line with some anarchisms. it would be easy for a certain rather-specific kind of anarchist to say that the 14 populations of the Soviet Union merging into one heterogeneous but united nationality was part of the natural process of people "Rhizoming" together and forming [[E:stationary combination of heterogeneous elements (meta-Marxism)|anarchy]].<br/>
another thing that is notable is Brexit. a lot of people constantly talk about "Whiteness" or "The West" as if all Europeans have truly become a single giant ethnic group regardless of where they are in the world, but incidents like Brexit should cast doubt on that because, for good reasons or bad reasons, Brexit was a step toward separating English people from a neatly unified larger civilization of Europeans or White people. in the same vein, Northern Ireland still acts as a dividing line between populations of English and Irish people, and there had been a division in the United States between Irish people and people that amounted to Germans or Dutch people, etc., largely along Catholic versus Protestant lines. ultimately nobody truly cares about the fine details of religion, Irish people and non-Irish people simply start out as separate coherent populations that mostly notice their physical separation through things like religious sects, and the sheer separation itself invites conflict.<br/>
this isn't really to deny the fact that nationalities can contain multiple ethnic groups inside them — instead, the framing here is that ethnic groups can easily contain other ethnic groups. this also isn't to deny that some national borders such as in Africa hardly even function as nationalities whatsoever, and are something of a featureless bag of disconnected ethnic groups. the purpose of reducing the concepts of nationality and ethnic group into one thing is this: people like to dance around topics just because they sound nasty on the surface, like the concept that identifiable deterministic processes outside the individual can lead ethnic groups to fight each other over territory or government or (non)membership in each other as ethnic groups. they'd rather believe that racism can be willed away than that there exists any specific set of conditions where it's "inevitable". denying this sweeps away the real problem of large groups of people not wanting to associate with each other for human reasons, just because the two groups have a reciprocal bad relationship, and in turn, the possibility of addressing or healing these bad relationships. when anarchists are always trying to make things into lines of flight and Freedom and things automatically merging and essentially all of humanity being made of ethnic groups and nested sets of ethnic groups rather than truly being made of socio-economic theories or politics, we all ought to be mature enough to actually {{em|examine}} and {{em|analyze}} the possibility all populations are made of relationships between ethnic groups. statements like "Trotsky tried to break apart the Soviet Union and work with other countries supposedly slated to transition to Trotskyism because he was not well suited to be part of Soviet ethnicities and would have preferred to become part of a different ethnic group" are genuinely interesting propositions that offer an opportunity to see the world in a less adversarial way where no population or faction is actually the good guy or the bad guy; it does a lot to muddy the overall worldwide story of humanity when we unnecessarily try to {{em|de}}-racialize things just to fit some preconceived notion of anti-discrimination laws and constitutional amendments inside a specific Liberal republic.<br/>
anyway... because I'm a little afraid that I've never known what {{i|ethnic group}} means or is formally defined as in the first place, in my more serious writings that are aiming to become "finished" I only say "countable culture".

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Don't talk about "systemic"  ->  a lot of people genuinely don't know what to do when faced with the concept of "systemic" because they are predisposed to reduce it back down to how individual actions stack up to "systemic" behavior and push for individual remedies. even something like an anti-discrimination law is ultimately an individual remedy because as it's written it expects individuals to simply follow it.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Don't talk about "means of production"  ->  this is [[E:Socialism is Subjects having means of production|a genuinely confusing concept to anarchists]] so it really has to be completely spelled out.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX: existential materialism; MX onto STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The prisoner's dilemma becomes a zero-sum game if both players are gambling to win a profit  ->  people often say the solution to the prisoner's dilemma of neither player confessing is "obvious". but that's the [[E:charcoal anarchism|anarchist]] solution to the problem. in a society of [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialists]], most people are going to respond to real-world prisoners' dilemmas as if they're gambling and trying to win against the other people.
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM: probability" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Every investor is a gambler {{YouTube|-X9u9oYvGYk}}
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM: probability" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Maximum risk brings maximum reward (probability) / Given a particular kind of probability game where the integral of all payouts is positive, the biggest wager brings the biggest winnings / Maximizing profit guarantees total loss (correction) {{YouTube|-X9u9oYvGYk}}  ->  it's easy to show this is a stupid thing to do, and yet... it's kind of an orthodox way to run capitalism, and basically what's currently being done with the money that goes into AI companies.<br/>
Maximum risk brings maximum reward + prisoner's dilemma = The prisoner's dilemma becomes a zero-sum game if both players are gambling.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="IK" value="618" data-dimension="F2">The subject takes philosophy out of Idealism into empiricism / The subject takes philosophy out of essences into empiricism (Kant) {{YouTube|icAEdT6ucYY}}  ->  congrats Kant, you just discovered a material model of positivism and solipsism. The Subject really doesn't permit empirical observations. it only describes how we created Idealism in the first place.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="IK" value="618" data-dimension="F2">All of reality actually lives in any particular individual's unconscious mind {{YouTube|icAEdT6ucYY}} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q34,99|9k]])

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A "psychology of the mind" can't actually model real individuals / A "psychology of the mind" can't actually model real individuals because real individuals can't be universalized (Deleuze; blue-anarchist framing) {{YouTube|icAEdT6ucYY}}
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="DG" value="618" data-dimension="S">psychology of affections / a psychology of the mind's affections {{YouTube|icAEdT6ucYY}}  ->  I do not know what this is supposed to mean, but, the concept that "a psychology of the mind" can't capture the differences between individuals? yeah. I think cognitive science is fine but I am so tired of Lacanianism. go ahead and destroy popular psychology in the places where it's clearly not basing itself in science, the philosophical parts of it are weird and insular and bourgeoisie-specific and aren't even doing anyone any good. as far as this one thing goes Deleuze might be wired actually

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Social contracts emerge at stacks of capital  ->  one of the best responses to weird [[E:anarcho-Toryism|anarcho-Tory]] theories of capitalism, the Heidegger types, that try to posit a conspiracy by some nebulous "they" to "trap everyone in cities and Algorithms". reply that society is created by Them and every notion of civilization and morality forms around capitalists. as long as capitalism exists it's only a slight exaggeration. it shouldn't even be objectionable to a lot of right-Liberals and Tories. god though, my "favorite" is when you get a person who sometimes rants about the genius of "entrepreneurs" but then also at other times sinks into conspiracy theories about how "they" maliciously brought in modernity. who do you people think "They" are???

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">getting rid of politics to create anarchy / blue anarchism as silent destruction of political processes  ->  this is one of those core [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialist]] / blue-anarchist ideas that defines what it is and especially separates it from Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republicanism believes in political processes like a constitution and a presidency existing, and having periodic elections; blue anarchism doesn't believe in any of that. ostensibly to keep from disrupting those things and letting those things tear each other apart, but in reality, nothing is complementary or separable to the extent both Liberal-republicans and blue-anarchists like to believe, and when you attempt to teach piles and piles of bizarrely specific areas of society to "do their job" and not get involved in politics for long enough, what you create is a world where everybody is trapped in blue anarchism for much of their waking hours interacting with any particular part of society and nobody has any time to think about democracy, and potentially, democracy just flat out dies because [[E:Stupidity filters up|stupidity filters up]] from the vast body of regular people who aren't allowed to think about democracy to get rid of candidates with actual policies and produce uniquely uninformed democracy-hating candidates that run in elections. you can't neatly separate amorphous and molecularized theories of society, any more than you can separate classical physics from quantum physics; for any two, the molecularized theory is generally going to win out and take over the whole country up to the big scales, whether it's based on tiny person-to-person rejections and Filamentism or whether it's based on large business territories aggressively chunk-competing against the rest of society. it's in this sense that center-Liberals and Tories {{em|sort of}} really are distinct ideologies, purely because they contain different inner [[:Category:Bauplan ontologies|Bauplans]]. center-Liberal allies may genuinely believe that individuals [[E:Lines of flight are the severing and forming of social connections|cutting off relationships and forming new relationships]] is the primary engine that creates society (whether those individuals are CEOs or not), and right-Liberal or Tory allies may genuinely believe that stacks of capital or business territories or Christian morality and allegiance or non-allegiance to a code of morality is the primary engine that creates society.<br/>
a lot of "apolitical people" in the United States are just flat-out conservatives full stop, and committed racists full stop. the reason they become this way is that they have no idea they are analyzing the most basic processes of society through faulty models of, for instance, [[E:Wealth gets rid of poverty|stacks of wealth being related to nothing else]], and [[E:non-peacer|all interactions in society running on morality]] rather than morality appearing as a band-aid solution to underlying amoral processes. the ability to [[E:meta-Marxism|actually analyze and re-examine]] molecularized models of society might make all the difference at some time in the future. if nothing else Liberal republics would actually get accurate political party colors and be forced to reckon with some five or something major parties at local levels. of course this is much more powerful in the hands of Marxists, who would become able to theoretically comprehend conflicts or relations between two separate [[E:national population as anarchist-friendly social unit|national populations]] which are transitioning into different Marxisms or anarchisms, even wonky strawberry or orange or blue "Marxisms".

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">contradiction between media products being shared congregating points of "A Community" that must be tolerated for the purpose of tolerating other individuals at the congregating point, and exclusive individual expressions of directors or corporations that must be judged on their ability to have produced the product well and to deserve their position on a particular social graph node within society

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="MX onto PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">In the future the United States will transition to a system without workers where individuals run businesses using AI  ->  descriptive prediction based on current patterns, not endorsement.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HM, ES" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Bolshevism mustn't contain narratives (critical theory) / Bolshevism is bad because it consists of narratives, and social transition can strictly only happen through tearing apart all narratives  ->  I have never liked this kind of thinking because like, "I'm Uyghur and China is oppressing me" is a narrative, "I'm Black and there needs to be more minority representation in social structures" is a narrative, "I'm transgender and I first experienced gender dysphoria at 7 years old, not at 30 when you claim I made it up" is a narrative, not to mention "The Soviet Union needs to maintain its government and border so it doesn't become a colony" being a narrative despite everybody already not wanting to believe it. it's trivially easy to not believe narratives, and as such, it's trivially easy to decide to be racist and never listen to critical theorists. all Lived Experiences are narratives! it makes no sense to me that it's popular both to constantly talk about Lived Experiences and constantly talk about destroying narratives. those two things absolutely don't go together. and out of the two, Lived Experiences are actually the better choice because if you accept a bunch of individualized narratives they can all be tied together into a unified picture of reality without logical contradiction. Lived Experiences {{em|allow}} for creating a meta-ontological picture of reality even though they will present {{em|material}} contradictions between individuals and don't necessarily make it easy.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="F2">All narratives are biographies / All narratives are lived experiences  ->  there are enough instances where this is false to mark it inaccurate.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All lived experiences are narratives  ->  this is different from the converse implication that {{i|all narratives are real or imagined Lived Experiences}}. I think that out of the two, this statement is truer. It may depend on what things you think belong in the category of narrative, but to me a narrative is defined by ontologies, interactions, and series of events; narratives are histories, [[:Category:general-sense historical materialism ontology|in the physics sense of the formation of time]], that happen either alongside a specific point of view or from a bird's-eye view where it simply happens. narratives can be told from within a particular factional ideology, like a Trotskyist newspaper or a bible story (Christianity) or a PBS news report against Venezuela funded by the Freeman foundation (this will be on my wall of shame forever). narratives can also be told from no particular ideology, like an account of the first two billion years of life on earth. meta-Marxism hopes to make it possible for historical accounts and accounts of possible futures to come close to this level of telling events while supporting no {{em|particular}} ideology, in ways that Liberal-republican and blue-anarchist frameworks currently absolutely do not.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It's possible to overthrow White supremacists  ->  this seems like a widespread notion these days among like, everyone. Gramscians or Black Panther allies, anarchists, critical theorists especially, "anti-fascists", even the occasional center-Liberal. but it's never made any coherent sense to me because it's like.... what the hell is that transition supposed to look like physically. throwing 150 million White supremacists into the ocean? Marxism makes sense because you can describe a transition to [[E:Material System of Bolshevism|Bolshevism]] as scattered points of workers assembling into a [[E:Lattice model|Lattice]], practicing [[Term:filtration|filtration]] to find good representatives, cross-linking through [[:Category:Bauplan ontologies|crimson structures]] that create production or survival, building a republic, and [[E:dictatorship of the proletariat|putting everyone under jurisdiction of the republic]]. I can tell you almost exactly what a Communist revolution looks like except for specific clashes between the proletarian Lattice and bourgeois allies that are historically-contingent events; "there will be some" is what's easiest to say. but when everyone is going on about racism and prejudices as "a revolution" but a lot of the discussion is treating it as intangible Ideas and Attitudes and Narratives I just have no idea what people are even saying. are they imagining a charcoal-anarchist Lattice? what physical object are they imagining? I never know what object is supposed to form during the transition to post-capitalism (or "post-racism" I guess) if everything is so immaterial. how do you not just get stuck in an infinite loop of thinking the transition has happened but everything actually being the same? if the end result is physically the same as the start then how can it be a revolution?<br/>
now, if people want to talk about reconstructing the Third-Worldiest parts of the United States, that makes physical sense to me as something that could happen. but I don't understand how it makes sense to call that a "revolution". it doesn't involve the Black subpopulation (for instance) forming a new country or union republic, which is what the second definition of the Russian Revolution would be: the formation of the 14 SSRs. in a lot of blue-anarchists' minds it doesn't even involve changing the United States republic at all. so to me it's like, what the hell do people think the word revolution means? the only thing I can {{em|sort of}} get from ingesting way too much [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialism]] is that people think the concept of Freedom is somehow core to the definition of Revolution; regime change or a change in the internal structure of countries doesn't define Revolution, and somehow Freedom itself defines that. schizoanalysts believe something a little like that, which is why they terribly misuse the word "revolution" and sprinkle it everywhere as a metaphor.<br/>
god I hate the misuse of the word {{i|revolution}}. I know it's absolutely everywhere and I can't shove it back in the bag but I wish it hadn't happened, because it leads to the most insulting mockeries of the concept of revolution as people blatantly denounce revolutions and then go around lightly using it as a metaphor. ??? why. why would you use something totally forbidden in your society or "Community" as a metaphor like that. if Bolshevism is really such a great injustice and revolution itself is [[E:Hannah Arendt|so bad]] that the French Revolution shouldn't have been one... throwing around the word {{i|revolution}} is the equivalent of going around saying "wow, you really committed genocide on those roof leaks" or "right, no information got out before the trailer. she's such a good project manager, she pulls off regular pizzagates" or "man, what a great article, you really crucified him". why the hell do United States people talk this way casually saying "a revolution" "revolutionized" when to many people that's one of the greatest sins you can commit and it's not considered good at all. it's not even like nonbelievers vulgarizing expressions like "the damned" when somebody else once took them seriously; this is something a great number of people agree on regardless of religion and demographic so it doesn't even make sense. maybe one day by cataloguing enough motifs and traditional philosophy books I'll finally understand the reason why. for now... I think I've just come up with a pretty good B-side chapter idea. a cluster of critical theorists spanning a few universities finally bans the word revolution from public discourse leading simultaneously to some people willingly spreading around some rather confusing informational materials and to a lot of confusion. hmm, maybe that one could be a second forum thread chapter, a philosophy forum is one place that could happen.<br/>
It's possible to overthrow White supremacists + ?? = The United States destroying other countries' governments is a revolution.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">What anarchists think is Archons or "domination" is sometimes literally just the existence of larger populations (believe to be the Spanishness Office; believe to be cultural hegemony; meta-Marxism)<br/>
Populations always have the ability to decide not to do something + chat plays Undertale = this.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML, MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Decisions and consequences happen at the same time / Decisions do not happen on a special layer of all human decisions that exists before all actions happen, and instead decisions constantly happen from other directions before anyone makes their own, and because of processes like large inanimate objects or people's unconscious nervous systems making decisions, some decisions and actions separately issue out of the same entity without being linearly connected from decision to outcome  ->  this is one of my big problems with almost all of traditional philosophy. like, if you discuss "consequentialism", people will quickly assume you are saying that the consequences after a particular {{em|decision}} are good, and start slamming you about "the decision". and if you try to explain that you're focused on the consequences because they don't always come from decisions, then people will quickly assume you believe in absolute determinism and that you think decisions don't meaningfully exist. but in both cases what I actually think is simply that all decisions can't possibly come before all outcomes. some outcomes happen before decisions because they come from separate entities. some outcomes happen before decisions because the decision-making and outcomes are on the same entity but the outcome happened before the decision-makers were conscious of it. sometimes with some skill you can successfully make a decision and steer an entity toward its next outcome. so a lot of inanimate or "unconscious" decisions are constantly being made and every self-aware agent has to live with not being able to control a whole lot of decisions that simply happen outside it, some of which are far bigger than it will ever make; even if you have Free Will, it doesn't matter because most of the world isn't affected by your Free Will. Trotsky can want the best for everyone in the whole world and not be able to change any of it. that's why studying [[E:existential materialism|mere consequences of processes that happen]] without thinking of them as a special thing that agents made can be so useful and important.<br/>
I think this statement is actually crimson because it lines up really closely with the themes in Marx. you see pretty clear Hyper-Materialist themes in his texts where he wants to drill down to the physics-like character of all social structures and not focus very hard on what mental models they have and decisions they attempt to make — people can still attempt to make decisions such as forming labor organizations, but they first have to understand the underlying structure of reality and the way different layers of reality are constantly interacting and making background decisions to do that effectively.<br/>
Nothing can be done unless everyone considers it wonderful + special relativity = Decisions and consequences happen at the same time.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="M3">T/F?: Co-ops are anarchism / Are co-ops charcoal anarchism? / Do co-ops lead to realizing charcoal anarchism?  ->  right now what it looks like to me is the answer is "some occurrence"; "Co-ops are anarchism" is true sometimes but not always.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="M3">T/F?: Co-ops are Existentialism / Are co-ops blue anarchism? / Do co-ops lead to realizing blue anarchism?  ->  I doubt this one specifically because I think in some senses the most iconic "structure" of Existentialism is refusing to commit to structure and constantly changing it.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, MX onto W" value="618" data-dimension="M3">T/F?: Co-ops are Western-Marxism / Are co-ops strawberry Marxism? / Do co-ops lead to realizing strawberry Marxism?

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="618" data-dimension="S">substance pluralism / substance dualism (duality; model which proposes two kinds of structural elements instead of more than two)  ->  the word dualism can mean many things in different contexts*. here it means the separation of the structural elements that make up things into at least two different kinds of structural elements.<br/>
<nowiki>*</nowiki> this is a part of traditional philosophy that is just infuriating to me. none of the words philosophers use really mean anything, especially when they end in "-ism", and most people immediately look stupid if they try to use any of them, to where you really have to learn to actively refuse to use most words you find in Wikipedia articles if they look the least bit like spaghetti or you {{em|will}} get them wrong and in making any attempt to discuss them become incomprehensible. this is not a matter of "depth", "field", or "pay grade", as much as people love to toss out those words without thinking. you can't wait for an expert to read {{censor|fucking}} books for you. our world is on fire. we all need to be able to read arguments and actually understand the core of them as soon as we get out of high school. the fact that we can't and basically all information you read is spaghetti has made the internet and digital systems like library catalogs nearly worthless — it's easy to find information but nobody can actually understand it, making it hard to look up anything you actually need in practice because you need "the proper words" which no matter how many terms you learn are always terribly arbitrary. the truth is that all high-quality information is capital in a sense and we've entrusted possessing and using it to the people who "need it the most", or said another way are the best at being capitalists. AI has been about the only thing that's ever remotely claimed to solve that problem, by ingesting every word and telling you how to convert it into other words, and it's a solution to a problem that should never have been a problem.<br/>
maybe I'm just mad after I got burned on thinking "structuralism" and "determinism" sort of meant something instead of being abstract adjectives, just because they were nouns. is it too much to ask to want a noun to actually be something in particular that can be modified?

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Class is a single substrate / The [[E:substance pluralism|substance dualism]] advanced by early Marxism is not fully accurate because its dual substances operate under substance monism internally  ->  it's easy to go around saying that Marxism talking about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is wrong, and be totally wrong about it. I am claiming something much more sophisticated here. I am claiming the proletariat and the bourgeoisie do exist but that there is a layer of structure between them that is what differentiates them into dual substances, like quantum numbers appear to be able to twist energy into matter, or a single layer of fundamental particles makes up the heterogeneous realm of atoms. I have not fully figured out how this works, though I've been ranting about scattered thoughts on it for more than a year. to keep from rambling on too long, here's the short version. people who would be proletarians can 'level up' into Careerists, although they don't always do it. they do it more often in First World countries and less in Third World countries. Careerists and workers combined as a single substance compete over the totality of slots in a business territory. the smaller bourgeoisie that exist are actually Careerists that are being the bourgeoisie, and are specifically made that way in the process of being part of a structure. sometimes but not always they lose their structure and cease to be bourgeoisie; sometimes they store up wealth and become permanent capitalists, only because that wealth provides structure. the genesis of a usable business territory is what truly makes the bourgeoisie the bourgeoisie, not even the act of exploiting workers — because, and everyone already accepts this part, one territory full of one bourgeois without employees still contains the bourgeoisie.<br/>
in one really weird sense, all stacks of capital are already state businesses. except in the case of businesses formed out of exactly one Careerist, businesses only exist at all because they consist of multiple people. I know that sounds like a tautology or a deepity but I'm getting somewhere. every business consisting of at least two people gets bigger on the basis of capital adding more people. the owner doesn't truly do that, capital itself truly does that. capital adds people and capital creates growth by absorbing people. owners then falsely believe the purpose of capital is to make them money, and exploit workers. but that isn't true; the purpose of capital is simply to order people into groups and compete over area. capital doesn't come from nowhere either, it absorbs the underlying all-vs-all contradiction between all individuals as an alternative way of doing the same thing. people invented markets to theoretically alleviate chunk competition between individuals and because this wasn't stable it produced the terrible result of producers clumping together and chunk-competing over the market instead. anarchists falsely believe at times that either owners created the entire thing or competing chunks can sort of just decide not to chunk-compete. but this ultimately comes from raw individuals at the scale of their own bodies before they are really workers, Careerists, or owners, who experience a constant impulse to protect their bodies, which is equivalent to the impulse to seek Freedom, which is equivalent to Free Will. our false belief across the United States that Freedom is a matter of reason or "democracy" or even ethics and not just the sheer desire to survive is really sinking us, because at the end of the day, a great pile of philosophies are just competing chunks trying to justify their sheer desire to survive on their own based on their suspicion that others will block their survival or what would make them happy. chunk competition is capitalism is imperialism is anarchism is Trotskyism. chunks kill. post-structuralism kills.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto IV, MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Orange chunks are actually blue Communitarian chunks  ->  I think this is unlikely to be true, but when Trotskyists and Bordigists have flat out attacked the entire concept of businesses (!) it is worth examining if the reason they hate state businesses is that they actually want to create blue chunks. I think this is unlikely to be the case because quite literally, they can't create soviets if they replace business territories with people spontaneously throwing donations into a hat that goes away after a while, the soviets would just dissolve. and Trotskyists really do like their soviets.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto IK" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Real-world morality isn't rational / Real-world morality doesn't operate based on reason / Within the real world, morality is not a philosophical exercise in the sense traditional philosophers discuss morality and ethics, and instead exists in the form of the irrational, emotional response of a socially-linked group of people to physically protect itself from threat or maintain its Freedom  ->  a generalization of the more specific (and icky) example in Q12,1,22 / Q12,1,21.<br/>
this has its ups and downs. on one side of the coin, it becomes depressingly easy to understand the behavior of Toryism. on the other side of the coin, you can turn it around to start arguing at center-Liberals and Tories that Deng Xiaoping Thought and the mainstream form of Bolshevism that existed historically are each categorically {{em|moral}} in that they follow the exact same pattern as all typical moral claims.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="HAS" value="618" data-dimension="S">Japanese counter word humor [https://www.tofugu.com/japanese/japanese-counters-list/]  ->  the motif of choosing counter words very deliberately and not necessarily the usual way they are used to imply something about the thing being counted. for example, using "一件" to imply something not usually considered an incident or a crime is an incident.<br/>
I decided to do this to translate the proposition "Society are not singular".

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Dragon Ball has a nearly perfect model of ethics / Dragon Ball series has a nearly perfect model of ethics because it deals with the emergence of ethics out of an almost strictly amoral, non-ethical world where even Evil is not the background state, and where people must decide to actively invent ethics and particular systems of ethics or ideological factions they will join into simply because the consequences of living in an amoral world are worse  ->  if you think Dragon Ball is too simple to embody a system of ethics, I wouldn't totally tell you you're wrong, but what I would then say is that at its heart ethics is a relatively simple concept to the point that even this kind of show or comic can embody it. to me the most important part of ethics is actually just to realize that "ethical" is [[E:Society are not singular|never uncountable]] and there are always countable systems of ethics associated with countable groups of people, or the possibility of there being an amoral world with no morality or ethics at all. it then becomes true that even a superficially simple fantasy story about "Good" and "Evil" can just barely succeed at representing that.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">great man theory of ethics  ->  you have to understand I'm joking when I say this, but: I subscribe to the great man theory of ethics! the great man theory of ethics is the theory that generalized ethical scenarios containing "anyone" don't work to actually teach people to include all people, and people only actually learn to form consistent and sensible systems of ethics when you throw oddly specific historical figures, celebrities, or other bizarrely-specific individuals (anybody who's appeared in a newspaper will do) into an ethical scenario and try to predict what would happen with that very specific person, effectively writing real people fiction about somebody to properly figure out the solution to your ethical scenario.<br/>
this concept doesn't go against the meta-Marxist notions of "repeated patterns" or "lambda-calculus determinism", but complements them perfectly, by taking generalized functions and actually using them and testing them by feeding in a particular "x" value.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Stereotypes are necessary to create peace (anarchist phrasing) / If countries could not predict what another population was doing, they would constantly have to prepare for the possibility of war or horizontal "terrorist" attack, while if populations have ontological models or even essentialized Idealist models of what various parts of another population are like, they will be able to predict with reasonable accuracy that the other population will not attack their country, and create peaceful international relations (meta-Marxist phrasing)  ->  "stereotypes" here of course doesn't really mean stereotypes, it obliquely refers to the anarchist concept that having any model or description of a group of people — such as "people know they're transgender by 13 years old" or "people in Vietnam are focused on putting their effort into building a connected country" — is prejudiced, although in practice this would make Media Representation and applying a group of people's Lived Experiences impossible. everybody but anarchists knows these kinds of claims all carry an implicit caveat of "(this statement has a truth value of 'some occurrence')". yet it seems to be impossible to get people in general to stop improperly ignoring that without utterly destroying and smashing everyone's concept of formal logic. people can go on all day about how "things aren't binary"... and then fail to realize that most statements they hear from other people don't have to be True or False, and many statements they thought were claims of things being binary actually weren't.<br/>
every day I become more convinced that you really need to mess with post-structuralist anarchists and pull at their basic emotions by repeating the language they would use back at them in the coarsest forms possible just to get them to stop believing such stupid things about how countries and borders and history work, and that the practice of refusing to have models of other country populations or meaningful demographic-identity movements to supposedly "prevent prejudices" is lazy and [[E:structural racism|racist]].

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Could you convince a starving unemployed person not to join the United States military? / Could you convince Dave Pelzer not to join the United States military and go to war in Vietnam?  ->  to succeed at this you have to actually have somewhere else for people to go where they can consistently produce for their household. anarchism is going to be quite bad at that, while Marxism, with the ability to control the overall layout of businesses and new jobs, has a chance.<br/>
always remember that this was a real problem in the 1970s, it's not a fake problem. the United States military preyed on people when the economy was bad, promising them a salary if they'd only help in the important mission of making sure Vietnam suffers and doesn't have freedom. this is one of the biggest problems with trying to define a concept of 'social-ism' as "people looking out for each other". Dave Pelzer really did get fed the lie that fighting Vietnam was like having a family. that really happened. so are you going to internalize that fact and realize that only controlling production has the power to prevent global empire or not?

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto ML, MX onto DX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Stalin's government leading the country to rapidly build up heavy industry and Deng Xiaoping Thought are basically the same thing

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES, MX onto W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Gramscianism is like post-structuralist anarchism as a Marxism / When people within a Liberal-republican capitalist country practice post-structuralist anarchism and actually do it well with the actual goal of overthrowing the layer of capitalists, it turns into a countable Marxist movement whose named Marxism is Gramscianism  ->  you look at schizoanalysis, one of the most coherent bodies of philosophical literature connected to post-structuralist anarchism (although to be clear schizoanalysis is terribly incoherent, so that's really saying something), and a couple major themes like ending up on the best escape route and change proceeding person by person would basically just lead to the same outcomes as Gramscianism would, assuming that you do either of them well. either of them effectively produces an island of people who trust each other surrounded by a sea of reactionaries, or if things go more favorably, a caldera of people who trust each other {{em|surrounding}} a sea of reactionaries.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto A, MX onto DX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">To be postcolonial, accept Dengism / All it takes to be truly postcolonial is accepting the existence of Deng Xiaoping Thought (abbreviation, misleading) / Because global empire is only truly defeated when countries that are positioned to be colonies physically stop being colonies and don't become colonies any more, everyone who accepts the existence of Deng Xiaoping Thought is doing more to bring about a postcolonial world than anyone who recommends that Deng Xiaoping Thought should be smashed to bring people "freedom", whether they obsess over the "colonizer attitudes in people's minds" or don't  ->  this one is here basically just to make anarchists angry. it's one of those roundabout propositions that is true because of other things — almost intentionally backhandedly-true.<br/>
Capital is the true seat of government + China/Vietnam/Cuba will never be free if it's controlled by another nation's government = To be postcolonial, accept Dengism

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Populations experience natural physical separations based on language, religion, or degree of stacked rank-goods and dragon process  ->  A) language is self-explanatory. B) religion is not metaphysically special, but means that people will have a different body of models of the world and repeating social structures (church, diocese & papacy, pilgrimage site, cloud of local-god shrines, etc) from another population. C) the presence of nobility, royal family in command of wealth, or a very big stack of capital separates First World countries from Third World countries and former colonies through the threat of creating global empire. many people in many ideologies get this wrong. you hear anarchists and Trotskyists act like borders are an imaginary fabrication, but 

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Capital is the true seat of government / Government and the nation-state or global-empire-state emerge from the locus of stacks of capital  ->  if you actually understand this then you understand Third-World countries and Deng Xiaoping Thought. unfortunately, many people don't quite understand this.<br/>
Capital is the true seat of government + ?? = Pillows are not ideologically neutral.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Everyone" includes everyone (historical) / "Everyone" includes everyone (period.) / "Everyone" includes every possible person on earth in the current historical period or any other historical period  ->  this is the proposition I'm really invoking when I spontaneously bring up "Trotsky" as a possible person things could apply to. it's difficult for large numbers of people to grasp something as abstract as "all people on earth across all historical periods", but it's easy to grasp bizarrely-specific examples.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Everyone" includes everyone (global) / "Everyone" includes every possible person on earth in the current historical period or historical period in question  ->  a lot of Marxists believe they stop here but where they actually stop is confusing to figure out. Trotskyists seem to stop at a weird combination of the subpopulational proposition combined with part of the global proposition, as if they all lived in the new British Empire or the goal is to find the secret British Empire inside every country. mainstream Marxist-Leninists reach a similar level but divide things a bit differently — it's hard to describe the division exactly, but it often seems to include that they are obsessed with national independence movements entirely separately from the concept of ultimately realizing Bolshevism, and while that shouldn't cause problems, it becomes deceptive at the point countries actually free themselves and create a workers' state and then suddenly the mainstream MLs don't like what they've done and want to take it away. mainstream Marxism-Leninism is currently really really bad at understanding concepts like that Deng Xiaoping Thought might be necessary for China to have national independence and any future transition into Bolshevism is absolutely required to transition out of that. it's like mainstream Marxism-Leninism is unable to actually understand the concept of country characteristics, and when it happens that countries truly build a different-looking Marxism because a country is historically positioned to be a colony, suddenly they don't understand characteristics at all.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Everyone" includes everyone (national) / "Everyone" includes every possible person in a country in the current historical period  ->  the typical Existentialist tends to stop here.

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">"Everyone" includes everyone (subpopulational) / "Everyone" includes every possible person in a highly specific subpopulation  ->  and this is where Tories stop.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">To free the proletariat from the draining grasp of the bourgeoisie, it is not enough for people to be arranged into a mass of workers; to overcome the whole nation of owners on the layer above them they must be arranged into a whole nation of workers that can be said to have created the overall nation, while in many populations the structural foundation of the population is in constant flux and this is not true yet  ->  note/warning: this was prompted by [[Philosophical_Research:RatingHub/YT/MarxMindset|grading]] an {{YouTube|JN-I45T4QXY|AI video}} (this one was shockingly okay?).<br />
I lost the first version of this proposition in a computer crash when a single webpage took up like a gigabyte of memory (booo notion.so), which was infuriating because I typed quite a long paragraph here and lost it. I don't even remember how I worded the proposition the first time. but, I at least remembered the entire substance of it.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="W onto Zv, W onto PT" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Walk away from corporations, and you lose the opportunity to have caring co-workers {{YouTube|ZOkdpm8j8rE}}

</li><li class="field_internal" data-tradition="MW" value="618" data-dimension="S">missing proposition  ->  policy-guide concept. the most basic form of article quality review on this wiki comes through strategic use of logical {{caps|And}} between two propositions that someone has claimed should go together — for example, although only one of these is a proposition, "Item labels should not contain swear words" versus a page named "Bullshit Jobs". given any two propositions, one of them that is deemed the most correct will suggest ways to update the other, or at least ways to add new M3 questions and S2 propositions for investigating the contradiction; in the example, the sensible solution is to add another policy proposition reading "Item labels do not need to be censored if the title of a self-contained work would become difficult to recognize". one problem with the contradiction method of investigating and improving articles is that sometimes there will be critical pieces of context missing from one of the propositions that would have made them both easier to evaluate, or drastically changed the answer. that is what this Item represents. a proposition, motif, or phenomenon that would have stood behind one of the propositions but didn't happen to be there.<br/>
in cases a missing proposition is discovered, try to overhaul existing Items a minimal amount. it is okay to totally rewrite things like Background or Usage Notes sections, but the one thing you should keep close to the way it was is the verbose Item description at the top. add a tiny clarification of what was "missing" from the Item so that its character as a "strawman" or such is apparent, and then go make a new proposition which actually captures the missing proposition. philosophy "out in the wild" tends to have a lot of errors and missing propositions in it, so this policy allows all those errors in existing texts to be captured and analyzed even if editors add them accidentally rather than intentionally; as unique as you may think your error is, it's not unlikely somebody made the same error before.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="MX onto ES, MX onto HM" value="618" data-dimension="S">Communitarians (meta-Marxism)  ->  the concept of a class-like socioeconomic layer of people defined by their connection to a particular Community, in particular a countable blue or strawberry chunk held up by a bunch of interconnected horizontal payments and donations. if Communitarians exist, they are not just "the petty bourgeoisie" — the presence or absence of links between the individuals is critical, and similar to the difference between a room full of carbon dioxide molecules versus a room containing a block of wood or a diamond. the full connected blue chunk is fundamentally different from a bunch of disconnected tiny shops. however, if the blue chunk is functioning effectively, it may be highly resistant to transition to Bolshevism or transition back to corporations which would {{em|allow}} regenerating the proletariat and transitioning to Bolshevism. Community chunks like to continue believing that individuals choosing to be nice and inclusive by coming up with cash and not failing to arrive with tangible money or production is sufficient to hold together a society, while they don't like to believe that the physical structure of society could stand to be more efficient, despite the contradiction that this is true of their Community chunk in that people who fail to produce have a higher probability of getting kicked out because they are less able to perform prosocial behavior and more likely to be seen as useless to the chunk if they ever make an ideological mistake; whether they go over to outside brown chunks or blue chunks or just to people inside the same chunk, it's a logical consequence that anyone with fundraising powers is more likely to be retained.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">enough scientific ramblings, now back to lived experience / "enough of the stupid scientific {{censor|bullshit}}, I need to talk about myself now" {{YouTube|aQrD8zQXLD4}}  ->  I saw somebody say this in a media analysis and it stuck in my mind. I feel as if I've heard versions of it many times before, especially in relation to fiction and the arts

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">Blue "Communitarian" chunks composed of either small businesses or assorted individuals graphed into a circular structure of everyone connected to a particular node tossing money into a donation "hat" until they don't feel like it are capable of scaling up into gigantic chunks composed of interconnected circles of big businesses  ->  so, today it is common for the strawberry bloc of people containing social-democrats, Western-Marxists, pure [[E:LGBT tradition|LGBT-tradition]] members, and blue-tinted "small-and-local" Artisan-anarchists to give you some version of the story that society can rebuild itself solely based on distributing the notion of stacks of capital into this vortex of donations where miscellaneous people unpredictably put money in a hat and supposedly this will take away the social power of nasty large sponsors. this particular blue or strawberry chunk concept is separate from the concept of government programs, although the two do interact in unfortunate ways — if no particular organization necessarily knows where its money is coming from, how do you ever collect taxes on any of this, instead of just finding out every single "Communitarian" business doesn't have any extra money to spare and Medicaid is dead? now, one could reasonably go into meta-Marxist graph economics to answer this and say that the question is irrelevant because taxes are already obsolete and the system is now all about reconfiguring actual human relationships and group shapes to get "the Medicaid community" paid, but most people advocating this kind of thing actually do want Medicaid type national programs and really haven't thought that far ahead.<br/>
anyway, I found something shocking today. the way that AI companies are developing looks bizarrely like a gigantic version of a blue "Community" chunk. several businesses and the RAM chip makers are all connected together in a circle passing each other money such that the "AI Community" doesn't waste any money and is weirdly efficient. as blue anarchists might remark, it would be much better if humanity did this same thing with corporations that were actually useful. but really, I think this is a terrifying hint that blue "Community" chunks have exactly the same problem capitalism has of always eventually growing bigger and gaining power over all surrounding chunks in the sense of the power to make big decisions, slurp up resources, and commit violence. everyone wants to believe this fallacy that it's possible to take a system with an all-directional contradiction where all the pieces get bigger and simply "moderate" that or "balance" that. when in reality every system of interacting parts evolves to new possibly-worse forms as it goes on and time passes. it's precisely the shape of the system itself at the first moment you build it that makes people eventually hate it when it gets "big". perhaps it is true that mainstream Marxist-Leninists cannot overcome this cycle and there is no such thing as linear progress to the best class(-less) structures, there is only a pile of miscellaneous Bauplans and we just have to go through trial and error until we find the good ones. either way blue anarchists are {{em|way}} too confident about theirs.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S">series (oppositional combination of heterogeneous elements) [https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/working-translations/charles-fourier-on-the-pear-growers-series/]  ->  the text used to explain this thing just sounds like weird dumb capitalist propaganda. one of the major themes in it is claiming that competition brings balance if people would only be put into something in the correct proportions. an age-old idea that has never been good. I think one of the biggest problems is that fundamentally nobody has control over the proportions of "the elements of the series"; they always move and grow and shrink on their own before you can set them up ideally.<br/>
to be fair, what Charles Fourier says is that the ideal proportions involve majority groups of industry and minority groups, which is rather different from the typical model given today that every business should just sort of be the same size and you have to get rid of big ones because they only get big out of evil. I can see a certain logic in there in that the process of building industry is a process of change and if a collection of things is truly balanced it's harder to get change than if they are unbalanced; look at Marxists pointing to the ideal bad scenario of great imbalance between the owners and workers which supposedly has a good chance of leading to crisis. (part of the problem there is there are actually a lot more factors that can prevent a scenario that looks right from producing anything. no, "[[E:mass culture (critical theory)|culture]]" isn't one of them. fear of demographic subpopulations getting massacred and genocided {{em|is}} one of them.)<br/>
hmm, honestly. you could read Fourier's text as implying that [[E:structural racism|structural racism]] is "actually" a good thing because people wouldn't work hard without it. I think some people actually kind of believe that, when they spin the neutral phenomenon of a lot of immigrants coming to the United States to start businesses as positive specifically because they have to build up something from nothing. you do often see the belief that having minorities come in that are specifically under pressure from a huge majority "brings diversity that improves our country" specifically {{em|because}} the minority populations really have to struggle and have a lot to overcome. on the bright side, you could turn that idea on its head by saying that the severe constraints the Soviet Union took on by separating itself from First-World countries forced it to become more effective. and yet that hasn't quite worked in North Korea. would the Fourier types claim this is because in its isolation it's safe from oppression and really North Koreans just need to be under more active pressure from blocs of other countries? in a way, South Korea is. I'm surprised how much this cruel idea {{em|kind of}} holds up.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Proudhon's method was similar to poststructuralism [https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/13n1te1/regarding_postmodernism_and_post_structuralist/]  ->  one of the most coherent claims I've seen anarchists make in a while. I don't understand all the sub-claims but at least it's easy to start testing given a few examples claimed to be good ones.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S">molecular Idealism (meta-Marxist term)  ->  this is what a lot of anarchism feels like to me. it's like they are trying to molecularize definitions of society from really big scales into small scales but they often refuse to base it on [[:Category:Bauplan ontologies|material structures]] of people-into-groups, people-into-production-processes, people-into-nations, etc., and instead, they want to like, start scribbling nebulous clouds of connected ideals on a map with various different colors of chalk (these would be the named anarchisms) and hope they go together. I find it baffling when they will admit no anarchist theorist sounds remotely like another and then still keep proceeding along like there's still something that connects them all (or at least several of them at a time) which is suggested to be immaterial more than tangible. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/13n1te1/regarding_postmodernism_and_post_structuralist/]<br/>
it's like they're building the most cursed Lattice model imaginable.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Democracy is inherently postcolonial  ->  I think a lot of blue anarchists read Kant and then started thinking this. no. it isn't.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Extinction is randomly-generated genocide  ->  this is the problem with acting like the stochastic movements of individuals and corporations will actually fix things or is the most intuitive way to fix things. the phrase "state of nature" can never capture how horrifying the unmitigated background state of reality actually is. the stochastic, superficially random interaction of different animal populations periodically just blatantly destroys diversity and identity although at the same time new species will emerge at similar rates.<br />
not all populations are ethnicities. but, ethnicities are populations. species localized to a particular area are populations. extinction is the loss of a population. there are broad mathematical similarities between extinction, especially in situations like where humans deliberately exterminated all thylacines, but occasionally in situations where cyanobacteria take over and many kinds of cellular life go extinct, and genocide. "randomly-generated" captures the concept that none of this is deliberate or intentional or designed.<br />
Existentialism really gets to me sometimes. listening to Sabine Hossenfelder (Tory, brown Existentialist) just sit down and accept that having government grants and having islands of corporations and nonprofits is 'just the same thing' kills me. a complete lack of government is not a government but sometimes they really seem to think it is and like they're even brilliant for figuring that out. ah, yes! back to nature. back to groups of things basically hating each other for a few seconds at a time and killing each other over food as some of them utterly die out and given intelligence the other ones get to explain and frame everything. Commu-nity will be the end of us all.

</li><li class="field_internal" data-tradition="MW" value="618" data-dimension="M3">Why are reactionary propositions allowed? / Why are Tory and fascist propositions allowed?  ->  one of the top reasons is simply "to debunk them"; "to educate people what is more correct". another reason is to show how they are related to better propositions through error or correction.<br/>
it's important to remember there are certain minimal rules to be followed. a questionable proposition can't be phrased in a way that sounds like Tories are actually editing this thing or that you endorse the conclusion. sometimes, particular proposition titles that are simply too much will be banished to the "unsuitable Item label" Item. other times, it won't really be possible to think of a way to phrase something that doesn't sound sort of like a fraction of Tories would say it. in that case you don't have to think too hard as long as at least the full Ontology page makes it clear what is wrong with the proposition.


</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S">refuseism (prejudice) / anti-nonlogisticism (prejudice) / There exists a form of prejudice from tribal populations to White people, but it is not racism or "anti-Whiteness", it is best defined based on the sheer boundaries of groups and the notion of people being outside a group instead of inside of it, and would be described something like "anti-nontribalism" (in reference to the lack of tribal society), "anti-nonrepublicanism" (in reference to the presence of republics or absence of non-republics), or "anti-nonlogisticism" (in reference to a concept of industrial populations being defined by logistics), constituted by the inability to accept that industrial populations actually need parts of their "oppressive" structure to not die and not kill a bunch of people out of each other's countries in huge wars, as well as to practically "abolish cops" or "abolish prisons" [[E:The great dilemma of civilization is not how to make people happy but how not to kill people|without descending into household-on-household killings]]  ->  this thing is the bane of me whenever I actually try to read and understand anarchism "with empathy" for even a second. half of anarchism has become all about prejudices and not having prejudices and yet like every anarchist ever holds this one against people who aren't Native Americans or people who aren't anarchists. again this is complicated because it explicitly isn't "White people are bad" "majority populations are bad", it's more like it specifically hates {{em|excess White people}} over a magic line of moderation of a perfect number of White people, as if it were possible for people to just choose not to be born. the people anarchists hate and don't want to have existed are ironically the only people who have any incentive to dismantle majority populations and create anarchism, while if everybody just took what anarchists said at face value and did it, current majority populations would become absurdly hateful and nazi and impossible to change. anarchists don't want to believe a very fundamental thing which is that the material structure of populations physically births people and people aren't just made of culture and conditioning, nobody actually chooses to be part of Whiteness but the thing is that if they are born they will be exposed to it, so as soon as you're born you've lost and it's won.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The great dilemma of civilization is not how to make people happy but how not to kill people / The great dilemma of civilization is not how to "govern" people or "let the people govern the people" but simply how to, every day, keep emerging internal borders inside populations from leading to people killing each other  ->  people scoff at this and try to tell you humans aren't inherently violent. then they experience "group drama" and get absolutely terrified somebody's a {{censor|pedophile}} or dangerously racist and will hurt someone they know and they don't know what to do when the hazard people just keep flowing into Community thinking they belong there, and then somebody spontaneously leaks docs or feeds somebody a needle. groups of people always defend their borders with violence (or at least serious harassment) when they fear violence, so the sheer act of "having a Community" always turns into this hot-potato game of who's going to be the cop or warrior or border guard, because somebody has to do it. typical anarchists always sound like this, and really most of the United States in general: <i>anarchy, anarchy, anarchy, anarchy, oh god I can't believe a {{censor|zoophile}} exists, unabolish the police immediately and send the {{censor|fucking}} cops and put him the {{censor|fuck}} in prison.</i><br />
these are the issues people care about in their daily lives, they don't care about wages or government programs or even Palestine, they care about {{censor|sex offenders}} and people accidentally or intentionally dogwhistling racism instead of being kicked out of society and only nice people being able to earn money, so this is like the only way to yank people out of Idealism and teach them Materialism.<br />
the one, single thing I genuinely loathe and don't like about furries. furries are super anarchist and they are always creating these ethereal [[E:rhizome (schizoanalysis)|Rhizomatic]] groups of people from around the world that are about forgetting the bad parts of being human and Tolerating Everyone.... and then they always end up in these weird dramas where borders and miniature wars spontaneously erupt inside their groups and they never know what to do except get mad that anybody is even talking about the issues instead of purely solving all issues by exiling people and dividing groups and not talking about it again. Idealism sinks them. they start everything with Idealism of wanting not to be human, as much as they'll quickly clarify for you that the imagery isn't literal and it only applies to the arenas in which human beings are actually different from animals and where it actually matters, and then their Idealism makes their "communities" fall apart and sinks everything. [[E:modeling furries as a nationality|they need a Marxist theorist]] to like, transition the furry population to a better stage of civilization.<br />
honestly. if furries don't like Zootopia for "racializing" a fantasy furry setting or "turning it into copaganda" maybe they aren't thinking hard enough about it, and maybe it [[E:Zootopia is a good class metaphor|does raise legitimate questions]]. just remove the part about racializing things and make it about [[:Category:Chunk competition ontology|chunk competition]] but keep the overall plot of the first movie the same. I just think that would be really funny, a version of Zootopia that is like, [[E:Fantasy would be more accurate with Leninisms|more accurate to real life]], and includes black panthers who were [[E:BlackPantherism|Black Panthers]]. you can keep the Lynxleys too if you make [[E:Lynxley fallacy|the (fan?) perspective on them]] a little less stupid.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{film|Idiocracy}} (2006)
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{film|Idiocracy}} is less horrifying than the real 2010-2024 United States
</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{film|Idiocracy}} is backhandedly true (cooperation) / If intelligent people were less good at cooperating, then the "dumbest" people would indeed have more effective social groups, and {{film|Idiocracy}} would be accurate  ->  this person asks the real questions.

</li><li class="field_fantasy" data-tradition="HAS, Aqr, Aqr onto Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S">therians and autism

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">movie writers inserting weird {{censor|shit}} is okay and requires no criticism but fans noticing it and having emotions about it is an awful perversion  ->  what every other video shaming furries reads like.<br />
the average person has this really weird complex where they find censorship forbidden and want authors to be able to make just anything but they won't think about the actual consequences that having that position causes and that you will have to actually go clean up the consequences of that every day in your interactions with other people... and when they see a consequence they basically want to do something analogous to victim-blaming. it's this position that basically the bourgeoisie is untouchable and can do nothing wrong but the proletariat and the non-owners are all evil. I can't stand this. this is intellectually offensive to me.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR, ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A medieval kingdom is a one-party state  ->  Liberal-republican theory often assumes this is true. it's somewhat arguable it is the case, if for instance you use idealized fantasy novels for reference you see kingdoms are often represented as if they are groups of friends that trust each other.<br />
but the thing is that this doesn't lead to the flattering conclusions Liberal-republicans and [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialists]] hope it leads to. Liberal-republican theorists hope it will show that medieval kingdoms are tyrannical and unethical, and Liberal-republicanism is natural and obvious. instead it makes it easy to highlight that Liberal-republicanism is not a natural or obvious development but an {{em|arbitrary choice}} to divide countries into multiple sloshy countries per country, fully as arbitrary as it believes Bolshevism to be, which potentially engineers [[E:multiple capitalisms in one country|multicapitalism]] and the problem of two separate capitalisms trying to kill and crowd out each other's people for not being part of each other and then complain that eating and occupying space too much and existing too much is really mean and people should have [[E:Nothing should be done unless everyone considers it wonderful|thought more about that]].

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Theorists are academics / If you spend all day reading and researching and you do not produce a sellable product, your activities are academic, and if you produce a book which is usable but entirely theoretical you are an academic  ->  I once saw someone claim after using a bunch of technical jargon that what they were doing wasn't "academic". and this is why I always throw around the word "theorist" copiously. in hopes that people will come to understand that any strong division between the theoretical and the practical creates academics, and that in a few limited cases that can actually be a problem. at the heart of it, the goal of a Marxist is to stop being an academic, and to become better at survival and daily activities due to theory rather than to just become better in some limited domain that theorists live and compete in. I genuinely think that may be true of everything. it's a very corrupt system to have these article piles people make money by selling to at a price that will probably never be enough but where very few people will get to use and apply them, where like, all academic activity kind of just enriches researchers (and not very much, just enough to give them a teeny amount of privilege such they can ignore the existence of the rest of the world). it may be better at this point for people to just apply their research practically and sell books so they can be in regular libraries and used book stores.

</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{book|Password}} (2024) / {{book|Password}} (furry visual novel) [https://vndb.org/v26494]
</li><li class="field_horror" data-tradition="Fy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">{{book|Password}} and racism / {{book|Password}} and xenophobia (Orientalism; etc)  ->  there is nearly nothing worth discussing about this visual novel except the fact it's a really interesting case study on writers who don't know anything attempting Media Representation in racist ways.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It is impossible to explain the existence of ethics without Materialist philosophy  ->  so here's the thing about Idealism. minds can model anything. minds can model the most unrealistic thing you can imagine; minds can write a book which portrays real-world race relations and historical interactions between countries [[E:Password and racism (furry visual novel)|so badly the book becomes racist]]. the ability of minds to contain just anything makes it questionable how a mind could ever know that any ethical proposition is true. what if somebody makes an ethical proposition which says "The existence of Russians is immoral and it is ethical for the United States to [[E:Would you kill a Russian in order to vote?|torment Russians]] until they have been exterminated"? (in all these thought experiments I pick groups of people like "Russians" so the statement won't be as inherently charged and icky to even read as saying things like "Black people" or "United States Jews", even though certainly there will be some people that exist that are that level of racist. when I instead say "Russians", the statement inherently feels more made-up and hypothetical, and becomes easier to just laugh about as a weird bit of dark humor given it "isn't really happening".) if somebody says that's what's ethical, how would you know whether they're right or wrong? you can't just say "because X ethical statement is obvious" or "because X ethical statement feels good emotionally" as your justification for why a statement is suitable for checking other statements. to the other person, it might be "obvious" and "feel good" that they need to exterminate Russians, and they can always say that treading on their claim attacks their Lived Experience. so it's only really interactions that happen in the material world that can verify a statement as top-quality. even "a marginalized person recounted an experience" isn't itself a fact. Trotsky can show up and say "I'm a marginalized Soviet person" and then "I think the Soviet Union needs to be destroyed", and his Lived Experience won't be reliable or factual.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="LR" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Because normal people prefer to think in terms of Liberal-republicanism, we must teach them everything in terms of Liberal-republicanism and give up on teaching them Communism  ->  very flawed when Liberal-republicanism absolutely can't address the question of empire and the global-empire prejudices termed "[[E:the colonizer attitude|colonialism]]" at all. the point of Liberal-republicanism is to control people and keep regular people from exerting agency except in line with what a limited array of experts says. that's the point. whether you think of that process as a positive or negative thing, that's the point. so when Liberal-republicanism decides it has to take over issues like Israel-Palestine and {{censor|shit}}, and legislate and [[E:Democracy is government of the person by the people|amend people]] into being "[[E:Postcolonial is a euphemism for anarchist|postcolonial]]"... it just plain can't. a republic can beat everyone into position but the people who are the most elite and [[E:The existiest will rule|most existiest]] will out-exist everyone else and if they just {{em|happen}} to be in support of Israel they get the people-controlling device and there's no winning. even stacks and stacks of Gramscian theory can't fix it. you've written yourself into a corner where survival itself is a virtue and non-survival and weakness and sickness are vices, those rules are [[E:Reality is tyrannical|not negotiable by anybody]], and where literally only a theory of building the most physically-robust, best-surviving population of Communist or anarchist allies that [[E:Asocialism (meta-Marxism)|believes in no Idealism]] and makes absolutely no mistakes of believing that anyone will choose to be kind or reasonable or hope itself will ever work can possibly save you.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Loyalty to anarchism is equally as "colonial" as loyalty to nation-states / If loyalty to a Liberal-republican or Bolshevik nation-state causes people to kill and dominate, then so does loyalty to a countable anarchist "civilization" or materially-realized anarchist population-society / If loyalty to a Liberal-republican or Bolshevik nation-state causes people to kill and dominate, then it is being part of a population at all which causes it; this implies people actively moving between populations and deserting, betraying, or abandoning them periodically is the only thing which would not cause individuals to contribute to killing or domination, despite the contradiction that some of these things are acts of war and amount to killing or domination, for example in the time of the Trotskyite conspiracy  -><br />
field: existential materialism.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S">blocking Donald Trump from taking office using section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment [https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/5055171-constitution-insurrection-trump-disqualification/] [https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/nov/07/congress-could-try-barring-trump-from-office-under/]

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES" value="618" data-dimension="S2">States can't disqualify a presidential candidate under the Fourteenth Amendment [https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/nov/07/congress-could-try-barring-trump-from-office-under/]  ->  United States case law. this is discouraging, but does make some amount of historical sense, when the Civil War and Reconstruction were a nationwide effort and such.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="S2">It's impossible for you to deserve anything without allies who agree that you deserve it  ->  descriptive claim of [[E:existential materialism|what is possible]]. not a prescriptive claim of ethics, etc.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" value="618" data-dimension="M3">If life isn't fair, why are there constitutional amendments?  ->  to uninformed center-Liberals this would seem like a non sequitur, but it really is a relevant question. if life isn't inherently fair then there is no grounding to have an amendment saying everyone is entitled to something. this is a serious crisis for Liberal-republicanism in cases the majority of the population can't be made to come to an agreement on a particular thing and the amendment process isn't producing anything including amendments.

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="W onto IV, W onto ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Neutrality aids the non-oppressor  ->  people like Deleuze want to talk about "fidelity to an Event". but if I understand that concept at all correctly, those are like, movements and things. and movements are a sticky subject. misinformation or wrong actions can sink a movement. so you* don't necessarily want people even participating in them if they're going to do it wrong. sometimes doing absolutely nothing would make everyone happier. especially if we're talking about dark forest situations where acting as if you have no knowledge of a movement and not getting any reactionaries thinking about or talking about the subject of the movement would make them less likely to think they need to take action on the other side. (* by "you", I mean anarchists and Gramscians, not anyone else.)<br />
I don't like that things are this way but it's kind of the way things are now.<br />
Neutrality aids the oppressor + [[E:hegemony politics (meta-Marxism)|hegemony politics]] = Neutrality aids the non-oppressor.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Thomas Sankara  ->  Burkina Faso. heard him mentioned enough I'm researching if he should have an ideology code.<br />
looks like some {{em|stuff}} has been going on in Burkina Faso over the past few decades. despite some failures the first time they're trying again.<br />
is the Alliance of Sahel States one of the major differences this time? were the countries doing this individually before or together?

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">The right to vote isn't synonymous with the capacity to do otherwise / The right to vote isn't synonymous with having lines of flight from a situation of un-freedom (having Escape routes; schizoanalyst phrasing)

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, MX onto DG, MX onto W" value="618" data-dimension="S2">A million tiny "revolutions" are rendered moot if every progressive ally is dead

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Retailers lessen chunk competition / Within capitalism stacks of commodities, only within public spaces, act to partially mitigate chunk competition occurring inside the national or local population — however, not all kinds of chunk competition are mitigated, only some  ->  I think Bordiga may have gotten this really wrong.<br />
A) on a basic level humans are Animals. B) given sufficient resources Animals will not fight. C) a particular slice of the population which is not the whole population has access to stacks of commodities which are in public spaces. D) on creating capitalism, a particular slice of the population is partially removed from chunk competition, whereas it might have been in chunk competition in other periods: US-Mexico war, frontier wars, Dust Bowl (not really any fighting, but migration), wars to secure South Korea and Vietnam. imperialism is a big elephant here, outright conquering other populations has been one of the easiest ways to stop fighting your own people E) people are not removed from chunk competition in cases where one person must be assigned to one unique object, notably in housing, or there are no more open worker slots and they need to run business territories F) 'profit' can never be a stackable commodity, because it comes from change in business territory borders. available space fills up, and as said, when borders stop changing is when stacks of commodities come to be G) worrying consequence: population growth is not stackable. population added requires profit added, which requires an act of chunk competition, which may require an act of imperialism. H) neutral consequence: when population growth hits replacement plus or minus a bit, the era of profit and the warring states period of businesses should end, and the era of workers should begin. I) strictly speaking, the "workers" are [[E:Careerist layer (meta-Marxism)|Careerists]], not classically-defined proletarians. an important difference separates them here: the end of warring-businesses and the creation of state businesses potentially puts a squeeze on which people can have which slots in society, although not a tight one because there should basically be a slot for everyone, just not necessarily where they are currently. if there's a central party that can supply trains etc and move them that won't be a big deal. J) if you try to create a Trotskyism, the broader it is, the more "inescapable" it is as an entity, and the more people will be locked into a specific nationality and culture. the connection of countable populations to countable cultures is probably inevitable. this is to say, the bigger your Trotskyism is the more likely somebody calls it "Whiteness" in a derogatory tone and tries to tear minority ethnicities out of it into new union- or independent republics. Bolshevism seems to require the division of humanity into relatively small units closer to the size of Germany than the size of Russia. although it should be the population number that matters more than the spatial extent. maybe "spatial area adjusted for population number at specific standard density" would be a good measure?

</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Unequal Exchange: Past, Present and Future (Torkil Lauesen) {{YouTube|uyrGFTf-wVQ}}
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism? (Gabriel Rockhill) {{YouTube|uyrGFTf-wVQ}}
</li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Western Marxism: How it was born, how it died, how it can be reborn (Domenico Losurdo) {{YouTube|uyrGFTf-wVQ}}
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="DX" value="618" data-dimension="Z">Socialism With Chinese Characteristics: A guide for foreigners (Roland Boer) {{YouTube|uyrGFTf-wVQ}}

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Maliciously expelling any significantly large subpopulation from a country either through scattering that population or massacring that population, as opposed to packing that population tightly into the least-desirable corners of a country, is settler-colonialism / Settler-colonialism is, regardless of which causal order of events is intended, the process of exterminating a population and then of this event fueling a national population or State gaining official control over the land area  ->  an attempt to define the concept of settler-colonialism on a Materialist basis without any Idealism. it's key to realize that the alternatives to settler-colonialism which happen when it doesn't happen are also horrifying — manor lords, racially-charged slavery, large homeless camps, there are a bunch of ways people have historically been packed into the corners of a country, various differing degrees of horrifying. there has seemingly been a shift over the past few centuries from populations merely competing to create a government that is a structure that unifies them, and populations actively [[:Category:Chunk competition ontology|expanding into and over each other]] in ways where it is difficult to simply unify them in that way, and these difficult questions come up of whether "Socialism" and trying to integrate everyone into a population is even the right choice or whether people of all ethnicities can only actually have independence and self-determination and the ability to create a dignified life for their population unimpeded if human beings are properly distributed into the right countries and you {{em|don't}} have pools of surplus people that people start fighting with. do we have to start redistributing White people? are non-suffering majority people the new form of populational wealth now? is it becoming pointless to try to tax money numbers, and would it be better to tax people and put whole people somewhere else, telling them, you're not part of this other big international imperial population any more, you can't own a free-floating business, you belong to this country now as a worker. so many of our theories focus on historical periods centuries ago that are nothing like today, and it's confusing what we're even supposed to do now.

</ol><noinclude><!--

minimum length of prototype:   2,548,603 / 2,097,152
main:    4160
intro:   3630
100:   119725
900:   349610
3000:  350644
4000:  126196
5000:  240391
6000:  238634
9000:   20926
12000:  42842
proposed-1: 880717 / 1,035,700
proposed-2: 423191 / 1,035,700
4160 + 3630 + 119725 + 349610 + 350644 + 126196 + 240391 + 238634 + 20926 + 42842 + 880717 + 423191 = 2800666
-->

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