Editing Ontology:Q12,1,12 (section)

== Prototype notes ==

<ol start="10249" class="hue clean">
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="12112" data-dimension="S2">Only Kim Il-Sung can prevent monkey abuse / Protectionism prevents cursed exports such as animal abuse for money  ->  a bit of a troll proposition, but it does make you ask what's wrong with it. if a country creates Juche-socialism and closes itself up, at whatever peril comes with that, it <em>will</em> almost certainly prevent US people showing up with a bizarre amount of money to pay the country for the world's weirdest export. everyone will be busy stumbling to create industries inside the country. so there are downsides but there are also clear upsides.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="12113" data-dimension="S2">If Indonesia transitioned to Deng Xiaoping Thought, there would be no monkey abuse  ->  I keep thinking about how one of the single most successful policies of workers' states has simply been refusing connections from the outside until they're ready. is this to say it's possible to go directly to Deng Xiaoping Thought before trying to create Bolshevism, and it isn't a form unique to a country sliding backward? have we been interpreting history wrong? and if so, what exactly is the logic for Deng Xiaoping Thought actually being a necessary step — what is achieved by gaining solid control over the internal borders of a country if the Archons of the population still drive it? what's the huge reward everybody gets from those Archons being free from the outside world? I feel like answering that could yield a significant breakthrough in understanding Liberalism as well as Third-World countries. this is clearly a hugely important step for some reason, so important that the United States is desperately trying to do it erratically across the inside of the United States.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Bolshevism always defended countable Cultures rather than a class / Deng Xiaoping Thought is not a deviation from Bolshevism because Bolshevism only defended the Soviet or Chinese proletariat specifically  ->  this claim doesn't support ideologies like Trotskyism or global anarchisms by itself. it just as easily supports the claim that Bolshevism is broadly correct but most of the time it can only be realized as Deng Xiaoping Thought, and only sometimes realizes into a proletarian civilization. it would also support the concept of multiple Deng Xiaoping Thoughts in one country.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Tribal populations are a model for Deng Xiaoping Thought / There is such a thing as primitive Deng Xiaoping Thought  ->  this sounds like a total troll proposition purely put here as a joke, but I swear it's a proper jamming proposition. this is the claim that the thing tribal populations model is solid borders between physical populations where the people in the population interact mostly with each other and only sometimes with the outside and this encourages the population to develop or to take care of itself. it is then proposed that Deng Xiaoping Thought is a way to restore "primitive Deng Xiaoping Thought". if this proposition is accurate, it would provide evidence that there is a missing step in mainstream Marxism-Leninism. a country can achieve Whatever This Is before it creates Bolshevism, or it can create Bolshevism before Whatever This Is while risking that outside countries totally tear it apart. it also may be possible for a country to create Whatever This Is inside a country using multiple subpopulations, and in the process get rid of one of the major problems plaguing the United States that people become stuck on elections but every election becomes about badly arguing over whether subpopulations should destroy each other.
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S">multiple economies in one population / multiple socialisms in one population (party-nations allowed but no Bolshevism) / multiple Deng Xiaoping Thoughts in one population or country  ->  it is so hard to come up with a proper, genuinely non-awkward word for this. this is the motif of subpopulations forming into coherent populations with tightly-connected economies that serve as an "endoskeletal" soft border in order to promote their prosperity and continued survival against other subpopulations, and of China ultimately being not an independent population but a subpopulation of the world population. the "missing step before Bolshevism" is this. multi... multisocialism? the thing is that would be misleading about what this actually achieves, which is mainly a populational border inside a populational border or extent. multieconomy? multisocioeconomy? that's reasonably close but it still sounds weird.
</li></ol>