Editing Ontology:Q49,84 (section)

=== In Toryism ===

Within [[E:Toryism|Toryism]], most arguments against Stalin are typically indistinguishable from arguments used in center-Liberalism or [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|blue anarchisms]]. However, there is one important point where the context becomes different. In practice, many Tory types are perfectly content to follow people that other people consider to be dictators. This raises the question: if everything Tories say about "freedom" or "dictators" is not actually conveying meaningful information about their beliefs nor relevant to their own lives, then why do Tories pretend to oppose Stalin on grounds of being a "dictator"?

A partial answer can be found in the occasional incidence of [[E:Duginism|borrowed Identitarian fascisms]]. In rare cases Tories actually {{em|don't}} care what kind of "dictator" leads them, and will ostensibly align themselves with [[E:mainstream Marxism-Leninism|mainstream Marxism-Leninism]] on the grounds that it is "actually" the exact same thing as nationalism. Some common warning signs of this include people characterizing Marxism specifically by its lack of "identity politics" or "culture war issues" as if the concept of {{em|not talking about race and gender}} were the sole and entire content of several Marx or Engels texts, and appealing to tradition as if any particular accepted set of Marxist theorists or especially one particular unnecessarily-specific country were truly unquestionable. It is not always easy to pick out an Identitarian fascist; to some extent there can be a continuum between malicious appropriations of Marxism by nationalists and very archaic Marxist groups from backward countries who are only trying to pull themselves and their countries {{em|out of}} a reactionary period and actually do not mean any harm.

To get the more complete answer, it is important to understand Existentialism and Toryism as a unity of opposites. Existentialism forms out of the fear of Toryism, but at the same time, Toryism borrows many of the underlying models of Existentialism, or initially provides them. Thus, whenever Existentialism does something that Toryism doesn't like, Toryism will in effect take Existentialism and turn its own models it typically uses back on it — Existentialism will build its models of "dictators" based on what a Tory is, while Tories will assume that they can form a coherent model of what a "dictator" is based on what is normal for Tories and what an Existentialist is. In reality, Tories want to casually live their lives and realize Toryism, containing particular forms of structure such as exclusive monotheistic religion, [[E:Proudhonism|isolated Proudhonist households]], and unlimited growth for chunks of societal structure that they exclusively permit to exist ("[[E:business territory|businesses]]"), and whenever Existentialists interfere with that process they feel that there has been a disruption in their actual capacity to do otherwise — a malicious actor has cut off their Free Will, which can only mean the immoral and unnatural creation of a dictator.

In the grand scheme of things, the reason Tories oppose Stalin is deeply similar to the reason that Trotskyists do. Tories want to realize Toryism and reproduce Tory populations, and Trotskyists want to realize and reproduce [[E:Trotskyists must eat and occupy space|Trotskyism]], but Stalin does not let them create their own self-sustaining [[E:countable culture|national population]] which is other to and separate from Stalin's population, nor change all the characteristics of Stalin's population to become their population, so as a result they get angry. No abstract concept of "[[E:democracy (Liberal-republicanism)|democracy]]" is sufficient to fix this problem. When a Demos is determined [[E:postcolonial impulse (meta-Marxism)|not to be part of another Demos]], no Demos will agree to be {{TTS|tts=crassied|Cracy'd}}. Of course, with a [[E:meta-Marxism|different kind]] of theory of civilizations which does not presuppose that "{{TTS|tts=demo crassy|demo cracy}}" is a sensible concept that automatically has the right to control anybody, this would not be as much of a problem. The key is to realize that all collections of people are material objects, and it is not the outer land borders that define populations as much as the inner individual-to-individual bonds. With this model, it could become possible to [[E:existential materialism|construct mathematical projections]] of individuals assembling into [[:Category:Bauplan ontologies|stable societies]] either the same size as or smaller than a national population and understand the historical development and group psychology of those smaller populations, opening the gateway to both social science and empathy. This sort of outcome is much more likely to occur for the case of mainstream Marxist-Leninists meeting on an even level with Trotskyists {{em|as Trotskyists}} than it is for Communists or Existentialists meeting evenly with Tories {{em|as Tories}}. Nonetheless, it is an important thought exercise for all cases, when we consider how frequently Existentialists and Tories keep improperly switching around models of Tories and Existentialists interchangeably and misapplying them all to Communists. A universal model which is actually correct is good; matching any correct material model to any specific thing and not to the wrong things is even better.