View source for Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-SquareOfNonAggressiveActivities

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=agorism|User=RD|E=Q618|NoContents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/Ag|tradition=Ag, ES|Q=618|h4= agorism }} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Edward_Konkin_III#Agorism]  ->  this has "blue anarchism" written all over it.<br/>
the concept of 'the totality of non-aggressive actions and relationships which are forbidden for no good reason' is exactly what every definition of freedom or anarchy and every movement in the United States has turned into, such that although right-Liberals {{em|should}} be distinguishable from anarchists, there's a point where it's really hard to tell apart the ideology you actually hear each of them say except for the notion of "cultural conservative/reactionary" values sometimes butting into the former. I swear most anarchists are secretly Libertarians and a lot of time it's just the same thing at a greater degree of refinement by Libertarians that refused to turn brown and got really into defining "freedom" to the point they were forced to start co-opting anarchism and center-Liberalism.<br/>
I just.... I cannot take Libertarianism seriously in a world where there's a global warming debate. people form into huge cups of people that cascade together like tides and have people-physics and if you don't want to call that government, then fine, I don't worship the concept of government and prefer to think of it as socio-economic history anyway, but I cannot accept with intellectual honesty that people could believe something so self centered it would make everything about teeny tiny local groups of people just all 'being' together in a world where there have been two world wars and heated struggles over climate conferences and where China and the United States silently share one vast republican government in which people in the United States blame China for things the United States did and there was a global pandemic in the 2020s, and causality is worldwide.

{{li|I=S1/Ag|Q=618}}agorism  ->  this.... should have its own philosophy tag. maybe just a minor one treating it as a rather specific body of propositions, like how the Trotskyism tag is split into Trotskyism and "Zinovievism" but in the grand scheme of things one is a subset of the other.<br/>
I think the new tag will be {{TTS|html=code|Ag}}, so it starts with "A" hinting it's related to anarchism, but it's something of its own. {{TTS|html=code|Ag}} will be a subcategory of {{TTS|html=code|ES|E-S}}, acting as one of the possible economic-base models beneath {{TTS|html=code|ES|E-S}} while most of {{TTS|html=code|ES|E-S}} is typically [[User:RD/9k/Q73|morality and psychological statements and stuff]].

</li></ol>

== Economic base ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/Ag/W|tradition=|Q=618}}underground economy (agorism) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics]  ->  oh my god. it's 1920s Gramscianism without any of the Marxism in it<br/>
I find this... conceptually interesting due to the actual respect for the concept of an economic base and the need to replace an economic base before a new government (politics) will be generated. but it seems rather pointless in that it doesn't feel distinguishable from the existing struggle between Liberal-republicans and Tories. the US Congress isn't there {{em|because}} the government is there to oppress people, it's there because the two parties constantly fight over it and also because the system is designed routing itself around that thinking it's normal. but the perpetual fight between the two borderless mono-capitalisms inside Liberal multicapitalism is the real shape of the system. so I fail to see how if a brown or charcoal Gramscianism broke through that it wouldn't just result in constant regime changes over and over until Liberal-republicanism was restored due to capitalism being a system which is incapable of coming to objective decisions that last into the future.

{{li|I=S2/Ag/W|tradition=|Q=618}}The underground economy will enable a society formed out of a freeform Filament of people to prohibit war and formal government under populational law  ->  I feel like this has a rock-paper-scissors weakness to international sanctions. if you zoom out enough you'll see there is already a gigantic underground economy called the aboveground economy and this is almost exactly how it gains the power to set international law and call international courts on a whim

{{li|I=S2/Ag|tradition=|Q=618}}Non-aggressive activities can be a class / Non-aggressive activites are a class  ->  I don't know why it took me so long to see this proposition within blue-anarchist thinking. maybe because it doesn't make any sense!<br/>
Anarchists can be a class + agorism = Non-aggressive activities can be a class.

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}The U.S. Federalist Party and the U.S. Democratic-Republican Party represent different countable sociophilosophies formed on the basis of fundamentally different kinds of capitalism  ->  Marxists really don't like considering this kind of thing, but you have to ask the question, why did the Democratic-Republican Party beat the Federalists so decisively, and why did it result in such a qualitative shift that changed U.S. politics into stagnating over and over in a ridiculously specific way for the next 200 years?<br/>
one possible hypothesis is that if the Federalist Party had won, the United States actually would have developed a monocapitalism very similar to what China has, while when the Democratic-Republican Party won, the United States developed multicapitalism, which behaves in a fundamentally different way from monocapitalism in this particular pattern of society splitting apart into actually-separate societies that try to dominate each other and act like the other society is aggressive just by existing and will be a problem in all cases unless it is forcibly assimilated. monocapitalism, by contrast, tends toward national unity and all its capitalists acting as one population while trying to unify everyone else together to praise them and serve them, in this concept of "we like Kim Il-sung, he saved you, so leave {{em|us}} alone too".<br/>
the Democratic-Republican Party seems to have had this ironic effect of trying to promote agorism to unify everybody 'without The State!' 'without The Big Capitalists!' but in practice just getting a result of making everyone more hateful, divided, and actually-homicidal.<br/>
which makes the prospect of a second agorist transformation deeply concerning. if 'smallening' and "decentralizing" capitalism one time didn't make everybody happy and they really want to go further and make capitalism 'smallerer', but it made everyone so much more hateful and violent the first time, I can only imagine how bad it would get the second time. how much more {{em|completely incomprehensible}} United States politics would get from the vantage point of other countries and other philosophies. how much more completely incapable of empathy people would become despite all having the same politics of being as nice to as many kinds of people as possible (but only the hyper-specific cluster of identities immediately around them), and how much more "petty drama between two people that is specific to one relationship and can't meaningfully be talked out with anyone else despite how much everyone inappropriately makes incomprehensible videos about it" would become the shape of all politics. people don't know it but they're actually rebelling against the concept of relationships. they want to believe there is something other than relationships that corrupts relationships, when really there isn't. the conflation of individuals with social structures (capitalism) is one of the only things that actually can, and they ignore it, because they want all relationships to be perfect when it's impossible. we're all Libertarians and on another level we're all incels.

</li></ol>

== Non-aggressive activities ==
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/HAS|tradition=HAS, LR, Ag|Q=618}}agora (ancient Greece) [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἀγορά] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora] [https://archive.is/vLbtf]

{{li|I=M3/Ag|tradition=|Q=618}}How do you distinguish an aggressive activity from a non-aggressive activity? (agorism)  ->  this isn't a trivial question. to the CPC, suggesting too hard that the central party needs to be broken up {{em|is an aggressive activity}}. to pro-immigrant movements, suggesting that people migrating from one place to another could lead to problems and conflicts is an aggressive activity. to gun control movements, owning an assault rifle is an aggressive activity. to fundamentalist Christians, trying to explain "Happy Holidays" is an aggressive activity. (if you think I'm making a general joke against religion, I'm not; that one really happened to me.) to some people, protesting cops killing Black people is an inherently aggressive activity. those people don't have to be The Government whatsoever to believe non-aggressive activities are aggressive activities. and yet they're all it takes for non-aggressive activities to become prohibited.<br/>
the whole reason States prohibit "non-aggressive activities" is that they believe them to be aggressive activities although other people don't.<br/>
if you ask me? the concept of "non-aggressive activities prohibited by The State for no good reason" is nonsensical. there isn't actually any such thing. people belong to Social-Philosophical Systems that exist below the level of government, and those things prohibit arbitrary activities in other SPSs they subjectively believe to be aggressive to them, and then the sideways conflict between SPSs to legislate things onto each other generates The State as the most powerful groups of people in the sea of people who all really want to get their activities approved as non-aggressive activities win. given that activities inherently conflict with each other and use up space, and everybody has different definitions of "aggressive", there isn't really any fair way to get everyone clustered together around the totality of all non-aggressive activities.

{{li|I=S2/Ag|tradition=|Q=618}}Markets are not loci of cash exchange, but loci of voluntary interactions [https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/on-anagorism/]  ->  yep there we go, a crystallization of that classic "bizarre model of society as everything being made of social links" I kept noticing in almost everything that wasn't Communism. this ironically leads to capitalism proper as employee relationships and blood relationships become more important than relationships between corporations and all of existence becomes about complaining about bad relationships and acting like everybody "should have" been the perfect friend or family member like people aren't individuals and you magically have control over their minds.

</li></ol>

== Everyone is a Libertarian ==
<!--
<ol class="hue clean">
</li></ol> -->

=== "Anagorism" becomes agorism ===
<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/YR|Q=618}}Citizens of the Global North live in abundance, so markets are not needed for allocation [https://www.reddit.com/r/anagorism/comments/1073qaz/especially_in_the_global_north_we_live_in/]  ->  so here's the problem. markets are not resource allocation machines, and they never were. markets are either "theft prohibition machines" or "interaction earning machines" or "relationship earning machines". if you try to say that any of these things are unnecessary just because there's a lot of stuff, nobody is going to believe you. everybody is going to want to know how you solve these three specific problems. and the longer they don't get an answer, the more stupid things are going to happen like Donald Trump cutting the SNAP program just because he thinks that by not putting households to work and creating a theft prevention machine a SNAP card is a theft encouragement machine that makes people act entitled to relationships, making them rude, disrespectful, inconsiderate, exploitative, wilful, shortsighted, unempathetic, and antisocial, while if they were faced with the threat of being cut off from all of society and having no food for not doing exactly and precisely what every single person they interact with wants they would be nicer. that's the crux of it.<br/>
if you're not going to listen to Lenin when he says in a positive tone that telling workers that building industries will encourage industrial discipline and encourage people to get along and that's why the state should grant the farmers tractors, then you have to deal with Donald Trump saying similar things in a vastly more negative tone and claiming that keeping basic needs from people is inherently good because it makes people nicer and makes relationships better, and until everyone gets along and nobody commits crimes everyone needs to live under the threat of homicidal cops that kill people dead for 1-year crimes and there need to be as few social programs as possible. Trump is quite literally harsher on people than Stalin. but anarchists {{em|either}} attacking stores, shirking work, or trying to get utter non-participation in society protected by the state while lying about the fact they're doing that is currently quite common. so you generally won't get market systems {{em|or}} cops to stop until you stop that. but all those anarchists hate discipline and have destroyed whole national governments over the threat of it. and then really nasty Tory or Duginist factions come into power and start trying to kill them just because they 'don't respect other people's wishes as their own' and 'abuse society's goodwill'. really, what the hell are you going to do about the fact anarchists love doing things everyone finds terribly horribly annoying to where people are like 'oh god anarchists no food or shelter for them' and yet they don't want to stop? I think we've got a relationship problem more than a resource problem.

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|Q=618}}Markets are interaction-earning machines / Markets were never actually resource allocation machines — they have always been either "theft prohibition machines" or "interaction earning machines" or "relationship earning machines" in which people present a form of interaction and then a lot of stipulations for the interaction to fully go through, only a small part of which are monetary, and a great fraction of which involve mandatory cultural behavior, mandatory obedience, or legal force; this process of interacting and forming a relationship being defined as small rewards in exchange for great amounts of control is the precise sense in which employment is a "market"

{{li|I=S2/MX/Aa|Q=12,9,43|Q2=12943}}Psychoanalysis is blue / ... Lacanian psychoanalysis is used to claim that Toryism exists because Tories are psychologically stunted individuals and if they are only forced to develop into Real Humans by ignoring them long enough then the form of government every Real Human naturally desires to come together and create, Liberal-republicanism, will be fine  ->  hang on. is Lacanianism the shovel dream of {{em|agorism specifically}}

</li></ol>

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

{{li|start=y|I=S2/Ag/MX|Q=618}}Agorists are basically incels / Agorists believe that they are entitled to any two people who perform non-aggressive activities forming a relationship (connection), but in reality, it is never guaranteed that two people will be compatible with each other just because they are both non-aggressive toward a third person, and making that assumption can easily lead two seemingly non-aggressive people toward forming a toxic relationship and committing acts of aggression against each other; agorists silently assume that the definition of "voluntary" has inherent involuntary aspects that force people's hands while in the real world individual will partly contains [[E:Nim Chimpsky biting the trainer|the capacity for aggression]], and something being "voluntary" goes all the way down to the bedrock

{{li|I=S2/Ag/MX|Q=618}}Agorists are basically incels  ->  the yellow snake flag is much more literal than you think it is. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag]<br/>
I was reading [[Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q618-HowForestsThinkKohn|this book]] which was more charcoal and talking about the people of Ávila, and I only got like 15 pages into it plus 40 or however-many pages of footnotes (the more interesting stuff was in there), but it was slowly trying to put together this argument about how language and physics weren't different (debatable; not the worst part) and then how the key to understanding freedom was to understand how jaguars identify other animals as not dead and not ready to eat. the more I thought about this, the more I started to think, this is just the same thing as the snake flag, it's saying that the capacity of animals in nature to bite or kick and thwart predators {{em|aggressively}} that makes predators walk away is what freedom is and what empathy is. like, if Kohn really thinks {{em|that}} describes how indigenous movements are to break free from European/American empires then he's a Libertarian. are Zapatistas Libertarians too? god I don't know what things are any more.

{{li|I=S2/DX/Ag/MX|tradition=MX onto Ag, MX onto Ag onto DX|Q=618}}China is evidence that agorism will never happen (2026)  ->  agorism says that a new society can be built out of all non-aggressive activities that are prohibited for no good reason. but if that was true, then China would have been able to form a society out of all non-aggressive activities the United States doesn't want it to do. has that happened? no. and does anarchism care whether populations are divided into or united into "nation-states" before it starts talking about them? no. anarchisms don't care about those at all. so any anarchist theory which doesn't explicitly specify it consists of small disconnected villages or such should be applied onto the entire world at once.<br/>
Bolshevism: non-aggressive activity prohibited for no good reason. continuously attacked by United States empire such that only the most expert and elite people with the power to oppress everyone had to form a ring around Chinese society to protect the rest of the people, before anyone could ever dream of fulfilling the goals of socialist transition "anarchically". Chinese bootleg products: non-aggressive activity not prohibited in China prohibited for no good reason. businesses that own the patents they manufacture for other countries: non-aggressive activity prohibited for no good reason. constantly attacked by United States empire as 'robbing' United States empire although the deals are optional. poverty reduction programs: non-aggressive activity not prohibited in China. United States empire hates it and tries to do everything to avoid it happening in United States empire. export-heavy economy: non-aggressive activity which not only has no good reason to be prohibited but was forced onto China by United States empire, not chosen. United States empire tries to punish China for doing what it was forced to do by United States empire. like, at a certain point the correct course of action is to when the United States orders you to do something, loudly complain that it's illegal according to what the United States will inevitably want and you are going to take the matter to a United States court to sue the United States for doing things that should be illegal in the United States. confiscate the United States' taxes for this. make the United States remove money from the International Monetary Fund (I think that's who it was?) and put it into factories in China so they won't create poisoned food and medicine through attempting to make it with cheaper ingredients.<br/>
honestly, out of every 'stupid idea for getting money out of the US military', this one feels more {{em|likely}} than 'putting it into healthcare'. nobody in the US takes social programs seriously but everyone takes lawsuits seriously for some ungodly reason. maybe countries suing the United States for IMF conferences is the next big thing.<br/>
If Fisherism is true, China can overtake Breadtube + agorism = this.

{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}Can it ever be safe to build a nuclear power plant in a world where anarchists exist?  ->  this may look like a non-sequitur at first. but I have seen a bunch of videos and things pop up asking why the United States doesn't build more nuclear power plants in order to get away from oil. at the same time, I have seen a big explosion of anarchism since maybe about 1960 or 1991 but definitely visible since 2020, just a whole bunch of 'no more cops' 'return to permaculture' 'identities inherently like each other' 'United States culture and nationality is all made up' 'democracy is real without any laws or government though' 'every time you doubt a thing is possible you just told a lie' 'morality is more real than facts, science, governments, or religion' 'being afraid to do anything is wonderful and correct but also horrendous and you should be ashamed of yourself, so be yourself, destroy yourself, fight us, and obey us all at the same time, we {{em|will}} kick you in the head eventually, there isn't even any "or else"'. (there's at least two varieties of anarchism in there but you get the point.)<br/>
one of the most consistent principles in anarchism is that if you do anything anarchists believe to built on false premises, they suddenly appear and burn buildings down. but anarchists have no consistent locus of leadership. so, you can see why if anybody builds a nuclear power plant, it's only a matter of time before a group of anarchists suddenly shows up to dismantle it, and there isn't any anarchist central government you can go to and ask to rein in the anarchists, so they're simply going to do whatever are the worst possible things anarchists could do. anarchists aren't ruthless killers or anything, so "the worst possible thing" only goes so far, but they {{em|are}} about as unregulated as possible; I half feel like the real reason anarchism is so full of Idealism isn't because they think Idealism is easily realized as much as that making people pre-emptively censor all their thoughts into only the very best ones is the only way you can regulate a fundamentally unregulated society.<br/>
what would happen if there were 50 anarchists who wanted to build a park with farming capabilities and 50 anarchists who wanted to build a nuclear power plant because they like new digital art mediums like utopian audiovisual stories or video games? would the technological anarchists ultimately just have to cave to the environmental anarchists if they were stubborn enough to not give in?<br/>
really, this is already an issue {{em|right now}} even for Liberal-republicans because the anarchists already exist and they already attack buildings right now, so if you don't explicitly think about that you have a nuclear disaster on your hands.

</li></ol>

== Related ==
<!--
<ol class="hue clean">
</li></ol>-->

== Ideologies or fields ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">
{{li|start=y
    |I=S1/YR|Q=618}}{{TTS|YR|Yarrow|title=Yaroshenkoism — YaRho, ЯР}} / Idealist economics
</li></ol>

<!--
== Subpages ==

== Full title for bookmarks (optional) ==
<pre>[9k] asdfsdf - Q618 ; asdfsdf</pre>
-->

[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]  <!-- page ends here.  TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming
redirects or titles:   [[Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-SquareOfNonAggressiveActivities]]
duplication hint:   copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN|SquareOfNonAggressiveActivities]] -->