Editing Philosophical Research:MDem/5.2r/0999 findings

<pre>
## Potential findings of violet Marxism / meta-Marxism

* With very few exceptions, nearly everything that Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin say about classes and class struggle is fine as it is. (As long as you make sure to take the final things that Lenin said on each issue and not the first things he said. Trotskyists haven't learned this lesson.)

* Many of the findings of violet Marxism are going to be the same things Marx, Lenin, or Stalin found but arrived at from a different angle. This is by no means a bad thing, because it means the different methods of violet Marxism and other Marxisms can be used to check each other.

* There is one major problem with class analysis: up to now everyone has treated classes in an atomic way where "the bourgeoisie" and "the proletariat" are just a collection of disconnected similar things without any particular structure. This is like referring to a tree as a cloud of carbon atoms and a cloud of water, or referring to DNA as a bunch of A bases and a bunch of G bases in no particular order. In the real world, the functional purpose of classes is to form larger structures that stack up to form nation-states or subpopulations, and the effectiveness of this internal structure leads to a stable or unstable workers' state. Whether people are ready to form a stable workers' state afterward correlates with whether they carry out an effective revolution.

  * There is a small but material difference between "the proletariat" in a worker's state which is trying to fully abolish capitalists (I use the terms "transitioning to Bolshevism" or "Material System of Bolshevism") and "the proletariat" in Liberal-republicanism. The dynamic of having all people belong to the same thing instead of to any of a number of small things that are scarce and that individuals are effectively always fighting each other for in an arms race is different. Liberal-republicanism naturally has various numbers of _plural proletariats_ while Bolshevism naturally has a _singular proletariat_. Deng Xiaoping Thought _may_ have plural proletariats due to the existence of free-floating corporations but the overall body of workers is far less split apart than in Liberal-republicanism.

  * The longer Liberal-republicanism goes on, the more it will become that a country actually has two countable bourgeoisies. The physical separations between corporations perpetuated by law and the physical separations between political parties perpetuated by convention start to merge (or stop re-separating) so that there is one loosely continuous sea of corporations that all mostly generate one political party and another sea of corporations that all mostly generate the other political party. These are effectively separate countries with their own internal bourgeoisie and attached proletariat that are pretending to be one country.

  * Although classes can exist in _plural subpopulations_ as two bourgeoisies or ten proletariats, classes still have class-associated philosophies. These class-associated philosophies help bind the people within any particular class subpopulation together into that particular subpopulation. The combination of a particular class-associated philosophy or at least a philosophy with some politically-charged element to it ("Philosophical System") strongly saturated throughout a particular free-floating separate socially-linked population ("Social-Graph System") is called a "Social-Philosophical System" or _sociophilosophy_. At different times, it may seem like the existence of a Social-Graph System leads to it getting saturated with a Philosophical System, or like people joining together around a Philosophical System first forms the Social-Graph System. Either way, a social graph and political philosophy are neatly joined into a single countable object almost like spacetime.

  * The Philosophical System inside a social group can contain a full material model of a society, whether people are fully aware of that or not. When two countably separate Social-Graph Systems exist in the same area, and the Philosophical Systems inside them are different, the two groups of people will compete over the area in order to be the one to build their particular kind of society with a particular structure ("Material System" or "Social-Philosophical-Material System"). This is the significance of sociophilosophies existing. A "red" Social-Philosophical System could consist primarily of workers and peasants and be vying to realize the Material System of Bolshevism, or a "sky blue" Social-Philosophical System could consist of various capitalists and attempt to realize the Material System of Liberal-republican capitalism. In addition to this, there are other kinds of Social-Philosophical-Material Systems possible, including a "brown" Social-Philosophical System filled with nazi-leaning Tories (largely similar to a blue one yet incompatible with it), or a "strawberry-red" Social-Philosophical System consisting of the central party of China or Vietnam and all the people who support it, while the country also contains other Social-Philosophical Systems of other factional "colors".

  * Philosophies, ontologies, ideologies, theories of society, and economic models are indistinguishable categories in practice. The only true difference between the four categories is that some of them may be more correct about the development of societies and some of them may be more incorrect. There is a more substantial difference between _different kinds_ of sociophilosophies associated with different classes than there is between "ideology", "philosophy", and "ontology" inside them. Hence, in all violet-Marxist writings, all of these things are referred to as "ideologies" or "sociophilosophies" and all these terms are used somewhat interchangeably. An "ideology" is a philosophy with politically-charged content; mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Maoism are considered ideologies inasmuch as they are countable sociophilosophies practiced by a particular party and contain particular material models of how to put together a movement or of the development of a society. Two Marxist parties or bodies of Marxist theory which contain different material models and would theoretically create different-looking workers' states or movements may be referred to as "named Marxisms".

  * The purpose of violet Marxism (meta-Marxism) is to attempt to get different named Marxisms to model _each other's_ workers' states correctly even though their own physical content and models of themselves are different from each other, so that two different named Marxisms don't start mistaking actual country characteristics for revisionism or fall into competition when they can no longer correctly model and predict each other. This requires a somewhat more complicated version of Marxism that is able to cover things like the daily operation of different kinds of workers' states during a long transition, and why various groups of people will be part of a national population or will become their own independent population.

* Trotskyism is, in short, a philosophy for cowards. People become Trotskyists because they are afraid of what will happen to them if they are loyal to a particular workers' state, and they want to believe that if they formed a workers' state out of only people like them then whatever they are afraid of wouldn't happen. But if you were to point out to them that the day they successfully form a Trotskyist workers' state where they're safe there would still be a mainstream Marxist-Leninist workers' state and they would have created socialism in one country, they wouldn't be brave enough to turn around and realize that the theory they claim to be practicing is not an accurate model of what they're actually practicing. If they'd simply come to the realization they created a theory about splitting large countries into smaller countries rather than a theory about uniting people across the world, there is some vanishingly small chance they could finally create a workers' state and see how hard it actually is. This return to Materialism would bring a lot of controversy and division, probably de-stabilizing parties that already have trouble with stability, and I'm sure that's why they're afraid to do it. At times it seems like they believe that unity of a movement happens just for the sake of unity of a movement and division happens because individual people didn't choose to be abstractly connected by friendship and loyalty to 'The Revolution'. They seem to leave the entire concept of the proletariat behind as far as why people are united or whether parties serve people.

  * One of the most telling events in the entire timeline of Trotskyism is Trotsky writing _The Revolution Betrayed_. The entire thing reads as just a bunch of complaints that the Soviet Union wasn't developing fast enough at a pace that was totally impossible and vaguely implies that Trotsky believed the era of socialism doesn't actually exist and you're supposed to transition directly to upper-phase communism. Combined with other events, it suggests that Trotsky did not actually like living in the Soviet Union at all and would rather have lived in the United States or Europe, so he abandoned the Soviet Union in hopes he would be able to go to a "respectable" country that would actually build the "better" version of Leninism. There are two ways to take this: A) Trotskyism is about building a second kind of Leninism, which necessarily cannot cover the whole world at the moment it first appears B) Trotsky was afraid to take the material world as it was and accept that his best shot is to support the Soviet Union or at least not turn against it. A is rather hypothetical but either way I know B is true.

  * Trotskyism ("orange" Marxism) strongly appears to have a different desired internal structure from mainstream Marxism-Leninism ("crimson" Marxism). Despite sifting through entirely too much Trotskyism I still do not know what that internal structure actually is. Two of the only concrete things I've been able to find are that Trotskyists don't like the era of socialism taking very many decades and they seem to dislike control in the Soviet Union passing from local soviets to government ministries; it's common to see a ton of claims that the Soviet Union "lost democracy" just because Stalin's government filled it with ministries. If I remember correctly there was an incident where it was clear local people had actually voted to create the ministries but Trotsky still didn't like it because in effect he didn't like what the local people actually chose. Trotskyism is very opinionated about exactly how the people inside a country _must_ arrange themselves, and yet it will never quite explain what that is.

  * Trotskyists blame external problems imposed onto workers' states on the workers' state's internal structure. A great number of complaints they had about the Soviet Union or that they have about China up to today are actually because the country is under siege from external countries. Like clockwork, Trotskyists will show up and blame North Korea for problems that were caused by embargoes, then blame Cuba and China for problems that were caused by being ready for embargoes. Trotskyists love to blame and basically punish Third-World countries, and yet they never come to comprehend the material possibility of Third World countries having to respond to punishment although from their own actions they should know what that is. For some reason they are afraid of staying in a country and weathering external punishment as opposed to ducking out of it and adding some of their own.

  * Early Trotskyism (c.1906-1940) appears to have been composed of a tiny number of Leninists and a lot of anarchists. There appear to be one or two categories of anarchism — "orange anarchism" and "brown anarchism" — which are primarily concerned with deciding a country has created an unsatisfactory "experience" or "culture" and people sawing themselves out of that countable culture entirely either as individuals or small groups. These days, you periodically see people who are not aligned with Communists saying a lot of things against capitalism that they should have no real incentive to say. For instance, a 2015 article I saw titled "Copyright is Communism". A Marxist would laugh at this and say "wow, so when there's copyright countries are defended from external attack and everyone is employed?" But that's obviously not what it means. This kind of anarchist likes to make claims that some mysterious "They" decided to create capitalist modernity and make culture bad, and in this case decided to invent the concept of capitalists regulating other capitalists through a State, which is forbidden in their minds because they believe that societies are composed of individuals free-associating into social linkages while any class of people trying to create a State to control this free-association is simply the malicious and dominating removal of freedom. (See "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" about three sections below for more about that.) Into the later Soviet Union this concept came around to bite everybody as individual people started thinking about leaving and sometimes tried their best to associate with the people who could get them rare foreign goods the fastest (mediated by a kind of tribute called "blat") and leave everybody who didn't help them to get ahead behind. Today, the Lacanian philosopher Slavoj Žižek seems to be more of a Trotskyite than a Marxist as he makes "Communism" all about simply rejecting the "trash culture" "They" decided to leave everyone with — not really seeming to care whether "They" are Stalin's government or the bourgeoisie, he just wants to make sure all of "Them" who can be distinguished by Their bad decisions are defeated.

* There are two major categories of Western Marxism: "Gramscianism" and "Fisherism".

  * Fisherism (Mark Fisher's "Marxism") is an almost wholly Idealist form of analysis which seems to believe that media products are capable of programming people with particular beliefs and actions while their individual responses to media are not as important. There is a decent but not rock-solid argument that it isn't even a form of Marxism and is actually an anarchism. When people are Fisherists, they are obsessed with the external dominating influence of surrounding culture making people's lives worse — a description that can also apply equally well to some kinds of anarchists. If you read enough Fisherism, it starts to blend into "orange anarchism" and Žižek.

  * Gramscianism is a Materialist form of analysis roughly equivalent to what Antonio Gramsci actually practiced in 1920s Italy. In Gramscianism, the basic idea is to chart out all the possible slots people can occupy in society either in careers or in politics, and get as many Communist allies or proletarian allies into all of those physical slots as possible. (I call this "hegemony politics" or, if it's a moment where I want to be funny, a "musical chairs attack".) The basic premises of Gramscianism are not actually all that bad. In principle, if a country had Gramscian allies everywhere and they all stayed consistently connected without ever breaking up, only adding more proletarian allies to the network every day, it might have some chance of forming a social-democratic movement and a workers' state.

  * East Germany may have been a successful instance of Gramscianism. I am not sure on this. The argument for that rests on similarities between the history of Germany and the United States, where the United States has been getting increasingly divided in two, it's had a lot of good or bad usages of Gramsci going around, and when Germany was finally free it got literally divided in two (overseeing Soviet army notwithstanding, because it did leave). United States movements in general tend to be heavily dominated by skilled experts of some kind that attempt to take up all the leadership positions in their own movements and in government overall, like Gramscian recommendations for hegemony politics. The problem with this is that the experts or bourgeoisie always form something of a thin crust around the movement which could be said to be "progressive" while nobody else has any idea about anything, almost a little like the Trotskyite conspiracy in that sense; whenever the United States tries to fill up all of society with progressives it just kind of gets a really thin "Berlin wall" of bourgeoisie vaguely trying to plug up society in the middle and keep "fascism" from rushing through them.

* Gramscianism "per se" and Deng Xiaoping Thought are basically the same thing on a very small scale and a very large scale respectively. Both of them involve something I've dubbed a "herd-of-cats effect" where collections of workers that should not have anything in common with the bourgeoisie all line up behind the bourgeoisie and make them secure a populational border around the overall collection of people they hope will protect them from the outside. It isn't always clear why this is happening to a country instead of something else happening. One of the simplest explanations might be that the overall population just has nobody with a good theory of how to actually transition to Bolshevism.



* The broadest and perhaps most popular philosophical tradition in the United States currently has no name. I have tentatively named it the "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" (or "capital-E Existentialism") based on a pile of recurring keywords and connected themes I kept finding in what I now call Existentialist texts that all seemed to point to a shared underlying model of society. This tradition is the philosophy generated out of _capitalism itself_ as it exists below and apart from Liberal-republicanism but while it is not speaking about capital and "economics" and pretends to be talking about topics such as the humanities and social sciences.

  * The following philosophies are contained in or overlap with the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition: existentialism (Sartre etc), phenomenology (Husserl, but not so much Kant), parts of structuralist linguistics, post-structuralist philosophies, postmodern philosophies, narrative therapy, critical theory, Foucaldianism, post-Marxism (Laclau etc), queer theory or gender theories, Judith Butler, psychoanalysis, schizoanalysis, Fisherism as distinct from Marxism (debatably), Kantian ethics (only a prior inspiration and not part of the tradition itself), Niklas Luhmann social systems theory, cybernetics, positivism (referring to all knowledge about reality or society being trapped in lived experiences), "lifeworlds" (Husserl), Henri Bergson. This is absolutely not a complete list. The complete list with every sub-division would probably be absurdly long.

  * The Existentialist-Structuralist tradition is basically a subcategory of anarchism; I call this category "blue anarchisms" due to their loose affiliation with capitalism and Liberal-republicanism while not being exactly the same thing.

  * Blue anarchisms broadly believe that human existence is simply unrelated to the existence of economic processes and nation-states, and if these existing systems need to be removed at all, there is no element of urgency or necessity in dislodging existing systems because the human individual always has "the choice" to withdraw and disassociate from anything happening and everyone can supposedly use this ability to dismantle every bad thing that has ever happened. It is a common assertion in the United States that everything reactionaries are doing will just stop happening if everyone simultaneously does enough to ignore them and deny that what they are doing is real. More broadly, Existentialism or blue anarchism seems to frequently characterize all social phenomena like some sort of tinker-toy set with the wooden circles and dowels where the circles are people and the dowels are organizations, groups, products, or ideas, and every form of structure in society will supposedly fix itself if enough of the circles disconnect from their dowels and choose some other dowel that is presumed (usually falsely) to suit them better individually. This all appears to stem from the physical phenomenon of capitalism tearing apart societies and turning almost every interaction or connection between people into a purchase, from ideas being sold in media products to news stations selling division into emerging nationalities to help people feel like they're part of a country to academics having to sell books of ridiculously-specific philosophies that people choose from to 1930s Trotskyites getting to "choose" to depopulate their country and try to move to the First World. This is why I half think that Fisherism isn't even Marxism and might simply be a form of Existentialism — it's trying to operate on the connection between consumers and products, which is part of Existentialism's general domain.

  * "Existentialism" refers to the motif of texts being obsessed with studying human individuals as "the subject" and trying to characterize time or surrounding reality as being primarily affected by their own individual choices. "Structuralism" refers to the motif of abusing language (which outside the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition takes the form of _structuralist linguistics_) as a way of studying reality, often to argue that history and reality are totally arbitrary just because all ontological models can be expressed as linguistic statements and humans can redefine words.

*



* most people alive are anarchists whether they know it or not


* Liberal-republicanism should be taken more literally than a lot of Marxists tend to teach it. In particular, the Liberal-republican value variously called "(power) competition", "non-totalization", or "countervailing power" is something people really, genuinely believe and perpetuate for the reasons stated on the tin. Liberal-republicanism doesn't divide people simply to keep workers from breaking out of it. The bourgeoisie genuinely divide themselves into two or more plural bourgeoisies because they are afraid of a society being unified and believe that social unity itself is dangerous and oppressive.

  * Almost everything Liberal-republicans say about "democracy" or "our democracy" or "radical democracy" is bogus, and almost entirely safe to ignore. This sounds harsh, but genuinely, I have never read a Liberal-republican or Existentialist work that ever _made sense_ and didn't leave me questioning the meaning of every word and phrase in the English language and where exactly all of these phrases had ever been defined. The closer Existentialism leans to traditional Liberal-republican sources the more it becomes indecipherable whether you've read the original sources or not.

  * Existentialist-Structuralist works are, funny enough, a more accurate description of the daily operation of Liberal-republican societies than any work about "democracy". Especially when they falsely claim to be describing "social change" or "movements"; every Existentialist work supposedly about a movement is just describing the daily operation of Liberal-republicanism without any change. This shouldn't really be surprising when these works are ultimately based on capitalism itself and Liberal-republicanism is ultimately based on capitalism.

  * The only thing Liberal-republicans say that is vaguely correct is that "fascism" (Toryism) is a different problem from capitalism. This is technically true in that Toryism is half of the process of dividing a Liberal republic into two separate incompatible bourgeoisies attempting to form separate nationalities. Capitalism only takes place inside these two separating nationalities but the gap between them is more of a question of national self-determination and how various subunits of countries should be joined, separated, or arranged within other subunits. Never listen to anyone who tries to silence Communism by pairing the word "democracy" with "our", because that person is unaware of the real problem of "democracies" fully separating into plural democracies and becoming impossible to hold together ever again.

* Most "conservatism" in the United States, Britain, and Australia is more or less continuous with the original effort in 1600s Britain to prevent democratic republics from ever being created in the first place — Toryism. The purpose of the original Toryism was to prevent Protestants and Catholics from having to actually fight each other over the ability to make policies affecting the other group. The purpose of "conservative" parties by now has slowly become almost exactly the same as this. Despite the prominence of religion in the original event, religion was never the actual issue, and the actual issue the entire time has been society splitting from one majority ethnic group into two majority ethnic groups that do not want to live in a world where the other ethnic group takes up all the highest ranks in society and ends up running the whole society as the sole possession of that ethnic group regardless of every single rule and constitutional article that says they aren't supposed to do that. To a small extent this is a reasonable worry, because that basically is how majority ethnic groups behave in Liberal-republicanism and historical monarchies. The problem with this thinking is that the ideal way to fix the problem is simply perpetuating the process further and filling up all the highest ranks in society with your own ethnic group.

  * In the same way that Catholic and Protestant or Irish Catholic and British Protestant were primarily ethnic groups, "Republican" and "Democrat" have been slowly turning first into nationalities and then into ethnic groups. Everyday people are terrible at understanding the concept of politics or political policies or even the actual reasons that one religion would theoretically be more likely to be true than others. However, the two things ordinary people actually understand are that people who are immediately socially-linked to them by shared activities and culture are not their enemies, and that they need to do everything to protect people who are currently their friends from people who are not their friends. The Liberal-republican Ideal of countervailing power interacts horrifically with this actual on-the-ground folk understanding of politics to produce a world where it is mandatory for part of the population to have people it outright hates and is bigoted against just so it can "know" those people aren't abusing it and that it has the right to throw anyone it believes is abusing it into the sea of incomprehensible, un-patriotic, destroyable people it hates.

  * In some ways the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy is very similar to United States Toryism. The inner ideologies of each faction are clearly not what is the same, but as for the outer shapes, you have one faction that believes in unifying society and through obligation between people creating republican democracy, and you have one faction that believes that if you entirely unify society that must be oppressive and people can only be free by dividing a bunch of people out of society that then try to rule the other group of people. The US Republican party has its roots in the Confederate States of America once being a separate country and the resentment that the Union should have the right to conquer that separate country and exert government over it. The Trotskyite conspiracy, in theory, is the ideology of a small group of theorists who want to form a Leninist party but do not want to be part of the existing Communist Party of the Soviet Union and thus conceptually want to form a second central party-nation that somehow realizes into a second nation-state containing no "Stalinists". This is why conservatism and Trotskyism are inherently tied to national self-determination problems.

  * Beneath all this, of course, is the elephant in the room that it often takes a specific layer of people to carry out the task of separating countries, or at least there is only a particular layer of people that gets to make the final decisions on it. When Trotskyists successfully produce Leninist theorists, these people belong to a particular class, and when Confederate supporters send representatives to try to dismantle Liberal-republicanism as-such, these people belong to a particular class. Representative democracies as we know them thrive on a class division in which the people who actually form political parties and represent people always belong to their own class versus the people they represent. This enables the representative layer selected from particular graphs of people with particular borders and extents to make use of its expertise but also its privilege to try to argue that it shouldn't have to be part of any larger political entity and it should get to form its own republic.

  * Trotskyism is one of the most ironic ideologies ever because Trotskyists keep asserting that the problem with the Soviet Union was that its layer of elite, experienced Stalin-followers or layer of bureaucrats improperly formed a border around it with their presence and prevented it from transitioning to an era of world socialism where Stalin would not have so much control just because the whole Eurasian continent would be a political entity or something, but in practice, whenever Trotskyists produce Leninist theorists they do the same thing. They break apart from other groups of Leninists and effectively function more like an attempt at socialism-in-one-country except orange rather than red.

    * One of the only pieces of evidence that _maybe_ supports what Trotskyists say is that if a country is allowed to transition to a Deng Xiaoping state like China, Cuba, Vietnam, or North Korea, the country as a whole becomes physically defined by how well the population can out-chunk-compete other populations for its borders and separate existence through its enclosed bourgeoisie.

* There is an ongoing question to be asked of exactly how many intermediate classes there actually are between the owner of 5 retail stores and a factory worker. This does not seem to be a simple question. The existence of a layer of people who specifically function as central party theorists in China but are not necessarily reverting the country from an enclosed bourgeoisie to Liberal-republicanism calls into question whether there is actually just a single thing called "the petty bourgeoisie" with a single factional color. It would seem like at a minimum it is possible for there to be _plural_ bodies of petty bourgeoisie which are part of separate sociophilosophies — the strawberry petty bourgeoisie, the orange petty bourgeoisie, the brown petty bourgeoisie, the blue petty bourgeoisie — and are each genuinely operating toward a different goal.

  * Here, the blue and brown petty bourgeoisie would usually have an objective of uniting with larger capitalists to protect themselves, if they exist in a context like the United States; the strawberry petty bourgeoisie in a context like China would actually be united with only themselves and the workers to defend the rest of the country; the orange petty bourgeoisie would be doing... whatever the inside of a Trotskyist country is supposed to be doing. The factional colors here represent individuals of a class by themselves (the "water" and "carbon dioxide" classes) being transformed into people of a particular class physically arranged into some specific larger shape with a specific functional purpose, possibly along with other classes (the "tree trunk" model of classes).

*



* Einstein's theory of special relativity is useful for understanding almost everything which ever mentions history or time. It would be a surefire way to break people out of mechanical-materialist thinking if they actually understood or cared what it meant.

  * Mathematics in general is taught the wrong way. Most math classes generally try to tell you that equations can only come in the form of a time axis or single dependent variable that leads to everything that happens. However, Einstein was able to show that this is not how time actually works and almost gets things backwards. Einstein showed that all solid objects can be reference frames, and all events simply happen between them, with no particular object or point in space being able to claim it has the canonical account of time. With the discovery of quantum mechanics, it was possible to show that time can be represented as bosons (particles that pass through each other) traveling between fermions (solid particles), such as quarks inside a proton or neutron all interacting together in a circle by constantly exchanging gluons. A single proton upended every scientist's view of time. Every proton or neutron means that time is not a linear process, and every second that happens comes from several physical things interacting together in space to produce a result — which will then be observed by other objects, but only through those other objects bouncing a photon between it and them that not only happens in time but _is_ time. Every real physical process that happens in time is not a function of time `f(t) = a + b`, but some function of multiple things interacting `f(x,y) = z` or `f(x,y,z) = x + yz` where time belongs on the results side.

    * This may sound like splitting hairs if you have never tried to explain what happens to time in a black hole, but it really matters because if you don't understand mathematical equations you don't understand the concept of determinism. Philosophers have talked about "determinism" for a long time, and they still present the same arguments today, but all of them are based on a false concept of what determinism would look like in real life. Real-life determinism is nearly synonymous with the concept of physics equations. When a real-life process is deterministic, it simply means that the way that process operates is known and given an initial condition _which is used to align a mathematical model with the material world_, the particular repeated pattern of objects interacting to create the process can be approximately predicted. The objects are not put into their path by "fate", but by the fact that a particular physical interaction _is what it is_ and _isn't what it isn't_; in a lot of cases, the violation of determinism would literally be magic or the supernatural, it would somewhat literally be Superman spinning the earth and running time backwards because he decided physics doesn't work that way right now and he's going to completely suspend reality. And yet, you'll still have people arguing that "determinism can't predict free will" (not widely accepted now, thankfully) or "we can overcome fascist narratives" (now highly common), although many of these "deterministic narratives" about people's societal rank or power relative to each other contain or are coupled to reasonable Materialist statements people also want to reject. It's less common these days to see people argue "free will" itself than it is to see people argue that all historical accounts and historical events are arbitrary and individuals willing hard enough is enough to change the future.

  * It is possible but not certain that in order to form a theory of quantum gravity scientists will first need to become comfortable with conceptualizing every form of math ever applied to the material world in terms of separate factors interacting through relativity to produce time, or said another way, through _relativistic determinism_ rather than through _linear determinism_.

    * The main problem is figuring out at what scale of reality gravity actually happens. Gravity appears to be a distortion of spacetime, distorting the rate at which things interact and evolve. But according to special relativity, spacetime itself shouldn't be a thing that passes or forms constantly anyway because different objects and forces should be interacting at different rates; spacetime should be nonlinear to begin with. Any particular chunk of atoms in a star interacts with other chunks of atoms through gravity, making a star or planet spherical. As fusion and gravity keep going the center of the star gets denser and denser, and sometimes it breaks ordinary spacetime and becomes a black hole. If we throw out linear determinism, that isn't scary, because if we know time is nonlinear then we already know that groups of objects interacting in space can break time making it go too fast or too slow or hardly at all. There doesn't have to be a "moment in time" that time broke and created a black hole. But, did the mass in the center of the star cause gravity in some neat quantum-style packet exchange of mass to gravity to mass? Did gravity form and pull all the mass together because when masses are in a gravitational field they are sent down a certain path toward massive objects? Did a bunch of "gravities" come together and form the event horizon? Is gravity between physical objects somehow _the cause of time happening_? What is the actual relationship between gravity and time? On an ordinary day we know that lunar "time" happens because of gravity; the moon orbits around the earth and it goes through different visual phases as the sun passes across it at different angles, but all of that happens because gravity sent the moon around the earth, leading to that series of events on the moon. It would be ridiculous to suggest that gravity is creating social interactions between people, but where does it stop? Gravity affects big objects leading to time. Gravity might affect very small solid objects like quarks leading to time. When does gravity influence objects and when do interacting objects create gravity? Knowing that basically the whole universe operates on relativity there is likely going to be some point where answer is "yes", "gravity influences objects and objects generate gravity". But what scale does that actually happen at?

  * Dialectical materialism is characterized by the framing that time is not individuals putting in a single dependent variable of their own choices or actions and watching the whole world change around them, but instead, time is the interactiona of several material pieces and their outward shapes or current physical condition. Free will is irrelevant not because it does or doesn't exist, but because the inner thoughts of any particular material object are almost wholly irrelevant when talking about the way time forms from the actual results of a particular object's external behavior when interacted with another object. Dialectical materialism is the description of reality as a series of slices of time in which many things run into each other all at once and generally none of them goes first, but every time a bunch of things run into each other they all change and then the cycle starts over again.

* existential materialism

  * So. One of my favorite console-style games is _Deltarune_. I promise this is relevant. Deltarune is broadly a game about video game characters realizing they are in a fabricated world ruled by a prophecy — a linear train of events that are going to happen, including one that is very bad. In Deltarune chapter 4, a character called Gerson who is a historian (!) suggests that in the end all the heroes need to do to overcome "the final tragedy" is to have enough hope. Of course, the thing he doesn't address is that one of the major themes of the game so far is the conflict between the characters in the game world and the player, who is framed as a kind of all-powerful entity that has the potential to bring the characters a lot of pain and is frightening enough they will have to "banish the Angel's heaven". Gerson has given the heroes terrible advice because no matter how much they "reject narratives", with just that much they can't simply will away the all-powerful entity and its ability to attack the people that are important to them. The player is still there; the external force can still make decisions and attack them. This is about where we are in the United States right now, or were from 2015 when the game started development up to now when it's half released. All our movements for anything seem to be based on wishful thinking and _hoping_ that material forces with the power to destroy us will go away.




* Settler-colonialism is a real phenomenon and a genuine problem but is really badly named. The original problem underlying all discussions of colonialism — stick with me here, this paragraph isn't going where you think it's going despite what it will sound like at first — is that human beings are not static things and are always in contradiction, always eating and occupying space. There is a very naïve view of the world that circulates within blue anarchism that basically human populations do not actually reproduce and multiply or experience history at unequal rates and whenever something like gentrification or Wal-Mart buying out a section of stores happens it must be because some specific individual deliberately decided to depart from cosmic fairness and be unfair. All of human society, fair and unfair, sits on top of a process of chunk competition where every individual exists and multiplies in mutual exclusion to every other individual. Sometimes this process is approximately benign, like when thousands of people apply for a job and only one gets it so the other thousand have to go compete for another job. Sometimes this process becomes malignant, like when there is a population of early United States colonists and a tribal population. Neither population is static; they are always changing at every moment. Both populations reproduce, make use of land, have philosophies, and practice them to realize a particular populational structure. But one of the major differences is the United States colony reproduces rather aggressively. Plot of land, house of colonists, offspring, second plot of land, new house of colonists, offspring. Why exactly the population dynamics work like that would be a very long discussion into existential materialism and historical materialism and existing Marxist-Leninist theory on modes of production. But anyway, all the colonists expand out to fill large areas of land as they turn over new generations and expand to fill even more land as they want to build industries like mines. The process of a population reproducing itself and the process of a population realizing its preferred sociophilosophy and internal structure are tightly connected; realizing agrarian society or realizing slavery or realizing capitalism happen during populational reproduction as much as they happen at any other time. What this ultimately means is that when the population as a whole crosses over into attacking the tribal population to take additional land, no particular individual necessarily made that decision and caused the rest of the population to do it. All the individuals took actions that added up into that event but they took them individually and separately. So, what is the actual significance of all that? _The basic expansion of a population over another population is something that can only be controlled if people understand the reproduction and historical development of the population and exactly how that otherwise uncontained process can be altered and controlled._ United States people famously have no understanding of historical materialism, and these days keep acting like there is such a thing as "historical existentialism" where tomorrow is whatever an isolated individual spontaneously decides it is. They also are increasingly averse to the entire concept of government. The more Existentialist books get written the more it feels like everyone is trying really hard to call any method of society being unified or under any kind of unified plan "totalitarianism". So, the defeat of the Soviet Union and all Marxisms that don't collapse into Deng Xiaoping Thought is part of the problem that stands between empire and defeating "settler-colonialism" whatever it is going to be called. Israel's unnecessary aggression and destruction of Palestinian settlements is real but almost everyone in North America who is currently trying to stop it is woefully unprepared to actually understand the causal mechanisms of imperialism and exactly how imperialism exponentially multiplies and connects itself faster than anything that is not imperialism and easily becomes too powerful to stop. Every Existentialist always arrives several steps too late and attacks the symptoms rather than cutting off the actual root processes.

  * The history of the United States is rather different from the history of Israel. Israel was actively laid out and conceptualized in a way that the United States wasn't; it's nearly fair to call Israel a conspiracy. People did not get to Israel by accident, whether two towns inside Spain "accidentally" collide or not. The relationship between United States frontier wars and Israel is that _the United States' failure to understand empire inside itself feeds into its failure to understand empire in Israel_.

  * I spent most of that first bullet simply explaining chunk competition. Here's what that has to do with the concept of "settler-colonialism". Settler-colonialism is when a pre-existing locus of empire plants a chunk of people into an area in hopes their presence will cause them to realize a State over the top of themselves, put a border around themselves, and create a stable territory which can be added to or linked to the empire. The empire weaponizes existence; it uses the mere existence of human beings and their tendency to chunk-compete with populations around them in order to exist as its weapon. That's the key. Since about 1700 we live in an age where empires exist on so many levels above normal human existence it's crazy and a great number of people aren't aware of the actual power empires wield. If capitalists are tiny empires they literally create human settlements and socially-linked cultural communities out of nothing while softly banning anybody else from creating communities in any way that aren't owned by specific people to make money on their existence, and asserting they did humanity a service because they are the only people who can create communities. Capitalists occupy the position of building all towns and physical buildings and cultural activities and defining what culture is, and once they've driven out anybody else who could create towns or create culture they weaponize that position to try to degrade everyone else for 'not being able to build society without them', and attempt to exact loyalty from the people that live in their micro-colonies to support causes the capitalist personally wants them to such as crushing the proletariat and supporting wars against countries the capitalist personally doesn't like. If people rebel against that they can pull out capital entirely and take away all a town's jobs like they did to Detroit. In some senses, though only very vague ones, Israel is a macrocosm of what capitalists do every day. They put down a chunk of people and try to force whole cities or countries to obey them like imperial weapons for crushing other countries. So... settler-colonialism is misnamed because both words are literally just describing the default background structure of modern capitalism and of all modern industrial societies at every moment including the un-transitioned half of China and North Korea, instead of being just a unique event that happens one day where Zionists attack Palestine for the hell of it. To be clear, _it is bad and frightening_ that societies are structured that way, and the problem is that not enough people are aware they are.

  * The power of Bolshevism to unite chunks of people into a single country is related to the power of Marxism to stop a population's uncontrolled expansion.


## Other

* Israel has significance as a unique physical object that exists right now, not as an idea or an ancient property claim by one person that somehow can be handed to a few million that showed up much later. There was a particular philosophy of Zionism ("Philosophical System") that drew people together to link into a social graph ("Social-Philosophical System", "sociophilosophy") that based on its content realized itself into a physical nation-state ("Material System", "Social-Philosophical-Material System"). In one sense Israel causes itself: it is a particular thing created out of its own internal parts (people, often-violent activities) that exists today and develops, more than it is something "created by God" or "created by divine destiny" etc. In another sense particular pieces of Israel have to be there to interact together before it can cause itself and develop.
  * This isn't really a finding of violet Marxism as a re-statement of the blog article I just read - [*A] - in the framing of violet Marxism. I said I didn't have much for findings on Israel/Palestine at this time. But I know this was a good article. This article and _The Communist Necessity_ are excellent demonstrations of Materialism.
  * I'm done censoring Israel for today. The fourth file in is harder to click accidentally anyway.


------

=> https://web.archive.org/web/20250629235019/https://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2024/10/screen-cap-this-and-look-at-it-again-in.html  [*A]
:: cr. 2026-03-16T14:56:05H
:: t.  v5-2_0999_findings</pre>

<!--
{{BopCSS}}<div class="bop top"><h3><time datetime="asdfsdf">26-3</time></h3>
<div>
</div></div>

== Links ==
--
* [[Philosophical Research:MDem/4.4r/1992_beetles|link]] [context]
* [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN|v5.2 revisions/ plaintext source file]]
--

== Motifs or claims ==
--
<ol class="hue clean">
</li></ol>

examples
{{HueNumber|Q29,13}}  -- en: Why haven't the U.S. and Canada merged? --
{{li|start=y|I=S2/IV|Q=19,08|Q2=1908|h4=}}...
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S">asdf</li>--

=== Concepts under research (26-3) ===

== Metadata ==

{{ArticleTitle|[Z] why "terrorism" rather than car wash or pineapple? - MDem 5.1/ scrap penguin-banana|h1=Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1211 penguin-banana|tts=Philosophical Research:M-Dem/5.1r/12-11 penguin-banana|NoContents=y}}
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean compound"><li>
<onlyinclude><dfn class="field_mdem" data-dimension="" data-qid="" data-edition="5.1" data-serial="12,11" data-alias="penguin-banana" data-field="meta-Marxism" data-work="Molecular Democracy drafts" data-tale="penguin-banana" data-note="bop scrap">{{#if: {{{1|}}} | [[Philosophical_Research:MDem/5.1r/1211_penguin-banana|{{{1}}}]] | [[Philosophical_Research:MDem/5.1r/1211_penguin-banana|<cite>MDem</cite> 5.1/ "penguin-banana"]] }}<ins class="note"> ([[Philosophical_Research:MDem|scrap]])</ins>{{WaveScore|sum=1|quilt=1|ply=1|enddfn=1}}</onlyinclude>
</li></ol>

<dl class="wikitable hue">
{{HueClaim |P=item type| {{E:Z1|C=Q2}} }}
{{HueRoster|EP=PPPA|lang=en| {{TTS|tts=v5.1 scraps:|v5.1 scraps/}} what makes nonviolent protests "terrorism" rather than car wash or pineapple? | {{book|MDem}} 5.1/{{TTS|tts=12-11|1211}} penguin-banana | <code>v4-4_1014_penguin-banana</code> | <code>v5-1_1211_penguin-banana</code> | {{TTS|html=code|tts=5-prime-1 12-11-r line penguin-banana dot-text|5′1-1211r_penguin-banana.txt|title=5-ed.-1 12-11-r (lowline) penguin-banana dot-text}} (most recent filename) }}
{{HueRoster|EP=P4| bop scrap }}  -- en: case of --
</dl>

=== Bibliographic information ===

<dl class="wikitable hue">
{{HueClaim |P=date created| <time datetime{{=}}"2025-03-07T07:46:01Z" data-epoch{{=}}"1741333561">25-3-07</time> }}
{{HueClaim |P=title (APA)| Why "terrorism" rather than car wash or pineapple? }}
{{HueClaim |P=author| Rhandr Bergfalk | R. Bergfalk {{TTS|tts=alias R.D., ReverseDragon3|"R.D." @reversedragon3}} }}
</dl>
-->

[[Category:MDem v5.2 entries]] [[Category:MDem v5.3 entries]]