Editing Philosophical Research:Molecular Democracy/4.4r/2070 dieconomics

<div class="bop" style="border-top: 1px solid var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1); padding-top: 0.9em;">
<h3 style="margin: 0 0 0.9em 0; padding-top: 0;"><time datetime="2025-03-12T00:19:40Z">3-12</time></h3>
<div style="white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: inherit; background: inherit; border: none;">I think this is a direct response to the earlier concept of "[[Philosophical_Research:Molecular_Democracy/4.3/2070 Blobonomics|Blobonomics]]", and possibly belongs in the same chapter
we explain Blobonomics, how all of economics up to now has been Blobonomics, how Blobonomics isn't a good thing, and finally how Blobonomics could ultimately be replaced with dieconomics

it's also probably important to cover how the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition and Blobonomics are directly connected yet not the same thing.
Blobonomics explains the fundamental structure of an Existentialist society and Existentialism explains the philosophy, politics, and government that supposedly regulate it

[[Philosophical_Research:Molecular_Democracy/4.4r/9230 ES-strands|primitive Existentialism]] is the immediate physical description of Blobonomics, supposedly not mediated by ideology — ignoring the blatant fact that Blobonomics _is_ an ideology if you use the Social/Philosophical/Material realization model of ideologies, it's just a very basic society model that only prescribes a few things
</div></div>


<div class="bop" style="border-top: 1px solid var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1); padding-top: 0.9em;">
<h3 style="margin: 0 0 0.9em 0; padding-top: 0;"><time datetime="2025-03-12T00:29:47Z" data-version="4.3" data-archived="yes">4.3/ [[Philosophical_Research:Molecular_Democracy/4.3r/3556 chunk3|"chunk3"]]</time></h3>
<div style="white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: inherit; background: inherit; border: none;">... South Korea is just part of the same capitalist social structure spanning both countries. but people are still _really_ obsessed with the ability of one capitalist business territory to detach from others and compete with others and effectively become politically independent from other chunks of society ...
the United States sorts itself into a party of racist, xenophobic anticommunists _starting at anticommunism_ because if there were no anticommunism they couldn't form a separate faction of capitalists unaccountable to the other faction of capitalists, and would instead be obligated to become more moderate or progressive to serve the people.
</div></div>

<div class="bop" style="border-top: 1px solid var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1); padding-top: 0.9em;">
<h3 style="margin: 0 0 0.9em 0; padding-top: 0;"><time datetime="2025-03-12T00:29:47Z">3-12</time></h3>
<div style="white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: inherit; background: inherit; border: none;">they say agriculture was one of humanity's greatest mistakes
there's a decent argument to be made that it's instead _economics_ that was humanity's greatest mistake
</div></div>

<div class="bop" style="border-top: 1px solid var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1); padding-top: 0.9em;">
<h3 style="margin: 0 0 0.9em 0; padding-top: 0;"><time datetime="2025-03-12T00:29:47Z">3-12</time></h3>
<div style="white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: inherit; background: inherit; border: none;">economics took the entire process of _culture_ from its beginning to its end and stripped it of all its human elements, neatly transforming it into mathematics
it could be argued that such a thing is salvageable,  [*g]  but certainly not from out of the way economics did it

[*g] "see the chapter on graph economics"
</div></div>


<div class="bop" style="border-top: 1px solid var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1); padding-top: 0.9em;">
<h3 style="margin: 0 0 0.9em 0; padding-top: 0;"><time datetime="2025-03-12T00:11:20Z">3-12</time></h3>
<div style="white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: inherit; background: inherit; border: none;">up to now, people have spoken of "Liberal economics" and "Marxist economics"
they haven't been wording the message strongly enough
all of economics is a fallacy. economics is a pseudoscience. economics is wrong. economics will never work.

by economics, of course, we mean the study of economics within Liberalism, because that is what most people believe _economics_ to mean. to most people, Marxism is a bunch of trash theories that are _not even economics_.
well, fine. in that case, it is time to refute all of economics and never use economics again.
</div></div>

<div class="bop" style="border-top: 1px solid var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1); padding-top: 0.9em;">
<h3 style="margin: 0 0 0.9em 0; padding-top: 0;"><time datetime="2025-03-12T00:19:40Z">3-12</time></h3>
<div style="white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: inherit; background: inherit; border: none;">if we threw away economics and never used it again, what would we have instead?
we would have _dieconomics_. while economics was the study of how to manage one "building", dieconomics would be the study of how to manage the ongoing relationships between at least two "buildings".
</div></div>

<div class="bop" style="border-top: 1px solid var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1); padding-top: 0.9em;">
<h3 style="margin: 0 0 0.9em 0; padding-top: 0;"><time datetime="2025-03-12T00:11:20Z">3-12</time></h3>
<div style="white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: inherit; background: inherit; border: none;">how can we know for sure that this is not just a hypothetical battle between quantum field theory and string theory, where two armies of theoretical physicists are each convinced of something but the string theorists will never be able to know if they're actually right

first of all, we can know because of the realization process - while theoretical physics only describes existing objects that scientists must go to great effort to observe indirectly, ideologies are ideologies _by virtue of_ being realized into real-world Social-Philosophical-Material Systems. there is a stark difference here between a theory which will be realized being viable and physically present in front of everyone's eyes versus non-viable.

second, we can mathematically simulate the results of practicing economics versus practicing dieconomics. although this field is in its infancy, we can take every claim of a possible form of industrial society or historical period, reduce those structures into generalized mathematical behaviors that apply to most formulations of that type of society, and through this we can take a bunch of seemingly abstract ideology or philosophy and demonstrate the actual physical differences between populations practicing each pattern and what results from each particular societal pattern. these new "meta-transitional realist" society simulations are the ultimate goal of meta-Marxism.
</div></div>

<div class="bop-foot" style="margin-top: 3em; padding-top: 1.2em; border-top: 1px solid var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1);">

<dl class="bop-meta" style="margin-top: 1em; font-family: monospace;">
{{BopFwd|Philosophical_Research:Molecular_Democracy/4.3/2070 Blobonomics|v4.3/ Blobonomics [unreleased]}}
{{BopFwd|Philosophical_Research:Molecular_Democracy/4.4r/9230 ES-strands|v4.4 scraps/ Existentialist-Structuralist strands}}
{{BopVer|Philosophical_Research:Molecular_Democracy/4.3r/3556 chunk3|v4.3r/ "independent social apparatuses" (ISAs) & xenophobia as anektirism}}
<!-- ; -->{{BopComment}}
{{BopCreated|2025-03-12T00:14:45Z}}
{{BopHandle|dieconomics}}
{{BopHandle|v4-4_2070_dieconomics}}
{{BopCommentTitle|v4.4 scraps/ let's agree to never do economics again}}
</dl></div><!--
-->[[Category:MDem v4.4 entries]] __NOTOC__