Reversedragon: "Existentialists" = political agorists

2026-08-18T23:02:21Z

"Existentialists" = political agorists

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:02, 18 August 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"><!-- inactive: {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ES}} -->		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"><!-- inactive: {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ES}} -->

	{{li\|start=y\|I=M3/MX\|tradition=\|Q=26,66\|Q2=2666\|h4= Why isn't your theory forbidden? }} / If your theory of anarchism, etc., can overturn all hierarchies, why hasn't it been forbidden as a threat to the existing order? -> a question ~~Existentialists~~ never seem to seriously ask themselves. really felt this trying to read Foucault. there are a few anarchists that pass this bar only technically and dubiously by being willing to Zinovievize society for nothing in return. not the way I would prefer that a theory fix itself, but, back to ~~Existentialism~~. why does it act like it's the most radical thing ever when it never stops to ask what it is or isn't disrupting		{{li\|start=y\|I=M3/MX\|tradition=\|Q=26,66\|Q2=2666\|h4= Why isn't your theory forbidden? }} / If your theory of anarchism, etc., can overturn all hierarchies, why hasn't it been forbidden as a threat to the existing order? -> a question [[EC:9k/RD/Q73\|political-agorists]] never seem to seriously ask themselves. really felt this trying to read Foucault. there are a few anarchists that pass this bar only technically and dubiously by being willing to [[E:Zinovievizing (meta-Marxism)\|Zinovievize]] society for nothing in return, thus becoming "forbidden". not the way I would prefer that a theory fix itself, but it passes through this contradiction at the very least. back to [[EC:9k/RD/Q73\|agorist political philosophy]]. why does it act like it's the most radical thing ever when it never stops to ask what it is or isn't disrupting

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 20:		Line 20:
	<ol class="hue clean terse {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">		<ol class="hue clean terse {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">
	{{li\|start=y		{{li\|start=y
	\|I=S1/MX\|Q=~~618~~\|Q2=~~618~~}}{{TTS\|MX\|M.X.}} / meta-Marxism		\|I=S1/MX\|Q=92\|Q2=92}}{{TTS\|MX\|M.X.}} / meta-Marxism
	{{li\|I=S1/MN\|Q=~~618~~\|Q2=~~618~~}}{{TTS\|MN\|~~M.N.~~}} / ~~Leninism~~		{{li\|I=S1/ES\|Q=73\|Q2=73}}{{TTS\|ES\|E-S}} / [[EC:9k/RD/Q73\|political agorism]]
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: copy markup from Q90

2026-08-18T22:54:39Z

copy markup from Q90

New page

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Why isn't your theory forbidden?|User=RD|E=Q26,65|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">

{{li|start=y|I=M3/MX|tradition=|Q=26,66|Q2=2666|h4= Why isn't your theory forbidden? }} / If your theory of anarchism, etc., can overturn all hierarchies, why hasn't it been forbidden as a threat to the existing order? -> a question Existentialists never seem to seriously ask themselves. really felt this trying to read Foucault. there are a few anarchists that pass this bar only technically and dubiously by being willing to Zinovievize society for nothing in return. not the way I would prefer that a theory fix itself, but, back to Existentialism. why does it act like it's the most radical thing ever when it never stops to ask what it is or isn't disrupting

</li></ol>

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

== {{int:hue-prototype-trads-or-fields/en}} ==
<ol class="hue clean terse {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">
{{li|start=y
|I=S1/MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|MX|M.X.}} / meta-Marxism
{{li|I=S1/MN|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|MN|M.N.}} / Leninism
</li></ol>


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q26,66 - Revision history

Reversedragon: "Existentialists" = political agorists

Reversedragon: copy markup from Q90