Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q30,52 - Revision history

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q3052 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q30,52: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

2026-05-12T01:36:21Z

Reversedragon moved page Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q3052 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q30,52: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

← Older revision	Revision as of 01:36, 12 May 2026
(No difference)

Reversedragon: war of position

2026-05-12T01:35:25Z

war of position

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:35, 12 May 2026
Line 2:		Line 2:
	== Main entry ==		== Main entry ==
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">
	~~<!-- {{li\|start=y\|I=S1/Fy\|Q=618\|Q2=618}} -->~~

	</li~~><li class~~=~~"field_gramsci" data-~~tradition="W, ES, A~~" value~~="3052~~" data-dimension~~=~~"S">~~hegemony politics / musical chairs attack (MDem) / stealth activism (center-Liberalism) -> the motif of people trying to "prevent fascism" by filling up business territories or government institutions with linked groups of people who are "not fascists" as fast as possible before "the fascists" get in. one of the chief strategies of Gramscianism. seems to me like it doesn't really make any sense because it is so chiefly defined by creating countable Cultures of people who belong in a particular cultural identity and carrying out competition between countable Cultures to exist instead of each other existing. that seems a lot more like it's the problem than the way the problem is resolved. realistically, you have to get all your progressives to good landlords and good capitalists who will pay the landlords if you want to end the graph struggle, and put good capitalists in all the reactionary businesses before you can drive the reactionary workers out. the capitalists have to lead this for it to be maximally effective and actually bring change. but it also clearly demonstrates that capitalist populations consist of multiple separate populations divided based on something other than who is a capitalist; you don't have a capitalist population and a worker population, you have specifically a Tory population and a center-Liberal population that recruit people into the nation and "allow" them to work. the bigger question to me is what creates these two populations. it isn't religion, because two people can be Protestants and still divide into these two populations. it has something to do with the inherent collapse of Liberal-republicanism.		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/W\|tradition=W, ES, A\|Q=30,52\|Q2=3052\|h4= hegemony politics }} / war of position (Gramsci) / musical chairs attack (meta-Marxism, {{book\|MDem}} scraps) / stealth activism (center-Liberalism) -><br/>
			the motif of people trying to "prevent fascism" by filling up business territories or government institutions with linked groups of people who are "not fascists" as fast as possible before "the fascists" get in. one of the chief strategies of Gramscianism. seems to me like it doesn't really make any sense because it is so chiefly defined by creating countable Cultures of people who belong in a particular cultural identity and carrying out competition between countable Cultures to exist instead of each other existing. that seems a lot more like it's the problem than the way the problem is resolved. realistically, you have to get all your progressives to good landlords and good capitalists who will pay the landlords if you want to end the graph struggle, and put good capitalists in all the reactionary businesses before you can drive the reactionary workers out. the capitalists have to lead this for it to be maximally effective and actually bring change. but it also clearly demonstrates that capitalist populations consist of [[E:multicapitalism (meta-Marxism)\|multiple separate populations]] divided based on something other than who is a capitalist; you don't have a capitalist population and a worker population, you have specifically a Tory population and a center-Liberal population that recruit people into the nation and "allow" them to work. the bigger question to me is what creates these two populations. it isn't religion, because two people can be Protestants and still divide into these two populations. it has something to do with the inherent collapse of Liberal-republicanism.

			{{li\|I=S1/W\|tradition=W, ES, A\|Q=30,52\|Q2=3052}}hegemony politics -> note: in this context, "hegemony" politics refers to political activities obsessed with changing "ideological hegemony" inside a society rather than A) obsessing about particular candidates and elections or other such objects and processes that Liberal-republicans think of as "material" or B) materially constructing a workers' state through various physical steps to defend against the bourgeoisie rather than worrying about Ideas "going first" to defend society and basically trying to 'take over' society {{em\|with political ideas}}. definition "B" shows how basically, {{em\|Fisherists and Gramscians have redefined the term 'hegemony' to mean almost the same thing as Idealism}} rather than it referring to a physical population ruling over other populations (a bad thing in the case of ancient Rome labeling a neighboring population slaves, a good thing in the case of a [[E:dictatorship of the proletariat (Marxism)\|proletarian republic]] 'ruling' over a single republic), so that "hegemony politics" would translate to "Idealism politics".

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 11:		Line 13:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/W\|Q=30,51\|Q2=3051}}hegemonic ~~motif (~~idea; model~~; ideology; philosophy)~~ / hegemonic ideology ~~(Western Marxism)~~ / ~~ruling idea (early Marxism)~~ / dominant narrative (postmodernism) -> I wish people would stop saying that {{em\|Ideas}} can be dominant when [[E:chunk competition (meta-Marxism)\|it's always people]] that dominate [[E:Hyper-Materialism (meta-Marxism)\|and then spit ~~them~~ out]].<br/>		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/W\|Q=30,51\|Q2=3051\|h4= hegemonic motif }} (Western Marxism) / hegemonic idea / hegemonic concept / dominant model / hegemonic ideology / hegemonic philosophy / dominant narrative (postmodernism) -> I wish people would stop saying that {{em\|Ideas}} can be dominant when [[E:chunk competition (meta-Marxism)\|it's always people]] that dominate [[E:Hyper-Materialism (meta-Marxism)\|and then spit out ideas]].<br/>
	it leads to a lot of "[[E:Deltarune\|Gerson Boom]] {{censor\|bullshit}}" where people start to believe that all politics and sociology is about constructed narratives and things people deliberately choose [[E:Idealism\|to believe and say]]		it leads to a lot of "[[E:Deltarune\|Gerson Boom]] {{censor\|bullshit\|tts=[BS]}}" where people start to believe that all politics and sociology is about constructed narratives and things people deliberately choose [[E:Idealism\|to believe and say]]

			{{li\|I=S1/ML\|Q=30,51\|Q2=3051}}ruling idea (early Marxism) / ruling-class idea / bourgeois ideology (Liberal capitalism; in Liberal-capitalist historical period) / knightly code (in feudal period) / noble disposition; gentlemanly disposition (in feudal period) / Christlike disposition (in historical period dominated by clergy)

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: copy markup from 9k/Q30,52

2026-05-12T01:09:35Z

copy markup from 9k/Q30,52

New page

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=hegemony politics|E=Q30,52|User=RD|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">


</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="W, ES, A" value="3052" data-dimension="S">hegemony politics / musical chairs attack (MDem) / stealth activism (center-Liberalism) -> the motif of people trying to "prevent fascism" by filling up business territories or government institutions with linked groups of people who are "not fascists" as fast as possible before "the fascists" get in. one of the chief strategies of Gramscianism. seems to me like it doesn't really make any sense because it is so chiefly defined by creating countable Cultures of people who belong in a particular cultural identity and carrying out competition between countable Cultures to exist instead of each other existing. that seems a lot more like it's the problem than the way the problem is resolved. realistically, you have to get all your progressives to good landlords and good capitalists who will pay the landlords if you want to end the graph struggle, and put good capitalists in all the reactionary businesses before you can drive the reactionary workers out. the capitalists have to lead this for it to be maximally effective and actually bring change. but it also clearly demonstrates that capitalist populations consist of multiple separate populations divided based on something other than who is a capitalist; you don't have a capitalist population and a worker population, you have specifically a Tory population and a center-Liberal population that recruit people into the nation and "allow" them to work. the bigger question to me is what creates these two populations. it isn't religion, because two people can be Protestants and still divide into these two populations. it has something to do with the inherent collapse of Liberal-republicanism.

</li></ol>

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

{{li|start=y|I=S1/W|Q=30,51|Q2=3051}}hegemonic motif (idea; model; ideology; philosophy) / hegemonic ideology (Western Marxism) / ruling idea (early Marxism) / dominant narrative (postmodernism) -> I wish people would stop saying that {{em|Ideas}} can be dominant when [[E:chunk competition (meta-Marxism)|it's always people]] that dominate [[E:Hyper-Materialism (meta-Marxism)|and then spit them out]].<br/>
it leads to a lot of "[[E:Deltarune|Gerson Boom]] {{censor|bullshit}}" where people start to believe that all politics and sociology is about constructed narratives and things people deliberately choose [[E:Idealism|to believe and say]]

</li></ol>

== Ideologies or fields ==

* W / Western Marxism
* W / Gramscianism

== Subpages or related scraps ==


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