Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q3300 - Revision history

Reversedragon: assertion something is an anarchism

2026-05-11T02:18:17Z

assertion something is an anarchism

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:18, 11 May 2026
Line 118:		Line 118:
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/A\|Q=~~618~~}}~~horizontal revolutionary methods~~ {{~~YouTube~~\|~~ZRJgYCi1vvY~~}}		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/A\|Q=53,19\|Q2=53,19}}secular animism / ({{9k\|RD/Q53,19}})

	{{li\|I=S1/A\|Q=~~32,99\|Q2=3299\|h4 = [[Ontology:Q3299~~\|~~assertion something is an anarchism]]~~ }} ~~-> seems a little random, but is oddly useful for defining silly fan theories like "Snufkin is an anarchist".~~		{{li\|I=S1/A\|Q=618}}horizontal revolutionary methods {{YouTube\|ZRJgYCi1vvY}}

	{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=32,98\|Q2=~~3298~~\|h4 = ~~Snufkin~~ is an ~~anarchist~~ }} ~~-> apparently anarchists do not seriously believe this is true.~~ {{~~YouTube~~\|~~70ZKnaANBdg~~}}		{{li\|I=S1/A\|Q=32,99\|Q2=3299\|h4 = [[E:Q3299\|assertion something is an anarchism]] }} / ({{9k\|RD/Q3299}})

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

	== Ideology codes ==		== Ideology codes ==
	* ~~(none)~~		* A / anarchism

	== Subpages ==		== Subpages ==

Reversedragon: Most anarchists are egocentric

2026-05-11T01:06:11Z

Most anarchists are egocentric

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:06, 11 May 2026
Line 95:		Line 95:
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse">

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto A\|Q=33,89\|Q2=3389\|h4 = Anarchism can oppress people }} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q33,89\|9k]])		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto A \|Q=33,89\|Q2=3389\|h4 = Anarchism can oppress people }} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q33,89\|9k]])

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=51,91\|Q2=5191\|h4 = Post-structuralists effectively hate China }} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q33,89\|9k]])		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=51,91\|Q2=5191\|h4 = Post-structuralists effectively hate China }} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q33,89\|9k]])

			{{li\|I=S2/A/MX\|Q=618}}Most anarchists are egocentric / ... anarchism cannot claim to have separated itself from an egocentric view of reality and in fact almost all anarchisms revolve around the power of any particular individual mind or ego to spontaneously dictate and declare without limit what all other people will do and be / ({{9k\|RD/Q53,19}})

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

Reversedragon: Anarchists won't listen to any proposition which isn't phrased in terms of ethics

2026-05-07T04:40:12Z

Anarchists won't listen to any proposition which isn't phrased in terms of ethics

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:40, 7 May 2026
Line 70:		Line 70:

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX/ES\|Q=618\|h4 = Anarchism swaps states for ethics }} / Anarchism replaces states with ethics / Anarchism is partly defined as a society where ethical codes replace The State -> this is what I think the categorical imperative teaches us about blue anarchisms and maybe {{em\|all}} anarchisms.		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX/ES\|Q=618\|h4 = Anarchism swaps states for ethics }} / Anarchism replaces states with ethics / Anarchism is partly defined as a society where ethical codes replace The State -> this is what I think the categorical imperative teaches us about blue anarchisms and maybe {{em\|all}} anarchisms.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX/ES/A\|Q=618}}Anarchists won't listen to any proposition which isn't phrased in terms of ethics / Anarchists won't listen to any proposition about reality which isn't phrased in terms of individual ethics / ([[User:RD/9k/Q618-AntiJakeTheory\|9k/...]]) -> this requirement is really steep, but... as a challenge, is it really unworkable? ... maybe the true power of [[EC:9k/RD/Q92\|violet Marxism]] is yet to be seen

	{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|Q=56,43\|Q2=56,43}}Anarchism is partly defined by the claim that progress can only be described through the sheer assertion of human moralities as a fundamental layer of material reality -> this seems common to both charcoal anarchism and blue anarchism, as well as to some forms of Western Marxism. and as far as I know, it's absent from Stalin's Marxism. <s>as it ought to be!</s><br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|Q=56,43\|Q2=56,43}}Anarchism is partly defined by the claim that progress can only be described through the sheer assertion of human moralities as a fundamental layer of material reality -> this seems common to both charcoal anarchism and blue anarchism, as well as to some forms of Western Marxism. and as far as I know, it's absent from Stalin's Marxism. <s>as it ought to be!</s><br/>

Reversedragon: Anhierarchies incidentally birth anarchies

2026-05-06T04:21:40Z

Anhierarchies incidentally birth anarchies

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:21, 6 May 2026
Line 86:		Line 86:

	{{li\|I=S2/A/MX\|Q=618\|h4 = Anarchism actually seeks molecularization }} / Anarchism secretly aims for a molecularized model of all social interactions / Despite all the Idealist nonsense coming out of a lot of anarchist writers, the ultimate goal of anarchism is to become aware of all the small-scale interactions that occur between individuals or small groups of people and over time through some kind of gradual transition process put societies in control of all of those interactions through proportional levels of force or intervention / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q50,98\|9k]]) -><br/>		{{li\|I=S2/A/MX\|Q=618\|h4 = Anarchism actually seeks molecularization }} / Anarchism secretly aims for a molecularized model of all social interactions / Despite all the Idealist nonsense coming out of a lot of anarchist writers, the ultimate goal of anarchism is to become aware of all the small-scale interactions that occur between individuals or small groups of people and over time through some kind of gradual transition process put societies in control of all of those interactions through proportional levels of force or intervention / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q50,98\|9k]]) -><br/>
	this is one of the most good-faith interpretations I can pull out of anarchism, out of all the {{censor\|crap}} they say. anarchists really want to believe that history doesn't exist, that all historical periods are arbitrary, and that nothing in particular makes historical periods transition into other historical periods. ok.... but what if that {{em\|wasn't}} a terrible theory and it {{em\|did}} make sense? one of the possible outcomes if you take anarchism seriously is that anarchists have described a process of how individuals assemble from very fine-grained scales into larger historical periods, and how each collection of individual behaviors creates a historical period of a different "color". with one minimum change to anarchism, the recognition that different historical periods containing different repeated behaviors-of-individuals summing up to a particular color can actually transition into periods of other particular colors only from certain colors, you end up with a theory that actually isn't so bad. you've basically replaced the concept of [[E:sublation\|sublation]] with a more "timeless" theory that looks more like applied chemistry and recording or memorizing particular kinds of reactions that bridge particular kinds of molecules. but, again, that genuinely might be enough to carry an individual nation-wide movement in a particular country if somebody could only figure out the right transition from what to what. I genuinely believe you could teach anarchists [[E:meta-Marxism (applied)\|meta-Marxism]] if they were smart enough and they weren't so stubborn. like there is only so much of a difference between what Stalin said right before he died and the CPSU per-se was defeated, and what anarchists want to do. Stalin wanted to create a systematic study of how the small-scale elements of society transitioned into other small-scale elements; anarchists want to be in control of society's small-scale interactions. that's like, almost the same thing. if we could all just pry anarchists away from the concepts of Idealism and utterly mystifying the word "community" to create a strictly Materialist anarchism we'd be set		this is one of the most good-faith interpretations I can pull out of anarchism, out of all the {{censor\|crap}} they say. anarchists really want to believe that history doesn't exist, that all historical periods are arbitrary, and that nothing in particular makes historical periods transition into other historical periods. ok.... but what if that {{em\|wasn't}} a terrible theory and it {{em\|did}} make sense? one of the possible outcomes if you take anarchism seriously is that anarchists have described a process of how individuals assemble from very fine-grained scales into larger historical periods, and how each collection of individual behaviors creates a historical period of a different "color". with one minimum change to anarchism, the recognition that different historical periods containing different repeated behaviors-of-individuals summing up to a particular color can actually transition into periods of other particular colors only from certain colors, you end up with a theory that actually isn't so bad. you've basically replaced the concept of [[E:sublation\|sublation]] with a more "timeless" theory that looks more like applied chemistry and recording or memorizing particular kinds of reactions that bridge particular kinds of molecules. but, again, that genuinely might be enough to carry an individual nation-wide movement in a particular country if somebody could only figure out the right transition from what to what. I genuinely believe you could teach anarchists [[E:meta-Marxism (applied)\|meta-Marxism]] if they were smart enough and they weren't so stubborn. like there is only so much of a difference between [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-EconomicProblemsStalin\|what Stalin said right before he died]] and the CPSU per-se was defeated, and what anarchists want to do. Stalin wanted to create a systematic study of how the small-scale elements of society transitioned into other small-scale elements; anarchists want to be in control of society's small-scale interactions. that's like, almost the same thing. if we could all just pry anarchists away from the concepts of Idealism and utterly mystifying the word "community" to create a strictly Materialist anarchism we'd be set

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 100:		Line 100:

	== Meta-anarchism ==		== Meta-anarchism ==
	<ol class="hue clean ~~terse~~">		<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/MX/A\|tradition=MX onto A\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4 = meta-anarchism }}		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/MX/A\|tradition=MX onto A\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4 = meta-anarchism }} -> meta-anarchism is the Materialist study of countable anarchisms as physical objects, and of the interaction of countable anarchisms and countable Marxisms in a materialist Hegelian dialectic.

	{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=MX onto A\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4 = anhierarchy }} (meta-Marxism) -> anhierarchy is a new technical term for the sheer absence of a particular kind of hierarchy without specifying the presence of anything else. when a kingdom breaks into warring states, there is anhierarchy, but that does not mean there is anarchy, depending on your definition of "anarchy".		{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=MX onto A\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4 = anhierarchy }} (meta-Marxism) -> anhierarchy is a new technical term for the sheer absence of a particular kind of hierarchy without specifying the presence of anything else. when a kingdom breaks into warring states, there is anhierarchy, but that does not mean there is anarchy, depending on your definition of "anarchy".

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618\|h4 = Anhierarchies incidentally birth anarchies }} / Anhierarchies incidentally contain anarchies / Anhierarchies are in actuality [[E:named anarchy (meta-Marxism)\|anarchic]], not {{em\|because}} they lack a particular kind of [[E:hierarchy (meta-Marxism)\|hierarchy]] but specifically because they happen to contain new methods of connecting and building things that are [[E:molecularized models of society (meta-Marxism)\|molecularized]] relative to the perhaps-hierarchical [[E:amorphous models of society (meta-Marxism)\|amorphous]] formations that existed before; molecular-scale physical processes of society can give rise to things that [[E:Q92\|meta-Marxism]] considers [[E:named anarchy (meta-Marxism)\|named anarchies]] -><br/>
			this is going to sound like absolute word salad to somebody who has never heard of the discussions that led to it. which is not a thing I enjoy. but you really do have to get this absolutely down into the weeds to successfully argue with anarchists. you have to make the most precise terms imaginable which are not the least bit confusing, you have to show up with a list of definitions for them, and you have to prove your point practically in another language just to get around all their incorrect models of real things and misleading word definitions.

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

Reversedragon: anhierarchy

2026-05-05T12:40:31Z

anhierarchy

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:40, 5 May 2026
Line 35:		Line 35:
	this becomes super clear [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-FirstAnarchistManifesto\|when you read Bellegarrigue]] — his anarchism is rather crude and doesn't fully match a lot of modern social anarchisms, but the core ""class analysis"" framework used by many anarchists is clearly defined in there.		this becomes super clear [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-FirstAnarchistManifesto\|when you read Bellegarrigue]] — his anarchism is rather crude and doesn't fully match a lot of modern social anarchisms, but the core ""class analysis"" framework used by many anarchists is clearly defined in there.

	<li ~~class~~=~~"field_anarchy" data-tradition="~~A~~" value~~="618~~" data-dimension~~=~~"S2">~~Social sanctioning is caused by hierarchies {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> {{em\|no.}} it's pretty {{censor\|damn}} often caused by Communities.		{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Social sanctioning is caused by hierarchies {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> {{em\|no.}} it's pretty {{censor\|damn}} often caused by Communities.

	~~</li><~~li ~~class~~=~~"field_anarchy" data-~~tradition="A, Zv~~" value~~="618~~" data-dimension~~=~~"S2">~~Giving orders is having illegitimate authority {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} / It is illegitimate authority to divide society into order givers and order takers -> god if this isn't one of the [[E:Zinovievism (meta-Marxism)\|orangest]] things I've ever heard. not one of anarchism's highest moments in my mind.		{{li\|I=S2/A\|tradition=A, Zv\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Giving orders is having illegitimate authority {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} / It is illegitimate authority to divide society into order givers and order takers -> god if this isn't one of the [[E:Zinovievism (meta-Marxism)\|orangest]] things I've ever heard. not one of anarchism's highest moments in my mind.

	~~</li><~~li ~~class~~=~~"field_anarchy" data-tradition="~~A~~" value~~="618~~" data-dimension~~=~~"S2">~~Being an authority is good, having authority is bad {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> when I read this I automatically assumed the anarchist would call the opposite of the two things bad. being an authority is bad because class territory owners and bigots clinging to positions and generalized dictators etc, having authority is okay because anarchism has to enforce its structure and Ideals somehow. and I was like, oh, wow, maybe anarchism actually makes sense and I'm being too harsh on it. and then, like it always does, it pulled a left turn and ceased making sense, and I was genuinely baffled. though unsurprised, because what came next was very familiar to the kinds of nonsense I'd already heard.		{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Being an authority is good, having authority is bad {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> when I read this I automatically assumed the anarchist would call the opposite of the two things bad. being an authority is bad because class territory owners and bigots clinging to positions and generalized dictators etc, having authority is okay because anarchism has to enforce its structure and Ideals somehow. and I was like, oh, wow, maybe anarchism actually makes sense and I'm being too harsh on it. and then, like it always does, it pulled a left turn and ceased making sense, and I was genuinely baffled. though unsurprised, because what came next was very familiar to the kinds of nonsense I'd already heard.

	</li~~><li class~~=~~"field_anarchy" data-~~tradition="A, ML~~" value~~="618~~" data-dimension~~=~~"S">~~dividing society into order givers and order takers {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} / The ideas of the ruling class become the ruling ideas of the age (Marx) -> this is a legitimate description of society in the end, but anarchists always seem to get the causality behind it wildly wrong.		{{li\|I=S1/A\|tradition=A, ML\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}dividing society into order givers and order takers {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} / The ideas of the ruling class become the ruling ideas of the age (Marx) -> this is a legitimate description of society in the end, but anarchists always seem to get the causality behind it wildly wrong.

	</li~~><li class~~=~~"field_anarchy" data-tradition="~~A~~" value~~="618~~" data-dimension~~=~~"F2">~~There is a difference between expertise and irrational authority, and anarchists are able to make this distinction and honor legitimate authority {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> there really isn't though, as far as anarchist movements are concerned. Stalin had "socially acknowledged expertise". but anarchists didn't like him. and the whole reason capitalism is a problem is that many or all of the people who "irrationally" dominate people first get into positions of power because they do have legitimate expertise in something that other people don't have; capitalism comes to exist because expertise becomes a matter of quantity rather than quality and the "expertiest" people within the few areas that capitalism actually values come to define what facts everyone is allowed to acknowledge as real and to "own" everyone else. in practice anarchists don't actually like experts being in charge if they violate other conditions that are much more important to anarchists than this distinction without a difference.		{{li\|I=F2/A\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}There is a difference between expertise and irrational authority, and anarchists are able to make this distinction and honor legitimate authority {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> there really isn't though, as far as anarchist movements are concerned. Stalin had "socially acknowledged expertise". but anarchists didn't like him. and the whole reason capitalism is a problem is that many or all of the people who "irrationally" dominate people first get into positions of power because they do have legitimate expertise in something that other people don't have; capitalism comes to exist because expertise becomes a matter of quantity rather than quality and the "expertiest" people within the few areas that capitalism actually values come to define what facts everyone is allowed to acknowledge as real and to "own" everyone else. in practice anarchists don't actually like experts being in charge if they violate other conditions that are much more important to anarchists than this distinction without a difference.

	</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Hierarchy contains government / Every spatial hierarchy contains an anomalous form of government -> a basic assumption of anarchism which most likely isn't true. government provides structure. hierarchy doesn't necessarily mean structure in every case. a spatial slot hierarchy can occur without properly being either structure or government. spatial slot hierarchies can stack up into feudal orders with crude forms of government, but that doesn't mean that every spatial slot hierarchy will do that.

			{{li\|I=F2/A\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Every hierarchy contains government / Hierarchy contains government (broad statement) / Every spatial hierarchy contains some kind of stable or anomalous form of government, and there is no form of spatial hierarchy which does not contain government -> a basic assumption of anarchism which most likely isn't true. government provides structure, such as in a kingdom or a republic containing republican institutions. hierarchy doesn't necessarily mean structure in every case. a [[E:spatial slot hierarchy (meta-Marxism)\|spatial slot hierarchy]] can occur without properly being either structure or government. spatial slot hierarchies can stack up into feudal orders with crude forms of government, but that doesn't mean that every spatial slot hierarchy will do that. some hierarchies blatantly contain no government, and effectively contain both hierarchy and anhierarchy at the same time, because they exhibit both things on different axes, flipping one form of order to hierarchy and one form of order to anhierarchy.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 97:		Line 96:

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=51,91\|Q2=5191\|h4 = Post-structuralists effectively hate China }} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q33,89\|9k]])		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=51,91\|Q2=5191\|h4 = Post-structuralists effectively hate China }} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q33,89\|9k]])

			</li></ol>

			== Meta-anarchism ==
			<ol class="hue clean terse">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/MX/A\|tradition=MX onto A\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4 = meta-anarchism }}

			{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=MX onto A\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4 = anhierarchy }} (meta-Marxism) -> anhierarchy is a new technical term for the sheer absence of a particular kind of hierarchy without specifying the presence of anything else. when a kingdom breaks into warring states, there is anhierarchy, but that does not mean there is anarchy, depending on your definition of "anarchy".

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

Reversedragon: Hierarchy contains government

2026-05-05T03:33:19Z

Hierarchy contains government

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:33, 5 May 2026
Line 44:		Line 44:

	</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="F2">There is a difference between expertise and irrational authority, and anarchists are able to make this distinction and honor legitimate authority {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> there really isn't though, as far as anarchist movements are concerned. Stalin had "socially acknowledged expertise". but anarchists didn't like him. and the whole reason capitalism is a problem is that many or all of the people who "irrationally" dominate people first get into positions of power because they do have legitimate expertise in something that other people don't have; capitalism comes to exist because expertise becomes a matter of quantity rather than quality and the "expertiest" people within the few areas that capitalism actually values come to define what facts everyone is allowed to acknowledge as real and to "own" everyone else. in practice anarchists don't actually like experts being in charge if they violate other conditions that are much more important to anarchists than this distinction without a difference.		</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="F2">There is a difference between expertise and irrational authority, and anarchists are able to make this distinction and honor legitimate authority {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> there really isn't though, as far as anarchist movements are concerned. Stalin had "socially acknowledged expertise". but anarchists didn't like him. and the whole reason capitalism is a problem is that many or all of the people who "irrationally" dominate people first get into positions of power because they do have legitimate expertise in something that other people don't have; capitalism comes to exist because expertise becomes a matter of quantity rather than quality and the "expertiest" people within the few areas that capitalism actually values come to define what facts everyone is allowed to acknowledge as real and to "own" everyone else. in practice anarchists don't actually like experts being in charge if they violate other conditions that are much more important to anarchists than this distinction without a difference.

			</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Hierarchy contains government / Every spatial hierarchy contains an anomalous form of government -> a basic assumption of anarchism which most likely isn't true. government provides structure. hierarchy doesn't necessarily mean structure in every case. a spatial slot hierarchy can occur without properly being either structure or government. spatial slot hierarchies can stack up into feudal orders with crude forms of government, but that doesn't mean that every spatial slot hierarchy will do that.


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

Reversedragon: subpage: atheism

2026-04-28T23:11:15Z

subpage: atheism

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:11, 28 April 2026
Line 113:		Line 113:
	== Subpages ==		== Subpages ==
	* <s>[[Special:PermanentLink/41628\|hierarchy]]</s> - attempt to explain the significance of "hierarchy" in anarchism [integrated]		* <s>[[Special:PermanentLink/41628\|hierarchy]]</s> - attempt to explain the significance of "hierarchy" in anarchism [integrated]
			* [[Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q3300/atheism429\|atheism]] - on how Idealism persecutes atheism

Reversedragon: Anarchism is partly defined by the machiavellian use of existing systems to effect ethics

2026-04-28T10:42:27Z

Anarchism is partly defined by the machiavellian use of existing systems to effect ethics

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:42, 28 April 2026
Line 74:		Line 74:

	{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Anarchism means abolishing domination / Anarchism is partly defined by the concept of abolishing domination {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> so, there are some people who already believe critical theory is a form of anarchism. noted.		{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Anarchism means abolishing domination / Anarchism is partly defined by the concept of abolishing domination {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> so, there are some people who already believe critical theory is a form of anarchism. noted.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4-rem=}}Anarchism is partly defined by the machiavellian use of existing systems to effect ethics

	{{li\|I=S2/Zv\|Q=48,31\|Q2=4831\|h4 = Orange anarchism withdraws }} / Orange anarchism is partly defined by pulling chunks of people out of some greater structure or population when they are dissatisfied with their relationship with that population -> this definition explains the strangely large set of commonalities between Trotskyists and right-Liberals while some of their values are drastically different. whether they know it or not they both fundamentally base their ideologies on the concept of splitting society. of course, I think you could say the same thing about uniquely brown "anarcho-Tory" movements — they want to detach out of a greater society they're dissatisfied with due to being nationalists and practicing local-scale nationalism.		{{li\|I=S2/Zv\|Q=48,31\|Q2=4831\|h4 = Orange anarchism withdraws }} / Orange anarchism is partly defined by pulling chunks of people out of some greater structure or population when they are dissatisfied with their relationship with that population -> this definition explains the strangely large set of commonalities between Trotskyists and right-Liberals while some of their values are drastically different. whether they know it or not they both fundamentally base their ideologies on the concept of splitting society. of course, I think you could say the same thing about uniquely brown "anarcho-Tory" movements — they want to detach out of a greater society they're dissatisfied with due to being nationalists and practicing local-scale nationalism.

Reversedragon: small-scale internationalism

2026-04-24T03:55:38Z

small-scale internationalism

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:55, 24 April 2026
Line 17:		Line 17:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/A\|Q=33,74\|Q2=3374\|h4 = united nonviolence of special oppressions }} -> the motif that a country is composed of "[[E:White supremacy movements\|superior people]]" (social construct, bad) and a ton of endless categories of people who fail to function as perfectly as society's most elite people for some highly specific reason, that if you have any trouble getting into society there must be some highly specific reason you are specially oppressed which requires you to find other people who are specially oppressed exactly the same way and for all the highly specific groups to convince each other at length not to hurt {{em\|each other}} and oppress each other. I am so tired of this, specifically because of that last thing. it's clear that over time our basic assumptions about capitalism and Liberal-republicanism have simply ceased to be true, and the way the whole thing operates is a bit different from the way people think. it seems less that people inherently want to accept each other because they're different and more like there are many separate subpopulations of people shoving each other around all trying to fit onto an island too small to fit all of them.		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/DG/A\|tradition=DG\|Q=33,74\|Q2=3374\|h4 = united nonviolence of special oppressions }} -> the motif that a country is composed of "[[E:White supremacy movements\|superior people]]" (social construct, bad) and a ton of endless categories of people who fail to function as perfectly as society's most elite people for some highly specific reason, that if you have any trouble getting into society there must be some highly specific reason you are specially oppressed which requires you to find other people who are specially oppressed exactly the same way and for all the highly specific groups to convince each other at length not to hurt {{em\|each other}} and oppress each other. I am so tired of this, specifically because of that last thing. it's clear that over time our basic assumptions about capitalism and Liberal-republicanism have simply ceased to be true, and the way the whole thing operates is a bit different from the way people think. it seems less that people inherently want to accept each other because they're different and more like there are many separate subpopulations of people shoving each other around all trying to fit onto an island too small to fit all of them.

	{{li\|I=S1/A\|Q=30,73\|Q2=3073\|h4 = united states of states of states }} / China full of Chinas full of Chinas / USSR of SSRs of SSRs / tribe of tribes of tribes -> the motif that a country is always just a voluntary link between demographics. that the United States is composed of Black women and White women spontaneously opting to be the same country, or Black women and White women opting to be women that then together with Black men opt to be the United States. etc.<br/>		{{li\|I=S1/DG/A\|tradition=DG\|Q=30,73\|Q2=3073\|h4 = united states of states of states }} / China full of Chinas full of Chinas / USSR of SSRs of SSRs / tribe of tribes of tribes -> the motif that a country is always just a voluntary link between demographics. that the United States is composed of Black women and White women spontaneously opting to be the same country, or Black women and White women opting to be women that then together with Black men opt to be the United States. etc.<br/>
	this motif is neutral. I am not trying to say it's bad or impossible to use well, although I would say it confuses and baffles me how intuitive this concept always is to everyone else for reasons I do not understand. or more specifically, how intuitive it is precisely to everyone who is oppressed while being completely unintuitive to a single individual with the power of oppression and as far as I can tell mostly ineffective on them. the sheer ineffectiveness of it on everyone I have ever known personally makes it greatly unintuitive to me, yet to everyone else there's almost no other way to think, and this always leaves me confused.<br />		this motif is neutral. I am not trying to say it's bad or impossible to use well, although I would say it confuses and baffles me how intuitive this concept always is to everyone else for reasons I do not understand. or more specifically, how intuitive it is precisely to everyone who is oppressed while being completely unintuitive to a single individual with the power of oppression and as far as I can tell mostly ineffective on them. the sheer ineffectiveness of it on everyone I have ever known personally makes it greatly unintuitive to me, yet to everyone else there's almost no other way to think, and this always leaves me confused.<br />
	I do have some days where I can almost understand it, specifically in cases like the USSR being made up of 14 republics, or a cluster of Iroquois tribes binding together into one big tribe. to me this motif makes lots of sense as a way to understand societies and history when you strain it through Communism or some very crimson-tinted general-sense historical materialism, but it doesn't make a lot of sense as anarchism, exactly the way everyone actually looks at it. so then I end up sitting around confused going, I'm supposed to understand the USSR as being effective specifically because it was made up of 14 nationalities that came together, but how is that even possible when it needed the Material System of Bolshevism to unite them? does this mean that when Trotsky attacked the Soviet Union he went against <em>anarchism</em> and the <em>charcoal-tinted workers' state process</em>? funny enough, that would actually make sense. but it's totally not the way anybody ever sees it in the United States. you don't see United States people going around saying "Trotsky brought down the USSR and that's why you have to vote Democrat, you don't want to become East Germany and let the Great Wall of Biden fall down only to let West Germany start hating and oppressing all people named Kevin". it'd certainly make internally-coherent sense [[:Category:Deng Xiaoping Thought ontology\|in its own way]], and yet nobody ever says it because everybody is committed to anarchism being the enemy of Communism but not the enemy of the United States government. doesn't that make anarchism literally "Western", full of prejudice in favor of "The West", and unable to do what "Settlers" claims? anarchism always completely twists my brain in knots because I always end up actually thinking about it and it never makes sense.		I do have some days where I can almost understand it, specifically in cases like the USSR being made up of 14 republics, or a cluster of Iroquois tribes binding together into one big tribe. to me this motif makes lots of sense as a way to understand societies and history when you strain it through Communism or some very crimson-tinted general-sense historical materialism, but it doesn't make a lot of sense as anarchism, exactly the way everyone actually looks at it. so then I end up sitting around confused going, I'm supposed to understand the USSR as being effective specifically because it was made up of 14 nationalities that came together, but how is that even possible when it needed the Material System of Bolshevism to unite them? does this mean that when Trotsky attacked the Soviet Union he went against <em>anarchism</em> and the <em>charcoal-tinted workers' state process</em>? funny enough, that would actually make sense. but it's totally not the way anybody ever sees it in the United States. you don't see United States people going around saying "Trotsky brought down the USSR and that's why you have to vote Democrat, you don't want to become East Germany and let the Great Wall of Biden fall down only to let West Germany start hating and oppressing all people named Kevin". it'd certainly make internally-coherent sense [[:Category:Deng Xiaoping Thought ontology\|in its own way]], and yet nobody ever says it because everybody is committed to anarchism being the enemy of Communism but not the enemy of the United States government. doesn't that make anarchism literally "Western", full of prejudice in favor of "The West", and unable to do what "[[E:read Settlers\|Settlers]]" claims? anarchism always completely twists my brain in knots because I always end up actually thinking about it and it never makes sense.

			{{li\|I=S1/DG/MX\|tradition=DG\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4 = small-scale internationalism }} / molecular internationalism; molecular scale internationalism (meta-Marxism) -> the motif of a country which has been sharded into a ridiculous number of "nationalities" that all function like tiny countries of 1,000 or fewer people, but where that huge number of tiny nationalities has actually started functioning together again.

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

Reversedragon: Anarchism actually seeks molecularization / hierarchy

2026-04-24T03:44:55Z

Anarchism actually seeks molecularization / hierarchy

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:44, 24 April 2026
Line 33:		Line 33:
	this becomes super clear [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-FirstAnarchistManifesto\|when you read Bellegarrigue]] — his anarchism is rather crude and doesn't fully match a lot of modern social anarchisms, but the core ""class analysis"" framework used by many anarchists is clearly defined in there.		this becomes super clear [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-FirstAnarchistManifesto\|when you read Bellegarrigue]] — his anarchism is rather crude and doesn't fully match a lot of modern social anarchisms, but the core ""class analysis"" framework used by many anarchists is clearly defined in there.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|Q=618}}~~Anarchism actually seeks molecularization~~ / ~~Anarchism secretly aims for a molecularized model~~ of ~~all social interactions / Despite all~~ the ~~Idealist nonsense coming out~~ of a ~~lot~~ of ~~anarchist writers~~, the ~~ultimate goal of anarchism~~ is to ~~become aware~~ of ~~all~~ the ~~small-scale interactions~~ that ~~occur between individuals~~ or ~~small groups~~ of people ~~and over time through some kind~~ of ~~gradual transition process put societies~~ in ~~control~~ of ~~all of those interactions through proportional levels of force or intervention / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q50,98\|9k]])~~		<li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Social sanctioning is caused by hierarchies {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> {{em\|no.}} it's pretty {{censor\|damn}} often caused by Communities.

			</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, Zv" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Giving orders is having illegitimate authority {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} / It is illegitimate authority to divide society into order givers and order takers -> god if this isn't one of the [[E:Zinovievism (meta-Marxism)\|orangest]] things I've ever heard. not one of anarchism's highest moments in my mind.

			</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Being an authority is good, having authority is bad {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> when I read this I automatically assumed the anarchist would call the opposite of the two things bad. being an authority is bad because class territory owners and bigots clinging to positions and generalized dictators etc, having authority is okay because anarchism has to enforce its structure and Ideals somehow. and I was like, oh, wow, maybe anarchism actually makes sense and I'm being too harsh on it. and then, like it always does, it pulled a left turn and ceased making sense, and I was genuinely baffled. though unsurprised, because what came next was very familiar to the kinds of nonsense I'd already heard.

			</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">dividing society into order givers and order takers {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} / The ideas of the ruling class become the ruling ideas of the age (Marx) -> this is a legitimate description of society in the end, but anarchists always seem to get the causality behind it wildly wrong.

			</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="F2">There is a difference between expertise and irrational authority, and anarchists are able to make this distinction and honor legitimate authority {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> there really isn't though, as far as anarchist movements are concerned. Stalin had "socially acknowledged expertise". but anarchists didn't like him. and the whole reason capitalism is a problem is that many or all of the people who "irrationally" dominate people first get into positions of power because they do have legitimate expertise in something that other people don't have; capitalism comes to exist because expertise becomes a matter of quantity rather than quality and the "expertiest" people within the few areas that capitalism actually values come to define what facts everyone is allowed to acknowledge as real and to "own" everyone else. in practice anarchists don't actually like experts being in charge if they violate other conditions that are much more important to anarchists than this distinction without a difference.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 70:		Line 78:

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|class=field_exstruct field_LGBT\|Q=22,87\|Q2=2287\|h4 = Anarchism defines itself as Evil }} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q22,87\|9k]]) -> this definition of anarchism applies to fields like non-normative queer theory.		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|class=field_exstruct field_LGBT\|Q=22,87\|Q2=2287\|h4 = Anarchism defines itself as Evil }} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q22,87\|9k]]) -> this definition of anarchism applies to fields like non-normative queer theory.

			{{li\|I=S2/A/MX\|Q=618\|h4 = Anarchism actually seeks molecularization }} / Anarchism secretly aims for a molecularized model of all social interactions / Despite all the Idealist nonsense coming out of a lot of anarchist writers, the ultimate goal of anarchism is to become aware of all the small-scale interactions that occur between individuals or small groups of people and over time through some kind of gradual transition process put societies in control of all of those interactions through proportional levels of force or intervention / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q50,98\|9k]]) -><br/>
			this is one of the most good-faith interpretations I can pull out of anarchism, out of all the {{censor\|crap}} they say. anarchists really want to believe that history doesn't exist, that all historical periods are arbitrary, and that nothing in particular makes historical periods transition into other historical periods. ok.... but what if that {{em\|wasn't}} a terrible theory and it {{em\|did}} make sense? one of the possible outcomes if you take anarchism seriously is that anarchists have described a process of how individuals assemble from very fine-grained scales into larger historical periods, and how each collection of individual behaviors creates a historical period of a different "color". with one minimum change to anarchism, the recognition that different historical periods containing different repeated behaviors-of-individuals summing up to a particular color can actually transition into periods of other particular colors only from certain colors, you end up with a theory that actually isn't so bad. you've basically replaced the concept of [[E:sublation\|sublation]] with a more "timeless" theory that looks more like applied chemistry and recording or memorizing particular kinds of reactions that bridge particular kinds of molecules. but, again, that genuinely might be enough to carry an individual nation-wide movement in a particular country if somebody could only figure out the right transition from what to what. I genuinely believe you could teach anarchists [[E:meta-Marxism (applied)\|meta-Marxism]] if they were smart enough and they weren't so stubborn. like there is only so much of a difference between what Stalin said right before he died and the CPSU per-se was defeated, and what anarchists want to do. Stalin wanted to create a systematic study of how the small-scale elements of society transitioned into other small-scale elements; anarchists want to be in control of society's small-scale interactions. that's like, almost the same thing. if we could all just pry anarchists away from the concepts of Idealism and utterly mystifying the word "community" to create a strictly Materialist anarchism we'd be set

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:40, 7 May 2026
Line 70:		Line 70:

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX/ES\|Q=618\|h4 = Anarchism swaps states for ethics }} / Anarchism replaces states with ethics / Anarchism is partly defined as a society where ethical codes replace The State -> this is what I think the categorical imperative teaches us about blue anarchisms and maybe {{em\|all}} anarchisms.		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX/ES\|Q=618\|h4 = Anarchism swaps states for ethics }} / Anarchism replaces states with ethics / Anarchism is partly defined as a society where ethical codes replace The State -> this is what I think the categorical imperative teaches us about blue anarchisms and maybe {{em\|all}} anarchisms.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX/ES/A\|Q=618}}Anarchists won't listen to any proposition which isn't phrased in terms of ethics / Anarchists won't listen to any proposition about reality which isn't phrased in terms of individual ethics / ([[User:RD/9k/Q618-AntiJakeTheory\|9k/...]]) -> this requirement is really steep, but... as a challenge, is it really unworkable? ... maybe the true power of [[EC:9k/RD/Q92\|violet Marxism]] is yet to be seen

	{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|Q=56,43\|Q2=56,43}}Anarchism is partly defined by the claim that progress can only be described through the sheer assertion of human moralities as a fundamental layer of material reality -> this seems common to both charcoal anarchism and blue anarchism, as well as to some forms of Western Marxism. and as far as I know, it's absent from Stalin's Marxism. <s>as it ought to be!</s><br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|Q=56,43\|Q2=56,43}}Anarchism is partly defined by the claim that progress can only be described through the sheer assertion of human moralities as a fundamental layer of material reality -> this seems common to both charcoal anarchism and blue anarchism, as well as to some forms of Western Marxism. and as far as I know, it's absent from Stalin's Marxism. <s>as it ought to be!</s><br/>

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:40, 5 May 2026
Line 35:		Line 35:
	this becomes super clear [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-FirstAnarchistManifesto\|when you read Bellegarrigue]] — his anarchism is rather crude and doesn't fully match a lot of modern social anarchisms, but the core ""class analysis"" framework used by many anarchists is clearly defined in there.		this becomes super clear [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-FirstAnarchistManifesto\|when you read Bellegarrigue]] — his anarchism is rather crude and doesn't fully match a lot of modern social anarchisms, but the core ""class analysis"" framework used by many anarchists is clearly defined in there.

	<li ~~class~~=~~"field_anarchy" data-tradition="~~A~~" value~~="618~~" data-dimension~~=~~"S2">~~Social sanctioning is caused by hierarchies {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> {{em\|no.}} it's pretty {{censor\|damn}} often caused by Communities.		{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Social sanctioning is caused by hierarchies {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> {{em\|no.}} it's pretty {{censor\|damn}} often caused by Communities.

	~~</li><~~li ~~class~~=~~"field_anarchy" data-~~tradition="A, Zv~~" value~~="618~~" data-dimension~~=~~"S2">~~Giving orders is having illegitimate authority {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} / It is illegitimate authority to divide society into order givers and order takers -> god if this isn't one of the [[E:Zinovievism (meta-Marxism)\|orangest]] things I've ever heard. not one of anarchism's highest moments in my mind.		{{li\|I=S2/A\|tradition=A, Zv\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Giving orders is having illegitimate authority {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} / It is illegitimate authority to divide society into order givers and order takers -> god if this isn't one of the [[E:Zinovievism (meta-Marxism)\|orangest]] things I've ever heard. not one of anarchism's highest moments in my mind.

	~~</li><~~li ~~class~~=~~"field_anarchy" data-tradition="~~A~~" value~~="618~~" data-dimension~~=~~"S2">~~Being an authority is good, having authority is bad {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> when I read this I automatically assumed the anarchist would call the opposite of the two things bad. being an authority is bad because class territory owners and bigots clinging to positions and generalized dictators etc, having authority is okay because anarchism has to enforce its structure and Ideals somehow. and I was like, oh, wow, maybe anarchism actually makes sense and I'm being too harsh on it. and then, like it always does, it pulled a left turn and ceased making sense, and I was genuinely baffled. though unsurprised, because what came next was very familiar to the kinds of nonsense I'd already heard.		{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Being an authority is good, having authority is bad {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> when I read this I automatically assumed the anarchist would call the opposite of the two things bad. being an authority is bad because class territory owners and bigots clinging to positions and generalized dictators etc, having authority is okay because anarchism has to enforce its structure and Ideals somehow. and I was like, oh, wow, maybe anarchism actually makes sense and I'm being too harsh on it. and then, like it always does, it pulled a left turn and ceased making sense, and I was genuinely baffled. though unsurprised, because what came next was very familiar to the kinds of nonsense I'd already heard.

	</li~~><li class~~=~~"field_anarchy" data-~~tradition="A, ML~~" value~~="618~~" data-dimension~~=~~"S">~~dividing society into order givers and order takers {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} / The ideas of the ruling class become the ruling ideas of the age (Marx) -> this is a legitimate description of society in the end, but anarchists always seem to get the causality behind it wildly wrong.		{{li\|I=S1/A\|tradition=A, ML\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}dividing society into order givers and order takers {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} / The ideas of the ruling class become the ruling ideas of the age (Marx) -> this is a legitimate description of society in the end, but anarchists always seem to get the causality behind it wildly wrong.

	</li~~><li class~~=~~"field_anarchy" data-tradition="~~A~~" value~~="618~~" data-dimension~~=~~"F2">~~There is a difference between expertise and irrational authority, and anarchists are able to make this distinction and honor legitimate authority {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> there really isn't though, as far as anarchist movements are concerned. Stalin had "socially acknowledged expertise". but anarchists didn't like him. and the whole reason capitalism is a problem is that many or all of the people who "irrationally" dominate people first get into positions of power because they do have legitimate expertise in something that other people don't have; capitalism comes to exist because expertise becomes a matter of quantity rather than quality and the "expertiest" people within the few areas that capitalism actually values come to define what facts everyone is allowed to acknowledge as real and to "own" everyone else. in practice anarchists don't actually like experts being in charge if they violate other conditions that are much more important to anarchists than this distinction without a difference.		{{li\|I=F2/A\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}There is a difference between expertise and irrational authority, and anarchists are able to make this distinction and honor legitimate authority {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> there really isn't though, as far as anarchist movements are concerned. Stalin had "socially acknowledged expertise". but anarchists didn't like him. and the whole reason capitalism is a problem is that many or all of the people who "irrationally" dominate people first get into positions of power because they do have legitimate expertise in something that other people don't have; capitalism comes to exist because expertise becomes a matter of quantity rather than quality and the "expertiest" people within the few areas that capitalism actually values come to define what facts everyone is allowed to acknowledge as real and to "own" everyone else. in practice anarchists don't actually like experts being in charge if they violate other conditions that are much more important to anarchists than this distinction without a difference.

	</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="F2">Hierarchy contains government / Every spatial hierarchy contains an anomalous form of government -> a basic assumption of anarchism which most likely isn't true. government provides structure. hierarchy doesn't necessarily mean structure in every case. a spatial slot hierarchy can occur without properly being either structure or government. spatial slot hierarchies can stack up into feudal orders with crude forms of government, but that doesn't mean that every spatial slot hierarchy will do that.

			{{li\|I=F2/A\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Every hierarchy contains government / Hierarchy contains government (broad statement) / Every spatial hierarchy contains some kind of stable or anomalous form of government, and there is no form of spatial hierarchy which does not contain government -> a basic assumption of anarchism which most likely isn't true. government provides structure, such as in a kingdom or a republic containing republican institutions. hierarchy doesn't necessarily mean structure in every case. a [[E:spatial slot hierarchy (meta-Marxism)\|spatial slot hierarchy]] can occur without properly being either structure or government. spatial slot hierarchies can stack up into feudal orders with crude forms of government, but that doesn't mean that every spatial slot hierarchy will do that. some hierarchies blatantly contain no government, and effectively contain both hierarchy and anhierarchy at the same time, because they exhibit both things on different axes, flipping one form of order to hierarchy and one form of order to anhierarchy.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 97:		Line 96:

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=51,91\|Q2=5191\|h4 = Post-structuralists effectively hate China }} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q33,89\|9k]])		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=51,91\|Q2=5191\|h4 = Post-structuralists effectively hate China }} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q33,89\|9k]])

			</li></ol>

			== Meta-anarchism ==
			<ol class="hue clean terse">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/MX/A\|tradition=MX onto A\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4 = meta-anarchism }}

			{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=MX onto A\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4 = anhierarchy }} (meta-Marxism) -> anhierarchy is a new technical term for the sheer absence of a particular kind of hierarchy without specifying the presence of anything else. when a kingdom breaks into warring states, there is anhierarchy, but that does not mean there is anarchy, depending on your definition of "anarchy".

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:42, 28 April 2026
Line 74:		Line 74:

	{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Anarchism means abolishing domination / Anarchism is partly defined by the concept of abolishing domination {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> so, there are some people who already believe critical theory is a form of anarchism. noted.		{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Anarchism means abolishing domination / Anarchism is partly defined by the concept of abolishing domination {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> so, there are some people who already believe critical theory is a form of anarchism. noted.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4-rem=}}Anarchism is partly defined by the machiavellian use of existing systems to effect ethics

	{{li\|I=S2/Zv\|Q=48,31\|Q2=4831\|h4 = Orange anarchism withdraws }} / Orange anarchism is partly defined by pulling chunks of people out of some greater structure or population when they are dissatisfied with their relationship with that population -> this definition explains the strangely large set of commonalities between Trotskyists and right-Liberals while some of their values are drastically different. whether they know it or not they both fundamentally base their ideologies on the concept of splitting society. of course, I think you could say the same thing about uniquely brown "anarcho-Tory" movements — they want to detach out of a greater society they're dissatisfied with due to being nationalists and practicing local-scale nationalism.		{{li\|I=S2/Zv\|Q=48,31\|Q2=4831\|h4 = Orange anarchism withdraws }} / Orange anarchism is partly defined by pulling chunks of people out of some greater structure or population when they are dissatisfied with their relationship with that population -> this definition explains the strangely large set of commonalities between Trotskyists and right-Liberals while some of their values are drastically different. whether they know it or not they both fundamentally base their ideologies on the concept of splitting society. of course, I think you could say the same thing about uniquely brown "anarcho-Tory" movements — they want to detach out of a greater society they're dissatisfied with due to being nationalists and practicing local-scale nationalism.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:44, 24 April 2026
Line 33:		Line 33:
	this becomes super clear [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-FirstAnarchistManifesto\|when you read Bellegarrigue]] — his anarchism is rather crude and doesn't fully match a lot of modern social anarchisms, but the core ""class analysis"" framework used by many anarchists is clearly defined in there.		this becomes super clear [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-FirstAnarchistManifesto\|when you read Bellegarrigue]] — his anarchism is rather crude and doesn't fully match a lot of modern social anarchisms, but the core ""class analysis"" framework used by many anarchists is clearly defined in there.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|Q=618}}~~Anarchism actually seeks molecularization~~ / ~~Anarchism secretly aims for a molecularized model~~ of ~~all social interactions / Despite all~~ the ~~Idealist nonsense coming out~~ of a ~~lot~~ of ~~anarchist writers~~, the ~~ultimate goal of anarchism~~ is to ~~become aware~~ of ~~all~~ the ~~small-scale interactions~~ that ~~occur between individuals~~ or ~~small groups~~ of people ~~and over time through some kind~~ of ~~gradual transition process put societies~~ in ~~control~~ of ~~all of those interactions through proportional levels of force or intervention / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q50,98\|9k]])~~		<li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Social sanctioning is caused by hierarchies {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> {{em\|no.}} it's pretty {{censor\|damn}} often caused by Communities.

			</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, Zv" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Giving orders is having illegitimate authority {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} / It is illegitimate authority to divide society into order givers and order takers -> god if this isn't one of the [[E:Zinovievism (meta-Marxism)\|orangest]] things I've ever heard. not one of anarchism's highest moments in my mind.

			</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Being an authority is good, having authority is bad {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> when I read this I automatically assumed the anarchist would call the opposite of the two things bad. being an authority is bad because class territory owners and bigots clinging to positions and generalized dictators etc, having authority is okay because anarchism has to enforce its structure and Ideals somehow. and I was like, oh, wow, maybe anarchism actually makes sense and I'm being too harsh on it. and then, like it always does, it pulled a left turn and ceased making sense, and I was genuinely baffled. though unsurprised, because what came next was very familiar to the kinds of nonsense I'd already heard.

			</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, ML" value="618" data-dimension="S">dividing society into order givers and order takers {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} / The ideas of the ruling class become the ruling ideas of the age (Marx) -> this is a legitimate description of society in the end, but anarchists always seem to get the causality behind it wildly wrong.

			</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A" value="618" data-dimension="F2">There is a difference between expertise and irrational authority, and anarchists are able to make this distinction and honor legitimate authority {{nickel\|AnarchistLibrary/PrinciplesOfAnarchism\|Basic Principles of Anarchism}} -> there really isn't though, as far as anarchist movements are concerned. Stalin had "socially acknowledged expertise". but anarchists didn't like him. and the whole reason capitalism is a problem is that many or all of the people who "irrationally" dominate people first get into positions of power because they do have legitimate expertise in something that other people don't have; capitalism comes to exist because expertise becomes a matter of quantity rather than quality and the "expertiest" people within the few areas that capitalism actually values come to define what facts everyone is allowed to acknowledge as real and to "own" everyone else. in practice anarchists don't actually like experts being in charge if they violate other conditions that are much more important to anarchists than this distinction without a difference.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 70:		Line 78:

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|class=field_exstruct field_LGBT\|Q=22,87\|Q2=2287\|h4 = Anarchism defines itself as Evil }} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q22,87\|9k]]) -> this definition of anarchism applies to fields like non-normative queer theory.		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|class=field_exstruct field_LGBT\|Q=22,87\|Q2=2287\|h4 = Anarchism defines itself as Evil }} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q22,87\|9k]]) -> this definition of anarchism applies to fields like non-normative queer theory.

			{{li\|I=S2/A/MX\|Q=618\|h4 = Anarchism actually seeks molecularization }} / Anarchism secretly aims for a molecularized model of all social interactions / Despite all the Idealist nonsense coming out of a lot of anarchist writers, the ultimate goal of anarchism is to become aware of all the small-scale interactions that occur between individuals or small groups of people and over time through some kind of gradual transition process put societies in control of all of those interactions through proportional levels of force or intervention / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q50,98\|9k]]) -><br/>
			this is one of the most good-faith interpretations I can pull out of anarchism, out of all the {{censor\|crap}} they say. anarchists really want to believe that history doesn't exist, that all historical periods are arbitrary, and that nothing in particular makes historical periods transition into other historical periods. ok.... but what if that {{em\|wasn't}} a terrible theory and it {{em\|did}} make sense? one of the possible outcomes if you take anarchism seriously is that anarchists have described a process of how individuals assemble from very fine-grained scales into larger historical periods, and how each collection of individual behaviors creates a historical period of a different "color". with one minimum change to anarchism, the recognition that different historical periods containing different repeated behaviors-of-individuals summing up to a particular color can actually transition into periods of other particular colors only from certain colors, you end up with a theory that actually isn't so bad. you've basically replaced the concept of [[E:sublation\|sublation]] with a more "timeless" theory that looks more like applied chemistry and recording or memorizing particular kinds of reactions that bridge particular kinds of molecules. but, again, that genuinely might be enough to carry an individual nation-wide movement in a particular country if somebody could only figure out the right transition from what to what. I genuinely believe you could teach anarchists [[E:meta-Marxism (applied)\|meta-Marxism]] if they were smart enough and they weren't so stubborn. like there is only so much of a difference between what Stalin said right before he died and the CPSU per-se was defeated, and what anarchists want to do. Stalin wanted to create a systematic study of how the small-scale elements of society transitioned into other small-scale elements; anarchists want to be in control of society's small-scale interactions. that's like, almost the same thing. if we could all just pry anarchists away from the concepts of Idealism and utterly mystifying the word "community" to create a strictly Materialist anarchism we'd be set

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