Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q46,19/critique - Revision history

Reversedragon: If the American Revolution was a reactionary event, why did it have ripple effects?

2026-09-26T05:16:12Z

If the American Revolution was a reactionary event, why did it have ripple effects?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:16, 26 September 2026
Line 80:		Line 80:
	** postmodernism itself is incompatible with historical materialism		** postmodernism itself is incompatible with historical materialism
	** Hegel had a method; postmodernism doesn't have a method, much less a dialectical method - well, that's not really why I was trying to invert it. I was starting from the simple concept that a great number of philosophies or fictional narratives are based on real things.		** Hegel had a method; postmodernism doesn't have a method, much less a dialectical method - well, that's not really why I was trying to invert it. I was starting from the simple concept that a great number of philosophies or fictional narratives are based on real things.

			== comment 2B ==

			<blockquote>If the American Revolution was a reactionary event, why was it hailed by contemporaries beyond the shores of the United States as the dawn of a new democratic age? Did the American Revolution play no role in the chain of events that produced the French and Haitian revolutions ... If the proclamation of human equality in the Declaration of Independence is only a "founding myth," and not a discovery whose revolutionary meaning tears through all subsequent history, how do we explain the fact that every progressive social movement has inscribed this maxim on its banner? [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/10/23/1619-o23.html]</blockquote>

			The problem with this quote is that you could equally say this about Stalinism. The CPSU allowed for other countries to have social-democratic movements, it was copied by a whole lot of unsuccessful Stalinist parties and a handful of countries that would become Deng Xiaoping states, it was successful enough to alienate most of the United States away from 'the only form of Marxism' and make U.S. people invent totally unrelated forms of resistance to the Vietnam War, and it still stopped short of actual proletarian revolution that from the point it was created started moving backwards. Most Marxist parties or tendencies you see today have inscribed the values of Stalinism on their banner — they claim that all progressive movements since the CPSU have been influenced by Stalinism as opposed to being influenced by Trotskyism. One of the only exceptions occurs with the RCI/IMT due to its level of visibility. Even in that case you will tend to see social-democrats trying to generically call it Socialism as if they invented the IMT themselves, all the while loosely implying that Gramsci invented Leninism, that parties like CPUSA are practicing the same Marxism as Gramsci and the IMT, and in turn that the IMT is a form of socialism in one country.<br/>
			Is that a step forward for the world of 1930 or is that a step sideways that increasingly looks like a step backward the longer it's there?

	== revision 3 ==		== revision 3 ==

Reversedragon: new comment

2026-09-19T10:48:46Z

new comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:48, 19 September 2026
Line 139:		Line 139:
	I think at the end of the day what Black people don't want is to be like Krupskaya and get sandwiched in between a movement that claims to represent them and a complete betrayal. But a lot of times when they attempt to get involved in something, they do not really have the language to properly study or express the complicated flow chart of various different stages of organizations developing and then organizations crumbling and betraying people. One of the only things they may have the ability to articulate is that people they knew before getting into "White movements" seemed to understand them better and violate their trust less. So they falsely think that the people in the movement are all corrupt, maybe Communism did it (if your neighborhood wasn't Communist, how would you know?), or that somehow "the Black community" must be a more coherent thing than the link between it and other populations which is more capable of forming strong bonds which could carry people through tough times. This is ultimately a matter of Trotskyists failing to explain what permanent revolution and organizational betrayals or failed leadership actually are. Here's the way I like to explain it in meta-Marxist swatch analysis: a Trotskyist movement is supposed to be orange, meaning it contains particular structures like workers' committees that create the dictatorship of the proletariat / proletarian estate. The bourgeoisie is blue. Some organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America are covered in "blue people" suitable for going to bourgeois parliament and have already been blue. Sometimes blue people slip into control of an orange organization and turn it blue. That is a betrayal. The point of an orange organization is it is supposed to be able to link up with other orange organizations to form a larger orange area and keep blue structures out, but if the blue structures get in in the middle of that process, it can disrupt the whole thing. (There's a bit more to swatch analysis than that, but I can't cover it all here.) Ultimately, I think what Black people want is basically what anyone else would want: to outlast bad organizations and avoid or at least get through betrayal.		I think at the end of the day what Black people don't want is to be like Krupskaya and get sandwiched in between a movement that claims to represent them and a complete betrayal. But a lot of times when they attempt to get involved in something, they do not really have the language to properly study or express the complicated flow chart of various different stages of organizations developing and then organizations crumbling and betraying people. One of the only things they may have the ability to articulate is that people they knew before getting into "White movements" seemed to understand them better and violate their trust less. So they falsely think that the people in the movement are all corrupt, maybe Communism did it (if your neighborhood wasn't Communist, how would you know?), or that somehow "the Black community" must be a more coherent thing than the link between it and other populations which is more capable of forming strong bonds which could carry people through tough times. This is ultimately a matter of Trotskyists failing to explain what permanent revolution and organizational betrayals or failed leadership actually are. Here's the way I like to explain it in meta-Marxist swatch analysis: a Trotskyist movement is supposed to be orange, meaning it contains particular structures like workers' committees that create the dictatorship of the proletariat / proletarian estate. The bourgeoisie is blue. Some organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America are covered in "blue people" suitable for going to bourgeois parliament and have already been blue. Sometimes blue people slip into control of an orange organization and turn it blue. That is a betrayal. The point of an orange organization is it is supposed to be able to link up with other orange organizations to form a larger orange area and keep blue structures out, but if the blue structures get in in the middle of that process, it can disrupt the whole thing. (There's a bit more to swatch analysis than that, but I can't cover it all here.) Ultimately, I think what Black people want is basically what anyone else would want: to outlast bad organizations and avoid or at least get through betrayal.

	~~The thought process~~ makes ~~sense — you want~~ to ~~know~~ that ~~your friends are actually your friends and not just somebody you didn't even know — but there isn't~~ really ~~enough education on what it is that leads to betrayals {{em\|within movements}} and what~~ makes them ~~different from everyday relationships~~, ~~so, in confusion, people assume~~ that ~~the two~~ are ~~one and the same and have the same rules. Liberal-republicanism has been programming people for a while that there is absolutely no separation between "behavior" (crimes~~, ~~protected activity~~, ~~fulfilling party platform, failing~~ to ~~deliver party platform) and "politics" (laws,~~ the ~~Bill of Rights), so~~ people ~~begin to assume~~ that ~~the~~ only ~~way to get better laws passed is to fractalize the constitution and constitutional amendment violations down to individual behavior~~ so you can personally call people out for violating the 14th Amendment by not doing their part to get rid of the Confederacy. The real way to get better laws passed (maybe) is to understand the separation between everyday people and the kind of people who usually become representatives, ~~then independently assemble a new party which is not limited~~ in ~~its ability to organize by its leadership or bourgeois parties~~. In that ~~sense,~~ you do have to ~~make sure that~~ you ~~have~~ a ~~particular set of connections that is trustworthy and subject to what people democratically decide (~~the ~~people's "values") that can break away from untrustworthy people and become independent~~ of ~~those people~~. ~~When a movement is healthy, it will not depend as much on a centralized leadership (as with the CPSU, not in any anarchist sense~~ of ~~'decentralized') and it will come closer to being able to regenerate itself from any peripheral place where it is still functioning~~ the ~~way it should, because although it will need to regroup and create a~~ leadership ~~it will be able~~ to ~~create~~ a ~~new~~ leadership.		So, because resisting capitalism is about surviving, and bad leadership makes people less able to survive attacks by the bourgeoisie, and people are aware that having people they can really trust makes them more able to survive, they reach for the three things that are important: surviving, avoiding bad leadership, and sticking to the people that haven't betrayed them yet. This is only so far away from correct, in one sense. They've correctly understood the concept that when leadership is absent you have to do everything yourself until you can create a new one. But they haven't gotten all the way {{em\|through}} the process of fixing it. Get rid of the bad leadership? Check. Come to a better understanding of Marxism and take over for the bad leadership? No.

	~~So in a really~~ weird ~~way, "Black Marxism" efforts are almost doing what they need to~~ be ~~doing~~. ~~As crazy as~~ that ~~may sound~~. ~~They~~ are ~~somewhat grasping~~ the ~~important~~ concept ~~that if other groups~~ of ~~people you were supposed~~ to ~~merge with let you down you have~~ to ~~start~~ the ~~overall process~~ of ~~forming a movement~~ and ~~figuring out how~~ to ~~analyze movements from the outside and integrate lessons from history and everything over from the beginning until you actually understand, and first~~ of ~~all you have to survive because capitalists take over every area~~ of ~~life in which you aren't outdoing them at creating civilization. That is the angle from which they need~~ to be ~~understood. No,~~ they ~~don't know what they're doing. No, they don't know what Marxism is~~. ~~But are they enthusiastic~~ to ~~figure things out themselves without being told? Yes~~. ~~The concept of a separate Black workers' state went out~~ the ~~window around the time~~ that ~~Stalinism did. But that doesn't mean~~ the ~~need~~ to ~~study multiple populations materially as multiple interconnected objects has gone away, it means that~~ the ~~points~~ of ~~failure in each population's movement~~ are ~~points of failure for a single worldwide movement~~. ~~The new~~ "~~abolitionist~~" ~~pseudo-Marxist movement can try to get around bad Trotskyist leadership,~~ and ~~if it does it badly, Trotskyism suffers twice~~.		I used to believe some kind of localized Black Marxist party might be necessary, mostly because of my weird scheme circa 2022 where the world would be organized into Marxist parties that replaced nation-states. I don't really see it that way any more. But I still think that when subpopulations within a country area are weirdly separating out like this it's important to look into the actual reasons why, so that ultimately something similar to the Stalinist concept of each nation becoming educated and determining itself on its own parallel path can still happen. There may be no real separations between a lot of North America any more in terms of economic structure but it's still important to try to get all the localized chunks of people to empower themselves and come to a full understanding of Marxism of their own will so that if there come to be any problems in other places {{em\|they}} can regenerate the Fourth International. And I think to some extent that requires building trust. It requires taking all the things that have been said about populations, "race", "culture", and "identities", sifting out all the immaterial stuff, and putting to use the parts of that knowledge that are actually real. Sublation: keeping the physical processes, lifting reality away from nebulous concepts like "culture" and "identity".

	At the end of the day, race is basically just the same thing as nationality except much smaller. When the United States and Japan exist as two separate populations, that's nationality. When there is a tiny subpopulation of Japanese immigrants that is still identifiable as a countable entity we call it race. But what it is, if there wasn't such a weird conversation around what racism is and isn't, is simply the existence of multiple populations. In the Soviet Union, 14 regional populations simply coexisted and I'm only aware of notable tension between Russians and all non-Russians as the Union started to dissolve. And that to me is a very important observation. The 14 populations did not merge, although some writers thought they would all become a single Soviet population. But the 14 populations did not have serious problems forming a single workers' state either. ~~The shape of the Soviet Union is very bizarre; there have been very few other sets of countries structured that way. But~~ I think what it ultimately suggests is that if science becomes able to understand how populations are formed and the relationships between large or small populations as a material reality, the divisions that are necessary will continue to exist peacefully while the distinctions that are unnecessary will fade away~~. Sublation: keeping the physical processes, lifting reality away from nebulous concepts like "culture" and "identity"~~.		At the end of the day, race is basically just the same thing as nationality except much smaller. When the United States and Japan exist as two separate populations, that's nationality. When there is a tiny subpopulation of Japanese immigrants that is still identifiable as a countable entity we call it race. But what it is, if there wasn't such a weird conversation around what racism is and isn't, is simply the existence of multiple populations. In the Soviet Union, 14 regional populations simply coexisted and I'm only aware of notable tension between Russians and all non-Russians as the Union started to dissolve. And that to me is a very important observation. The 14 populations did not merge, although some writers thought they would all become a single Soviet population. But the 14 populations did not have serious problems forming a single workers' state either. I think what it ultimately suggests is that if science becomes able to understand how populations are formed and the relationships between large or small populations as a material reality, the divisions that are necessary will continue to exist peacefully, explained by new scientific models, while the distinctions that are unnecessary will fade away.

	~~<!--~~		So... what about the part where the 1619 Project and {{book\|Black Marxism}} each greatly exaggerate the role of slavery in creating structural racism within capitalism? I have no justification for that one. All I can say there is that these anarchist/Abolitionist movements are basically tired of their issues being ignored for so long they project exactly what's been happening for the last 20 years or so onto the past. Here the issue of redlining and other forms of {{i\|de facto segregation}} is the actual problem to focus on. You have to take every critique of a questionable Abolitionist article and then read it over again for what current issues it accidentally made fun of, and then you see what the actual response should have been; they don't make it easy to figure out what they're actually saying, but if you cross reference everything in it with headlines of events actually happening that's usually a way to make sense of it.
	~~"Does he want to~~ say that ~~gross inequalities~~ of ~~wealth are conducive~~ to ~~robust economic development" [https://www~~.~~wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/18/oake-n18~~.~~html]~~

	I thought there were multiple separate versions of Trotskyism so I was confused why they fought each other. I thought Trotskyist leadership as a whole was uniquely terrible because "Stalin would never do that". I was a bit bothered by the Great Terror period, again, because I didn't understand why if there were so many parallel versions of Stalinism-Khruschevism-Dengism and so many versions of Trotskyism why all the versions of Stalinism and all the versions of Trotskyism didn't just all join back together again.

	~~-->~~
	== External links ==		== External links ==

Reversedragon: comment 4

2026-09-09T11:44:26Z

comment 4

Show changes

Reversedragon: comment 4

2026-09-09T06:54:36Z

comment 4

Show changes

Reversedragon: drafting comment 4

2026-09-09T04:30:34Z

drafting comment 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:30, 9 September 2026
Line 126:		Line 126:
	(Yes, if we ever get out of capitalism we can return to science too. The issue, again, is that while capitalism exists almost all scientific research except perhaps some things like research on rare diseases has become far less important than studying the sheer shapes, arrangements, and development of human populations to become conscious of the otherwise uncontrolled flow of human beings and ultimately direct them to form a world population. The entire pseudo-left seems to halfway know this, getting absolutely furious if you talk about any form of science or technology that isn't directly aimed at ending class society; these days you cannot have a single friend if you try to tell people there's anything more to discover instead of bashing sciences that aren't Marxism for contributing to uncontrolled growth and empire. So that's how I roll now. We are bizarrely entering a period where Marxism is the only "science" that matters any more.)		(Yes, if we ever get out of capitalism we can return to science too. The issue, again, is that while capitalism exists almost all scientific research except perhaps some things like research on rare diseases has become far less important than studying the sheer shapes, arrangements, and development of human populations to become conscious of the otherwise uncontrolled flow of human beings and ultimately direct them to form a world population. The entire pseudo-left seems to halfway know this, getting absolutely furious if you talk about any form of science or technology that isn't directly aimed at ending class society; these days you cannot have a single friend if you try to tell people there's anything more to discover instead of bashing sciences that aren't Marxism for contributing to uncontrolled growth and empire. So that's how I roll now. We are bizarrely entering a period where Marxism is the only "science" that matters any more.)

			== comment 4 ==

			articles [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/08/28/vcge-a28.html] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/26/1619-n26.html] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/08/30/crit-a30.html] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/02/21/proj-f21.html] / [https://www.socialistalternative.org/marxism-fight-black-freedom/black-lives-matter-marxism/]<br/>
			"the insistence that all personal relationships ..."

			This article has bothered me<br/>
			Trotskyists have historically done this<br/>
			if you don't you become Nadezhda Krupskaya

			victory of the proletariat is all individuals able to survive - bourgeoisie are survival leaders

			<!--
			---

			I read about four WSWS articles related to the 1619 Project, and since about ?? days ago I have not been able to stop thinking about them. All the fine details about how the 1619 Project misunderstood what history is (and, by extension, how the book {{book\|Black Marxism}} misunderstood it) seem basically correct, but there was something about these articles that really bothered me because I kept feeling like they were missing the big picture. Since having read an article called "across Black geographies" (2025), [https://alexamoulton.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/3/8/123805387/williams_et_al_2025__black_livingness_and_insurgent_ecological_politics.pdf] I've gotten more insight into what the actual hidden conflict here may be. The ICFI does not have an adequate understanding of the need for the scientific study of human populations as discrete semi-countable material objects. A great portion of bourgeois ideologies that attempt to take the place of Marxism generally seem to center themselves around the concepts of anthropology and cultural relativism (populational relativism); every time some academic talks about "culture" or "identity" or "community" or "prejudice" or "re-enchantment" or "spirituality" or any number of other related words it's actually all just a fuzzy way to talk about the concept of countable populations. All of these frameworks are grasping for a study of populations more or less because they are upset Trotskyism does not contain one and refuse to trust Trotskyist leadership to lead them until it does.

			One pervasive theme in historical Marxist writings is that when two political populations of people mix together, the key to whether that mixture is a good thing or a bad thing is whether the proletarian party has assumed leadership over the other parties' demands. When Lenin was trying to explain the significance of the Duma, the key was creating a proletarian party that successfully absorbs everyone else's demands well enough to make the Duma irrelevant. Even with situations like the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Communist Party of China having to organize a country of peasants, or the Hungarian soviet republic, the key was being able to absorb peasant demands to the point the peasants stop caring they are being led by a proletarian party. This was one of Stalin's only successes: for a time, he managed to get most of the Soviet peasants behind him until the bureaucrats could not properly solve natural disasters partly brought on by the overall disorganization of Ukrainian peasant society and the only solution they could think of was to hunt the kulaks. Each year the Soviet Union could not satisfy the actual needs of the remaining small producers or archaic social structures in general, regular people began to desert it, somewhat like the people of the Hungarian soviet republic when it left the peasants behind entirely.

			I think this is the general problem going on whenever Black people are attempting to do "independent racial organization" as if it's a similar thing to "independent organization of the working class". They are turning their backs on Trotskyism because there has been an actual crisis of leadership. Once I read an article from Socialist Alternative about how the IMT was having trouble about . Then, not too long after, I saw one of the WSWS interviews about the 1619 Project. And I was not impressed.
			I really went and invented a whole framework of "meta-Marxism" just to avoid being a Trotskyist because at that time I genuinely did not believe Trotskyism could ever succeed.

			That is not really postmodernism. That's just the anthropological study of political populations.

			I thought there were multiple separate versions of Trotskyism so I was confused why they fought each other. I thought Trotskyist leadership as a whole was uniquely terrible because "Stalin would never do that". I was a bit bothered by the Great Terror period, again, because I didn't understand why if there were so many parallel versions of Stalinism-Khruschevism-Dengism and so many versions of Trotskyism why all the versions of Stalinism and all the versions of Trotskyism didn't just all join back together again.

			in that sense, they are doing exactly what they need to be doing. As crazy as that may sound.

			the United States and Japan each existing and not being one big population? that's what race is. race and nationality are basically the same thing, but the only difference is that race is observed at tiny scales inside other populations instead of at large ones.
			new soviet man - did not become one nationality. science of multiple nationalities or subpopulations still needed.
			-->

	[[Category:"Trans4mer" pages (RD)]]		[[Category:"Trans4mer" pages (RD)]]

Reversedragon: link

2026-09-02T23:41:24Z

link

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:41, 2 September 2026
Line 92:		Line 92:
	So... this is only tangentially related to the contents of the 1619 Project itself, but I feel the need to try to explain where all of this is really coming from, because I think it's partly being taken out of context.		So... this is only tangentially related to the contents of the 1619 Project itself, but I feel the need to try to explain where all of this is really coming from, because I think it's partly being taken out of context.

	Today I stumbled onto an article called "Black livingness and insurgent ecological politics: Thinking across Black geographies / Atlantics / ecologies" (Williams et al. 2025), which I was reading simply to try to find out what on earth "Black livingness" and "Black geographies" were. As for the first one, I still have no idea, but Black geographies actually are something. This article explains that the basic concept of the field is to get information about ancient pre-capitalist "industries" by looking for particular markers of cultural practices that are recorded physically in the ground rather than being formally recorded on paper or clay tablets, etc — basically, the same broad concept as what archaeologists do, looking at physical evidence like buildings or graves to use physical objects as records. The only big difference between archaeological methods and "Black geographies" is that maps are involved. "Geographers of blackness" or "agroecological geographers" study evidence of things like cultivated forests in various locations across the world in order to map the extent of particular populations connected by common cultural practices — again, this is the same concept as archaeologists mapping the extent of a particular kingdom thousands of years ago by looking for particular styles of pottery. Every article about this stuff is a little opaque and full of strange terminology, and at some times they can start to sound a little circular. {{i\|So... you study the geography of cultivated forests so the totality of cultivated forests can understand the extent of cultivated forests?}} And then there's the heavy anarchist subtext in a lot of them where they want to frame tribal societies themselves as a sort of technology or library of knowledge that humanity forgot and needs to go back to, all because the ability of humanity to cultivate an entire forest that remains a mildly altered form of the natural environment that always was and casually use it for food (without having to wall off the entire thing as a nature preserve) is amazing. Despite all the weirdness on the surface of these articles, some of them actually do make sense.		Today I stumbled onto an article called "Black livingness and insurgent ecological politics: Thinking across Black geographies / Atlantics / ecologies" (Williams et al. 2025), [https://alexamoulton.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/3/8/123805387/williams_et_al_2025__black_livingness_and_insurgent_ecological_politics.pdf] which I was reading simply to try to find out what on earth "Black livingness" and "Black geographies" were. As for the first one, I still have no idea, but Black geographies actually are something. This article explains that the basic concept of the field is to get information about ancient pre-capitalist "industries" by looking for particular markers of cultural practices that are recorded physically in the ground rather than being formally recorded on paper or clay tablets, etc — basically, the same broad concept as what archaeologists do, looking at physical evidence like buildings or graves to use physical objects as records. The only big difference between archaeological methods and "Black geographies" is that maps are involved. "Geographers of blackness" or "agroecological geographers" study evidence of things like cultivated forests in various locations across the world in order to map the extent of particular populations connected by common cultural practices — again, this is the same concept as archaeologists mapping the extent of a particular kingdom thousands of years ago by looking for particular styles of pottery. Every article about this stuff is a little opaque and full of strange terminology, and at some times they can start to sound a little circular. {{i\|So... you study the geography of cultivated forests so the totality of cultivated forests can understand the extent of cultivated forests?}} And then there's the heavy anarchist subtext in a lot of them where they want to frame tribal societies themselves as a sort of technology or library of knowledge that humanity forgot and needs to go back to, all because the ability of humanity to cultivate an entire forest that remains a mildly altered form of the natural environment that always was and casually use it for food (without having to wall off the entire thing as a nature preserve) is amazing. Despite all the weirdness on the surface of these articles, some of them actually do make sense.

	Basically there are a few core claims the "Black geography" articles are making.		Basically there are a few core claims the "Black geography" articles are making.<br/>
	A) The "colonial" records (what they really mean is the paper record as opposed to the physical ground record) omitted certain traces of Black populations as they really existed. These traces are found in the earth, when geographers confirm the traces of cultivated forests.		A) The "colonial" records (what they really mean is the paper record as opposed to the physical ground record) omitted certain traces of Black populations as they really existed. These traces are found in the earth, when geographers confirm the traces of cultivated forests.<br/>
	B) The physical record contains information about practices that are industrially interesting as well as anthropologically interesting; the old practice of cultivated forests and other forms such as polyculture gardens are to be regarded as an ancient form of industry which may or may not still be useful today.		B) The physical record contains information about practices that are industrially interesting as well as anthropologically interesting; the old practice of cultivated forests and other forms such as polyculture gardens are to be regarded as an ancient form of industry which may or may not still be useful today.<br/>
	C) Geographers can study people-groups taking forms such as tribal societies or diasporas by using maps; modern technology since about the 2000s makes it easier to understand the size and extent of populations without hard borders. The article above sees this as a way to conceptualize an international society which may continue to be useful after the age of the nation-state: "the Black Atlantic represents a 'transcultural, international formation' of intellectual production, culture and memory ... a set of practices and collaborations that challenge, rather than reify, notions of race and nationhood".		C) Geographers can study people-groups taking forms such as tribal societies or diasporas by using maps; modern technology since about the 2000s makes it easier to understand the size and extent of populations without hard borders. The article above sees this as a way to conceptualize an international society which may continue to be useful after the age of the nation-state: "the Black Atlantic represents a 'transcultural, international formation' of intellectual production, culture and memory ... a set of practices and collaborations that challenge, rather than reify, notions of race and nationhood".<br/>
	D) When confronted with books like {{book\|Black Rice}}, historians improperly dismissed them by treating known paper records (or whatever the colonists used exactly) as more important than the ground record, despite the fact that the findings may very well be testable and one could probably bring in any number of ordinary archaeologists, paleontologists, experts on ecological succession, etc., to examine the concept of a ground record and help you substantiate or falsify the map of cultivated forests.		D) When confronted with books like {{book\|Black Rice}}, historians improperly dismissed them by treating known paper records (or whatever the colonists used exactly) as more important than the ground record, despite the fact that the findings may very well be testable and one could probably bring in any number of ordinary archaeologists, paleontologists, experts on ecological succession, etc., to examine the concept of a ground record and help you substantiate or falsify the map of cultivated forests.

Reversedragon: revision 3B

2026-09-02T23:35:08Z

revision 3B

Show changes

Reversedragon: Thinking across Black geographies

2026-09-02T13:50:18Z

Thinking across Black geographies

@@ Line 86: / Line 86: @@
 * "The New York Times 1619 Project: A New Origin Story: History as the emanation of race" (2022)
 * SEP lecture: "The ideological foundations of Critical Race Theory" (2021)
 -->
 [[Category:"Trans4mer" pages (RD)]]

Reversedragon: category

2026-08-23T20:38:28Z

Reversedragon: links

2026-08-16T13:20:36Z

links

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:20, 16 August 2026
Line 80:		Line 80:
	** postmodernism itself is incompatible with historical materialism		** postmodernism itself is incompatible with historical materialism
	** Hegel had a method; postmodernism doesn't have a method, much less a dialectical method - well, that's not really why I was trying to invert it. I was starting from the simple concept that a great number of philosophies or fictional narratives are based on real things.		** Hegel had a method; postmodernism doesn't have a method, much less a dialectical method - well, that's not really why I was trying to invert it. I was starting from the simple concept that a great number of philosophies or fictional narratives are based on real things.

			<!--
			Articles I read
			* "The 1619 Project revisited: A retrospective evaluation in light of Trump’s assault on democracy" (2025)
			* "The New York Times 1619 Project: A New Origin Story: History as the emanation of race" (2022)
			* SEP lecture: "The ideological foundations of Critical Race Theory" (2021)
			-->

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:38, 23 August 2026
Line 56:		Line 56:
	I'll close with this. The Black Panthers were one of the best attempts at a Communist party achieved in the United States (besides the SWP). Now, to make sure they never come back, cops periodically deny court trials to Black people by choking them in the streets. Does it matter if more White people are killed by police than Black people? Imagine a world where it was the 1930s and every time a likely Trotskyite was caught the Soviet police simply knocked the Trotskyite to the ground and killed them. If you ask anybody about the killings, they just say, {{i\|oh, that was just a Trotskyite, not a real Soviet person. That was just a Ukrainian! You know an eighth of them are kulaks.}} Early Trotskyists risked their lives and risked cracking open their entire civilization to be harvested by imperialists for less than that. But today, if Black people get tired of cops shooting Black people because "those were merely Black people", a great number of people don't even care. We casually let our government do things that are worse than Stalin did. And then Trotskyists see people making noise and trying to get people organized, and they say, "this is a counterrevolution by First World intellectuals that don't understand Marxism". Maybe racism isn't the exact word for this, but whatever it's really called, what we let the United States do to people is atrocious. [https://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CK%5CU%5CKulak.htm]		I'll close with this. The Black Panthers were one of the best attempts at a Communist party achieved in the United States (besides the SWP). Now, to make sure they never come back, cops periodically deny court trials to Black people by choking them in the streets. Does it matter if more White people are killed by police than Black people? Imagine a world where it was the 1930s and every time a likely Trotskyite was caught the Soviet police simply knocked the Trotskyite to the ground and killed them. If you ask anybody about the killings, they just say, {{i\|oh, that was just a Trotskyite, not a real Soviet person. That was just a Ukrainian! You know an eighth of them are kulaks.}} Early Trotskyists risked their lives and risked cracking open their entire civilization to be harvested by imperialists for less than that. But today, if Black people get tired of cops shooting Black people because "those were merely Black people", a great number of people don't even care. We casually let our government do things that are worse than Stalin did. And then Trotskyists see people making noise and trying to get people organized, and they say, "this is a counterrevolution by First World intellectuals that don't understand Marxism". Maybe racism isn't the exact word for this, but whatever it's really called, what we let the United States do to people is atrocious. [https://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CK%5CU%5CKulak.htm]

	=== bot's rebuttals ===		== bot's rebuttals ==

	* American revolution was going forward, Stalin was going backward, so American revolution was not really a Thermidor event		* American revolution was going forward, Stalin was going backward, so American revolution was not really a Thermidor event
Line 87:		Line 87:
	* SEP lecture: "The ideological foundations of Critical Race Theory" (2021)		* SEP lecture: "The ideological foundations of Critical Race Theory" (2021)
	-->		-->

			[[Category:"Trans4mer" pages (RD)]]