Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-SquareOfNonAggressiveActivities - Revision history

Reversedragon: the major split between the concepts of "liberal/Liberalism" and "liberal/liberalization" is whether people are shameless Existentialists

2026-06-28T07:38:14Z

the major split between the concepts of "liberal/Liberalism" and "liberal/liberalization" is whether people are shameless Existentialists

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:38, 28 June 2026
Line 124:		Line 124:

	== Related ==		== Related ==
	~~<!--~~
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">
	</li></ol~~>--~~>
			<li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">the major split between the concepts of "liberal/Liberalism" and "liberal/liberalization" is whether people are shameless Existentialists -> I have never seen anybody else say this, even considering that they wouldn't use my fancy new word "Existentialists". it's almost like everybody is too trapped in this way of thinking to even notice they're doing it. but here's what it is: people become convinced the stuff in the United States constitution is created anarchically as a thing that is followed by every individual making every other individual do it because they are human individuals. that the United States constitution is like a bible. that if there was no United States government and no elections the constitution would still be true. and in practice that isn't really the case. no individual honors freedom of speech and no church honors freedom of religion. those things are only reliably done by governments because governments contain multiple subpopulations and have to represent all plural subpopulations. the people who speak of "liberalism" and "liberalization" as synonyms are the ones who believe that processes inside social graphs create democracy rather than democracy actually being government and existing in the form of republics — that democracy equals democulture.

			</li></ol>

	== Ideologies or fields ==		== Ideologies or fields ==

Reversedragon: expel the community community from the community

2026-06-28T03:34:29Z

expel the community community from the community

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:34, 28 June 2026
Line 114:		Line 114:

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Bolshevism isn't actually transition out of capitalism, but transition out of agorism -> this follows from the proposition that Liberal-republicanism is actually just a repeatedly regenerating cycle of agorism turning into capitalism turning into Liberal-republicanism, and the implication that it can only be stopped if patterns change everywhere from very small scales up.		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Bolshevism isn't actually transition out of capitalism, but transition out of agorism -> this follows from the proposition that Liberal-republicanism is actually just a repeatedly regenerating cycle of agorism turning into capitalism turning into Liberal-republicanism, and the implication that it can only be stopped if patterns change everywhere from very small scales up.

			{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}expel the community community from the community -> gee I wish the English-language-speaking community had made another word for a group of people than {{i\|lang=en\|community}} so this sentence could actually make sense!

	{{li\|I=S2/Ag\|Q=618}}Oil sanctions are anarchism (Third World) -> ...		{{li\|I=S2/Ag\|Q=618}}Oil sanctions are anarchism (Third World) -> ...

Reversedragon: totality of non-aggressive activities

2026-06-27T10:11:33Z

totality of non-aggressive activities

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:11, 27 June 2026
Line 34:		Line 34:

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/HAS\|tradition=HAS, LR, Ag\|Q=618}}agora (ancient Greece) [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἀγορά] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora] [https://archive.is/vLbtf]		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/HAS\|tradition=HAS, LR, Ag\|Q=618}}agora (ancient Greece) [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἀγορά] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora] [https://archive.is/vLbtf]

			{{li\|I=S1/Ag\|tradition=Ag, DG\|Q=33,74\|Q2=3374\|h4 = totality of non-aggressive activities }} / united nonviolence of special oppressions -> this absolutely baffled me until I found agorism, because I always wanted to just believe anarchists when they said they weren't right-Libertarians, but in practice I think there is actually not a lot of difference most of the time. there really is a section of blue anarchists that is indistinguishable from Libertarians.

	{{li\|I=M3/Ag\|tradition=\|Q=618}}How do you distinguish an aggressive activity from a non-aggressive activity? (agorism) -> this isn't a trivial question. to the CPC, suggesting too hard that the central party needs to be broken up {{em\|is an aggressive activity}}. to pro-immigrant movements, suggesting that people migrating from one place to another could lead to problems and conflicts is an aggressive activity. to gun control movements, owning an assault rifle is an aggressive activity. to fundamentalist Christians, trying to explain "Happy Holidays" is an aggressive activity. (if you think I'm making a general joke against religion, I'm not; that one really happened to me.) to some people, protesting cops killing Black people is an inherently aggressive activity. those people don't have to be The Government whatsoever to believe non-aggressive activities are aggressive activities. and yet they're all it takes for non-aggressive activities to become prohibited.<br/>		{{li\|I=M3/Ag\|tradition=\|Q=618}}How do you distinguish an aggressive activity from a non-aggressive activity? (agorism) -> this isn't a trivial question. to the CPC, suggesting too hard that the central party needs to be broken up {{em\|is an aggressive activity}}. to pro-immigrant movements, suggesting that people migrating from one place to another could lead to problems and conflicts is an aggressive activity. to gun control movements, owning an assault rifle is an aggressive activity. to fundamentalist Christians, trying to explain "Happy Holidays" is an aggressive activity. (if you think I'm making a general joke against religion, I'm not; that one really happened to me.) to some people, protesting cops killing Black people is an inherently aggressive activity. those people don't have to be The Government whatsoever to believe non-aggressive activities are aggressive activities. and yet they're all it takes for non-aggressive activities to become prohibited.<br/>
Line 81:		Line 83:
	<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">		<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/Ag/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Forming relationships is activism / Forming community is activism / Breaking up Duginist social graphs and picking people off into regular Tory social graphs is activism / Bringing individual Klan members in to meet individual Black people is activism -> stop.<br/>		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/Ag/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Forming relationships is activism / Forming community is activism / Breaking up Duginist social graphs and picking people off into regular Tory social graphs is activism {{YouTube\|l4Zzv5rkRyY}} / Bringing individual Klan members in to meet individual Black people is activism -> stop.<br/>
	the thing is that this strategy can also be used to persuade Cubans to accept capitalists "as people" so the United States can then extend over the country and control the country's laws and government. and if it can be used for that, the sky's the limit. Christians forming relationships to other Christians and picking them away from "Transgender Ideology!" could in fact be a form of activism, and activism wouldn't be a progressive concept whatsoever.		the thing is that this strategy can also be used to persuade Cubans to accept capitalists "as people" so the United States can then extend over the country and control the country's laws and government. and if it can be used for that, the sky's the limit. Christians forming relationships to other Christians and picking them away from "Transgender Ideology!" could in fact be a form of activism, and activism wouldn't be a progressive concept whatsoever.

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

Reversedragon: Democracy is merely freedom

2026-06-23T10:04:25Z

Democracy is merely freedom

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:04, 23 June 2026
Line 49:		Line 49:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/Ag\|Q=618}}~~Oil sanctions are anarchism (Third World)~~ / ~~A Third World country cutting off oil to~~ the ~~United States is a form~~ of [[E:parallel structure (anarchism)\|parallel structure]]; this is to imply it is a form of defiantly forming [[E:the queer community (political entity)\|Communities]] in order to [[E:anti-imperialism (anarchism)\|resist a larger conquering society]], ~~which [[E:History is~~ the ~~progression of moral consciousness\|has nothing to do with classes]] / ({{9k\|RD/Q1961}})~~ -> ~~...~~ this ~~sounds absurd on its face unless you know in depth what agorism is~~ and ~~then it actually clicks~~ into ~~place~~ and ~~you say~~, oh, actually the ~~person who said that could be a {{em\|blue}} anarchist who bases everything on people forming or breaking relationships, so in that case, maybe they technically are describing a form~~ of ~~anarchism. charcoal anarchists won't be happy that that's a form of anarchism, but they quite literally can't control other anarchisms, so they have no real choice but to accept that~~ it ~~totally is a rival anarchism~~ and ~~anarchisms aren~~'~~t inherently peaceful~~ to ~~each other nor each others' friends~~.		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/Ag\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4= Democracy is merely freedom }} / Democracy only involves two people having freedom and having freedom without taking each other's freedom and does not involve the people governing the people of, by, or for the people -> this definition has only gotten more and more common every decade and bled out into everything other than the United States constitution, and all that bleed-out has gotten me convinced that "democracy" in the United States in fact refers to two completely and utterly different things, one thing explained in the United States constitution as the operation of the republic, and one thing which is actually the ultimate goal of the republic as it silently and beyond most people's knowledge actively creates social transition from one historical period to another. this would be "cool" if the Underlying Democracy was only one consistent thing instead of two or more frighteningly-mutually-exclusive things.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto Ag\|Q=618}}Oil sanctions are anarchism -> really... one of my few genuinely sharp insights back in {{book\|MDem}} 4.3 was understanding that "whatever this thing is" (agorism) could be transformed into a Materialist counterpart where the process of loci of resistance forming specifically through the tiny scale of sheer social connections changing was recognized, but all the Idealism was tossed out of it and it instead turned into some kind of model of [[E:international permanent revolution (non-Trotskyist)\|international permanent revolution]] or something like it where the people who would be joining up as [[E:Lattice model (meta-Marxism)\|Lattice points]] would hopefully be workers or at least Marxist theorists. I need to remember that at all times — whenever anybody fails to see geopolitics as going on at decades-long scales instead of happening at the speed of individual news items [[E:the televised will not be revolution\|that already happened before they reached you]], or proposes something stupid like "Oil sanctions are anarchism".		{{li\|I=S2/Ag\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Oil sanctions are anarchism (Third World) / A Third World country cutting off oil to the United States is a form of [[E:parallel structure (anarchism)\|parallel structure]]; this is to imply it is a form of defiantly forming [[E:the queer community (political entity)\|Communities]] in order to [[E:anti-imperialism (anarchism)\|resist a larger conquering society]], which [[E:History is the progression of moral consciousness\|has nothing to do with classes]] / ({{9k\|RD/Q1961}}) -> ... this sounds absurd on its face unless you know in depth what agorism is and then it actually clicks into place and you say, oh, actually the person who said that could be a {{em\|blue}} anarchist who bases everything on people forming or breaking relationships, so in that case, maybe they technically are describing a form of anarchism. charcoal anarchists won't be happy that that's a form of anarchism, but they quite literally can't control other anarchisms, so they have no real choice but to accept that it totally is a rival anarchism and anarchisms aren't inherently peaceful to each other nor each others' friends.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto Ag\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Oil sanctions are anarchism -> really... one of my few genuinely sharp insights back in {{book\|MDem}} 4.3 was understanding that "whatever this thing is" (agorism) could be transformed into a Materialist counterpart where the process of loci of resistance forming specifically through the tiny scale of sheer social connections changing was recognized, but all the Idealism was tossed out of it and it instead turned into some kind of model of [[E:international permanent revolution (non-Trotskyist)\|international permanent revolution]] or something like it where the people who would be joining up as [[E:Lattice model (meta-Marxism)\|Lattice points]] would hopefully be workers or at least Marxist theorists. I need to remember that at all times — whenever anybody fails to see geopolitics as going on at decades-long scales instead of happening at the speed of individual news items [[E:the televised will not be revolution\|that already happened before they reached you]], or proposes something stupid like "Oil sanctions are anarchism".

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

Reversedragon: Trotskyism appearing to be imperialist doesn't actually mean it's incorrect (meta-agorism)

2026-06-22T03:44:06Z

Trotskyism appearing to be imperialist doesn't actually mean it's incorrect (meta-agorism)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:44, 22 June 2026
Line 39:		Line 39:
	if you ask me? the concept of "non-aggressive activities prohibited by The State for no good reason" is nonsensical. there isn't actually any such thing. people belong to Social-Philosophical Systems that exist below the level of government, and those things prohibit arbitrary activities in other SPSs they subjectively believe to be aggressive to them, and then the sideways conflict between SPSs to legislate things onto each other generates The State as the most powerful groups of people in the sea of people who all really want to get their activities approved as non-aggressive activities win. given that activities inherently conflict with each other and use up space, and everybody has different definitions of "aggressive", there isn't really any fair way to get everyone clustered together around the totality of all non-aggressive activities.		if you ask me? the concept of "non-aggressive activities prohibited by The State for no good reason" is nonsensical. there isn't actually any such thing. people belong to Social-Philosophical Systems that exist below the level of government, and those things prohibit arbitrary activities in other SPSs they subjectively believe to be aggressive to them, and then the sideways conflict between SPSs to legislate things onto each other generates The State as the most powerful groups of people in the sea of people who all really want to get their activities approved as non-aggressive activities win. given that activities inherently conflict with each other and use up space, and everybody has different definitions of "aggressive", there isn't really any fair way to get everyone clustered together around the totality of all non-aggressive activities.

	{{li\|I=S2/Ag\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Markets are not loci of cash exchange, but loci of voluntary interactions [https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/on-anagorism/] -> yep there we go, a crystallization of that classic "bizarre model of society as everything being made of social links" I kept noticing in almost everything that wasn't Communism. this ironically leads to capitalism proper as employee relationships and blood relationships become more important than relationships between corporations and all of existence becomes about complaining about bad relationships and acting like everybody "should have" been the perfect friend or family member like people aren't individuals and you magically have control over their minds.		{{li\|I=S2/Ag\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Markets are not loci of cash exchange, but loci of voluntary interactions; this is to say that any sufficiently self-contained locus of voluntary interactions and shifting relationships is in fact a market [https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/on-anagorism/] / agora (agorism) -> yep there we go, a crystallization of that classic "bizarre model of society as everything being made of social links" I kept noticing in almost everything that wasn't Communism. this ironically leads to capitalism proper as employee relationships and blood relationships become more important than relationships between corporations and all of existence becomes about complaining about bad relationships and acting like everybody "should have" been the perfect friend or family member like people aren't individuals and you magically have control over their minds.

	{{li\|I=S2/HM\|tradition=IK, HM, ES\|Q=618}}Society is held together based on interpersonal subjective moral consensus<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/HM\|tradition=IK, HM, ES\|Q=618}}Society is held together based on interpersonal subjective moral consensus<br/>
Line 47:		Line 47:

	== Everyone is a Libertarian ==		== Everyone is a Libertarian ==
	~~<!--~~
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">
	</li></ol~~> --~~>
			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/Ag\|Q=618}}Oil sanctions are anarchism (Third World) / A Third World country cutting off oil to the United States is a form of [[E:parallel structure (anarchism)\|parallel structure]]; this is to imply it is a form of defiantly forming [[E:the queer community (political entity)\|Communities]] in order to [[E:anti-imperialism (anarchism)\|resist a larger conquering society]], which [[E:History is the progression of moral consciousness\|has nothing to do with classes]] / ({{9k\|RD/Q1961}}) -> ... this sounds absurd on its face unless you know in depth what agorism is and then it actually clicks into place and you say, oh, actually the person who said that could be a {{em\|blue}} anarchist who bases everything on people forming or breaking relationships, so in that case, maybe they technically are describing a form of anarchism. charcoal anarchists won't be happy that that's a form of anarchism, but they quite literally can't control other anarchisms, so they have no real choice but to accept that it totally is a rival anarchism and anarchisms aren't inherently peaceful to each other nor each others' friends.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto Ag\|Q=618}}Oil sanctions are anarchism -> really... one of my few genuinely sharp insights back in {{book\|MDem}} 4.3 was understanding that "whatever this thing is" (agorism) could be transformed into a Materialist counterpart where the process of loci of resistance forming specifically through the tiny scale of sheer social connections changing was recognized, but all the Idealism was tossed out of it and it instead turned into some kind of model of [[E:international permanent revolution (non-Trotskyist)\|international permanent revolution]] or something like it where the people who would be joining up as [[E:Lattice model (meta-Marxism)\|Lattice points]] would hopefully be workers or at least Marxist theorists. I need to remember that at all times — whenever anybody fails to see geopolitics as going on at decades-long scales instead of happening at the speed of individual news items [[E:the televised will not be revolution\|that already happened before they reached you]], or proposes something stupid like "Oil sanctions are anarchism".

			</li></ol>

	=== "Anagorism" becomes agorism ===		=== "Anagorism" becomes agorism ===
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/YR\|Q=618}}Citizens of the Global North live in abundance, so markets are not needed for allocation [https://www.reddit.com/r/anagorism/comments/1073qaz/especially_in_the_global_north_we_live_in/] -> so here's the problem. markets are not resource allocation machines, and they never were. markets are either "theft prohibition machines" or "interaction earning machines" or "relationship earning machines". if you try to say that any of these things are unnecessary just because there's a lot of stuff, nobody is going to believe you. everybody is going to want to know how you solve these three specific problems. and the longer they don't get an answer, the more stupid things are going to happen like Donald Trump cutting the SNAP program just because he thinks that by not putting households to work and creating a theft prevention machine a SNAP card is a theft encouragement machine that makes people act entitled to relationships, making them rude, disrespectful, inconsiderate, exploitative, wilful, shortsighted, unempathetic, and antisocial, while if they were faced with the threat of being cut off from all of society and having no food for not doing exactly and precisely what every single person they interact with wants they would be nicer. that's the crux of it.<br/>		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/YR\|Q=618}}Citizens of the Global North live in abundance, so markets are not needed for allocation [https://www.reddit.com/r/anagorism/comments/1073qaz/especially_in_the_global_north_we_live_in/] -> so here's the problem. markets are not resource allocation machines, and they never were. markets are either "[[E:microhierarchy\|theft prohibition machines]]" or "interaction earning machines" or "relationship earning machines". if you try to say that any of these things are unnecessary just because there's a lot of stuff, nobody is going to believe you. everybody is going to want to know how you solve these three specific problems. and the longer they don't get an answer, the more stupid things are going to happen like Donald Trump cutting the SNAP program just because he thinks that by not putting households to work and creating a theft prevention machine a SNAP card is a theft encouragement machine that makes people act entitled to relationships, making them rude, disrespectful, inconsiderate, exploitative, wilful, shortsighted, unempathetic, and antisocial, while if they were faced with the threat of being cut off from all of society and having no food for not doing exactly and precisely what every single person they interact with wants they would be nicer. that's the crux of it.<br/>
	if you're not going to listen to Lenin when he says in a positive tone that telling workers that building industries will encourage industrial discipline and encourage people to get along and that's why the state should grant the farmers tractors, then you have to deal with Donald Trump saying similar things in a vastly more negative tone and claiming that keeping basic needs from people is inherently good because it makes people nicer and makes relationships better, and until everyone gets along and nobody commits crimes everyone needs to live under the threat of homicidal cops that kill people dead for 1-year crimes and there need to be as few social programs as possible. Trump is quite literally harsher on people than Stalin. but anarchists {{em\|either}} attacking stores, shirking work, or trying to get utter non-participation in society protected by the state while lying about the fact they're doing that is currently quite common. so you generally won't get market systems {{em\|or}} cops to stop until you stop that. but all those anarchists hate discipline and have destroyed whole national governments over the threat of it. and then really nasty Tory or Duginist factions come into power and start trying to kill them just because they 'don't respect other people's wishes as their own' and 'abuse society's goodwill'. really, what the hell are you going to do about the fact anarchists love doing things everyone finds terribly horribly annoying to where people are like 'oh god anarchists no food or shelter for them' and yet they don't want to stop? I think we've got a relationship problem more than a resource problem.		if you're not going to listen to Lenin when he says in a positive tone that telling workers that building industries will encourage industrial discipline and encourage people to get along and that's why the state should grant the farmers tractors, then you have to deal with Donald Trump saying similar things in a vastly more negative tone and claiming that keeping basic needs from people is inherently good because it makes people nicer and makes relationships better, and until everyone gets along and nobody commits crimes everyone needs to live under the threat of homicidal cops that kill people dead for 1-year crimes and there need to be as few social programs as possible. Trump is quite literally harsher on people than Stalin. but anarchists {{em\|either}} attacking stores, shirking work, or trying to get utter non-participation in society protected by the state while lying about the fact they're doing that is currently quite common. so you generally won't get market systems {{em\|or}} cops to stop until you stop that. but all those anarchists hate discipline and have destroyed whole national governments over the threat of it. and then really nasty Tory or Duginist factions come into power and start trying to kill them just because they 'don't respect other people's wishes as their own' and 'abuse society's goodwill'. really, what the hell are you going to do about the fact anarchists love doing things everyone finds terribly horribly annoying to where people are like 'oh god anarchists no food or shelter for them' and yet they don't want to stop? I think we've got a relationship problem more than a resource problem.

Line 66:		Line 70:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist; this is to imply that "extremes" are an abstract Ideal that miraculously spits out more extremes, and Extremes can be eradicated {{YouTube\|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> how is it that people come to regard material contradictions as a completely alien event that isn't the least bit familiar to them		{{li\|start=y\|I=F2/LR\|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist; this is to imply that "extremes" are an abstract Ideal that miraculously spits out more extremes, and Extremes can be eradicated {{YouTube\|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> how is it that people come to regard material contradictions as a completely alien event that isn't the least bit familiar to them

	{{li\|I=F2/LR\|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist -> wait. this is false. I {{em\|know}} this is false. here's why. the claim here is that a faction of Extremists can spring up because another faction of Extremists provoked it. if that were true, there would be a good argument that Duginism exists because since 1953 First World anarchists have been pressuring Russia to assimilate into them and Russia got tired of it. but if that were true, Tories in the United States would also exist because anarchists provoked them. [[E:the shoplifting fandom\|that isn't entirely false]] but it's not exactly true either. the narrative that Extremists only come to be in great numbers because other Extremists created them, while unusually dialectical for Liberal-republicans, conflicts with another common narrative that center-Liberalism is The Middle Way and not an Extreme. in reality, Tories get just as upset by Barack Obama existing as they do by anarchists; Tories think that center-Liberalism existing whatsoever is extreme. so, really, it doesn't take any Extremists whatsoever to be capable of provoking a violent Tory/fascist faction, it only takes another faction existing at all. center-Liberals ought to realize that that {{em\|exact}} same statement goes for Communists. as much as most of them will probably see the concept of "Communists minding their own business" and laugh, that's definitely a concept that exists {{em\|when}} we're talking about whether the existence of Extremes is what creates Extremes.		{{li\|I=F2/LR\|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist -> wait. this is false. I {{em\|know}} this is false. here's why. the claim here is that a faction of Extremists can spring up because another faction of Extremists provoked it. if that were true, there would be a good argument that Duginism exists because since 1953 First World anarchists have been pressuring Russia to assimilate into them and Russia got tired of it. but if that were true, Tories in the United States would also exist because anarchists provoked them. [[E:the shoplifting fandom\|that isn't entirely false]] but it's not exactly true either. the narrative that Extremists only come to be in great numbers because other Extremists created them, while unusually dialectical for Liberal-republicans, conflicts with another common narrative that center-Liberalism is The Middle Way and not an Extreme. in reality, Tories get just as upset by Barack Obama existing as they do by anarchists; Tories think that center-Liberalism existing whatsoever is extreme. so, really, it doesn't take any Extremists whatsoever to be capable of provoking a violent Tory/fascist faction, it only takes another faction existing at all. center-Liberals ought to realize that that {{em\|exact}} same statement goes for Communists. as much as most of them will probably see the concept of "Communists minding their own business" and laugh, that's definitely a concept that exists {{em\|when}} we're talking about whether the existence of Extremes is what creates Extremes.
Line 106:		Line 110:

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Bolshevism isn't actually transition out of capitalism, but transition out of agorism -> this follows from the proposition that Liberal-republicanism is actually just a repeatedly regenerating cycle of agorism turning into capitalism turning into Liberal-republicanism, and the implication that it can only be stopped if patterns change everywhere from very small scales up.		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Bolshevism isn't actually transition out of capitalism, but transition out of agorism -> this follows from the proposition that Liberal-republicanism is actually just a repeatedly regenerating cycle of agorism turning into capitalism turning into Liberal-republicanism, and the implication that it can only be stopped if patterns change everywhere from very small scales up.

			{{li\|I=S2/Ag\|Q=618}}Oil sanctions are anarchism (Third World) -> ...

			{{li\|I=S2/MX/IV\|Q=618}}Trotskyism appearing to be imperialist doesn't actually mean it's incorrect (meta-agorism) / If 1900s social-democracy has given way to what primarily consists of agorism trying to [[E:Forming communities is activism\|present]] [[E:Oil sanctions are anarchism\|itself]] as the solution to itself, but the major breakthrough in the early 1900s was to realize that social-democracy must be replaced with [[E:Leninism\|a republican movement that is Materialist]], then the logical conclusion is that the movement that will overcome agorism is specifically {{em\|the Materialist counterpart to agorism}} that [[E:existential materialism\|entertains no Idealism]]; when a movement [[E:international permanent revolution (Trotskyism)\|outwardly takes on the form]] of a Materialist counterpart to agorism but does not fail to analyze the presence of agorist arguments [[E:Oil sanctions are anarchism\|woven]] into [[E:BRICS\|news events]] this means it is closer than usual to forming a Communist International; this is to say that when a movement tirelessly extends itself over the world at the expense of other movements, there is a limited slice of scenarios in which that becomes acceptable, only if and when it is able to successfully shove aside agorism and take its place as the only "progressive movement" left in the world which can claim to exist above and below nation-states

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

Reversedragon: Forming relationships is activism

2026-06-21T04:01:06Z

Forming relationships is activism

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:01, 21 June 2026
Line 69:		Line 69:

	{{li\|I=F2/LR\|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist -> wait. this is false. I {{em\|know}} this is false. here's why. the claim here is that a faction of Extremists can spring up because another faction of Extremists provoked it. if that were true, there would be a good argument that Duginism exists because since 1953 First World anarchists have been pressuring Russia to assimilate into them and Russia got tired of it. but if that were true, Tories in the United States would also exist because anarchists provoked them. [[E:the shoplifting fandom\|that isn't entirely false]] but it's not exactly true either. the narrative that Extremists only come to be in great numbers because other Extremists created them, while unusually dialectical for Liberal-republicans, conflicts with another common narrative that center-Liberalism is The Middle Way and not an Extreme. in reality, Tories get just as upset by Barack Obama existing as they do by anarchists; Tories think that center-Liberalism existing whatsoever is extreme. so, really, it doesn't take any Extremists whatsoever to be capable of provoking a violent Tory/fascist faction, it only takes another faction existing at all. center-Liberals ought to realize that that {{em\|exact}} same statement goes for Communists. as much as most of them will probably see the concept of "Communists minding their own business" and laugh, that's definitely a concept that exists {{em\|when}} we're talking about whether the existence of Extremes is what creates Extremes.		{{li\|I=F2/LR\|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist -> wait. this is false. I {{em\|know}} this is false. here's why. the claim here is that a faction of Extremists can spring up because another faction of Extremists provoked it. if that were true, there would be a good argument that Duginism exists because since 1953 First World anarchists have been pressuring Russia to assimilate into them and Russia got tired of it. but if that were true, Tories in the United States would also exist because anarchists provoked them. [[E:the shoplifting fandom\|that isn't entirely false]] but it's not exactly true either. the narrative that Extremists only come to be in great numbers because other Extremists created them, while unusually dialectical for Liberal-republicans, conflicts with another common narrative that center-Liberalism is The Middle Way and not an Extreme. in reality, Tories get just as upset by Barack Obama existing as they do by anarchists; Tories think that center-Liberalism existing whatsoever is extreme. so, really, it doesn't take any Extremists whatsoever to be capable of provoking a violent Tory/fascist faction, it only takes another faction existing at all. center-Liberals ought to realize that that {{em\|exact}} same statement goes for Communists. as much as most of them will probably see the concept of "Communists minding their own business" and laugh, that's definitely a concept that exists {{em\|when}} we're talking about whether the existence of Extremes is what creates Extremes.

			</li></ol>

			== Agorism and Liberal-republicanism ==
			<ol class="hue clean field_exstruct">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/Ag/LR\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Forming relationships is activism / Forming community is activism / Breaking up Duginist social graphs and picking people off into regular Tory social graphs is activism / Bringing individual Klan members in to meet individual Black people is activism -> stop.<br/>
			the thing is that this strategy can also be used to persuade Cubans to accept capitalists "as people" so the United States can then extend over the country and control the country's laws and government. and if it can be used for that, the sky's the limit. Christians forming relationships to other Christians and picking them away from "Transgender Ideology!" could in fact be a form of activism, and activism wouldn't be a progressive concept whatsoever.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 107:		Line 115:

	== Ideologies or fields ==		== Ideologies or fields ==
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse field_exstruct">
	{{li\|start=y		{{li\|start=y
	\|I=S1/YR\|Q=618}}{{TTS\|YR\|Yarrow\|title=Yaroshenkoism — YaRho, ЯР}} / Idealist economics		\|I=S1/LR\|Q=618}}{{TTS\|LR\|L-R}} / Liberal-republicanism
			{{li\|I=S1/YR\|Q=618}}{{TTS\|YR\|Yarrow\|title=Yaroshenkoism — YaRho, ЯР}} / Idealist economics
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: Bolshevism isn't actually transition out of capitalism, but transition out of agorism

2026-06-19T02:13:45Z

Bolshevism isn't actually transition out of capitalism, but transition out of agorism

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:13, 19 June 2026
Line 95:		Line 95:
	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships are no foundation for society because interpersonal relationships are fragile while society must be more durable to successfully exist / Asocialism (generic)		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships are no foundation for society because interpersonal relationships are fragile while society must be more durable to successfully exist / Asocialism (generic) / Society is a large-scale phenomenon and must be composed of smaller-scale non-social processes (generic)

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Bolshevism isn't actually transition out of capitalism, but transition out of agorism -> this follows from the proposition that Liberal-republicanism is actually just a repeatedly regenerating cycle of agorism turning into capitalism turning into Liberal-republicanism, and the implication that it can only be stopped if patterns change everywhere from very small scales up.

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

Reversedragon: It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist (false)

2026-06-10T04:48:27Z

It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist (false)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:48, 10 June 2026
Line 67:		Line 67:

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist; this is to imply that "extremes" are an abstract Ideal that miraculously spits out more extremes, and Extremes can be eradicated {{YouTube\|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> how is it that people come to regard material contradictions as a completely alien event that isn't the least bit familiar to them		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist; this is to imply that "extremes" are an abstract Ideal that miraculously spits out more extremes, and Extremes can be eradicated {{YouTube\|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> how is it that people come to regard material contradictions as a completely alien event that isn't the least bit familiar to them

			{{li\|I=F2/LR\|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist -> wait. this is false. I {{em\|know}} this is false. here's why. the claim here is that a faction of Extremists can spring up because another faction of Extremists provoked it. if that were true, there would be a good argument that Duginism exists because since 1953 First World anarchists have been pressuring Russia to assimilate into them and Russia got tired of it. but if that were true, Tories in the United States would also exist because anarchists provoked them. [[E:the shoplifting fandom\|that isn't entirely false]] but it's not exactly true either. the narrative that Extremists only come to be in great numbers because other Extremists created them, while unusually dialectical for Liberal-republicans, conflicts with another common narrative that center-Liberalism is The Middle Way and not an Extreme. in reality, Tories get just as upset by Barack Obama existing as they do by anarchists; Tories think that center-Liberalism existing whatsoever is extreme. so, really, it doesn't take any Extremists whatsoever to be capable of provoking a violent Tory/fascist faction, it only takes another faction existing at all. center-Liberals ought to realize that that {{em\|exact}} same statement goes for Communists. as much as most of them will probably see the concept of "Communists minding their own business" and laugh, that's definitely a concept that exists {{em\|when}} we're talking about whether the existence of Extremes is what creates Extremes.

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

Reversedragon: Society is held together based on interpersonal subjective moral consensus

2026-06-09T00:31:29Z

Society is held together based on interpersonal subjective moral consensus

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:31, 9 June 2026
Line 40:		Line 40:

	{{li\|I=S2/Ag\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Markets are not loci of cash exchange, but loci of voluntary interactions [https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/on-anagorism/] -> yep there we go, a crystallization of that classic "bizarre model of society as everything being made of social links" I kept noticing in almost everything that wasn't Communism. this ironically leads to capitalism proper as employee relationships and blood relationships become more important than relationships between corporations and all of existence becomes about complaining about bad relationships and acting like everybody "should have" been the perfect friend or family member like people aren't individuals and you magically have control over their minds.		{{li\|I=S2/Ag\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Markets are not loci of cash exchange, but loci of voluntary interactions [https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/on-anagorism/] -> yep there we go, a crystallization of that classic "bizarre model of society as everything being made of social links" I kept noticing in almost everything that wasn't Communism. this ironically leads to capitalism proper as employee relationships and blood relationships become more important than relationships between corporations and all of existence becomes about complaining about bad relationships and acting like everybody "should have" been the perfect friend or family member like people aren't individuals and you magically have control over their minds.

			{{li\|I=S2/HM\|tradition=IK, HM, ES\|Q=618}}Society is held together based on interpersonal subjective moral consensus<br/>
			this + Interpersonal relationships can snap at any moment = Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 57:		Line 60:

	{{li\|I=S2/MX/Aa\|Q=12,9,43\|Q2=12943}}Psychoanalysis is blue / ... Lacanian psychoanalysis is used to claim that Toryism exists because Tories are psychologically stunted individuals and if they are only forced to develop into Real Humans by ignoring them long enough then the form of government every Real Human naturally desires to come together and create, Liberal-republicanism, will be fine -> hang on. is Lacanianism the shovel dream of {{em\|agorism specifically}}		{{li\|I=S2/MX/Aa\|Q=12,9,43\|Q2=12943}}Psychoanalysis is blue / ... Lacanian psychoanalysis is used to claim that Toryism exists because Tories are psychologically stunted individuals and if they are only forced to develop into Real Humans by ignoring them long enough then the form of government every Real Human naturally desires to come together and create, Liberal-republicanism, will be fine -> hang on. is Lacanianism the shovel dream of {{em\|agorism specifically}}

			</li></ol>

			== Agorism and sliders ==
			<ol class="hue clean">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist; this is to imply that "extremes" are an abstract Ideal that miraculously spits out more extremes, and Extremes can be eradicated {{YouTube\|Cl04NNVDwD0}} -> how is it that people come to regard material contradictions as a completely alien event that isn't the least bit familiar to them

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 77:		Line 87:
	what would happen if there were 50 anarchists who wanted to build a park with farming capabilities and 50 anarchists who wanted to build a nuclear power plant because they like new digital art mediums like utopian audiovisual stories or video games? would the technological anarchists ultimately just have to cave to the environmental anarchists if they were stubborn enough to not give in?<br/>		what would happen if there were 50 anarchists who wanted to build a park with farming capabilities and 50 anarchists who wanted to build a nuclear power plant because they like new digital art mediums like utopian audiovisual stories or video games? would the technological anarchists ultimately just have to cave to the environmental anarchists if they were stubborn enough to not give in?<br/>
	really, this is already an issue {{em\|right now}} even for Liberal-republicans because the anarchists already exist and they already attack buildings right now, so if you don't explicitly think about that you have a nuclear disaster on your hands.		really, this is already an issue {{em\|right now}} even for Liberal-republicans because the anarchists already exist and they already attack buildings right now, so if you don't explicitly think about that you have a nuclear disaster on your hands.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}A theory that primarily grounds itself in human sociality ([[E:Socialism (general-sense progressivism)\|Socialism]], humanities, Kantianism, secular animism) will eventually become reactionary, because human sociality in and of itself is not equipped to handle the inevitable [[E:separable multiplicity\|countable and separable plurality]] of populations that results when human populations exist in the real world; this is to imply that Marxism is not in fact a theory primarily rooted in human sociality as much as one that simply acknowledges it / Asocialism (generic)<br/>
			Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality + A theory of society which is not accurate to material reality will eventually become reactionary = this.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Interpersonal relationships are no foundation for society because interpersonal relationships are fragile while society must be more durable to successfully exist / Asocialism (generic)

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

Reversedragon: Markets are not loci of cash exchange, but loci of voluntary interactions

2026-06-08T09:24:33Z

Markets are not loci of cash exchange, but loci of voluntary interactions

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:24, 8 June 2026
Line 38:		Line 38:
	the whole reason States prohibit "non-aggressive activities" is that they believe them to be aggressive activities although other people don't.<br/>		the whole reason States prohibit "non-aggressive activities" is that they believe them to be aggressive activities although other people don't.<br/>
	if you ask me? the concept of "non-aggressive activities prohibited by The State for no good reason" is nonsensical. there isn't actually any such thing. people belong to Social-Philosophical Systems that exist below the level of government, and those things prohibit arbitrary activities in other SPSs they subjectively believe to be aggressive to them, and then the sideways conflict between SPSs to legislate things onto each other generates The State as the most powerful groups of people in the sea of people who all really want to get their activities approved as non-aggressive activities win. given that activities inherently conflict with each other and use up space, and everybody has different definitions of "aggressive", there isn't really any fair way to get everyone clustered together around the totality of all non-aggressive activities.		if you ask me? the concept of "non-aggressive activities prohibited by The State for no good reason" is nonsensical. there isn't actually any such thing. people belong to Social-Philosophical Systems that exist below the level of government, and those things prohibit arbitrary activities in other SPSs they subjectively believe to be aggressive to them, and then the sideways conflict between SPSs to legislate things onto each other generates The State as the most powerful groups of people in the sea of people who all really want to get their activities approved as non-aggressive activities win. given that activities inherently conflict with each other and use up space, and everybody has different definitions of "aggressive", there isn't really any fair way to get everyone clustered together around the totality of all non-aggressive activities.

			{{li\|I=S2/Ag\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Markets are not loci of cash exchange, but loci of voluntary interactions [https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/on-anagorism/] -> yep there we go, a crystallization of that classic "bizarre model of society as everything being made of social links" I kept noticing in almost everything that wasn't Communism. this ironically leads to capitalism proper as employee relationships and blood relationships become more important than relationships between corporations and all of existence becomes about complaining about bad relationships and acting like everybody "should have" been the perfect friend or family member like people aren't individuals and you magically have control over their minds.

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:34, 28 June 2026
Line 114:		Line 114:

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Bolshevism isn't actually transition out of capitalism, but transition out of agorism -> this follows from the proposition that Liberal-republicanism is actually just a repeatedly regenerating cycle of agorism turning into capitalism turning into Liberal-republicanism, and the implication that it can only be stopped if patterns change everywhere from very small scales up.		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Bolshevism isn't actually transition out of capitalism, but transition out of agorism -> this follows from the proposition that Liberal-republicanism is actually just a repeatedly regenerating cycle of agorism turning into capitalism turning into Liberal-republicanism, and the implication that it can only be stopped if patterns change everywhere from very small scales up.

			{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}expel the community community from the community -> gee I wish the English-language-speaking community had made another word for a group of people than {{i\|lang=en\|community}} so this sentence could actually make sense!

	{{li\|I=S2/Ag\|Q=618}}Oil sanctions are anarchism (Third World) -> ...		{{li\|I=S2/Ag\|Q=618}}Oil sanctions are anarchism (Third World) -> ...