User:RD/9k/Q61,20 - Revision history

Reversedragon: Bobbie makes wars stop

2026-05-14T11:27:13Z

Bobbie makes wars stop

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:27, 14 May 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=antiwar movements & Idealism\|User=RD\|E=Q61,20\|Contents=y}}		{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=antiwar movements & Idealism\|User=RD\|E=Q61,20\|Contents=y}}
	== Main ~~entries~~ ==		== Main entry ==
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/W\|tradition=MX onto W/ES/A\|Q=61,20\|Q2=6120}}Undertale mirrors U.S. antiwar movements

			</ol>

			== Vietnam War ==
			<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/W\|tradition=MX onto W/ES/A\|Q=61,20\|Q2=6120\|h4 = Undertale mirrors U.S. antiwar movements }} / Undertale is the way it is because of the shape of United States antiwar movements -> so, I have a weird history with movements and being on the total fringes of them for most of my life when they would ripple out and hit me but I would only really get them secondhand. around 2014-2015 I got hit by the ripples of BLM. morality was everywhere. [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology\|Existentialism]] was everywhere, and this concept that people will automatically flip over and change their minds if you only shout <i>individuals individuals human rights identities individuals that is an individual you are an individual identity identity people like each other because they are different</i> enough. in the beginning when I was literally a [[E:right-Liberalism\|right-Libertarian]] that made some kind of sense to me, but as soon as I started actually not being a conservative all of it increasingly made less and less sense until I was like, where did any of this even come from and how does anyone even think it's correct? I read non-Marxist texts like I was supposed to and none of them made any sense, so I just kept digging and digging and digging on every single lead I could find anywhere to try to figure out where <em>any</em> of this philosophy coherently originated from whether people were creating it consciously or not. most of my research focused only on the past decade and how people could derive ideologies from scratch.<br />		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/W\|tradition=MX onto W/ES/A\|Q=61,20\|Q2=6120\|h4 = Undertale mirrors U.S. antiwar movements }} / Undertale is the way it is because of the shape of United States antiwar movements -> so, I have a weird history with movements and being on the total fringes of them for most of my life when they would ripple out and hit me but I would only really get them secondhand. around 2014-2015 I got hit by the ripples of BLM. morality was everywhere. [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology\|Existentialism]] was everywhere, and this concept that people will automatically flip over and change their minds if you only shout <i>individuals individuals human rights identities individuals that is an individual you are an individual identity identity people like each other because they are different</i> enough. in the beginning when I was literally a [[E:right-Liberalism\|right-Libertarian]] that made some kind of sense to me, but as soon as I started actually not being a conservative all of it increasingly made less and less sense until I was like, where did any of this even come from and how does anyone even think it's correct? I read non-Marxist texts like I was supposed to and none of them made any sense, so I just kept digging and digging and digging on every single lead I could find anywhere to try to figure out where <em>any</em> of this philosophy coherently originated from whether people were creating it consciously or not. most of my research focused only on the past decade and how people could derive ideologies from scratch.<br />
	most recently, [[E:U.S. antiwar movements have always been Idealist\|I realized]] that past United States antiwar movements had already been this. past large-scale movements in the United States had had the shape of anarchist Idealism, and not at all the shape of Marxism. finally, the outpouring of works like <cite>Undertale</cite> and <cite>Steven Universe</cite> started to make sense. the exact way they were portraying the notion of breaking up war was based on things like the Vietnam War period, in which despite the war being against Communism it wasn't actually Communists trying to stop it. and I'm not just saying the obvious fact of "a Marxist movement isn't mostly made of Marxist theorists", what I'm saying is, "it's as if the whole entire movement was [[E:undialectical idealism, historical non-materialism, and class non-analysis\|thoroughly not Marxist]] and anarchists were forming the theorist layer and trying to form the [[E:central party-nation (meta-Marxism)\|party-nation]]". nobody will ever be able to do historical materialism again if we don't understand workers' movements as plural bodies of people with different colors of theorists on top that realize different kinds of countries. incidentally yeah I think Trotsky accidentally set the whole world back purely by claiming workers didn't really belong to plural countries or plural workers' states. come on, Trotsky, [[E:sea of free-floating entities\|every object is plural]].		most recently, [[E:U.S. antiwar movements have always been Idealist\|I realized]] that past United States antiwar movements had already been this. past large-scale movements in the United States had had the shape of anarchist Idealism, and not at all the shape of Marxism. finally, the outpouring of works like <cite>Undertale</cite> and <cite>Steven Universe</cite> started to make sense. the exact way they were portraying the notion of breaking up war was based on things like the Vietnam War period, in which despite the war being against Communism it wasn't actually Communists trying to stop it. and I'm not just saying the obvious fact of "a Marxist movement isn't mostly made of Marxist theorists", what I'm saying is, "it's as if the whole entire movement was [[E:undialectical idealism, historical non-materialism, and class non-analysis\|thoroughly not Marxist]] and anarchists were forming the theorist layer and trying to form the [[E:central party-nation (meta-Marxism)\|party-nation]]". nobody will ever be able to do historical materialism again if we don't understand workers' movements as plural bodies of people with different colors of theorists on top that realize different kinds of countries. incidentally yeah I think Trotsky accidentally set the whole world back purely by claiming workers didn't really belong to plural countries or [[EC:9k/RD/Q4189\|plural workers' states]]. come on, Trotsky, [[E:sea of free-floating entities\|every object is plural]].

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4 = U.S. antiwar movements have always been Idealist }} / United States antiwar movements have historically always been Idealist / Marxist Jake believes Leninism is forming a Materialist social-democratic party, filtering it into a party-nation, and somehow filling it with workers. By Jake's definition, no anti-war movement in the United States has ever been a Marxist movement -> this really struck me when reading a book that was accidentally about the Vietnam War. the entire framing of the thing for normal people (and by that I do mean the bourgeoisie that represent them) was morality and basically the notion of war being a social construct and a thing that every individual has to choose to drop or sustain some kind of attack. there's not really any Marxism in there; that could quite easily devolve into a nationality of anarchists attacking a nationality of Liberal-republicans just for being part of the wrong nationality and not immediately assimilating into anarchism. and when you think of things this way, that previous antiwar movements in the United States <em>are</em> United States antiwar movements, you start to really see how "the left we have" being "non-Marxist" is a lot more than a color swatch, and in practice means that when United States people practice "revolutionary defeatism" the population is pursuing a totally different transition out of capitalism than what any Marxist strategy looks like assuming it pursues one at all. if you want people to work with "the left we have" you have to get comfortable with the concept of a [[Term:charcoal transition\|charcoal transition]] and that you might have to toss every bit of your Marxist theory out the window and learn a big stack of anarchist or [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology\|Existentialist]] theory, that the United States might get <em>all the way through transition to a new system</em> before Marxism ever begins to apply.<br />
			would I do that? well. I hate it. I have no other choice. I am incapable of doing it practically. that question is one big contradiction. so my answer is, I will analyze every single other ideology through Marxism, but as itself rather than a confused Marxism that explains itself wrong. Trotskyism isn't secretly mainstream Marxism-Leninism, it's Trotskyism. anarchism isn't secretly Bolshevism, it's anarchism. and a Marxist analysis <em>of anarchism</em> is something very different than a Marxist analysis of Marxism pretending to be anarchism. I am a meta-Marxist. if I have to use Marxism to explain how to succeed at totally non-Marxist ideologies that never turn into Marxism then I will. but I won't lie to you that Western Marxism or anarchism "must" be effective just because everyone's doing them and an ideology that's popular "must" be a winning one. I will judge the effectiveness of ideologies based on history. currently it's looking pretty bad for anarchism and bizarrely good for Deng Xiaoping Thought. I have been wracking my brain as to why that latter trend exists, and [[E:The Cold War never ended\|I think I half have an answer]]? but the answer only makes the outlook even worse for anarchism. anarchism is going to have to [[E:Subjects eat and occupy space\|molecularize]] or it will never win.

			{{li\|I=S2/LR\|tradition=ML onto LR\|Q=618\|h4 = Michael Harrington founded the DSA }} / Michael Harrington founded the Democratic Socialists of America to try to get the United States and Vietnam to negotiate an end to the war and prevent an anti-war movement from seriously disrupting the United States {{YouTube\|Zc4wFeBGkOI}}

			</ol>

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

			{{li\|I=S2/A\|tradition=A, LR\|Q=618\|h4 = Bobbie makes wars stop }} / War stops because Bobbie said so / International war stops because Bob Stills alone decided who would become president in the election and the president decided millions of people would stop contributing to and earning money from industries that support imperialist war / International war stops because Elijah alone decided what the overall culture and behavior of an entire early-United-States colony would be, overwriting the individual behavior of thousands of other settlers<br/>
			Horton Hears a Who + Undertale = Bobbie makes wars stop

			{{li\|I=M3/MX\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}How can Elijah stop colonialism? / Elijah was born on the early United States frontier, and has somehow realized that what the United States is doing is morally wrong. How can Elijah, or whatever group of people he can realistically manage to assemble as his allies, stop colonialism? / ({{9k\|RD/Q618-ElijahsBigFrontierDecision}})

			{{li\|I=S2/A\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Marxism is not practical in the United States because it is not a viable way to solve the United States' most pressing problem of Native American tribes defeating the United States colonies and winning self-determination 150-200 years ago; Marxism is not well suited to tribal populations because it speaks of transitions in production structures and collecting new emerging classes to carry a revolution and tribal populations do not undergo these kinds of changes nor, depending, begin with the kinds of material resources which would carry an operation like the Soviet Union defending itself against Europe with a modern military in World War II / ({{9k\|RD/Q618-ElijahsBigFrontierDecision}})

	</ol>		</ol>
Line 11:		Line 35:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX\|Q~~=618\|Q2~~=618\|h4 = ~~U.S. antiwar movements have always been Idealist~~ }} / United States antiwar movements have historically always been Idealist / Marxist Jake believes Leninism is forming a Materialist social-democratic party, filtering it into a party-nation, and somehow filling it with workers. By Jake's definition, no anti-war movement in the United States has ever been a Marxist movement -> ~~this really struck me when reading a book that was accidentally about~~ the ~~Vietnam War. the entire framing~~ of ~~the thing for normal people (and by that I do mean the bourgeoisie that represent them) was morality and basically the notion of war being a social construct and~~ a ~~thing that every individual has to choose to drop or sustain some kind~~ of ~~attack. there's~~ not ~~really any Marxism in there;~~ that ~~could quite easily devolve into a nationality of anarchists attacking a nationality of Liberal-republicans just for being part~~ of the ~~wrong nationality and not immediately assimilating into anarchism. and when you think of things this way, that previous antiwar movements~~ in the ~~United States <em>~~are~~</em> United States antiwar movements, you start~~ to ~~really see how "the left we have" being "non-Marxist" is a lot more than a color swatch,~~ and in practice means that when United States people practice "revolutionary defeatism" the population is pursuing a totally different transition out of capitalism than what any Marxist strategy looks like assuming it pursues one at all. if you want people to work with "the left we have" you have to get comfortable with the concept of a [[Term:charcoal transition\|charcoal transition]] and that you might have to toss every bit of your Marxist theory out the window and learn a big stack of anarchist or [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology\|Existentialist]] theory, that the United States might get <em>all the way through transition to a new system</em> before Marxism ever begins to apply.<br />		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/HM\|Q=618\|h4= moral vanguard }} (critical theory) -> the motif of a collection of people, probably not very big, that is specifically the collection of the most moral individuals in the region who are claimed to move history and carry out transitions because they are the most moral.<br/>
	~~would I do that? well~~. ~~I hate it~~. ~~I have no other choice~~. ~~I am incapable of doing~~ it ~~practically. that question is one big contradiction. so my answer is, I will analyze every single other ideology through Marxism,~~ but ~~as itself rather than a confused Marxism that explains itself wrong. Trotskyism isn't secretly mainstream Marxism-Leninism,~~ it's ~~Trotskyism~~. ~~anarchism isn't secretly Bolshevism~~, it~~'s anarchism. and a Marxist analysis <em>of anarchism</em>~~ is ~~something very different than a Marxist analysis of~~ Marxism ~~pretending to be anarchism.~~ I am ~~a meta-Marxist.~~ if ~~I have to use Marxism to explain how to succeed at totally non~~-~~Marxist ideologies that never turn into Marxism then I will. but I won't lie~~ to ~~you that Western Marxism or anarchism "must" be effective just because everyone's doing them~~ and ~~an ideology that~~'~~s popular "must" be a winning one. I will judge the effectiveness of ideologies~~ based ~~on history. currently it's looking pretty bad for anarchism and bizarrely good for Deng Xiaoping Thought. I have been wracking my brain~~ as to why that latter trend exists, and [[E:The Cold War never ended\|I think I half have an answer]]? but the answer only makes the outlook even worse for anarchism. anarchism is going to have to [[E:Subjects eat and occupy space\|molecularize]] or it will never win.		this motif.... it should make me mad but it's actually very funny to me. it is highly nonsensical on the inside, but the outward shape of it is so bizarrely similar to statements in Marxism-Leninism that I am possessed to imagine it as if it was some weird alternate-dimension parallel to Communism which outright spawns vanguard parties and workers' states all based in moral consciousness as opposed to class consciousness

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|~~tradition~~=~~ML onto LR~~\|Q=~~618~~\|h4 = ~~Michael Harrington founded the DSA~~ }} / Michael Harrington founded the Democratic Socialists of America to try to get the United States and Vietnam to negotiate an end to the war and prevent an anti-war movement from seriously disrupting the United States {{~~YouTube~~\|~~Zc4wFeBGkOI~~}}		{{li\|I=S1/Fy\|Q=64,43\|Q2=64,43\|h4= Edgeworth's dialectic }} / White Diamond's dialectic ({{film\|Steven Universe}})

	</ol>		</ol>
Line 26:		Line 50:
	-->		-->
	== Ideologies or fields ==		== Ideologies or fields ==
	~~<!--~~
	~~<ol class="hue clean compound">~~
	~~{{HueNumber\|Q41,03\|ML / mainstream Marxism-Leninism}}~~
	~~</ol>~~
	~~-->~~

	* Fy / fantasy		* Fy / fantasy
			* Fy / anti-imperialist fables
			* UTDR / {{game\|Undertale}}

Reversedragon: Michael Harrington founded the DSA / update formatting

2026-03-20T23:25:03Z

Michael Harrington founded the DSA / update formatting

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== [[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand|Prototype]] notes ==
+{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=antiwar movements & Idealism|User=RD|E=Q61,20|Contents=y}}
-<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">
+{{li|start=y|I=S2/W|tradition=MX onto W/ES/A|Q=61,20|Q2=6120|h4 = Undertale mirrors U.S. antiwar movements }} / Undertale is the way it is because of the shape of United States antiwar movements  ->  so, I have a weird history with movements and being on the total fringes of them for most of my life when they would ripple out and hit me but I would only really get them secondhand. around 2014-2015 I got hit by the ripples of BLM. morality was everywhere. [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialism]] was everywhere, and this concept that people will automatically flip over and change their minds if you only shout <i>individuals individuals human rights identities individuals that is an individual you are an individual identity identity people like each other because they are different</i> enough. in the beginning when I was literally a [[E:right-Liberalism|right-Libertarian]] that made some kind of sense to me, but as soon as I started actually not being a conservative all of it increasingly made less and less sense until I was like, where did any of this even come from and how does anyone even think it's correct? I read non-Marxist texts like I was supposed to and none of them made any sense, so I just kept digging and digging and digging on every single lead I could find anywhere to try to figure out where <em>any</em> of this philosophy coherently originated from whether people were creating it consciously or not. most of my research focused only on the past decade and how people could derive ideologies from scratch.<br />
-</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto W/ES/A" data-qid="61,20" value="6120" data-dimension="S2">Undertale mirrors U.S. antiwar movements / Undertale is the way it is because of the shape of United States antiwar movements  ->  so, I have a weird history with movements and being on the total fringes of them for most of my life when they would ripple out and hit me but I would only really get them secondhand. around 2014-2015 I got hit by the ripples of BLM. morality was everywhere. [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialism]] was everywhere, and this concept that people will automatically flip over and change their minds if you only shout <i>individuals individuals human rights identities individuals that is an individual you are an individual identity identity people like each other because they are different</i> enough. in the beginning when I was literally a [[E:right-Liberalism|right-Libertarian]] that made some kind of sense to me, but as soon as I started actually not being a conservative all of it increasingly made less and less sense until I was like, where did any of this even come from and how does anyone even think it's correct? I read non-Marxist texts like I was supposed to and none of them made any sense, so I just kept digging and digging and digging on every single lead I could find anywhere to try to figure out where <em>any</em> of this philosophy coherently originated from whether people were creating it consciously or not. most of my research focused only on the past decade and how people could derive ideologies from scratch.<br />
+most recently, [[E:U.S. antiwar movements have always been Idealist|I realized]] that past United States antiwar movements had already been this. past large-scale movements in the United States had had the shape of anarchist Idealism, and not at all the shape of Marxism. finally, the outpouring of works like <cite>Undertale</cite> and <cite>Steven Universe</cite> started to make sense. the exact way they were portraying the notion of breaking up war was based on things like the Vietnam War period, in which despite the war being against Communism it wasn't actually Communists trying to stop it. and I'm not just saying the obvious fact of "a Marxist movement isn't mostly made of Marxist theorists", what I'm saying is, "it's as if the whole entire movement was [[E:undialectical idealism, historical non-materialism, and class non-analysis|thoroughly not Marxist]] and anarchists were forming the theorist layer and trying to form the [[E:central party-nation (meta-Marxism)|party-nation]]". nobody will ever be able to do historical materialism again if we don't understand workers' movements as plural bodies of people with different colors of theorists on top that realize different kinds of countries. incidentally yeah I think Trotsky accidentally set the whole world back purely by claiming workers didn't really belong to plural countries or plural workers' states. come on, Trotsky, [[E:sea of free-floating entities|every object is plural]].
-</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">U.S. antiwar movements have always been Idealist / United States antiwar movements have historically always been Idealist / Marxist Jake believes Leninism is forming a Materialist social-democratic party, filtering it into a party-nation, and somehow filling it with workers. By Jake's definition, no anti-war movement in the United States has ever been a Marxist movement  ->  this really struck me when reading a book that was accidentally about the Vietnam War. the entire framing of the thing for normal people (and by that I do mean the bourgeoisie that represent them) was morality and basically the notion of war being a social construct and a thing that every individual has to choose to drop or sustain some kind of attack. there's not really any Marxism in there; that could quite easily devolve into a nationality of anarchists attacking a nationality of Liberal-republicans just for being part of the wrong nationality and not immediately assimilating into anarchism. and when you think of things this way, that previous antiwar movements in the United States <em>are</em> United States antiwar movements, you start to really see how "the left we have" being "non-Marxist" is a lot more than a color swatch, and in practice means that when United States people practice "revolutionary defeatism" the population is pursuing a totally different transition out of capitalism than what any Marxist strategy looks like assuming it pursues one at all. if you want people to work with "the left we have" you have to get comfortable with the concept of a [[Term:charcoal transition|charcoal transition]] and that you might have to toss every bit of your Marxist theory out the window and learn a big stack of anarchist or [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialist]] theory, that the United States might get <em>all the way through transition to a new system</em> before Marxism ever begins to apply.<br />
+</ol>
 would I do that? well. I hate it. I have no other choice. I am incapable of doing it practically. that question is one big contradiction. so my answer is, I will analyze every single other ideology through Marxism, but as itself rather than a confused Marxism that explains itself wrong. Trotskyism isn't secretly mainstream Marxism-Leninism, it's Trotskyism. anarchism isn't secretly Bolshevism, it's anarchism. and a Marxist analysis <em>of anarchism</em> is something very different than a Marxist analysis of Marxism pretending to be anarchism. I am a meta-Marxist. if I have to use Marxism to explain how to succeed at totally non-Marxist ideologies that never turn into Marxism then I will. but I won't lie to you that Western Marxism or anarchism "must" be effective just because everyone's doing them and an ideology that's popular "must" be a winning one. I will judge the effectiveness of ideologies based on history. currently it's looking pretty bad for anarchism and bizarrely good for Deng Xiaoping Thought. I have been wracking my brain as to why that latter trend exists, and [[E:The Cold War never ended|I think I half have an answer]]? but the answer only makes the outlook even worse for anarchism. anarchism is going to have to [[E:Subjects eat and occupy space|molecularize]] or it will never win.
 </ol>
-[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]
+[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]  <!-- page ends here.  TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming
-<!-- redirects:  [[User:RD/9k/Q6120]]
+redirects:   [[User:RD/9k/Q6120]]
 duplication hint:   copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN|9k/Q61,20]] -->

Reversedragon: redirects

2025-12-12T01:40:56Z

redirects

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:40, 12 December 2025
Line 2:		Line 2:

	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">
	</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto W/ES/A" value="6120" data-dimension="S2">Undertale mirrors U.S. antiwar movements / Undertale is the way it is because of the shape of United States antiwar movements -> so, I have a weird history with movements and being on the total fringes of them for most of my life when they would ripple out and hit me but I would only really get them secondhand. around 2014-2015 I got hit by the ripples of BLM. morality was everywhere. [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology\|Existentialism]] was everywhere, and this concept that people will automatically flip over and change their minds if you only shout <i>individuals individuals human rights identities individuals that is an individual you are an individual identity identity people like each other because they are different</i> enough. in the beginning when I was literally a [[E:right-Liberalism\|right-Libertarian]] that made some kind of sense to me, but as soon as I started actually not being a conservative all of it increasingly made less and less sense until I was like, where did any of this even come from and how does anyone even think it's correct? I read non-Marxist texts like I was supposed to and none of them made any sense, so I just kept digging and digging and digging on every single lead I could find anywhere to try to figure out where <em>any</em> of this philosophy coherently originated from whether people were creating it consciously or not. most of my research focused only on the past decade and how people could derive ideologies from scratch.<br />		</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto W/ES/A" data-qid="61,20" value="6120" data-dimension="S2">Undertale mirrors U.S. antiwar movements / Undertale is the way it is because of the shape of United States antiwar movements -> so, I have a weird history with movements and being on the total fringes of them for most of my life when they would ripple out and hit me but I would only really get them secondhand. around 2014-2015 I got hit by the ripples of BLM. morality was everywhere. [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology\|Existentialism]] was everywhere, and this concept that people will automatically flip over and change their minds if you only shout <i>individuals individuals human rights identities individuals that is an individual you are an individual identity identity people like each other because they are different</i> enough. in the beginning when I was literally a [[E:right-Liberalism\|right-Libertarian]] that made some kind of sense to me, but as soon as I started actually not being a conservative all of it increasingly made less and less sense until I was like, where did any of this even come from and how does anyone even think it's correct? I read non-Marxist texts like I was supposed to and none of them made any sense, so I just kept digging and digging and digging on every single lead I could find anywhere to try to figure out where <em>any</em> of this philosophy coherently originated from whether people were creating it consciously or not. most of my research focused only on the past decade and how people could derive ideologies from scratch.<br />
	most recently, [[E:U.S. antiwar movements have always been Idealist\|I realized]] that past United States antiwar movements had already been this. past large-scale movements in the United States had had the shape of anarchist Idealism, and not at all the shape of Marxism. finally, the outpouring of works like <cite>Undertale</cite> and <cite>Steven Universe</cite> started to make sense. the exact way they were portraying the notion of breaking up war was based on things like the Vietnam War period, in which despite the war being against Communism it wasn't actually Communists trying to stop it. and I'm not just saying the obvious fact of "a Marxist movement isn't mostly made of Marxists", what I'm saying is, "it's as if the whole entire movement was not Marxist and anarchists were forming the theorist layer and trying to form the party-nation". nobody will ever be able to do historical materialism again if we don't understand workers' movements as plural bodies of people with different colors of theorists on top that realize different kinds of countries. incidentally yeah I think Trotsky accidentally set the whole world back purely by claiming workers didn't really belong to plural countries or plural workers' states. come on, Trotsky, [[E:sea of free-floating entities\|every object is plural]].		most recently, [[E:U.S. antiwar movements have always been Idealist\|I realized]] that past United States antiwar movements had already been this. past large-scale movements in the United States had had the shape of anarchist Idealism, and not at all the shape of Marxism. finally, the outpouring of works like <cite>Undertale</cite> and <cite>Steven Universe</cite> started to make sense. the exact way they were portraying the notion of breaking up war was based on things like the Vietnam War period, in which despite the war being against Communism it wasn't actually Communists trying to stop it. and I'm not just saying the obvious fact of "a Marxist movement isn't mostly made of Marxists", what I'm saying is, "it's as if the whole entire movement was not Marxist and anarchists were forming the theorist layer and trying to form the party-nation". nobody will ever be able to do historical materialism again if we don't understand workers' movements as plural bodies of people with different colors of theorists on top that realize different kinds of countries. incidentally yeah I think Trotsky accidentally set the whole world back purely by claiming workers didn't really belong to plural countries or plural workers' states. come on, Trotsky, [[E:sea of free-floating entities\|every object is plural]].

	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">U.S. antiwar movements have always been Idealist / United States antiwar movements have historically always been Idealist / Marxist Jake believes Leninism is forming a Materialist social-democratic party, filtering it into a party-nation, and somehow filling it with workers. By Jake's definition, no anti-war movement in the United States has ever been a Marxist movement -> this really struck me when reading a book that was accidentally about the Vietnam War. the entire framing of the thing for normal people (and by that I do mean the bourgeoisie that represent them) was morality and basically the notion of war being a social construct and a thing that every individual has to choose to drop or sustain some kind of attack. there's not really any Marxism in there; that could quite easily devolve into a nationality of anarchists attacking a nationality of Liberal-republicans just for being part of the wrong nationality and not immediately assimilating into anarchism. and when you think of things this way, that previous antiwar movements in the United States <em>are</em> United States antiwar movements, you start to really see how "the left we have" being "non-Marxist" is a lot more than a color swatch, and in practice means that when United States people practice "revolutionary defeatism" the population is pursuing a totally different transition out of capitalism than what any Marxist strategy looks like assuming it pursues one at all. if you want people to work with "the left we have" you have to get comfortable with the concept of a [[Term:charcoal transition\|charcoal transition]] and that you might have to toss every bit of your Marxist theory out the window and learn a big stack of anarchist or [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology\|Existentialist]] theory, that the United States might get <em>all the way through transition to a new system</em> before Marxism ever begins to apply.<br />		</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">U.S. antiwar movements have always been Idealist / United States antiwar movements have historically always been Idealist / Marxist Jake believes Leninism is forming a Materialist social-democratic party, filtering it into a party-nation, and somehow filling it with workers. By Jake's definition, no anti-war movement in the United States has ever been a Marxist movement -> this really struck me when reading a book that was accidentally about the Vietnam War. the entire framing of the thing for normal people (and by that I do mean the bourgeoisie that represent them) was morality and basically the notion of war being a social construct and a thing that every individual has to choose to drop or sustain some kind of attack. there's not really any Marxism in there; that could quite easily devolve into a nationality of anarchists attacking a nationality of Liberal-republicans just for being part of the wrong nationality and not immediately assimilating into anarchism. and when you think of things this way, that previous antiwar movements in the United States <em>are</em> United States antiwar movements, you start to really see how "the left we have" being "non-Marxist" is a lot more than a color swatch, and in practice means that when United States people practice "revolutionary defeatism" the population is pursuing a totally different transition out of capitalism than what any Marxist strategy looks like assuming it pursues one at all. if you want people to work with "the left we have" you have to get comfortable with the concept of a [[Term:charcoal transition\|charcoal transition]] and that you might have to toss every bit of your Marxist theory out the window and learn a big stack of anarchist or [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology\|Existentialist]] theory, that the United States might get <em>all the way through transition to a new system</em> before Marxism ever begins to apply.<br />
	would I do that? well. I hate it. I have no other choice. I am incapable of doing it practically. that question is one big contradiction. so my answer is, I will analyze every single other ideology through Marxism, but as itself rather than a confused Marxism that explains itself wrong. Trotskyism isn't secretly mainstream Marxism-Leninism, it's Trotskyism. anarchism isn't secretly Bolshevism, it's anarchism. and a Marxist analysis <em>of anarchism</em> is something very different than a Marxist analysis of Marxism pretending to be anarchism. I am a meta-Marxist. if I have to use Marxism to explain how to succeed at totally non-Marxist ideologies that never turn into Marxism then I will. but I won't lie to you that Western ~~Maxism~~ or anarchism "must" be effective just because everyone's doing them and an ideology that's popular "must" be a winning one. I will judge the effectiveness of ideologies based on history. currently it's looking pretty bad for anarchism and bizarrely good for Deng Xiaoping Thought. I have been wracking my brain as to why that latter trend exists, and [[E:The Cold War never ended\|I think I half have an answer]]? but the answer only makes the outlook even worse for anarchism. anarchism is going to have to [[E:~~The Cold War never ended~~\|molecularize]] or it will never win.		would I do that? well. I hate it. I have no other choice. I am incapable of doing it practically. that question is one big contradiction. so my answer is, I will analyze every single other ideology through Marxism, but as itself rather than a confused Marxism that explains itself wrong. Trotskyism isn't secretly mainstream Marxism-Leninism, it's Trotskyism. anarchism isn't secretly Bolshevism, it's anarchism. and a Marxist analysis <em>of anarchism</em> is something very different than a Marxist analysis of Marxism pretending to be anarchism. I am a meta-Marxist. if I have to use Marxism to explain how to succeed at totally non-Marxist ideologies that never turn into Marxism then I will. but I won't lie to you that Western Marxism or anarchism "must" be effective just because everyone's doing them and an ideology that's popular "must" be a winning one. I will judge the effectiveness of ideologies based on history. currently it's looking pretty bad for anarchism and bizarrely good for Deng Xiaoping Thought. I have been wracking my brain as to why that latter trend exists, and [[E:The Cold War never ended\|I think I half have an answer]]? but the answer only makes the outlook even worse for anarchism. anarchism is going to have to [[E:Subjects eat and occupy space\|molecularize]] or it will never win.
	</ol>		</ol>


	[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]		[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]
	<!-- redirects: ~~(none)~~		<!-- redirects: [[User:RD/9k/Q6120]]
			removed typos, for search purposes: "Western Maxism"
	duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|9k/Q61,20]] -->		duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|9k/Q61,20]] -->

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q6120 to User:RD/9k/Q61,20: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

2025-12-12T01:33:40Z

Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q6120 to User:RD/9k/Q61,20: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

← Older revision	Revision as of 01:33, 12 December 2025
(No difference)

Reversedragon: copy markup from 9k/Q28,84

2025-11-06T04:30:43Z

copy markup from 9k/Q28,84

New page

== [[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand|Prototype]] notes ==

<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="MX onto W/ES/A" value="6120" data-dimension="S2">Undertale mirrors U.S. antiwar movements / Undertale is the way it is because of the shape of United States antiwar movements -> so, I have a weird history with movements and being on the total fringes of them for most of my life when they would ripple out and hit me but I would only really get them secondhand. around 2014-2015 I got hit by the ripples of BLM. morality was everywhere. [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialism]] was everywhere, and this concept that people will automatically flip over and change their minds if you only shout individuals individuals human rights identities individuals that is an individual you are an individual identity identity people like each other because they are different enough. in the beginning when I was literally a [[E:right-Liberalism|right-Libertarian]] that made some kind of sense to me, but as soon as I started actually not being a conservative all of it increasingly made less and less sense until I was like, where did any of this even come from and how does anyone even think it's correct? I read non-Marxist texts like I was supposed to and none of them made any sense, so I just kept digging and digging and digging on every single lead I could find anywhere to try to figure out where any of this philosophy coherently originated from whether people were creating it consciously or not. most of my research focused only on the past decade and how people could derive ideologies from scratch. 
most recently, [[E:U.S. antiwar movements have always been Idealist|I realized]] that past United States antiwar movements had already been this. past large-scale movements in the United States had had the shape of anarchist Idealism, and not at all the shape of Marxism. finally, the outpouring of works like <cite>Undertale</cite> and <cite>Steven Universe</cite> started to make sense. the exact way they were portraying the notion of breaking up war was based on things like the Vietnam War period, in which despite the war being against Communism it wasn't actually Communists trying to stop it. and I'm not just saying the obvious fact of "a Marxist movement isn't mostly made of Marxists", what I'm saying is, "it's as if the whole entire movement was not Marxist and anarchists were forming the theorist layer and trying to form the party-nation". nobody will ever be able to do historical materialism again if we don't understand workers' movements as plural bodies of people with different colors of theorists on top that realize different kinds of countries. incidentally yeah I think Trotsky accidentally set the whole world back purely by claiming workers didn't really belong to plural countries or plural workers' states. come on, Trotsky, [[E:sea of free-floating entities|every object is plural]].

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">U.S. antiwar movements have always been Idealist / United States antiwar movements have historically always been Idealist / Marxist Jake believes Leninism is forming a Materialist social-democratic party, filtering it into a party-nation, and somehow filling it with workers. By Jake's definition, no anti-war movement in the United States has ever been a Marxist movement -> this really struck me when reading a book that was accidentally about the Vietnam War. the entire framing of the thing for normal people (and by that I do mean the bourgeoisie that represent them) was morality and basically the notion of war being a social construct and a thing that every individual has to choose to drop or sustain some kind of attack. there's not really any Marxism in there; that could quite easily devolve into a nationality of anarchists attacking a nationality of Liberal-republicans just for being part of the wrong nationality and not immediately assimilating into anarchism. and when you think of things this way, that previous antiwar movements in the United States are United States antiwar movements, you start to really see how "the left we have" being "non-Marxist" is a lot more than a color swatch, and in practice means that when United States people practice "revolutionary defeatism" the population is pursuing a totally different transition out of capitalism than what any Marxist strategy looks like assuming it pursues one at all. if you want people to work with "the left we have" you have to get comfortable with the concept of a [[Term:charcoal transition|charcoal transition]] and that you might have to toss every bit of your Marxist theory out the window and learn a big stack of anarchist or [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|Existentialist]] theory, that the United States might get all the way through transition to a new system before Marxism ever begins to apply. 
would I do that? well. I hate it. I have no other choice. I am incapable of doing it practically. that question is one big contradiction. so my answer is, I will analyze every single other ideology through Marxism, but as itself rather than a confused Marxism that explains itself wrong. Trotskyism isn't secretly mainstream Marxism-Leninism, it's Trotskyism. anarchism isn't secretly Bolshevism, it's anarchism. and a Marxist analysis of anarchism is something very different than a Marxist analysis of Marxism pretending to be anarchism. I am a meta-Marxist. if I have to use Marxism to explain how to succeed at totally non-Marxist ideologies that never turn into Marxism then I will. but I won't lie to you that Western Maxism or anarchism "must" be effective just because everyone's doing them and an ideology that's popular "must" be a winning one. I will judge the effectiveness of ideologies based on history. currently it's looking pretty bad for anarchism and bizarrely good for Deng Xiaoping Thought. I have been wracking my brain as to why that latter trend exists, and [[E:The Cold War never ended|I think I half have an answer]]? but the answer only makes the outlook even worse for anarchism. anarchism is going to have to [[E:The Cold War never ended|molecularize]] or it will never win.
</ol>

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