User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4 - Revision history

Reversedragon: How will you obtain unicorn horns?

2026-06-08T22:42:51Z

How will you obtain unicorn horns?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 8 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection\|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>		<h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection\|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">

			{{li\|I=M3/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}How will you obtain unicorn horns? / Anarchists presuppose that envisioning a different future separate from the material elements, structures, and processes of society that already exist is meaningful in and of itself, but if this is the case, they seemingly have no way to actually change anything; if the United States changes the day you find unicorn horns on the ground, but there are none of them in the entire land area of the United States, and you cannot fabricate them, and you cannot teleport them in from another place given that nobody in the United States knows how to do that, how can you possibly find them fast enough for your entire party of people to not simply be driven out of the United States to where the unicorn horns actually are — what do you do? -> trying to get anarchists to think harder about the concept of productive forces and the fact that you always need graph connections between people to actually achieve anything

	{{li\|I=S1/IV\|tradition=\|Q=618}}how many of these Trotskyists came from the Third International?? [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/21-scratch1.htm] -> complaint by Trotsky talking about a U.S. party, I think it was the SWP but I'm not sure. he also mentioned the Second International and some Fisherist-sounding analysis where Shachtman got obsessed with culture and media but wouldn't talk about the structure of society. there was a lot in the letter. it's just mildly funny to me to that "people from the Comintern" would be so identifiable		{{li\|I=S1/IV\|tradition=\|Q=618}}how many of these Trotskyists came from the Third International?? [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/21-scratch1.htm] -> complaint by Trotsky talking about a U.S. party, I think it was the SWP but I'm not sure. he also mentioned the Second International and some Fisherist-sounding analysis where Shachtman got obsessed with culture and media but wouldn't talk about the structure of society. there was a lot in the letter. it's just mildly funny to me to that "people from the Comintern" would be so identifiable

Reversedragon: how many of these Trotskyists came from the Third International??

2026-06-08T12:44:56Z

how many of these Trotskyists came from the Third International??

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:44, 8 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection\|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>		<h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection\|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">

			{{li\|I=S1/IV\|tradition=\|Q=618}}how many of these Trotskyists came from the Third International?? [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/21-scratch1.htm] -> complaint by Trotsky talking about a U.S. party, I think it was the SWP but I'm not sure. he also mentioned the Second International and some Fisherist-sounding analysis where Shachtman got obsessed with culture and media but wouldn't talk about the structure of society. there was a lot in the letter. it's just mildly funny to me to that "people from the Comintern" would be so identifiable

	{{li\|I=S2/Ag/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Non-aggressive activities gain the right to exist only through aggressive activities -> do you see how the concept of a non-aggressive activity "in and of itself" is inherently paradoxical? the paradox falls away if you realize that any particular group of non-aggressive activities is put together [[E:Social-Graph System (meta-Marxism)\|on some other totally different definition]], and it labels itself "non-aggressive activities" purely because it is incompatible with something else that then labels it "aggressive activities".		{{li\|I=S2/Ag/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Non-aggressive activities gain the right to exist only through aggressive activities -> do you see how the concept of a non-aggressive activity "in and of itself" is inherently paradoxical? the paradox falls away if you realize that any particular group of non-aggressive activities is put together [[E:Social-Graph System (meta-Marxism)\|on some other totally different definition]], and it labels itself "non-aggressive activities" purely because it is incompatible with something else that then labels it "aggressive activities".

Reversedragon: Non-aggressive activities can be a class

2026-06-08T00:33:49Z

Non-aggressive activities can be a class

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 {{li|I=S2/MX/W|tradition=|Q=618}}If Fisherism is true, China can overtake Breadtube / If Fisherism is true, then every non-politician in China should ignore Chinese politics and make as many videos about United States politics as possible  ->  this would be for two reasons. 1) people in China are mostly safe from the U.S. government, so they are less likely to face consequences than people in the United States 2) if "creating media" is really so important to changing societal consciousness then most of China's government and politics is in the United States, so they need to change consciousness in the United States to change their government
 {{li|I=S1/HAS|tradition=|Q=618}}shark attacks of 1916 [https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23279012/shark-attack-1916-woodrow-wilson-political-science-achen-bartels-fowler-hall] [https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/did-shark-attacks-eat-into-woodrow-wilsons-votes-in-1916] [https://www.salon.com/2022/07/24/this-denounced-sharks-as-monsters-but-did-they-take-a-bite-out-of-his-voters/]
@@ Line 60: / Line 55: @@
 {{li|I=S1/DFy/ML|Q=618}}1917 as year after shark attack / sharks attacked in 1916 — you won't believe what happened in 1917  ->  seeing the year "1916" or "1917" in other contexts always catches me a little off guard because I am like, mentally placing the event on a map where it's going on but way over to the other side is Lenin. I understand that other things happened in that year but at a few select moments the autopilot part of my brain absolutely does not and I'm like "...1916?" before I suddenly "wake up".
 {{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618}}comparing Communists to sharks  ->  I don't know if this item will get much use but it {{em|is}} inevitable.
 {{li|I=S1/PT|tradition=|Q=618}}imperial reversal / imperial revolution  ->  A) the day human beings turned around to oppress predatory animals, and the movie monster was born B) Zionism, Duginism

Reversedragon: Everyone in the United States is a Libertarian

2026-06-08T00:02:34Z

Everyone in the United States is a Libertarian

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:02, 8 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection\|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>		<h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection\|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">

			{{li\|I=S2/Ag/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Non-aggressive activities gain the right to exist only through aggressive activities -> do you see how the concept of a non-aggressive activity "in and of itself" is inherently paradoxical? the paradox falls away if you realize that any particular group of non-aggressive activities is put together [[E:Social-Graph System (meta-Marxism)\|on some other totally different definition]], and it labels itself "non-aggressive activities" purely because it is incompatible with something else that then labels it "aggressive activities".

			{{li\|I=S2/Ag/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Everyone in the United States is a Libertarian / Despite nearly everyone in the United States who is not a member of the Libertarian movement claiming capital-L Libertarian parties to be different and distinct from them, the Libertarian movement in fact describes the founding principles of {{em\|all}} political parties in the United States — agorism — and every other Liberal-republican political party in the United States is in fact a variation of Libertarianism as defined by the Libertarian movement, including some political movements which are not organized into official parties; United States civil rights movements are a Libertarianism because they are defined as the sum of all non-aggressive activities, the Democratic-Republican party of 1791 was a Libertarianism because it opposed the Federalist party of large monolithic businesses clustered around a central government, the Democratic Party is a Libertarianism because it is defined through the concept of people voluntarily joining in non-aggression to continuously vote for a party to supposedly fix their problems and absolutely all political parties that don't directly commit aggression getting to continue existing, the Republican party is a Libertarianism because it is defined through the belief that all small, medium-size, and large corporations can form a locus of non-aggression that is being attacked by other loci of non-aggression; the actual center position in the United States that should be in the middle of a political compass is Libertarianism-agorism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party] -><br/>
			before I found about agorism nothing about Liberal-republicanism made sense, and it all makes a lot more coherent material sense now down to the thing of getting obsessed with finding "the middle" and distinguishing all deviations into new parties as "directional" from the middle or as Extremes, but the more I learn, the more all the inner logic of LiberalRepublicanism-Libertarianism-agorism is utterly horrifying.

			{{li\|I=S2/Ag/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}If Wario believes in Liberal-republicanism then he must be a Libertarian -> I made it simple for you. [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-greatest-thread-in-the-history-of-forums-locked-by-a-moderator-after-12239-pages-of-heated-debate]

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto Ag\|Q=618}}Everything starts out prohibited / Everything always begins prohibited / There is no difference between a republic where everything that is not prohibited is allowed and a republic where everything that is not allowed is prohibited; because all prohibitions emerge from the shape of small-scale social graphs and gaps between them, both models function the same way at that scale, and because government is always generated out of smaller scales of society, both logical models functionally model the exact same physical thing (meta-Marxism onto agorism) -> people usually think there is, but that's based on an error in reasoning thinking that legislators are the people who actually decide what's allowed. when you realize that ordinary people are always the ones who decide what's allowed and even oppressive republics have representatives based on what ordinary people want, you realize that actually, it might be the case that every single republic is based on everything not explicitly allowed being prohibited due to the fact that loci of non-aggression are always created on that basis, and the concept of there being a republic where you can do what you want as long as it isn't prohibited is entirely made up.		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto Ag\|Q=618}}Everything starts out prohibited / Everything always begins prohibited / There is no difference between a republic where everything that is not prohibited is allowed and a republic where everything that is not allowed is prohibited; because all prohibitions emerge from the shape of small-scale social graphs and gaps between them, both models function the same way at that scale, and because government is always generated out of smaller scales of society, both logical models functionally model the exact same physical thing (meta-Marxism onto agorism) -> people usually think there is, but that's based on an error in reasoning thinking that legislators are the people who actually decide what's allowed. when you realize that ordinary people are always the ones who decide what's allowed and even oppressive republics have representatives based on what ordinary people want, you realize that actually, it might be the case that every single republic is based on everything not explicitly allowed being prohibited due to the fact that loci of non-aggression are always created on that basis, and the concept of there being a republic where you can do what you want as long as it isn't prohibited is entirely made up.

Reversedragon: Everything starts out prohibited

2026-06-07T12:23:05Z

Everything starts out prohibited

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:23, 7 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection\|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>		<h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection\|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto Ag\|Q=618}}Everything starts out prohibited / Everything always begins prohibited / There is no difference between a republic where everything that is not prohibited is allowed and a republic where everything that is not allowed is prohibited; because all prohibitions emerge from the shape of small-scale social graphs and gaps between them, both models function the same way at that scale, and because government is always generated out of smaller scales of society, both logical models functionally model the exact same physical thing (meta-Marxism onto agorism) -> people usually think there is, but that's based on an error in reasoning thinking that legislators are the people who actually decide what's allowed. when you realize that ordinary people are always the ones who decide what's allowed and even oppressive republics have representatives based on what ordinary people want, you realize that actually, it might be the case that every single republic is based on everything not explicitly allowed being prohibited due to the fact that loci of non-aggression are always created on that basis, and the concept of there being a republic where you can do what you want as long as it isn't prohibited is entirely made up.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX/LR\|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is not just a bunch of arbitrary utterances spat out of capitalism, and in fact is an entire intricate historical process of its own consisting of particular material objects in particular arrangements attempting to perform particular transitions from one arrangement to another arrangement, much like the internal operation of Trotskyism cannot be reduced to a bunch of spat-out ideas "from the wrong classes" by Stalin's Marxism, nor can the shape of Stalin's Marxism be reduced to a bunch of spat-out ideas "unrelated to Marxist movements" by Trotskyism; the United States is not special because it is the United States and isn't other countries, nor is Liberal-republicanism special because it is somehow "the only correct system", but instead of that, Liberal-republicanism is merely a specific kind of physical process distinguished from other physical processes which uses human individuals to build larger objects; the inner process within Liberal-republicanism fundamentally operates on the physical rules of a material description of blue anarchism, and not on any physical rules of a material description of Bolshevism / The progression of physical structures within Liberal-republicanism evolves in a fundamentally different way than the progression of physical structures inside Bolshevism (generic)		{{li\|I=S2/MX/LR\|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is not just a bunch of arbitrary utterances spat out of capitalism, and in fact is an entire intricate historical process of its own consisting of particular material objects in particular arrangements attempting to perform particular transitions from one arrangement to another arrangement, much like the internal operation of Trotskyism cannot be reduced to a bunch of spat-out ideas "from the wrong classes" by Stalin's Marxism, nor can the shape of Stalin's Marxism be reduced to a bunch of spat-out ideas "unrelated to Marxist movements" by Trotskyism; the United States is not special because it is the United States and isn't other countries, nor is Liberal-republicanism special because it is somehow "the only correct system", but instead of that, Liberal-republicanism is merely a specific kind of physical process distinguished from other physical processes which uses human individuals to build larger objects; the inner process within Liberal-republicanism fundamentally operates on the physical rules of a material description of blue anarchism, and not on any physical rules of a material description of Bolshevism / The progression of physical structures within Liberal-republicanism evolves in a fundamentally different way than the progression of physical structures inside Bolshevism (generic)

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Liberal-republicanism is a segregation machine / The progression of physical structures within Liberal-republicanism evolves in a fundamentally different way than the progression of physical structures inside Bolshevism; within Liberal-republicanism the structures that develop are loci of non-aggression inside which the particular list of rather specific things recognized to not be aggressive is strictly required to be tolerated by the entire locus but things not included on the list of non-aggressive things are often considered aggressive and worthy of being pushed out of society even if among things they would be compatible with they are not actually aggressive or dangerous and the locus of non-aggression simply fears them;<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Agorism is a segregation machine / Liberal-republicanism is a segregation machine / The progression of physical structures within Liberal-republicanism evolves in a fundamentally different way than the progression of physical structures inside Bolshevism; within Liberal-republicanism the structures that develop are loci of non-aggression inside which the particular list of rather specific things recognized to not be aggressive is strictly required to be tolerated by the entire locus but things not included on the list of non-aggressive things are often considered aggressive and worthy of being pushed out of society even if among things they would be compatible with they are not actually aggressive or dangerous and the locus of non-aggression simply fears them;<br/>
	the creation of loci of non-aggression is popularly believed to result in fusion of different loci which will locally take away chunk competition from society and replace it with 'chunk cooperation' or 'chunk summation';<br/>		the creation of loci of non-aggression is popularly believed to result in fusion of different loci which will locally take away chunk competition from society and replace it with 'chunk cooperation' or 'chunk summation';<br/>
	in reality, the entire concept of loci of non-aggression is so unstable and arbitrary that it easily creates countably separate loci in perpetual competition that evolve into toxically-linked, hostile, or even murderous societies, and the precise transition that occurs is to split a country like the United States into two or more countable nationalities that are as similar as possible and yet as toxically incompatible as possible, which both still believe themselves to be compatible, and spawn further nationalities as people attempt to assemble into [[E:anarchism\|a third locus of non-aggression]] to get away from the existing nationalities' toxic relationship; the system loathes inequality and attacks both billionaires and populational borders for breaking the illusion that society is singular and not made of plural pyramids, but as more and more equality is produced, more and more segregation is produced along the separations between loci, and gaps between loci channel deeper and produce more hatred, fear, and anti-social behavior, paradoxically making people nicer and nicer inside loci but completely unaware and incapable of understanding that other people are nice to each other because other people's trajectory of becoming nice was completely different from theirs;<br/>		in reality, the entire concept of loci of non-aggression is so unstable and arbitrary that it easily creates countably separate loci in perpetual competition that evolve into toxically-linked, hostile, or even murderous societies, and the precise transition that occurs is to split a country like the United States into two or more countable nationalities that are as similar as possible and yet as toxically incompatible as possible, which both still believe themselves to be compatible, and spawn further nationalities as people attempt to assemble into [[E:anarchism\|a third locus of non-aggression]] to get away from the existing nationalities' toxic relationship; the system loathes inequality and attacks both billionaires and populational borders for breaking the illusion that society is singular and not made of plural pyramids, but as more and more equality is produced, more and more segregation is produced along the separations between loci, and gaps between loci channel deeper and produce more hatred, fear, and anti-social behavior, paradoxically making people nicer and nicer inside loci but completely unaware and incapable of understanding that other people are nice to each other because other people's trajectory of becoming nice was completely different from theirs;<br/>

Reversedragon: Liberal-republicanism is a segregation machine

2026-06-07T12:10:02Z

Liberal-republicanism is a segregation machine

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
 <noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset  field_ML">
 {{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}The news is more offensive than {{film|Drawn Together}} / By the 2020s, quotes from Republicans you hear on the news every week are much more offensive than {{film|Drawn Together}} / The news is more offensive than {{film|South Park}}  ->  today I watched a clip from South Park and I swear it just read like a normal cartoon that inexplicably had swear words in it. I am not even joking, I actually mean that. that's how bad the news is at this point. both the headlines and the quotes inside.

Reversedragon: The news is more offensive than Drawn Together

2026-06-07T10:26:02Z

The news is more offensive than Drawn Together

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:26, 7 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection\|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>		<h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection\|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}The news is more offensive than {{film\|Drawn Together}} / By the 2020s, quotes from Republicans you hear on the news every week are much more offensive than {{film\|Drawn Together}} / The news is more offensive than {{film\|South Park}} -> today I watched a clip from South Park and I swear it just read like a normal cartoon that inexplicably had swear words in it. I am not even joking, I actually mean that. that's how bad the news is at this point. both the headlines and the quotes inside.

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}The ice bucket challenge was the realization of an abstract Ideal rather than a historical event made of particular material processes [https://archive.is/vLbtf] -> so, {{em\|why is it}} that this abstract Ideal was hard to realize again and only had a short reach the second time? does it make any sense to speak of abstract Ideals as something individuals {{em\|choose}} to do, or does it not?		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}The ice bucket challenge was the realization of an abstract Ideal rather than a historical event made of particular material processes [https://archive.is/vLbtf] -> so, {{em\|why is it}} that this abstract Ideal was hard to realize again and only had a short reach the second time? does it make any sense to speak of abstract Ideals as something individuals {{em\|choose}} to do, or does it not?

Reversedragon: How do you distinguish an aggressive activity from a non-aggressive activity?

2026-06-07T07:49:56Z

How do you distinguish an aggressive activity from a non-aggressive activity?

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:49, 7 June 2026
Line 54:		Line 54:
	honestly, out of every 'stupid idea for getting money out of the US military', this one feels more {{em\|likely}} than 'putting it into healthcare'. nobody in the US takes social programs seriously but everyone takes lawsuits seriously for some ungodly reason. maybe countries suing the United States for IMF conferences is the next big thing.<br/>		honestly, out of every 'stupid idea for getting money out of the US military', this one feels more {{em\|likely}} than 'putting it into healthcare'. nobody in the US takes social programs seriously but everyone takes lawsuits seriously for some ungodly reason. maybe countries suing the United States for IMF conferences is the next big thing.<br/>
	If Fisherism is true, China can overtake Breadtube + agorism = this.		If Fisherism is true, China can overtake Breadtube + agorism = this.

			{{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/>
			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.

			{{li\|I=S2/Ag\|tradition=\|Q=618}}Non-aggressive activities can be a class / Non-aggressive activites are a class -> I don't know why it took me so long to see this proposition in blue-anarchist thinking. maybe because it doesn't make any sense!<br/>
			Anarchists can be a class + agorism = Non-aggressive activities can be a class.

	{{li\|I=S1/PT\|tradition=\|Q=618}}imperial reversal / imperial revolution -> A) the day human beings turned around to oppress predatory animals, and the movie monster was born B) Zionism, Duginism		{{li\|I=S1/PT\|tradition=\|Q=618}}imperial reversal / imperial revolution -> A) the day human beings turned around to oppress predatory animals, and the movie monster was born B) Zionism, Duginism

Reversedragon: agorism

2026-06-07T07:20:06Z

agorism

Reversedragon: There are only a limited number of Marxisms fighting

2026-06-07T06:06:28Z

There are only a limited number of Marxisms fighting

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:06, 7 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection\|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>		<h2 id="section-proposed4"><span class="mw-headline">Unsorted Items (page 4)</span> {{editsection\|User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4}}</h2>
	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean reset field_ML">

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}There are only a limited number of Marxisms fighting / There are a limited number of countable Marxist tendencies fighting each other for a position in which they can create workers' states or Internationals, in contrast to anarchism, where at any given moment there is a nearly infinite number of anarchisms fighting each other

	{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}The ice bucket challenge was the realization of an abstract Ideal rather than a historical event made of particular material processes [https://archive.is/vLbtf] -> so, {{em\|why is it}} that this abstract Ideal was hard to realize again and only had a short reach the second time? does it make any sense to speak of abstract Ideals as something individuals {{em\|choose}} to do, or does it not?		{{li\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}The ice bucket challenge was the realization of an abstract Ideal rather than a historical event made of particular material processes [https://archive.is/vLbtf] -> so, {{em\|why is it}} that this abstract Ideal was hard to realize again and only had a short reach the second time? does it make any sense to speak of abstract Ideals as something individuals {{em\|choose}} to do, or does it not?

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:20, 7 June 2026
Line 33:		Line 33:
	{{li\|I=S1/HAS\|tradition=\|Q=618}}shark attacks of 1916 [https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23279012/shark-attack-1916-woodrow-wilson-political-science-achen-bartels-fowler-hall] [https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/did-shark-attacks-eat-into-woodrow-wilsons-votes-in-1916] [https://www.salon.com/2022/07/24/this-denounced-sharks-as-monsters-but-did-they-take-a-bite-out-of-his-voters/]		{{li\|I=S1/HAS\|tradition=\|Q=618}}shark attacks of 1916 [https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23279012/shark-attack-1916-woodrow-wilson-political-science-achen-bartels-fowler-hall] [https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/did-shark-attacks-eat-into-woodrow-wilsons-votes-in-1916] [https://www.salon.com/2022/07/24/this-denounced-sharks-as-monsters-but-did-they-take-a-bite-out-of-his-voters/]

	{{li\|I=F2/Fy~~\|tradition=~~\|Q=618}}All events that happened in 1917 are revolutions / You won't believe what happened in 1917 -> there are some propositions on here that are so serious we need a few really silly ones.		{{li\|I=F2/Fy\|Q=618}}All events that happened in 1917 are revolutions / You won't believe what happened in 1917 -> there are some propositions on here that are so serious we need a few really silly ones.
	{{li\|I=S1/DFy/ML~~\|tradition=~~\|Q=618}}1917 as year after shark attack / sharks attacked in 1916 — you won't believe what happened in 1917 -> seeing the year "1916" or "1917" in other contexts always catches me a little off guard because I am like, mentally placing the event on a map where it's going on but way over to the other side is Lenin. I understand that other things happened in that year but at a few select moments the autopilot part of my brain absolutely does not and I'm like "...1916?" before I suddenly "wake up".		{{li\|I=S1/DFy/ML\|Q=618}}1917 as year after shark attack / sharks attacked in 1916 — you won't believe what happened in 1917 -> seeing the year "1916" or "1917" in other contexts always catches me a little off guard because I am like, mentally placing the event on a map where it's going on but way over to the other side is Lenin. I understand that other things happened in that year but at a few select moments the autopilot part of my brain absolutely does not and I'm like "...1916?" before I suddenly "wake up".
	{{li\|I=S1/DFy~~\|tradition=~~\|Q=618}}comparing Communists to sharks -> I don't know if this item will get much use but it {{em\|is}} inevitable.		{{li\|I=S1/DFy\|Q=618}}comparing Communists to sharks -> I don't know if this item will get much use but it {{em\|is}} inevitable.

	{{li\|I=S1/HAS\|tradition=\|Q=618}}agora (ancient Greece) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora] [https://archive.is/vLbtf]		{{li\|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/ES\|tradition=\|Q=618}}agorism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Edward_Konkin_III#Agorism] -> this has "blue anarchism" written all over it. the concept of 'the totality of non-aggressive actions and relationships which are forbidden for no good reason' is exactly what every definition of freedom or anarchy and every movement in the United States has turned into, such that although right-Liberals {{em\|should}} be distinguishable from anarchists, there's a point where it's really hard to tell apart the ideology you actually hear each of them say except for the notion of "cultural conservative/reactionary" values sometimes butting into the former. I swear most anarchists are secretly Libertarians and a lot of time it's just the same thing at a greater degree of refinement by Libertarians that refused to turn brown and got really into defining "freedom" to the point they were forced to start co-opting anarchism and center-Liberalism.<br/>		{{li\|I=S1/Ag\|tradition=Ag, ES\|Q=618}}agorism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Edward_Konkin_III#Agorism] -> this has "blue anarchism" written all over it. the concept of 'the totality of non-aggressive actions and relationships which are forbidden for no good reason' is exactly what every definition of freedom or anarchy and every movement in the United States has turned into, such that although right-Liberals {{em\|should}} be distinguishable from anarchists, there's a point where it's really hard to tell apart the ideology you actually hear each of them say except for the notion of "cultural conservative/reactionary" values sometimes butting into the former. I swear most anarchists are secretly Libertarians and a lot of time it's just the same thing at a greater degree of refinement by Libertarians that refused to turn brown and got really into defining "freedom" to the point they were forced to start co-opting anarchism and center-Liberalism.<br/>
	I just.... I cannot take Libertarianism seriously in a world where there's a global warming debate. people form into huge cups of people that cascade together like tides and have people-physics and if you don't want to call that government, then fine, I don't worship the concept of government and prefer to think of it as socio-economic history anyway, but I cannot accept with intellectual honesty that people could believe something so self centered it would make everything about teeny tiny local groups of people just all 'being' together in a world where there have been two world wars and heated struggles over climate conferences and where China and the United States silently share one vast republican government in which people in the United States blame China for things the United States did and there was a global pandemic in the 2020s, and causality is worldwide.		I just.... I cannot take Libertarianism seriously in a world where there's a global warming debate. people form into huge cups of people that cascade together like tides and have people-physics and if you don't want to call that government, then fine, I don't worship the concept of government and prefer to think of it as socio-economic history anyway, but I cannot accept with intellectual honesty that people could believe something so self centered it would make everything about teeny tiny local groups of people just all 'being' together in a world where there have been two world wars and heated struggles over climate conferences and where China and the United States silently share one vast republican government in which people in the United States blame China for things the United States did and there was a global pandemic in the 2020s, and causality is worldwide.

	{{li\|I=S1/A/W\|tradition=\|Q=618}}underground economy (agorism) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics] -> oh my god. it's 1920s Gramscianism without any of the Marxism in it<br/>		{{li\|I=S1/Ag\|Q=618}}agorism -> this.... should have its own philosophy tag. maybe just a minor one treating it as a rather specific body of propositions, like how the Trotskyism tag is split into Trotskyism and "Zinovievism" but in the grand scheme of things one is a subset of the other.<br/>
			I think the new tag will be {{TTS\|html=code\|Ag}}, so it starts with "A" hinting it's related to anarchism, but it's something of its own. {{TTS\|html=code\|Ag}} will be a subcategory of {{TTS\|html=code\|ES\|E-S}}, acting as one of the possible economic-base models beneath {{TTS\|html=code\|ES\|E-S}} while most of {{TTS\|html=code\|ES\|E-S}} is typically morality and psychological statements and stuff.

			{{li\|I=S1/Ag/W\|tradition=\|Q=618}}underground economy (agorism) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics] -> oh my god. it's 1920s Gramscianism without any of the Marxism in it<br/>
	I find this... conceptually interesting due to the actual respect for the concept of an economic base and the need to replace an economic base before a new government (politics) will be generated. but it seems rather pointless in that it doesn't feel distinguishable from the existing struggle between Liberal-republicans and Tories. the US Congress isn't there {{em\|because}} the government is there to oppress people, it's there because the two parties constantly fight over it and also because the system is designed routing itself around that thinking it's normal. but the perpetual fight between the two borderless mono-capitalisms inside Liberal multicapitalism is the real shape of the system. so I fail to see how if a brown or charcoal Gramscianism broke through that it wouldn't just result in constant regime changes over and over until Liberal-republicanism was restored due to capitalism being a system which is incapable of coming to objective decisions that last into the future.		I find this... conceptually interesting due to the actual respect for the concept of an economic base and the need to replace an economic base before a new government (politics) will be generated. but it seems rather pointless in that it doesn't feel distinguishable from the existing struggle between Liberal-republicans and Tories. the US Congress isn't there {{em\|because}} the government is there to oppress people, it's there because the two parties constantly fight over it and also because the system is designed routing itself around that thinking it's normal. but the perpetual fight between the two borderless mono-capitalisms inside Liberal multicapitalism is the real shape of the system. so I fail to see how if a brown or charcoal Gramscianism broke through that it wouldn't just result in constant regime changes over and over until Liberal-republicanism was restored due to capitalism being a system which is incapable of coming to objective decisions that last into the future.

	{{li\|I=S2/W\|tradition=\|Q=618}}The underground economy will enable a society formed out of a freeform Filament of people to prohibit war and formal government under populational law -> I feel like this has a rock-paper-scissors weakness to international sanctions. if you zoom out enough you'll see there is already a gigantic underground economy called the aboveground economy and this is almost exactly how it gains the power to set international law and call international courts on a whim		{{li\|I=S2/Ag/W\|tradition=\|Q=618}}The underground economy will enable a society formed out of a freeform Filament of people to prohibit war and formal government under populational law -> I feel like this has a rock-paper-scissors weakness to international sanctions. if you zoom out enough you'll see there is already a gigantic underground economy called the aboveground economy and this is almost exactly how it gains the power to set international law and call international courts on a whim

	{{li\|I=S2/ES/MX\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=618}}China is evidence that agorism will never happen (2026) -> agorism says that a new society can be built out of all non-aggressive activities that are prohibited for no good reason. but if that was true, then China would have been able to form a society out of all non-aggressive activities the United States doesn't want it to do. has that happened? no. and does anarchism care whether populations are divided into or united into "nation-states" before it starts talking about them? no. anarchisms don't care about those at all. so any anarchist theory which doesn't explicitly specify it consists of small disconnected villages or such should be applied onto the entire world at once.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/DX/Ag/MX\|tradition=MX onto Ag, MX onto Ag onto DX\|Q=618}}China is evidence that agorism will never happen (2026) -> agorism says that a new society can be built out of all non-aggressive activities that are prohibited for no good reason. but if that was true, then China would have been able to form a society out of all non-aggressive activities the United States doesn't want it to do. has that happened? no. and does anarchism care whether populations are divided into or united into "nation-states" before it starts talking about them? no. anarchisms don't care about those at all. so any anarchist theory which doesn't explicitly specify it consists of small disconnected villages or such should be applied onto the entire world at once.<br/>
	Bolshevism: non-aggressive activity prohibited for no good reason. continuously attacked by United States empire such that only the most expert and elite people with the power to oppress everyone had to form a ring around Chinese society to protect the rest of the people, before anyone could ever dream of fulfilling the goals of socialist transition "anarchically". Chinese bootleg products: non-aggressive activity not prohibited in China prohibited for no good reason. businesses that own the patents they manufacture for other countries: non-aggressive activity prohibited for no good reason. constantly attacked by United States empire as 'robbing' United States empire although the deals are optional. poverty reduction programs: non-aggressive activity not prohibited in China. United States empire hates it and tries to do everything to avoid it happening in United States empire. export-heavy economy: non-aggressive activity which not only has no good reason to be prohibited but was forced onto China by United States empire, not chosen. United States empire tries to punish China for doing what it was forced to do by United States empire. like, at a certain point the correct course of action is to when the United States orders you to do something, loudly complain that it's illegal according to what the United States will inevitably want and you are going to take the matter to a United States court to sue the United States for doing things that should be illegal in the United States. confiscate the United States' taxes for this. make the United States remove money from the International Monetary Fund (I think that's who it was?) and put it into factories in China so they won't create poisoned food and medicine through attempting to make it with cheaper ingredients.<br/>		Bolshevism: non-aggressive activity prohibited for no good reason. continuously attacked by United States empire such that only the most expert and elite people with the power to oppress everyone had to form a ring around Chinese society to protect the rest of the people, before anyone could ever dream of fulfilling the goals of socialist transition "anarchically". Chinese bootleg products: non-aggressive activity not prohibited in China prohibited for no good reason. businesses that own the patents they manufacture for other countries: non-aggressive activity prohibited for no good reason. constantly attacked by United States empire as 'robbing' United States empire although the deals are optional. poverty reduction programs: non-aggressive activity not prohibited in China. United States empire hates it and tries to do everything to avoid it happening in United States empire. export-heavy economy: non-aggressive activity which not only has no good reason to be prohibited but was forced onto China by United States empire, not chosen. United States empire tries to punish China for doing what it was forced to do by United States empire. like, at a certain point the correct course of action is to when the United States orders you to do something, loudly complain that it's illegal according to what the United States will inevitably want and you are going to take the matter to a United States court to sue the United States for doing things that should be illegal in the United States. confiscate the United States' taxes for this. make the United States remove money from the International Monetary Fund (I think that's who it was?) and put it into factories in China so they won't create poisoned food and medicine through attempting to make it with cheaper ingredients.<br/>
	honestly, out of every 'stupid idea for getting money out of the US military', this one feels more {{em\|likely}} than 'putting it into healthcare'. nobody in the US takes social programs seriously but everyone takes lawsuits seriously for some ungodly reason. maybe countries suing the United States for IMF conferences is the next big thing.<br/>		honestly, out of every 'stupid idea for getting money out of the US military', this one feels more {{em\|likely}} than 'putting it into healthcare'. nobody in the US takes social programs seriously but everyone takes lawsuits seriously for some ungodly reason. maybe countries suing the United States for IMF conferences is the next big thing.<br/>