User:RD/9k/Q1875: Difference between revisions
anarchism or socialism (motif) |
Changing the name of things changes the things themselves |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=A, ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}When a council meets the individual members are not exercising authority -> this one would seem to apply to the way people talk about the US Congress, making me think it's actually blue. but it would also seem to be false in both cases as soon as you think of how upset people get at having rust-tinted congressmen. every one of them has a small amount of authority as the overall Congress has a bigger amount. that's why [[E:hegemony politics (Gramscianism)|hegemony politics]] is so tempting: to control that authority. | {{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=A, ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}When a council meets the individual members are not exercising authority -> this one would seem to apply to the way people talk about the US Congress, making me think it's actually blue. but it would also seem to be false in both cases as soon as you think of how upset people get at having rust-tinted congressmen. every one of them has a small amount of authority as the overall Congress has a bigger amount. that's why [[E:hegemony politics (Gramscianism)|hegemony politics]] is so tempting: to control that authority. | ||
{{li|I=S2/A|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}Changing names changes things / Different names, new roses / Changing the name of things changes the things themselves -> this one has come up in relation to the concept of people judging historical events with different kinds of truth values. I thought, people really think they've found a genuinely new statement about things with Ethical / Unethical or Progressive / Reactionary but in terms of their real understanding of how those truth values have applied they've basically just created a new version of Holy / Unholy or Good / Evil. they'll get mad when I say that but here's the thing: they haven't gotten to the point of properly separating groups of people exerting class rule from the concept of an actually classless study of actions and consequences that can {{em|get people into}} a classless society as opposed to just ignoring classes and not bringing any change at all. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
Latest revision as of 10:12, 9 July 2026
Main entry
- On Authority (Engels 1874) [1]
Motifs
- anarchism or socialism (motif) / anarchism versus socialism; anarchism versus dialectical materialism (motif) / "On Authority" (generic; Engels) / "Anarchism or Socialism?" (generic; Stalin)
- Factories have superseded small proprietors (Engels) -> this was definitely true from about 1870 to 1930. but somewhere around maybe 1960 weird stuff happened in First-World countries to make everything go the opposite direction. it wasn't just outsourcing. this is another process that happened after outsourcing and the replacement of factories by retailers. and it seems weirdly correlated with an explosion of anarchists and blue and charcoal anarchisms. I am not fully sure if blue anarchists actually caused it or not. the only thing I know is that the sheer amount that they justify everything that's happened is annoying.
- Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to destroying the power loom to return to the spinning wheel (Engels) -> thank you Engels. I often feel like I'm going crazy because nobody sees this and it seems like everybody actually does want to go from the factory back to the spinning wheel, only to end up having to work just as long selling Artisanal products through Jeff Bezos.
- A revolution cannot immediately abolish authority in that it contains authority (Engels) -> fairly classic proposition.
also might be good for the purposes of defining what "Zinovievizing" is: it involves the collision of two separate Social-Philosophical Systems / "crabs" which can't resolve their problems peacefully because resolving them requires colliding and colliding might bring violence. - When a council meets the individual members are not exercising authority -> this one would seem to apply to the way people talk about the US Congress, making me think it's actually blue. but it would also seem to be false in both cases as soon as you think of how upset people get at having rust-tinted congressmen. every one of them has a small amount of authority as the overall Congress has a bigger amount. that's why hegemony politics is so tempting: to control that authority.
- Changing names changes things / Different names, new roses / Changing the name of things changes the things themselves -> this one has come up in relation to the concept of people judging historical events with different kinds of truth values. I thought, people really think they've found a genuinely new statement about things with Ethical / Unethical or Progressive / Reactionary but in terms of their real understanding of how those truth values have applied they've basically just created a new version of Holy / Unholy or Good / Evil. they'll get mad when I say that but here's the thing: they haven't gotten to the point of properly separating groups of people exerting class rule from the concept of an actually classless study of actions and consequences that can get people into a classless society as opposed to just ignoring classes and not bringing any change at all.
Ideology codes
- (none)