Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q3300

Main entry

3300. 3300

      anarchism

      (top-level category) -> it took me toward the end of making this list to add anarchism or its color swatch. this is partly because I don't know much about any particular named Anarchism, and partly because I have my doubts a lot of concepts in anarchisms are actually unique to them rather than being borrowed from Liberalism or Existentialism. I am not against the sheer concept of anarchisms; particularly when they have specific civilizational shapes they form if they form successfully, they fit into meta-Marxist analysis as well as anything else does. there are just a few things I have problems with like the vagueness of anarchist philosophy and the failure to distinguish between utopian imagery and realistic models of constructing post-capitalist societies. "scientific" anarchisms with the specificity of a named Marxism are at least as legitimate to describe here as Trotskyism.

Significant works

618. 618

     World's first anarchist manifesto

     (Anselme Bellegarrigue 1850) / (9k)

Anarchism and "conceptual tribes"

3374. 3374

      united nonviolence of special oppressions

      -> the motif that a country is composed of "superior people" (social construct, bad) and a ton of endless categories of people who fail to function as perfectly as society's most elite people for some highly specific reason, that if you have any trouble getting into society there must be some highly specific reason you are specially oppressed which requires you to find other people who are specially oppressed exactly the same way and for all the highly specific groups to convince each other at length not to hurt each other and oppress each other. I am so tired of this, specifically because of that last thing. it's clear that over time our basic assumptions about capitalism and Liberal-republicanism have simply ceased to be true, and the way the whole thing operates is a bit different from the way people think. it seems less that people inherently want to accept each other because they're different and more like there are many separate subpopulations of people shoving each other around all trying to fit onto an island too small to fit all of them.
3073. 3073

      united states of states of states

      / China full of Chinas full of Chinas / USSR of SSRs of SSRs / tribe of tribes of tribes -> the motif that a country is always just a voluntary link between demographics. that the United States is composed of Black women and White women spontaneously opting to be the same country, or Black women and White women opting to be women that then together with Black men opt to be the United States. etc.
      

      this motif is neutral. I am not trying to say it's bad or impossible to use well, although I would say it confuses and baffles me how intuitive this concept always is to everyone else for reasons I do not understand. or more specifically, how intuitive it is precisely to everyone who is oppressed while being completely unintuitive to a single individual with the power of oppression and as far as I can tell mostly ineffective on them. the sheer ineffectiveness of it on everyone I have ever known personally makes it greatly unintuitive to me, yet to everyone else there's almost no other way to think, and this always leaves me confused.
      I do have some days where I can almost understand it, specifically in cases like the USSR being made up of 14 republics, or a cluster of Iroquois tribes binding together into one big tribe. to me this motif makes lots of sense as a way to understand societies and history when you strain it through Communism or some very crimson-tinted general-sense historical materialism, but it doesn't make a lot of sense as anarchism, exactly the way everyone actually looks at it. so then I end up sitting around confused going, I'm supposed to understand the USSR as being effective specifically because it was made up of 14 nationalities that came together, but how is that even possible when it needed the Material System of Bolshevism to unite them? does this mean that when Trotsky attacked the Soviet Union he went against anarchism and the charcoal-tinted workers' state process? funny enough, that would actually make sense. but it's totally not the way anybody ever sees it in the United States. you don't see United States people going around saying "Trotsky brought down the USSR and that's why you have to vote Democrat, you don't want to become East Germany and let the Great Wall of Biden fall down only to let West Germany start hating and oppressing all people named Kevin". it'd certainly make internally-coherent sense in its own way, and yet nobody ever says it because everybody is committed to anarchism being the enemy of Communism but not the enemy of the United States government. doesn't that make anarchism literally "Western", full of prejudice in favor of "The West", and unable to do what "Settlers" claims? anarchism always completely twists my brain in knots because I always end up actually thinking about it and it never makes sense.

Freedom from governments

3076. 3076Capitalism ends through many rounds of "Absolutely Not" / Capitalism ends through many rounds of "NO" / United States capitalism ends when we realize every protest is about "NO (pronounced No!)" / proposition No (hypothetical transition to anarchism) -> derived anarchist proposition. the claim that in the United States, specific-sense historical materialism revolves solely around protests that say "no" to something, while movements about actually creating anything in particular won't form any enduring connections. protests about gender identity or abortion or specific forms of racism or even pollution aren't actually protests for anything, they're solely protests against somebody prohibiting or destroying something. there are an alarming number of examples for this. A) "Black Lives Matter": no police shootings. B) during COVID, there were more people than there should have been banding together across charcoal and rust factions to simply side with "no requirements". C) blanket resistance against "AI" without thinking about the origins of the problem in disorganization, conflation of products with individual Subjects, and the nonsense that is copyright disputes. "no AI". D) widespread negative sentiment against "social media", "phones", and The Big Guy that "greedily" devised them. these idle critiques are all "no" statements to merely take the thing away. E) "No Kings": it's in the phrase. arguments it could be true: this is the only kind-of convincing claim I've heard for how rival demographics could directly join together because of their identities despite the pressures of Liberalism. it's consistent with the notion that nations begin as population-societies which must begin with links and outer boundaries, by suggesting the boundary directly forms the population. argument it could be false: this could lead to horizontal conflict of two or more factions mutually protesting each other, as already happens on things like abortion clinics. argument 2 for false: this feels like it clashes really badly with the history of Afrikaners I briefly outlined in another entry. feels like an Afrikaner model could be as useful for challenging some of these claims as the Trotsky model

Bellegarrigist / Proudhonist anticommunism

618. Mainstream Marxism-Leninism is a revisionist degeneration of anarchism / Marxist states coopted anarchist movements
618. Communism has failed 95% of the time out of 196 times [1]
1740. 1740stay with the program (Marxism) / Marxists not updating theories through evidence or reason because 'anarchists aren't correct enough to judge them' (A onto MX (pronounced anarchism onto Marxism)) / dogmatism (A onto MX (pronounced anarchism onto Marxism)) / (9k) -> one of the only anarchist criticisms of Marxism that is actually fair. ...

Miscellaneous

618. horizontal revolutionary methods [2]
3299. 3299

      assertion something is an anarchism

      -> seems a little random, but is oddly useful for defining silly fan theories like "Snufkin is an anarchist".
3298. 3298

      Snufkin is an anarchist

      -> apparently anarchists do not seriously believe this is true. [3]
2287. 2287

      Anarchism is definitionally Evil

      / (9k)
3389. 3389

      Anarchism can oppress people

      / (9k)

Ideology codes

• (none)

Subpages

• EC:9k/RD/Q3300/hierarchy