Ontology:Q29,13

1. [M3] (pronounced [M3]) Why haven't the U.S. (pronounced U.S.) and Canada merged? 1:(-)1:(-)1

Core characteristics in draft

item type

M3 1:(-)1:(-)1

[P] (pronounced [P]) label [string] (L)

[M3] (pronounced [M3]) Why haven't the U.S. (pronounced U.S.) and Canada merged? 1:(-)1:(-)1

[P] (pronounced [P]) alias (en) [string]

Why hasn't Canada spontaneously merged into the United States?

QID references [Item] 1:(-)1:(-)1

--

field, scope, or group [Item]

Z–617 (pronounced Z–617) [MX] [Z] (pronounced [MX] [Z]) meta-Marxism 1:(-)1:(-)1

Z–617 (pronounced Z–617) [MX] [Z] (pronounced [MX] [Z]) meta-Marxism 1:(-)1:(-)1

sub-case of [Item]

--

case of [Item]

--

super-case of [Item]

--

Use in thesis portals

appears in work [Item]

MDem 5.3/1655 (pronounced 5.3/1655) Explaining schizoanalysis to a 10-year-old (pronounced Explaining schizoanalysis to a 10-year-old)

Wavebuilder combinations

[P] (pronounced [P]) Wavebuilder (pronounced Wavebuilder): forms result [Item]

--

along with [Item]

--

forming from [Item]

--

--

--

Prototype notes

2913. Why hasn't Canada merged into the United States? / Why hasn't Canada spontaneously merged into the United States? -> a question that sounds silly but is actually a really good question, philosophically. if Existentialism is true, Canada is a bunch of individuals, and the United States is a bunch of individuals, and they're all unpredictable and can choose to collectively do anything at any moment, so why do they always wake up every day and form Canada and the United States respectively? as well, you see some anarchisms talking like there could be a world without borders. not the postcolonial anarchisms, clearly, because in those you effectively have to fill up big protest spaces through and around the territory of marginalized people-groups and essentially enforce a populational border. but in other anarchisms... if the world could function without borders why is it the case Canada still exists. the more history that happens, the more it will be that any general category of thing that is actually likely to happen will have already happened before you were even born. so if as many people have already been born as there have, why aren't we already living in the world where there isn't a Canada? a couple billion years go by and you get dolphin-shaped things multiple times. a couple of centuries go by and you get Marxism multiple times, and even the teeniest shred of Trotskyism off in the corner as a possibility that happened. so why don't countries spontaneously merge into each other through a bunch of individuals flooding between them and all the people suddenly saying "I guess we don't have separate governments"? personally, my best answer is that countries are socially-linked graphs of people and labor connects people into structures that are required to be there and function well for workers to ever be able to take them over. so if people started flooding between the United States and Canada it would be harder to work out reasonable solutions to housing them, providing health care, and getting them what they need, even assuming nobody hates each other. every human right depends on people being connected into exactly the correct graph structures to have everybody producing enough stuff, and that's why people don't flood around wildly, because on some level they vaguely understand that they have to contribute to building towns correctly to have what they need, and even if they don't have much agency it still seems like they have more agency staying where they are than through going to a lot of effort to go somewhere else. at least it seems that way.
618. The world is controlled by corporations, therefore Canada will merge into the United States (conspiracy theory) [1] -> well. that's one way to answer Q29,13. bourgeoisie? check. capitalists in ivory towers of industry dividing countries against each other to distract from them? check. Liberal capitalism is going to collapse? check. God? check. world anarchism? check. I don't think their theory is remotely correct but I'm laughing and I'm not upset because at least they tried. they somehow started the "lecture" with material causes and didn't bring in Satan like a handful of books I've seen that sound like this, so it's like, not as bad as it could be. I enjoy this video ironically for how close to low-effort Trotskyist theory it kind of almost got without knowing anything. that's kind of damning for the quality of today's Marxist theorists, I feel like, when conspiracy theorists that know nothing have produced almost the same lecture and it's equally unbelievable in either case.

Usage notes

In its usage as a meta-Marxist thought experiment, this is not to be regarded as an especially good or bad thing, as much as an imaginable timeline which is neutral.