User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-2

Unsorted Items (page 2)

618. blocking Donald Trump from taking office using section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment [1] [2]
618. States can't disqualify a presidential candidate under the Fourteenth Amendment [3] -> United States case law. this is discouraging, but does make some amount of historical sense, when the Civil War and Reconstruction were a nationwide effort and such.
618. It's impossible for you to deserve anything without allies who agree that you deserve it -> descriptive claim of what is possible. not a prescriptive claim of ethics, etc.
618. If life isn't fair, why are there constitutional amendments? -> to uninformed center-Liberals this would seem like a non sequitur, but it really is a relevant question. if life isn't inherently fair then there is no grounding to have an amendment saying everyone is entitled to something. this is a serious crisis for Liberal-republicanism in cases the majority of the population can't be made to come to an agreement on a particular thing and the amendment process isn't producing anything including amendments.
618. Neutrality aids the non-oppressor -> people like Deleuze want to talk about "fidelity to an Event". but if I understand that concept at all correctly, those are like, movements and things. and movements are a sticky subject. misinformation or wrong actions can sink a movement. so you* don't necessarily want people even participating in them if they're going to do it wrong. sometimes doing absolutely nothing would make everyone happier. especially if we're talking about dark forest situations where acting as if you have no knowledge of a movement and not getting any reactionaries thinking about or talking about the subject of the movement would make them less likely to think they need to take action on the other side. (* by "you", I mean anarchists and Gramscians, not anyone else.)
     I don't like that things are this way but it's kind of the way things are now.
     Neutrality aids the oppressor + hegemony politics = Neutrality aids the non-oppressor.
618. Tent of freedom poles is the shovel dream of wealth / The concept of "equal freedoms for all at the limit of equal freedom for others" is an object-having-consciousness-of-self prompted by the physical arrangement of a cloud of people accumulating stacks of wealth by any means necessary in order to obtain as many options or capacities-to-do-otherwise as possible when faced with any given conflict or undesirable situation — making it appear as if ethical and philosophical choices are caused by rational thought while rational thought does not actually provide the initial basis for them to be thought versus not thought -> in a sense, Liberal-republicanism could not construct itself without the right "technology". separate stacks of wealth does this strange thing of making "the limit of equal freedom of others" possible precisely when and if you're willing to run to the ends of the earth and perhaps over the top of other populations to materially obtain "equal freedom for all".
618. Thomas Sankara -> Burkina Faso. heard him mentioned enough I'm researching if he should have an ideology code.
     looks like some stuff has been going on in Burkina Faso over the past few decades. despite some failures the first time they're trying again.
     is the Alliance of Sahel States one of the major differences this time? were the countries doing this individually before or together?
618. The right to vote isn't synonymous with the capacity to do otherwise / The right to vote isn't synonymous with having lines of flight from a situation of un-freedom (having Escape routes; schizoanalyst phrasing)
618. A million tiny "revolutions" are rendered moot if every progressive ally is dead
618. Retailers lessen chunk competition / Within capitalism stacks of commodities, only within public spaces, act to partially mitigate chunk competition occurring inside the national or local population — however, not all kinds of chunk competition are mitigated, only some -> I think Bordiga may have gotten this really wrong.
     A) on a basic level humans are Animals. B) given sufficient resources Animals will not fight. C) a particular slice of the population which is not the whole population has access to stacks of commodities which are in public spaces. D) on creating capitalism, a particular slice of the population is partially removed from chunk competition, whereas it might have been in chunk competition in other periods: US-Mexico war, frontier wars, Dust Bowl (not really any fighting, but migration), wars to secure South Korea and Vietnam. imperialism is a big elephant here, outright conquering other populations has been one of the easiest ways to stop fighting your own people E) people are not removed from chunk competition in cases where one person must be assigned to one unique object, notably in housing, or there are no more open worker slots and they need to run business territories F) 'profit' can never be a stackable commodity, because it comes from change in business territory borders. available space fills up, and as said, when borders stop changing is when stacks of commodities come to be G) worrying consequence: population growth is not stackable. population added requires profit added, which requires an act of chunk competition, which may require an act of imperialism. H) neutral consequence: when population growth hits replacement plus or minus a bit, the era of profit and the warring states period of businesses should end, and the era of workers should begin. I) strictly speaking, the "workers" are Careerists, not classically-defined proletarians. an important difference separates them here: the end of warring-businesses and the creation of state businesses potentially puts a squeeze on which people can have which slots in society, although not a tight one because there should basically be a slot for everyone, just not necessarily where they are currently. if there's a central party that can supply trains etc and move them that won't be a big deal. J) if you try to create a Trotskyism, the broader it is, the more "inescapable" it is as an entity, and the more people will be locked into a specific nationality and culture. the connection of countable populations to countable cultures is probably inevitable. this is to say, the bigger your Trotskyism is the more likely somebody calls it "Whiteness" in a derogatory tone and tries to tear minority ethnicities out of it into new union- or independent republics. Bolshevism seems to require the division of humanity into relatively small units closer to the size of Germany than the size of Russia. although it should be the population number that matters more than the spatial extent. maybe "spatial area adjusted for population number at specific standard density" would be a good measure?
618. proletarian internationalism / プロレタリア国際 (pronounced こくさい)主義 (pronounced しゅぎ)
618. Two male rival characters fixating on each other has gay subtext -> one of those things that's often not intended to be true but then based on evidence that piles up becomes confusing and hard to ignore. it's one of those cases of accidental representation, where the author doesn't think something is possible and then accidentally depicts it.
618. Simon Nkoli -> South Africa; founded GLOW in order to have a gay/lesbian rights organization within the context of the struggle against apartheid, instead of from the context of bettering Europe(?). I've never heard of him before today but sounds good so far
618. The Long Transition Toward Socialism and the End of Capitalism (Torkil Lauesen) [4]
618. Unequal Exchange: Past, Present and Future (Torkil Lauesen) [5]
618. Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism? (Gabriel Rockhill) [6]
618. Western Marxism: How it was born, how it died, how it can be reborn (Domenico Losurdo) [7]
618. How the World Works: The story of human labor from prehistory to the modern day (Paul Cockshott) [8]
618. The Global Perspective: Reflections on imperialism and resistance (Torkil Lauesen) [9]
618. Socialism With Chinese Characteristics: A guide for foreigners (Roland Boer) [10]
618. Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance (Roland Boer) [11]
618. Class Struggle: A Political and Philosophical History (Domenico Losurdo) [12]
618. Proudhon did not care about feminism (Losurdo) -> Proudhon and Bakunin both have these nasty accusations tied to them and like, the general landscape of (blue) anarchism is you have to throw away people who did the slightest thing but nevertheless the charcoal anarchists keep bringing them up again and again. I guess that's a difference between blue and charcoal anarchists, really.
618. Proudhon was a passive imperialist who condoned stationary empire (Losurdo) -> yeah, once you lay out those observations, they sounds about right. haven't read much about Proudhon compared to Marxist divisions, but modern anarchists have very little regard for the notion of how populations are divided, so... yeah.
618. Maliciously expelling any significantly large subpopulation from a country either through scattering that population or massacring that population, as opposed to packing that population tightly into the least-desirable corners of a country, is settler-colonialism / Settler-colonialism is, regardless of which causal order of events is intended, the process of exterminating a population and then of this event fueling a national population or State gaining official control over the land area -> an attempt to define the concept of settler-colonialism on a Materialist basis without any Idealism. it's key to realize that the alternatives to settler-colonialism which happen when it doesn't happen are also horrifying — manor lords, racially-charged slavery, large homeless camps, there are a bunch of ways people have historically been packed into the corners of a country, various differing degrees of horrifying. there has seemingly been a shift over the past few centuries from populations merely competing to create a government that is a structure that unifies them, and populations actively expanding into and over each other in ways where it is difficult to simply unify them in that way, and these difficult questions come up of whether "Socialism" and trying to integrate everyone into a population is even the right choice or whether people of all ethnicities can only actually have independence and self-determination and the ability to create a dignified life for their population unimpeded if human beings are properly distributed into the right countries and you don't have pools of surplus people that people start fighting with. do we have to start redistributing White people? are non-suffering majority people the new form of populational wealth now? is it becoming pointless to try to tax money numbers, and would it be better to tax people and put whole people somewhere else, telling them, you're not part of this other big international imperial population any more, you can't own a free-floating business, you belong to this country now as a worker. so many of our theories focus on historical periods centuries ago that are nothing like today, and it's confusing what we're even supposed to do now.
618. The United States succeeded because of settler-colonialism / The United States succeeded because of a small-scale, molecularized settler-colonialism process in which it opted to toss out all its extra people instead of undergo the considerable strain of incorporating them, in contrast to the Soviet Union where molecular settler-colonialism did not win and people were to be incorporated into the overall federation simply because they were people but because people mattered more than maintaining the imperial structure the system was not robust against the outside -> so, almost 5 years ago, I fell backward into a fight with blue anarchism and basically got thrown out of society. I had very little for social relationships as it was. but I learned on that day that nobody is apolitical and everybody has bizarrely specific requirements to even bother interacting with people and making them part of society or consider them human. what did I do to get exiled that bad? not even anything as bad the time I came up with "a regular Arab, not an evil one". (which I have to add, even though that was objectively a microaggression they never hated me for that. that was "okay".) I questioned the word "colonialism". that's what I did; I tried to start probing exactly what colonialism is supposed to be and where people think it comes from and if having the concept is actually helping anyone. and I tried to start developing the idea of population-societies and that all populations eat, occupy space, multiply, and bump into each other, and because they all develop at the same time in all directions and people's brains aren't connected populations can't control each other. I did not do it very well. because I wasn't trained. I wasn't trained in philosophy or having a highly specific color-tinted ideology of how societies "should" be built from the ground up. I didn't yet know how to line up twenty different conflicting models of a whole society and separate them and analyze the inner workings of each one to predict when and if Trotskyism and Maoism will merge. I was just a person. I really was just curious, and had questions to ask. but I swear what was actually happening was United States movements are fundamentally not curious to have knowledge or know how reality works; they want to tell you stuff, but they don't want you to ask stuff. they want to do this thing described by Deleuze and differently by Badiou where society changes through a bunch of little changes in people. but like, they want the changes to be people unquestioningly accepting axioms without really knowing if they make sense. the more I tried to read blue anarchism theories and try to understand them, like some lost soul trapped in purgatory trying to get released, the less and less any of it made sense. the more I'd read about Deleuze and Badiou and Proudhon and whoever, the more I'd be like, how can you know any human being desires to live in harmony with or be friends with anyone, how can I know people won't kill me or stand in my house packing up or crushing everything I own and driving me out of my house until I obey them, what even is a human right, how do we know we have any of them? because all their baseless assertions without any actual explanation of how they know that would just increasingly make me go crazy. I gained new kinds of racism I hadn't had before because I was suddenly just afraid of Black people or tribal populations or people from another country knowing I existed and deciding I was a stupid idiot because I didn't know something and I didn't understand things in the specific way they did. and I really just had to look inside myself and say, I think I've had enough. I don't care any more if anyone likes me or thinks I "look" progressive. I'm just going to study what's going on and look for truth, because that's all I can do. that's all I can do any more. so I studied Marxism. because I had literally no incentive to try to fudge any of it or learn a lesser version of it just to make people happy; I needed a theory of human survival for my survival that only depended on labor and structure and didn't depend on empathy or people being nice. then over time I started to see that Marxists were believing some very false things about the United States, they were believing that anarchism was compatible with Marxism in the same sense that Menshevism had historically been and that anarchist demonstrations were just 'people forming together' or 'people resisting' when really the substance of them and the hypothetical way to make use of them is drastically different. though they didn't speak directly to me I could just tell that, entailed in what they said there was this implication that a lot of people don't actually matter and people only matter if they magically know how to impossibly mobilize a population of anarchists that don't want to commit to anything into urgently pulling off highly specific goals that are almost impossible for them; these little tiny events that for an anarchist become giant mountains and tantamout to a revolution. the whole thing of "a Left existing" is this thing of people that are highly trained and practically professors leading a bunch of people that don't believe in Materialism where if you don't either take a leap of faith on believing dangerously inaccurate things or have enough training to practically go to a conventional job interview over it there isn't even a place for you to get involved at all, like if the issues are killing you and you're all alone and terrified, tough luck. a White person born to nazis is a glorified nazi, should have been an anarchist, see you in hell. and that messed me up. it was like watching a train wreck seeing these Marxists try to insist they could control "the train" and know what "station" it should go to while each time the train was rolling wildly off the tracks, one time, and then again. I lost my trust in nearly everyone and to regain any semblance of sanity I just had to start reading and recording shit (pronounced redacted). I had to just start pinning up propositions on a wall. I think schizoanalysis gave me trauma.
     "The United States succeeded because of settler-colonialism". this is a complex claim made of a few stacked sub-claims. A)
618. The point of a State is so 100,000 Trotskyists don't die / The point of a State is so Trotsky can save himself instead of running over to large external empires for help -> I always wonder. if I invoke the idea of "killing Trotsky is bad" enough, and do enough to hammer in the idea that Trotsky making a mistake can kill Trotsky and Trotsky making the right decision can save Trotsky, will blue anarchists ever start thinking and listening. are inexplicably popular images everyone brings up as 'obvious' fables about the human experience enough, or not. how much do I have to dumb everything down before blue and charcoal anarchists finally get it.
     I think David Graeber's books are somewhat illustrative. you do have to make things so simple that they seem eternal, and like they could have been discovered 5,000 years ago. it would be a point in the anarchists' favor if they'd bring up science more because physics is one of the only things that really has been about the same for 5,000 years. but it is what it is.
     yeah. I don't get why anarchists are so bent on being anarchist, and why they wouldn't be intrigued by the concept Trotsky can save himself instead of going for help to people in other countries that are largely going to contain anticommunists that exploit him. if they're so obsessed with freedom and independence wouldn't it be way better for Trotsky not to depend on First World empires and to gain independence by creating Trotskyism in one country? if he doesn't succeed at that he has no freedom, period.
     The point of a State is so 100,000 Trotskyists don't die + ?? = Trotskyism must be created in one country for poly-Trotskyism to be created
     Pan-Africanism + Trotskyism = The point of a State is so 100,000 Trotskyists don't die.