User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-3

Unsorted Items (page 2)

• It's possible to overthrow White supremacists -> this seems like a widespread notion these days
• The United States destroying other countries' governments is a revolution

as smart as a glass of water -> appears in: MDem 5.3.

Money is useful because people chose it / You can know currency is the best choice when it is the one people naturally aligned onto (Austrian school of economics) -> deeply misleading. even if people make an adequate choice, the fact they made the choice isn't the inner logic that actually makes it a satisfactory choice. this is the kind of economic theory that reduces the meaningful reasoning ability of human beings to people being exactly as smart as a glass of water.

The purpose of Marxism is actually to defeat post-structuralism / The purpose of Marxism is actually to defeat Blobonomics -> so often it's not the owners that are actually causing the problems, it's everyone's commitment to the notion of structures being temporary and constantly being fixed not by any sort of knowledge or analysis but by breakages, swapping, "lines of flight" to other structures. physical post-structuralism has the power to take anyone who desires to form an organization and turn that person into an isolated shop. it's bad news.

chat plays Undertale

What anarchists think is Archons or "domination" is sometimes literally just the existence of larger populations (believe to be the Spanishness Office; believe to be cultural hegemony; meta-Marxism)
Populations always have the ability to decide not to do something + chat plays Undertale = this.

Decisions and consequences happen at the same time / Decisions do not happen on a special layer of all human decisions that exists before all actions happen, and instead decisions constantly happen from other directions before anyone makes their own, and because of processes like large inanimate objects or people's unconscious nervous systems making decisions, some decisions and actions separately issue out of the same entity without being linearly connected from decision to outcome -> this is one of my big problems with almost all of traditional philosophy. like, if you discuss "consequentialism", people will quickly assume you are saying that the consequences after a particular decision are good, and start slamming you about "the decision". and if you try to explain that you're focused on the consequences because they don't always come from decisions, then people will quickly assume you believe in absolute determinism and that you think decisions don't meaningfully exist. but in both cases what I actually think is simply that all decisions can't possibly come before all outcomes. some outcomes happen before decisions because they come from separate entities. some outcomes happen before decisions because the decision-making and outcomes are on the same entity but the outcome happened before the decision-makers were conscious of it. sometimes with some skill you can successfully make a decision and steer an entity toward its next outcome. so a lot of inanimate or "unconscious" decisions are constantly being made and every self-aware agent has to live with not being able to control a whole lot of decisions that simply happen outside it, some of which are far bigger than it will ever make; even if you have Free Will, it doesn't matter because most of the world isn't affected by your Free Will. Trotsky can want the best for everyone in the whole world and not be able to change any of it. that's why studying mere consequences of processes that happen without thinking of them as a special thing that agents made can be so useful and important.
I think this statement is actually crimson because it lines up really closely with the themes in Marx. you see pretty clear Hyper-Materialist themes in his texts where he wants to drill down to the physics-like character of all social structures and not focus very hard on what mental models they have and decisions they attempt to make — people can still attempt to make decisions such as forming labor organizations, but they first have to understand the underlying structure of reality and the way different layers of reality are constantly interacting and making background decisions to do that effectively.
Nothing can be done unless everyone considers it wonderful + special relativity = Decisions and consequences happen at the same time.

T/F?: Co-ops are anarchism / Are co-ops charcoal anarchism? / Do co-ops lead to realizing charcoal anarchism? -> right now what it looks like to me is the answer is "some occurrence"; "Co-ops are anarchism" is true sometimes but not always.

T/F?: Co-ops are Existentialism / Are co-ops blue anarchism? / Do co-ops lead to realizing blue anarchism? -> I doubt this one specifically because I think in some senses the most iconic "structure" of Existentialism is refusing to commit to structure and constantly changing it.

T/F?: Co-ops are Western-Marxism / Are co-ops strawberry Marxism? / Do co-ops lead to realizing strawberry Marxism?

substance pluralism / substance dualism (duality; model which proposes two kinds of structural elements instead of more than two) -> the word dualism can mean many things in different contexts*. here it means the separation of the structural elements that make up things into at least two different kinds of structural elements.
* this is a part of traditional philosophy that is just infuriating to me. none of the words philosophers use really mean anything, especially when they end in "-ism", and most people immediately look stupid if they try to use any of them, to where you really have to learn to actively refuse to use most words you find in Wikipedia articles if they look the least bit like spaghetti or you will get them wrong and in making any attempt to discuss them become incomprehensible. this is not a matter of "depth", "field", or "pay grade", as much as people love to toss out those words without thinking. you can't wait for an expert to read fucking (pronounced redacted) books for you. our world is on fire. we all need to be able to read arguments and actually understand the core of them as soon as we get out of high school. the fact that we can't and basically all information you read is spaghetti has made the internet and digital systems like library catalogs nearly worthless — it's easy to find information but nobody can actually understand it, making it hard to look up anything you actually need in practice because you need "the proper words" which no matter how many terms you learn are always terribly arbitrary. the truth is that all high-quality information is capital in a sense and we've entrusted possessing and using it to the people who "need it the most", or said another way are the best at being capitalists. AI has been about the only thing that's ever remotely claimed to solve that problem, by ingesting every word and telling you how to convert it into other words, and it's a solution to a problem that should never have been a problem.
maybe I'm just mad after I got burned on thinking "structuralism" and "determinism" sort of meant something instead of being abstract adjectives, just because they were nouns. is it too much to ask to want a noun to actually be something in particular that can be modified?

Class is a single substrate / The substance dualism advanced by early Marxism is not fully accurate because its dual substances operate under substance monism internally -> it's easy to go around saying that Marxism talking about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is wrong, and be totally wrong about it. I am claiming something much more sophisticated here. I am claiming the proletariat and the bourgeoisie do exist but that there is a layer of structure between them that is what differentiates them into dual substances, like quantum numbers appear to be able to twist energy into matter, or a single layer of fundamental particles makes up the heterogeneous realm of atoms. I have not fully figured out how this works, though I've been ranting about scattered thoughts on it for more than a year. to keep from rambling on too long, here's the short version. people who would be proletarians can 'level up' into Careerists, although they don't always do it. they do it more often in First World countries and less in Third World countries. Careerists and workers combined as a single substance compete over the totality of slots in a business territory. the smaller bourgeoisie that exist are actually Careerists that are being the bourgeoisie, and are specifically made that way in the process of being part of a structure. sometimes but not always they lose their structure and cease to be bourgeoisie; sometimes they store up wealth and become permanent capitalists, only because that wealth provides structure. the genesis of a usable business territory is what truly makes the bourgeoisie the bourgeoisie, not even the act of exploiting workers — because, and everyone already accepts this part, one territory full of one bourgeois without employees still contains the bourgeoisie.
in one really weird sense, all stacks of capital are already state businesses. except in the case of businesses formed out of exactly one Careerist, businesses only exist at all because they consist of multiple people. I know that sounds like a tautology or a deepity but I'm getting somewhere. every business consisting of at least two people gets bigger on the basis of capital adding more people. the owner doesn't truly do that, capital itself truly does that. capital adds people and capital creates growth by absorbing people. owners then falsely believe the purpose of capital is to make them money, and exploit workers. but that isn't true; the purpose of capital is simply to order people into groups and compete over area. capital doesn't come from nowhere either, it absorbs the underlying all-vs-all contradiction between all individuals as an alternative way of doing the same thing. people invented markets to theoretically alleviate chunk competition between individuals and because this wasn't stable it produced the terrible result of producers clumping together and chunk-competing over the market instead. anarchists falsely believe at times that either owners created the entire thing or competing chunks can sort of just decide not to chunk-compete. but this ultimately comes from raw individuals at the scale of their own bodies before they are really workers, Careerists, or owners, who experience a constant impulse to protect their bodies, which is equivalent to the impulse to seek Freedom, which is equivalent to Free Will. our false belief across the United States that Freedom is a matter of reason or "democracy" or even ethics and not just the sheer desire to survive is really sinking us, because at the end of the day, a great pile of philosophies are just competing chunks trying to justify their sheer desire to survive on their own based on their suspicion that others will block their survival or what would make them happy. chunk competition is capitalism is imperialism is anarchism is Trotskyism. chunks kill. post-structuralism kills.

Orange chunks are actually blue Communitarian chunks -> I think this is unlikely to be true, but when Trotskyists and Bordigists have flat out attacked the entire concept of businesses (!) it is worth examining if the reason they hate state businesses is that they actually want to create blue chunks. I think this is unlikely to be the case because quite literally, they can't create soviets if they replace business territories with people spontaneously throwing donations into a hat that goes away after a while, the soviets would just dissolve. and Trotskyists really do like their soviets.

Stupidity filters up / It isn't only the shovel dreams of class society that filter down through society from ruling classes — stupidity common among the whole population at large also filters up to all ruling classes until some of them finally manage to use their privilege to become aware that the ideas seemingly everybody believes are wrong -> I've been racking my brain trying to figure out why it is that "everybody" believes parts of anarchism now and how exactly anarchism hid inside Liberal-republicanism and the Enlightenment and snuck through everything such that no matter how much you eliminate Communism everybody believes it. I'm thinking that what's going on is I had the causality wrong. I think anarchism, blue or charcoal, might actually start in every single uneducated person and filter up. education takes a whole lot of effort (and time and money) compared to knowing nothing, especially when a lot of findings by different academic fields will be totally disorganized in relation to each other and waste a lot of your time taking hours and hours and days and days to dig way deep into every single one just so that when you don't know how Derrida and Badiou and post- this or that -ism work they won't get mad and call you a bigot. considering how much education can inadvertently "waste our time" by making every person learn a big stack of things all over again (that they have to crunch into finite hours and can't even read all of) instead of any of the hypotheses condensing into useful conclusions where future generations have less to remember, it stands to reason that over 10 years or so you'd just get stupidity filtering up from the bottom to the ruling class as people just can't be bothered to learn and then you get Donald Trump. "totalizing" Communist parties carrying in what critical theorists would think of as prejudices is largely because the overall country literally doesn't have the time and money to learn and when the country is under less threat and they've had a little time to investigate they will become educated and the filtered-up stupidity they brought will cease to be in a position of power. education should be getting rid of anarchism, except that we're doing it wrong so that a lot of people aren't learning what they should be.

Real-world morality isn't rational / Real-world morality doesn't operate based on reason / Within the real world, morality is not a philosophical exercise in the sense traditional philosophers discuss morality and ethics, and instead exists in the form of the irrational, emotional response of a socially-linked group of people to physically protect itself from threat or maintain its Freedom -> a generalization of the more specific (and icky) example in Q12,1,22 / Q12,1,21.
this has its ups and downs. on one side of the coin, it becomes depressingly easy to understand the behavior of Toryism. on the other side of the coin, you can turn it around to start arguing at center-Liberals and Tories that Deng Xiaoping Thought and the mainstream form of Bolshevism that existed historically are each categorically moral in that they follow the exact same pattern as all typical moral claims.

Japanese counter word humor [1] -> the motif of choosing counter words very deliberately and not necessarily the usual way they are used to imply something about the thing being counted. for example, using "一件" to imply something not usually considered an incident or a crime is an incident.
I decided to do this to translate the proposition "Society are not singular".

Dragon Ball has a nearly perfect model of ethics / Dragon Ball series has a nearly perfect model of ethics because it deals with the emergence of ethics out of an almost strictly amoral, non-ethical world where even Evil is not the background state, and where people must decide to actively invent ethics and particular systems of ethics or ideological factions they will join into simply because the consequences of living in an amoral world are worse -> if you think Dragon Ball is too simple to embody a system of ethics, I wouldn't totally tell you you're wrong, but what I would then say is that at its heart ethics is a relatively simple concept to the point that even this kind of show or comic can embody it. to me the most important part of ethics is actually just to realize that "ethical" is never uncountable and there are always countable systems of ethics associated with countable groups of people, or the possibility of there being an amoral world with no morality or ethics at all. it then becomes true that even a superficially simple fantasy story about "Good" and "Evil" can just barely succeed at representing that.

great man theory of ethics -> you have to understand I'm joking when I say this, but: I subscribe to the great man theory of ethics! the great man theory of ethics is the theory that generalized ethical scenarios containing "anyone" don't work to actually teach people to include all people, and people only actually learn to form consistent and sensible systems of ethics when you throw oddly specific historical figures, celebrities, or other bizarrely-specific individuals (anybody who's appeared in a newspaper will do) into an ethical scenario and try to predict what would happen with that very specific person, effectively writing real people fiction about somebody to properly figure out the solution to your ethical scenario.
this concept doesn't go against the meta-Marxist notions of "repeated patterns" or "lambda-calculus determinism", but complements them perfectly, by taking generalized functions and actually using them and testing them by feeding in a particular "x" value.

Stereotypes are necessary to create peace (anarchist phrasing) / If countries could not predict what another population was doing, they would constantly have to prepare for the possibility of war or horizontal "terrorist" attack, while if populations have ontological models or even essentialized Idealist models of what various parts of another population are like, they will be able to predict with reasonable accuracy that the other population will not attack their country, and create peaceful international relations (meta-Marxist phrasing) -> "stereotypes" here of course doesn't really mean stereotypes, it obliquely refers to the anarchist concept that having any model or description of a group of people — such as "people know they're transgender by 13 years old" or "people in Vietnam are focused on putting their effort into building a connected country" — is prejudiced, although in practice this would make Media Representation and applying a group of people's Lived Experiences impossible. everybody but anarchists knows these kinds of claims all carry an implicit caveat of "(this statement has a truth value of 'some occurrence')". yet it seems to be impossible to get people in general to stop improperly ignoring that without utterly destroying and smashing everyone's concept of formal logic. people can go on all day about how "things aren't binary"... and then fail to realize that most statements they hear from other people don't have to be True or False, and many statements they thought were claims of things being binary actually weren't.
every day I become more convinced that you really need to mess with post-structuralist anarchists and pull at their basic emotions by repeating the language they would use back at them in the coarsest forms possible just to get them to stop believing such stupid things about how countries and borders and history work, and that the practice of refusing to have models of other country populations or meaningful demographic-identity movements to supposedly "prevent prejudices" is lazy and racist.

Could you convince a starving unemployed person not to join the United States military? / Could you convince Dave Pelzer not to join the United States military and go to war in Vietnam? -> to succeed at this you have to actually have somewhere else for people to go where they can consistently produce for their household. anarchism is going to be quite bad at that, while Marxism, with the ability to control the overall layout of businesses and new jobs, has a chance.
always remember that this was a real problem in the 1970s, it's not a fake problem. the United States military preyed on people when the economy was bad, promising them a salary if they'd only help in the important mission of making sure Vietnam suffers and doesn't have freedom. this is one of the biggest problems with trying to define a concept of 'social-ism' as "people looking out for each other". Dave Pelzer really did get fed the lie that fighting Vietnam was like having a family. that really happened. so are you going to internalize that fact and realize that only controlling production has the power to prevent global empire or not?

Stalin's government leading the country to rapidly build up heavy industry and Deng Xiaoping Thought are basically the same thing

Gramscianism is like post-structuralist anarchism as a Marxism / When people within a Liberal-republican capitalist country practice post-structuralist anarchism and actually do it well with the actual goal of overthrowing the layer of capitalists, it turns into a countable Marxist movement whose named Marxism is Gramscianism -> you look at schizoanalysis, one of the most coherent bodies of philosophical literature connected to post-structuralist anarchism (although to be clear schizoanalysis is terribly incoherent, so that's really saying something), and a couple major themes like ending up on the best escape route and change proceeding person by person would basically just lead to the same outcomes as Gramscianism would, assuming that you do either of them well. either of them effectively produces an island of people who trust each other surrounded by a sea of reactionaries, or if things go more favorably, a caldera of people who trust each other surrounding a sea of reactionaries.

Post-structuralist anarchism led to the YouTube algorithm -> when you think about it, "Algorithms" are almost tailor-made to mess with post-structuralist anarchists. they let you act individually. they let you withdraw from people with awful views that you don't like. they let you sort around and reward people who supposedly are free from "domination" (like "colonialism", I'm starting to hate that word for how much a typical use of it vulgarizes the concept it's talking about). they let you withdraw from the rest of society as much as you want.

Post-structuralist anarchists effectively hate China -> another proposition that's a bit of a troll but I do think it's true. post-structuralist anarchism is sometimes (apparently not always) defined as this sort of absolute-maxing-out of critical theory and the motif I dubbed "anarculture". this kind of anarchist believes both that we must purge everyone of all forms of culture and society that potentially contain biases and domination, and also that this is impossible so in a way we just have to stop trying. this may sound really stupid but practically, it still could lead to an anarchism if everybody basically just shuts off their brains and assembles into a society stochastically, in a very picky and mercurial way, purely based on their emotions and whatever they subjectively think is "freedom"; it's literally anti-Enlightenment and irrational, but not necessarily in a bad way because it at least makes sense mathematically. so, on with "trolling" anarchists. this kind of post-structuralist anarchist says that it isn't entirely possible to get rid of ideology, which I think is true; everyone sorting into red or orange or blue Social-Philosophical Systems is just going to happen. but they say that once you don't immediately participate in it it's okay to stop thinking about it. that logically means that you're still going to be part of an ideological faction whether you like it or not, and that faction as a whole material group of people can stochastically go brutalize other factions whether you like it or not, including destroying the governments of other countries and turning them into neocolonies. thus, assuming they do not live in China, post-structuralist anarchists effectively hate China.
to be fair to anarchists: I am not adding a Z Item or ideology code for "post-structuralist anarchism" at this time because I know for sure I do not fully understand it. a motif Item? maybe; I have to collect these first impressions somewhere.

To be postcolonial, accept Dengism / All it takes to be truly postcolonial is accepting the existence of Deng Xiaoping Thought (abbreviation, misleading) / Because global empire is only truly defeated when countries that are positioned to be colonies physically stop being colonies and don't become colonies any more, everyone who accepts the existence of Deng Xiaoping Thought is doing more to bring about a postcolonial world than anyone who recommends that Deng Xiaoping Thought should be smashed to bring people "freedom", whether they obsess over the "colonizer attitudes in people's minds" or don't -> this one is here basically just to make anarchists angry. it's one of those roundabout propositions that is true because of other things — almost intentionally backhandedly-true.
Capital is the true seat of government + China/Vietnam/Cuba will never be free if it's controlled by another nation's government = To be postcolonial, accept Dengism

Populations experience natural physical separations based on language, religion, or degree of stacked rank-goods and dragon process -> A) language is self-explanatory. B) religion is not metaphysically special, but means that people will have a different body of models of the world and repeating social structures (church, diocese & papacy, pilgrimage site, cloud of local-god shrines, etc) from another population. C) the presence of nobility, royal family in command of wealth, or a very big stack of capital separates First World countries from Third World countries and former colonies through the threat of creating global empire. many people in many ideologies get this wrong. you hear anarchists and Trotskyists act like borders are an imaginary fabrication, but

Capital is the true seat of government / Government and the nation-state or global-empire-state emerge from the locus of stacks of capital -> if you actually understand this then you understand Third-World countries and Deng Xiaoping Thought. unfortunately, many people don't quite understand this.
Capital is the true seat of government + ?? = Pillows are not ideologically neutral.

"Everyone" includes everyone (historical) / "Everyone" includes everyone (period.) / "Everyone" includes every possible person on earth in the current historical period or any other historical period -> this is the proposition I'm really invoking when I spontaneously bring up "Trotsky" as a possible person things could apply to. it's difficult for large numbers of people to grasp something as abstract as "all people on earth across all historical periods", but it's easy to grasp bizarrely-specific examples.

"Everyone" includes everyone (global) / "Everyone" includes every possible person on earth in the current historical period or historical period in question -> a lot of Marxists believe they stop here but where they actually stop is confusing to figure out. Trotskyists seem to stop at a weird combination of the subpopulational proposition combined with part of the global proposition, as if they all lived in the new British Empire or the goal is to find the secret British Empire inside every country. mainstream Marxist-Leninists reach a similar level but divide things a bit differently — it's hard to describe the division exactly, but it often seems to include that they are obsessed with national independence movements entirely separately from the concept of ultimately realizing Bolshevism, and while that shouldn't cause problems, it becomes deceptive at the point countries actually free themselves and create a workers' state and then suddenly the mainstream MLs don't like what they've done and want to take it away. mainstream Marxism-Leninism is currently really really bad at understanding concepts like that Deng Xiaoping Thought might be necessary for China to have national independence and any future transition into Bolshevism is absolutely required to transition out of that. it's like mainstream Marxism-Leninism is unable to actually understand the concept of country characteristics, and when it happens that countries truly build a different-looking Marxism because a country is historically positioned to be a colony, suddenly they don't understand characteristics at all.

"Everyone" includes everyone (national) / "Everyone" includes every possible person in a country in the current historical period -> the typical Existentialist tends to stop here.

"Everyone" includes everyone (subpopulational) / "Everyone" includes every possible person in a highly specific subpopulation -> and this is where Tories stop.

To free the proletariat from the draining grasp of the bourgeoisie, it is not enough for people to be arranged into a mass of workers; to overcome the whole nation of owners on the layer above them they must be arranged into a whole nation of workers that can be said to have created the overall nation, while in many populations the structural foundation of the population is in constant flux and this is not true yet -> note/warning: this was prompted by grading an AI video (this one was shockingly okay?).
I lost the first version of this proposition in a computer crash when a single webpage took up like a gigabyte of memory (booo notion.so), which was infuriating because I typed quite a long paragraph here and lost it. I don't even remember how I worded the proposition the first time. but, I at least remembered the entire substance of it.

Walk away from corporations, and you lose the opportunity to have caring co-workers [2]

missing proposition -> policy-guide concept. the most basic form of article quality review on this wiki comes through strategic use of logical And between two propositions that someone has claimed should go together — for example, although only one of these is a proposition, "Item labels should not contain swear words" versus a page named "Bullshit Jobs". given any two propositions, one of them that is deemed the most correct will suggest ways to update the other, or at least ways to add new M3 questions and S2 propositions for investigating the contradiction; in the example, the sensible solution is to add another policy proposition reading "Item labels do not need to be censored if the title of a self-contained work would become difficult to recognize". one problem with the contradiction method of investigating and improving articles is that sometimes there will be critical pieces of context missing from one of the propositions that would have made them both easier to evaluate, or drastically changed the answer. that is what this Item represents. a proposition, motif, or phenomenon that would have stood behind one of the propositions but didn't happen to be there.
in cases a missing proposition is discovered, try to overhaul existing Items a minimal amount. it is okay to totally rewrite things like Background or Usage Notes sections, but the one thing you should keep close to the way it was is the verbose Item description at the top. add a tiny clarification of what was "missing" from the Item so that its character as a "strawman" or such is apparent, and then go make a new proposition which actually captures the missing proposition. philosophy "out in the wild" tends to have a lot of errors and missing propositions in it, so this policy allows all those errors in existing texts to be captured and analyzed even if editors add them accidentally rather than intentionally; as unique as you may think your error is, it's not unlikely somebody made the same error before.

Communitarians (meta-Marxism) -> the concept of a class-like socioeconomic layer of people defined by their connection to a particular Community, in particular a countable blue or strawberry chunk held up by a bunch of interconnected horizontal payments and donations. if Communitarians exist, they are not just "the petty bourgeoisie" — the presence or absence of links between the individuals is critical, and similar to the difference between a room full of carbon dioxide molecules versus a room containing a block of wood or a diamond. the full connected blue chunk is fundamentally different from a bunch of disconnected tiny shops. however, if the blue chunk is functioning effectively, it may be highly resistant to transition to Bolshevism or transition back to corporations which would allow regenerating the proletariat and transitioning to Bolshevism. Community chunks like to continue believing that individuals choosing to be nice and inclusive by coming up with cash and not failing to arrive with tangible money or production is sufficient to hold together a society, while they don't like to believe that the physical structure of society could stand to be more efficient, despite the contradiction that this is true of their Community chunk in that people who fail to produce have a higher probability of getting kicked out because they are less able to perform prosocial behavior and more likely to be seen as useless to the chunk if they ever make an ideological mistake; whether they go over to outside brown chunks or blue chunks or just to people inside the same chunk, it's a logical consequence that anyone with fundraising powers is more likely to be retained.

enough scientific ramblings, now back to lived experience / "enough of the stupid scientific bullshit (pronounced redacted), I need to talk about myself now" [3] -> I saw somebody say this in a media analysis and it stuck in my mind. I feel as if I've heard versions of it many times before, especially in relation to fiction and the arts

Blue "Communitarian" chunks composed of either small businesses or assorted individuals graphed into a circular structure of everyone connected to a particular node tossing money into a donation "hat" until they don't feel like it are capable of scaling up into gigantic chunks composed of interconnected circles of big businesses -> so, today it is common for the strawberry bloc of people containing social-democrats, Western-Marxists, pure LGBT-tradition members, and blue-tinted "small-and-local" Artisan-anarchists to give you some version of the story that society can rebuild itself solely based on distributing the notion of stacks of capital into this vortex of donations where miscellaneous people unpredictably put money in a hat and supposedly this will take away the social power of nasty large sponsors. this particular blue or strawberry chunk concept is separate from the concept of government programs, although the two do interact in unfortunate ways — if no particular organization necessarily knows where its money is coming from, how do you ever collect taxes on any of this, instead of just finding out every single "Communitarian" business doesn't have any extra money to spare and Medicaid is dead? now, one could reasonably go into meta-Marxist graph economics to answer this and say that the question is irrelevant because taxes are already obsolete and the system is now all about reconfiguring actual human relationships and group shapes to get "the Medicaid community" paid, but most people advocating this kind of thing actually do want Medicaid type national programs and really haven't thought that far ahead.
anyway, I found something shocking today. the way that AI companies are developing looks bizarrely like a gigantic version of a blue "Community" chunk. several businesses and the RAM chip makers are all connected together in a circle passing each other money such that the "AI Community" doesn't waste any money and is weirdly efficient. as blue anarchists might remark, it would be much better if humanity did this same thing with corporations that were actually useful. but really, I think this is a terrifying hint that blue "Community" chunks have exactly the same problem capitalism has of always eventually growing bigger and gaining power over all surrounding chunks in the sense of the power to make big decisions, slurp up resources, and commit violence. everyone wants to believe this fallacy that it's possible to take a system with an all-directional contradiction where all the pieces get bigger and simply "moderate" that or "balance" that. when in reality every system of interacting parts evolves to new possibly-worse forms as it goes on and time passes. it's precisely the shape of the system itself at the first moment you build it that makes people eventually hate it when it gets "big". perhaps it is true that mainstream Marxist-Leninists cannot overcome this cycle and there is no such thing as linear progress to the best class(-less) structures, there is only a pile of miscellaneous Bauplans and we just have to go through trial and error until we find the good ones. either way blue anarchists are way too confident about theirs.

series (oppositional combination of heterogeneous elements) [4] -> the text used to explain this thing just sounds like weird dumb capitalist propaganda. one of the major themes in it is claiming that competition brings balance if people would only be put into something in the correct proportions. an age-old idea that has never been good. I think one of the biggest problems is that fundamentally nobody has control over the proportions of "the elements of the series"; they always move and grow and shrink on their own before you can set them up ideally.
to be fair, what Charles Fourier says is that the ideal proportions involve majority groups of industry and minority groups, which is rather different from the typical model given today that every business should just sort of be the same size and you have to get rid of big ones because they only get big out of evil. I can see a certain logic in there in that the process of building industry is a process of change and if a collection of things is truly balanced it's harder to get change than if they are unbalanced; look at Marxists pointing to the ideal bad scenario of great imbalance between the owners and workers which supposedly has a good chance of leading to crisis. (part of the problem there is there are actually a lot more factors that can prevent a scenario that looks right from producing anything. no, "culture" isn't one of them. fear of demographic subpopulations getting massacred and genocided is one of them.)
hmm, honestly. you could read Fourier's text as implying that structural racism is "actually" a good thing because people wouldn't work hard without it. I think some people actually kind of believe that, when they spin the neutral phenomenon of a lot of immigrants coming to the United States to start businesses as positive specifically because they have to build up something from nothing. you do often see the belief that having minorities come in that are specifically under pressure from a huge majority "brings diversity that improves our country" specifically because the minority populations really have to struggle and have a lot to overcome. on the bright side, you could turn that idea on its head by saying that the severe constraints the Soviet Union took on by separating itself from First-World countries forced it to become more effective. and yet that hasn't quite worked in North Korea. would the Fourier types claim this is because in its isolation it's safe from oppression and really North Koreans just need to be under more active pressure from blocs of other countries? in a way, South Korea is. I'm surprised how much this cruel idea kind of holds up.

Proudhon's method was similar to poststructuralism [5] -> one of the most coherent claims I've seen anarchists make in a while. I don't understand all the sub-claims but at least it's easy to start testing given a few examples claimed to be good ones.

molecular Idealism (meta-Marxist term) -> this is what a lot of anarchism feels like to me. it's like they are trying to molecularize definitions of society from really big scales into small scales but they often refuse to base it on material structures of people-into-groups, people-into-production-processes, people-into-nations, etc., and instead, they want to like, start scribbling nebulous clouds of connected ideals on a map with various different colors of chalk (these would be the named anarchisms) and hope they go together. I find it baffling when they will admit no anarchist theorist sounds remotely like another and then still keep proceeding along like there's still something that connects them all (or at least several of them at a time) which is suggested to be immaterial more than tangible. [6]
it's like they're building the most cursed Lattice model imaginable.

Post-structuralist anarchy is indistinguishable from Toryism / Because she is willing to adapt to new situations and coast through science academia and critical theory getting defunded, Sabine Hossenfelder is not just a Tory but a post-structuralist anarchist -> this is one of those things you only arrive at after thinking about a whole lot of things to derive an ontology of different Bauplans; if the proposition is confusing to you, you just haven't been following along with meta-Marxism. anyway. recently I was revisiting the video where Sabine Hossenfelder talks about how defunding academia and letting it fall to a bunch of private organizations is basically just the same thing as having government programs and it doesn't matter to her; having a philosophy where she literally just adapts to anything, she was fine with the idea of taking a flawed structure, smashing it to pieces, and letting a diffuse cloud of individuals including academics and capitalists just sort of stochastically assemble through their individual motions and individualized judgement back into something functional. by some people's rubrics, she is an average Tory, not a blue anarchist or anything. but as far as I can tell, the way she goes about her day is indistinguishable from "poststructuralist anarchy". [7] the whole thing seems to leave a giant loophole for Toryism to fester wildly and spawn nazisms. I can see how it isn't identical with individualist anarchism because it has that sort of "pseudo MDem" character of localized countable objects (individuals) interacting and assembling into larger countable objects. but even so it seems like garbage. no matter how much chaos magic you invoke, every "changeable structure in flux" will be made of eating, space-occupying organisms which can kill each other, and due to that, the more things are open and in flux the more killing can happen.

Democracy is inherently postcolonial -> I think a lot of blue anarchists read Kant and then started thinking this. no. it isn't.

Extinction is randomly-generated genocide -> this is the problem with acting like the stochastic movements of individuals and corporations will actually fix things or is the most intuitive way to fix things. the phrase "state of nature" can never capture how horrifying the unmitigated background state of reality actually is. the stochastic, superficially random interaction of different animal populations periodically just blatantly destroys diversity and identity although at the same time new species will emerge at similar rates.
not all populations are ethnicities. but, ethnicities are populations. species localized to a particular area are populations. extinction is the loss of a population. there are broad mathematical similarities between extinction, especially in situations like where humans deliberately exterminated all thylacines, but occasionally in situations where cyanobacteria take over and many kinds of cellular life go extinct, and genocide. "randomly-generated" captures the concept that none of this is deliberate or intentional or designed.
Existentialism really gets to me sometimes. listening to Sabine Hossenfelder (Tory, brown Existentialist) just sit down and accept that having government grants and having islands of corporations and nonprofits is 'just the same thing' kills me. a complete lack of government is not a government but sometimes they really seem to think it is and like they're even brilliant for figuring that out. ah, yes! back to nature. back to groups of things basically hating each other for a few seconds at a time and killing each other over food as some of them utterly die out and given intelligence the other ones get to explain and frame everything. Commu-nity will be the end of us all.

Why are reactionary propositions allowed? / Why are Tory and fascist propositions allowed? -> one of the top reasons is simply "to debunk them"; "to educate people what is more correct". another reason is to show how they are related to better propositions through error or correction.
it's important to remember there are certain minimal rules to be followed. a questionable proposition can't be phrased in a way that sounds like Tories are actually editing this thing or that you endorse the conclusion. sometimes, particular proposition titles that are simply too much will be banished to the "unsuitable Item label" Item. other times, it won't really be possible to think of a way to phrase something that doesn't sound sort of like a fraction of Tories would say it. in that case you don't have to think too hard as long as at least the full Ontology page makes it clear what is wrong with the proposition.

Escape routes are a definition of prejudice / Lines of flight are a definition of prejudice -> this is why "lolcow" videos exist. the bigot believes that bad behavior is oppression, detaching from the badly-behaved people is escaping oppression and seizing freedom.

Communism must come because humans mirror the universe where creation and destruction are intertwined (Ilyenkov) [8] -> I'd have to reread the source text to figure out if I processed that proposition correctly, because the full one was complicated and confusing. what I'm much more confident on is that Žižek revealed a lot about how he understands Marxism. he thinks that it's primarily about destroying things; Zinoviev burning down a building is the best Communist to him.
the problem is that this ignores about 66 years of historical events. it ignores the goals of Stalin, Deng Xiaoping, and whoever brought Dengism into Vietnam, as well as the failed goals of the Black Panther Party. it's an almost uniquely Trotskyist position to think Marxism is about destroying things instead of protecting things, if you're standing on the year 1953. it's only in about 1990 it starts maybe becoming a legitimate position again (and even there I doubt it, because I doubt anything good can come of advancing it). I blame Marxism saying proletarians have nothing to lose, when in reality Materialism requires the understanding that one of the major reasons you'd choose to nudge everyone into allying to create Bolshevism is to preserve material lives and keep them from being lost in a populational genocide to systems that inherently limit population size and exterminate excess population. and which don't even do any of that in any "good" way because it's all just a limited number of people being as wasteful as they want that kills the excess people, it's not to be more efficient or have a lighter footprint or anything. the pain of capitalism is the pain of individualized systems (corporations, countries, populational chunks or "communities") casually operating in mutual exclusion such that they all harm each other and then punish each other for operating, getting furious that they can't make each other choose to be "considerate" before they crash into each other when because they have no control over each other that is utterly impossible.
this + ?? = Ilyenkov is the only Soviet Marxist who deserves to be taken seriously (Žižek)

Ilyenkov is the only Soviet Marxist who deserves to be taken seriously (Žižek) -> ok, like, the only good thing about Žižek is that when he's not making a statement that's utterly terrible his boldness is entertaining. this is one of those where I'm left going "huh, this has to be something said so boldly it's gotta be wrong, but I currently don't know the actual reasoning why, I just know the ideology swatch color or code is very suspicious".

cosmological perspective (Žižek) -> so everything Žižek says is hard to understand because after the first seconds where you get past his accent and the particular way he slurps words it's always stream of consciousness. he starts by contrasting "the naïve realism of dialectical materialism" with "the transcendental in Western Marxism", which sounds like he thinks the division between Materialism and Idealism is more arbitrary 'than people want to believe it is'. then he starts to say something about subjectivity and overdetermining. then he starts to say that stepping outside humans to look at the universe can tell us something, which devoid of any god concept is a relatively Materialist idea. what?

Real systems are circular / Real-world collections of objects and processes perpetuate themselves and stamp out the possibility of change, and there is no logical contradiction in saying this -> something that seems to have upset Rothenberg yet which under the point of view of traditional dialectical materialism or even a simple introduction of relativistic determinism would be wholly unobjectionable.
this proposition leans toward Badiou's concept that change must be brought through separations. but there's a complicated relationship between them. I don't want to unpack that in full right now. in short: Rothenberg and Deleuze's concept of unknown information bubbling up would make it no problem for systems to be circular; they've created a model where change is incomprehensible through models, so why would it bother them when change is incomprehensible through models? if they were sensible, they'd just open themselves up to the notion of a "hidden-variable" theory. and let it fail if it fails or succeed if it succeeds, let it be statistical and not-exact-to-every-individual-event-in-the-universe, but let it try to have a hypothesis.

Non-circularity brings Calvinism / If systems weren't circular, they would change in an absolutely-deterministic way

Idiocracy (2006)

Idiocracy is less horrifying than the real 2010-2024 United States

Idiocracy is backhandedly true / If intelligent people were less good at cooperating, then the "dumbest" people would indeed have more effective social groups, and Idiocracy would be accurate -> this person asks the real questions.

therians and autism

movie writers inserting weird shit (pronounced redacted) is okay and requires no criticism but fans noticing it and having emotions about it is an awful perversion -> what every other video shaming furries reads like.
the average person has this really weird complex where they find censorship forbidden and want authors to be able to make just anything but they won't think about the actual consequences that having that position causes and that you will have to actually go clean up the consequences of that every day in your interactions with other people... and when they see a consequence they basically want to do something analogous to victim-blaming. it's this position that basically the bourgeoisie is untouchable and can do nothing wrong but the proletariat and the non-owners are all evil. I can't stand this. this is intellectually offensive to me.

By Deleuze's logic, Liberalism (pronounced Liberal-republicanism) shouldn't exist -> A) masses of people are an inseparable multiplicity of unknown heterogeneous elements. (primitive anarchy of all populations, basically) B) history is not about creating separate material objects and developing them according to the rules of those objects. C) the development of a population cannot be understood through the decisions of the people inside it, only through its interactions with outside populations. [I don't remember in what sense I meant this, but I think it was in relation to critical theory and preventing prejudices] D) by the logic of Deleuze and Guattari, Trotskyism makes more sense than schizoanalysis, because it takes into account the inseparable multiplicity of all human individuals on earth grouped into interacting populations.

A medieval kingdom is a one-party state -> Liberal-republican theory often assumes this is true. it's somewhat arguable it is the case, if for instance you use idealized fantasy novels for reference you see kingdoms are often represented as if they are groups of friends that trust each other.
but the thing is that this doesn't lead to the flattering conclusions Liberal-republicans and Existentialists hope it leads to. Liberal-republican theorists hope it will show that medieval kingdoms are tyrannical and unethical, and Liberal-republicanism is natural and obvious. instead it makes it easy to highlight that Liberal-republicanism is not a natural or obvious development but an arbitrary choice to divide countries into multiple sloshy countries per country, fully as arbitrary as it believes Bolshevism to be, which potentially engineers multicapitalism and the problem of two separate capitalisms trying to kill and crowd out each other's people for not being part of each other and then complain that eating and occupying space too much and existing too much is really mean and people should have thought more about that.

Theorists are academics / If you spend all day reading and researching and you do not produce a sellable product, your activities are academic, and if you produce a book which is usable but entirely theoretical you are an academic -> I once saw someone claim after using a bunch of technical jargon that what they were doing wasn't "academic". and this is why I always throw around the word "theorist" copiously. in hopes that people will come to understand that any strong division between the theoretical and the practical creates academics, and that in a few limited cases that can actually be a problem. at the heart of it, the goal of a Marxist is to stop being an academic, and to become better at survival and daily activities due to theory rather than to just become better in some limited domain that theorists live and compete in. I genuinely think that may be true of everything. it's a very corrupt system to have these article piles people make money by selling to at a price that will probably never be enough but where very few people will get to use and apply them, where like, all academic activity kind of just enriches researchers (and not very much, just enough to give them a teeny amount of privilege such they can ignore the existence of the rest of the world). it may be better at this point for people to just apply their research practically and sell books so they can be in regular libraries and used book stores.

If you had total artistic freedom, and you could literally make whatever you wanted, and nobody would ever call you out on any of it, giving you the total freedom to make mistakes and learn what is right and wrong on your own, but to have that you had to live in a country which was an empire and benefited from allying with other large empires to beat up Third World countries and force people off their land or put most of their populations into factories to turn your country into a series of malls and tiny shops, and you could not stop Palestinians from being killed every day, but as long as you shut up you would get to write romances about The Onceler or serial killers or draw Jack London wolves banging (pronounced redacted) or write about weird fetishes (pronounced redacted) or things people debate as being stereotypes or normalizing toxic relationships or literally whatever you want to express, would you take that trade-off? -> I swear people answer this question wrong every single day.
the question here may be slightly hypothetical and contrived in that the causality on some of these things doesn't connect directly to empire, but you still see people saying the inverse proposition that they think Freedom is more important than literally anything and they would choose Freedom if it did. that's the key. as long as Freedom is more important than not killing people, not only will you never get to build the temporary cages that reconstruct all of society in a form where chunk competition is far less easy, but generally, you'll never get people to be ethical at all.

Password (2024) / Password (furry visual novel) [9]

Password and racism / Password and xenophobia (Orientalism; etc) -> there is nearly nothing worth discussing about this visual novel except the fact it's a really interesting case study on writers who don't know anything attempting Media Representation in racist ways.

It is impossible to explain the existence of ethics without Materialist philosophy -> so here's the thing about Idealism. minds can model anything. minds can model the most unrealistic thing you can imagine; minds can write a book which portrays real-world race relations and historical interactions between countries so badly the book becomes racist. the ability of minds to contain just anything makes it questionable how a mind could ever know that any ethical proposition is true. what if somebody makes an ethical proposition which says "The existence of Russians is immoral and it is ethical for the United States to torment Russians until they have been exterminated"? (in all these thought experiments I pick groups of people like "Russians" so the statement won't be as inherently charged and icky to even read as saying things like "Black people" or "United States Jews", even though certainly there will be some people that exist that are that level of racist. when I instead say "Russians", the statement inherently feels more made-up and hypothetical, and becomes easier to just laugh about as a weird bit of dark humor given it "isn't really happening".) if somebody says that's what's ethical, how would you know whether they're right or wrong? you can't just say "because X ethical statement is obvious" or "because X ethical statement feels good emotionally" as your justification for why a statement is suitable for checking other statements. to the other person, it might be "obvious" and "feel good" that they need to exterminate Russians, and they can always say that treading on their claim attacks their Lived Experience. so it's only really interactions that happen in the material world that can verify a statement as top-quality. even "a marginalized person recounted an experience" isn't itself a fact. Trotsky can show up and say "I'm a marginalized Soviet person" and then "I think the Soviet Union needs to be destroyed", and his Lived Experience won't be reliable or factual.

Because normal people prefer to think in terms of Liberal-republicanism, we must teach them everything in terms of Liberal-republicanism and give up on teaching them Communism -> very flawed when Liberal-republicanism absolutely can't address the question of empire and the global-empire prejudices termed "colonialism" at all. the point of Liberal-republicanism is to control people and keep regular people from exerting agency except in line with what a limited array of experts says. that's the point. whether you think of that process as a positive or negative thing, that's the point. so when Liberal-republicanism decides it has to take over issues like Israel-Palestine and shit (pronounced redacted), and legislate and amend people into being "postcolonial"... it just plain can't. a republic can beat everyone into position but the people who are the most elite and most existiest will out-exist everyone else and if they just happen to be in support of Israel they get the people-controlling device and there's no winning. even stacks and stacks of Gramscian theory can't fix it. you've written yourself into a corner where survival itself is a virtue and non-survival and weakness and sickness are vices, those rules are not negotiable by anybody, and where literally only a theory of building the most physically-robust, best-surviving population of Communist or anarchist allies that believes in no Idealism and makes absolutely no mistakes of believing that anyone will choose to be kind or reasonable or hope itself will ever work can possibly save you.

Loyalty to anarchism is equally as "colonial" as loyalty to nation-states / If loyalty to a Liberal-republican or Bolshevik nation-state causes people to kill and dominate, then so does loyalty to a countable anarchist "civilization" or materially-realized anarchist population-society / If loyalty to a Liberal-republican or Bolshevik nation-state causes people to kill and dominate, then it is being part of a population at all which causes it; this implies people actively moving between populations and deserting, betraying, or abandoning them periodically is the only thing which would not cause individuals to contribute to killing or domination, despite the contradiction that some of these things are acts of war and amount to killing or domination, for example in the time of the Trotskyite conspiracy ->
field: existential materialism.

blocking Donald Trump from taking office using section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment [10] [11]

States can't disqualify a presidential candidate under the Fourteenth Amendment [12] -> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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?

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)

A million tiny "revolutions" are rendered moot if every progressive ally is dead

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?

proletarian internationalism / プロレタリア国際 (pronounced こくさい)主義 (pronounced しゅぎ)

male rivalries and gay subtext (fiction) / 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.

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

The Long Transition Toward Socialism and the End of Capitalism (Torkil Lauesen) [13]

Unequal Exchange: Past, Present and Future (Torkil Lauesen) [14]

Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism? (Gabriel Rockhill) [15]

Western Marxism: How it was born, how it died, how it can be reborn (Domenico Losurdo) [16]

How the World Works: The story of human labor from prehistory to the modern day (Paul Cockshott) [17]

The Global Perspective: Reflections on imperialism and resistance (Torkil Lauesen) [18]

Socialism With Chinese Characteristics: A guide for foreigners (Roland Boer) [19]

Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance (Roland Boer) [20]

Class Struggle: A Political and Philosophical History (Domenico Losurdo) [21]

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.

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.

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.