User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-2

Unsorted Items (page 2)

618. stopping CoIntelPro with a lawsuit -> it's super weird to me that that even worked. what, in principle, obligates the FBI to tell anyone what it was doing or pay up? every part of the U.S. government is just a piece of paper except maybe the military and ICE.
618. Humans reason inside cultures / Human beings will not respond to reason unless they are compatible as individuals and both fully contained within loyalty to a single countable culture
618. Would a Trotskyist United States be aware of the need to create factories, or would it keep insisting that Careerists are "the proletariat" and bashing China and Vietnam for having factories with the typical "Stalinist mono-structures are slavery", "being part of a nationality is slavery" tropes? -> it must be like, horrifying to be the person who finds this site a little while in the future and is like, oh god, why are they predicting my party like it can't be trusted and it's going to do a bunch of bad things instead of looking at it as what theoretical position it should actually have? welcome to meta-Marxism. here we discuss what specific Marxist parties are actually likely to do and what realistic interventions are actually feasible to get them to behave a bit less badly. it might not be what you're used to, but with so much dysfunction in Marxist parties this "cynical" look at them as simple material objects with a probability cloud of most-likely and least-likely behaviors might be the only way forward. I hope propositions like this will retroactively become satire. I hope that when parties see themselves depicted in the most dim ways they'll actually want to change.
618. Marxism failing to predict trans people -> this is one of the greatest thorns for Marxism. any number of issues can come up that affect only a small number of people and yet have not been predicted at all in anything Marx or Lenin said about transition out of class society and make Marxist methods of "understanding societal development and the future" simply look really stupid. outside of deliberate attempts by capital to discredit Marxism, this leads to people merely trying to understand the concept of "the future" gravitating to weird notions that the future is immune to science and can't be understood through Materialism because reality is truly unreachable and all human beings cram the universe into their heads.
618. I've met some great anarchists, but I can't believe some of them are still gender ideology believers -> a prime cut of bullshit (pronounced [BS]) found in the comments section of "Freer Lives", what is either a mainstream Marxist or uniquely toxic Western-Marxist blog. this is... a real insight into how some people think. there are really some people out there whose mind gears are turning in such a way that they can't imagine that trans rights could be part of anarchism or that anarchists could consider them a form of Freedom, what's usually their one favorite value.
     I've made this the charcoal swatch because if the "great anarchists" the commenter refers to really exist, there are transphobic anarchists who think that's not contradictory with anarchism, and that's just a fact.
     I think this probably empowered the rise of blue anarchism. anarchism loves individuals, but the risk that any particular individual is going to be excluded from anarchism will push people back to believing in ""democracy"" and the notion of attempting to force a body of people (or entire other countries) to get better culture through The State. this effectively selects out charcoal anarchists and ensures blue anarchism gets to smash them and paint them as "terrorists" or "extremists" against The Only, Mandatory Countable Culture. and after the charcoal anarchists are gone the blue ones can proceed to become falsely convinced that just because they have little agency and control within ""democracy"" and in their daily lives have to do everything themselves government doesn't even exist and they're actually already living in anarchy which is also a good thing.
618. Human culture is inherently campist -> populations aren't as sturdy and are more fragile than Marxists think they are; arbitrary free association, in motion, is stronger than Marxists think it is.
618. True people versus False people -> I feel like anarchists are the ones who invented this idea — at least in its modern form? there are probably monarchist or Roman counterparts to it that are way worse — but it's also one of those concepts that you could turn around to attempt to explain Leninism to anarchists.
     from an anarchist point of view, "True people" are individuals who resist oppression. from Lenin's point of view, "True people" are the ones that successfully work together to build a functioning country rather than defecting. that's also how it basically works from Deng's point of view. this is one of the only things solidly shared between Lenin and Deng Xiaoping, that their model of how a revolution or transition into a workers' state completes isn't solely based on dividing people into classes, and is also partly about loyalty and willingness to become the proletariat assuming that everyone getting converted to workers on state businesses is the particular transition that's happening at the moment.
618. True people
618. False people
618. Your love for characters cannot save them, but taking those lessons to the real world is valuable [1] -> ten years playing after Undertale I feel like this idea is something of a deepity. it's vaguely wrong on both of its points.
     A) people can and do write AUs. there's another side discussion to be had about whether there's a point to doing that, but I think all in all it has about as much point as the original text did, you either come to an interesting insight about how the elements of the story interact or you fail to and you just don't, and because fanfiction "doesn't really matter" either one is okay even if succeeding at pulling the new narrative together is better.
     B) the more interesting and more controversial problem. leaving behind a tragic happening isn't inherently good, and taking your emotions somewhere else doesn't inherently help you make anything better. the reason I have such a dark interpretation of this is I feel like it encourages people to interpret real-world historical events wrong. to a limited extent there's only so much of a different between history and fictional stories — you see it the most clearly with either fantasy stories that are silently drawing from history books, or stories that are so mundane real people look at the fake story and say "I remember this happening to me". so there are some cases where even leaving a fake story behind and saying "well that was tragic, I guess I can only learn lessons" is encouraging people to trivialize real events. Animal Farm stands out as one, by literally turning real history into a fable about individual behavior instead of presenting a Materialist style framing of the overall picture of what is happening globally in the scenario. but equally, there could be a book about the United States Civil War and a White person could read it and get really focused on the characters and their individual emotions and actions and put the book down deciding to "learn abstract lessons" while forgetting that racism is a large-scale ongoing issue and that slavery isn't a metaphor and was a real societal problem that was happening through material processes above the scale of individuals. — I feel as if you always have to spontaneously start talking about the United States Civil War or slavery for anyone in the United States to understand basic concepts, but there you go.
     as for Undertale... I think it is primarily meant to be taken a bit figuratively as some kind of dream that projected out of the world of Deltarune, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with taking it literally. before Deltarune was released, it sort of encouraged and misdirected you to take it literally. I think fun things come out of taking it literally when you're not entirely supposed to, like imagining silly scenarios of monsters trying to form a workers' state so they don't have to go to war, or comparing the rhetoric used in designing Undertale to real-world anti-war movements. or Handplates. the literal interpretations of Undertale can get really dark, but that's part of what's fun about them.
     I may be inclined to give very specific interpretations of this topic as someone who is taking real-life history and essentially fanfictioning it to create historical fiction. the point of historical fiction is partly to realize that history actually has moving parts to it and it isn't just a fable somebody made up. that it's a material situation, that if you put something in there there are particular things that can and can't happen and if for instance you want to tell the story of a social movement there is a particular "challenge run" associated with that with a particular difficulty and particular success and failure states, with tension, with ways to win or lose. it's not just that we make stories and whatever authors want to happen happens, the reason guides about writing go on and on about "conflict" is that stories are simulations of particular situations or ideas and whether you are making a story or an actual simulation game it's equally the case you have to make a good simulation of difficulty, success, and failure to get people invested into it. that was really wordy. anyway, I think historical fiction has the power to fix history in certain teeny tiny ways purely by showing people the inner workings of a particular historical era, not simply by showing people how you personally think it could have gone better, but specifically by giving them a functioning simulation of what success and failure actually meant back in that particular time. that's quite valuable, and I think it's an insult to the power of stories to try to say that the Material components of the story functioning together don't actually mean anything unless you walk away from the story and grind everything down to abstract Ideals. maybe taking stories literally isn't a bad thing. sure, sometimes they have incorrect facts in them and you basically have to fix them or frame them in context to get anything out of them. but I honestly don't get what is so bad about taking the material pieces of FNaF or Deltarune and trying to solve them, or how "themes" are somehow different from that. themes are just repeated patterns of material objects doing stuff! they help put each individual event in the story in better context and connect each instance of a motif to all the other instances and tell you they operate similarly or point to the same thing, but that's all themes really do.
618. Enlightenment reason is 'pataphysics / Enlightenment "reason" is actually 'pataphysics -> follow along with me. 1) 'pataphysics is creating physics models by combining arbitrary working models, usually Idealism, sometimes fictional Materialism, in total detachment from reality 2) Enlightenment reason often bases itself in assuming that humans can never actually check things against the external world just by virtue of it existing first, and that even empiricism is necessarily solipsistic in its own way 3) Enlightenment reason and 'pataphysics are equally as related to the material world; depending on your set-theory definitions the first is part of the second
     it's important to note that there is a super easy way out of this, which is to stop doing 'pataphysics by checking your goddamn (pronounced redacted) models against real-world physical processes so they actually have something to predict. it's not hard. you can operate off old recorded information in the beginning until you get something that's at least self-consistent, and then if you have a really good model, you actually run controlled tests on totally fresh information with no ability to re-do, and you keep doing that until you have a predictive model. there are ways to take tests and make them smaller so you don't have to run them "intrusively", and can just run your test mathematically to reconstruct what the data will be, and then observe and record the actual pattern. this is what equations are. this is what determinism is. you guess what the graph will look like using an equation, whether two-dimensional or multi-dimensional, and then you plot some data and see if you correctly predicted the overall shape.
     it's a little atrocious that Marxism hasn't landed onto any pretty, presentable equations yet that summarize the major processes of country development. I think that will be possible eventually. you have to actually characterize country layouts in a fine-grained way so it's like you can tell apart different Marxisms and different anarchisms and predict what category of Marxism is going to happen if any of them does happen. but given the right ways of categorizing structure and creating "buckets" of pieces of countries suitable for graphing, it's possible to graph any specific social transition from system A to system B so it has its own visual pattern. the only challenge in that comes down to like, how do you coarse-grain a complicated process of individuals forming into specific structures of different colors and then the varying numbers of each color of structure versus each other without losing the most important small-scale variables. saying "proletarians", "bourgeoisie", "crimson people", "blue people", "orange people" works in text, it's just a matter of finding something that works well on a graph, and ideally also doesn't give the illusion of individuals being more important than structures as wholes. like, do you do f(x,y) = t, with x and y being things like number of big businesses and number of small businesses? I think there's something to the idea of having t be a dependent variable instead of an independent variable, so somewhat like in material reality the material pieces colliding leads to time rather than the other way around.
618. Relativity changes the intuitive definition of determinism
618. Relativity changes the intuitive definition of reductionism -> thanks to wave functions and measurements, which are ultimately kind of just special relativity but really tiny. in theory, we could talk about galaxies in the conceptual vocabulary of wave functions because of how long it takes most causal events to travel between them, we just don't. and of course, then there's gravity, which appears to happen on a different scale from quantum particles.
618. socio-politico-economy (early Marxism) -> the ongoing connection from production or economy to social structures and then to political structures with an indivisibility of the three layers from each other. [2] this can be read as either a crimson concept or a violet concept; this is one of the times that there's no real distinction between crimson and violet.
     to me, this is 'existential materialism put to use'. exmat starts at "the fun stuff" of bashing Free Will and showing that individual will operates back and forth in all directions within the structure of groups, this thing that either comes from individuals' physical needs and their emergent emotions and personalities on top of those, or emerges from interactions between people where neither individual really controls it and yet it at the larger scale it happens. then it progresses up to "the hard stuff" of showing how the needs of individuals and their current physical arrangements work together to produce seemingly complicated sociophilosophies like Liberal-republicanism, mainstream Marxism-Leninism, a hypothetical Trotskyism, a specific anarchism, nested tribal populations, and so forth.
     to Marx and Engels this is kind of just 'the rejection of Ideals creating material shapes' (as long as the ideals contain either abstraction or prescription and aren't literally just descriptions of material shapes). Marx is in one sense trying to center the "socioeconomy" as the place where history really happens through the sheer interactions of individuals to form a society being the "actual cause" of specific historical periods, and not the words or actions of governments. when you look at things that way it's much easier to see how capital has power and how when capital is an important part of a society it becomes able to wield governments and armies in and of itself. in one sense all societies are anarchic, in the sense that socioeconomic structures are what truly runs and decides everything. exmat isn't necessarily new, when you look at Marx and Lenin doing slightly muddy versions of the same thing that nonetheless manage to laser-focus onto some basic conclusion of what causes bring what effects.
     and in that sense something like Deng Xiaoping Thought at first seems really concerning because, how do you know all the free-floating businesses aren't going to take control of the thing? but of course, there are other considerations at the same time. the notion that all societies are technically anarchic means that China having any kind of socioeconomy that is going strong has an important role in creating a border around China and a sovereign government; governments don't drop out of the air. as well, the central party-nation is a socioeconomic structure in its own way. it has or previously had the capacity to move people between regions or try to get them to stay in a certain region, and it has the capacity to address living standards and get people out of peasant-level living. the interaction between the people and the central party and especially everyone trusting the central party to carry out tasks is a socioeconomic phenomenon. one of the only things saving China from a color revolution is basically that it contains a socioeconomic phenomenon which is so big and extended across the country it's hard for the capitalists to break it up. (it doesn't help that the capitalists aren't neatly united into two parties, there are about eight parties with comically similar names outside the central party and as far as I know none of them are as "important" as the U.S. Republican or Democratic parties.) the layer of capitalists and the central party are sort of going along on separate levels accomplishing different goals. which loosely suggests that they might not actually be getting in each other's way. (and in a weird way, doing almost exactly the opposite of which job you'd think each one of them would be doing. the capitalist layer creates the nation-state, the central party provides for the people?? it neatly matches up with Marxist predictions, I mean, when do capitalists actually care, but it's still weird to look at.) it's unclear how either layer is supposed to get out of Deng Xiaoping Thought and lead the country into the next stage. the material development of social structures in China and Vietnam is weird and you pretty much need meta-Marxist Bauplan analysis to understand it. which just makes things harder given that meta-Marxism / existential materialism isn't even complete
     case of: Marx going meta.
618. base-to-superstructure process / base and superstructure (Western Marxism, etc) -> this is only captioned "Western Marxism" to reflect that I think it's given more importance there than other places, it's not to make this motif specific to Western Marxism
618. "Education", "awareness", and "outreach" are Liberalism manifest [3]
618. Individualism is a country characteristic (United States) / The presence of individualism might as well be a permanent country characteristic of the United States national population / A "collectivist mindset" does not inherently bring any change or ability to bring change, so it's ultimately more productive to think about individualism as a permanent country characteristic until new structures are actually created that cause collectivist thinking
618. it's hard to separate the desire to look stereotypically like a man or woman from the pressure society puts on us to conform to one of them to fit neatly into an actual socially-linked demographic Community of people [4] -> that's just it, isn't it? the best way to prove that gender identity exists is pointing to socially-linked subpopulations of men and women or miscellaneous LGBT+ people that people managed to socially become part of. but once you've shown that, all you've done is also show why queer people end up ejected from society. the same thing that defines gender identity at all, the subpopulations, has the power to expel anyone out of it and say they "aren't really" part of anything valid.
618. Transgender inner experiences deserve their own autonomous existence regardless of whether cis people understand that they exist or what the majority thinks [5]
618. I wish people would trust experts on gender identity rather than their own toxic biases [6] -> these two statements are contradictory with each other. the statement that Lived Experiences validate things implies that reactionary Lived Experiences are more valid than what experts or large groups of people believing other things say. the statement that people should "trust experts" appeals to objectivity and against some Lived Experiences.
     one of the only arguments that these statements do inherently go together is arguing that representative democracy is the final arbiter of truth — that because the central government (supposedly) operates under a strict imperative to be an anarchy and for all representatives that go there to respect and tolerate each other, if a swath of LGBT+ people all produce experts that make it to Congress and have gotten their papers or themselves into the government that that inherently makes whatever they say true. but even that doesn't really work because it means that if a bunch of people believe in QAnon and they all get their conspiracy theories or themselves into the government then QAnon is true and has to be respected and tolerated just because it's there; if you think that's silly, your heart will sink when you realize that the United States government requires all representatives to respect and tolerate each other's religion and culture for their own sake and for many people QAnon was part of religion, not to mention countable culture (with every implied White-supremacist undertone).
     and then there's the fact that practically nobody says both "I'm an anarchist" and "I recognize the Communist Party of China as an anarchy because the CPC congress requires all the regions of China to Rhizome together to agree on policies without competition". especially not charcoal anarchists, but not even blue ones, pretty much only Deng Xiaoping followers themselves actually go around saying anything like that.
     blue anarchism is a farce. nothing can make the United States Congress operate like an anarchy on the basis of anarchists' Idealist theories of clouds of ideas Rhizoming together. although, there's just a little hope for saving the concept of anarchies if you strictly define one as a stationary combination of heterogeneous elements that can occur inside many non-anarchist forms of structure, and understand the factors that keep an anarchy stable in a strictly Materialist way. anarchists, ironically, are just about the worst at studying and preserving anarchies.
618. fake general strike / Marxists knocking a general strike because it isn't truly taking a position or making sacrifices (North American Maoism onto blue or charcoal anarchism) -> I can't believe we're actually at this point. both because A) Marxists are reluctant to actually identify the extent of blue anarchism and the damage it's done versus standing around and hoping any 'mass movement' people come up with with actually be useful and B) it's surprising to me blue anarchism can manage to "do" this much at this scale and yet not do anything
     I think we're learning that class struggle can actually happen in the form of protests horizontally protesting protests, in the form of one Social-Philosophical System fighting another one due to a holistic opposition to its actual internal structure and basic principles more than due to the action of many individuals in one group on many individuals in another group; a whole blue group can fight a whole strawberry or crimson group as named groups.
618. Hypocrisy is not as important as lack of understanding / The problem with hypocrisy is not that individuals don't follow principles in a "what about" context, but specifically that when individuals fail to follow principles it shows they have no understanding of a given concept in any context including both their own "pot" context as well as the other "kettle" context where they attempt to falsely apply or enforce a concept they don't even understand in the first place; the objective of invoking hypocritical situations is to present a concept in the form people will find simplest and avoid having to explain books and books of history or material facts within the other context just to get people to apply concepts correctly in the other context when it's probably the case they wouldn't even want to absorb all those facts in the first place
618. anarchy! ...how do you say Guattari? / speaker attempts to talk about politics or history in terms of the imperative to be friends with other Cultures and not have prejudices, fails to correctly pronounce Italian-French name "Guattari" -> I can only remember seeing one specific instance of this in a video but that's still too many.
618. Tribes are basically the same as countries or civilizations -> this is just an axiom I go by, but I think it makes it a lot easier to do material analysis of history without fully committing to a single ideology as definitely correct.
618. Individuals can't have rights / Individuals can't actually have rights / Aside from the question of whether it is ethical or desirable, it isn't physically possible for individual people to have human rights because human individuals are unpredictable and human rights belonging to individuals would require the ability to control all other individuals on earth; this suggests that populations can possess human rights to distribute among their individuals but individuals themselves cannot possess human rights without being part of a population -> if this is true it explains a whole lot about why people are anticommunist far beyond all benefit to them — their incorrect belief that human rights can belong to individuals rather than tribes or nation-states is ruining everything.
618. quiver (meta-Marxism) / tightly connected bundle of co-ops, capital chunks, or individual Artisanal practices functioning as permanent formal government with obligations similar to a Liberal republic and permanent citizens all locked into it exactly as much as a birth certificate or passport means republican citizenship -> I call this a quiver due to the potential capacity of it to simply foster anarcho-Toryism and turn into basically fascism without a violent army that's just a bunch of equal arrows passively believing shitty things without a central axe.
     almost every scenario I can imagine where critical theory and its seemingly nonsensical concepts of 'stopping all things that cause resistances' or 'overcoming Fascism specifically defined as a violation of the totally abstract concepts of justice and dignity' actually succeeds tends to end up with some weird new thing of "capital states" made of arbitrary floating chunks of industry that broke out of a larger republic and became two or more new nations specifically based on particular local chunks' horizontal affinities with these blue chunks over here and against these brown chunks over there — this very molecularized scenario where unfortunately the molecularization doesn't actually get rid of the core processes of capitalism and kind of just solidifies most of them except the notion that entire chunks of subsidiaries have to be owned by somebody versus just agreeing to be connected into an object and subsequently having to become an actual fully-featured republican government if they want to prevent sudden violence or contentious competition over scope and allowed and prohibited behaviors between separate capital chunks. like, it's not one of those scenarios of totally free corporations with no government. this is something different and new that I feel like a lot of people are not ready for. it really sounds like a mess compared with Bolshevism if you ask me. assuming they live in peace and don't kill each other you'd have interdemocracy going off constantly and any number of chunks trying to prevent the others from doing anything they want to do much to their confusion; there wouldn't be protests, there would just be localized capital-states showering each other in a bunch of un-vote envelopes, sometimes justifiably, sometimes at moments that just feel like everyone is making the wrong choice and things are a mess. one day you get an avalanche of un-votes about pollution, another day you get one about banning polyamory from representation in ads.
618. The lack of anarchist-equality allows people to be unified -> it is so completely bizarre how, out of people who hate Marxism and whose worldview shouldn't contain the existence of classes you will just suddenly start hearing class analysis about some set of business territories with some oddly exact number of employees like 0 or 15 or 100. they hide it in words like "small businesses" and "indies". and there is this weirdly widespread assumption that somehow even though it's impossible all businesses should choose to magically hover around the mark of having 50 employees forever and they should all just fall to equilibrium and never become Big and never disappear. you'd have to successfully turn businesses into fully-formed political states with permanent citizens to pull that off, complete with bills of rights decked out to every single imaginable concept of anti-discrimination, "government programs" and everything.
     (and I'm not knocking the idea of someone laying out an anarchism and trying to actually make it make sense, I mean, if anarchists would do anything strictly Materialist that isn't Idealism I would love to see that so much more than what they're always doing today. as a theory book, it sounds cool. my problem is that none of the fake-anticapitalists ever have that kind of commitment to even design a society that has no "stock market" or "labor market" or "business-territory market" and contains no chunk competition, like the allocation of people to borders can change, but gamified competition over borders just doesn't exist.)
     this thing of having a ton of perfectly consistent non-vanishing businesses with exactly 20 employees doesn't happen. and yet when it doesn't, utterly gigantic fandoms form that appear to unify people around the world, I've multiple times heard the phrase "Pokémon Go was the closest we got to world peace". people everywhere seem to have a totally wrong model of what unifies people and allows people to coexist. they all keep tossing out this "Arceist" model and it's all wrong, even Pokémon advances that model and it doesn't match the structure of the business saying it. what's up with that?
618. All Idealisms are nationalisms / All hypothetical Idealist civilizations are secretly micro-scale nationalisms -> follow me here for a moment. attempts to design Idealist civilizations (countries, tribes, etc) often begin at notions like "Moralities are a fundamental layer of reality", "Nothing should be done unless everyone thinks it wonderful". when these frameworks are met with any framework that builds a different kind of civilization, like Mainstream Marxism-Leninism, Juche-socialism, or Trotskyism, they try to assert that any framework that isn't basically identical with theirs is Actually an affront to universal cosmic ideals, as if they had any idea what those were, and that if you don't conform to universal cosmic ideals immediately you actively chose to be evil, and must be conspiring to take away people's Freedom and use them as tools. but if it really was the case that Ideals could unify people despite all of them wanting to smash other countable civilizations, Ideals must be unifying them into a countable civilization. that countable civilization claims to be based on the sheer description of the essence of humanity and on the concept of universal human individuals. but any actual social connection between two "universal" human individuals is a nearly tangible object. people forming into a healthy social group is inherently countable, if only because everyone in that group rejects Communism and "totalizing" country structures. every group of people attempting to be a universal humanity is first a group of people that is physical and very countable, that speaks a particular language or languages, and contains finite social links which are localized in space and not shared with other people, links which are identifiable. and the more those people all have particular Ideals that at least some countable group of people doesn't have, the more they possess a countable culture which describes the conditions of their specific countable social group, because we've established that any moment of being human and socially behaving as humans, when taking place in a specific bounded population, becomes countable. the more a set of ideals about what is supposedly universal has a history and is simultaneously bounded inside a countable patch of humanity, the more it's a national history. people can't run from the way that as soon as they form one social link with one isolated person they're potentially part of a nation. that's just how populations actually work. humanity can never be uncountable. it's always countable because it's always made of countable and tangible individuals. so it's not possible to be anticommunist and uncountably the only universal humanity at the same time. you can only do one of those. you can have the future where Bolshevism dissolves only because all ideologies have dissolved and equally become one because they've all actually accepted each other and suppressed nothing, a few reactionary ideologies excepted. but you can't have anticommunism and have that. if you choose anticommunism you ultimately divide the world into hostile nations one way or another.
     to be perfectly clear, it's not even being a nationalism that makes critical theory or anarchisms bad. center-wing nationalisms can, surprise, lead to national independence and the ability to counter empires. what makes nationalisms bad is when they explicitly form themselves around being bigoted against other things. I don't want to hear about "totalization" or "central authority" if your goal is to totalize your region and the world with anticommunism and the underlying wearer of that cloak, sheer anti-Chinese and anti-Russian/Ukrainian and anti-Vietanese and anti-Cuban sentiments. that's not simply hypocritical, that's flat out lying to people, attempting to dissolve ethnic groups, and erasing ethnic history. the more you try to pretend it's actually a way of preventing those things for other populations the worse it gets. you're just using Native Americans as pawns to justify other populations' destruction. I will not accept that they're saving the world with critical theory and "indigenuity" until Existentialists stop pulling this on multiple thousand million people in the Third World.
618. "Economics" and all social behaviors are not possible to separate / socioeconomy proposition -> (my laptop ran out of battery and I lost about three lines of prototype notes.)
618. Trotskyists are projecting / Trotskyists have to accuse other people of being bad Leninists or being "Stalinists" because they're afraid of being thrown out of movements or organizations and don't want to realize it's actually them that are the bad Leninists -> I literally dreamed this one. I woke up too early and went back to sleep and the dream was pretty boring but one of the things that happened in it was just me idly laying out this proposition. but, it's not really wrong? so I added it. I find it a little funny that like, most of the time I am not this ruthless and often I try to be nice to them and somewhat hear them out... but it looks like the filter came off and the dream was just like, so here is the basic concept unprocessed
618. Empire will never be coherent (Fanon) / According to Frantz Fanon and Homi Bhabha, empire will never actually make coherent sense if asked to justify itself -> I'm just taking a wild guess on the swatch based on what motifs it resembles. there are actual sources to dig up to properly pick the swatch color and examine the concept but I'll get to it some other time
     my first thought is this: in the way I saw it formulated, it's false. empire can come from the raw logic of physical objects colliding before they even think, it doesn't necessarily even come from conscious decisions. this isn't as relevant for frontier wars and genocides because those take effort, but when it comes to neocolonialism and capitalism seeping through whole Third World countries and draining them of people and making the people assimilate into the margins of the First World, yeah no, empire doesn't need any thought whatsoever that could possibly lead to that moment of 'why am I doing this', because there's not really any "I" "doing this" in the first place. neocolonialism performs all the tasks that colonialism asks for — stealing land entirely, exterminating other groups of people, erasing nationality, erasing national culture and identity — but it requires no active choice to do violence. there's no moment of actively choosing to stab Sans. it really just happens. it really just creates that Peter Singer situation where if you don't choose to act two objects run into each other and violence causes itself and happens automatically.
618. What is oppression? / How should oppression be defined or modeled for the purposes of assuming that any oppression leads to resistance? -> words can be used a lot of ways, but this is specifically in relation to the proposition below, "Oppression leads to resistance".
618. Oppression leads to resistance / where there is oppression there will be resistance (motif; incomplete thought) [7] -> my only problem with this is how you define what oppression is. you can't identify it just from seeing resistance. Tories can be legitimately upset about things that aren't really oppression. Trotskyists can be legitimately upset about things that... might maybe be oppression, but that they respond to in totally wrong ways. I have a lot of problems with any attempt to 'save morality and ethics from the iron grip of science' because almost any time you introduce the concept of oppression versus resistance you actually lose the ability to tell what's right and what's wrong.
     say a gay man lives in the Soviet Union in 1930. the government is not in favor of autonomous gay movements (although 'autonomous' is the intended key word in that sentence, not 'gay'). a great number of people accept and side with the government. the gay man participates in an unauthorized movement. the public responds with resistance as if hurt. if the public produces resistance in response to someone's actions and choices, does this mean the public is oppressed? did the individual in fact choose wrong? should he have fully sided with the central government on the position of defending the Soviet Union from division and external attack in order to not be oppressive and dominating? this particular scenario actually gets a lot easier if you know the historical context and that it's not actually scary to say the answer is "yes". but for most people looking at workers' states from the outside this scenario is really difficult, and it shows that a simple rule from anarchism / critical theory is quite unsuited for real situations.
618. Regarding two individuals with guns or knives as produced by the interaction of two self-contained physical reterministic mechanisms is The Scientific Mindset [8] / Dialectical materialism can only operate at the scale of exactly two people but not more -> no. this is totally wrong because it ignores the possibility that interacting populations are material objects. that would be The Scientific Mindset.
     it's funny how this is almost the perfect demonstration of the Trotsky test. border trolley problem: seems to be one immigrant or one guard, actually turns out to be 1,000 immigrants or 10,000 guards. Trotskyite conspiracy: seems to be one wrecker or one cop, actually turns out to be 100,000 wreckers or 1,000,000 citizens. problem that seems like it should be mathematically solvable when analyzed at the wrong scale turns unsolvable because the content and size of populations are both incomparable.
     methodological individualism + dialectical materialism = this.
618. Idealist reason vs Materialist reason / Cartesian reason versus Marxist-Leninist reason / 'pataphysical reason versus physical reason -> this is such a critical distinction and yet I never see anyone actually split the word "reason"/"rationality" this way. what you always see is people arguing over the definition of the word "reason" and arguing that reason "isn't really" Cartesian reason "when people use it correctly" without even explaining why not.
618. Morality is beyond Idealist reason -> technically correct, because at the end of the day almost everything is beyond Idealist reason.
618. Morality is beyond Materialist reason -> no.
618. The Right hates freedom / Conservatives maintain traditional race and gender hierarchies while opposing movements for equality -> that's a word soup. it sounds like it should mean something but it takes books and books and books to understand any of the words and then they still don't clearly mean anything.
618. A population of slaves has no leader / A population of people literally held in slavery has no leader -> one of the major holes in modern anarchism. people get hung up so much on "big greedy" and "hierarchy" that they forget that simply freeing people from society doesn't make everyone free.
618. Marxism-Leninism recognizes factions / Mainstream Marxism-Leninism recognizes Social-Philosophical Systems / Each class [subpopulation] is guided by its own ideology (Stalin 1906) [9] -> a little surprising to realize, because I don't think it fully recognizes Philosophical Systems by themselves (hypothetical Bauplans) or Social-Philosophical-Material Systems (real Bauplans).
618. methodological individualism -> so this is the fancy word real Existentialists use to describe Existentialism and act like they don't have an ideology. this is the thingy in Rothenberg's book that I called an "atomic theory of society" or "room full of helium atoms"
618. Anarchism is a form of Idealism / Anarchism is an exaggerated and mad idealism (Georges Palante 1909 / prototypical Existentialism) [10] -> I don't think this is actually controversial. give an extensive description of Idealism in the right way without saying "Idealism" and anarchists would probably just say "yeah, we believe in that"
     it's. funny and ironic that someone who is a prototypical Existentialist (supposedly not against Socialism, but strictly modeling societies as clouds of isolated individuals to the point of being anticommunist) would dislike Idealism. like, that kind of model of society is very hard to divorce from Idealism and turn material regardless of how much you want to.
618. Idealism can't actually model itself / A faction based on Idealism can't actually model itself -> I'm pretty sure Marx said this in different words.
     Anarchism is a form of Idealism + Idealism can't actually model itself = Anarchism can't actually model itself.
     ?? + ?? = Trotskyism can't actually model itself.
618. The Pure Crystal is a Black Shard (Deltarune) / The Pure Crystal is actually a Shadow Crystal concentrated or distilled until it becomes a Black Shard; it is called the Pure Crystal so it will be a unique key item that has to be obtained a specific way instead of allowing you to use regular Black Shards without learning where they came from -> what if we're all overthinking the Twisted Sword? the description seems a bit deceptive. Seam is full of despair. So how do we know that "purified by the cat" wouldn't just purify a Shadow Crystal into a Black Shard, which is being called a "Pure Crystal" for story purposes so it's a key item and we have to see how it was made? and when you combine it with the Thorn Ring you just get a Thorn Ring you can equip to Kris.
     the Twisted Sword might actually just be for players who uniquely hate Kris and want to put the Soul back in them and divert Noelle's suffering back onto them. we don't know what the sword looks like but it could be some gnarled thing totally made of spikes — a bit like the grass blade in Adventure Time where it winds around your arm and if you use the sword it's basically going to take your arm.
     the only hole in this is that there isn't a combination for Black Shard and Thorn Ring to make the Twisted Sword. maybe the lore rationalization would be that the Pure Crystal is even more concentrated than the Black Shard or something to a perfect degree, to where the Thorn Ring and the Pure Crystal are both these perfect 'elemental' representations of pain.
618. The Shadow Mantle boss is Image_Friend (Deltarune)
618. Everyone will buy a Switch 2 to play Pokémon generation 10 [11] / Large numbers of people will buy a Switch 2 to play Pokémon Winds/Waves -> this could really, really go either way. it's possible it could happen. it's also possible it won't. it would be crazy if Pokémon gen 10 was the first in the main series to get ported to another system just because people aren't buying the Switch 2. but it could happen. I feel like it wouldn't be backported to Switch 1. I think it's kind of possible it would be ported to the PS5. a bunch of people really don't like the Switch 2 but it could also be an iPhone 7 situation where many people end up with one anyway.
618. unseen force propels people forward (Pokémon) / the world has been going on from generation to generation and will keep going on; an unseen force creates life in tides and destroys in storms; driven by an unseen force people are propelled forward [12] -> this is a hell of a statement to make a Pokémon game based on. this quite literally sounds like that weird thing Slavoj Žižek said which he pulled from Ilyenkov
618. deep time
618. Communism must come because humans mirror the universe, where creation and destruction are intertwined (Ilyenkov) [13] -> 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)
618. ... creation and destruction are intertwined -> misinterpretation of Marx/Stalin? "continual motion and development ... an eternal process of destruction and creation" [14]
618. 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".
618. 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?
618. canonical statement (truth value) / statement explicitly made within fictional text (truth value)
618. Vietnam surrendered to the U.S. army / Terrified of the U.S. army, Vietnam surrendered / When faced with bombs and horrifying weapons, Vietnam gave up the fight against global empire and surrendered to the United States -> this fact is so much more powerful when you put it in the negative as a counterfactual statement. [15]
618. "Determination" is a magic power in Undertale
618. "Determination" is a magic power in Deltarune
618. "Power" is a magic power in Deltarune
618. "Pain" is a magic power in Deltarune
618. "Freedom" is a magic power in Deltarune
618. Black Panthers becoming Che Guevara -> today I read a post where somebody described 'the United States scattering the Black Panthers by bombing cities' after I think it was a different post saying 'it's Black people who end up doing all the work'. [16] and thinking about the Ironblood setting my imagination went wild thinking about history in war game or action movie terms. just the Black Panthers trying their damnedest to survive the city bombing and save the United States from itself. sounds like a pretty kickass (pronounced [awesome]) vignette story honestly
618. Trotskyists losing internal election and leaving party [17] -> wow, now there's a social process. knowing everything I know about Trotskyists I don't know how this is something I'm newly recording — it's kind of exactly how they would behave if they were just a bit better than they were in 1930. that said. I'm not sure it's something I can really insult them for per se. as any resident of the United States knows well, any republican process that operates specifically on factions conquering each other can be really frustrating. so maybe they aren't unjustified to start getting tired of their own party when it's specifically operating on a unified block of things you have to contest? I don't really know. I'm not sure if this is the usual thing that democratic centralism means or not. I thought it was usually mostly about positions on issues.
     I do find it mildly funny that they just focused on the actual processes and managed to get through an article without calling an uncontested block of delegates "Stalinist". not bad. I wish they'd do that more often. also. the usage of generic parliament terms like "loyal opposition" is... interesting, though I have no opinion on it.
618. party conducting structural renovation on empty building [18] -> I'm laughing. great metaphor
618. When everyone is talking about campism versus non-campism they've lost the plot / When everyone is talking about campism versus non-campism everything has already been pushed into the arena of international Liberal-republican politics and is not really in the hands of proletarian subpopulations or Marxist parties at all -> it's kind of cool to see Trotskyists actually attempting to talk about an international issue with substance, but I think they subtly dropped the ball yet again. [19] they're singling out campism as "Stalinist", i.e. related to Stalin's Marxism, but even if you're talking about the effects of something historically, that just doesn't really make sense when countries change so drastically in the absence of Stalin's Marxism that basically the whole playing field changes into capitalists versus capitalists and ethnicities versus ethnicities and there are no longer any good answers at all, not just a lack of good answers on how Stalin should carefully weave together with other countries to create the biggest bloc of proletarian allies. how bad was "Frelimo in Mozambique" that modern "Stalinist" parties are supposedly defending? I have no idea. one of the only things I know about Africa is that Burkina Faso is trying again after previous attempts so even if it has problems there are a few points toward supporting it. I think it's possible this blog is getting a bit too lost in details about situations with no actual good outcome within a world full of capitalists versus capitalists. to be fair, the "campists" are doing that too, but I am not sure if there's an actual good way to correct that when it's an artifact of the real world scenario, not necessarily an artifact of party policy.
618. Novels are phenomenological; their main and most effective purpose is to catalogue possible phenomena within society or otherwise without truly passing judgement on them
618. Sparks, a tale of ink (unfinished) [20] -> are these two stories connected? they feel like drafts of each other but I have no idea if that's really the case.
     the only clear bit of evidence I have is that they both released blog posts in January 2025, which seems to point to them being separate.
     so far if I had to choose one I think I like Sparks better. it may be verbose but it at least gets more of the lore out there faster and gives you something to chew on, while Spark Hearts barely got started at all.
618. Spark Hearts (unfinished) [21]
618. Is it an anarchist pipe dream to want a world where people can create concepts for fictional settings which are simply "community concepts" or "an additional thing created by me" without anyone who creates such things having necessarily created a new cycle of exclusive, closely-guarded bourgeois culture?
618. It is necessary and unavoidable to compare yourself to other people in everything that you do if you wish to be part of society -> I'm sick of people acting like "comparing yourself to other people" is something you can just stop doing. in everyday situations there is no other way to know if you're moral or if you're a bad person than to ask other people and compare yourself to other people. it's terrifying, when other people can just be cruel, but if you don't do it you don't earn other people's trust and you never get positive feedback.
     even when it comes to activities that are about individual expression you still have to study what other people are doing and understand exactly what it is they're doing and why they're doing it really well, deeply, entirely, to be able to stop doing nothing and do anything yourself. you have to understand the exact goals of it and the exact emotions it makes normal people feel and significance it has to them even if you don't feel them. you can't just have your own opinions and emotions for their own sake without first knowing what other people's are, or other people will feel like they haven't been heard and they're being cruelly overlooked. if you don't compare yourself to other people you just retread what's already been done and fail to fit yourself in socially and just sort of waste everyone's time. any particular genre of art emerges due to actual socially-linked circles of people and the needs particular groups of people have collectively, and not due to the overall space of unexplored possibilities not being filled in; the seemingly repetitive patterns that emerge in genre fiction or within a long-running media series are because large portions of people really genuinely want to see those core things and don't want them left out.
     I am actually talking generally and not about anything in particular, but maybe an example will help bring all of this around. Pokémon. if you don't understand what people who are just naïve fans of it actually want to see in Pokémon you won't be able to design a better Pokémon game, no matter how many emotions you have about what you'd like to see. you have to really put yourself in the place of somebody who unironically liked Pokémon gen 8 and wasn't swayed from gens 8 or 9 by bad performance or the limited dexes. you have to know that fan in and out and effectively be a step ahead of their own specific thinking process to predict what would actually impress them. there is a certain art to creating an unexpected or improved version of a particular thing rather than just something totally unrelated.
618. vice signaling [22]
618. Tiananmen Square "Massacre"? - The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence [23]
618. When communities are under attack, the thing that will save them is community [24] / When countable subpopulations are under attack, the thing that will save them is subpopulations miraculously coming together just because they are all subpopulations and all of them being subpopulations somehow turns them into a stationary combination of heterogeneous elements (I tried my best; not canonical) -> blue anarchism is so out of control it's now just regurgitating definitions of itself sometimes.
618. Erich Fromm -> "psychologist". claimed to be a Communist ally — named Marxism unknown. [25]
618. The alternative to socialism in one country is living in one of multiple countries -> the way Existentialists think is fundamentally different from the way Communists think. Communists want to take a country and see it improve. Existentialists want to falsely equivocate everything as being as good as everything else, at the cost that you actually have to take nationalities and rank them by which ones you think are better and then go live there — and the second cost that populations are material objects and run out of empty canvas, further ranking nationalities as better or worse according to who meets the local standards of which ones. quite literally everybody is equal but some ethnic groups are more equal than others. the nerve to put that in a book when you have no idea what concepts mean or how they apply
618. If something in a secondhand reading, retelling, summary, or analysis of a work of fiction feels controlling to a commenter, then it actually is immoral (feels like domination; feels bigoted; critical theory adjacent proposition; Kantian ethics adjacent proposition) / If Mr. J posts a fan theory that unintentionally sets a story up to be coded as an incestuous relationship, but one thread commenter out of 200 feels unsafe or like the retold narrative is setting up Loci of Hierarchical Control and Domination, this one person's action is immoral with respect to all of society or all human beings / If Ms. Y posts an analysis of a narrative that claims it contains a metaphor for rape and 20 thread commenters out of 200 feel unsafe at the concept of the metaphor meaning that, regardless of whether the analysis is accurate to the influences of the work, Ms. Y's action is immoral with respect to all of society or all human beings -> internet posts really shed light on how Kantian ethics just fundamentally doesn't make a lot of sense. so you created a society with a social contract. where does "society" actually begin and end? what people does it actually control? what people is it obligated to listen to and take orders from? how is it not countably plural? how is it not the case that "society" in a Kantian framework is just a bunch of little clustered islands that arbitrarily agree on the same morality and formed through the people that can tolerate those particular rules staying there and people that hate those rules and like other rules going elsewhere to their own rules island?
     Kant has this notion that reason is just this one thing and being moral and being rational aren't different even though his notion of morality seems to be intuitive rather than logical and clashes against what I would think reason is, and I am always at such a loss for how Kant thought that the concept of falling back to whatever is morally intuitive would ever unite people into a single society rather than multiple societies.
618. Rosa Luxemburg was not an anarchist -> it's frustrating that anarchists still believe she is, and that people still have to be told this.
     to be fair: Rosa Luxemburg was a bit of a sloppy Leninist who was okay with workers solving the whole shape of society and did kind of condone "Zinovievism". so, y'know, pretty much like Trotsky. it is wild to me that 'matching Trotskyism' is not enough to dissuade anarchists from thinking someone is an anarchist
618. Rosa Luxemburg thought she believed in Leninism -> I am actually not totally sure on this one... but when "the three L's" exists as an expression I mean I think other people thought she did. are they wrong? is everyone just projecting which Marxism or anarchism they actually want Rosa Luxemburg to be?
618. small-scale internationalism
618. CIA-funded union [26] -> the United States has a very big problem with hegemony politics and Tories carrying out hegemony politics. what many people don't acknowledge is the real mechanism is that there is a mountain of capital because the United States is a First World country, and that mountain of capital comes down on anything the United States wants to quietly influence. usually hidden all the way over in other countries, but sometimes inside the United States. capital often doesn't confront workers directly, it does this horrifying thing of hollowing out people's allies and turning them into puppets that can't be ignored but can't be trusted. on the big scale and on the small scale it's hegemony politics with a mountain of capital on top of one side.
     the really frustrating part is that the great majority of blue anarchists in the United States recognizes hegemony politics but fundamentally doesn't understand the concept of a huge avalanche of capital. that isn't created by values or attitudes or "domination". it's created by simply existing and existing and existing and some people building up more money. which means you really can't stop it by focusing on The State or The Cops, capital is properly anarchic, and yet while it doesn't belong to any one faction it can also become an avalanche that comes down all at once and turns unions into nazis. the only thing you can do is survive that. you fundamentally have to survive. you fundamentally have to avoid Zinovievization, you have to avoid somebody cracking the walnut, you have to avoid the whole walnut being eaten and devoured, or you're just a genocide victim, full stop. how is it that anarchists are all about countable cultures and "communities" but they never give the correct answer on self-genocide?
618. Gini coefficient [27] [28]
618. central contradiction of China [29] -> this is a floating label that applies to whatever major issue is the most important currently. sort of the way "central contradiction" has always been used, but just a little different in that it's inside the context of Deng Xiaoping Thought and the specific kinds of five-year plans that happen there
618. Communism (empire) / Communism (forcing one population to be part of another when it would prefer to be independent) -> one of the rare but very uncomfortable overlaps between genuine charcoal-anarchism and Toryism. this concept that a bunch of individuals clustered together has a group individual-will applying to the group as an object and the structure or central government imposed on it by a larger population is the improper abuse of a living self-aware entity, stomping over its emotions — and also, that this conflict is a defining feature of Communism. for anarchists this just means it is a fundamental flaw baked into the definition of Bolshevism though not necessarily the objective of it. for Tories, who sometimes just plain don't know anything, this means Bolshevism is founded on and created for the purpose of sapping away Free Will and only either big nationalism or teeny tiny local nationalism can fix it.
618. The Left hijacked schools to introduce a Communist agenda [30] -> the key to this proposition is to realize that "Communism" doesn't refer to Bolshevism or Stalin or Mao or like, anything that you'd think it refers to. "Communism" refers to maybe the Black Panther Party specifically, not because they're Marxist but almost specifically because they're Black and they took local action against racism. remember, Tories don't understand the ideological content of Communism at all, so they can't define it based on its actual content, they can only define it based on people they don't like being Communists. step one is to identify Communists as never being your friends. step two is to construct a confusing argument about how their existence is an infringement on humanity and almost on biology and ecology because their ideology is grounded in slurping up Freedom and decision-making and creating a decision "asymmetry". step three is to turn vast numbers of decent people into racists because nobody likes the limitation of Freedom — even if you inform them that people are talking about it for racist purposes they'll still turn around and say "okay but it was still a good idea". humans are addicted to freedom and have almost zero tolerance to anything attacking it once they notice the thing and they just don't care. god I hate Existentialism.
618. Reconstruction is Communism / Reconstruction was basically Bolshevism -> once again, one of those concepts you laugh at when you see it, until you decode it and see what it's really saying. this is an anarcho-Tory proposition. by Communism, they somewhat literally mean "violation of anarchist values". they're working with the Existentialist concept of generalized dictators, and they are totally incapable of defining what Bolshevism actually is and why anyone would create it, so they think it's actually deliberately created for the purpose of taking away Freedom and creating suffering, as nonsensical as that is if you have read a fucking (pronounced redacted) history book. starting from that "understanding", they begin putting together an argument that .
618. empty room of wonders [31]
618. Trotskyist pyramid scheme [32] -> one of the funniest phrases I've heard all week. it's just a little bit terrible that this motif applies to the "IV" code, not the "Zv" code and it's still quite an accusation. sometimes there is just no saving Trotskyism
618. There is an inherent asymmetry between decision-making bodies and the people subject to decisions that makes states unstable [33] -> the surface claim here has a certain amount of logic to it. what I don't really like is how if you believe this you sort of inherently fall into baking people into countable Cultures and racializing them. maybe that will sound wild to people who are new to meta-Marxism. but a population has to be materially united by something to be a population. a state is the easy way; if people are united by a state, or at least a thoroughly Materialist understanding of a population as might hypothetically replace a state in the future, it's easy to be anti-essentialist about who is part of the population. if a society is "decentralized" then, like, social connections and cultural traditions are inherently going to be a big part of defining its shape and how or if it fragments. and if that's the case it sort of becomes a game of building a superior culture, just while ostensibly not being bigoted against anything except Third World countries' national independence.
618. A revolution cannot immediately abolish authority in that it contains authority (Engels) [34] -> fairly classic proposition.
     also might be good for the purposes of defining what "Zinovievizing" is: it involves the collision of two separate Social-Philosophical Systems / "crabs" which can't resolve their problems peacefully because resolving them requires colliding and colliding might bring violence.
618. When a council meets the individual members are not exercising authority [35] -> this one would seem to apply to the way people talk about the US Congress, making me think it's actually blue. but it would also seem to be false in both cases as soon as you think of how upset people get at having rust-tinted congressmen. every one of them has a small amount of authority as the overall Congress has a bigger amount. that's why hegemony politics is so tempting: to control that authority.
618. anti-filtration -> the motif in anarchist writings or news events of groups of people distinctly doing the opposite of filtration — attempting to join together while distinctly disregarding each group's principles and pretending they don't matter whatsoever to the point that the joining of the two groups might or might not create a toxic or dangerous relationship but it is still asserted to be necessary and good on the principle of overcoming divisions and becoming closer and more connected just for the sake of it.
     this motif is not synonymous with "Rhizome", due to that Item representing usages of "rhizome" in schizoanalyst texts where it was originally created. basically: Rhizome - case of - anti-filtration
618. Liberal-republicanism Zinovievizes countries in the same sense that Trotskyism Zinovievizes countries, despite the difference of wanting to replace their content with blue content instead of orange content
618. Factories have superseded small proprietors (Engels) [36] -> this was definitely true from about 1870 to 1930. but somewhere around maybe 1960 weird stuff happened in First-World countries to make everything go the opposite direction. it wasn't just outsourcing. this is another process that happened after outsourcing and the replacement of factories by retailers. and it seems weirdly correlated with an explosion of anarchists and blue and charcoal anarchisms. I am not fully sure if blue anarchists actually caused it or not. the only thing I know is that the sheer amount that they justify everything that's happened is annoying.
618. Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to destroying the power loom to return to the spinning wheel (Engels) [37] -> thank you Engels. I often feel like I'm going crazy because nobody sees this and it seems like everybody actually does want to go from the factory back to the spinning wheel, only to end up having to work just as long selling Artisanal products through Jeff Bezos.
618. AI is no more reliable than an undergrad entering in unproven conjectures on a wiki / LLMs are no more reliable than somebody with an undergrad level of knowledge in a subject at most entering in untested hypotheses or conjectures on a wiki -> this would take time to test by picking a few propositions that editors are supposed to reason through and then an LLM claimed to be a good one is supposed to reason through, but it would technically be testable. that is the real beauty of this project. I enter in "stupid" propositions all the time. this project doesn't exactly claim to be so much better and smarter than an LLM, but it doesn't have to, because all it really has to do is demonstrate that LLMs are much worse and humans doing non-binary logic are adequate.
     the funniest thing here is imagining coming up with a problem that current language models genuinely wouldn't be familiar with because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability threshold and isn't already in a bunch of ingestable articles, and really struggling against the "AI" to get it to understand it. I remember when just out of curiosity while I was waiting for the wiki to come back up, I went to the only LLM I use which is duckduckgo's that they somehow thought was a good idea to put in search results (ChatGPT 4o-mini/5). every time I test that model against a task it literally always disappoints and hardly ever gives an answer to the question; it's like it can really only handle summarizing the search results and nothing else. so, out of curiosity I asked it to define meta-Marxism and explain how it's used to create an MDem. it got everything wrong. it hasn't been reading this wiki, for better or worse. it sort of correctly guessed the connotations of the words in context, notably v5 got "meta-" basically right, but it only got "molecular" half right, coming up with a bunch of stuff that sounded like critical theory or anarchism. it also thought "MDem" stood for "meta-democracy" — which was a decent guess but no. it couldn't make the leap to guessing that the "M" actually contained a description of what making things "meta" would do to them qualitatively (molecularize), that there was literally a hint in the question that it just wasn't on the right "MatPat" level to be able to predict. (Just think of how Deltarune fans were only given the letter C and a significant number of people managed to guess it stood for "Carol". it's possible.) I would have actually been impressed if it had been able to reason through the word "meta-Marxism" and the historical context leading up to the probable reasons for creating that concept so well that it guessed by chance that out of three or so possible expansions M stood for molecular. but it didn't. it had this unique inability to realize that if you wanted to improve Marxism you'd be doing it to solidify the grasp of Materialism over Marxism and keep the Idealism out. which, like... for a human, if you'd only read Marx you would have enough information to see that "reducing" things to arrangements of material objects was a key theme; one of the major differences from Hegel to Marx was that Marx was always tying ideologies and models back to the material arrangements of objects that produced them. it almost would have to have read a lot of Western-Marxist texts to forget that. (I say that neutrally, but also from experience, because as much as I have nothing bad to say about him I know Vidak has done that sometimes — read all the Western-Marxism, didn't quite pick out the emphasis on making everything into material objects in meta-Marxism. I guess this nuance is just much too hard for AI.)
     the only good thing about ChatGPT is it offers this weird lens into exactly how people can be dense and fail to understand what you're saying. it's almost a good model of stupidity, in a really weird way. I still refuse to use it as a test reader until I figure out how to run it locally and it has to either complete on limited RAM or crash my computer. at that point it could be fun to see how badly it understands my book chapters but yeah, I will put no verbatim generated text on this wiki. not even on pages about testing the AI. you only get manual summaries of the stupid, which funny enough would probably waste your time less by getting to the point much faster. you've seen how I write, rambling wildly, and yet, like, you know how in only a couple sentences LLMs get seemingly nowhere, they actually waste space.
     ok ok I am done "bragging", I will actually avoid that on the Ontology pages. but just imagine how much ChatGPT would struggle to solve the simplest true/false problems. I feel like even if you asked it a fully verifiable question that just isn't usually asked prior to meta-Marxism, that's explained in multiple existing sources but actually requires synthesizing propositions instead of purely treasure-hunting, it would absolutely sputter; you could break down the question carefully into a lot of smaller propositions and it still wouldn't get easier.
618. The Lattice model does not describe the United States -> the more that events unfold the more colossally confused I am. especially every time I read more about the things that are supposed to explain what I don't understand. literally nothing makes sense. mainstream Marxism-Leninism blatantly doesn't match some things and you see people improperly apply statements like "the United States is mostly proletariat, all the businesses are consolidated, it's not going backwards into big businesses shattering and being replaced with a bunch of tiny businesses" - no. but every time I read about anarchism nothing makes any sense, it never gets to making any more sense than it did before. anarchists are constantly going on about how the United States will never work or function because it's too racist and you just have to tear it apart or run away from it. they manage to vaguely understand the concept that Liberal-republicanism isn't defeating "fascism". but then all the protests are about everybody sort of spontaneously standing together across the exact lines of oppression that makes things not work? the exact shit that anarchists tell people not to expect — sometimes vehemently like you're a bad person to even think it would work — just kind of unpredictably happens after consistently not happening and not happening and not happening. I don't know what to believe or how to understand any of this.
618. Why are the most taxing kinds of work paid the least? (most damaging kinds of work; theme in Marx) / "The longer, more painful and more disgusting the work they are given, the less they are paid" (Buret) [38] -> there are going to be multiple reasons. Marx pointing out the pressures to pay as little as possible and profit as much as possible is one correct answer. but I think there is another answer: the "easier" jobs that get paid more are simply scarcer and harder to get. many of these people are lesser experts at something, and as a commodity it takes time to produce them. some people will try to spin Careerist salaries as some kind of respect, but I think there are much colder processes determining them — Careerists are capable of sending labor through the dragon process to make it uniquely rare and more costly, thus circumventing having to do any actual class struggle through their sheer process of building up themselves as greater wealth. it's easy to point to how common or "low cost" the things produced at low-paying jobs are, but it's always an unsatisfying answer when really, in comparison to workers only getting "what's logical" the owner getting a bunch of extra pay looks quite like an arbitrary social construct that if extended out could fix everything. but if you look the other direction up to rare things, things start to make more sense. to some extent common things are valued relative to rare things. gold in particular was a currency at times and people used it as a comparison against more common things like silver or cloth or eggs. fiat currency is still a little bit rare in a certain sense that only a small group of people gets to carefully decide when to print it. (I still have a video dancing around in my head that claimed fiat currency has never been successful when like..... okay, but a bunch of countries are measuring their own currency by the U.S. dollar, and that's a fiat currency. so what's up with that? it'd seem like fiat currency is actually doing pretty good right now.)
618. A many-to-one relationship is not a function (algebra) -> I was always told this in grade school but I don't see why it has to be true, and f(x,y) = z can't be considered a function. it's definitely different from single-variable functions but I feel like the better way to distinguish these graphs is just by what kinds of coordinate systems they use, or two-dimensional versus three-dimensional.
618. Taking any action is gambling / Whenever you take any action as an isolated individual you are gambling -> people are somewhat predisposed to believe in Free Will, and hate to give it up. this is one of the only good retorts that should make any reasonable person pause and go "oh, that's terrifying".
     Individual actions contribute to the future + You can't predict The Subject = Taking any action is gambling.
     Individual actions contribute to the future + No point in space can measure the state of any other point from a distance that would need to be accessed faster than the speed of light (general? relativity, Einstein) = Taking any action is gambling.
618. The existence of Free Will would make you responsible for other people's actions, always having to steer around them, apologize for them, or commandeer them, even though you do not have the power to predict them or replace them with the ones you would prefer -> any attempt to save Free Will that denies this essentially crumbles into arguing for non-absolute determinism. if you are not responsible for other people's actions, then up to 300 million things happen every hour that you aren't in control of, and the future you will have to face tomorrow morning is essentially mostly determined by factors other than you. the thing most people miss in discussions of Free Will is that physicists' determinism isn't scary, and gives you more control than you'd otherwise have. if your future is determined then you can predict it and survive it better, because absolute determinism does not apply and only clusters of things are determined relative to each other. there's a little extra complexity that comes from separate clusters actively trying to outwit each other, but that's the only real problem left.
     Individual actions contribute to the future + Taking any action is gambling = this. this + ?? = Free will is incompatible with the golden rule
618. The golden rule can be formulated in the third person without assuming that anyone has Free Will: the golden rule is an overall system-wide process that is in effect when individuals do not behave differently toward others than they expect others to behave toward them in order to create a single coherent society -> when you define the golden rule this way, it becomes clear that there are situations where you can predict that people will stop following it; only heading off those situations will actually cause the state of people following it.
     people seem to sort of understand this when it comes to the Trotskyite conspiracy, often proposing remedies to prevent it albeit usually misguided ones, but they totally don't understand this when it comes to anarchists or Black Panthers stepping away from the United States, even though the motivations are similar. those people aren't just shearing off into a new society and dissenting against society, those are evil enemy terrorists! what's the difference? what's the real, substantial difference between Trotskyites and Black Panthers? for a Tory at their particular level of understanding different ideologies and the development of plural societies there shouldn't be any difference.
618. Is wanting to commit suicide abnormal or expected? -> we often assume it's abnormal but really at a certain point we're just pathologizing the desire to leave society and create a new society or go to another country. this is the second time I'm basically going to therapy for Communism and non-patriotism, and I'm tired.
     the thing that really gets me is that Deleuze was trying to solve this kind of thing but ultimately, like, he doesn't get out of the paradigm of psychology, he's still just producing psychology, and it's still going to pathologize forms of society that it isn't equipped to model.
618. Nationalities and ethnic groups are basically the same thing -> this is one of those propositions that sounds really weird and out of the blue at first, but I do have a stack of careful reasoning as to why this might be true.
     one thing that is notable is how the people of the Soviet Union did not merge into a single nationality despite some people thinking they eventually would — in line with, if not necessarily identical to, some of the earliest ideas way back in the "Trotskyist" period of Leninism circa 1906 that national borders and divisions between nations were arbitrary and imposed. or in line with some anarchisms. it would be easy for a certain rather-specific kind of anarchist to say that the 14 populations of the Soviet Union merging into one heterogeneous but united nationality was part of the natural process of people "Rhizoming" together and forming anarchy.
     another thing that is notable is Brexit. a lot of people constantly talk about "Whiteness" or "The West" as if all Europeans have truly become a single giant ethnic group regardless of where they are in the world, but incidents like Brexit should cast doubt on that because, for good reasons or bad reasons, Brexit was a step toward separating English people from a neatly unified larger civilization of Europeans or White people. in the same vein, Northern Ireland still acts as a dividing line between populations of English and Irish people, and there had been a division in the United States between Irish people and people that amounted to Germans or Dutch people, etc., largely along Catholic versus Protestant lines. ultimately nobody truly cares about the fine details of religion, Irish people and non-Irish people simply start out as separate coherent populations that mostly notice their physical separation through things like religious sects, and the sheer separation itself invites conflict.
     this isn't really to deny the fact that nationalities can contain multiple ethnic groups inside them — instead, the framing here is that ethnic groups can easily contain other ethnic groups. this also isn't to deny that some national borders such as in Africa hardly even function as nationalities whatsoever, and are something of a featureless bag of disconnected ethnic groups. the purpose of reducing the concepts of nationality and ethnic group into one thing is this: people like to dance around topics just because they sound nasty on the surface, like the concept that identifiable deterministic processes outside the individual can lead ethnic groups to fight each other over territory or government or (non)membership in each other as ethnic groups. they'd rather believe that racism can be willed away than that there exists any specific set of conditions where it's "inevitable". denying this sweeps away the real problem of large groups of people not wanting to associate with each other for human reasons, just because the two groups have a reciprocal bad relationship, and in turn, the possibility of addressing or healing these bad relationships. when anarchists are always trying to make things into lines of flight and Freedom and things automatically merging and essentially all of humanity being made of ethnic groups and nested sets of ethnic groups rather than truly being made of socio-economic theories or politics, we all ought to be mature enough to actually examine and analyze the possibility all populations are made of relationships between ethnic groups. statements like "Trotsky tried to break apart the Soviet Union and work with other countries supposedly slated to transition to Trotskyism because he was not well suited to be part of Soviet ethnicities and would have preferred to become part of a different ethnic group" are genuinely interesting propositions that offer an opportunity to see the world in a less adversarial way where no population or faction is actually the good guy or the bad guy; it does a lot to muddy the overall worldwide story of humanity when we unnecessarily try to de-racialize things just to fit some preconceived notion of anti-discrimination laws and constitutional amendments inside a specific Liberal republic.
     anyway... because I'm a little afraid that I've never known what ethnic group means or is formally defined as in the first place, in my more serious writings that are aiming to become "finished" I only say "countable culture".
618. Don't talk about "systemic" -> a lot of people genuinely don't know what to do when faced with the concept of "systemic" because they are predisposed to reduce it back down to how individual actions stack up to "systemic" behavior and push for individual remedies. even something like an anti-discrimination law is ultimately an individual remedy because as it's written it expects individuals to simply follow it.
618. Don't talk about "means of production" -> this is a genuinely confusing concept to anarchists so it really has to be completely spelled out.
618. The prisoner's dilemma becomes a zero-sum game if both players are gambling to win a profit -> people often say the solution to the prisoner's dilemma of neither player confessing is "obvious". but that's the anarchist solution to the problem. in a society of Existentialists, most people are going to respond to real-world prisoners' dilemmas as if they're gambling and trying to win against the other people.
618. Every investor is a gambler [39]
618. Maximum risk brings maximum reward (probability) / Given a particular kind of probability game where the integral of all payouts is positive, the biggest wager brings the biggest winnings / Maximizing profit guarantees total loss (correction) [40] -> it's easy to show this is a stupid thing to do, and yet... it's kind of an orthodox way to run capitalism, and basically what's currently being done with the money that goes into AI companies.
     Maximum risk brings maximum reward + prisoner's dilemma = The prisoner's dilemma becomes a zero-sum game if both players are gambling.
618. The subject takes philosophy out of Idealism into empiricism / The subject takes philosophy out of essences into empiricism (Kant) [41] -> congrats Kant, you just discovered a material model of positivism and solipsism. The Subject really doesn't permit empirical observations. it only describes how we created Idealism in the first place.
618. All of reality actually lives in any particular individual's unconscious mind [42] / (9k)
618. A "psychology of the mind" can't actually model real individuals / A "psychology of the mind" can't actually model real individuals because real individuals can't be universalized (Deleuze; blue-anarchist framing) [43]
618. psychology of affections / a psychology of the mind's affections [44] -> I do not know what this is supposed to mean, but, the concept that "a psychology of the mind" can't capture the differences between individuals? yeah. I think cognitive science is fine but I am so tired of Lacanianism. go ahead and destroy popular psychology in the places where it's clearly not basing itself in science, the philosophical parts of it are weird and insular and bourgeoisie-specific and aren't even doing anyone any good. as far as this one thing goes Deleuze might be wired actually
618. Social contracts emerge at stacks of capital -> one of the best responses to weird anarcho-Tory theories of capitalism, the Heidegger types, that try to posit a conspiracy by some nebulous "they" to "trap everyone in cities and Algorithms". reply that society is created by Them and every notion of civilization and morality forms around capitalists. as long as capitalism exists it's only a slight exaggeration. it shouldn't even be objectionable to a lot of right-Liberals and Tories. god though, my "favorite" is when you get a person who sometimes rants about the genius of "entrepreneurs" but then also at other times sinks into conspiracy theories about how "they" maliciously brought in modernity. who do you people think "They" are???
618. getting rid of politics to create anarchy / blue anarchism as silent destruction of political processes -> this is one of those core Existentialist / blue-anarchist ideas that defines what it is and especially separates it from Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republicanism believes in political processes like a constitution and a presidency existing, and having periodic elections; blue anarchism doesn't believe in any of that. ostensibly to keep from disrupting those things and letting those things tear each other apart, but in reality, nothing is complementary or separable to the extent both Liberal-republicans and blue-anarchists like to believe, and when you attempt to teach piles and piles of bizarrely specific areas of society to "do their job" and not get involved in politics for long enough, what you create is a world where everybody is trapped in blue anarchism for much of their waking hours interacting with any particular part of society and nobody has any time to think about democracy, and potentially, democracy just flat out dies because stupidity filters up from the vast body of regular people who aren't allowed to think about democracy to get rid of candidates with actual policies and produce uniquely uninformed democracy-hating candidates that run in elections. you can't neatly separate amorphous and molecularized theories of society, any more than you can separate classical physics from quantum physics; for any two, the molecularized theory is generally going to win out and take over the whole country up to the big scales, whether it's based on tiny person-to-person rejections and Filamentism or whether it's based on large business territories aggressively chunk-competing against the rest of society. it's in this sense that center-Liberals and Tories sort of really are distinct ideologies, purely because they contain different inner Bauplans. center-Liberal allies may genuinely believe that individuals cutting off relationships and forming new relationships is the primary engine that creates society (whether those individuals are CEOs or not), and right-Liberal or Tory allies may genuinely believe that stacks of capital or business territories or Christian morality and allegiance or non-allegiance to a code of morality is the primary engine that creates society.
     a lot of "apolitical people" in the United States are just flat-out conservatives full stop, and committed racists full stop. the reason they become this way is that they have no idea they are analyzing the most basic processes of society through faulty models of, for instance, stacks of wealth being related to nothing else, and all interactions in society running on morality rather than morality appearing as a band-aid solution to underlying amoral processes. the ability to actually analyze and re-examine molecularized models of society might make all the difference at some time in the future. if nothing else Liberal republics would actually get accurate political party colors and be forced to reckon with some five or something major parties at local levels. of course this is much more powerful in the hands of Marxists, who would become able to theoretically comprehend conflicts or relations between two separate national populations which are transitioning into different Marxisms or anarchisms, even wonky strawberry or orange or blue "Marxisms".
618. contradiction between media products being shared congregating points of "A Community" that must be tolerated for the purpose of tolerating other individuals at the congregating point, and exclusive individual expressions of directors or corporations that must be judged on their ability to have produced the product well and to deserve their position on a particular social graph node within society
618. In the future the United States will transition to a system without workers where individuals run businesses using AI -> descriptive prediction based on current patterns, not endorsement.
618. Bolshevism mustn't contain narratives (critical theory) / Bolshevism is bad because it consists of narratives, and social transition can strictly only happen through tearing apart all narratives -> I have never liked this kind of thinking because like, "I'm Uyghur and China is oppressing me" is a narrative, "I'm Black and there needs to be more minority representation in social structures" is a narrative, "I'm transgender and I first experienced gender dysphoria at 7 years old, not at 30 when you claim I made it up" is a narrative, not to mention "The Soviet Union needs to maintain its government and border so it doesn't become a colony" being a narrative despite everybody already not wanting to believe it. it's trivially easy to not believe narratives, and as such, it's trivially easy to decide to be racist and never listen to critical theorists. all Lived Experiences are narratives! it makes no sense to me that it's popular both to constantly talk about Lived Experiences and constantly talk about destroying narratives. those two things absolutely don't go together. and out of the two, Lived Experiences are actually the better choice because if you accept a bunch of individualized narratives they can all be tied together into a unified picture of reality without logical contradiction. Lived Experiences allow for creating a meta-ontological picture of reality even though they will present material contradictions between individuals and don't necessarily make it easy.
618. All narratives are biographies / All narratives are lived experiences -> there are enough instances where this is false to mark it inaccurate.
618. All lived experiences are narratives -> this is different from the converse implication that all narratives are real or imagined Lived Experiences. I think that out of the two, this statement is truer. It may depend on what things you think belong in the category of narrative, but to me a narrative is defined by ontologies, interactions, and series of events; narratives are histories, in the physics sense of the formation of time, that happen either alongside a specific point of view or from a bird's-eye view where it simply happens. narratives can be told from within a particular factional ideology, like a Trotskyist newspaper or a bible story (Christianity) or a PBS news report against Venezuela funded by the Freeman foundation (this will be on my wall of shame forever). narratives can also be told from no particular ideology, like an account of the first two billion years of life on earth. meta-Marxism hopes to make it possible for historical accounts and accounts of possible futures to come close to this level of telling events while supporting no particular ideology, in ways that Liberal-republican and blue-anarchist frameworks currently absolutely do not.
618. It's possible to overthrow White supremacists -> this seems like a widespread notion these days among like, everyone. Gramscians or Black Panther allies, anarchists, critical theorists especially, "anti-fascists", even the occasional center-Liberal. but it's never made any coherent sense to me because it's like.... what the hell is that transition supposed to look like physically. throwing 150 million White supremacists into the ocean? Marxism makes sense because you can describe a transition to Bolshevism as scattered points of workers assembling into a Lattice, practicing filtration to find good representatives, cross-linking through crimson structures that create production or survival, building a republic, and putting everyone under jurisdiction of the republic. I can tell you almost exactly what a Communist revolution looks like except for specific clashes between the proletarian Lattice and bourgeois allies that are historically-contingent events; "there will be some" is what's easiest to say. but when everyone is going on about racism and prejudices as "a revolution" but a lot of the discussion is treating it as intangible Ideas and Attitudes and Narratives I just have no idea what people are even saying. are they imagining a charcoal-anarchist Lattice? what physical object are they imagining? I never know what object is supposed to form during the transition to post-capitalism (or "post-racism" I guess) if everything is so immaterial. how do you not just get stuck in an infinite loop of thinking the transition has happened but everything actually being the same? if the end result is physically the same as the start then how can it be a revolution?
     now, if people want to talk about reconstructing the Third-Worldiest parts of the United States, that makes physical sense to me as something that could happen. but I don't understand how it makes sense to call that a "revolution". it doesn't involve the Black subpopulation (for instance) forming a new country or union republic, which is what the second definition of the Russian Revolution would be: the formation of the 14 SSRs. in a lot of blue-anarchists' minds it doesn't even involve changing the United States republic at all. so to me it's like, what the hell do people think the word revolution means? the only thing I can sort of get from ingesting way too much Existentialism is that people think the concept of Freedom is somehow core to the definition of Revolution; regime change or a change in the internal structure of countries doesn't define Revolution, and somehow Freedom itself defines that. schizoanalysts believe something a little like that, which is why they terribly misuse the word "revolution" and sprinkle it everywhere as a metaphor.
     god I hate the misuse of the word revolution. I know it's absolutely everywhere and I can't shove it back in the bag but I wish it hadn't happened, because it leads to the most insulting mockeries of the concept of revolution as people blatantly denounce revolutions and then go around lightly using it as a metaphor. ??? why. why would you use something totally forbidden in your society or "Community" as a metaphor like that. if Bolshevism is really such a great injustice and revolution itself is so bad that the French Revolution shouldn't have been one... throwing around the word revolution is the equivalent of going around saying "wow, you really committed genocide on those roof leaks" or "right, no information got out before the trailer. she's such a good project manager, she pulls off regular pizzagates" or "man, what a great article, you really crucified him". why the hell do United States people talk this way casually saying "a revolution" "revolutionized" when to many people that's one of the greatest sins you can commit and it's not considered good at all. it's not even like nonbelievers vulgarizing expressions like "the damned" when somebody else once took them seriously; this is something a great number of people agree on regardless of religion and demographic so it doesn't even make sense. maybe one day by cataloguing enough motifs and traditional philosophy books I'll finally understand the reason why. for now... I think I've just come up with a pretty good B-side chapter idea. a cluster of critical theorists spanning a few universities finally bans the word revolution from public discourse leading simultaneously to some people willingly spreading around some rather confusing informational materials and to a lot of confusion. hmm, maybe that one could be a second forum thread chapter, a philosophy forum is one place that could happen.
     It's possible to overthrow White supremacists + ?? = The United States destroying other countries' governments is a revolution.
618. The United States destroying other countries' governments is a revolution
     The United States destroying other countries' governments is a revolution + ?? = color revolution.
618. as smart as a glass of water -> appears in: MDem 5.3.
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. chat plays Undertale
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. T/F?: Co-ops are Western-Marxism / Are co-ops strawberry Marxism? / Do co-ops lead to realizing strawberry Marxism?
618. 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?
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. Japanese counter word humor [45] -> 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".
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. 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?
618. Stalin's government leading the country to rapidly build up heavy industry and Deng Xiaoping Thought are basically the same thing
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. 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
618. 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
618. 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.
618. "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.
618. "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.
618. "Everyone" includes everyone (national) / "Everyone" includes every possible person in a country in the current historical period -> the typical Existentialist tends to stop here.
618. "Everyone" includes everyone (subpopulational) / "Everyone" includes every possible person in a highly specific subpopulation -> and this is where Tories stop.
618. 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.
618. Walk away from corporations, and you lose the opportunity to have caring co-workers [46]
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. enough scientific ramblings, now back to lived experience / "enough of the stupid scientific bullshit (pronounced redacted), I need to talk about myself now" [47] -> 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
618. 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.
618. series (oppositional combination of heterogeneous elements) [48] -> 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.
618. Proudhon's method was similar to poststructuralism [49] -> 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.
618. 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. [50]
     it's like they're building the most cursed Lattice model imaginable.
618. 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". [51] 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.
618. Democracy is inherently postcolonial -> I think a lot of blue anarchists read Kant and then started thinking this. no. it isn't.
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. Non-circularity brings Calvinism / If systems weren't circular, they would change in an absolutely-deterministic way
618. Idiocracy (2006)
618. Idiocracy is less horrifying than the real 2010-2024 United States
618. 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.
618. therians and autism
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. Password (2024) / Password (furry visual novel) [52]
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. blocking Donald Trump from taking office using section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment [53] [54]
618. States can't disqualify a presidential candidate under the Fourteenth Amendment [55] -> 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. The Long Transition Toward Socialism and the End of Capitalism (Torkil Lauesen) [56]
618. Unequal Exchange: Past, Present and Future (Torkil Lauesen) [57]
618. Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism? (Gabriel Rockhill) [58]
618. Western Marxism: How it was born, how it died, how it can be reborn (Domenico Losurdo) [59]
618. How the World Works: The story of human labor from prehistory to the modern day (Paul Cockshott) [60]
618. The Global Perspective: Reflections on imperialism and resistance (Torkil Lauesen) [61]
618. Socialism With Chinese Characteristics: A guide for foreigners (Roland Boer) [62]
618. Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance (Roland Boer) [63]
618. Class Struggle: A Political and Philosophical History (Domenico Losurdo) [64]
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.