Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q56,76

Main entry

5676. Q5676/Q56,76

      liberal democracy

      (motif) / democratization of human life through becoming more modern and getting good modern values that cause people within some country to build constitutions and codify long lists of human rights and throw out ideas such as the idea of attempting to rule people as a king, the idea of government acting as an organ for Catholics or Protestants to ban each other's representatives or churches or publications, and the idea of codifying chattel slavery instead of giving everyone the right to have legislators and cast a ballot for president ->
      

      this particular motif has very specific connotations. it doesn't refer to Liberal republics as countable countries; it isn't a type of country. it's a strictly Idealist look at Liberal-republicanism that totally eschews the idea of material objects existing beyond individual human beings, like, a republic is not a material object, country borders are not a material object, kings and royal palaces are not a material object, Congress is not a material object, the presidency is not a material object, human rights are not defined as material processes, Catholic or Protestant churches and the process of forming a congregation is not material, publishing houses are not material objects, the Confederacy is not a material object, slave plantations are not material objects, polling places are not material objects. nothing that Congress or the constitution deals with is actually considered as a material object. everything is considered as just good ideas and bad ideas and mandatory ideas. and it's infuriating at times. because it's like, we literally built our country on thoughtcrime. we built the constitution on defining parts of government committing thoughtcrimes and times we're allowed to force the government not to think certain ideas. but crazy as it sounds, I think this is how a lot of people actually see things. I think to most people, "liberal democracy" and "liberalism" are truly uncountable. there is no concept in people's minds of these things being material transformations that happen to material objects the way (meta-)Marxism conceives of countries. there is a certain slice of Liberal-republican theory taught in grade-school age materials and the media in general that isn't even Liberal-republicanism, but is actually Existentialist models, Existentialism onto Liberalism.
      and in the end it's kind of disgusting because there is no way for it to not be "colonial". there is no way you can build a society built on mandatory and prohibited ideas and not literally bake prejudices into it such that prejudices are normalized and everybody will have at least one — "nobody is allowed to think about being king" is a prejudice, even if it seems innocuous and beneficial when we only look at enforcement. and this is what enables Liberal-republicanism to have such toxic prejudices against workers' states. it's one big pile of prejudices from the beginning and it's never been anything else.

No.

5882. Monarchism never ended -> the claim that because monarchism was not actually about installing a designated ruler, and was really about unifying multiple populations into one population, Liberal-republicanism did not abolish monarchism, and only elaborated on it.
      this sounds absolutely nuts if you have not been way deep in trying to figure out the real relationship between Communism, anarchism, Liberal-republicanism, and imperialism. but this propositions has its reasons for being. it's things like... who was it, Heidegger I think? I don't remember exactly. claiming that a Communist International couldn't solve countries' problems because they were based on nationalism and "internationalism wasn't creating a better nationalism". that shouldn't matter, because the goal of "internationalism" isn't to do what nationalism already did! but now let's say that was true. if Communist Internationals can only create a better nationalism, then it's logically true that Liberal-republicanism never stopped being monarchism and everything it does can only create a better monarchism. I think George Washington did think like this a little bit. he genuinely thought the United States was just one population instead of multiple populations, split at least along state lines into 50 discrete populations with material antagonisms against each other, maybe split into two politically-defined populations uniting it into a civil war.
      so, this statement is weird. it's not true of material reality but it may be baked into Liberal-republicanism and some anarchisms, as operating assumptions that are true specifically of those ideologies and the social-graph-objects (Social-Philosophical-Material Systems) they create.
5591. Q5591/Q55,91Liberalism (pronounced Liberal-republicanism) requires no revolution / Creating Liberal-republicanism didn't require a revolution (Hannah Arendt) -> this is flat out false twice over and yet a lot of people still repeat versions of it. in the United States, there was the "American Revolution". it did have consequences. it did "mess things up for the next 200 years". it eventually birthed Andrew Jackson. in Europe, there was a really clear change between the era where there had to be a bunch of freemasons and alchemist philosophers and the era where there didn't. now people with money just do whatever "helpful" things they want to in the open. but there was a time where they absolutely couldn't do that, and they had to meet in secret so some greater authority wouldn't notice their power and start calling them a threat. there was a time where small owners, Artisan types, and Careerists were oppressed. Galileo. like, I can show why Arendt's proposition is wrong in a sentence one word long. Galileo. and there was an overall revolution that happened in however many steps to create a Europe where that particular thing wasn't an issue. this overall series of steps is a Liberal-republican revolution. in the same sense of the word.
      there is so much thick illusion going on for people to think that isn't true. what is it? is it people trying to act like "the Galileo days" were a bad fake historical period that wasn't a Real period of history, just a fake totalitarian invented fabrication made up by bad evil meanies? do people believe that only a certain class of people that assembles into certain physical structures is actually human and all other possible Bauplans are an outright deviation from humanity. I guess that would explain why they hate Bolshevism so much. but that aside, I don't even understand why this is so scary by itself and what denying that Liberal-republicanism has a revolution actually gets you. like, maybe my brain has been corrupted by Trotsky but I don't see why someone can't believe in one kind of republic that's created by a revolution and hate another kind of republic anyway. Marxists do it all the time so why can't you. why do they lie about this? it's many times stupider than Trotskyism. it makes Trotskyism look smart
5591. Q5591/Q55,91The American Revolution wasn't / The United States requires no revolution to continue to exist because creating Liberal-republicanism did not require a social revolution; this is to imply but not state that Communist revolutions are revolutions but Liberal-republican independence movements are never revolutions / The American Revolution was the only good revolution because it was a political revolution and not a social revolution (Hannah Arendt) -> more clearly stated version of this proposition.
      this proposition is the basic reason I originally titled Q17,77 "United States independence movement". it was a bit of dry irony at people like Arendt, taking what they say as literally as possible.

Related

3042. undialectical idealism, historical non-materialism, and class non-analysis / (9k)

Ideologies or fields

• ES onto LR

Subpages

• ArendtAgainstUSIndependence - bot log / essay correction exercise; did Hannah Arendt actually think there was no American Revolution?