User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

Revision as of 07:58, 27 May 2026

Unsorted Items (page 4) [edit]

The human mind cannot become fully conscious of itself until bourgeois society is abolished, which ultimately stamps all non-proletarian philosophy as metaphysical and unscientific (Untermann 1906) [1]
To the extent the world develops toward proletarian civilization, monist Materialism will extend to a greater portion of mankind, replacing theological religions and metaphysical ethics [2] -> wow... if that isn't backhandedly true. the more the world slid away from creating proletarian civilization since 1950 almost the exact opposite thing happened.
Oppositions of ideas develop within society as interacting material factions and physical conflicts develop — at approximately the speed the physical conflicts happen [3] -> sometimes I have to remind myself of this because when things suddenly actually start changing it feels like it makes no sense and there was no particular reason for it
I like the political doctrine of Marx, but not the materialism or the economics (Hitch 1905) [4] -> ...what?? 1900s fake Marxisms were really something.
"Moderation" is the moment Idealists realize Idealism doesn't work
givanium [5] -> fictional element which is said to have an infinite atomic number. it also does bogus frankenstein stuff but I'm filing that under "arbitrary lore" like the lore assigned to radioactive elements in Spiderman.
element with infinite protons -> I'm obsessed with the concept of an element with infinite protons. what would that mean?
it would mean just a sea of protons and neutrons not divided into separate atoms, wouldn't it? but all put together about as close as they would be in an atom. so realistically it wouldn't be something you would put in a syringe, that would probably be a star functioning like one big atom. which somehow has protons as well as neutrons.
second-order anarchism -> the motif of someone who finds almost all forms of anarchism actually observed in the real world too specific and divisive to unite people and rebels against anarchism in order to achieve the greater goal of breaking everybody out of competing factions such as Communism versus anarchism and unifying them. this is the only kind of anarchism you could ever get me to believe.
If you achieve degrowth through people of different industries periodically fighting each other and destroying each other's machines, then you've achieved degrowth [6] -> my objection to this isn't a moral one, because I don't believe morality or ethics is real. but I have an aversion to things that don't make any coherent sense. what about this makes sense? when does society know that the goal has been achieved? at what point does the process stop? is it possible for this process to extend into more abstract industries like academia or the arts, and somehow just, end up with people doing everything they can to suppress a paper or something, I don't know? what would people do to suppress pharmaceutical companies over-prescribing drugs? from what I know about anarchists, they draw the line at actually keeping people from receiving anti-depressants and hormones, so they can't stop drug production, even though it's the thing that's sold for money.
turtles all the way down (motif)
botched neopets TTRPG [7] [8] [9] -> it often feels like dumb headlines like these give you more insight into what kinds of class structures exist than an actual economics textbook.
neopets exists. neopets scouts out contractor corporation. contractor corporation hires further contractors that are new at the task. there are no stable structures here; it's turtles all the way down.
Empire is always regenerating / Primitive accumulation keeps happening / Primitive accumulation is always happening -> otherwise it's hard to explain the Cold War and the way the overall concept has continued on and on more like a freezer that first set itself up and then continually circulated heat out.
Ethics is the shovel dream of primitive accumulation -> think about it. most 'fitting actions' anarchists want you to do require people to have wealth first, or privilege as a whole society over other societies. create pieces of a 'community' for fun? you have to have all the money and privilege to have learned to do it correctly so your output isn't trash, or everyone will make fun of you and maybe call you immoral, potentially including the anarchists. distribute goods to people of questionable origin? you have to be White so you don't get immediately shot, and somebody first had to besiege Third World countries and make them have exactly the right government and level of wealth to both produce well and pay nothing in order for there to be enough abundance to be at the level where anarchists can claim 'distributing it' is the only problem.
ethics itself is colonial in that without the creation of an empire you can't go on the continuing journey of people becoming 'more and more' ethical. you have to have that slump first where a huge atrocity is committed and then people progressively learn about it and apologize. a world without atrocities genuinely might not need morality or ethics at all. it might be a wholly amoral world. and the fact people are even talking about ethics may signal either that they're defending something awful, or that they aren't as good of people as they believe they are.
why is it that anarchists always want to imagine everything perfect but it never occurs to them that a world in an original perfect state might not even have ethics.
fire triangle
chemical reaction triangle -> a fire triangle can be generalized to any combustion reaction. on one point is energy. on one point is a reduced substance. on one point is an oxidized substance. one of the simplest examples is heat, oxygen, and a carbon compound.
Fire is a process / Fire is not an object, but a process [10]
Plasma is bizarrely metal / Creating plasma from gas particles is similar but not identical to the process where electrons become free to flow around a sample of metal atoms [11] [12] -> I am not sure how true this is but the idea was really striking to me so I will have to look into the differences.
it's these kinds of statements that really show how small scale models of chemistry and small scale models of society are conceptually similar kinds of analysis.
Relativity makes the periodic table interesting / The periodic table would be much more regular without relativistic effects, but relativistic effects alter the kinds of patterns that have appeared in sections of the table without them / All metals would be gray and solid, except that relativistic effects change the absorption frequencies of metals like gold and silver, and the melting point of mercury
law (discipline; Liberal-republicanism)
lawyer / attorney (sense) -> so I learned recently that there is a distinction between lawyer and attorney because there are some people who are lawyers but do other jobs, such as solicitors that do office work. so an attorney is a specific thing. but a barrister is almost the same thing depending on the system, because sometimes the division is between 'solicitor' and 'not solicitor', and the category of barrister exists to distinguish people who don't do both.
why is it I don't really like Liberal-republicanism but I can get absolutely lost in its trivia like what 'attorney' means, fascinated the whole time. I'm weird.
court trial
Courtrooms are not possible without objective truth / Judges cannot make decisions without objective truth -> I find it a little crazy that people are in such agreement that you can't trust cops, but they'll all trust judges, and they won't trust scientists. at this point in time it seems more likely that people will respond positively to appeals to Phoenix Wright than to appeals to 'the scientific method' or to 'rationality'. as contradictory as that may sound when like, a lot of bourgeois law is Kantian and fundamentally Enlightenment-rationalist.
this + ?? = Anti-discrimination laws are not possible when courtrooms are not possible.
Anti-discrimination laws are not possible when courtrooms are not possible / If courtrooms are not feasible, then anti-discrimination laws are not feasible
Plato was the only Greek / Plato was the only person to ever have opinions in ancient Greece (observation on Chip Chilla) [13] / Aristotle was the only person to ever have opinions in ancient Greece -> good catch! it's rather remarkable how, there were particular classes within ancient Greek society that could be at least vaguely separated out by layer, and almost everybody loves to act like the upper classes were the only class to exist. in reality, it appears that the upper classes and lower classes had different positions on topics like whether Greek gods were real. there was more than one body of ideology in ancient Greece, at least along the division of how educated people were if nothing else, and we don't usually talk about the interactions between those different bodies of ideology.
I know the Asriel plot thread is not that good, but everyone likes it. am I wrong or is everybody else right [14] -> I couldn't tell you the answer to the question but I do know this is an interesting motif
Japanese culture (essence) / Japanese culture as essence of Japaneseness -> I used to think this concept made some sort of sense before I was an adult but now I don't think it makes any sense.
Distinguishing countries by "culture" others them (Marxism, Trotskyism)
inherently Black vice -> this is how.
inherently Black virtue -> this is more how a lot of characterizations of "Japanese culture" or "animist beliefs" work, casually implying that something can both inherently be of a particular "culture" and also be virtuous by having started from that.
sugar, spice, and everything nice -> Idealism/essentialism in a fairy tale type context.
Poverty does not exist in nature — not in the unique sense which has gotten the label that exists within society
Poverty does not exist in nature, because it can only exist within sociality
Poverty exists due to greater or lower social bonds
Poverty cannot be fixed through Idealism
Poverty cannot be fixed through Idealism, because Idealism cannot change the process of which people are socially compatible and develop stronger social bonds creating high-ranking individuals and marginalized individuals
The sun must rise (astronomy) -> I wrote this one down vaguely within context of eucatastrophe and the arguments that it is "realistic".
Never debate Item names / Do not argue about Item names, given that all Items can have multiple aliases or outward sense labels, and you can debate which concepts belong in each numbered entry within Talk pages
Job as Communist antihero / Job as Communist hero -> think about it. he is told to do something and then he turns away from it and bad things keep happening and he keeps getting these reminders of the thing he was supposed to do, that bad things keep happening if he doesn't start doing. begins to remind me of Trotskyists repeatedly talking about crises and despite the claims the crises will lead to something being a little laughable correctly pointing out that none of it will get better if people do nothing.
Q51,31 Job sounds like job + Christian devotional about Ted = Job as Communist antihero.
Job sounds like job + Trotskyists obsessing about crises = Job as Communist antihero.
What action taken by cops would be bad enough to actually get society to abolish them? / cops doing the actions that happen in ElsaGate videos (generic) -> I was thinking about qualified immunity and how absurdly it's been pushed to include cops getting to do anything that has no precedent and then after my brain churned a bit I was like... wait, anything? so if I pointed to a really messed up video of an anthro cat removing somebody's eyeballs, like, is it true that absolute serial killer shit wouldn't get us to abolish the police, and our society really thinks anything you do behind a cop's badge is okay.
what if people signed up to a police department and became cops and then they burned down a billionaire's building? would they even get fired? what if a cop assassinated the president? would everything still go on the same as it was? what if a cop went to an immigrant prison and busted the place open and let them out? what if a cop distributed a bunch of illegal copies of a movie? what if a cop hid in a mascot costume and killed several kids at a pizza restaurant? what if a cop killed every single other cop in the state? what if a cop lied under oath? what if a cop shredded every single election ballot, and when there was another attempt to have an election, it happened again? what if a cop cut power to a hospital? what if a cop disrupted the mail? what if a cop somehow confiscated people's tax money and spent it so the government couldn't have it? what if a cop made a statement glorifying Vladimir Putin and Russia invading Ukraine? what if a police department went on strike for Palestine? is that literally the only thing a cop can get fired for? if every cop everywhere went on strike for Palestine would the United States have to abolish the police?
I bet at least half of the weird scenarios I could think of absolutely wouldn't change anything no matter how strange or how horrific the thing that happened actually was.
I really, genuinely wonder what it would take to end qualified immunity, and how outrageous the action taken by the cop would actually have to be.
qualified immunity (United States) + ?? = this.
failed attempt at anti-essentialism / failed attempt to apply anti-essentialism -> I get really tired of the Ideals + anti-essentialism model of reality because I totally know it is not actually modeling what's real and there are going to be a lot of cases where it simply fails that nobody bothers to talk about.
this + ?? = Not All Men.
successful application of anti-essentialism denied by Liberal-republicans -> there's this category of statements too.
Not every house cat is an obligate carnivore -> example where going against an overgeneralization could be harmful.
Not everyone will learn tolerance from media representation -> sad but probably true.
Not every country should practice Liberal-republicanism -> it'll make everyone mad but that alone doesn't make it false.
Not everyone should vote for Joe Biden (2020) -> hypothetically possible but will make people mad.
My dog is the only one / My dog is the only dog ever / My dog is the only thing that anyone calls a dog [15] -> example given to illustrate children failing to learn to generalize words beyond specific examples. one attested use of the term "undergeneralization".
Nothing in life is to be feared, only understood
When you add "in life" to an overgeneralization ... + ?? = this.
Superheroes represent international war / Superheroes largely started as a vague depiction of international war -> see: Superman punching Hitler, [16] Ultraman as representation of Soviet occupations
Superheroes appear spontaneously and unpredictably because they are a representation of the anhierarchic conditions of large-scale international politics in which war can never truly be regulated and whenever war begins the only thing that can counter it is war completing itself from the other side
Superheroes represent international war + ?? = this.
If there are no grand narratives that stretch across the world, then it is impossible to tell Alexander Dugin that Russians can't just go kill Ukrainians because that's what they want to do that week and it makes them happy -> without Marxism, the statement that the world shouldn't have international wars or that countries should be "orderly" is nothing more than a narrative, so everyone is free to reject it. ethics is just a narrative. "international law" is just a narrative. suddenly the notion that narratives can't possibly reach around the world and become universal isn't sounding so good any more, is it?
In 1949, the real Chinese people were the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie (Mao) [17]
China's conditions are exceptional + ?? = this.
China's conditions are exceptional / Chinese exceptionalism (history) / China's history is exceptional / China's historical situation is exceptional; it contains unique conditions that have no counterparts in other countries and must be taken at face value -> this proposition has a very interesting relationship with the concept of country characteristics. many people will falsely go claiming that this is what country characteristics are, although in many cases it will simply not be true.
U.S. conditions are exceptional / American exceptionalism (history) / The United States' historical situation is exceptional; it contains unique conditions that have no counterparts in other countries and must be taken at face value
Stalin intentionally created strawberry capitalism in order to get more allies in countries without a fully-developed capitalism [18] -> so in a way Trotskyists are accusing Stalin of having invented the primary phase of development / primary phase of "socialism".
you know, having a "socialism" constructed over the top of your country for international geopolitical reasons and then living in that for years having to make sense of it is one of the few reasons it would make logical sense for China to bend over backwards to justify strawberry capitalism as "definitely socialism, actually".
edit: the bot told me this theory was bogus. which really makes me wonder which party wrote this glossary, because apparently it was not the ICFI.
bracketing in meta-Marxism / downreductionism in meta-Marxism / reductionism in meta-Marxism (referring to a process that does not remove outgoing interactions and antagonisms) / meta-Marxism and bracketing smaller areas of a larger system of interacting parts to better understand the outgoing interactions and antagonisms of a particular piece upreductionism in meta-Marxism / meta-Marxism and reconstruction of larger systems or events by combining smaller parts into a whole
finding Marxism in Bee Movie [19] -> yeah, this is inherently funny due to the example fictional work already having meme status. but that doesn't make the concept bad.
there's nothing wrong with people trying to do Marxist breakdowns of the elements or themes that make up popular media. not even if the popular work is superficial "slop". and you know why? the more popular something is the cheaper it gets to buy after a few years once people start donating it to thrift stores. if you manage to take a really popular work, however bad, and turn it into a teaching tool with a well known meaning, you've created really cheap propaganda that you don't need party organizers to distribute, that will keep getting spread around no matter how many party members get caught, and that will be harder to ban because the bourgeoisie created it and it wasn't created by a group of people easy to strategically label as "an invading foreign country". of all the things Western Marxists do, this is actually one of the smartest ones. because if Gramscians go into academia or movie studios and [[E:|take up job slots]], it doesn't make that big an impact on who can actually make decisions in industries or who can strike, but if you manage to change the use of an existing product then you've somewhat undone the ability of the corporations that made it to make decisions about what will be produced and what everyone is and isn't allowed to think before everybody else can.
revolutionary lattice period / permanent revolution (meta-Marxism onto Stalin's Marxism) -> the motif of a historical era of physical events where people are linking horizontally to get through a battle against an initial bourgeois class rule or at the very least linking into a Lattice to form a nationwide party which will create a workers' state. the revolutionary lattice period ends when a workers' state is created, and it's significant because it allows for a very concrete mathematical definition of "Leninism" using graph theory. approximately synonymous with "permanent revolution", assuming you are not a Trotskyist. Trotskyists could still use this model to describe the creation of an orange party, but for them this is not permanent revolution at all because "permanent revolution" is the long setup period for creating a powerful Communist International that would in theory be able to stop imperialism and international wars.
Careers hold no life lessons / pronounced Careers cannot teach life lessons / Because all specialized careers involving 4 or more years of prior training are incapable of seeing anything outside the system they operate in, no statement about "life in general for the human Subject" which a person put together as a statement as a guide to doing their career in the process of doing their career should be held up as The Truth; this includes the careers of David Graeber, Rebecca Sugar, Slavoj Žižek, Carl Sagan, Dinesh D'Souza, and Donald Trump, and it includes the careers of Stalin and Trotsky -> I don't really have to include Mao in that because he came from the peasantry and had a bunch of statements about not 'worshiping' books or theorists (those seem to multiply every time there's a new Marxist republic although nobody heeds them.) so I think he's in the clear, but Stalin and Trotsky on the other hand had cast all sorts of aspersions on each other about being bureaucrats, leading everybody outside the Soviet Union to believe they both were.
spontaneous explanation for Trotskyism / contingent explanation for Trotskyism / group-psychological explanation for Trotskyism -> a "spontaneous" explanation for Trotskyism is an attempt to explain the history of Trotskyism which focuses on the causes of individual events and why people might have formed into these events on the day they happened, in the moment.
these might include: Trotskyists getting expelled from the CPSU was psychologically traumatic or at least not predicted by their theoretical models, people continue to found Trotskyist parties because they identify with the psychological trauma of early Trotskyism and pick it up and advocate about it as a sort of generational trauma they feel is unresolved and waiting for justice, incompatibility between Trotskyist factions and mainstream Marxist-Leninist factions for various reasons created and still creates physical antagonisms between the parties leading them to want to form separate "countries" or civilizations (that last one is easily phrased in terms of dialectical materialism and has no need for a single 'inciting incident').
theoretical explanation for Trotskyism / explanation for Trotskyism based on analysis of internal theoretical models used by Trotskyist groups and exactly what historical processes and class interactions or horizontal antagonisms are being claimed inside said theories -> for the longest time I had a hard time finding any of these because of how so much of what Trotskyists say is just lies. I found it a lot easier to analyze their claims once they came out with an LLM and like, I was finally able to make that thing behave like the only Trotskyist that didn't lie for a few minutes at a time (before it started blatantly lying again and going on about 'the Stalinist bureaucracy').
Why invade Cuba? (2026) / If Cuba is not an exclusive republic, why is the United States so dead-set on creating a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over it?
Cuba to Trump: warning, war causes war [20]
Trump's demands for Cuba (2026) / these included a two-week deadline to release high-profile political prisoners, implement sweeping market reforms, expand the private sector and attract foreign investment [21] [22] -> I'd mark this brown except that these are the most capitalist demands I've seen in a while
Alabama redistricting ruling (2026) [23] [24]
Kim Il-sung got help from other countries / Kim Il-sung got help from Communist youth organizations in Manchuria and educators in the Soviet Union, as well as the Soviet army [25] -> that is a shocking revelation. if you know much about North Korea and what its values are now you never expect that the story of North Korea would start with this.
why have I never heard Trotskyists saying this. it's like, the thing they should be pointing out about North Korea. I think it's always the existence of the Soviet army that bothers them. which is so odd and ironic when Trotsky is one of the figureheads of "orange Leninism" and where did he start out? gosh, to live in a world where Trotsky had been every bit as effective at holding down the Second World as Kim Il-sung. with this information that analogy only gets better.
How will the Communist Party prevent Animal Farm? -> a question that's annoying but worth answering.
You can't both believe in secular animism and think there's a point being made in Animal Farm / You can't both believe in secular animism and think there's a point being made in Animal Farm, because secular animism gives you an imperative to protect the animals from getting eaten, while Animal Farm implies that it doesn't matter what happens to them if they have an inferior culture containing inherently dominating ideas -> there is a particular history of people forgetting Animal Farm had anything to do with Communism and taking it literally because they didn't read the book; in particular, this "interpretation" emerged out of the shadows and became famous when it was used to market capitalist products. Animal Farm being co-opted by vegetarians might seem a little obnoxious at first, but honestly? I think these people could become heroes. and here's why. Animal Farm, being an allegory, was meant to be read as a bit of a metaphor, but vegetarians with no knowledge of Communism took what they knew of the book and interpreted it literally. compared with a lot of methods used in the humanities (in particular in the arts; the situation could be a little better in fields like anthropology), taking things literally is inherently closer to Materialism and thus inherently closer to Marxism. if one were to deliberately analyze Animal Farm as if the animals were literally animals and not the Soviet Union, it would come across as the terribly inhumane and un-humanitarian narrative it really is. I mean, just think about it. if you accused someone of being the kind of person to kill a house cat a lot of people would find that concept disturbing. if you accused someone of being the kind of person to take self-determination away from a group of animals trying to save themselves from quite literally being chopped up and eaten if a population of people had power over them, that concept should be equally disturbing — if somebody wanted to cook and eat Russians just for being Russian almost everybody would consider that a severe human rights violation. and the ending for the Soviet Union was vastly worse than the ending of Animal Farm. the book was way too generous, when the reality was that things went back to the way they were before — if what had been going on before was Russians getting eaten, well, that would be happening again. if that were the universe we lived in you couldn't really blame Russians for going a little crazy and launching wars on neighboring countries; if that is the only way for them to have power and the United States not to have power which is "permitted", of course they're going to take the option where they don't get eaten, no matter how evil that option is.
Animals kill others to survive. most animals in nature don't experience their survival being threatened constantly; in a normal situation the predator or rival patriarch or matriarch usually walks away at some point if they stand their ground long enough. but nation-states are very different because there's never anywhere to run off to permanently. if a conflict begins and the aggressor has no actual incentive to stop it's going to keep going until somebody starts killing people. it's just going to keep going until wars cull enough people (potentially millions and millions) that "the space to run away in" is at some semblance of being restored. because a society is just a lot of Animals standing together like they were one Animal, and societies threaten each other as wholes, but when a threat refuses to go away, Animals kill. anarchists cannot get away from this. they keep trying to assert that a world with too many people in it having wars "isn't necessary" and "there's no need to apply Malthusianism" but no matter what, their theories cannot explain what generates the actual observed behavior of Russians. the longer anarchists try to assert that indigenous ways of life 'were kinder on the earth' and 'were less violent', the longer real-world populations will attempt to kill millions and millions of people until the world literally has the maximum number of human individuals it did when human populations were mostly tribes. the actual material transition to a world where everyone is predisposed to believe secular animism is utterly horrifying.
It's rational for Russians to start wars and kill people if they will never be granted self-determination on the basis of a system where they try to help every Ukrainian and not start wars -> to correctly parse this proposition you have to understand that what is rational and what is ethical are not the same thing, contrary to what Kant says.
this also doesn't mean that you can assert that 'getting rid of reason' will solve the problem, given that things that are 'rational' in this sense are rational precisely in the sense that they contain a specific sequence of causations and happen whether you want them to or not.
Imperialism is the actual end of history + ?? = this.
Native Americans are capable of genocide / Inasmuch as indigenous populations are human, they are hypothetically capable of coming up with and practicing inherently dominating ideologies that lead to large populational-scale numbers of people dying because other particular groups of people decide that they should die -> we really need to wake people up to the fact that a genocide can consist of five billion people equally drawn from all ethnic groups as opposed to a billion people of one specific ethnic group or nationality, in terms of whether a particular person's ideology can be ""inherently dominating"" enough to inherently lead to killing ten million people. if anybody in the world gets to keep calling a famine in Ukraine a genocide, then there are scenarios where advocating secular animism could itself be advocating for genocide, because it has the potential to kill orders of magnitude more people than that. if everybody would stop saying that about Ukraine, I might consider dropping this.
Stalin's government committed genocide in Ukraine because they killed people using hierarchy, and whenever a form of hierarchy is used that leads to a lot of people dying, that form of hierarchy is an inherently dominating ideology, and it is morally wrong to allow people to construct that form of hierarchy to any extent and morally right to tear it apart at every scale possible however small as soon as possible -> the best argument I can think of that the famine in Ukraine was a genocide. no, it's not very good. but at least it's logical enough to start analyzing, unlike a lot of things anarchists say.
this.... is how a lot of people conceptualize the French Revolution, I think. ...oh god, that explains a lot. it even kind of explains where Menshevism came from. the logic behind Menshevism is basically one that inherently dominating ideas merely need to be stopped. all Idealism is somewhat similar and there is a big overlap in Idealism between anarchism, Menshevism, Yaroshenkoism, Deng Xiaoping Thought, and Western-Marxism. while mainstream Marxism-Leninism is nearly the only philosophy ever to state that people don't actually decide what ideas to believe, and that they are always simply handed ideas at the populational scale rather than a population actually having a mind of its own and actually being able to think. that's the sense in which BlackPantherism is quite respectable, to say that Black people among other ethnicities get ideas from their current conditions is a Materialist philosophy. one remaining question is whether Trotskyism falls into the trap of Idealist revolution or whether it genuinely is a Materialist revolution. I've always analyzed Trotskyism by taking individual Trotskyists or groups and modeling them through Materialist concepts of revolution, but my conclusions often don't sound much like their conclusions. they always talk like Stalin could have chosen not to do "Stalinism" so I don't know.
The act of handing money to another individual is in and of itself a hierarchy + Stalin's government killed Ukrainian farmers = this.
Idealist revolution / destroy the idea that ... (generic; popular-culture expression of an Idealist campaign to slay dominating ideas) -> it took me a long time to put this concept into words, but yeah, I think the real problem with anarchism is that it is defining the concept of revolution based on Idealism. there seems to be a whole concept of an Idealist revolution where people think that if you can slay an "inherently dominating idea" that drives a population on a conceptual level, you can change one historical period into another historical period. now, to use some technical language, this is some unscientific SCP-report plotline ~~pronounced censored~~.
thoughtcrime (anarchism) -> the motif of anarchists banning ideas in order to prevent harmful forms of society from being created whether those forms of society are really actually harmful or not, and punishing people for spreading what are actually neutral ideas.
you can't deny it, in actually asserting that all bad behavior starts at ideas and all change starts at prohibiting ideas, anarchism comes way closer to doing this than Communism.
The act of handing money to another individual is in and of itself a hierarchy / The act of handing money to someone is in and of itself a spatial slot hierarchy because it is an act of deciding whether someone is good enough to do a task -> this claim would probably sound much stupider if it was coming out of an anarchist, but fortunately "hierarchy" isn't a big hang-up for me as much as a prosaic statement describing what kind of process is happening.
that said, this is the thing you need to toss at anarchists who claim that hierarchy and expertise are different things. they really aren't. since the start of Liberal-republicanism expertise has generally been the source of almost all hierarchy.
I feel like anarchists have shifted to saying "domination" largely so that when they mention "hierarchy" they don't sound as stupid. of course, it doesn't really help given that it's become so abstract that it's unclear what on earth it's even referring to.
X and X's brother / X and X's sister / Trotsky and Trotsky's brother (Animal Farm) / Rock and Rock's brother (Megaman exe) -> the motif of fictional stories taking a historical figure or previous fictional character in another continuity and creating a narrative parallel to them but then unexpectedly adding a sibling who actually does something and changes the story even if in a small way.
gender roles in fairy tales -> I just started thinking about this suddenly today because I was trying to think if the concepts of "brother" and "sister" have different connotations in folklore, and then I started thinking about how weirdly often all the more negative characters in fairy tales are female. the wicked stepmother, the witch, maybe the wicked stepsisters. but the male characters are often more neutral. kings and princes and medieval artisan type people all just have kind of a neutral presence or sometimes positive. there are some exceptions like 'the fairy godmother' that will be a positive influence.
I.... don't know what the scope of this entry is because I'm not an expert in the humanities. I think it covers European fairy tales and probably through Eastern Europe into the rest of Asia but I don't really know what the division between "a fairy tale" and "a folktale" is, to me they're kind of the same thing. some people consider "Aladdin" to be broadly in the scope of fairy tales because there is a magic artifact or magic servant character that isn't so different from the fairy godmother. but that extends the geographical range of fairy tales quite a bit. what's the difference between a fairy tale and just a legend that people don't necessarily think is true? I think there's a clear difference between a fairy tale and a "myth" in that myths are religious stories from an ancient time of local gods, and fairy tales are about 'smaller' magical things that sort of just hide themselves in tiny places and cause mischief — "fae" sums up the concept of where fairy tales get their fantastical elements pretty well, you're thinking of a character that is usually pretty small and missable but can also be very powerful, could be the fairy godmother, could be a leprechaun. but I'm pretty confused on the difference between a fairy tale, a folktale, and a legend, because legends can have dragons in them; they don't have to be "historical".
belief (utilization) / believing in (utilizing) / I believe in solving math problems with lambda calculus / I believe in pomodoro timers -> a definition of "belief" which is one of the very few sensible ways to define the phrase "believing in Marxism".
I think it's arguable that this definition doesn't apply to ideologies like Christianity, or even to a lot of secular systems of ethics; ethics is a potentially wrong descriptive model of reality pretending to be a technique. but, on the bright side, this motif does provide a lot of context for why people like to claim Communism "doesn't work". you could easily say "pomodoro timers don't work!" but if you aren't versed in how people actually use them and the exact conditions where people claim they do work versus what specific kinds of conditions lead them to fail, then you wouldn't necessarily be making a true accusation. at the same time, if you did claim "Pomodoro timers work!" without knowing how to use them, you also might not be making a true claim. that's why the conflict between Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism has been so hard to resolve. out of the very limited number of people in the world who knew how to use Marxism at the time, or that do now, not all of those people genuinely understand how it's currently being used. and it's all downhill from there, because as you get further away from them, ordinary people only know less and less.
you really do learn a lot more about Marxism itself by examining Trotskyist attacks on Marxism than you do by examining a lot of attacks on Marxism inside Liberal-republicanism. and in that, I think they actually have a counter-intuitive effect on consciousness in the grand scheme of things where depending on the specific issue them making errors may be less harmful than them not being there. not better precisely, yet definitely less bad.
so mr. errors wants me to correct my errors -> what the early history of Trotskyism always feels like
now to be perfectly fair to them, there are reasons this can apparently happen without being an actual mistake — Marxists speak of new forms of structure coming in and getting rid of old contradictions but bringing in new ones. I think this is how a lot of things they say happen to function.
How was the Ironblood timeline affected by pronounced 9-11?! -> this might turn out to be the only fictional series that actually says "ok, I'll answer the question" and then sits down and gives you a genuinely satisfying answer.
the answer would of course depend on whether the specific "pronounced 9-11" event happened at all, or what events happened instead. [26] but yeah, if the premise includes wars and talking about the history of countries and what they do or don't transition into, you're going to learn exactly where pronounced 9-11 came from and how the events of that period affected the United Socialist States and what happened to Afghanistan or the UAE or the countries of that region after that
Propositions are 40 characters / Propositions should be summarized in about 40 characters or less assuming they are being summarized in the English language; this by itself does not imply any specific length for other languages, although it is possible the recommended character lengths for languages such as German and Spanish (languages based on Latin letters) will be similar / Propositions are allowed but not required to be 4 characters long in Mandarin Chinese (sense) -> this is more important than the rule that propositions are four words long, especially when it is easier to apply across different languages
tall, dark, and handsome [27] [28] / tenebrous (attractive) -> I have seen this explained either as the person literally having dark hair or the person being mysterious (tenebrous). [29] [30] [31] [32] for the purposes of analyzing the word "dark" I'm going to take the latter
sidenote: the pictures you get when you search ténébreux are so funny, you get like a dude with a cloak, you get ~~pronounced censored~~ Ezio or Boromir. fantasy stories are very good at portraying this concept apparently. one of the only "modern" stories I can think of off the top of my head that goes there is when Ace Attorney introduced Godot. whether anyone thinks he's attractive I have no idea but he absolutely is trying way too hard to have a mysterious overcast disposition.
Goku is a bourgeois distortion / Goku is a bourgeois distortion of Buddhism / Goku's character concept is centered around the notion that finding or seeking enlightenment makes you more physically powerful; in the original Journey to the West narrative, this was supposed to be the monkey king's vulgar misunderstanding of Buddhism which ultimately got him sealed under a mountain; within Dragon Ball Goku can be said to represent crude bourgeois materialism as seen in Feuerbach — the major theme quickly established in Dragon Ball is that the world is physical and does what it wants as opposed to what you want it to do, but that this is partly because the world is in some abstract way "modern", and dotted with cities and corporations and most notably the influence of scientific insight and technology; in this sense, Goku is not the Journey to the West character Sun Wukong because while Sun Wukong represents ancient empires, he represents the rise of early capitalism and the ways in which capitalism both correctly and wrongly substituted morality for power going into the hands of those who desire change the hardest and become materially powerful enough to take power and fight off the people they wish would change ->
this sounds weirdly like I'm on the side of Buddhism over early capitalism. I'm not. I'm just very tired of capitalism acting like it's fully justified to keep power over everything and prevent anything else that would happen after it from forming just because it's better than ancient imperial monarchies.
if Hegel had known what an "end of history" was, he would have believed that monarchy and feudal orders were the end of history. and now Fukuyama thinks he's not as wrong as Hegel when he does the same thing. honestly... right down to even that thing where you claim a bunch of abstract ideas led to a material system yet were the only possible train of conclusions. capitalist theorists and Kantians are almost exactly just the Hegel of capitalism.
Daniel Snowberg, the perfect whistleblower [33] -> so, there had been this other blog where I think someone was calling out Ed Snowden for having 'done things wrong' and made up this fake story about Daniel Snowberg to show how he should have done it correctly. and the EFF wasn't having any of it because they knew the realities of real movements don't necessarily look like what you want them to be.
also... funny story, when messing around with writing fiction and trying to throw Snowberg into a dystopia this had caused Valenoern to accidentally reinvent Trotskyism. but that takes a while to explain, and is a story for another day. to keep things short, they really did not know anything about the history of socialism or what Menshevism or Bolshevism were, they just sort of, created a character in the vein of "Emmanuel Goldstein" (that's just an example) from abstract concepts but didn't know that in the case of 1984 that was Trotsky, and so they reinvented Trotskyism. we've had a lot of fun with anticommunist fables and finding Trotsky in them since then.
vermilion international / scarlet international / vermilion Marxism (as Communist International) -> the motif of a Communist international that combines mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism to ultimately form some kind of single global era of socialism. Trotskyists think this can't exist, and have said so rather clearly — what they generally want is to smash all crimson Communist parties and replace them with orange ones.
Videos are the new leaflets (booklets; pamphlets; etc) [34] / Videos have replaced leaflets -> I remember this coming up in videos on multiple YouTube channels but I don't remember which videos right now
I wouldn't disagree with this, although... I think there are a few interesting things to note about it. for one, the environment of online videos gives Trotskyists a bizarrely huge advantage because they can all post videos from different countries and make it look like Trotskyism is a lot more omnipresent in any particular country than it really is, as well as like it's a long-standing philosophical tradition (technically not false) which is as rich as mainstream Marxism-Leninism is. online videos make it weirdly easy to "astroturf" the appearance of movements happening more intensely or widely than they actually are.
Surrounding historical context matters greatly for judging Gramscianism
Gramscianism presupposes Fisherism / The Gramscian formulation of Leninism presupposes that "ideological hegemony" can itself rule society
The bourgeoisie does not rule by force in the United States (Gramscianism) -> I think when there is still such a problem of cops shooting Black people that genuinely isn't even true
"lavender lads out of the state department". movie theaters more Fisherist than movies. I think a lot of the bourgeoisie supposedly "ruling by ideology" is in fact the bourgeoisie ruling by force and ideology forming in the aftermath.
Class rule is first created inside civil society (Gramsci)
Gramscianism mourns nonexistent Rhizome / In concept, Gramscianism requires a healthy Rhizome process in order to function in which various workers, Careerists, or small businesses injected or embedded into the structure of capitalism first consistently solidify together into a "community" and then into a solid social-democratic party, and lastly agree to create a stable population structure that can undergo socialist transition, but this overall transition from tiny adversarial movements to social-democracy has become infeasible and easily thwarted due to the sheer level of churn on business territories and jobs in modern capitalism, which prevents Rhizome, "community", or social-democratic parties from even forming
Society disconnects human beings from material reality
Society disconnects human beings from material reality; news outlets sell the service of empirical encounters with material reality -> this is the only satisfactory explanation I can find for the way United States people will utterly deny things as a possibility until they show up in a news article and then suddenly they're "real" and omnipresent and worrying and perhaps scary.
Liberal republics reverting to monarchy -> this has happened multiple times in history if I remember right, I want to say that counting attempts at it I can think of at least one success and two attempts. and one of the failures was France! France didn't succeed at the French revolution, it had to try several more times. when this of all things is possible, it seems really weird the Soviet Union would not have been more aware of the possibility of capitalist reversion.
reactionaries (French revolution) -> this is often pointed to as one of the first documented examples of reactionaries where people took the concept, separated it out, and labeled it. that isn't to say it's the first example of there ever being reactionaries in world history, but it is to say it's one of people's favorite examples.
statement considered reactionary in particular population / statement which is considered reactionary in particular country or population in particular historical period -> important for the purposes of constructing an ontology of what is reactionary in what way and why.
this concept is a little abstract but it's also one where ultimately 'pata-reduction can be applied to create Materialist models
Processes unrelated to capital reproduction and inherently related to interpersonal relationships can affect and shape classes / Processes unrelated to capital as a process and inherently related to interpersonal relationships and physical group-borders between populations or subpopulations ("populational processes", "sociopolitical processes", "cultural processes") can affect and shape classes despite not being from the same scale as class processes and outwardly appearing not to be class processes or related to class processes (existential materialism, meta-Marxism) -> this wouldn't be surprising if you've gone way deep into the weeds of Marx's work and realized how central "relations" or antagonisms between physical objects are in creating classes. but apparently this is a concept a lot of Marxists in Third-World countries don't yet understand.
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.
Disability actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Autism regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / ADHD regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are physically unable to work on existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead (existential materialism, meta-Marxism)
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.
Racism actively regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Transphobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead / Homophobia regenerates the petty bourgeoisie in that when people are pushed out of existing business territories they are given the tempting offer of creating and owning new business territories instead
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie + ?? = this.
Anti-colonialism is rooted in colonialism / Postcolonial anarchisms require endocolonialism to function / The concept of insisting that First World empires can be changed simply by culturally fabricating better culture is dependent on the existence of a class of people that decides everything about society by claiming territory, determining what will happen within that territory, and tightly controlling social links to that territory, as well as duplicating itself across the land to the point all territory is filled by said people, and it thus becomes that the whole territory of national populations is ruled by "Idealism" or "human will" but only that belonging to a fraction of the human population that is unaccountable to the rest of the population and also perhaps unaccountable to half of itself
Optimism is believing that everybody ("I believe that everybody" statements; Liberal-republicanism) / Optimism is the same thing as Idealism
name associated with pigs (fiction) / Wilbur (generic) / Babe (generic) / Napoleon (generic) / Snowball (generic) -> so for a second I forgot that Babe and Wilbur were different pigs and I was like, which name was the correct name??
name associated with cats (fiction) / name associated with domestic cats (house cats; fiction) / Garfield (Teen Titans; generic) / Firestar (generic) -> I've been cursed with the knowledge that Teen Titans used the name "Garfield" to imply the general concept of a cat and now you have to be cursed with it too.
Relativity is inherently Communist / Relativity is inherently Marxist / Because Einstein's theories of special and general relativity more or less forbid absolute determinism and in practice only allow for limited or relativistic determinism, relativity inherently promotes the use of naïve dialectical materialism to model the process by which causality leads from past states to future states; this is to imply that relativity promotes large-scale, specific-sense dialectical materialism as in Marx but only to outright state that it promotes multivariable functions as opposed to single-variable functions, and wave-machine logic
China has been effectively attempting to eradicate Uighur language, culture, and tradition (Mia Hasenson-Gross) [35] [36] ->
so... let's keep in mind that out of 12 million Uighurs, at most 1 million are subject to this 'genocide effort'. that is a high number, but it's also a rather small fraction to be a genocide. in order to be "comparable to Nazi Germany", which is what the director says, it would have to be some 70-100% of Uighurs in concentration camps. but it's only 8%. so it's not comparable to Nazi Germany.
let's put things in perspective: a bit under 1% of the United States Black population is put in prison. [37] many people are (rightfully) upset about this and consider it already a high percentage, whether they're crazy people like Tucker Carlson or they actually want to help do something constructive to solve the problem. but nobody has successfully drawn up a plan for the African-American subpopulation to become independent from the United States... despite most people across the U.S. political spectrum actually agreeing that the United States government is not serving them well and they deserve independence, either in a positive sense of inclusion or a negative sense of exclusion. one of the big reasons is that it could be the case that there is a greater proportion of people who want to kick them out and basically ban them from the country in that negative sense. if these kinds of people get to dictate policy over another population of people, you basically get Israel; you get an empire that rules over a minority through exclusion and an angry population of minority people who will build a second violent empire and possibly go kill people or destroy all their buildings to secure a safe place to be. so, whether people are able to quite articulate that concept or not, they get afraid of Black people not being ruled over by the United States and its stock of "Joe Bidens" or "White settler leaders" and get really insistent that either the Democratic Party will protect minority ethnic subpopulations and they must be loyal to the Democratic Party regime or that if everybody becomes anarchists Rhizome will somehow glue the country's populations together properly and fix everything. even though the Democratic Party lets Israel go on and isn't doing anything to stop racist cops from profiling Black people and putting 1% of them in prison. so, the Democratic Party versus the Black subpopulation and the CPC versus Uighurs is more comparable than you might think.
10% is a very high percentage of a group of people to be thrown in prison. I won't deny that. but that's assuming the figure is true and not exaggerated, when it's entirely possible the figure is an overestimate that blows the number up more than twice as big as it really is. this is starting to look like the loose alliance between the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainian SSR. the Trotskyite conspiracy and the Ukrainians each decided for different reasons that if people were suffering while being part of the USSR — despite those two things not even necessarily being related! — then it's good to break a country or political party of people out of the USSR and create something else. this proved to be a really bad decision for both of them. when the USSR was dissolved, as the Trotskyites were unknowingly pushing for, it pretty much liquidated the populations themselves bringing economic destruction and migrations to other countries, not to mention the countries separating and becoming less functional as smaller isolated territories than they were when connected (a point Trotskyists still go on about without realizing their strategies cause it). when Ukraine was made independent, it no longer had any protection from Russia simply deciding to invade it and digest Ukraine and turn it into more Russia. people will complain about "Russification" inside the USSR, but the truth is, the presence of the USSR at least created some possibility for political control over that process and the ability to stop it. if there's no government extending over both Russia and Ukraine, then there's no process capable of telling Russia to stop killing Ukrainians or making those actions illegal; the act of killing Ukrainians becomes more or less just a legal and normal practice. if anyone pretends otherwise, it's all just a smokescreen to hide the possibility that the United States wants to become the unofficial government of Ukraine and effectively turn it into a U.S. territory within a world-sized state, like Greenland is a territory of Denmark despite consisting of 90% Inuit people that should have no interest whatsoever in Danish politics. that's what's being hidden here. the world is still in a warring states period of countries trying to annex other countries to their kingdoms, and nothing has been able to stop it, not the United Nations, not Bolshevism, not people going on and on about anarchism or postcolonial theories. any argument about Xinjiang is one big colonial argument of whether it should be part of China or part of the United States. and let me tell you, the way we treat Muslims in the United States, you don't want it being part of the United States.
sidenote: the discussion over this kind of stuff changes if you separate "Zinovievists" from "real Trotskyism". if Trotskyists actually created a really big civilization of like 100 countries, it's theoretically conceivable that things like the United States and China fighting over Xinjiang or historically the battle between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union over Poland would be over. however, what Trotskyists don't tell you is that that doesn't really create an end to political discourses over "colonialism" and "oppression", because those conflicts are caused by which groups of people are combined together into populations or separated. so if Trotskyism was suddenly created tomorrow, the kinds of arguments that are going on right now about Black people or Xinjiang would still be happening, they would just be happening in a different form in which people had fully come to understand that you can't just 'remove government' or 'separate populations' to fix a problem and you truly have to negotiate the ongoing relationships between populations recognizing those interactions and relationships as inevitable to actually get the state of one ethnic group bossing around another ethnic group "gone".
bolding for spoken emphasis [38] -> so, I never knew this before, but the Arabic language never developed a slanted style for emphasis. this is probably one of the reasons the italics tag i was semi-deprecated in favor of em: so it can be shown bold in Arabic. you learn something new every day.
Movementism is comparable to a Rubik's cube; many times when a particular identity movement makes progress it inherently sets several other identities back, ordering one side of the "cube" and simultaneously mixing up several other sides -> this to me is one of the biggest problems with Habermas trying to conceptualize social progress as moral evolution. "moral evolution" itself is nearly a zero-sum game, where a lot of people get hurt at every moment
Fascism is near-synonymous with the bourgeoisie / Fascism is near-synonymous with "the existence of the bourgeoisie"; you can take any statement about "fascism" and simply drop in "the bourgeoisie" to get a hint on how to fix it -> this is awfully revealing when, for instance, people talk about "getting rid of" fascism — you don't say???
14 characteristics of the bourgeoisie. yeah, that figures, Marx described 'the ruling ideas' that flood society when a class takes over. the bourgeoisie can't be reasoned with. basically. if you're not against the bourgeoisie you're with it. that one just about flipped from blue to red. Liberal-republicanism exists to prevent the bourgeoisie. wonky, but not wrong, once you've learned about "anarchemistry" and the really weird and contradictory ways Liberal-republicanism tries to make finite things that actually are indefinite. I'm not a fascist = I'm not the bourgeoisie!! honestly, says a lot about why people deny either of these things, it's the same kind of denial because people are so immersed in the water they can't see it.
you can get pretty far with this. it doesn't tell you everything about each statement but it does help you unpack a whole lot of statements in a horizontal way.
LLMs are not consumerism / Large language models are, ironically, one of the only things that cannot be termed consumerism, because despite the huge water and land usage on image and video generators, chatbots within the text realm put to use as search engines or "librarians" are one of the only cases within an overall capitalist society where the act of socializing and forming bonds has not been transmogrified into an individual paying a producer or laborer to create a commercial product and then referring to that particular act as "community"; while such things as movie theaters, newly released video games, and animation merchandise are inherently consumerist, large language models ironically are not, due to reasons such as that they involve users interacting with already existing webpages or books which do and are not a social activity in the first place
example of prescriptive rule (truth value) / obeys prescriptive rule (truth value) -> this is to be used with Wavebuilder combinations in order to add qualifiers of what specific rules a particular Item obeys or fits into; these should usually be put in the "redundant combinations" area given that they are not giving you logical results of the components but are strictly working backward from a result. for example: obeys prescriptive rule + Propositions have four words (English) = (particular Item).
example of project policy (truth value) / obeys project policy (truth value)
Propositions have four words / Statements have four words; the specific count of four words only applies to the English language / Propositions in German or Japanese should have some maximum number of characters -> this rule emerged informally as I repeatedly tried to cram really long propositions into a few words that would fit nicely into a data table and be easy to remember. three words was often too few and six was often too many but four was about right most of the time. now that it's been going a while, I like it. it's funny how it happens to mirror the long-standing practice of a lot of Chinese sayings, usually idioms, being expressed in four syllables. I've apparently cracked the problem of four word idioms for English without trying to.
also... I watched this one video that was purposefully making a constructed language where it was impossible for individual words to hold meaning and only an entire sentence could mean something, because the sentence was a hash of a bunch of numbered concepts lined up or something like that. that's almost a real thing with drastically abbreviated propositions — the four words together mean something and each word may mean something specifically next to one of the others but the individual words cease to mean anything by themselves.
Movie theaters are more Fisherist than movies / Movie theaters cracking down on "cam recordings" is a better example of capitalism programming people with its beliefs than any of the actual content of movies -> we have this incredibly stupid contradiction that people have realized that "cops" are bad, but they also have no idea whatsoever that rules are bad and think that culture products actually program people when all they are is the thoughts that are left over after rules are enforced. oh, yeah, and also we believe Stalin's government was really bad for enforcing tyrannical rules but we still don't have any idea that it's the rules that are bad.
I'm gonna make a bold statement: the cop is just doing their job. "ACAB" is not a historical statement describing centuries of events.
An international Communist program is not a collection of national programs (Bill van Auken) [39] -> he may be at least partly right. I mean, even a meta-Marxist program would contain slightly more than a collection of national programs due to the need to get each national program to understand the other ones.
Stalin claiming the other countries were not subordinate to the Soviet Union is basically an Idealist statement as a miscellaneous collection of individual countries has no protection against having to form a herd-of-cats effect in which particular countries or clusters of competent leaders guard the entire thing against the First World
History is the progression of conflicting anarchisms (derived anarchist proposition) / Anarchism is non-dialectical by itself but dialectical when it exists in plurality with itself because multiple anarchisms fighting each other will enact the Hegelian dialectic -> this has to be true for a theory based on "freedom" to actually work in real life. you have to have a bunch of discrete named anarchisms where almost all identify themselves as anarchisms but they each decide to fight each other and explode each other to be born because something about the previous one didn't make them feel "free" and so they tried to destroy it in order to create something else they couldn't describe.
this proposition is both wonderful and terrible. it's wonderful in that I actually now have a working model of exactly why it is that anarchisms are overall so persistent and refuse to give up: anarchisms are not actually against Hegelianism, but they see themselves as the entire Hegelian dialectic. the concept of Stalin trying to model society as local structures transitioning into other structures? anarchists believe in that but they believe that very process right there must take the form of entire Communities burning each other down to create better Communities. it's terrible in that anarchisms will never realize this. they will never realize what they actually are, and they will always act like "freedom" actually is something rather than just an absence and the (sometimes justified) hatred of things they don't like and want to fight.
No individual human being can be a worker as an individual; as individuals, all human beings are the petty bourgeoisie; human beings become workers if and when they actively integrated into larger structures and cease to be workers when they are removed from those structures -> this problem is part of what sinks basically all Liberal-republican philosophy and all philosophy inside Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republican philosophy is hell-bent on the concept that people really can be considered in isolation, which causes all human beings to conceptualize themselves as petty bourgeoisie, or worse, to actively regenerate the petty bourgeoisie. the concept that people "have human rights" as individuals and then they come together and have individual human rights as individuals together is absolutely lethal to a functioning society.
The "failure" of Wikipedia to provide a reliable source (presumed to be as reliable as grade school texts, not university-level texts) is actually the failure of anarchism, and of a particular kind of named anarchy -> I don't know what this particular kind of anarchy is called, but I'll find a name for it eventually. it has something to do with the notion of culture products or information products as open and evolving instead of closed, when their content really should have been closed. (this does not refer to the concept of "open" or "closed" source code, it's a totally different kind of "closed" or "open".) funny enough, the Free Software movement has already figured out how to make Freed things with closed contents — we call them software packages.
Corporate culture products are not objects communicated from a director to each audience member, but are in practice generally objects communicated from one fan to another fan; not only is the "artistic vision" of one particular specific individual a ridiculous thing to expect culture products to have, but at the end of the day all corporate culture products are ultimately just pre-made commercial fan fiction -> the way you have to fix the fan fiction problem is so specific. I've had several "solutions" to it that were probably wrong. but I think the crux of it lies here. the most important relationship in the pipeline of culture products is them being passed back and forth between fans. on occasion quite literally when someone hands someone else a Steam code. most of the time a little more figuratively, in the form of let's plays, theory videos, and the construction of alternate timelines. capitalism makes a huge deal out of the sanctity of the corporation for no good reason. ideally what you want is the paid experts completing their task of churning out culture products without a lot of ado about how great or awful the workers are personally for particular actions and decisions, instead they just complete the task quietly and go home, and then you want the fans to be allowed to pass back and forth whatever they want to regardless of whether it has been modified. and you don't want the central party-nation freaking out about the airtight seal between corporation and fans and the fans "wrecking society by doing too much"; that should not be a real offense. instead, if anything, you want the central party simply noticing where the seal is breaking and doing inquiries into whether different kinds of products should be produced. it might be the case hypothetically that the ideal scenario is the seal breaking totally and government not even having to bother re-connecting any of the points of production to formal corporations because there is simply enough stuff that nobody actually has to pay for culture products any more and generally considers them all to cost zero or literally a couple loose coins at a thrift store.
the last thing you want to see happening (ever) is a "Chinese map fiasco" where people perceive government as a brutal predator that munches on human social activity purely to digest it and start scheming about how to stay out of its mouth because they know everything only gets worse after you fall in. you can never let that happen because the moment it happens the whole of socialist transition will disintegrate. the petty bourgeoisie regenerates in a heartbeat and it happens anywhere and everywhere. you're much more at its mercy than you ever could have realized.
Pride is a vice! (Toryism) / LGBT people shouldn't be bold and proud because pride is a sin (is a vice; Christianity) -> this proposition is bullshit but it really is interesting linguistically because it makes you ask how many things "pride" actually refers to. I can think of at least two: A) arrogant overconfidence B) the unwillingness to either trust others or submit to others (the way it was used in Dragon Ball, where I heard it and was just like, is that actually bad though, the kind of people who want you to surrender to them can be cruel and not worth it)
Deleting Mao is Orientalist / Attributing Buddhism or Taoism specifically to "Eastern culture" is an unnecessary act of essentialism, because it proposes that instead of warring states periods (a repeatable pattern made of predictable processes) giving rise to Taoism and Chinese Buddhism, people chose to create Buddhism and Taoism to solve warring states periods because people were inherently Chinese -> I knew there was something that bothered me about people always referring to "Eastern culture". [40] it's this! it's the Idealist interpretation of history that is implied inside it.
you know what else Asians created to solve warring states periods? Maoism. that is completely different from either Buddhism or Taoism. so what inherent Asian essence is contained in that? how do you reconcile there being at least two completely different definitions of "Eastern culture"?
Japan's only philosophy is Japaneseness / Japanese people do not have plural philosophies repeatable across other countries, they only have Japaneseness [41] -> I am so done with the entire concept of "studying Cultures" because I swear this is how most ordinary people interpret it. they throw around the word "collectivism" like it actually means something and refers to a philosophy, but what they really mean when they say it is precisely "Chineseness" or "Japaneseness". they presuppose that Japanese people have Japaneseness and then they look for more descriptions of Japaneseness to explain why Japaneseness leads to Japaneseness in a circular loop.
deleting Mao from Chinese history / deleting Mao (Liberal-republicanism) -> this is a fun one. you'll see why on the next line.
memory hole (1984) + the PRC is a bad fake historical period = deleting Mao. memory hole (1984) + Kuomintang = deleting Mao. deleting Mao + medieval fantasy = China is still a medieval kingdom.
Giving money to businesses doesn't help human beings; it only helps business structures and the owners that are conflated with them / Giving money to businesses doesn't help the proletariat -> I like this framing because I think it's arguable it doesn't even really help small owners.
The concept of "race traitors" implies races are physical processes producing necessity / The concept of "race traitors" implies that there is an inevitable destiny for a whole population of Black people just because they are Black, which will be realized through an overall Black population interacting all at once with its surroundings only under particular (non-inevitable) conditions, but will not happen through individuals as separated from the Black population as an indivisible object
The United States has the most incentive of any country to get rid of capitalism because it has the most minorities; there are so many distinct minorities that politics itself has come to revolve around minorities, but because each of them contains so few people under such isolation, not a single one of them is going to become free of attempts to exterminate it under capitalism or reformism
Mentioning Malthusianism is genocide / Whenever you choose to say a statement in Malthusianism you have chosen to cause other people to be bigoted [42] -> no... that isn't how it works. as a framework, statements inside Malthusianism could hypothetically be true without all of it being true, so if those are already true and you say them, you didn't cause them to happen. this is like saying that if you predict a box to contain a dead cat when somebody filled it out of sight then you caused it to contain a dead cat, even if the other options are unrelated to cats, like the other option is the box is empty. overpopulation leading to bad outcomes can hypothetically be the case whether you want it to or not, but the important thing to realize is that that doesn't have any bearing on what the actual bad outcomes are. the bad outcomes might not be anything like the simplistic scenarios in Malthus' essays of overcrowding or 'eating babies'. the bad outcomes might look more like an increase in people randomly murdering each other because everyone increasingly feels like everyone else is threatening their existence and they need to protect their existence because 'all individual existences deserve to be respected' or else; despite what everybody wants nobody will yield to anybody else and so people get furious and kill in order to regain control. if everybody's doing that, you don't have control over it; you can't just say "believing in overpopulation is bad" or "if we don't things will get better" to fix it. because when people really truly believe things "Should" work a certain way, especially if that "Should" is an ethical prescription, they won't listen to anything you say until reality magically fixes itself to be that way. people are just going to get angrier and angrier every single day there are too many people and those people are disorganized and attempt with steadily increasing blind rage to punish all the disorganized people that have not been planned or controlled in any way for not being controlled in any way. there's really no "society", "social-ism", "community" -ing out of that situation, because other people's ethical imperatives are not a social construct — you can only obey whatever the ~~pronounced censored~~ other people tell you to do or risk them doing violence to you... or kill them, I suppose. ethics is an infamously unyielding form of philosophy. if there existed any form of belief where everybody spontaneously giving it up would actually solve all our problems, then everybody giving up the entire concept of ethics would be it. think about it: every right-Liberal who tries to say that accumulating wealth is good relies on property rights, which rely on ethics. every nazi that tries to say trans people are destroying the United States relies on a right to not have this "intrude" on their lives, which relies on ethics. if everyone really actually got rid of ethics, they wouldn't be able to defend bad things either, because the whole concept that individuals can make "correct choices" that are superior to other choices in creating a future they would be satisfied with would be gone. there would be vastly more incentive to question your previous decisions and deconstruct arbitrary beliefs if ethics did not exist at all. "post-structuralist philosophy"? "prejudices" and "biases" that will never make sense as analytical tools once you stop being the person that wrote the paper? how about we just get rid of ethics and accomplish the same thing way better with way fewer problems.
I think the thing that bothered me the most about this video is.... the Overshoot Theory video I remember from a while back was also leaning on Native Americans. Overshoot man was like, because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, overpopulation! while these people are like, because Native Americans have lived more sustainably, no overpopulation!. it honestly feels like a non sequitur in both cases. I feel like overpopulation genuinely has nothing to do with whether North American tribes 'have lived more sustainably', positively or negatively. the cases where you'd see overpopulation come from a genuinely different kind of society that operates through entirely different material processes. which means you can't analogize a smaller society to it.
I'm not here to educate you / It's not my job to educate you (statement that minority groups do not have to explain oppression) -> I don't think you can treat this statement as generally true. funny story, I've been picking up books on Native American history when I go to used book sales, and like, these claim to be educational, but you open them up, and the last one I was reading was treating the tribe in question as very mystical. it was trying to be positive and imply there was nothing wrong with people having a different culture but it overall still ended up presenting things like Rolling Thunder (he was the main topic of the book) had a fundamentally magical way of thinking, that he's almost some kind of wizard with magic occult powers in the way he thinks as opposed to his culture being something that can ever be "normal". I think the book was from 1976 if I remember right, not recently.
so like, telling people to go educate themselves and implying they can't talk to actual people to learn what their problems are could be very harmful. I suspect that it's old books like these that a lot of anarchists are learning about other groups of people from and effectively where they're getting their anarchism. or that even if that's not literally the case, that you can still study that example to learn about the problems with the thing anarchists are actually doing.
I think there is like.... a nuance that's totally lost on anarchists about the interaction of individuals or populations. if there's somebody that goes around talking like Rolling Thunder, you can't really just take what he says and present it to other people as his fundamental way of thinking. people in industrial populations are going to take it negatively. there might be one or two people who literally take it as 'backward' and say mean things, but that's not what you need to watch for, the most likely harm you need to keep an eye out for is people softly deciding that tribal populations can't understand modern science and that the way of thinking they have presented is part of their fundamental essence that 'blocks' them from absorbing the understandings people have in industrial society. this is racist, because it puts you into the same rhetorical position as the people who were recently arguing that Black South Africans 'didn't want the farmland taken by Afrikaners because of their culture' and therefore it was okay for European apartheid states to descend in and take whatever they want. I think there's a decent argument to be made that claiming someone like Rolling Thunder has a fundamentally different way of thinking 'than European science' is flat out supporting colonialism and is The Colonizer Attitude, because, just look at its results.
this leaves open the rather broad question of how exactly you can merge tribal populations' ways of thinking with modern science and the findings of industrial societies. we know it's not optional to do that. we know it's necessary to do it to not essentialize people and treat indigenous people as stupid. we know that anarchists trying to present older and more mystical ways of thinking as 'the natural way of thinking' is not okay because it what it effectively does is allow White people to appropriate indigenous culture for their own benefit but still deny that culture to the actual indigenous people and hand all the power of people to determine themselves, to be able to talk about all topics intelligently as the adults in the room and make sophisticated decisions on various topics and involving several different philosophies, to Europeans. putting yourself in a position where other people will essentialize you to one particular level of ideological development is dangerous. I think it's the anarchists that need to be told this more than the tribal populations; they've been through a lot and I think to some extent they know this. anarchists, on the other hand... I feel like it's vaguely possible that some day in the future, people will talk about anarchists as inherently mystical people and weirdly racialize all anarchists exactly the way they've done with tribes in North or South America.
North American tribes are not defined by romantic mystical beliefs [43] / (9k)
There should never be new swatches for identity-based movements existing below the national level, except given special reasoning for why those swatches are especially relevant to describing internationalism; this applies specifically to color swatches, not to text-based philosophy tags -> "LGBT" is one of the only identity movements to be granted its own swatch specifically based on identity as opposed to based on its material strategy.
"Dengism", despite being highly associated with China, is not a demographic identity inside China, it's the whole China, and likewise "Juche-socialism" is the whole North Korea. BlackPantherism is a bit borderline but it passes because of the remark that it could expand over the country and wasn't specifically Black. Trotskyism either spuriously or actually claims to be international, so any argument that it is in fact a demographic identity isn't relevant here as that isn't a mainstream perception of it. "feminism" will not have a swatch because it is easily collapsed into a Liberal-republican interest group and weaponized against trans people. "Muslim socialism" will not have a swatch, although "religious socialism" as a very general category would be closer to being acceptable. "fascism" gets a swatch of some sort; "Italian fascism" doesn't get a swatch. any movement which can actually be defined based on summaries of its material behavior as opposed to culture and can be described as it applies to multiple possible cultural identities is exempt from these rules. "North American Maoism" could have a swatch if it became really relevant and as long as its material behavior can be distinguished from "(Chinese) Maoism" or "(Indian) Maoism".
"LGBT tradition" is one of the only things that genuinely needs and gets an exception from these rules because it's one of the few things that deliberately draws on demographic identity characteristics themselves to produce generalized philosophy which becomes separate from identity. the concept of "queerness" is tightly tied to identity at first, but then becomes its own thing that can be used to describe the dynamics of several other identities as they relate to the rest of society — autistic identity, mental illness associated identity, disabled identity — which experience a similar exclusion and process of having to decide whether to "stay apart" or "fit in". the "queerness metaphor" has a lot of value in describing other movements, so it's useful to have an LGBT swatch to crystallize and focus on that paradigm as it will be used to vaguely associate to the other movements.
also. I probably could have picked a different "stay apart"/"fit in" conflict to stand in for all of these, but I liked having an excuse to make one of the swatches a rainbow, so I picked this one.
Every republic is a class society (anarchism) / Every republic is a class society ("hierarchy", spatial class order) because a ruling class must exist to create a republic -> it's this kind of proposition that makes me question if Trotskyism does or doesn't believe in an era of socialism. it really claims to believe in a republic but its insistence on 'getting rid of bureaucracy' and getting rid of borders (which in a roundabout way are one of the reasons an era of socialism exists, because both things exist due to a country being a physical object) makes it bizarrely more similar to the anarchist method of "class analysis" than the Marxist one, and "anarchist class analysis" necessarily leads to trying to do everything Immediately as opposed to on a reasonable time scale
The militant form of Existentialism is when Existentialists kill others that threaten their existence in order to continue existing -> this is one of the many reasons I don't like Existentialism. first, it's thoroughly incoherent. none of its actions are predictable based on combining logical statements or based on anything called "reason". none of its actions are explainable with religious justifications nor morality. it gets super offended when you try to reduce collections of people to inanimate objects but in practice it encourages humans to behave like lions or baboons. we may as well all be inanimate objects for how good this philosophy is. second... it turns brown not even in two seconds, but yesterday.
Killing people who would otherwise kill you is self defense / iron rule ... (censored title) / iron rule (generic) -> hmmmmmmm. A) are they Black people the cops are scared of B) are they midwest Indians in the 1800s C) are they Palestinians D) are they a Bolshevik government attempting to prevent the petty bourgeoisie from creating civil war or imperialism? this is bad exmat because I absolutely saw the fourth one casually tossed out in the same comments section. "Hitler, Stalin, or Mao", they said casually as if it made sense.
History is the progression of generational subcultures -> this is slightly different from the claim that history is the progression of father to son to son or mother to daughter to son to daughter etc., because it is talking about the progression of whole layers of thousands and thousands of people born in the same 5-10 year period, and is not centering itself around individuals or psychoanalysis. it's not psychoanalysis, and instead, it's shifted its entire focus over to art history, the humanities, or the history of an industry.
History is the progression of successive semi-countable art markets -> I'm a little astounded to find such an Idealist claim and such a Materialist claim in the same podcast right next to each other a sentence apart, but I'll take it. wow. this one is so telling. it accidentally reveals so much about the connection between capitalist theory, the growth of society, and the outward manifestations seen in culture products.
let's think about this. a 'console generation' forms in order to raise the prices of the products (largely by producing them new), while decreasing the cost of entry. if the discipline is new, it won't be overrun with expensive equipment, stacks and stacks of money poured into expertise, and the prestige of certain brands creating natural monopolies. after a while, all the corporations in a given market have made their money and the products are everywhere such that neither can new corporations make money nor can old ones earn any more. so then the market resets and an entirely new market is created. a bunch of hype goes around to present the new thing as really great although it was created in order for the new products made for it to not have to be very good at first. and apart from video games, this happens for the general concept of mediums and a lot of physical formats.
honestly. I trust this more than Habermas' conception of history as some kind of progression of morality where what is progress could become entirely subjective; at least you can measure what a sideways progression from one set of events to another is.
console wars + History is the progression of generational subcultures = this.
The middle ground between sense and nonsense is still insane / I believe 2+2=4, but in the interest of representing those who believe 2+2=22, my platform is 2+2=11 (counter-claim)
The majority of Jews support Israel [44] / Some Jews don't support Israel (counter-claim) -> this observation really destroys anti-essentialism as a path to truth, doesn't it. superficially it seems to support it, but when you look at how the counter-claim is actually used... it's used to defend Idealism as "not always" being fatally flawed while most uses of it at best make it wholly irrelevant to explaining anything. anti-essentialism is often just a back-handed statement that Idealism doesn't actually explain real life, not realizing that in saying that it's slamming the Idealist models it's supposed to save.
Some Jews don't support Israel [45] -> U.S. people don't know anything but Idealism, the treatment of everything as abstract qualities. so they have to take on "Jews" and "anti-semitism" as abstract concepts. when they do that, it predisposes them to racist understandings of what various ethnic groups "are". so then they bring out the point of "but surely one of them doesn't support Israel" (anti-essentialism) to badly try to prove that Idealism isn't racist.
it doesn't fix anything of course. Defining everything by what it's not leads you to defend anything and everything including the U.S. military.
Why do United States people want to rehabilitate veterans but punish ICE? [46] -> okay, that's a good question.
I think, speaking materially and not ethically, it has to do with which groups of people U.S. people believe that U.S. law applies to. if you believe in Kantianism you need a body of people to legislate onto to hold anybody responsible for (un)ethical behavior. so, people scramble to define who "Americans" are to determine whether government should be rehabilitating them were that a possibility. I think there is a bias toward rehabilitating veterans just because there is some chance they might vote Democrat, while due to their behavior people have a bias toward labeling Republican voters as foreigners. this isn't just stupidity (even if there may be a bit of that too). at some point Liberal-republican parties stop being arbitrary and start turning into entirely separate nationalities that actually don't consent to being governed by each other; the increasing perception of Republicans as "not Americans" and of ICE as a uniquely foreign army stems from actual observed behavior of Republicans slowly attempting to secede from the sovereign realm of Democrat laws, and of the increasing futility of properly governing them.
nucleation site (chemistry) [47] -> a site of crystallization which encourages formation of other crystals.
has relevance for the concept of modeling social structures changing
substance flipping over from one polymorph to another (chemistry) [48]
anarcho-NATOism
Imperialism is nonviolent / Anarchism definitionally requires violence; this is to imply and nearly to state that a warlike, potentially genocidal empire is perfectly okay and recommended because of the fact only a few people at the edge of an empire have to fight over borders and most people in an empire are nonviolent [49] -> you wonder how anybody goes along with "settler-colonialism" and thinks it's a good idea in the first place. this is how. it's actually nonviolence-colonialism.
Idealism is dangerous to humanity, it really is.
anarcho-NATO-ism + ?? = Imperialism is nonviolent.
Marxism before the year 2020 has been a theory of ideological segregation more than a theory of social progress -> why is it that walling off whole fortress states has been more effective than trying to spread filaments of radicals inside class societies? I think the example of China and Taiwan splitting and the example of Texas defeating the freethinkers are very instructive on why this happened
Despite the observable historical fact that various social structures can transition into other structures, it is generally easier to create any of the later structures humanity invents by starting from scratch rather than from working with structures that already exist, due to the fact that ruling classes are generally the clusters of people that are more inherently powerful and able to conquer and expand than the masses or clusters of people they rule over -> this is one of the best arguments that anarchism and Trotskyism each have going for them. but it's also one of the best arguments for Deng Xiaoping Thought if you don't totally dismiss sublation processes. this gives way to Deng Xiaoping Thought much faster than it justifies anarchism.
Statues and plaques do not actually teach people history
Confederate statue as superstructural artifact -> the motif of Confederate statues being more of a "coincidence" spat out of a Social-Philosophical System that just happens to 'believe' them as opposed to being a good representation of the overall process of history
If the subjective theory of value is true, then why does the value of various cryptocurrencies keep crashing?
"Freethinker" is less technical and more expressive than "atheist" [50] -> goes to show that anarchism really is the default mode of thinking rather than a great new invention. and I hate that. because freedom doesn't mean ~~pronounced censored~~ anything. it's actually rather obvious what an atheist is, but "freedom" actually is a belief in nothing because it really is just the absence of whatever else it was tossed in against.
It is common for people that fight one form of extremism to become an opposite kind of extremist; this is to imply that "extremes" are an abstract Ideal that miraculously spits out more extremes, and Extremes can be eradicated [51] -> how is it that people come to regard material contradictions as a completely alien event that isn't the least bit familiar to them
The United States got away with outsourcing labor because corporations programmed people to want cheap goods [52] -> so... how is it they successfully did that if it's possible to simply tell people it was done and break it? if people can really be programmed against their best interests that consistently, then why would they listen to you?
I think people are making excuses for the fact that owners make these decisions and they fundamentally can't control the owners.
corporations programming people / the engineering of consumer behavior [53]
treating the protagonists of anticommunist fables as unreliable narrators
Society is held together based on interpersonal subjective moral consensus
this + Interpersonal relationships can snap at any moment = Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society.
Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society
Interpersonal relationships are no foundation for society because interpersonal relationships are fragile while society must be more durable to successfully exist / Asocialism (generic)
A theory that primarily grounds itself in human sociality (Socialism, humanities, Kantianism, secular animism) will eventually become reactionary, because human sociality in and of itself is not equipped to handle the inevitable countable and separable plurality of populations that results when human populations exist in the real world; this is to imply that Marxism is not in fact a theory primarily rooted in human sociality as much as one that simply acknowledges it / Asocialism (generic)
Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality + A theory of society which is not accurate to material reality will eventually become reactionary = this.
dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) -> this is apparently its own specific thing. it seems it's typically defined in terms of how well the soviets can defend the overall country and any governing bodies against the re-emergence of capitalism.
Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes; soviet structures are not guaranteed to remain orange because depending on their class and preferred palette of social structures the individual national-employees inside them can add together to turn the structure charcoal, blue, or strawberry -> Trotskyism is weird. it has moments where it's totally unconvicing, and then it has moments where after you've been listening to the actually-okay theorists you have to go out of your way to find, it almost sounds like it got something right. this week, I saw that Trotskyists seemed to be describing the dictatorship of the proletariat as control by one big sea of soviets that are responsible for operating all the other organs of government — the thinking is that if all the soviets are made of proletarians and the soviets are orange, the soviets will keep all of the other structures from turning strawberry or any other unfavorable ideology. but then I thought about it for a bit, and I realized that this isn't an airtight strategy. in the real world, proletarians can level up into non-proletarians through small-scale processes, and it happens all the time whenever there aren't enough job slots or people simply don't fit into existing business territories' "culture". it's very easy for a country that's full of proletarians one moment to slowly morph into a country of skilled workers that all want their own businesses but will also complain when the reality of running them is much harder than they dreamed.
this became apparent to me as soon as I saw Gramsci talking about a council for the "self-employed". that isn't a red or orange structure, that's a blue or strawberry structure. and those kinds of structures can undo a revolution. but it's also trivial for more of them to be produced through misapplied education or training. if the soviets have full control, it's easy for petty classes to rebel against all the orange soviets and start taking control of the whole country through whatever limited ability they have to assemble together groups of people that outcompete surrounding workers.
dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) + proletarians promoting into Careerists = Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes.
moral evolution (critical theory) / Hegelian evolution of morality / historical development of societies as conceptualized around morality or ethics [54] / procedural theory of rationality (Liberal-republican ethics; Habermas) -> the concept in Habermas of modeling either large or small changes in societies through changes in morality and the resulting changes in society. I'd hate this except that it gets really funny when you apply it to world civilization and actual changes between historical periods, revealing a lot about how imperialism works; in a way, it's so bad it's good. I guess that's about what you should expect to get when you start with Hegel. Liberal-republicanism is frustrating but Hegel really isn't so bad in the end.
deformed Liberal states / degenerated Liberal states -> the motif of Liberal-republican countries looking at other nation-states and regarding them as deformed versions of themselves that need to be punished until they form correctly.
deformed Liberal states + moral evolution (Trotskyism) = deformed workers' states.
Morality itself tends to favor a world of "small business hell" simply because the assumptions that lead to people creating morality happen to lead there and all Idealist statements when put together spit out some kind of real-world consequence -> I find it frustrating that people will start from a set of arbitrary Ideals and then just deontologically assume that if those Ideals are good then whatever they produce must also be good. to me Habermas' theory of moral consciousness just doesn't make sense as a material theory of history because in one way all moral or ethical values are always arbitrary; there will always be a point where people assume that what they're currently doing is morally good or superior just because it's the thing a lot of people are doing and none of them want to stop doing it while any other group of people must be morally bad just for doing a different thing that threatens to replace that thing, even before they actually demand other people trade in what they're doing for the new thing.
Idealism produces material outcomes / All Idealist statements or combinations of Idealist statements lead to some kind of real-world consequence -> there are many ways to take this. one of the surface conclusions is that Idealism isn't as explanatory as Materialism. one of the most interesting conclusions is that you can "meta-game" Idealism and figure out the best Ideals to tell people in order to get them to create particular material results. this is essentially lying to people to manipulate their behavior, which if it were up to me I don't really like, but a lot of people believe that most human beings' understanding of the world will never go above that level, which might make it ethical under some theories of ethics.
Prejudice and structural inequality are not the same thing; getting rid of prejudice does not necessarily get rid of structural inequality [55] -> well. I have to agree with this. I'm puzzled why anarchists in general aren't better at understanding this. but the blue anarchists did get something right.
Contact between populations reduces prejudice when four conditions are met: 1) equal status within the contact situation 2) common goals 3) cooperation 4) support from authorities or social norms (Allport 1954, Pettigrew) [56]
Negative contact between populations has a greater observed effect than positive contact [57]
analytic thinking as opposed to holistic thinking [58] -> I always wondered why it was called analytic philosophy. is this why?
pronounced Weird countries [59] -> I like this acronym in that most of it makes sense except the "Western" part. I have no idea what that means. is Japan Western, or is it not? there are good arguments both ways. this is why I prefer saying "First World countries".
peer review auditing -> the motif of sending bogus articles to academic journals in hopes the reviewers will catch the problems
peer-review auditing feminist journals [60] [61] / peer-review auditing gender studies journals
peer review auditing + gender studies journal = this.
feminist Mein Kampf [62] [63] -> wow. they really should have caught that. I.... have to read this at some point because that sounds like the best one.
...it's online? oh wonderful. this is very opaque and hard to read. I guess that's how they got it through.
SEP's analysis of "Stalinism" -> that's... its own specific thing? okay.
If the value of money is culturally fabricated ("made up"), but anarchism can realize itself through a sea of individuals spontaneously deciding to create a different kind of society, then anarchism is a cultural fabrication and everybody is free to spontaneously decide not to follow anarchism and follow whatever ostensibly more oppressive system they want to (meta-Marxism onto post-structuralism)
today I was "thinking"... / 'today I was thinking—' 'stop that' / 'today I was thinking—' 'you?! I can't believe it' -> the motif of somebody cutting off a statement where somebody was thinking about some specific thing and focusing on the concept of "thinking".
Eren Yeager / nazi Eren Yeager (in context of imagining different versions of the story based around different ideologies)
Dengist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if Attack on Titan was Western-Marxist (strawberry Marxist, Gramscian, Dengist / Deng Xiaoping Thought) -> so, Attack on Titan has a dumb premise. it reads like a campfire horror story told by nazis in very little irony. but it is really funny to imagine some of the same central themes being used in an approximately Marxist work. like, instead of it being a nazi campfire story the titans are trying to scale a "Berlin wall", or penetrate China or North Korea to take them back for Liberal-republicanism, the titans are hiding out on Taiwan, the titans are sealing people into Cuba and not letting them leave. there obviously wouldn't be a focus on the concept of the big antagonist monsters being 'impure' or 'diseased', that element of it probably wouldn't exist. it would just be kaiju trying to break into the country and do something horrifying. it's gotta be a little over the top. it's gotta be about turning them all into kaiju for some nefarious but useful purpose, like, I dunno, the kaiju feed off negativity and if they all turn into kaiju and fight each other the whole population of kaiju becomes stronger. everyone is horrified about the invasion and it brings them all together.
anarchist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if Attack on Titan was anarchist -> this is why I am having an increasingly hard time telling the difference between Deng Xiaoping Thought and anarchisms. like, once again, anarchism succeeds when you build a wall around it — probably metaphorically — and wait for the outside to tire itself out. I can't tell the difference between Gramscian Eren Yeager and anarchist Eren Yeager.
oh god when I just go saying ideologies in a sentence of course my brain is going to shout "Trotskyist Eren Yeager". I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means at all. I dunno, like, the enemies are more like Reptilians or Yeerks and they're hiding out in the central government and nobody wants to believe it so the anti-alien squads are like trying to team up across regions? I tried.
Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality -> anarchists are going to get so upset if you try to argue this at them. they'll try to argue that reality is whatever comes naturally to living things, and different states of natural for each living species must naturally want to go together, blah blah blah. [*] but they're all privileged. they haven't experienced a state of truly being fenced out of society by thousands and millions of people that all simultaneously agree they don't like you (probably without having met you or having much of any idea what they're doing). they especially haven't experienced it owing to the existence of anarchism, because anarchism already selected for people like them. but they should wise up to the fact that anarchism doesn't really pass the veil of ignorance with flying colors. it's quite easy to end up on the wrong side of "community" where you simply have nobody and nothing and also everyone assumes you must be a bad person just because you haven't claimed an exclusive spot in Community that supposedly you only have to be nice to people to get and follow morality though in reality it's much more difficult and complicated and trivial to simply be born wrong and fail to survive the ecological parameters of the 'community-icene'. I think that as a period of biological life the Anthropocene truly began at tribal society, not at industrial society. it was the ability to form entire ecosystems made of nothing but humans that changed things, but if anarchists are correct that the natural state of humans and human psychology is in tribes then all the current destruction of the environment ultimately came from the characteristics of tribes. tribal populations are not wholly innocent for all the horrors of global empire and ecological destruction if at the end of the day we're all still tribes and they're the only ones trying to disclaim that there are bad things about that. really, as crazy as it sounds, they might be accidentally benefiting from a corrupt system that has killed great numbers of people. of course, if humans don't have a seemingly eternal resting state of being in tribes that we have no choice but to return to which in turn implies we are currently tribes in denial and will still be tribes for the next hundred thousand years, then tribal populations carry no blame for what industrial societies have done.
(* why didn't they say that about workers' states and the healthy state of the Soviet Union versus the very disordered states that occurred at every moment after tearing it apart? they have even less excuse than Trotskyists. Trotskyists wilfully wanting to overwrite another Marxism with their own Marxism is at least logical even if it's terrible.)
"Indigenous people" marks a statement as racist / Saying "indigenous people" marks a sentence as containing racial stereotypes [64]
Mentioning ethnic groups is racist / Mentioning an ethnic group without mentioning a specific individual marks a sentence as containing potentially-harmful racial stereotypes -> this is what you have to believe for the above statement to be true. like, if "indigenous people" marks a racial stereotype, then saying a more specific group of people like "Inuit" should equally mark a racial stereotype — how does the person you're talking to know that you're giving correct information about all Inuit people and not just saying something false? but if this is true, you couldn't go to Congress and say "Black people" or "Mexican immigrants" for any legitimate purpose without mentioning individuals that supposedly make the example truer. does it actually make statements more accurate to include specific individuals? I feel like it adds nothing but also subtracts nothing.
this is a really weird criterion for judging whether statements are accurate. I know where it comes from, it comes from people trying to judge everything through positivism and claim that Lived Experiences are a pathway to truth while a lack of Lived Experiences is a pathway to falsity. it's still really weird. it doesn't seem to accomplish the thing it sets out to accomplish at all, and just seems to make all statements said about any group of people more worthy of doubting. "White people have the colonizer attitude"? maybe not!! Ben was doing that, but did you ask Carla?? "Black people experience structural racism"? maybe not!! you didn't mention an individual so in theory you might be racist for even saying that.
Mentioning ethnic groups is racist + Anti-essentialism is a pathway to truth = Pointing out racism is racist.
Referring to Communists without mentioning a specific individual is unacceptably prejudiced / If mentioning ethnic groups without mentioning a specific individual is racist, which is to imply that talking about groups of people in the abstract rather than as a particular countable number of concrete objects is racist, then mentioning "Communists" or "Cubans" or "people who support Stalin" without naming a specific individual for evaluation is equally prejudiced; every time somebody has said "tankies" or "totalitarians" or "Stalinist(s)" outside a particular context has been an unacceptably prejudiced statement -> this is another loophole in this. god I love it when really bad propositions break open so bad they wrap around to supporting Communism
"Social construct" is a social construct / Most of the time anarchists talk about social constructs they are trying to imply that things that are undesigned or that come out of interacting elements are deliberately engineered Ideals, but because this overall way of thinking is Idealist, it is also fair to say that anarchists are not working with a model that is well checked against reality and their theory of a given "social construct" being "constructed" is equally as made up as the "social construct" is if not more [65] -> sounds like a deepity until you realize what it's really saying and then your mind is blown
this is how you get out of what I referred to in another entry as "Gerson Boom BS". you realize what Idealism is and how it obscures whatever non-Idealist relationships between things may exist

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 {{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}To the extent the world develops toward proletarian civilization, monist Materialism will extend to a greater portion of mankind, replacing theological religions and metaphysical ethics [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html]  ->  wow... if that isn't backhandedly true. the more the world slid away from creating proletarian civilization since 1950 almost the exact opposite thing happened.
+{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Oppositions of ideas develop within society as interacting material factions and physical conflicts develop — at approximately the speed the physical conflicts happen [https://firebrand.red/2024/03/neither-dogmatism-nor-eclecticism-but-marxist-dialectics/]  ->  sometimes I have to remind myself of this because when things suddenly actually start changing it feels like it makes no sense and there was no particular reason for it
 {{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618}}I like the political doctrine of Marx, but not the materialism or the economics (Hitch 1905) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/untermann/1906/04/eclecticism.html]  -> ...what?? 1900s fake Marxisms were really something.