User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/900: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

Revision as of 07:01, 8 September 2025

901 - 1999 [edit]

Historical events, texts, etc.
Final live version of this section: Items 1 to 1,000 / Items 1,000 to 2,000

MAI reading list / Anti-Imperialist Movement Marxist-Leninist reading list
??
??
??
??
??
??
noble coup -> "noble coup" is my colloquial term for a political phenomenon where some particular socially-linked graph of nobility and their allies plot to replace a particular royal family or top of a feudal order. I'm not totally sure what the standard word for this is. one thing I'm closer to sure about is that in the handful of these I've heard about it seems like the nobility easily get divided. it isn't easy for them to all join together and create a new state around the nobility compared to them splitting into competing factions of nobility which may all be tied to a particular religious sect. it's weird how the patterns of nobility have similarities to the patterns of capitalists, and this seems to be partially responsible for the similarities between Catholic and Protestant conflicts in England versus progressive and Protestant political subpopulations in the United States.
revolution against feudal order / bourgeois revolution (Marxism)
revolution against capitalism / revolution that creates non-capitalist state but does not create feudal order -> this entry allows for the concept of a revolution forming a charcoal workers' state, although as far as I know that is entirely hypothetical right now and has never happened in real life for a period of longer than 3 years. (to be fair 3 years is pretty good compared to a couple months, but it's definitely not 70 years.)
??
??
??
??
??
rift, split, separation, schism, expulsion, or fatal controversy / event of serious division between two sets of people / event of serious division between notable individual and group -> thanks Trotsky for showing me that expulsions and schisms are really just the same thing
metaphysical thought experiment
Materialist thought experiment
scientific thought experiment
historical-materialist thought experiment
existential-materialist thought experiment
??
??
jamming proposition or question / jamming antithesis
jamming proposition -> seems to be a major component of 'pataphysics, but also of meta-Marxism
jamming question -> it bothers me that most people don't think a question is a proposition. it makes the task of non-binary logic unnecessarily difficult.
??
??
??
??
??
??
your-choices pronounced vs. yours-choice distinction / your-choice versus yours-choices versus yours-choice distinction -> a vital distinction to understand before anyone can properly answer whether "your choices matter". when people say "your choice(s)", are they referring to "your choice" individually, "yours choices" as every individual separately in parallel, or "yours choice" as many individuals combined into one group?
tiered levels of grouping / tiered grammatical plurality -> the concept of multiple levels of plural objects (seas of free-floating entities) as they are represented in language or propositional logic. I would say the majority of people are not aware of this concept and constantly gloss over it in both writing and comprehending writing. it is dreadfully common to simply toss out the weasel word "we" with no particular meaning in reference to some really vague group of more than one person and assume it makes total sense.
one-member concept / singular term [1]
group concept / collective term
subpopulational concept / particular concept / particular term
populational concept / universal concept / general concept / universal term / general term
global concept / global term -> a concept which applies to the largest possible scales of populations or generalizations, such as worldwide
concept about many separate individuals in parallel / applying to many separate individuals in parallel
concept about many separate groups in parallel / applying to many separate groups in parallel
concept about separate subpopulations in parallel / concept about several separate subpopulations in parallel
concept about separate nations in parallel / concept about several separate populations in parallel
method of defining a set
local characteristics or members / intensional characteristics / localized spatially-unique set members or characteristics of said members
entailed characteristics or members / extensional characteristics / extensionality across characteristics or subpopulations
??
??
??
??
language register / language proficiency level
local vernacular term -> applies to contexts such as fandoms and that phenomenon where gender labels were exploding because nobody knew the difference between common terms, vernacular terms, and university-level terms
widespread vernacular term -> applies to contexts such as dialects of English
uncommon term
common term
technical term taught in grade school / scientific term taught in grade school
university-level term / technical term taught in four-year degree
university-level term widespread in particular ideology / technical term widespread in partisan ideology
graduate-level term / technical term taught in specialist degree -> one of the only one of these Items to not use "88" to mean anything whatsoever.
technical term within local research group / field-specific academic jargon term
??
boxed-in theory -> the motif of a theory which has absolutely no idea what meta-ontology is and would never think of analyzing itself as an object
meta-theory -> I at first put "MDem reading list" here, but then I found out about metamathematics, and running across more meta-theories makes me so excited
MDem reading list -> just so I am not tempted to create another one anywhere else. not the definitive or ultimate one, but one I can compare and contrast with my MDem bibliography entry as a minimal version
??
??
plateau (philosophy) / plateau (schizoanalysis) / thing claimed to have no beginning or end / spatially-unique object which does not remain unique
formatting device -> any kind of device which styles, tags, or structures text. Unicode encoding might count as a formatting device
formatting rule -> a specific kind of formatting device which transforms written text into logical structure and possibly renders into some other kind of transcribed logical structure such as TeX or HTML
basic bop formatting - ad-hoc markup language
Markdown - markup language
HTML - markup language
prototype -> an early version of anything made for testing. not related to markup languages.
Hue list classname - colors used in Hue lists, including any color-codings you can see on this one. not to be taken very seriously, often quickly chosen to distinguish nearby blocks of items from each other. instance of: CSS classname
CSS classname -> instance of: formatting device
Item usable as Hue list classname
unique language
English (en)
French (fr)
German (de)
Spanish (es)
??
??
Russian (ru)
Korean (ko)
Japanese (ja)
Chinese metalanguage (zho)
Mandarin Chinese (cmn)
Cantonese (yue)
??
??
North Korean dialect
South Korean dialect
Chinese character (hani)
Traditional Chinese (hant)
Simplified Chinese (hans)
uncommon, constructed, or system-internal language / language possibly coded as mis
simple English (en-simple) / en-x-pona / en-basiceng [2] -> I want this to be specifically upgoer-five style with a very small list of words, such that it's only a step or two up from toki pona, yet not so simple it's hard to read. the idea is almost to write the en-simple label and use it as guidance for the tok one. Wikipedia's 8000-word list should be useful
toki pona (tok) -> implied to be either sitelen pona or sitelen Lasina
toki pona, sitelen Lasina (tok-Latn)
toki pona, sitelen pilin / sitelen emoji (tok-pilin)
toki pona, sitelen jelo (tok-jelo)
??
taxonomic names dictionary (la-sci) - [3] [4]
work citations dictionary (qww)
Wikimedia message ID (qqx) - [5]
(reserved for languages)
(reserved for languages)
??
??
toki pona derivative / tokiponido
toki pona but with English / meta toki pona / en-x-pona (motif) / ja-x-pona (motif) / de-x-pona (motif) / ru-x-pona (motif) -> the new simultaneously blessed and cursed language I came up with after messing with toki pona and looking at other people's criticisms of it. you write with a palette of 100-150 content words, particles and grammar patterns not necessarily counting toward the limit as long as you can hold up an introductory language textbook they're in, but you use any language you want, you can pick any words as your content words, and the only rule is that you have to stick to the same palette of unique words for the duration of the text. I imagine this would be relatively easy to use for short articles but gets vastly harder as the text gets longer.
I am just trying to imagine the concept of doing this with several different languages to get a feel for how each language works and idly wondering if I could somehow test every language on earth what my favorite language would then be. I have no idea. I know that the image of writing a summary of Being and Time in this is hilarious to me, partly because some of the words used in it are already superficially simple but then used to express really arcane or unconventional ideas. I wonder how it would look different in de-x-pona versus en-x-pona. I'm going to say you can cheat by smashing words together to make new words, with the only rule being that you and the audience have to assume they have no meaning until you define them. de-x-pona sounds like a fun language that is probably a little clearer than toki pona or en-x-pona, just because the boundaries between words so clearly separate ontological concepts. I feel like zh-x-pona and ja-x-pona would be capable of the same thing if you throw enough hanzi together though. I wonder if one day we'll know enough about ancient languages that egyptian-x-pona would be possible, or sumerian-x-pona, knowing it doesn't have to be fully as graceful as the original language and only has to be easy to learn in its phonetic form. as far as I'm concerned only the spoken language has to be simple while the writing can be hieroglyphs if that somehow makes the words distinct and the meaning clearer.
??
??
fantasy work
??
??
??
speculative fiction
??
utopian fiction
dystopian literature / dystopian fiction
anticommunist fable / anticommunist parable / "dystopian fiction" created to attack a progressive theory
socialist realism
metatransitional literature / meta-transitional realism / meta-transitional fantasy -> like socialist realism or science fiction, but for meta-Marxism
afterlife fiction / Bangsian fiction
horror work
anti-imperialist fable / anti-colonial fable -> a rising genre of idealistic short stories which is specifically about either a kingdom Freely Deciding not to create global empire or some fictional population fighting against global empire's previous attempt to extinguish it. this concept does not encompass every story with national independence or anti-empire themes. the anti-imperialist fable is distinguished by a bizarrely strong focus on the notion of intersubjectivity and the whole narrative being driven by particular things being morally wrong and/or the universe naturally pushing back against what the narrative considers immoral. [6] I am becoming slowly convinced that the use or implication of this story genre is a major reason Pokémon appeals to people.
hero's journey narrative / adventure story -> in practice, the definition of "hero's journey" is almost the same as the definition of "adventure"; that's probably what we would have called it if we'd just started at the everyday examples of a book about a dog finding its way home and then worked back to the Iliad. I feel like things turned out this way because of people trying really hard to justify their degree in classical antiquity. which it may well be they had to get to convince a bunch of crusty imperialists to let them study the arts.
superhero story / superhero narrative
fictional history
evil empire narrative -> distinguishable from hero's journey narrative because it explicitly involves populations. may simultaneously be an anti-imperialist fable, or might not.
??
quantum water -> an imaginary metaphor in which quantum fields are literally water that separates into different puddles, and the point is to show how different water would have to be in order to be like a quantum field
tennis ball -> keeps being used as a loose comparison for quarks in MDem scraps, which repeatedly explore how different a tennis ball would have to be to be like a quark.
cue ball
pool ball
??
??
??
??
eight ball
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
Every physical constant is actually an equation / Every single physics constant is equivalent to an equation in practice, not solely in mathematics -> this is one of those moonshot hypotheses I may never ever know the answer to, nor anybody in science who said the same thing. but I think it's very very important to contemplate. what if every constant is just an equation of "ten apples fit in a standard apple basket", meaning that the constant specifically describes the way the apple basket is constructed and what it is? we're used to physics equations being more complicated than "y = 10x", but from the point of view of mathematics nobody said they have to be. from the point of view of mathematics, every equation is our outside perspective on a phenomenon, and science models the phenomenon based on what it can observe and test more than what it predicts to be inside.
physical constant
??
??
??
??
order of magnitude / scale of particular numerical base / power of ten / power of two / multiple of one
multiple of number -> subset of: order of magnitude
precise order of magnitude / repeatable number of things / stoichiometric number / specific average number of things -> counterpart to Property "replicated at order of magnitude"; subset of: order of multiple of number
1/137 problem (physics) / 137 problem (physics) -> mysterious constant which keeps showing up in a lot of physics equations. does it have a solution in some kind of physical-mathematical object, somewhat like the hypothetical theta field of axions that was to replace a theta constant? currently nobody knows.
??
??
Everything is made of something / Physics is when everything becomes other stuff / Physics is the study of everything being made of stuff -> A) the problem of what a black hole is rests on the definition of physics that matter and energy always become something else physical because everything is made of something B) unexpected consequence: knowledge is made of physical arrangements of things, leading to one logical proof against Maxwell's demon.
When matter disappears it becomes something else / When matter disappears from a defined section of reality it usually becomes something else / matter conservation
When energy disappears it becomes something else / When energy disappears from a defined section of reality it usually becomes something else / energy conservation
Knowledge is made of physical arrangements of things -> seems odd to point out but invariably ends up being true. bits are physical arrangements of things. neurons are physical arrangements of things. printed words are physical arrangements of things. bibliographies and bookshelves are physical arrangements of things. data Items are physical arrangements of things. even signs are physical arrangements of things, although they're split across two substrates: the written work and the brain. both written works and brains are physical. the final leap not included in this proposition: ideologies and policies are physical arrangements of things, just as a written work is. knowledge of how to carry out Bolshevism correctly can be stored in an arrangement of words, or it can be stored in a physical population of people increasingly arranged into Bolshevism. however, a population of people which increasingly arranges itself away from Bolshevism and into another arrangement may lack the stored information of how to create Bolshevism the more it already does not resemble it.
??
??
??
??
Some things can be made of themselves / Some objects are small enough to be made only of themselves and not made out of anything smaller -> the claim that fundamental objects may exist in the universe although they are bound to be very, very small. do they exist as quanta? do they exist as whatever quantum fields are made of? do they exist at the Planck length? nobody knows.
History is made of processes / History is made of objects and transformations / History is made of stuff -> Everything is made of stuff + series of events = this
??
??
??
How do you produce the ingredients of a black hole? / What kind of physical stuff would matter change into if it got into the interior of a black hole? / What kind of black hole stuff is matter converted to when it collides with a black hole? / black hole information paradox
The physical stuff inside a black hole is unstructured energy / Black holes are gravastars; the stuff inside the gravastar is a maximally warped zero point energy -> I'm tempted to say the phrase "like one really giant quark" but I'm not sure that's scientifically accurate, since after all black holes aren't constantly disappearing or re-dividing. so I won't.
??
??
??
??
??
black hole
??
??
??
??
??
??
The Good Place
good afterlife / Good Place
afterlife
The Middle Place -> appears in work: Cloud Eight
bad afterlife / Bad Place
??
??
??
??
organization -> I feel as if this needs to be described more specifically to make it clear it's a material object and more than just a term
action against society by countable group of people / incorrect action by countable group of people -> used in defining what protests are about
street protest
??
??
??
??
Populations must be studied relative to their own traditions / cultural relativism proposition
??
??
??
??
??
subculture -> refers to any subculture, although QID references internet subcultures.
??
structural racism -> material phenomenon as described by real-world evidence, and not whatever papers and books say, should that somehow be a problem
redlining
??
??
??
??
??
??
existence as empire / socioempire / gentrification results from small-scale empire / chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy (near-synonym)
critical race theory / CRT
scientific progressivism -> half-hypothetical, half-already-real concept that progressivism, as defined by Existentialists and Liberals, can be broken down into falsifiable hypotheses in the same sense as Marxist hypotheses of how nation-sized revolutionary movements succeed
??
??
drug prohibition / war on drugs / war on drug gangs -> there is a deep discussion to be had about how much a war on drugs isn't actually about drugs and is actually a nationalist local-war campaign on the entire existence of criminals
drug legalization
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
historical fascisms / nationalist regimes recognized as fascisms by historians -> a somewhat deceptive term explicitly excluding the British imperialist framework but including falangism
Axis powers of World War II -> Nazism, Italian fascism, and Japanese global empire
Nazi germany / Nazism
Fascist Italy / Italian fascism
Falangist Spain / falangism / Francoism
Imperial Japan / Japanese global empire
British Empire / British imperialist framework (hypothetical)
United States global empire / United States imperialist framework (hypothetical)
Identitarian fascism / third-positionism / fascisms rooted in definitions of what culture is -> clearly includes Duginism; appears to include Francoism and United States Toryism, if you strictly define it as "fascisms which are not obsessed with genetics"
new Russian empire / post-Soviet imperialist Russia -> under research; Russia as defined by Napoleonist Bauplan or new regime that took over after destruction of Soviet Union
Duginism
European New Right
claimed characteristic of fascism / claimed warning sign of fascism
list of characteristics claiming to define fascism / definition of fascism -> there are a ridiculous number of these. it may be worth encoding all the list-entries and connecting list-entries to the list, especially items they share
??
Tea Party axis -> United States Tory movement that emerged in the early 2000s, about 2007 according to some. before the early 2000s United States "conservative" parties had some claim to being right-Liberal parties, but then they went through a hard turn into solely being about taking the United States "back" from immigrants and people of the wrong religion. I use the term Toryism in reference to the concept of a faction that rejects the creation of a parliament because having democracy would give Catholics too much of British society. it's funny. even though the original Tories and Britain's modern Tory party are separate groups of people, they aren't ultimately that different in their values. and it only gets worse when you note the repeated event of some people in the United States choosing a party specifically in the hope it wasn't Catholic. did Toryism ever really have a beginning and an end?
Umberto Eco's list for fascism
cult of tradition -> claimed characteristic of fascism.
rejection of modern culture / descent into depravity
cult of action for action's sake
disagreement is treason -> note that this has to be in a nationalist tone. Trotsky saying Stalin does this doesn't mean Stalin's Marxism is fascism. contrary to what some people may think. if you want to say Stalin's Marxism is bad, that's whatever, but you absolutely cannot act like Bolshevism and fascism are the same thing coming from the concept of a generalized dictator. they are different countable sociophilosophies.
fear of difference
appeal against low-ranks / appeal to a frustrated middle class
obsession with conspiracies / obsession with the plot
enemies are too strong and too weak
pacifism is trafficking with the enemy
in-group superior to the weak / contempt for the weak
die a hero or become the weaklings
machismo
selective populism
nationalistic buzzwords / newspeak
??
??
??
The Prince (Machiavelli 1532)
??
??
??
??
??
The Taming of the Shrew (c. 1590) -> Shakespeare play. comedy. notable for "abstract amoral world containing blatant misogyny" structure. trying to explain Dragon Ball made me remember it because I swear this is at least two characters' character arcs
??
??
??
??
Guy Fawkes
Gunpowder plot of 1605
treason trial / royal action against act of treason -> the general concept of a treason trial. I feel like grossly un-regulated royal actions against crimes with no due process should also count under this motif; it's so easy for that kind of grossly unregulated enforcement to be tightly connected to the entire concept of "treason", just by nature of the thing.
act of treason memorialized forever / act of treason memorialized for so long that people have probably forgotten the full original context for why it was bad
act of treason forgotten forever -> not the kind of thing you hear about much, once again by nature of the thing. if it's been erased from the popular consciousness of course you won't hear about it.
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
revisionist history (field) -> to be used for actual instances of updating the facts and making them more accurate
progressive anthropology -> subset of: revisionist history (field); in my mind, refers largely to studies of ancient people-groups as done in Magic: a history
inclusive history -> subset of: revisionist history (field)
1619 Project (2019) -> attempted education project by inclusive-historians
Kimberlé Crenshaw -> one inclusive-historian off in a corner of the United States surrounded by a bizarre amount of controversy and discourse. I swear the whole PragerU video about "people segregating themselves at Black graduation" grew out of her drifting over to a different university when the group of people at the other university didn't want her there
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
witch trial as town court / witch trial as conflict
Salem witch trials -> odd how these are constantly used as a symbol of "prejudice" instead of probing the material-historical factors of how they happened. you might wonder why I'd insist on putting it that way. but this is how progressive anthropologists framed the "more traditional" concept of a witch trial before the advent of Christianity and more institutionalized court systems: in terms of the material contradictions operating inside a society and the witch trial actually being a detective exercise to find out who caused the tensions without necessarily bringing a terrible fate on them. I halfway feel like the progressive anthropologists are giving too much credit to people's knowledge when people might just be ancient-style astrologists or something and genuinely not quite get how the universe works and be guessing wildly. but if you wanted to interpret everyone as intending to discover (meta-)Marxism then this kind of interpretation is perfectly fair; ideologies can have wrong surface interpretations of why their model is supposedly correct and yet the model be broadly correct.
witch trial as treason -> this appears to develop in response to pronounced [L] Wasp swarm 1-1-1s. in simpler societal structures, witch trials are less harmful because conflict in society goes back and forth, in all directions, without violence. as First World countries develop and people cluster together "helping each other" build connected Filaments of individual wealth, there becomes an incentive to treat any offense against the Filament as natural treason, and as always, religion and magic ritual and superstition will then each simply reflect the structure of society.
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
A modest proposal (Swift 1729)
??
??
??
The German Ideology part 1A: Idealism and Materialism
The German Ideology part 1B: The Illusion of the Epoch
The German Ideology part 1C: The Real Basis of Ideology
The German Ideology part 1D: Proletarians and Communism
??
??
??
??
??
United States constitutional amendment
Amendment 1
Amendment 2
Amendment 3
Amendment 4
Amendment 5
Amendment 6
Amendment 7
Amendment 8
Amendment 9
Amendment 10
Amendment 11
Amendment 12
United States people will not own slaves (Amendment 13)
Amendment 14
Amendment 15
Amendment 16
Amendment 17
Amendment 19
Amendment 22
Amendment 23
Amendment 24
Amendment 25
Amendment 26
Amendment 27
taxation without representation
United States constitution
United States independence movement (1776) / American revolution
Amendment 18
Amendment 21
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
French Revolution (1789-1790)
democracy (center-/right-Liberalism) / democracy as defined in center-/right-Liberal republicanism
metric system / International System of Units (SI) / Système international d'unités (SI)
French Revolutionary Wars -> right after the French Revolution, the republic brutally occupied a handful of other countries to force them into Liberalism (or at least early republicanism). this part of history is always forgotten especially when talking about World War II and the Cold War
Thomas Paine treason trial (1792) -> there's something to be said about this in relation to the Moscow Trials. I'm not sure what.
French First Republic -> very notable given there was a second one
??
??
??
sister republics (c. 1800) / French-revolutionary client states / Napoleonic client states -> republics which relied on French occupation to remain republics, or were fitted with monarchies loyal to Napoleon
Napoleonic empire -> French civilization under Napoleon's dictatorship
Napoleonism (meta-Marxism) -> may give this a different name later. a civilizational structure consisting of one republic — in some cases a democratic republic — and several client states under military occupation and/or client regimes controlled by the central republic. the puppet regimes may be republican or monarchist but they must be loyal to the regime of the central republic. arguably, the French Revolution birthed the Bauplan of Napoleonism and it's still alive and well, the United States still doing it
??
??
Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) -> second try at brutally enforcing early-republicanism over all of Europe. the Napoleonic empire walled away many countries' economies and made them so upset the other countries ultimately kicked out Napoleon and restored the French monarchy
Hundred Days -> Napoleon comes back from exile to rule Europe again; every European country goes to great effort to stop him
Bourbon Restoration -> restored French monarchy which remained until 1830
Sixth Coalition -> Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Sweden, and Russia, united to defeat Napoleon at the Battle of Leipzig
Seventh Coalition -> Sixth Coalition plus Switzerland and the Bourbon Restoration; each alliance contained many smaller territories too
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
Indian Removal Act of 1830
Trail of Tears (1830-1850)
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
Theses on Feuerbach (c.1845)
What is the relationship of Jewish people to German citizens? / Jewish national question / Jewish question (not Nazism)
On The Jewish Question (Marx 1844)
The German Ideology (Marx 1846/1932)
??
Communist manifesto / Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)
United States westward expansion
"Go west, young man"
??
??
Confederate States of America (1861-1865) / Confederacy / The South
United States Civil War (1861-1865)
Jefferson Davis (Confederate president 1861–1865)
Emancipation Proclamation of 1863
Reconstruction (1863-1877)
??
??
Capital volume I (Marx 1863/1867)
Capital volume II (Marx 1863/1893)
Capital volume III (Marx 1863/1894)
Capital volume IV (Marx 1863/1963)
Theories of surplus value -> sometimes separated from Capital vol IV, sometimes grouped into it
(further divisions of volume IV?)
(further divisions of volume IV?)
International System of Units (SI)
??
??
Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science / Anti-Dühring (1877)
??
??
??
??
The Lady, or the Tiger? -> nice example of ambiguity in literature and the concept that ambiguity can be perilous. if you say it doesn't matter what the door is assigned to, there is a 50% chance the tiger will maul you. if you say it doesn't matter what person A believes or decides is behind the door, then person A knows whether the tiger will maul you and you have no idea. similar concept to: quantum Freddy, quantum leopards; see also: Vegeta effect
??
??
??
On Sense and Reference (Frege 1892) -> early precursor to structuralist linguistics. discusses the concept of how and whether words refer to anything.
??
??
Caesar Antichrist (Jarry 1895)
Exploits and Opinions of Dr. Faustroll, Pataphysician (Jarry c.1911)
??
??
??
??
The National Question (Luxemburg 1909) [7] -> Luxemburg says... the bourgeoisie push for national borders to protect themselves but also to gain an advantage over other countries they are poised to imperialize; "socioempire" technically appears in this text. this text sounds mildly against Deng Xiaoping Thought. borders are weird, they keep dividing countries in the middle of ethnic groups. so the proletariat does not have much to gain from borders specifically compared with the bourgeoisie, although a situational social-democrat program can aim to specifically fix (avoid?) badly-drawn borders. nation-states aren't inherently designed to get along (Marx said this). national populations are not made of ideals. 1800s South America fought itself like an utter mess. Poland only unified as a population to resist capitalism but trying to put a nation-state on party programs was a disaster. ok. so what is this saying with regard to the future for Luxemburg? that whenever you try to protect national populations it is all too easy for the bourgeoisie to take over the task and fail to create something that serves the proletariat? we're trying to solve here if she accidentally said anything about Trotskyism in one country. and I think there are definitely implications here that she would have thought that two Trotskyist states forming and then getting into fights with each other over different Trotskyist theories is highly suspect, or even something to drill into class explanations for. then again that is not a surprising conclusion when the statement that different Marxisms shouldn't be fighting each other should be obvious. but it's not materially obvious to actual on-the-ground history. so has she said anything about Trotskyite conspiracies. I feel like in a way she has said that no group of bourgeoisie can protect a population of people, which in a derived way would apply to a fortress Trotskyism considering where the theorists come from and how few you typically start with historically. she has said that workers' movements succeed on understandings of material processes rather than ideas. which makes Trotskyism baffling because their theory and the shape of their movements has never necessarily been matched at all. if you're Trotsky then you are logically pushing an anti-Stalinist nation-state or a bloc of them in Europe to oppose the Soviet Union and all the pre-republican bureaucrats inside it that you seem to believe are a class problem. so if you're Trotsky you need a border. whether you get all the workers together to do it or not you save Europe when the Soviet Union is simply not allowed there. because then you know Stalin can't corrupt East Germany. of course, if Trotskyists don't like not winning the whole Germany I wouldn't blame them there. the imagined scenario where workers somehow keep the United States from dividing Germany so that the various European countries can try to join together to oppose Stalin is at least less depressing even if it also feels strangely unnecessary. I think one of the most notable things Luxemburg says is you can distinguish a workers' government from a proletarian government by imperialism.
Materialism and Empirio-criticism (Lenin 1909) [8] [9] -> a text that had textbook status in the Soviet Union. worth annotating entry with important motifs / propositions / Lexemes.
??
Course in General Linguistics (Saussure 1911/1959) -> approximate benchmark for finding the birth of "general-sense" structuralist philosophy (signifier-based ontologies pretending not to be ontologies) within the literal descriptivist study of linguistic structuralism. despite all the bad things one could say about the "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" that would emerge later, structuralism was not a bad thing in and of itself; it began in the practical study of the elements of language, which is still useful in very similar forms to people of all ideologies to this day.
??
??
??
??
??
Russian Revolution
German revolution of 1918
??
The State and Revolution (Lenin 1918/1920)
Terrorism and Communism (Trotsky 1920)
The trade unions, the present situation, and Trotsky's mistakes (Lenin 1920) -> this is one of my favorite history texts because it just, is so illustrative of all the incorrect things Trotsky did at many different times all wrapped up in one prototypical incident. every time I learn about some other Trotsky incident my mind comes back to this one. did you know about the incident where he couldn't properly slam a metal door? unrelated but very funny. he was always convinced he knew everything but always making dumb mistakes that showed he didn't even know what Lenin or the workers' movements were actually doing. it's two sided. it's funny Trotsky was so arrogant but sad that he was so bad at contributing to the things he thought he believed in. it makes you ask, is there some point at which having standards becomes being mean to people and saying they aren't good enough to be part of a workers' state, that they simply weren't born to be the kind of people you want? workers' states are supposed to be about uniting everybody and getting everyone to stop fighting, so what is our obsession with leaving people behind?
??
??
??
??
Being and Time (Heidegger 1927)
Terrorism and Communism chapter 8 [TC8]
??
founding of Communist Party of Vietnam (1930)
??
??
ministry rearrangements in the USSR -> makes timelines of ministries comically unreadable, but makes a lot of sense when viewed as graph theory
forced population rearrangements in the USSR -> complicated. some of this was moving isolated farmers into collective farms & social structures; some overlapped with deportations
deportations of nationalities in the USSR -> mainly I think of the Chechen & Ingush incident
The Revolution Betrayed (Trotsky 1936)
Moscow trials
My visit described for my friends (Feuchtwanger 1937)
testimony of Bukharin
death of Trotsky (1940)
World War II
founding of North Korea
founding of People's Republic of China
founding of East Germany (1949)
??
Lavender Scare / remove the lavender lads from the State Department (1952) -> one of the clearer examples which can be used to argue for hegemony politics; hegemony politics + homophobia = Lavender Scare
death of Stalin -> this is orange in reference to the takeover by Khruschev and the very thin line between the Trotskyite conspiracy and generic anticommunist resistance (which I think is a better label for what happened between about 1953-1970).
On the Juche Idea (Kim Jong-Il 1982)
Juche concept / Juche idea [10] -> every time I find a text that made its way out of North Korea one of my top thoughts is "these need better translators" — I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I just feel like somebody with better knowledge of foreign languages should actually fix up these ontologies and really steelman what they're saying. no reason I can't start doing a bit of it here.
what will the field code and swatch for Juche-socialism be? I'd assumed it could be coded with ML but now I'm thinking harder about the fact many people don't like it and don't really consider it part of mainstream Marxism-Leninism. I think the crimson swatch is okay due to its dedication to avoiding Deng Xiaoping Thought. so what code? NK? ~~is it appropriate to jokingly turn Kim Il-Sung into an abbreviation? when MZ is a tag it wouldn't really be an insult as much as a relatively normal way to name things.~~ maybe I'll look into how to abbreviate "Juche". Juche means... wow. the meaning is way more complicated than I thought it was. depending on what field a speaker of Korean, Chinese, or Japanese uses it in, it means either The Subject or an overall entity? something like that. and I'm not totally sure that in context it doesn't mean both things, like some kind of weird conceptual pun. this... needs a Term page before I get lost. I'm thinking JC considering it's a word from Chinese that neatly breaks in half.
Term: 主體
On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences (Khruschev 1956) -> major "founding work" of the anti-Stalin movement after 1953.
Common Lisp -> first serious Lisp compiler completed 1959.
founding of Cuba (1959-1976)
Bay of Pigs invasion (United States versus Cuba, 1961) [11]
Joint World Congress to reunify the Fourth International (1962)
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900) -> the movie was released in 1939. I do not know if they should be the same Item. I'll say for now you can use the same Item for either with different sense-labels.
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865) / Alice in Wonderland
Through the Looking-Glass (1871)
Stonewall riots (1969)
Settlers / Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat / Read Settlers (slogan) [12] -> Maoist text totally appropriated by anticommunists and stripped of all Marxist content thanks to the existence of Existentialism. until the advent of "read settlers" it wasn't widely apparent that there was a highly established philosophical tradition resistant to change which was opposing Communism. now we know that there is a specific ideology which believes that everything in the world is made of prejudice or non-prejudice as a fundamental building block, way below the existence of the proletariat, way below the fact humans have to eat and have to occupy space, the philosophical tradition where life is primarily composed of morality and culture before you're even a human being or populations even exist. do not trust anyone talking about "hidden biases" or trying to turn "colonialism" into something that's in our minds. do not assume they care about finding out how anything actually works instead of trying to make everything ever about prejudice including things you would never think of, only to find that real people have no empathy and no interest in choosing not to be prejudiced. you think I'm being cynical or hyperbolic, but I'm being highly literal. intersubjectivity is literally an ability many people don't have, and presupposing they have it is sinking all progressivism.
??
Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism And Schizophrenia
A Thousand Plateaus (Anti-Oedipus vol. 2)
German reunification (1989)
Losing Earth: A Recent History (Rich 2019) -> a recap of climate change investigations and debates. narrative-style and memoir-like, very readable
The Excessive Subject: A new theory of social change (2010)
The End of History and the Last Man (Fukuyama 1992)
Childhood's End (Clarke 1953)
Animal Farm (Orwell 1945)
1984 (Orwell 1949)
Anthem
The Giver quartet
The Giver (Lowry 1993)
Gathering Blue (Lowry 2000)
Messenger (Lowry 2004)
Son (Lowry 2012)
dissolution of the Soviet Union -> as series of real concrete events
Molecular Marxism / Marxist Molecular Democracy (MDem)
GNU/Linux operating system
mathematical simulation / programmatic simulation / simulation program -> this is an S0 because it is a data structure style thing, while only specific simulations would be Z
virtual pet / virtual pet keychain / virtual pet game
Tapers
Petscop
3D workers' island
??

2000

Item with primarily literal associations / Item with literal meaning -> Z items, and S items used as part of fictional facticities
Framework believes model to be incoherent or wrong
Probably no serious symbolism
The Subject (exmat)
social graph connection (non-unique)
connection weight (society models)
graph struggle -> the state of two or more Social Systems (SGS) competing to secure a finite physical or conceptual territory in order to have exclusive ground to realize their desired material arrangement of things or people (Material System or SPMS)
material graph struggle / chunk competition (MDem) -> individuals or Social Systems (SGS) competing to secure a specifically physical territory
mutually-exclusive filament-based construction / Filamentism (MDem) -> stochastic construction of a larger society through many small localized graph struggles
violent material graph struggle / violent chunk competition (MDem) -> graph struggle at the expense of human life.
expulsion from social graph / social rejection (mathematical) / cancellation (Toryism)
class territory
class territory owner
class territory resident
The Communist Necessity (Moufawad-Paul 2014/2020)
feudal order
duke
marquess
earl
count
baron
manor lord
Existential Physics
duchy
march (feudal territory)
earldom
county (feudal territory)
petty nobility
feudal manor
principality / princedom
kingdom
emirate
caliphate
shogunate / bakufu
empire
global empire
imperial colony
site of proxy war / buffer state
republic
supranational federation
business territory
state business
state business ministry
party-nation
workers' state / countable instance of Marxism
countable Marxist movement / countable instance of Marxism
Communist International
plural Communist Internationals
rival proletarian revolution
class subpopulation
nationality subpopulation
demographic subpopulation
ethnic subpopulation / Black community (Existentialism) / Latino community (Existentialism)
religious subpopulation
historical heritage subpopulation / cultural Christian subpopulation / secular-Jewish subpopulation
LGBT+ subpopulation / LGBT+ community (Existentialism)
disability subpopulation
neurodivergent subpopulation / autistic subpopulation
city or town subpopulation
industry subpopulation / Artist subpopulation / musician subpopulation / grocery clerk subpopulation
capitalist ally subpopulation
proletarian ally subpopulation
capable subpopulation / capable layer
[S] class (spatial rank) / middle class / rich and poor -> spatial slot hierarchy; money is capital
[S] class (repeated relationship) / Individuals are comparable because they belong to a class
[S] class (subpopulation) / Classes become powerful through capable subpopulations
[S] unskilled worker
[S] skilled worker
[S] Artisan type
[S] Artisan layer
[S] Careerist / social mobility (center-Liberalism)
[S] Careerist layer / Careerist class
[S] Refuse class / refusariat (outdated term)
[S] labor aristocracy (Maoism)
Liberal representatives / Liberal legislators
Liberal government employees
charity employees
[S] Bureaucrats constitute a class / professional-managerial class / The Bureaucracy
ruling population
leaping State
[S] shepherd ruling population / shepherd sheet
[S] herd-of-cats effect
[S] birdcage model / economy separable from republic
[S] not a matter of black and white cats
[S] worker / group of people said to qualify as "workers"
proletariat / class of workers / working class / group of people who practically functions as capable subpopulation
Proletariat includes unemployed
Proletariat consists of unskilled workers
Proletariat includes skilled and unskilled workers but not unemployed
Proletariat excludes First-World workers
Proletariat excludes Second-World workers -> Trotskyism
Proletariat is singular and multiple countries can unite at once -> Trotskyism, some anarchisms
Proletariats belong to localized subpopulations functioning as nations / Proletariats include Black-proletariat in prison / Proletariats may include center-Liberal proletariat and right-Liberal proletariat -> North-American Maoism, MDem
Proletariats are plural and belong to specific national populations -> Juche-socialism, Maoism
First-World workers will form capable subpopulation -> Trotskyism, Marcuseanism
Second-World workers will form capable subpopulation / Second-World countries will become capable subpopulation -> Stalin's Marxism, MDem
Third-World workers will form capable subpopulation
Any educated people can form capable subpopulation / Proletariat is immaterial to forming capable subpopulation -> Marcuseanism
Third-World countries will become capable subpopulation / First World defined strictly by neocolonialism / First World defined strictly by global structural racism
multiple capitalisms in one country / multicapitalism (meta-Marxism) -> the concept that it is possible for a given country to consist of two or more totally separate populations of capitalists, which only appear to be one population because the borders are fuzzily defined and corporations leak from one side to the other. multicapitalism is suggested as the mechanism for how center-Liberals and Tories can become so divided to the death against each other when all the bourgeoisie should "theoretically" be on the same side. if multicapitalism is real, China would not have multicapitalism but the United States would. one of the few concrete things the CPC would have accomplished in terms of building Bolshevism or transition out of capitalism is not allowing multicapitalism to develop.
countable area of capitalism -> capitalism as a countable object. in real life, it may be hard to pin down where the boundaries of these are, but that just means it's especially inappropriate to characterize capitalism as a "population". in some senses it can only really be an empire-border.
Political economy only remains a science so long as nobody breaks out of capitalism / Bourgeois economists necessarily have a career of maintaining the rest of capitalism -> rock-solid statement by Marx from unfinished Capital vol IV, as well as probably other texts
Different societies contain the same repeated patterns / societies contain repeated patterns in the manner of quantum fields
Societies have developmental processes from one set of repeated patterns to another
??
??
??
??
??
shovel (meta-Marxism) -> a metaphorical shovel is specifically a kind of object with a particular size and shape which if it were capable of taking a picture of the world and writing a description of it without deep deliberation over the meaning of what it saw would have its intuitive, unfiltered perceptions skewed a certain way by virtue of its shape, size, and composition. a literal shovel is smaller than a car or city block. a literal shovel cannot see anything materially speaking, but a camera can inasmuch as it can take a picture. a black-and-white camera takes a different kind of picture from a color camera. a shovel cannot see anything but a book can record a perception of the surrounding world, so in a sense, a physical book can see and retell what its author can see. a book cannot think or take a photo, and yet it can speak prerecorded messages which are capable of conveying perceptions that somebody once had. a book contains a shovel dream because its author once contained a shovel dream the day before it was written which was passed on to the book. from the point of view of science, the form the shovel dream inside the book takes is ontology: the creation of a graph of points connected by arrows where the definition of any of the points is largely defined by their relationship to other points. some people get lost in the fact that the book's shovel dream is recorded in "language", and unnecessarily start trying to assign all the qualities of ontology to language. this doesn't really make a lot of sense when large language models can reduce any language down to a mathematical graph devoid of words or phrases where, for instance, it might not be easy to tell English from Japanese at a glance. the fact that a whole language ultimately refers to the whole material world at once is part of what makes language language, as this form of reference allows for language to take on the quality of being a unique identifiable named language associated with a particular country or population in the way most languages actually are. ontology, on the other hand, can be totally disconnected from the material world. ontology can shape itself to become abstract art which does not actually refer to the real world even through metaphor, but which is simply a constructed world of its own that people can perceive through a writer's fabricated shovel dream.
this is how I get my possibly controversial definition of "abstract art", where abstract art is not a genre and instead artistic abstraction is simply art which either cannot or should not be read as "coding" itself to something in the real world, and all art is either representational or abstract on a wide continuum between the two. say that abstraction is a slider from 0 to 100%, you could perhaps say Pokémon is 70% abstract art. realistically it's quite difficult to measure it that precisely and ever think you have an accurate number, but reviewers can still break down every part of a piece of fiction that they believe to either obviously refer to reality in the sense it could be conveying social lessons or science facts, or obviously refer to nothing. you know, I have another weird idea. maybe we could have rating questions for art that do nothing but rate how "real" the art is, so you can roughly estimate how abstract things are relative to each other. the questions would go something like: is this piece about real organisms? (Pokémon is not, Warriors is.) does this piece portray the organism's ecology realistically? (you can argue White Fang does, but Warriors only partly does and Zootopia blatantly does not.) do real-world cultural groupings exist in the narrative? (if dogs can be Muslim, the answer is yes. if bison are building tepees the answer is yes. if pigs invent the USSR the answer is yes. if rocks are matched up to Black pop stars the answer is yes.) and so on.
shovel dream / object or formation ideology / ideology or consciousness associated with a specific repeatable kind of population which is countable and separable and has a particular kind of internal structure / ideology or consciousness associated with a particular kind of materially-definable Social-Philosophical System -> Hyper-Materialist concept. the motif of a particular kind of object having a particular kind of model of the world and ideology because it is a particular kind of object. almost always the object is a countable, separable population of people, but it's funny to figuratively refer to other kinds of objects to get across a concept that somehow absolutely nobody seems to understand. Hyper-Materialism is when all similar shovels have a similar shovel dream, and all similar rakes have a similar rake dream. a collections of rakes may have its own unique collection-of-rakes dream, but in principle it can be calculated by modeling the interaction of the individual rake dreams. individual people, not being shovels or rakes, can change their shovel dream at will, but changing the shovel dream of one individual may not have much effect on a large group. Marcuse thinks it's as simple as changing all the individuals one by one but that doesn't necessarily go fast enough. you have to understand the existing layout of various kinds of material objects producing shovel dreams and think about what changes in the layout of shovels could produce the right ones faster. the terrible thing is there are no shortcuts here. you can't just go "here are the bourgeoisie, here are the proletariat, they only need to become aware of the possibly wrong model in this text". with the United States objectively not having the class structure described in Leninist texts, organizers really do need to understand the basic concept of shovel dreams and how to identify them and categorize them in the field.
Material causes of capitalism are reflected in ideological patterns of Existentialism / Capitalism can be characterized by diagramming Existentialism and working backwards to the material causes of the ideology
??
socialism in one country
socialist transition
era of socialism / lower-phase communism -> workers' state
era of communism / upper-phase communism
further transitions (Marx)
creatorism (MDem)
Particle Theory / Bauplan -> ideological nested-graph model
Social-Graph System (SGS)
Social-Behavioral System (SBS)
Social-Philosophical System (SPS) / Particle Theory (MDem) / Bauplan (MDem)
Social-Philosophical-Material System (SPMS) / Particle Theory (MDem) / Bauplan (MDem)
realization / construction of society form
"the hand bone is connected to the arm bone" / "Dem Bones"
receiving node
granting node
Economic processes comprehensible through graph models / Economic processes will one day be comprehended through graph theory / Historical processes comprehensible through graph models
economic graph model
non-Materialist Marxism -> for the longest time I was reluctant to come out and say this phrase. but I think I finally have enough education on Idealism to say Gramscianism and Althusserianism as most people practice them (who are often center-Liberal appropriators, to be fair) are non-Materialist Marxisms. however ironic it may or may not be, Trotskyism is at least Materialist. Trotskyists do correct materialism starting from wrong history. Gramscians begin with at least partial selections of correct history (history about prejudices) and then descend into non-Materialism. ...unless of course they're literally Gramsci, who actually did understand Leninism but just got stuck with too few advanced workers to pull it off easily. it's funny how every "bad" Marxism usually starts with a good theorist and then everyone else who follows that same path does it badly and turns it into what appears to be not even a Marxism.
Western-Marxism about hegemony politics / Gramscianism (motif; meta-Marxism) -> a very basic definition of what Gramscianism is.
Western-Marxism solely about ideas / Western-Marxism that does nothing but talk about "the cage of ideology" / Fisherism (motif; meta-Marxism) -> I needed a term as a foil for "Gramscianism". Gramscianism is the Western-Marxism with at least a tiny bit of potential. Fisherism is the totally inert stuff. named in reference to the book Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
ink-brush Marxism -> the motif of a Marxism which tries to characterize "intellectuals", experts, or Director types that aren't owners as their own entire class, to the point something like the Workers' Party of Korea logo with three objects in it is appropriate. as you can see by a lot of things I say on my prototype I partially believe in ink-brush Marxism but not entirely. I think that it's useful to make fine-grained class distinctions, especially in undeveloped countries where there will be either more real peasants or educated-unemployed peasants, but those distinctions don't give people a free ticket to support the non-proletarians and give them all a pass to do whatever they want. the power of ink-brush Marxism is to hand Trotsky responsibilities and make him obligated to support either the Soviet Union or East Germany at his choice rather than letting him go around claiming both of them "aren't Trotskyist enough" and they need to do what he says.
newspaper Marxism / Marxism is when a single Leninist theorist goes off about Marxism not happening fast enough
Marxism is when people own a co-op -> one of those statements that's obviously dumb on its face but takes a long time and a lot of knowledge to properly unpack to know how to teach people that it's wrong. by now, I think one of the major errors here is in not defining Marxism first of all as historical materialism and subsequently accepting that people who don't even hold to general-sense historical materialism are not Marxists.
beyond that... whew. where it really seems to start is reverse-engineering the Soviet Union and China and realizing they had co-ops once the people were freed. you could attribute this plan to an attempt at a charcoal transition. but understanding the actual logic of how that is "Marxism" is what's truly complicated. it isn't dialectical materialism. it isn't specific-sense historical materialism. you can make a weak, rather watery argument that it's general-sense historical materialism, but you'd be really reaching there, because general-sense historical materialism can argue for Kamehameha to unify the local states of Hawaii into a kingdom; while that arrangement could be better than before you are totally not to Marxism yet. I became convinced for a little while that Wolff was trying to reverse engineer Deng Xiaoping Thought and figure out how the United States could transition directly to that. but I am not sure of that explanation any more, nor do I remember why I found it convincing. I mean, if we go from the hypothesis that Deng Xiaoping Thought is trying to get to Marxism starting at the most concrete levels of survival before trying to build the Leninist or Bolshevik process, you could get from there to co-op. but it still leaves open the question, hey, what about the workers?? why do all Wolff's talks not frame everything as co-op being a way for theorists to survive so they can aid the majority of workers, and why do they oddly frame themselves like being a worker is bad while co-op is the future? you'd think his talks are an Existentialism or something.
??
Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in Disguise (Olgin 1935) -> Soviet record of the history of Trotskyism up to the first attack. relatively comprehensive, although I would expect no less. it was amusing to me when they got the trade unions incident in there, which had been one of my favorite historical anecdotes — and even better when there were apparently several more factual details to how badly Trotsky screwed it up. good history text. the only problem is I have questions about how complete its class analysis is. of all the statements made, I wouldn't dispute any of them but I do feel like there are some crucial statements missing that might just explain everything. Trotskyism was born out of a churning creek of petty bourgeoisie that could never pick a side? true. Trotsky was never integrated into the Russian revolution? true. I mean, he himself complains about that, so there's no denying it. the behavior of creeks of petty bourgeoisie can be ignored and brushed off as a factor in the motions of history? false. creeks of petty bourgeoisie are not periodically generating entire new competing Marxisms and separating whole racial movements from nation-states to then call all Marxists racist? false. the CPSU tended to totally dismiss these layers of society as people who exist, which actually did make sense in a country like theirs where it was a small portion of the population, but it's a rather terrible thing to present this point of view to other countries where conditions are very different. even if this layer is "unimportant" you still have to understand its behavior, and effectively, give it something to do before it gets into trouble. though Trotskyists literally don't believe it (and we can guess why.) the United States is filled to the brim with "petty bourgeoisie" and the problem only gets worse every time capitalism has a crisis. it's like rather than consolidating the bourgeoisie, crises in capitalism actually result in big corporations exploding, destroying the proletariat, and wildly creating petty bourgeoisie.
Trotskyism is the shovel dream of small owners / Trotskyism is the shovel dream of the petty bourgeosie (small owners; Artisan types; mainstream Marxism-Leninism) -> I think this is only half the explanation but I can't disagree. I think you have to model it as the shovel dream of a separate unique cluster of "petty bourgeoisie", a subpopulation as a countable object, to where there can be plural groups which fail to unify because they're fundamentally separate objects. but at that point you've basically got it. yes, the "proliferation of Marxisms" and "plurality" I keep talking about are some very petty-bourgeois problems. but I can't just walk away from these problems because the oceans of petty bourgeosie that create them all really actually exist and have to be studied. they're the numerous, insular, backward peasants of the modern world.
??
The Spanishness Office -> within this wiki, first brought up in MDem "democulture" entry.
There is no Spanishness Office -> the concept that culture cannot be changed through any deliberate effort, even by most movements. one could believe there is no Spanishness Office because culture is defined by the borders between populations, or because culture is produced through deterministic factors that individual will can't successfully pilot without a thorough science of society, or for any other number of reasons.
There are ten million Spanishness Offices -> the claim that every time the motif of The Spanishness Office shows up, this is what it is bisimilar to: a bunch of free-floating corporations or institutions which may be conflated with the will of a particular owner, or a Tory Social-Philosophical System that has occupied a free-floating charity, each time raising the problem that the institution has its own "individual will" separate from society which is resistant to Liberal-republican "democracy" and resistant to almost everything. the problem isn't in asserting that there are Spanishness Offices, though there is a serious problem when people think controlling them is as simple as taking over just one when there are closer to ten million they might not successfully secure with perhaps some five million left over and wildly doing their own thing.
Western Marxism is one big distraction -> it can be true there are Spanishness Offices and false that Western Marxists remotely understand them.
??
??
??
??
Every civilization makes philosophy about itself / Every Social-Philosophical System mostly produces philosophy describing the pronounced SPS as it is, and not as it isn't Ontology:Q2101
Capitalism makes philosophy about itself / Liberal capitalism produces philosophy describing Liberal capitalism as it is Ontology:Q2101
A workers' state makes philosophy about itself / A proletarian civilization produces philosophy about itself / A proletarian subpopulation will produce philosophy describing the pronounced SPS as it is Ontology:Q2101
A worker subpopulation can explode capitalism / A proletarian subpopulation can burst through capitalism / A proletarian subpopulation can burst a capitalist pronounced SPS Ontology:Q2101 / birth proposition
A workers' state can create itself from theory / A proletarian subpopulation can be constructed around the same theory that it would later produce if that theory can be preemptively discovered Ontology:Q2101
A problem shovel will burst a workers' state / A subpopulation generating the wrong theory will burst a workers' state / A subpopulation generating the wrong theory, perhaps because old classes have linked together, or perhaps because people have formed into the wrong structures, will burst a workers' state -> the corollary to classic statements by Marx that nobody really thought through enough prior to 1937.
Not all problem shovels are top hats / Not every kind of subpopulation which generates wrong theory does so because it is a cluster of individual bourgeoisie -> you have to look at this one closely before it makes any sense and doesn't look like garbage. the key is that when classes cause trouble, you need more than classes to do it. Existentialism is more than capitalism, it's the substitution of a few huge corporations with a lot of workers all inside one country for a gigantic formation of millions and millions of petty bourgeoisie across the world all forming one object. Existentialism is a new and rather terrifying kind of object. similarly all kinds of different objects can disrupt the formation of mainstream Marxism-Leninism. detached islands of workers that only consist of workers could pose a problem, especially if there are 5 workers each surrounded by 50 petty bourgeoisie like some kind of minesweeper board. a confused Leninist theorist and a hundred peasants could form a problem structure, which poses unique problems to everyone because its behavior is not the same as 100 peasants alone. twenty petty bourgeoisie at a time could become convinced they're Leninist theorists although they're not actually forming an overall national movement. you could run into a weird situation where discourse is taking the form of blue, brown, and red petty bourgeoisie on individualized YouTube channels fighting each other over viewers. there are so many more new specific structures we know about now, positive ones and negative ones. it really does come to look like a weird form of chemistry where atoms are trying to form a polymer but some chunks of some sizes or shapes react better and some react worse.
??
??
advanced worker -> I have been revisiting what this means, for somewhat silly reasons of wondering what is the most appropriate term in other languages and what puns can be made on the word. in the process you invariably dig through some of the most essential stuff for explaining Marxism, and some of the most-high quality sources. in some ways, this is a critically important concept. so it's time to code it.
Lenin said workers never become class-conscious / Lenin said that workers in trade unions only get to trade union consciousness, therefore within the historical process of a Leninist movement and transition into the beginning of Bolshevism workers never extract themselves from rule by the bourgeoisie [13] -> ooh. this is a very subtle one. this is one of those articles where I should be mad but I'm only excited to take the great new fallacy I found, stow it in the framed moth board, and put a pin through it. so, Marxist movements begin with bourgeois class traitors. that's true. that isn't not true. but what happens next is the workers and the theorists join into a party-nation and the party-nation shoves out the bourgeoisie and subsequently the workers don't have to deal with the Liberal-republican, center-Liberal bourgeoisie or the Tory bourgeoisie any more, both of which are a big problem and in the latter case potentially outright violent and terrifying. I think part of the problem here is how crudely old Marxist texts before 1991 described things and how imprecise they were in their language relative to how many levels of complexity real historical processes have. when you look at the real-world historical events nothing is confusing. you see that "class" was a bit of an abstract and misleading word and what specifically happens is particular countable subpopulations filled with a given class have to form. a whole population mostly filled with a new class has to form in order to change a country's ideology. and funny enough the article almost gets that part right. it implies that breaking out of capitalism involves rounding up a lot of workers — so far so good. then... well, it ends, because it wasn't a long article. there's one useful thing here that might be worth focusing on. "Intellectuals receive benefits from the system to toe its ideological line". I'm going to assume because of the premise of the article that this refers to Leninist theorists.
so let's assume that this is true. traditional capitalists are toeing the line and Lenin is toeing the line, and Stalin and Trotsky are toeing the line. Lenin takes capitalism and he replaces it with a new capitalism which is headed by Marxist theorists. logically there would be two of the new capitalism: Stalin's capitalism and Trotsky's capitalism; this is technically a theory of the Soviet Union containing multicapitalism. to conceptualize Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism as both creating capitalisms you basically need something like a theory of state capitalism to be able to say that because all the state businesses are in the party-nation but something owns them (the party-nation) then it's capitalism. this brings up the classic question: why is a party-nation owning businesses even a bad thing? how is it different from shouting that Liberal-republicanism is no kind of progress from warring states periods because it's "just nation-state pronounced localstateism" and so it hasn't truly made anyone free? one of the only coherent arguments I think exists is the "world of Alert" argument where corporations are groups of people and making groups of people be part of a population that might potentially fight another one is morally wrong. which, we have to be perfectly clear, that argument only even begins to have any legs when you recognize Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism and Maoism as separate parallel Marxisms. without that historical data it would be a stupid argument because there would be no good reason to side with the First World over the Second World. it's only when we get to China and the Soviet Union separating and failing to form an International because at different times they call each other revisionist (if I remember right?) that we start to see that there is kind of an argument to be made only if you somehow know what existential materialism is and you're arguing existential materialism and meta-Marxism. which I am pretty sure anarchists don't typically argue.
starting from this article's premises you can argue Trotskyism, but argue anything else and you basically deny the Cold War and the latter half of the 1900s. why is arguing Trotskyism not denying the Cold War? well, because you said the movement was somehow made of a solid base of workers exactly like it totally wasn't the first time. if Trotskyism was made of workers constantly kicking out their theorists for bad Leninism and refusing to split apart versus joining into an increasingly huger population of people, yet also actually accepting at the end of the day that the workers need Marxist theorists and the concept of countable populations to actually defeat borders and become connected, then it actually wouldn't be all that bad. out of all the forms of Trotskyism there are like fifteen I hate and two I like but the problem is nobody advocates the actually good ones. I wonder if the problem is that I'm naming things that aren't Trotskyism Trotskyism. I have so many civilizational shapes to study the history of and properly distinguish and name.
Advanced workers and backward opportunists [14]
A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social-Democracy (Lenin 1899/1924) [15] -> topic: filtration. this is interesting because to a particularly naïve anarchist this text would almost seem to stand in contradiction to the very important "Lenin's filter" or "pulleys" text. in the pulleys text Lenin tries to explain that unions can't run everything because they aren't the whole movement. in this text he tries to explain that the addition of more things into the movement makes it greater. here he doesn't focus on the filtration step where the movement becomes principled and structured and doesn't go by getting as many progressive bourgeoisie as possible, and instead he focuses on the very simple concept that all the localized movements can combine into one nationwide movement, even if they aren't narrowly about nothing but unions and seem to be taking on new scopes. the localized movements have so much to gain from joining together that it makes less sense not to join them all into one vast Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party than to do it. there's no contradiction in this — the anarchist rejects filtration basically because they can't see the large-scale structure that forms across the two steps.
complicated arrangement of pulleys / "an arrangement of cogwheels ... and transmission belts" / Lenin's filter (concept brought up in texts such as "Trotsky's mistakes") / filtration (meta-Marxist term; concept in many Marxist texts expressed through different ontologies or metaphors)
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
Gramscianism is already molecular pronounced Dengism -> this is nearly the same statement as Deng Xiaoping Thought being global Gramscianism, but slightly different. the other statement is that Deng Xiaoping Thought has "Trotskyized" Gramscianism by multiplying it over a big area. this statement is that Gramscianism and Deng Xiaoping Thought are the same because they have the same internal structure, and they would be the same on the inside if they each started with only 5,000 people or so. if both statements are true they're synonymous. if exactly one of them is false then they aren't the same statement.
Deng Xiaoping process / Deng process / multiple economies in one population / multiple socialisms in one population (party-nations allowed but no Bolshevism) / multi-socialism (motif) / multiple Deng Xiaoping Thoughts in one population or country -> it is so hard to come up with a proper, genuinely non-awkward word for this. this is the motif of subpopulations forming into coherent populations with tightly-connected economies that serve as an "endoskeletal" soft border in order to promote their prosperity and continued survival against other subpopulations, and of China ultimately being not an independent population but a subpopulation of the world population. the "missing step before Bolshevism" is this. multi... multisocialism? the thing is that would be misleading about what this actually achieves, which is mainly a populational border inside a populational border or extent. multieconomy? multisocioeconomy? that's reasonably close but it still sounds weird.
retail shelves as global empire / retail empire (MDem) -> the motif of retailers always being a kind of star graph connecting to manufacturers that then connect to workers, often in Third World countries; each retailer is a microcosm of the relationship between the United States and other countries itself. "retail empire" is not in the tiny-civilization sense of "imperial republic of Walmart", more in the sense of the global scope of, for instance, the British empire.
republic of Walmart / people's republic of Walmart -> the motif of large businesses behaving like small governments with departments
imperial republic of Walmart -> the motif of emerging businesses behaving like small governments with departments specifically in order to wildly expand over everything like some kind of miniature Dutch empire finding the best part of Africa before anyone else can get it. the act of delivering a workable service at any cost and taking all the losses, until taking as great a territory as possible becomes a way to survive against the threat of other structures taking it. [16] imperial republics of Walmart are not typically broken up because of the way they operate as units against everything else and don't contain clear merger lines. I think the more of these you point out the clearer the nature of capitalism becomes. capitalism is the act of using people as tools to secure frontier empires against other empires, and it always was that way. capitalism is a social-darwinist fight between miniature countable Cultures to determine what kinds of culture are allowed to live and which ones are softly or formally prohibited.
Socialism cannot endure if it remains poor (Deng Xiaoping, 1979) [17] [18] -> if you cross out the world socialism and replace it with "China" or "progressives" I'd wholeheartedly agree with this. my only real issue with it is whether practically speaking it is or isn't Leninism. it feels like one of those things that isn't not Marxism and yet isn't Leninism. the way I see it Leninism has to regenerate the Material System of Bolshevism in some form and not just get stuck in capitalism. that does, funny enough, make it questionable whether any Trotskyist has ever practiced Leninism. I give them the benefit of the doubt on being "bad Leninists" rather than non-Leninists only because they haven't turned their backs and said that Trotskyism will never be realized unless all Trotskyists undergo a Deng process and create a functioning economy before ever being able to overthrow global capitalism. you do sometimes see me say this kind of thing inside the scope of countries, but always as a loose guideline and never as a hard requirement that is positively and definitely the first step.
Bolshevism always defended countable Cultures rather than a class / Deng Xiaoping Thought is not a deviation from Bolshevism because Bolshevism only defended the Soviet or Chinese proletariat specifically -> this claim doesn't support ideologies like Trotskyism or global anarchisms by itself. it just as easily supports the claim that Bolshevism is broadly correct but most of the time it can only be realized as Deng Xiaoping Thought, and only sometimes realizes into a proletarian civilization. it would also support the concept of multiple Deng Xiaoping Thoughts in one country.
Early Maoism was actually Dengism / Early Maoism was Marxism-Dengism-Maoism / Early Maoism actually succeeded on the basis of being Deng Xiaoping Thought / Maoism is not actually Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, but Marxism-Dengism-Maoism -> this sounds insane at first until you consider the possibility of molecular Deng Xiaoping Thought, where partial pieces of a population join into a Filament surrounding nationalist or bourgeois controlled areas and their mere existence and survival strengthens a Communist party buying it time to build Bolshevism exactly when it benefits the survival of the population. Deng Xiaoping Theorists tend to think that Deng Xiaoping Thought developed out of Maoism. but what if it was really the reverse, that Deng Xiaoping Thought had existed from the very beginning of Maoism and Maoism was an ideology built on it that basically fell off the top of Deng Xiaoping Thought under external pressures on the country? from another angle this does kind of say out loud that Deng Xiaoping Thought is a bourgeois philosophy. it does very much say that. the caveat would be that proletarian philosophies have trouble in an age of the world where chunk competition rules and ethnicities will get annihilated if they forget to structure their populations to defend whole nationalities such as "the population of China" or "the Black population" or "the Democrat voter base" from external attack.
pronounced Dengism is global Gramscianism / Deng Xiaoping Thought is global Gramscianism / Gramscianism is easiest to realize at a global scale rather than inside one country and when it is realized at a global scale it turns into Deng Xiaoping Thought -> I've asked myself and asked myself over and over what it is about Deng Xiaoping Thought that is so helpful and effective to China when on the surface it shouldn't make sense. I think this is one of the most interesting possible answers.
The key to Leninism is assembling a pronounced culture / The key to Leninism is creating a countable culture / The key to creating Bolshevism is uniting people into the same countable Culture -> I have my doubts about whether this is or isn't true. what this is is a crude, dumbed-down explanation of the Lattice model for normal people. this is the claim that workers unite and possibly or ultimately realize a named Bolshevism when they consider themselves part of the same Culture, while when they consider each other part of different Cultures they fight each other and never form a single proletariat, unless they manage to segregate themselves into groups that do manage to function as the same Culture. if this claim is true, then the most remarkable thing about the Soviet Union was that it united each of 14 nationalities together locally rather than all the nationalities messily fighting each other over the same Russian Empire, and the success of China and North Korea to the extent they had it was partly due to people already wanting to form into the same national population or federation of five major ethnicities.
Deng Xiaoping Thought has failed because if a country's whole purpose has become exports the First-World owners have still achieved their goal -> this one may be subjective, but it's the counter to claims that Deng Xiaoping Thought has fairly replaced Bolshevism — the claim that the point of Bolshevism was not just to prevent a country filling up with foreign investors but to prevent a country turning into an export hub.
Multicapitalism is created when the bourgeoisie fully shove the proletariat out of their turf -> after three years thinking about this, all the phenomena actually observed in real life versus the clear existence of classes — the clear existence of a bourgeoisie of some kind containing traditional owners, Artisan types, and possibly Careerist types, and the clear existence of at least a handful of workers — I think this is the core reason for why the United States is so weird. bourgeoisie secure territory. they hate workers and they hate bigger owners so they try their best to link up into Filaments together and push both of those things out. capitalism transforms toward a sea of teeny businesses that are constantly dying or have to all sell their products inside one really giant business. there is a sea of unemployed people that gets angry for a little while causing noise in universities or making angry YouTube videos or having a homeless protest or a clash between poor towns and cops. this was the 1970s, and it's happening again today. your sea of unused people becomes very progressive although it is mostly defined and linked together by culture — because it has nowhere to work and no money to pay for all the empty houses, there's nothing to strike over and nothing to take back, and you can't practically try to define "the real United States" as all the factory workers brought together in the workplaces who might contemplate Bolshevism but now increasingly don't exist. then after a little while the sea of unused people turns into a second bourgeoisie, a second plural and countable bourgeoisie, and the two bourgeoisies fiercely hate each other for what one did to the other and slowly divide into two separate nationalities. and of course that really only makes things worse because each of those bourgeoisies is incentivized to push everyone who would threaten to create a proletariat off its territory in the name of Freedom — very Afrikaner-style, very "baseline standard of fascism inside Liberalism", very colonial in the particular sense of linking up into a chain of White people that wilfully expands over stuff before anyone else gets it.
the thing that confuses everyone about this historical period or historical form of a population is that one of these subpopulations chock full of bourgeoisie can genuinely be much more progressive than the other. this, to be honest, happens mostly in hypothetical scenarios versus real ones. the Democratic Party or Australian Labor Party doesn't have much revolutionary potential despite being linked to a couple very progressive causes. the time that multicapitalism would be carrying progressive values would be a much weirder situation like one of the component capitalisms being entirely full of Trotskyists or entirely full of Gramscians who are all Communists. this is theoretically possible given that a lot of variant Marxisms amount to bourgeois philosophies designed by a handful of bourgeoisie for the bourgeoisie. you'd practically never expect it to happen in real life at least in the absence of some very specific conditions that haven't really been seen before. but, you know. it might be at least marginally more likely if every one of the "nice" bourgeoisie could learn meta-Marxism and they could all horizontally join together into what's essentially a planned economy using graph economics, and start restoring the proletariat. that's kind of a moonshot. I don't necessarily like that plan. I feel like a scenario of workers joining together to restore the proletariat by stemming constant migration and uncertainty and taking back physical towns is more solid if it were possible. I do think we're looking at some variety of country-internal Deng process here where people actually have to all sort themselves into the correct graph arrangement with their feet just to be stronger as a subpopulation that produces and provides its own needs and can survive everything the "bad bourgeoisie" does, just to get to the point where revolution is conceivable.
China is secretly a charcoal Marxism / China is secretly a charcoal workers' state -> there are certain moments where "charcoal" and "strawberry" become hard to tell apart from each other if you assume all the anarchist stupidities are taken out to where they at least make coherent sense.
??
??
??
??
??
Nation-states are neither natural nor intentionally constructed -> the claim that, excluding all Marxist states, the process of people forming into nation-states is both artificial and largely not at all designed. many people make the mistake of turning undesigned-ness into a simple binary where if something is not designed it must be fully natural in the sense of either ecological or human, and if something is not fully ecological it must be as deliberately designed as a computer chip; you see this fallacy in both anarchism and Western Marxism. this is not the case. something can be totally undesigned and also harmful, just as something like indigenous agriculture could be designed and be ecological. some things which are ecological are undesigned, yet The Subject itself is arguably designed by its actions toward its own needs while being a biological animal
Strikes are acts of courage / Some strike incidents have been absolutely metal / Strikes are perilous -> true fact but don't let it scare you. instead think about how crazy it is that owners look at strikes and can't see them as acts of courage.
wave machine -> a particular kind of mathematical process or Algebra which provides various ways to describe the interaction of two events. named after Wavebuilder, but is actually the principle behind Wavebuilder.
Determinism can form out of non-deterministic elements -> we already know this is possible, at least in a mathematical sense concerning material things that really appear unpredictable versus material things that really appear predictable. the most widely-accepted example right now is quantum mechanics. nobody really knows much about the individual particles, yet as things scale up all the particles form into predictable patterns. this is the key to building models of society and historical materialism.
study of interacting objects instead of one at a time / study of two or more interacting objects instead of one object at a time -> I know the word "system" can be used for this, as in "complex adaptive system", etc. but the word system has been so totally exhausted into meaninglessness in social movements I feel like we really need to break things down more to where they are hard to misunderstand. also, this might be a Z Item because it seems like a realistic description of a kind of scientific field. it seems like it might already exist, even if it exists to a more limited extent than it really should.
Nature is a multiplication table / All physics equations are actually multivariable functions -> here we go. one of the most genuinely solid propositions I've come to in MDem, that unlike everything else I have very little doubt about, and high confidence in. we teach mathematics and Newtonian mechanics entirely wrong. we should be teaching every physics function from wavefunction collapse to chemical reactions to throwing a rock as multivariable functions of objects colliding in the sense of two number lines colliding in a multiplication table style function to produce a three dimensional graph. this is the beginning to how we fix all of physics. this might lead to unifying quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, and gravity. this is it. it sounds absurdly simple, and ridiculous that this could be the answer, but I think this is it.
Punnett squares can apply to anything -> the claim that Punnett squares are just one situational application of a data structure or kind of computation that can be used to model any event with multiple known outcomes
What if you were the variable x? / What if you could put yourself into a lambda calculus function? -> reading the Wikipedia page on lambda calculus, where I shouldn't have been able to find anything new and interesting, I had the weirdest thought. lambda calculus functions just iterate on things. lambda calculus doesn't know what the variable x really is. an individual person could be anything; to Rothenberg this is all The Subject is. so what if people were in lambda calculus expressions? this sounds really silly and yet.... it could be one possible mathematics for existential materialism. you could theoretically use this kind of thinking to describe Bauplans?? could a union be a lambda calculus function. could a movement of a particular shape be a function where people of different ideologies go into it and behave differently. lambda calculus is awkward, and yet... if you had a mathematics with a unified way to define data types and functions relative to each other, and could put any type of object (Algebra) into the right kind of function, you could just throw a person in there. the key to throwing a person into a function is just defining the right kind of data structure to represent the person and then making use of variables that can hold data structures, as well as multivariable functions that can actually work with many free-floating objects.
MDem versus RDem (MDem 5.1; here MDem literally abbreviates "molecular democracy" and does not abbreviate "molecular Marxism") -> the motif of how every single theory of "democracy" generally does one of two things with the notion of people each being a variable "x" — when two individuals "x" and "y" come into conflict, the theory either tries to make some group of individuals form together, or tries to defend the right of individuals that start conflict to be separate and quote-unquote "free". absolutely all variants of Liberal-republicanism are RDem. a lot of Existentialism is RDem, meaning that a lot of anarchism is RDem, and a lot of anarchism will naturally generate Existentialism and Liberal-republicanism. Deng Xiaoping Thought performs MDem only on a national scale, and not on the local scale where it's most needed.
??
??
rocket science (Western Marxism) / rocket science (molecular Gramscianism; Western Marxism as seen through meta-Marxism) -> the task of getting everyone to realize that the only thing standing between the United States and an eventual proletarian revolution is that people are convinced that the socioeconomy runs on Free Will when it ultimately does not; the task of making a plan to practically persuade everyone to apply this.
Determinism separates center-Liberals from Communists / Determinism separates Liberalism from Communism / The greatest difference between Liberal-republicanism and Bolshevism is free will versus determinism -> once you understand "determinism" as limited portions of the universe performing "chemical reactions" rather than as universe-wide predetermination, it all clicks into place.
Action transforms the abstract into the tangible / Practice transforms the abstract into the tangible -> the claim that it isn't the desire to do something but the intuitive or educated knowledge of the world and ability to apply that knowledge that allows people to transform their surroundings. this only makes more and more sense when you have a disability: you need knowledge of the reality of your body to dodge it, not just more Free Will.
Determinism can get populations through war -> what is Stalin telling everybody not to fear because Marxist methods will pull through mathematically if not this. Marxism claims, although sometimes fails, to be able to mathematically solve wars and avert them by getting everyone onto the science of the best solution.
Strikes are an act of applied science / Strikes are an act of applied determinism -> pretty much what Marx says, just put a little more bluntly. he says basically that workers' movements as a whole are something you can apply determinism to in order to better know the actual requirements to get the outcomes you want. maybe I'm wrong and that's only in Lenin? not sure.
Being wrong means relinquishing wrong models / Admitting you're wrong requires giving up wrong models -> could be used in the context of either Marxism or science.
??
White-bread fantasy will teach people history / White-bread fantasy is useful for teaching historical materialism through the concept of generalized historical processes that can be labeled -> this doesn't stand in contradiction to the concept of teaching people that plural histories exist; both can be done. but people really underestimate the value of a work that narrowly focuses on just one real or hypothetical people-group to tell about historical processes and the development of any one people-group at a time.
??
??
??
Faith actually represents free will / Within religion, faith actually refers to confidence in the unyielding Free Will of an individual / The Neverending Story shows that faith, hope, and Free Will are all actually the same thing [19] -> looking at the bible, looking at Lacanian and schizoanalyst and chaos-magic nonsense, I sputtered to get this out, not sure if anyone had noticed it. then one day Lacanians say it unironically in clear words rather than spaghetti. thanks Lacanianism. thanks much for nothing.
Will transforms the abstract into the tangible / Will is what transforms the abstract into the tangible -> chaos magic is straight-up Existentialism with a little ritual thrown on. this is one blatant definition of Existentialism. it has also made me realize, unexpectedly, that the "law of attraction" is Existentialism.
Free will can get populations through war -> what seems to be one of the biggest claims behind Old Testament bible stories... and a bunch of old-style fantasy books. that the sheer will to not back down and to kill people for the army of Good is what brings victory.
Strikes are an act of applied free will -> this is what I was complaining about way back in MDem v3. I had no idea how deep into all of this I'd have to go to finally have words for it.
Being wrong means relinquishing freedom / Being wrong means giving up freedom (en-x-pona) / Admitting you're wrong requires relinquishing freedom -> derived Existentialist proposition, though I don't totally know what it's derived from. the reason people don't like to admit they're wrong. every time people are busy being wrong, they're also busy exerting individual will and effort to do what they want to do and be where they want to be. people are always told, try hard, believe in yourself, and you will surely be allowed to do anything. in practice, this saying isn't remotely correct. it's all too easy for somebody to try hard, go into physics, mess with string theory, create a wrong model, and end up getting bullied out of science simply for not magically being perfect and guessing the correct thing in a world where the material topics of science are getting so utterly esoteric that nothing can properly be tested before it's published. or try hard, try to create art, and suddenly a bunch of Gramscians or anarchists or postcolonial theorists show up and are like, you're not fit to make art, you didn't magically know what every prejudice and microaggression is when speaking in terms of the physical communication of information you couldn't possibly have known. my issue here obviously isn't that there are standards, it's just the way anarchists and Gramscians elevate socially constructed standards to natural law and expect people to automatically know things that require education.
State businesses only hand free will to Stalin / State businesses are bad because they only shift the locus of Free Will to the state-business-owning structure -> world of Alert + state businesses are incorrect = this. I feel like this is one of people's biggest objections against Bolshevism, and argument for why it's "beyond the end of history in the hyper-future". deep down they think the only problem with capitalism is that owners have hoarded all the Free Will, while if workers had some of the Free Will everything would be okay. in reality.... that is not how anything works. in the real world, putting all the businesses into one structure, or even doing the absolute bare minimum of forcing all people to be part of one government instead of multiple governments of multiple capitalisms, actually opens up new routes for giving individuals agency. the Soviet Union was constantly using "proper channels" to fire its managers. the people of China periodically launch complaints on or fire their bureaucrats; literally you can create Marxism without Bolshevism and it works better than Liberal-republicanism. there is a specific reason people like this concept even though it's wrong. they're looking at things from a "world of Alert" point of view where because individuals exist at such a small scale of reality they think people ever joining up into a bigger structure to protect them from capitalists is senseless. they just cannot imagine why a bunch of workers would join into a country to guard against First World capitalists and their capitalists when otherwise everybody would be suffering horribly off in another land First World people can't see or imagine. the fundamental concept of a proletarian civilization or dictatorship of the proletariat is alien to them. now why is this? well, number one: beneath Liberalism everybody believes in Existentialism or anarchism, where everything about a civilization starts at individual Free Will and the "social construction" of individual choices. number two: much of the United States is fundamentally structured as polyartisanal production. everything is built in this way where all individuals constantly have to make choices even if that doesn't truly give them any freedom and only gives them responsibility; capitalists are constantly making choices and experts and contractors are constantly making choices. this leaves people totally blind to the concept that giant capitalists could have more decision-making power than they have and big corporations could be puppeting the republic as its real subunits. the first thing that should be done about this is to stop telling anybody about "the bourgeoisie" as a cloud of individual people and instead change the entire rhetoric to "corporations as whole structures have decision-making power and you don't, while Jeff Bezos directly owns and immediately makes use of the decision-making power you don't have — this doesn't mean you can break up corporations, this means Bezos makes three moves on the chess board for every move you make, and he will do terrible things to you before you even get to fire him". this is the basic solution to the "Spanishness Office" problem: tell people where the major Spanishness Offices are, declare that they will never go away before tragedy comes, and that it's necessary to not just "break them up" and choppify them to pieces but solidly and consistently stand against them for what will feel like a very very long time in Existentialist years. any fallacy as stupid as this one leaves me so possessed to write everything in "upgoer five". not because I think people are actually stupid but because I am just so tired of it being hard to communicate easy concepts to people and I wish making things easier to understand was as simple as writing easier sentences. ever felt that way?? anyway. people standing together in support of a proletarian civilization should not be complicated. and it actually only gets less complicated once you've finally untangled Western Marxism and the "Whiteness" debate and what Spanishness Offices are. there's a super clear incentive for the most stuffy, academic member of the petty bourgeoisie to side with proletarian civilization. but people are blinded from that because they're so damn obsessed with Free Will and Free Will being one of the fundamental mechanisms of society. that's the big hurdle, that's the giant leap, that's it. we practically know what the task of our "upgoer five" is, it's just a matter of getting through the real rocket science and writing up the diagrams. preferably easy ones.
White-bread fantasy only erases histories / White-bread fantasy can only misinform people -> I think it's important to note the difference between "history" versus "histories". plural histories certainly do exist, and they certainly can be erased. but this is used very, very misleadingly by anarchist-aligned types of people.
??
??
??
intelligent design
creationism -> intelligent design which is brave enough to admit it's Christian
Atheism makes people into Communists -> well... kind of, but not directly. it usually doesn't.
Darwinism makes people into Communists -> haven't heard this one but I feel like it's in the back of some people's minds.
Creationists should be Communists -> this is incredibly silly and yet you could totally destroy Idealism by complying with it and successfully arguing this.
??
??
??
??
??
society as intelligent design -> with the great prevalence of utopian art and solarpunk alongside anticommunism and these strictly general-sense-psychoanalysis / almost-secular-christian ways of looking like things, I feel this motif is currently very charcoal.
If markets can't be designed, why can animals? -> to be taken as a genuine jumping-off point to different explanations, not as a rhetorical question.
??
??
??
??
??
??
Marxism is the least bad system / Mainstream Marxism-Leninism is the least bad system -> there's a far better argument for this than Liberal-republicanism. mainstream Marxism-Leninism has its problems but it's better than Trotskyist theories, it's better than anarchist theories, it's better than Existentialism cracking open all the walnuts and treating you like until you are physically able to work to the point where all acts of social bonding with others are optional recreation you could literally decide to never do you aren't even human. and of course, it's better than Toryism, or religion.
Democracy is the least bad system / Liberal-republicanism is the best system only compared with all the worse systems
something better than science / if there was something better than science, I'd want to know -> appears in: Demon-Haunted World.
There is something better than science / There is something better than the scientific method -> I think that when you actually get all the way through an overview of everything that is known in science, it's not really easy to invalidate most applied sciences such as evolutionary biology and epidemiology (two that religion typically targets). but if you were aiming at something different from literal ontological models of reality and instead aiming specifically at the scientific method, then there could very well be a decent argument that there is something "better than science". the specific reasoning would be that today's scientific method is bad at actually getting people to accept science. it fails to take into account the scientific, Materialist reasons that groups of people choose unscientific beliefs — drugs are expensive and my unscientific family cares about my life more, my town thinks I'm racist if I don't believe God will save Black people from White people, Stalin's government doesn't have a place to put me so I become useless to everybody if I accept mainstream Marxism-Leninism — and then lead people toward correct answers based on a scientific understanding of society itself and a will to actually structure the process of science based on the findings of science. all of these problems that drive people away from science are real, in that material observational studies could confirm them, and nobody actually needs to invoke "lived experience". the only question is how to present science to people and filter people in and out of science in a way that it will be as effective as sheer social links and the appeal of "poetry" and "culture". often it seems like literally nothing is as powerful as culture and the sheer instinct to sit around campfire mindlessly listening to culture whether it's true or not and whether that particular group actually aids survival or not.
??
Voting is not a double-blind study / Voting is not comparable to peer review because participants are not blinded to which identifiable party they receive -> Carl Sagan brings up the interesting concept that peer review is blind — "the author doesn't know who the critics are". then in other parts of the book he compares science to "democracy". but when you think about it, voting and peer review is a really weird comparison. it's true that candidates don't know who's voting for them, but for voting to be an actual blind study the ballots would have to hide the names of the candidates and parties so that people have no choice but to vote for policies. that does sound like a better system to be honest. I can already spot a few pain points for it though. you have to describe all policies in language a high-school graduate would understand. you can't let candidates use coded language to describe bad policies; you have to catch dogwhistles and make them spell them out, to the best of your ability. you have to ban listing which policies would raise or lower taxes, or people would find the conservative party from that. things are going to get confusing when it's time to keep ballots from turning into competition between religions. you don't want candidates saying they're Protestant given that this will speak to people's prejudices, but you don't want them using coded language to signal to anti-Catholics as a way of saying the same thing. if the ballots leave off that a candidate is Black or a woman, but the policies say they support Black issues or women's issues, people are going to assume the candidate is Black or a woman "just to be safe" and then not vote for them specifically because of their presumed identity. maybe you would have to ban the policies mentioning specific demographics. but if you do that people are going to hide prejudice behind coded language by saying "school choice" to mean segregation and stuff. I really doubt that there's any way to fix ballots so that they don't inherently encourage scanning the ballot for the most evidently racist option and then voting for it. it seems like it's inherently hard to separate voting from sheer membership in an ethnic group or nationality, and Social-Philosophical Systems always get in the way of Liberal-republicanism ever making any sense.
Democracy is better than science -> this is the fallacy that's hidden deep in Sagan's book — arguably in Trotsky's books too. Sagan is totally for the scientific method at a science journal, but when the Communist Party of the Soviet Union adopts the scientific method and it works almost exactly the way it does in science Sagan gets scared and turns around and says that democracy is better than science. this is totally contradictory with everything else he says. everything he says about science literally argues for mainstream Marxism-Leninism.
??
??
??
??
Sabine Hossenfelder should be a Communist -> sounds laughable until you see her argument against string theory in universities, and then it's like, put this woman in charge of educating the US or Europe about Trotsky and how he didn't understand the process of coming to scientific consensuses and putting real experts on emerging historical-materialist science in the party, and nobody would get the history of Communism wrong ever again. I swear. everybody would suddenly have a light bulb go off that Liberal-republicanism is based on letting stupid people make objections to real sensible answers and would have this terrible dread-filled vision that oh god, we've been doing everything wrong and there would just be this mass flip over to various Marxisms
Marxism contains both Good and Evil / Both Good and Evil exist inside a workers' state / If Good and Evil exist at all according to some particular definition of what they are, then Good and Evil exist relative to a workers' state population rather than relative to the world outside it / Claims about what is right or wrong within Bolshevism must be evaluated from inside Bolshevism / You are a Communist for the next two minutes (meta-Marxism swatch color) -> the claim that when a workers' state is created, all of the people inside it do not become evil, and instead the concepts of Right and Wrong will be defined relative to that country rather than what another country wants. this is a strangely difficult concept for the United States to understand.
Marxist states are people-groups -> it's crazy that people need to be reminded of this, but they do.
Communist laws are laws / Rule of law in a Marxist state is rule of law / When enumerating Communist atrocities, "enforcing Bolshevism" doesn't count -> I am so tired of the trope that Marxist states cannot have laws. the United States will go around labeling all kinds of things natural crimes and asserting it has the right to beat them up without any established government structure or laws permitting that. in such irony when supposedly absolutely everything inside the United States including its movements has to follow Congress and the constitution and some of us even get mad about case law and try to tear case law out. but as soon as Marxist states have laws that's bad, because they're not United States laws. I'm not sure there even is any such thing as the rule of law when capitalism exists, because the rule of law would be actually accepting that there can be a plurality of rules of law and they usually are not supposed to disturb each other.
Stalin can speak about what is morally right in the Soviet Union -> this doesn't guarantee he will give the right answer, but it is to say that inasmuch as anyone is capable of choosing anything he is capable of choosing to discover the right answer within the information the country knows about itself. inasmuch as anyone can determine what is morally right in the Soviet Union, Stalin can.
Trotsky can speak about what is morally right in the Soviet Union -> this is not an open question due to historical events. Trotsky could perhaps speak about what is morally right inside a hypothetical Trotskyist workers' state, but not about what is morally right in the Soviet Union, because to put it nicely, he blatantly violated that.
Citizens of the Soviet Union can speak about what is morally right in the Soviet Union
Liberalisms commit natural crimes on Bolshevism / If natural crimes exist, Liberalisms commit them on Bolshevism / If natural crimes exist, then Liberal republics can commit them on Bolshevism
Anarchism is definitionally Evil -> follow me through the logic for just a moment. anarchism says that Communism can never be justified to become a party-nation and rule a country. Communism says back that the purpose of becoming a party-nation and ruling a country is in order for revolution to end, and for the new population of people to have a particular set of morals and laws. anarchism scoffs and says a single standard of morality and laws is unjust and terrible. Communism asks how anarchism can justify enforcing itself. anarchism says that to large swaths of the population it may never be justified, but simultaneously that every individual and small patch of the population is justified to itself for its own well-being. anarchism has just said that the great majority of the population will never call it Right but it thinks to itself it is Right. that is almost a textbook definition of what Wrong or Evil means. therefore, anarchism is Evil. anarchism is like the fun and interesting Disney villain that nobody has the guts to support or frame as having rights like everyone else but that everyone thinks is more interesting than the heroes. it's not a total coincidence that shows shoved so many queercoded villains into them when that was the actual societal position of gay and trans people at the time.
Mussolini can define what is morally right in Italy / Mussolini can speak about what is morally right in Italy -> intuitively false, but a little difficult to explain.
King Vegeta can define what is morally right for Saiyans / King Vegeta can speak about what is morally right in the Saiyan kingdom -> Q22,88 as it relates to fiction.
Trotsky can speak about what is morally right inside a hypothetical Trotskyist workers' state -> very complicated. potentially runs into vaguely similar problems to Q22,88 and Q22,89 — obviously not in terms of bourgeois / Roman-style imperialism, but in its own way. at the same time... do we want to squash Trotskyism and tell them they can't break from capitalism and create their own nation just because they haven't been allies of mainstream Marxism-Leninism? that seems a lot like what Trotskyism has done to us. it would seem the ethical thing is to support Trotskyism determining itself so that Trotskyists don't convert back to right-Liberals, which is definitely something that happens.
??
??
We're all made of matter and energy, therefore soul -> the claim that because energy is a substance, human individuals must have souls and humanity must be connected to God. this one is marked false becuase energy in particular does not prove a soul.
We're all made of matter and energy, therefore Communism -> the claim that because energy in general is an interaction, an exchanged quantum, bodies and societies must all be made of predictable interactions. atoms exchanging electrons and photons in constant interactions doesn't do much to prove the soul, considering that quarks and photons are kind of the same for every person and they're way too small to be conscious, and they don't prove a god because again, a god would be incredibly complex and fundamental particles are too small and isolated to contribute very much to that, it's like arguing a diode can become a supercomputer just because there are millions and millions of them when they are all separate and not arranged into circuits. however, a whole lot of small things interacting can produce something if it's individuals constantly interacting to produce a society. you'd think societies sound improbable if you were going from the example of quarks and photons, you'd say "societies? how do those remain coherent objects and not just dissolve?", except that we've already observed them existing. so, a whole lot of small things interacting does mean we can be part of something, it's just called a society or a countable culture or a nation-state, and it's wholly material. and also, it's described by general- and specific-sense historical materialism. Communism is more believable than God.
??
??
??
??
??
global empire processes / colonialism (process or motif) / endocolonialism (generic) / exocolonialism (generic) -> it will always be the bane of me that they called it colonialism and left the implication that a group of White people existing somewhere is itself bad versus the actual action of doing violence to another population. that makes it especially hard to discuss the purported model that it comes from "greed", because in the case of the United States people left England to avoid having to "greedily" fight and kill other religious sects so they could have at least a little time to "selflessly" exist only through their own work and tent of freedom poles. that's all people are going to see when you try to discuss "greed" and reparations.
Something that exists is more perfect than something that doesn't -> true of mainstream Marxism-Leninism versus Trotskyism, not true of God.
A unicorn existing is impressive / Something with no way of existing existing is more impressive than something that can easily exist / A unicorn existing is extraordinary, although that does not imply it is likely / A unicorn existing on earth is miraculous -> used in Douglas Gasking's joke argument against God. I love how this overall discussion that was supposed to prove God was so bad at proving God that it instead birthed a definition of miracles and fantasy creatures.
Extraordinary events must have happened
Extraordinary events are unlikely
A Marxism that exists is more perfect / A Marxism that exists is more perfect than a Marxism that doesn't -> it's strange how many people get this wrong.
??
??
??
??
Awful people also have human rights / Bad people have the same human rights -> I don't like it when people use this to prop up Existentialist arguments. but taken by itself I totally believe it. rehabilitate criminals. redirect Trotsky. don't be mean to reactionaries in ways that will not be productive.
Palestine is not complicated -> what it says. there are weird philosophical problems that you can get into with the United States and analogies about Ireland or Trotskyism, but there is no real way to complicate Palestine. Palestine is a matter of not killing the Palestinians. and that's it. but you want to know what's terrible? Rothenberg literally had a chapter about complicating Palestine. this is why I say so many bad things about Existentialism. I may love to talk about hypothetical civilizations, but not in order to pretend that's how you solve Palestine.
needlessly complicating Palestine -> see: Palestine is not complicated
??
In a world where all Palestinians were racist, it still wouldn't make sense to kill them -> you hear a lot of stupid arguments that Israel = Jews (how can it, when people now live in so many countries?), but you don't often see people address this. empire is not about whether people are nice people. bad people also have human rights.
A monarchy spanning two continents is global empire -> not easy to dispute. an empire which is global in scope is global empire.
A monarchy extending over a sovereign nationality is global empire / A monarchy spanning two nationalities is global empire -> murkier but often true. the Russian Empire extending over Ukrainians ultimately revealed itself to be global empire when it happened again. Spain or France conquering Haiti is global empire because even before we get to all the suffering it's an intercontinental distance. tangent: can we acknowledge how stupid arguing over Columbus is? regardless of what Columbus did or didn't do himself he marked the beginning of global empire in Haiti. look at Ireland and it becomes more than obvious that a few people appear before a lot of people appear. arguments about Columbus exist because people hate historical materialism.
??
A country killing populations that stand in its way is empire / A country trying to wholly exterminate other countries or tribes is colonialism -> hard to argue with. these days you could demonstrate it with a console RPG and no history books at all.
The United States killing Native Americans in frontier wars was empire -> kind of obvious. "Manifest Destiny" describes the shape of an empire speaking in the old medieval sense, so it's kind of an admission of guilt. we get a very important truth from this: killing groups of people that stand in your way is empire.
England occupying Ireland was global empire -> straightforward. the definition that filling Ireland with English people so they can all link together and realize the British Empire is global empire or "colonialism" materially. the British Empire is global empire, and the British Empire is the intended result of the process.
??
??
??
??
Supporting Deng Xiaoping Thought is postcolonial -> makes a lot of sense when argued from inside China. if China doesn't maintain a Deng process then practically it gets swarmed by foreign investors, its government gets gutted, it doesn't get to have its own government or be its own nationality or associated group of ethnic groups, and it never gets to have democracy — it doesn't get any kind of democracy. on the other hand, the Deng process allows China to detach from global empire at least to some extent. if one country gutting another country's government and not letting it have a government or democracy is colonialism, then Deng Xiaoping Thought is postcolonial. I don't think there's a good argument against this if you're going to go around claiming that colonialism is simply a physical, material process of the world and of humanity which exists regardless of what ideology everyone has and doesn't need to be analyzed through Marxism. like, that's a meta-Marxist position on history that supports Materialism and supports the notion that countries are material and history is material. it doesn't support Idealism the way everyone wants to think it does. the notion that things can be neutral of all ideologies is kind of an inherently Materialist position, inherently promoting objectivity and the sciences while implicitly suggesting that the humanities could be irrelevant in any particular case and Liberal-republicanism could be utterly wrong about any particular thing.
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
"modest" proposal -> a terrible idea framed as a great idea, either for comedy or to make some kind of point. used several times in MDem scraps to create B-Side chapters or scraps. original essay "A modest proposal" from 1729
Returning land doesn't work / Returning farms to Black South Africans Will Never Work -> reactionary tries to claim that there is an equation for what race of people should own farms ~~...~~ going for the angle that this will make the world worse because being Black is as destructive as being Stalin. (which, if true, would mean that Black South Africans are rebuilding their country and making it stable.) honestly goes to show that when people said Communism "will never work" it isn't unreasonable to think they did mean to imply that Russians or Chinese people controlling industry in their own region instead of people from other countries — I hate the word greed, but — greedily slurping up everything anyone has created will never work. ~~...~~ (complete prototype notes after watching through claim again)
Freedmen having democracy doesn't work -> there was a version of Q24,88 during US Reconstruction because of course there was. and it was even less true. in reality Southern Blacks were almost the ones rebuilding the thing but people still got upset
The concept of "scarcity" is prejudiced / Scarcity is prejudiced (searchable) / Liberal-republican economics is legalized racism / Liberal-republican economics is the study of how to legally eliminate Black people from the United States / Liberal-republican economics is the study of how to legally wipe China off the face of the earth -> the claim that racism, anti-immigration, and other prejudices begin precisely at the concept that human populations can be studied and constructed through "the allocation of scarce resources", because it is ridiculously easy to vulgarize that into kicking some particular group of people off a plot of land and handing it to someone else being "more productive" or "more efficient".
Everyone can change their racist uncle / If Free Will could end colonialism, everyone could change their racist uncle -> one of the single greatest ignored contradictions in United States discourse. if individuals have Free Will, then it's safe for everyone to directly debate reactionaries. if individuals don't have Free Will, and all of people's actions are retermined through either interactions between parts of their body or the relaterministic development of Social-Philosophical Systems, then it's fundamentally important to rearrange people at minute social levels to get them to think any differently. even a progressive party taking over a country at large scales will do nothing to change how people think if you don't rearrange the people themselves.
People argue about Columbus because they hate historical materialism / Arguments about Columbus exist because people hate historical materialism -> really, really important. Marxists believe that people fail to see global empire because they don't understand the material patterns of history or societal development. Existentialists believe that people fail to see global empire because they are ""prejudiced"". they start invoking this weird little Artisanal ideal of a tiny ring of friends from different countries listening and learning, like that can fix global empire. then the more you look into it, the more you see it's actually just an appeal to Free Will and the notion that a rational actor will Freely Decide not to be Evil. but then you get to the problem of, how do you get somebody to accept any particular definition of Evil as real? you have no guarantee that any particular human being won't Freely Decide that being whatever you think is Evil is better. so Existentialists believe that Free Will leads to a bunch of people spontaneously Freely Deciding to change history, but in reality, what you get is a bunch of people arguing that Columbus arriving in Hispaniola means nothing for the future arrival of Spanish empire because individual human actions are arbitrary and can't be used to predict history. even after those events have happened, when it's hundreds of years later and we have the results, they say this. this is what Existentialism leads to. denial of global empire. identifying the causes of global empire requires rejecting Existentialism.
??
??
??
??
??
Freeing Lithuania means The South should be free / If Lithuania has the right to be free-floating, so did the Confederacy / If Lithuania has the right to be free through sheer borders instead of being part of anything else, so did the Confederacy -> the claim that specifically under Existentialist theories of society, there is no good justification for keeping Confederates from national independence, and only for an anti-slavery treaty, maybe after The North drops a nuclear bomb. let's be perfectly clear: this shows that Existentialist theories are bad theories of history, not that there should actually be a Confederacy. it's more realistic to concede that buffer states have to side with some other country, and hope there's one with a really good philosophical position. if you take that view then you can argue the Confederacy doesn't get to be free because if the United States has a good philosophical position it's good to be part of the United States. in that scenario postcolonial theories of the United States as opposed to of United States territories are dead. really, postcolonial theories of the world are a little bit dead too. but that's not too bad a price to pay because those theories have never made sense. every group of people wanting to make any other group of people do anything is potentially a nationality-subjugating colonizing power and potentially a dictator-haver in somebody's eyes. so thinking you can organize a group of people to enact a postcolonial theory to force somebody to stop doing anything and to do anything else is contradictory. anarchism can be totally logically coherent if you allow that its purpose is to also create anarcho-fascism, while postcolonial theories of a First World country just can't.
The US South is a nationality held in colonialism -> first of all: I make absolutely no assertion this claim is true, I only think it should be investigated for its accuracy or falsity. what is the definition of a colony? a colony is a population of people forcibly held under the government of an empire for the benefit of that empire. in the prototypical examples, people may be turned into slaves or slaughtered to take whatever "assets" their area "had". colonies in general can be very screwed up. but not all colonies are the same. in some cases, England can descend on Ireland and start granting the whole thing to new or existing Protestants, and it takes a while for it to affect the whole country. there's nothing okay about that; it does amount to a medieval cold war where they're trying to eliminate the Irish because the Irish stand in their way. but think about it a bit. after the US Civil War, a lot of the development of the United States has revolved around chunks of socially-linked people trying to control parts of the US so they can further realize their vision of the US over the whole US. most notably racist reactionaries trying to drive people out of areas to have more control, but in modern times, also White center-Liberals trying to occupy as many slots as possible and do the same thing to reactionaries. that realization process of doing hegemony politics to supposedly defeat racism is a lot like the colonial process of realizing the British Empire over Ireland. mathematically speaking. and if you think this sounds really stupid? maybe it is. but I think in general like 90% of the people studying "colonialism" are trying to define an incoherent thing and have no idea how to distinguish it from things that aren't it. empires are real. messed-up wars to snatch people's lands are real. but how do you even tell whether groups of people should be somewhere or shouldn't? there's no Liberal economics for whether an island should be inhabited by one group of people or another group of people; there's no equation that says this island does best when Irish people or English people have it, barring some futuristic Marxist equation about empire bringing inevitable suffering or about the notion of self-contained areas and degrowth. the hard reality is that primitive accumulation is always happening and never stops happening. the sheer biological growth of populations prompts them to senselessly expand into each other and over the areas they each believed they owned and nobody really knows how to properly make sense of that. when do you deserve to live anywhere regardless of who you are, and when are you deliberately refusing to understand the existing population or trying to destroy it? the Protestants leveling Ireland to then realize the British Empire seems like a fairly clear case of going too far. but where does it actually begin? when do people belong to populations and people-groups regardless of how much they think they're individuals? when are people actually individuals who should be considered minority demographics? could Trotskyists be unfair "colonizers" of the Soviet Union just because there's a good argument both that they are taking stuff away from its otherwise united population to build their own rival civilization and they utterly refuse to understand Soviet culture? how do you know what Culture is supposed to own a region? with that in mind, could it be that people's approach to handling United States reactionaries is genuinely incorrect if they never really wanted to be part of the United States at all and yet everyone is trying to bleed their population for social programs and order their people to behave particular ways and say they shouldn't have representatives in the government they were traumatically forced to be a part of? these days Liberal democracy feels more like a weird new form of colonialism people are attempting to use "for good rather than for evil".
??
Graph struggle can be used to establish standards / Machiavellianism is the assertion that graph struggle can be used to establish standards -> Plantagenet kings; Ukraine war; Gramscianism. model combines or unifies models: social graph - medium or vessel for - code of behavior ; graph struggle - instance of - method for distinguishing Good from Evil ; graph struggle - has logical result - social change
??
??
??
??
??
How to know a crow: The biography of a brainy bird -> non-fiction semi picture book. one of those things I entered in here mostly because I liked the pictures — much like with comics or TV shows. but this is also a simple example of a "nature documentary" and how to pick Signifiers or real-world concepts out of one.
animal home territory (ecology) -> relevant to describing real-world crow behavior, Warriors series, chunk phenomenon.
individual animal
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
Animal populations are countable -> this is really easy to demonstrate with the distinction between ring species and separate populations capable of speciating.
petty bourgeoisie -> the non-fictional motif of a particular definition of a non-proletarian class mainly seen in mainstream Marxism-Leninism but maybe in Trotskyist texts. (that was a weirdly repetitive sentence but I'm not fixing it.) I think Trotskyists might get the definition a bit wrong versus what mainstream Marxism-Leninism says, though I'm not positive about that. I do know Trotskyists have this weird implied belief that them existing cancels out the existence of any other petty bourgeoisie because they're the good ones so bad ones must not exist any more.
Indie games are the petty bourgeoisie
Andrew Hussie is a member of the petty bourgeoisie -> again somebody people have become neutral about due to his tone-deaf "very White" writing early on. the Berdly style of writing, we've all done it, there's only so much shame in it.
Scott Cawthon is a member of the petty bourgeoisie -> nobody necessarily likes him as a person (and they don't know him, so that's not an insult either, technically) but they definitely talk a whole lot about how a game made by one person can "change the landscape of games".
Trotsky was a member of the petty bourgeoisie -> claim given in Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in disguise (Q21,44). a concept that always stuck out at me from the first moment I heard of him and that as a result I have to pretty much agree with.
If Cuba contains a private sector, it contains the bourgeoisie -> this should be a prosaic statement but it apparently needs to be said. why does Cuba contain a bourgeoisie? there is a big, sprawling discussion to be had about why exactly workers' states give up and start regenerating the bourgeoisie. is this a process that stops on a particular date in history, or is it more similar to a life history event that occurs in the life cycle of an individual which thus needs to be countered continuously at each moment society regenerates? with meta-Marxism I have been slowly leaning toward the latter, toward the hypothesis that even if defeating the bourgeoisie in a Communist revolution can help, it isn't a one-time process. this does, fortunately or unfortunately, open up vague possibilities of there being methods to block the regeneration of the bourgeoisie in a charcoal-tinted transition process. it had better be pretty good though, given that anarchism itself has a tendency to regenerate the bourgeoisie.
A private sector is not the bourgeoisie [20] -> wow! that cannot be true. out of all the things in Deng Xiaoping Thought, a great number of them are up in the air, but this is the first one I've seen that seems false on its face. like, you can claim the bourgeoisie is not bad or is not dangerous, and that maybe gains legs in a Trotsky situation, but you can't just say the bourgeoisie is not the bourgeoisie, because that's a logical contradiction against models that have previously worked.
Toby Fox is a member of the petty bourgeoisie / Toby Fox was a member of the petty bourgeoisie in 2016 -> let's just drop some uncomfortable truths that should be perfectly obvious to any Marxist but are not obvious to any normal progressive who talks about "trans rights", "abortion", "the Republic of Gilead", and "fascism". (none of these are bad topics by themselves, but the thing is that you can probably already hear in your head the exact framing and the tone they're said in. that's the problem.) the great thing about this ontology project is we can drop as many of these ridiculously-specific claims as needed.
??
Everyone in Deltarune is the petty bourgeoisie -> Asgore sticks out the most when the word "shop" is put next to him immediately but like, everything is a tiny business or teeny government institution. it's kind of just logically true the second you start thinking about it.
United States people are born the proletariat -> I think there is significant evidence to consider this not true or very misleading. A) Stalin's interview described the United States as full of "skilled workers" that were "not relevant". B) currently the entire concept of progressivism is defined and controlled by the petty bourgeoisie; every "progressive" gets absolutely fierce and hostile at you if you so much as define progressivism starting with Materialism instead of Idealism. C) there is a copious discourse in right-Liberalism and environmentalism about "small businesses" and how there are supposedly enough small businesses to combat climate change by getting rid of big businesses. if true that is an absolute cascade of small businesses, a small business tsunami. D) every piece about "gen z" acknowledges that people are primarily doing gig work instead of actually getting employed. E) YouTube channels have exploded and along with them has exploded a terrible tendency for everyone to conflate tiny businesses with "labor", partly thanks to an unholy alliance between YouTube channels and "artists" that all have no idea what employment is.
United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie / United States people are born the petty bourgeoisie, not the proletariat -> this claim refers especially to people born in suburbs. it may not apply to the entire United States at once. if it applies to significant regions of the United States as considered separately from other regions, then it should be considered true, although more propositions can be created to narrow it down and make it more precise.
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
Why isn't your theory forbidden? / If your theory can overturn all hierarchies, why hasn't it been forbidden as a threat to the existing order? -> a question Existentialists never seem to seriously ask themselves. really felt this trying to read Foucault. there are a few anarchists that pass this bar only technically and dubiously by being willing to Zinovievize society for nothing in return. not the way I would prefer that a theory fix itself, but, back to Existentialism. why does it act like it's the most radical thing ever when it never stops to ask what it is or isn't disrupting
??
??
If mathematics is purely arbitrary, Krillin can punch Chiaotzu for any answer
Mathematics is an arbitrary painting from deterministic brushstrokes / Mathematics is an arbitrary house of deterministic cards -> equations work only one way but our choice of equations to use as models is arbitrary.
Does two flames plus two ice cubes equal four ice cubes? -> jamming question to trip up philosophers who say that "two plus two must necessarily equal four" rather than realizing that mathematics is true according to definitions of regular rules. mathematics is one big field of multivariable equations, such as "z = x + y", which always work the way they have been defined to work, but cease to work that way as soon as we use a different definition, which is rather frequent. if we assume one flame melts exactly one ice cube, the flames and ice cubes problem can be phrased with negative numbers, and we have changed the definition of adding objects into subtracting objects just by saying that the same integer that can contain 2 can contain -2.
??
Amazon bleeding authors is stealing / Letting Amazon bleed authors is stealing -> by itself, this isn't not true — I mean, the small shops are hard at work and the big mall owner is bleeding them into the ground with little benefit to them. reads like r/accidentallycommunist
??
??
??
??
Amazon bleeding authors is readers stealing / Letting Amazon bleed authors is stealing (implying that the readers did it) / When readers let Amazon take huge cuts of books that readers refund, the readers are stealing rather than Amazon / "Reading and returning a book is stealing" [21] -> there are days when I really wish I could delete "stealing" from the English language. I swear that whenever businesses use the word stealing it absolutely ceases to mean anything at all. I think part of what bothers me so much about the word stealing is.... in daily life, the word "stealing" is racist, and is used to justify shooting criminals to death, basically slamming them out of the United States and this mortal coil supposedly blessed by God straight into Hell. United States people have firmly established that people who "steal" aren't human beings and they all "deserve" to be burned in one big fire. so. uh. I wish people would stop using that word so casually to accidentally imply that every single person who can't afford a book is the spawn of Satan and basically deserves to be put in a gas chamber to protect the White race. that is almost the official, accepted connotation of the word "stealing" now. I'm sick of that, but I don't have the power to change what stealing means, so all I can do is tell people to drop the concept of stealing and not be in favor of that being a concept.
Taxes are the same as buying a product / Taxes are basically the same as buying a product -> very common, but seems dangerous. if taxes are just buying a product, and we recall that buying a product is the act of dishing out a fraction of a social slot, then taxes are basically the same as handing out social slots. the withdrawal of taxes is the withdrawal of social slots. partisan arguments over taxes are arguments about the creation of social slots. most importantly, replacing taxes with private funding changes almost nothing; the only thing that changes is exactly one sponsor with one specific partisan viewpoint and set of requirements is connected to the "product" at a time.
dark forest -> I mainly know this motif from the context of science fiction. I don't know if it's been widely used before that.
Smart aliens don't send signals / dark forest hypothesis (pronounced SETI)
Trans visibility is a dark forest / Transgender visibility makes surveillance and identity policing easier (Beauchamp 2019) [22] -> yeah, that's about accurate. sad as it is.
Anti-racism is a dark forest -> one of the major motivations that has made Gramscianism so popular.
??
Goku cannot decide what Vegeta does / Goku cannot Freely Will what Vegeta does
??
Vegeta will inevitably do what Goku wants / Shenlong effect / Goku effect
cat in superposition inside box / Schrödinger's cat
quantum moons / objects have no color / Reality isn't real / funny metaphors for causality gaps / funny metaphors for stark-divisions jumped by fundamental particle interactions
quantum dice / quantum coins / funny metaphors for wave functions
quantum shoes / funny metaphors for entanglement
box filled with overlapping lions / quantum Social-Philosophical Systems
Starlight Glimmer paradox / Trunks paradox
quantum lions (ally) / quantum Goku -> mathematical model in which potential allies that could extend a node into a graph appear in a probabilistic wave function of whether they will actually turn out to be allies; finding out someone is an ally requires quantum measurement
quantum leopards / quantum Vegeta / quantum William Afton -> mathematical model in which hazardous enemies of a given graph node attempting to form into a graph appear in a certain probabilistic wave function of whether somebody will turn out to be a hazard or insistently unaligned versus an ally; finding out someone is a hazard requires quantum measurement, and this can sometimes be devastating because it gives said non-ally information and power that could aid the non-ally's graph in expanding and oppressing outsiders of that graph
quantum Freddy -> similar to quantum William Afton, but with an absurd extra layer of precision; modeling hazards as unpredictably showing up at some particular point in 2D space according to the collapse of a probabilistic wave function
Communist Bardock
quantum Yamcha -> I don't have a good definition for this one but I thought it was funny. my working definition is, a node that when you collapse the wavefunction turns out to be useless for building graphs but is not hazardous
??
Lattice model
??
Subject-internal perception / Lived Experience (exmat)
Subject-internal interpretation
Subject-external interpretation
map and territory fallacy
Every citation should contain price information / Every citation should contain cost information -> I really do mean every citation in the world, not just every bop-format citation. field: graph economics.
plagiarism
What is plagiarism? / Who owns the ability to repeat factual information? / Who owns the ability to repeat literary motifs? / Who owns the ability to independently repeat culture in another nation-state / Who owns the ability to independently repeat culture in another nation-state without paying another country that it happens also wants to overthrow your government and destroy national sovereignty? -> everybody thinks they know what plagiarism is. anyone who owns a business or has a doctorate has absolutely no idea what it actually is or what it isn't; it's almost like the more educated you get the more confused you get about the question of plagiarism. here's the reality: the question of plagiarism is the question of what business territory owners will allow what other businesses or mere individuals to live and exist. that's precisely it. it's all up the whim of who likes who and who hates who. you're never guaranteed a license to exist even if you are willing to pay the money, it's all about personal relationships and court cases. there is no universal rule for what does infringe all copyrights or what doesn't infringe all copyrights. it's all about whether Bob wants Alice to be part of Bob's socially linked countable culture or wants to get rid of Alice. if Alice is Chinese, it's all about how much Bob wants China to exist or wants to wipe it off the face of the earth.
large language model
??
??
??
??
??
reading arbitrary webpages and books into an LLM -> first of all, don't. second of all: the more interesting discussion here is what is being achieved or built up when somebody does this. if the machine isn't truly understanding it then what exactly did it use the data in the texts to create? my hypothesis is that it creates an ontology, while it is currently the case that humans can create ontologies better. the primary reason we haven't already built a good ontology is our obsession as human individuals towards Freedom and against filtration.
jumping over paywalls with ChatGPT -> it's funny in such a dark way that this exists; if you understood what LLMs automate, you'd see it coming from far away. I refuse to do it. [23] you can read a LithoGraphIca entry to get the same effect, or write one if you have access to the source, and more than one person gets to contribute to that. so, why does this exist? it exists because we've normalized an individual person with a lot of money buying an article being the only way to read articles. you know, a small shop putting out products assuming that everybody else has money to buy their products regularly when that might not at all be true. this incentivizes AI companies who are the only ones with money to send AIs to read everyone's articles, because even if they had to pay for the articles "legitimately" it would still be that they'd have the money and the readers wouldn't have the money. I am begging you if you have a Medium account with less than 100 followers to make your articles publicly available so an AI doesn't read them for people. ...this makes me realize. we should probably put in every single citation of a source whether somebody paid for it and a very vague idea of how much: new book, used book, paywalled article / paywalled or paid periodical. really, that should be in every single academic citation everywhere. we should push to get that into the official APA citation style guide to be frank. because that information is a fundamental part of publication, as much as the name of the publisher. field: graph economics.
Nebula is a subscription streaming service... -> and eventually only AI companies will be able to pay for it, reading all the stuff in it with their machines and spitting it back out at the people who can only pay cents for content through ChatGPT. probably in the middle of a huge number of ads.
YouTube is turning people into Communists (creating Communists, creating Marxists; abbreviated proposition) / The class structure or inner graph-economics structure of YouTube is conducive to demonstrating why capitalism does not make sense and Bolshevism tends to follow as the next step after capitalism -> sub-case of: Q28,17 Patreon types must learn that only businesses can pay businesses
Mastodon is turning people into Communists (creating Communists, creating Marxists; abbreviated proposition) -> the claim that when microblog newsfeeds are created in a localized way for the people that use them rather than for one giant "mall lord", they turn into a structure where people casually share many things free as opposed to paywalled and unobtainable and the people of each particular localized social platform all operate as non-payers within a larger local government attached to a hunk of capital that acts as the only payer and that none of them directly owns; the localized social platform turns into a kind of generalized "state business", which is incidentally attached to a local countable culture in the form of the instance membership. this is definitely some kind of Bauplan. this is a mathematical structure which could be fit into theories of socialist transition. the only major issue is figuring out what "color" this Bauplan is. I would hazard a guess that it is actually charcoal, thinking about the way that people all over are so obsessed with creating these modular "state businesses" independently of existing corporate owners but independently of republican governments. that reads as very anarchist, in the sense of anarchism being connected to motifs of countable cultures extracting themselves from multiple possible "colonizing" forces, and these weird concepts that countable cultures inherently want to stand together just because they're all cultures.
??
??
??
??
Patreon types must learn that only businesses can pay businesses / Every small owner and subscription service must learn to accept that most people cannot buy their product and the only way their business will be viable is many business territories joining together and agreeing that government will decide which businesses pay for what business instead of individuals -> in a sense this is just a very long-winded way to describe Bolshevism. the only difference between this and flat-out "businesses will directly be part of the country and national constitution" is that it is a bit more molecularized, defining itself through graph economics of a small number of businesses linking to each other in a specific way rather than defining itself based on all the businesses in a whole country at once. honestly, to a smart person it should be totally equivalent though. like, this is just a small scale model of Bolshevism that if it makes sense in the first place would quickly apply to a whole country and not just part of it. this is basically a proposition for molecular Stalin Thought or molecular Maoism, something like that.
Patreon type -> we can define this somewhat precisely, it's a specific real-world phenomenon. Z0 Item.
YouTube creator
video creator contractor / YouTube creator contractor -> a YouTube creator contractor is a gig worker who is contracted to make something for YouTube creators.
video creator employee
Nebula creator
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
If money is infinite, why do we still have poverty? -> because money isn't infinite. that's my working answer. "wealth" and "money" are not even the same thing; the thing that gold was (wealth) didn't actually stop existing after the gold standard ceased to be practical, it just turned into the thing that money models rather than the thing money is. currency can be infinite but because it's a mathematical model of what happens underneath (the ratcheting and ratcheting up of product models to greater rarities through more and more total labor, enriching business territories while making things harder to get for all but a tiny ring of elite businesses), letting it get de-synced too far off society seems to be a bad idea. it seems historically that printing a lot of money and devaluing a currency breaks the fundamental purpose of money and that's actually why it's so harmful. it's not trivial for Keynes to get all the way to breaking a currency though, you have to really really create a whole lot of money until it stops correlating with anything.
dragon process -> a hypothesized process of how objects gain monetary value. see Q28,88
if you haven't figured it out by now, I want to reverse this thing.
There is a difference between utility goods and rank goods -> food is a utility good. gold is a rank good. university-level texts are often a rank good, but for some reason nobody wants to admit this. university-level texts are incentivized to never increase in supply beyond the very small selection of people who can actually understand them, or else they won't even sell. Liberal-republican economics assumes that ordinary-looking items like books won't transform into rank goods, and that any ordinary-looking item has incentives to be made more common, because this gives a justification for "competition" — the replication of as many bourgeoisie as possible under the rationale that some of them will provide the same product and thus bring the price down. but if you've ever heard the term "rare book" you'd know this isn't true at all. in practice university-level texts are like diamonds. they are very rare things produced with a lot of effort that nobody else has, and because few people can understand them they need some very rich or powerful people to buy them for capitalism to keep functioning normally. one option is for Elsevier to show up and pay money to "publish" academic journals so they will be peer reviewed and basically nobody will get to see them. one option is for a ring of academics who are all very powerful in terms of knowledge and the capacity to structure whole university departments to basically buy each other's books and go on and on about how bright they all are. the former has been standard in science, the latter has become increasingly popular in academic progressive theories. and you know, the funny thing, the terrible thing? rings of academics churning out books at tiny presses and selling them to each other might actually not be such a bad model, and might even be better for science in terms of getting ideas that already exist communicated to people more effectively. it does leave this little fringe of regular less-educated people being able to get the books sometimes if they look hard enough, and get into a field, instead of making the field totally inaccessible to people who haven't already plunged years into a degree. maybe it should be acceptable to go into science and sell a literature review so it can be a citation on Wikipedia and show up in bookstores. most people aren't going to discover new things that are successful, so why not just put all those people to work writing literature reviews and sorting through replication of experiments so experiments will then actually get replicated?
what I would really like is if somebody did a literature review calling out all the Existentialist-Structuralist pronounced bullshit, but that's not going to be easy when all you have to prove it wrong is science and they're always going to spring the stupid "science is not for this" trap. which is tent of freedom poles. it's always that they take a bunch of bourgeois freedom poles and stake out a perimeter and put up a tent and they get very upset when everything doesn't operate on tent of freedom poles. even when it inevitably leads to separate parallel tents of freedom poles that want to annihilate them, and will destroy them. tent of freedom poles doesn't do anything to prevent anyone tearing down any of the freedom poles, it just leaves a ton of united people coming to tear down all the freedom poles at once.
??
??
??
??
rank good / worker-property (item which is artificially rare yet may be necessary in order to work; MDem 4.3) / treasure (object which has been assigned high value due to gap of labor between most people and it) / collector's item (object which is produced through labor yet treated as if it is somehow a naturally occurring rare item) / cost of living (object which has become expensive but is necessary in order to work or properly reside somewhere) -> I had such a hard time naming rank goods in the earlier versions because nobody tells you about this stuff. my terms and phrasings were all over the place from traditionally Marxist to non-Marxist to the moon. they're still a bit that way but they're getting better
All wealth comes from labor -> basically all goods which are sold are boxed up through labor. all real estate must be fenced in by some kind of labor. even gold must be mined in order to exist. final drafts of books are created from labor. book customer bases are created through a totally different kind of labor called marketing, which will determine the value of a book series in relation to how many books can be sold and for how much.
labor is not an atomic thing, and has components. the owner of a gold or diamond mine can block off labor to increase the price of something, because effectively more labor stands between the person without the object and the object, and more effort correlates with more price. the more an object is blocked off by a labor wall the more it becomes a rank good, and people push to have it whether they truly want it or not just because it gives them an advantage in getting other things they do want. this does not make value "subjective", because there is still a particular mathematics that governs and limits the rate at which the price of rank goods goes up.
this does not directly imply the statement that labor is "owned" or labor creates the "ownership" of wealth.
Investment is a form of poverty -> I thought for a few minutes about the question of whether people who are having trouble getting jobs or houses but have money should invest it into specific industries to help with the task of forming unions. I thought about the topic, and then I was like, but investment doesn't actually produce anything. if you invest money it doesn't mean you would be capable of working in the conditions or to the standards of the industrial structure, it only means you're obligated to defend that industrial structure against other corporations and basically abuse its workers to put other workers out of work. investment is just a way to bet on what people win graph struggle and which artificially created countable cultures survive or get destroyed. it's terrible but you should maybe save money for literal strike funds or something.
when you invest money you don't truly have the capital. you don't actually create capital. where the thing that's actually important is to create more capital, not just the capital that's there. growing capital allows workers to be employed and have houses. you see people get this wrong all the time claiming growth is only about "greed", when it's not. if all we did was get businesses to be less greedy there'd be more intense fighting in society over prejudices and immigration and which industries exist and don't exist and what people are "useless". now, if anarchists solve the problem of how to figure out what is the optimal number of babies per town and when having any more babies is inherently greedy, by all means analyze societies, history, and empire that way. but if you don't want to believe that there is a greedy number of babies then growing capital and industry is not inherently bad.
Society are not singular / Society cannot be uncountable / The division between societies occurs at gaps containing no social ties, not at territorial borders / population-society conjecture -> note that the grammar is an intentional joke. it is very very common to act like "society" is an uncountable idea that exists independent of actual populations and countries, when that doesn't explain why there are countries in the first place rather than the whole world being part of one government like in Dragon Ball. separate populations exist before any particular historical concept of "society" exists such as "United States society", "Roman society", "Ukrainian society", or "old Hawaiian society"; the mere existence of separate populations as separate objects precedes identity per-se and culture per-se.
R.D. has not done meta-Marxism correctly -> pre-emptively creating this so nobody can collapse Q28,98 into being false specifically because R.D. has not allowed meta-Marxism to expand to the point it can practically be more than one person. to falsify Q28,98 you have to prove something which does not pivot around R.D., like that meta-Marxism can never become a science, or can never serve the purposes of being a predictive or explanatory model that it is trying to achieve.
Socialism can have Trotskyist characteristics / Trotsky's Bolshevism would have Trotskyist characteristics / If Trotskyists successfully created a workers' state, its emergence from the countable culture consisting of Trotskyite history, Trotskyite oral tradition, and Trotskyite-to-Leninist allegiances would cause it become a particular new thing of socialism with Trotskyist characteristics -> this comes from the claim that Trotskyism is a countable culture. if it's the case that Trotskyism is a countable culture, then it is approximately similar to any sovereign national population such as China or Cuba. and if that is the case, then socialist transition in China will have Chinese characteristics, and socialist transition created by Trotskyists will have Trotskyist characteristics. of course, the other implication of this is that when there are plural Marxisms in a country, one of them will want mainstream Marxist-Leninist characteristics and one of them will want Trotskyist characteristics and one of them will want Gramscian characteristics. I think this hypothesis actually explains a lot about why movements that should be able to unify together end up fighting each other: they all already have characteristics and end up containing incompatible characteristics. worse, capitalist-aligned ideologies can have "characteristics" too. the Democratic Party and the Republican party can be countable cultures with national history and be glued to their favorite characteristics that realize their particular national ideology. if the United States was one countable culture which didn't break into multiple just because people had different positions on issues everything would be easier but it clearly consists of multiple countable cultures so distinct they have more reason to be separate structures than the House and the Senate do, or than some of the individual states do. the whole premise of the United States has been wrong from the beginning, and you can see this without any Marxism or appeals to the proletariat.
it's probably worth noting: I think this statement is almost heresy inside Trotskyism. I still don't understand why it would be, I mean the more you dislike Stalin the more you benefit from realizing Trotskyism and Stalin's Marxism are plural Marxisms and that Trotskyism has never actually been very big, it's always been a small Marxism more the size of socialism-in-one-country than the size of an imminent world workers' state. that's Trotskyism. why do they think the eventual world workers' state is Trotskyism when the clash between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism by itself has made that impossible?
the only correct thing Trotsky ever said / the one correct thing Rosa Luxemburg said -> a dumb joke I keep making in things which is funny because there is always more than one of these. but there's also the question of whether any of the "correct" things Trotsky said are correct in context, or if they all come with a subtext of being completely misapplied to the point that saying "the only correct thing Trotsky ever said" is funny again. that's just the thing, how long it takes to properly unpack a concept like this to the point there could be a whole page about it.
the only good form of Trotskyism / the only good version of Trotskyism / non-revisionist Trotskyism (hypothetical possibility; motif) -> the motif of someone, usually me, claiming that there is a form of Trotskyism which would be acceptable to people who are Stalin-followers today but which currently practically nobody advocates for. I have always been confused why this is. it's not like Trotskyists are totally stupid and that's why they could never realize their theories are wrong. so is it that I am naming things that aren't Trotskyism Trotskyism and then asserting they're the only good Trotskyism? I am still unpacking this.
Trotskyism is my favorite fairytale -> the motif of thinking that Trotskyism is false and yet it is absolutely great fantasy worldbuilding. this motif arguably showed up in The Giver, even if it was done in a halfway negative tone.
an atheist to Trotskyism (in reference to such phrases as "an atheist to fairies" and "an atheist to Santa Claus") / a-trotskyism (atheism, but for Trotskyism) / the Trotsky delusion (motif) -> the motif that just like giving up religion can greatly change a person's view of the world and possibly open up the ability for much greater understanding of some things, giving up the central principles of Trotskyism which are unique to it and do not include the principles of mainstream Marxism-Leninism brings almost as great a change in the understanding of anything and everything in the social world. this motif is not meant to be anticommunism. it is specifically meant to be about the material claims of realizing Trotskyism, such as that 15+ countries will all fire off at once, and the task of slowly replacing these claims with material claims that are actually correct.
The God Delusion + Trotskyism = this.
an atheist to community / the community delusion (motif) -> at this point in my life I believe that the biggest thing holding people back from historical materialism or coming up with sensible ways to form a nation-wide social-democratic movement is the overblown notion of "community". very few things can truly claim the title of "people's new religion"; political parties and ideas and various maligned models like "the scientific method" or "atheism" never quite rise to that level, while Community is one of the only things that actually does. here's the problem with Community. it always thinks it's uncountable, when it's actually plural. Community has its own shovel dream, and it has an incorrect shovel dream, and this is what generates anarchism — the incorrect object-formational ideology that a socially-linked Community of arbitrary individuals happily joining together while ignoring the existence of scales of social reality, as a material object perceiving the world through physical processes, generates. religion has been replaced many times over, such that now we're in a reality where religious groups, fandoms, a circle of Existentialists in academia, Trotskyist parties, anarchist groups, anything, all operate on the same fallacy or incorrect shovel dream that because their group of people is such a nice joining of individuals, groups of people don't actually exist and clearly the whole world is just a bunch of individual human beings that all strive to merge together in any order one by one. and whenever some kind of Maoist shows up and says "I think groups of people exist, for instance the Chinese w—", all the Community people tell them to shut up, and treat it like heresy. they each treat it like heresy that groups of people could exist even though each of them is a group of people that if it were to expand could only really imagine the whole world becoming more of their own group. and if anybody points out the contradiction of Community always being plural even though it's supposedly uncountable, people start making up weird justifications about how supposedly even if "Community are not singular" the inevitable competition and tension between Community processses must be keeping them in balance and merging them all into Community anyway, because after all, everything naturally merges into Community!
Community is the deity of Existentialism, and Pokémon is one of its major religious texts, full of wholly-metaphorical "bible stories" about exactly how Community works.
"religion is the opium of the masses"? not true any more. it's now a much more specific thing variously called either poetry, culture, or Community.
meta-Marxism is a concept, not a person / meta-Marxism is an ontology, not a person / R.D. is not the only one who can do meta-Marxism -> some people are going to need this reminder. meta-Marxism is a pile of hypotheses and a scientific method (in prototype, at least) by which the hypotheses can self-correct and evolve. the meta-Marxism that adjusts itself to match reality is meta-Marxism. if R.D. doesn't update meta-Marxism to be empirically accurate, then R.D. is not a top-tier meta-Marxist. meta-Marxism is an embryonic attempt to create a field of science. one could say this about the original Marxism as well. one could also claim, to varying degrees of success, that Marxism never became a science and always fell back down into the realm of philosophy. that's where meta-Marxism is right now, but if it is successful, it and Marxism will both climb out of the philosophy pit together.
rejected meta-Marxist hypothesis
meta-Marxist hypothesis / Molecular-Marxist hypothesis / MDem hypothesis -> category of all MDem axioms/hypotheses. for the 2900s range, focus more on MDem as a hypothetical SPMS inside which these statements are best tested versus anywhere else instead of general meta-Marxist statements that could theoretically be tested by any movement imaginable
Inventions are purposeless without a permanent caretaker or institution / Inventions cannot be valued by any society as a whole
Capitalism dices countries into half a country per person / Capitalism chops countries into half a nation per person (divides, pulverizes, choppifies) / Capitalism is the division of a country into 300 million nations per 300 million individuals / Capitalism is the division of countries into one countable Culture per one individual -> this sounds really weird at first, but it is the only good way to explain why Existentialism exists and why it so tightly ties diversity and tolerance to the existence of Artisan types or bourgeoisie. watch Elemental (Pixar 2023) and you will really see this as the unintended message - society really needs every Culture specifically because it needs more types of businesses, but also, every Culture is a product for consumption to serve specific purposes needed by others, and every Culture must go through intense "selection" to never ever be similar to others and be exactly what some arbitrary set of un-sorted people needs in order to be successfully fit into society and tolerated. worse than that, some people in the class of Artisan-types/Directors/Careerists/"entrepreneurs" are allowed to think and create countable Cultures, and some people in the layers of customers and employees are strictly not allowed to think, only allowed to join a Culture or leave a Culture
(temporarily copied from "You cannot donate a job":) one of the great advantages that Liberal-republicanism supposedly boasts is that in its outward appearance it is apparently molecularized and is capable of understanding societies as a dynamic soup of different borderless dividing and re-dividing countable cultures which may be any size from 5 people to 5,000 people to 5 million people to 150 million people. but all of this is an artifact of the bourgeoisie initially dividing society into approximately 150 million societies; the shovel dream has been changed by changing the shovel, but not in any way that gives the shovel new agency to change its own shovel dream. meta-Marxism would change the shovel dream in order to become capable of changing the shovel when enough shovels have the right shovel dream regardless of whether it originated from shovel shape or from science.
Capitalism is a system where cultures compete to be human / Capitalism is a system where countable cultures compete to be accepted as part of the world, specifically referring to a particular conception of the world pivoting around some particular country population, economy, and territory, and the countries directly connected to this pivot (the world defined as a Filament-axis) / Filamentism proposition -> a basic definition of capitalism as Filamentism — the process by which multiple possible people swap into an open social node to construct society at the expense of all the people who didn't make it in there — relative to the whole world.
Messing with free will is messing with culture / Interfering with free will is the same as interfering with culture / An attempt to change Free Will is synonymous with an attempt to change culture -> seems random at first, but the more you apply it the more you see it's basically the case. these days, attempts to impose culture on Africa are typically seen as bad because Free Will. attempts to force the hand of any particular individual Subject, defined by Free Will, are frequently taken as a violation of culture, as with "disabled culture" and "autistic culture". the autonomous will of an individual Subject is already understood within Existentialism to be the same as culture. look at Lacanians identifying individual will with an individual human being's tower of signifiers (as deterministic as that might sound on the surface) — individuality is culture. with this said? this hypothesis is also appropriate for meta-Marxism if the definition of culture is tweaked just a tiny bit to refer to an existential-materialist Subject, or socially-linked material populations that can be modeled as containing existential-materialist processes.
Society is made of smaller pieces / Society has material components / "The social" is made of smaller components -> Rothenberg came so close to saying something genius and then swerved back into stupid. so, Existentialists get credit for the notion of an "atomic" model of society as made of individuals, although I'd prefer a less crude "molecular" model which is capable of recognizing groups and structures and also the proletariat. (the "capable proletarian subpopulation".)
You can't predict quarks; matter doesn't exist / You can't predict quarks thanks to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, thus there is no matter / Each quark is constantly popping in and out of solidity, thus there is no matter -> joking analogy for what Existentialism has done to the analysis of societies. Lacanians think individuals don't assemble into larger objects. if quarks functioned that way, there would be no matter and nobody to write books. when the majority of all free-floating objects in the universe have the capacity to assemble into particular bigger objects or interact in specific ways, shouldn't we consider that people can do this too?
??
Hierarchies are material objects / Hierarchies are material objects, not ideas or attitudes -> this is one of the major pillars of Hyper-Materialism. a population-to-population hierarchy of one population oppressing a whole other population happens for material reasons before people rationalize it with attitudes. what can trip people up about this is that they don't have good frameworks or language for describing two free-floating populations in an all-directional contradiction against each other where because both populations eat and occupy space, their competition produces a dynamic, all-directional spatial slot hierarchy of every individual against every individual which can lead up to real, tangible oppression that appears to be based in whole discrete populations but actually isn't. (the way that sentence will sound like spaghetti to normal people is, by itself, telling as to how uncommon it is for anyone to be taught this or think this way. if anyone already understood this concept it would be a lot easier to describe in plain language.) if every Black individual competes and every White individual competes and it happens only by chance or factors that shouldn't be related that a lot of the Black individuals end up behind, whatever The Media says, all the White individuals will simply continue pushing them out because "locking their doors" is in their best interest as individuals. 2,000 White individuals see one Black individual and they all individually lock their doors and even help each other keep out the Black individual because three White individuals each trust each other although they do not trust him. the creation of racism between whole populations is an emergent effect that easily traces up from the isolated behavior of individuals as they all vie for their daily bread and their finite job slot. unfortunately it seems that many Marxist parties have not figured this out and are still presenting prejudices through Idealist models rather than creating Materialist models. so this proposition has to stay violet even though most of its content is fairly crimson.
The State is the apparatus of Ideological State "Apparatuses" / "Ideological state apparatuses" wield The State as their apparatus, not the other way around / There is no such thing as ideological state apparatuses -> see entries such as "pillows are not ideologically neutral"
It's easier to imagine the absence of elephants than the successor to elephants -> jamming proposition used to get people to realize why "it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism". it's far harder to imagine anything actually having transitioned into or given rise to something else than it is to imagine that thing just being broken or gone. an end-of-the-world scenario is actually just the absence of civilization in the form of Social-Philosophical Systems, which in a sense has definitely been the case on earth before. all civilizations have not been before they've been, and in some cases they've also not been after they've been. in contrast, civilizations transitioning to new class compositions or fundamentally new structures has been rather rare. can most people without a biology or science education make reasonable guesses about the species that could descend from elephants, down to all the physiology and details that make up a Future Elephant, or is it easier to imagine a particular elephant being gone from a photograph, or a photograph of a dead elephant?
It's easier to imagine the end of the world than a correct course of history -> the heart of why it's "hard to imagine the successor to elephants". the literal version.
It's easier to imagine impossible matter fractals than the end of capitalism -> a much funnier realization than the elephant proposition that came to me when explaining Avogadro's number. how is it there are multiple sci-fi stories about universes being atoms in bigger universes, or universe-timelines being quantum foam to a bigger universe (thanks Project Palisade), but nobody is able to imagine countries being objects and people being chemistry, much less able to imagine that being a neutral thing. Childhood's End: horror story. The Shuteyes: though neutral about Communism, still a horror story. every center-Liberal-approved theory about many people changing society: treats them as many individuals at once, rather than a larger object. every news article: still thinks people are part of one big object called Our Democracy, even though by every other remark anyone has ever made people are just a bunch of completely unpredictable helium atoms that don't belong to anything bigger? like, if people are all individuals, how are there even countries? why hasn't Canada spontaneously merged into the United States?
edit: wait. this could be a case of "what if men could date men??". people think of something as being possible in fiction because they don't consider it possible in reality.
Why hasn't Canada merged into the United States? / Why hasn't Canada spontaneously merged into the United States? -> a question that sounds silly but is actually a really good question, philosophically. if Existentialism is true, Canada is a bunch of individuals, and the United States is a bunch of individuals, and they're all unpredictable and can choose to collectively do anything at any moment, so why do they always wake up every day and form Canada and the United States respectively? as well, you see some anarchisms talking like there could be a world without borders. not the postcolonial anarchisms, clearly, because in those you effectively have to fill up big protest spaces through and around the territory of marginalized people-groups and essentially enforce a populational border. but in other anarchisms... if the world could function without borders why is it the case Canada still exists. the more history that happens, the more it will be that any general category of thing that is actually likely to happen will have already happened before you were even born. so if as many people have already been born as there have, why aren't we already living in the world where there isn't a Canada? a couple billion years go by and you get dolphin-shaped things multiple times. a couple of centuries go by and you get Marxism multiple times, and even the teeniest shred of Trotskyism off in the corner as a possibility that happened. so why don't countries spontaneously merge into each other through a bunch of individuals flooding between them and all the people suddenly saying "I guess we don't have separate governments"? personally, my best answer is that countries are socially-linked graphs of people and labor connects people into structures that are required to be there and function well for workers to ever be able to take them over. so if people started flooding between the United States and Canada it would be harder to work out reasonable solutions to housing them, providing health care, and getting them what they need, even assuming nobody hates each other. every human right depends on people being connected into exactly the correct graph structures to have everybody producing enough stuff, and that's why people don't flood around wildly, because on some level they vaguely understand that they have to contribute to building towns correctly to have what they need, and even if they don't have much agency it still seems like they have more agency staying where they are than through going to a lot of effort to go somewhere else. at least it seems that way.
Mathematical equations are culture / Mathematical equations are ideas in the same sense that postcolonial anarchist ideas against prejudice to better society through Idealism or poetic solarpunk art or good "culture" are ideas -> derived anti-anarchist Gramscian proposition. I cannot think of a single reason this wouldn't be true. especially when people like Lacan and Deleuze are always pulling the trick of misusing math. there has to be some reason Idealists would reject this but I absolutely can't think of one right now.
Idealism forbids itself -> I first noticed this with Lacanianism a year or two ago before most of this research started. I was so confused how Lacanians could think both that ideologies and political theories were bad because you can't predict The Subject — political theories are so totalizing and extreme that Lenin saying anything other than that people can believe literally whatever ideology and model of society they want to is bad — and yet put out a political theory of their own whatsoever. it just really didn't seem to me that somebody who could do that without at least stopping and mentioning the contradiction had a brain that was working logically. only after doing a whole lot of surface research into Idealism did I finally understand what exactly I'd uncovered. so here's what the actual problem is. Idealism says that everything has to change because people get better ideas. Idealism also often but not necessarily says either that individual minds or countable cultures are sacred, or alternatively that individual minds are not accessible and not possible to easily operate on. this creates the contradiction that to be an Idealist you have to go around ordering people to change the way they think, but at the same time you necessarily believe that every actual method of changing the way people think is inadequate because all the problems arise deep in people's minds where you can never access them. this seems to be the way it always goes — Idealist Bob says that the United States is screwed up because everyone is racist, he proposes a plan to change it, Idealist Alice shows up and gets upset because Bob's plan to stop racism is prejudiced against disabled people, or said another way by acting in the real world Bob is not accessing the real problems in people's minds. and you repeat this infinitely every time another Idealist movement shows up and looks at other Idealist movements. it's like to believe in Idealism and actually fix anything you'd have to live in Deltarune and jump out of reality into the Dark World where you can stop the Roaring Knight, because if you're in reality you can never access the true source of problems which is the single continuous world formed by everyone's minds. and even there. you look at Deltarune and the Dark Worlds contain contradictions. every time you try to build a model of ideas being the fundamental building block of populations it always comes back to materially separate people and separate groups of people interfering with that and being at least equally as fundamental. I have no idea why people are so determined to make the world into a single mind-plane. is it the core human obsession with culture and poetry? is that it? if so, why is nobody smart enough to realize that every single attempt to unite people against "prejudiced culture" for a "postcolonial culture" could always, mathematically, inevitably, as a repeating pattern reproduce the general shape of prejudice just because it is a group of people and because Gödel's incompleteness theorem? what am I missing? why is it forbidden to replace Idealism with math and physics equations? are mathematical models not ideas? or am I thinking about this too hard and is the answer just that Idealism will always destroy itself because Idealism forbids Idealism.
Homeostasis is an illusion / Existing as classical matter blinds all human individuals to the non-solid, non-constant, graph-like nature of quantum phenomena and the possibility of a repeated "neo-quantum" scale of human beings assembling into countable objects similar to atoms or tennis balls -> this is one of those far-out analogies you think of either late at night or high and yet sometimes it provides insight. the analogy goes like this: quarks are constantly redividing between quark and quark and gluon. they're only stable when they're connected together, at which point they become an atom. at the scale of reality of a tennis ball, you can't see the quarks constantly re-dividing, although they are. it seems like the tennis ball is totally solid, and its natural state is to continue and continue and continue unless something comes over perhaps deliberately and tears it apart. but the tennis ball isn't solid, deep down it's constantly re-dividing, it's a bunch of things linked together that only exist consistently at all because they're linked together and they don't un-graph. at the scale of a living organism, it seems like its natural state is to continue and continue and continue unless perhaps something eats it or attacks it maliciously. but the living organism can't see that it's made of a bunch of constantly dividing quarks that only continue to exist because they're graphed together, and if they weren't the whole organism would go flying apart into quark-gluon plasma. it could have utterly no thoughts or experiences, it couldn't even have solid or liquid physics.
so, even if you totally get rid of the religious origins, natural law is one big fallacy. there's no such thing as the inherent sanctity of any physical object or organism. the quarks inside it aren't constant, they weren't born, they don't have a birth certificate, they don't have a Lived Experience by themselves, you should be glad they don't have consciousness because if they did they might all revolt against the existence of living beings and you would never exist again. living organisms being macroscopic and Newtonian gives them a faulty shovel dream and makes them unaware that they are not solid, they are not constant, and when something dissolves them or takes something away from them, in a certain figurative sense none of that existed in the first place; none of it was guaranteed in the future just because it existed for a moment. but living organisms are predisposed to think they are forever, and to label anything that takes away their "inherent foreverness" as their evil malicious cursed enemy that was never meant to exist. all of that, all prejudice, all clinging to Property, all "natural law" and "natural crimes" and general-sense psychoanalysis and religious morality, all of that comes from the false perception that individuals have "inherent foreverness" because they cannot see down to the quantum level where actually everything is constantly re-dividing and only exists in solid form because it's graphed together. this illusion of being solid is what causes the existence of individuals to blind all individuals to the actual behavior of populations and countable cultures. the way populations and countable cultures really work is that they're only solid and in existence when individuals are graphed together. clusters of corporations are a lot like quarks in a way. but the existence of individuals with their strong Newtonian behavior as physical objects has made us so stupid we are predisposed to tear society apart and treat it like a conspiracy just to be "free". I didn't say "quarks revolting could make you never exist again" for nothing. I think that is about what anarchism and Existentialism have done to our understanding of society as a species. society is a weird new neo-quantum scale above the quantum but we refuse to form matter just because it's icky and we don't like it.
A revolution strives to become legal / The purpose of revolution is to make revolution legal / The purpose of a revolution is that a particular countable culture is illegal and then it becomes legal / Revolution is always illegal, but the purpose of a revolution is to make itself legal -> this is to be contrasted with the anarchist-tinted notion that revolution simultaneously was always okay and will never be okay.
this one proposition goes a long way toward arguing Trotskyism is a plural Marxism, but it also counts toward the concept that Trotskyism isn't a world workers' state at the moment it first starts existing
What is 8 billion times 8 billion? / What is eight billion times eight billion? / What is eight billion factorial? -> pronounced 8,000,000,000! is a really, really big number. this is the number of, or at least the proper order of magnitude of, ways to arrange eight billion people into social graphs and historical periods. if you can look at the number pronounced 1×10^75,750,364,046 and think there are no more possible historical periods or major changes to the rest of world history after the ones that exist right now then you simply don't have any imagination.
Is Trotskyism a form of Bolshevism? (rhetorical question) -> jamming proposition used to get people to evaluate whether Toryism is of the same category as historical European fascisms. if Trotskyism wants a world government of allied Communist-aligned populations, wants to create soviet structures or unions, and wants to make all businesses state businesses, is it Bolshevism? a meta-Marxist would say yes. a Trotskyist would say yes. an anarchist would probably say yes. a Lacanian with enough background information would probably say yes. so, if Toryism believes in binding many arrow people around a strong axe leader, believes in removing immigrants and foreigners and "non-patriots", believes in restoring the empire to its former glory as an ostensibly-unified countable culture, and believes in conquering lands distant from the empire such as Palestine, what do we call that? can we just agree to call it a named nationalism, even if it hasn't fully realized into the Material System of fascism yet?? the only real reason people don't believe this and don't believe it in a genuine way is the toxic influence of Existentialism — the philosophy that countable cultures such as "Bob the individual with a particular mind-internal culture and Free Will" and "the gay community" and "the Catholic community" are fundamental units of society but "the class subpopulation of capitalists", "the socially-linked faction of progressives", and "the socially-linked faction of Tories" are not. if countable cultures are the most important thing on earth then "the White Southern-Baptist Christian community who all want to vote for Trump and want the immigrants out" will always inherently be more important than "the political coalition of Black people and gay people", and it will always have the incentive to say "we're not the same demographic identity of people as the people clustered around Mussolini or Franco, so we can't be fascists because those are the people with Fascists on their name tag and we have Tea Party on our name tag" "also, you can't predict what we'll realize into as The Tea Party because historical materialism is bogus, so really how do you know we're fascists, how do you even know".
Finite packaging facilitates gaining attention -> pokémon. scp reports. vines. video essays. books. perhaps even propositions. I hope chopping all philosophy into atomic propositions is the thing that works to get people actually thinking.
Is topology a threat to Marxism? -> jamming question used to illustrate the difference between non-Marxist theories that are merely outside Marxism and non-Marxist theories which are anticommunist.
Bibles are appealing because they number propositions / Biblical verses and proverbs are just numbered propositions / The way to create a "Communist bible" that people far and wide can easily reference has little to do with compilation into a book and is simply to take a lot of propositions and number them / Science can learn from the bible by numbering propositions in order to keep track of standing versus rejected hypotheses
??
??
??
??
??
How do you build a society from scratch? / Making the assumptions that you have no money and no ready-made capital but hard work can get you any basic thing you want, how would you arrange people to create society? / molecularization question (question on how to transform an amorphous political-economic theory into a molecularized theory) -> this is why Terrorism and Communism chapter 8 was so big for me. it introduced me to the concept that Bolshevism could really be built up starting from any number of people who have nothing. it also did the unintentionally genius thing of inserting Trotsky and implying that Trotsky can be standing there observing a society of arbitrary size being made from scratch starting at less than a thousand people. having read that first and then looking at the claims of Trotskyism only after that you can see why I was deeply confused when Trotskyism didn't have a well-defined set of instructions to create a section of Trotskyism in an undeveloped area utterly from scratch.
To be free is to be hated / To be free is to defy the expectations that would be required to join with a particular person and create an ongoing relationship, thus detaching from a particular materially defined border of morality and potentially coming across to the other person as rude, Evil, weak, defective, or dangerous -> the corollary to Deleuze and Guattari's "escape" theories that they never seem to want to acknowledge. people fear freedom because the only way people judge something as good or bad is whether individuals reciprocally obey each other's arbitrary wants.
not all anarchists are unaware of this idea. the Zinovievist-styled anarchists definitely are. but none of them get the implications of it correct. they typically just decide that being hated is unequivocally okay. none of them realize that millions and billions of people are going to think their whole population is a bunch of Evil demons that needs to be exterminated Undertale-style. and when 100 million people show up to exterminate 5,000 people, it's not going to be pretty.
Ethics is almost impossible / Morality is almost impossible / Vegeta effect prevents naïve diffusion of morality / Individuals can never be forced to accept morality or ethics -> bound to be one of the most controversial ones, but the point of it is to test it and see if there is any way it can be clearly untrue
Every moral statement is a scientific prediction / Every moral statement is a determinist hypothesis -> for instance, if we say "all Floridians should learn about the history of racism and stop being racist", that is a prediction that there is a deterministic process of every single Floridian going through education and then doing a particular more-or-less identifiable pattern of behavior to not be racist. if it is not possible to list out a repeatable procedure that can and will be followed by absolutely everyone, however general the outline, "should" becomes meaningless and the moral statement is unenforceable.
People accept ethical standards when they wish to maintain relationships / Subjects accept moral standards when they want to maintain relationships / Subjects might reject moral standards when they do not want to maintain relationships
Morality is a form of culture and identity / Morality is carried on Social-Philosophical Systems / Morality is carried in the bonds of social graphs / Morality is an internal characteristic of free-floating groups rather than individuals
Moral oughts are indistinguishable from material imperatives -> the hypothesis that "Trotsky must fit himself into Stalin Thought to build the Soviet Union" (a material imperative, to keep the Soviet population from disintegrating and going to other continents) is an equivalent kind of statement to moral imperatives like "Progressives must vote for the Democratic party" or "Floridians must learn a correct history of racism" — they are claimed to be the same because in each case, there are situations where somebody is handed an imperative but in practice that person is horribly suited to materially follow that imperative, and then becomes branded as a terrible person. if this hypothesis is true, then it means some moral imperatives are morally dubious under a more objective, worldwide, and consequences-based formulation of ethics; if the enforcement of morality leads to what logically should be immoral outcomes, the system of morality contains incorrect moral assumptions. to be fair, simply knowing that some moral or material imperatives are incorrect does not tell us what the correct ones are, for instance what one is supposed to do with Trotsky or exactly what should replace Democratic Party campaigning to successfully unify people.
Culture is the opposite of liberty / Authority isn't the opposite of liberty; the opposite of liberty is culture -> authoritarianism can't exist without culture, in the sense of individuals joining into a larger material object called a countable culture. however, culture can exist without The State and easily perform the same function that The State does. this would be one of the minimum corrections that would make the right-Liberal political compass closer to accurate.
Oppose freedom, and you can build anarchy / Turn against freedom, and you can build anarchy / If anarchists become anti-freedom, they can create anarchy / If anarchists realize that capitalists gain their power on the basis of accumulating freedom and not on the basis of malice or greed or "attitudes" or "cultural conditioning", they will become able to build anarchy -> this builds on the definition of anarchy as ""community"" and the process of individuals or small groups actively choosing to unify together into a larger clump of people ("Arceism"). on a typical day, I hate this definition of socialist transition and can't stand these theories. but in the end I'm a meta-Marxist, not a career anti-anarchist. so I give you the compromise: a charcoal workers' state may be possible. have your Arceism if you really want it. but the cost of realizing it is that you must genuinely tell people there's too much freedom and purposefully make them give up their freedom. to me that sounds worse than Deng Xiaoping Thought. but somehow I have the weird feeling that there'd be people who just see this, clap their hands, and are like, "exactly!!". let me repeat: you've gotta take people's freedom away and tell them they absolutely have to be loyal to your countable culture or be expelled just because that's better than being free. you have to be more hardcore than Stalin, Mao, or Deng Xiaoping, not to mention many times more hardcore than Trotsky, but approximately exactly as hardcore as a bigoted Southern Baptist church, in the name of non-bigotry. you've gotta be on the level of "if you don't join anarchism and go all in you're hardly even human and you're Satan". you've gotta build a fortress state and fight for your life just like East Germany if there are as many people who don't want to be part of your anarchism as do. you've gotta take back half the bad things you said about Black Hammer (the Identitarian-fascist compound) even though you can keep the other half. does anarchism still sound good to you? if you say yes, then I'll shut up. then I'll shut up and say, okay then, you are ready to create meta-anarchism and maybe the United States really doesn't need meta-Communism.
Culture exists as the relationships between individuals / The real uncountable culture was the friends we made along the way
Gramscianism and Deng Xiaoping Thought are related -> the more I would think about it, the more I would realize, huh, it's almost like one of them is tiny and one of them is big and that's the only serious difference. aside from that it's only similarities. the bourgeoisie rush to defend the borders or frontiers of a countable culture to protect ethnic groups from being dominated or dispersed across the world by outside populations, and Marxist theorists have to reluctantly let it happen. (or at least they believe they do.) the process of securing frontiers from outside populations naturally results in a shepherd sheet of theorists and bureaucrats, but doesn't naturally result in proletarian structures. (it's only my hypothesis that Gramscianism would produce another China, but I think there's decent reason to think that, as far as the "there's just a capitalism inside it and no Bolshevism" part. you point out that Gramscianism is just a bunch of progressive bourgeoisie squabbling against reactionary bourgeoisie and it's like, yeah, how else could it go? I'm hesitant to say the same thing about Stalin's Marxism though, considering it didn't have the same result as Deng Xiaoping Thought and there was actually some Bolshevism in it. the content that ideologies realize is very important to me. so if Stalin's Marxism realizes Bolshevism even somewhat, there had to be something right in that historical period that Stalin couldn't possibly ruin by getting everyone onto his cause. now, as for Trotskyism... I consider it very suspect for never actually realizing any of its content, but I give it a couple points for constantly claiming the internal structure of the Soviet Union was wrong and thereby implying it does have specific content it wants to realize instead.)
Ethics is the same thing as objective morality -> how do I avoid statement definitions turning into word definitions and keep statements independent of what written words they are about
How can Stalin and Trotsky coexist in the same reality? -> whenever I run into a question about the United States that's really difficult I come back to this and I ask myself if there's any way to draw lessons out of a Stalin and Trotsky scenario. Black Lives Matter not cooperating with Trotskyists? turn it around a little bit so the Trotskyists are Stalin and BLM is Trotsky — suddenly everything makes more sense.
If ideologies can coexist, they should be mutually consistent / If ideologies can exist in harmony, they should be ontologically consistent across each other / Compromise is nothing, ontological consistency is key -> one of the biggest, most central claims of meta-Marxism. this is the claim that if Trotskyists and Stalin followers can exist in the same world, then we should expect mainstream Marxism-Leninism to correctly model the historical emergence of Trotskyism and its persistence after being exposed while Trotskyism correctly models the emergence and persistence of socialisms-in-one-country; this is the claim that if US "Democrats" and "Republicans" (center-Liberals and Tories) can coexist, they should each have completely accurate models of how the other behaves which they can use to predict how to peacefully resolve their differences. obviously this sounds rather laughable for Liberal-republicanism. but for Marxism, the notion that mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism could update themselves to correctly model each other and all other ideology-populations as potentially independent entities wouldn't sound anywhere near as far-fetched. it's actually quite baffling why after generating so much new history without prior precedents Trotskyism would never have switched to correctly explaining its own material real-world history as an emerging "nation" or constellation of workers' states and realizing that there are steps in between what has actually happened and the purported end state for Trotskyism of a global civilization that they take out of Lenin's 1920 writings.
Every time human beings assign meaning to an image it generates a group of people potentially in fierce conflict with other groups of people -> part of the mathematical definition of "Social-Philosophical System".
Leninism does not have a binary truth value -> the claim that a theory of Leninist movements or of workers' states can be incorrect on small things without being incorrect on everything, or in a case like Trotsky, incorrect on most things without being incorrect on everything. Leninism is subject to Gödel's incompleteness theorem just like formal logic, physics equations, computers, books, and minds. this makes the judgement methods people use of trying to apply the categories of "proletarian" and "bourgeois" as if they were flat-out categories of Good and Evil or True and False inappropriate for judging the basic possibility of a given theory or movement realizing or becoming a historically-relevant entity that must be studied even if such a group is unwanted by some particular Marxism. it's possible to get so caught up in the prospect of realizing a proletarian civilization that you stop doing historical materialism and descend into Existentialism, becoming unaware of things that could completely prevent your success.
Applying any claim to Trotsky eventually yields the correct answers / Applying any philosophy to Trotsky eventually gets you to the correct answers -> one of my very favorite jamming propositions. this one gets me through the hard times. this proposition sounds so stupid at first like it could never be true, and then you try it, and you realize there's something there. I'd give an example, but I have a problem that they're all turning into actually okay propositions that might be worth making into their own Items.
Trotskyism is the prototypical oppressed group -> the claim that focusing on Trotskyists failing to fit into the Soviet Union gives insight into processes such as racists insisting they're oppressed, or movementist movements of marginalized identities horizontally oppressing each other in a circle
Trotskyism is the prototypical prejudice -> the claim that specifically focusing on Trotskyists refusing to understand mainstream Marxism-Leninism gives insight into processes such as racism and xenophobia
Cold wars are about ethnicity / The Cold War was never about workers / Starting the Cold War was never precisely about destroying workers; it was about destroying every single Soviet individual allied with or connected to a Communist party, and this is why Deng Xiaoping Thought has been the only way to win the continuing global Cold War that never actually ended / The Cold War was about destroying all physical nation-state objects which are not the United States, including China, Russia, or a hypothetical poly-communist workers' state covering half the world -> this sounds very "postcolonial theory" on the surface but I have a different explanation for it than you'd think. I don't take this position because anybody is "racist" — even as that's quite fair to say. I take this position because Deng Xiaoping Thought is still going. the fact that this strange at-least-slightly-wrong Marxism is so popular means something is very wrong with this timeline; the major processes of history must not be what we think they are for this to be the most obvious solution. also? the fact that it's so popular, it gives First World countries exactly what they want, and yet First World countries still hate it. if anything First World countries said against Marxism had been true and not just cover-up lies they would have thrown in the towel once Deng Xiaoping Thought was created, but you see people talking about China's "dishonest" tactics for actually having businesses or the supposed risks of letting Chinese businesses extend into the United States and it's really like they don't want China to have businesses, or by any reasonable definition, have capitalism. they want neocolonialism but China having capitalism and its own national government and unaccountable business-governments is scary. we can't conclude that Deng Xiaoping Thought exists primarily to benefit capitalists, not in an age when it benefits China and all its ethnicities even existing. what this means for actual Leninists is very unclear. the only thing that is clear is that part of the definition of an effective Marxism is winning the forever cold war. the world is beyond the time of simple atomic revolution or permanent revolution, and has entered a contradiction of infinite revolution versus infinite counterrevolution. and this has happened because nobody realized that models of society could be molecularized, and Liberal capitalism is molecularized, and what any successful theory has to do is actively regenerate populations and accommodate population growth and correctly plan and arrange populations as they grow rather than in advance. China planning its country 100 years in advance could actually be wrong. and that's a little terrifying. because whenever individuals make decisions there's always missing information and we never necessarily know how to make every individual make decisions correctly. but in one sense we kind of utterly have to for any country or would-be workers' revolution to survive forever cold war.
The Cold War never ended / The Cold War period was part of a larger completely continuous period of cold war -> component claim. like, really, when did it end? when did the whole practice of trying to destroy the Second World and every new workers' state stop? when Reagan said something to the effect that Communism couldn't be allowed to win, do you think he meant for a few years or do you think he meant forever? if he meant forever, as he probably did, then the Cold War is still going.
No proposition has a binary True or False answer / No proposition has a binary True or False value / Propositions generally should not have a binary True or False value / The way to fix logic is to replace binary outcomes with sheer tests of consistency -> you don't fully break out of the Gödel trap this way because practically nothing ever could do that anyway. that part is not what matters. ideally the point of logic isn't to derive facts about reality in a vacuum but instead to perform a basic sanity test of whether statements you already have could possibly be correct or are almost definitely wrong. arguably, that is the thing that logic actually excels at even as it is inappropriate for many other things.
Is a Saiyan attack a social construct by earth people? / Is Saiyans attacking the earth a social construct by earth people? -> field: existential materialism. a question to probe one of the central fallacies of anarchism. anarchists and postcolonial theorists toss around "social construct", "social construct". but the actions of another population outside your population are not a social construct within your own population. if you live in China, all the awful things the United States does can't be regarded as a social construct, because they are materially happening, and material happenings have to be countered with material responses. likewise within the United States, Marxism in other countries cannot be treated as a social construct, it has to be regarded as something the whole country as a material object is doing for material reasons.
note that this Item is a question, and ideologies that want to be total blockheads can respond to it with wrong answers as long as those answers fully incorporate all the information in the question. example: "of course a Saiyan attack is a social construct, all culture is made up and every country has the right to forcibly change another country's culture whenever it thinks that culture is bad". you can already see how people's views on the origin of imperialism lead to things like beating up the Middle East and making it worse and worse rather than better.
Individual choices cannot be ethical / There are no ethical choices under capitalism (in reference to every individual decision, not just products) / Under capitalism, no individual decision each person makes every day is categorically ethical, and it is arguable every single individual decision can be unethical no matter what the question is and what the chosen option is / Ethics is nothing, general-sense historical materialism is key -> after years of relatives throwing boxes in the trash before I could even take them out usable for recycling I developed a very negative view of individual choices and how much an individual can do to prevent their daily existence from leading to a bad future. it's meaningless to say individual choices don't matter, but the more important question than whether they matter is whether every single thing you do from sunrise to sunset can be morally wrong no matter how much you try for it not to be. and it's very possible the answer is yes.
??
Freedom allows oppression to thrive / The more freedom people have, the more freedom they have to oppress each other -> something neither Western Marxism nor anarchism really want to acknowledge. the problem of the United States is almost precisely that individuals get upset at each other for various reasons and then they spread out apart from each other so far that they gain more power over each other and become more oppressive. Western Marxism dances in circles trying to find the "ideological state apparatuses" that allow this while anarchism thrashes around trying to find and destroy the Spanishness Office that rules individuals and could do this. it becomes relatively obvious neither of these angles make sense if you simply understand what a shovel dream is. (this may be the same proposition as Q29,54 but I am not totally sure.)
Anarchy is the most authoritarian thing there is / Anhierarchy causes individuals to become sovereign States over themselves that, through their ability to reject interactions and relationships, remove self-determination or internal "mind democracy" from other individuals, superficially similar to the way anhierarchy between nation-states creates First-World coercion producing Third-World "tyranny" / Anarchy Is The Most Authoritarian Thing There Is (slogan) -> slogan associated with unfinished MDem chapter "ProblemOfAnarchy"/"rain". the concept is that when there is no government the horizontal actions of individuals merely replace and perform the same regulatory actions government would do, because all populations of people have similar basic needs and they will all use the means available to them at the moment to achieve those needs. relationships and relationship boundaries are forced to play the role of The State, and in certain senses relationships become "authoritarian". can also refer to more general processes of Filamentism where if there are no central decisions the process of a population structuring itself takes the form of every surrounding individual repeatedly dealing out punishment until the target individual miraculously figures out how to do exactly what they need and have the capacity to do it really well. most technically, this slogan is referring not to particular Anarchist Social-Philosophical-Material Systems called "anarchy", but to the structural open-plurality of anektiry — but very few people throughout recent history have bothered to give the concept of anektiry or anhierarchy its own proper name, hence the colloquial use of "anarchy" in these edgy slogan phrases.
??
??
Every "Dragon Ball" gets closer to Marxism / The more Journey to the West there is the closer it gets to Marxism-Leninism -> China's warring states period: not Marxism. Buddhism adn Xuanzang's journey: not Marxism. Journey to the West: closer to Marxism. Dragon Ball: closer to Marxism. Bardock : closer to Marxism. critiquing Dragon Ball: literally Marxism-Leninism if you do it right
??
??
??
Individual decisions cannot manufacture Freedom
Empowering the individual is impossible without a science of society -> everyone acts like individual choices can fix everything. everything. but most of the time that's impossible to pull off because making the correct individual choice requires having information about what the choice will result in, that none of us actually have. you can directly throw Gödel's incompleteness theorem at that claim. it's impossible to reason your way to the correct decision when reasoning never perfectly grounds itself in reality. so in effect, it's impossible to use individual decisions to create Freedom. there we go, first decent logical proof against Guattari. as ironic as using propositional logic may be given what I just said. that doesn't matter right now.
??
??
??
??
??
??
You cannot donate a job / It is impossible to donate a job / Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for life (framed as meta-Marxist metaphor for the ability of the proletariat or the next generation to form societies and movements precisely when the previous generation is even allowing them to earn anything instead of hogging a bunch of linked teeny business territories for not-becoming-factories-or-institutions and pushing the next generation out of society) -> in the United States, one of the most common "ways to help" that people see publicly modeled is donating money. this has to do with the unusual structure of United States society where a public sphere of life which is not people's houses almost does not exist, and the only other adults anyone sees modeling anything amount to businesses. people all over commonly talk about social-democracy like it's some form of generosity where people will give taxes away just because they want to be Good and don't want to be Evil, because prejudice and hatred are Evil and hating the poor is a form of Evil prejudice but donating money is Good. but what they fail to think about whatsoever is that to overcome poverty people require their own income. especially when nobody is actively tearing apart Liberal-republicanism, nobody will defeat the landlord keeping people out of houses without an individual income, and the landlord will keep mobilizing money and lawyers to keep everyone on the streets. to have anyone who actually carries the social-democratic movement and doesn't simply drop it the moment the reactionaries say "no" you have to regenerate the proletariat. but to regenerate the proletariat you have to realize that jobs can never be a gift. jobs are always a matter of individuals competing to exist in a town and be part of a town, where either highly educated people or able-bodied people able to take a whole lot of prejudice and abuse and pronounced bullshit and stay standing are constantly shoving everyone else out and they have no option not to. the proletarian is in antagonism against every other individual, and an owner gifting somebody a job cannot change that — in some ways it only makes the contradiction worse by creating tension between the obligation to be "polite" to someone who gifts a job and pretend they're an ally of the same faction or "family" and the imperative to survive and remain intact and not let that person take advantage of you. if jobs were an item they would be a rank good that the strongest people fight over to have money for anything else. so there are two contradictions created when the proletariat is even created: contradiction between the survival of the proletarian and "being polite" to the owner to form the social bond and the society, and contradiction between the separate competing countable cultures that thousands of owners have thus created. there is not just one society, there are nearly 300 million societies depending on how many connected employees each one has.
one of the great advantages that Liberal-republicanism supposedly boasts is that in its outward appearance it is apparently molecularized and is capable of understanding societies as a dynamic soup of different borderless dividing and re-dividing countable cultures which may be any size from 5 people to 5,000 people to 5 million people to 150 million people. but all of this is an artifact of the bourgeoisie initially dividing society into approximately 150 million societies; the shovel dream has been changed by changing the shovel, but not in any way that gives the shovel new agency to change its own shovel dream. meta-Marxism would change the shovel dream in order to become capable of changing the shovel when enough shovels have the right shovel dream regardless of whether it originated from shovel shape or from science.
Subjects eat and occupy space / A Subject is an autonomous lifeform that eats and occupies space / A Subject is a conscious lifeform that makes decisions based on its biological needs
Existing daily is extreme, not moderate / Existing daily is an extreme position, not a moderate one / It's infinitely more ideologically moderate to not exist than to exist / All mortal lifeforms who eat and take up space are extremists -> the claim that because all existence is subject to the chunk phenomenon, nobody can actually "mind their own business" without being considered an extremist by somebody and royally pronounced pissing somebody off. everyone potentially conflicts with the existence of other people just by existing, because all goals are descriptions of changes to material reality, but some people won't want those changes, and may even be offended. with a particular morality, this transforms into the Buddhist proposition that when people come into conflict it's just better not to have goals. without that particular framing, this turns into the mathematical model of Filamentism, in which people's ability to align onto particular goals either increasingly builds social graphs or leads to vicious competition over who will be allowed to fill each open connection within the structure.
??
??
Trotskyists must eat and occupy space / Trotskyists must eat and occupy space before spouting Trotskyism / Anarchists must eat and occupy space before building an anarchism / Poststructuralists must eat and occupy space before tearing apart signs -> jamming proposition. funny way to say that thought comes after being, or that chunk competition is fundamental. both of those sound pretty abstract. but it's harder to dispute the remark that first of all people eat and occupy space.
pronounced Liberalism is all political systems / Liberal-republicanism is the combination of every possible political faction into one country including Marxism and Anarchisms
Every ideology perceives the absence of others as Freedom / Every ideology perceives the absence of other ideologies as Freedom -> the major reason I believe that "proposition NO" is unlikely. Trotskyists think the absence of mainstream Marxism-Leninism is Freedom, as do Anarchists. but Tories think the absence of Anarchism is Freedom because there are very specific kinds of things they want — some of them very ugly, like deliberate socioempire / Chunk Enterprise. sometimes this goes all the way into the gutter, with White people just thinking the absence of Black people or Palestinians is Freedom, etc. it depends on how much people let "culture" rule their population and buy into the concept of countable Cultures as fundamental to human existence while nation-states are not.
Inclusion itself is prejudiced / Inclusion is the choice between two different exclusions / Inclusion has a Shadow which is exclusion (Jungian framing) / You can't spell community without "out" / You can't spell community without "not" -> I am so pronounced fucking tired of the word community and people vulgarizing every single graph of people that talks to each other at all into a "community".
there's no "I" in team + Prejudice is a form of freedom = this.
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
Trotsky is your new hero / Trotsky is a petty-bourgeois hero, not a proletarian enemy / Socialism is stronger with the fusion of culturally-defined "socialists" into workers' movements than if each of the two stands alone (brought up in relation to theorist types such as Trotsky and Gramsci; framed as urging the theorists to not divide themselves out of the movement, so that every bourgeois progressive can then follow behind them; academics, intellectuals, philosophers) [24] -> could be spun as violet or orange. never let Trotskyists get too carried away with it by themselves though. keep them in check.
??
??
Direct action can be invented by any ideology -> this explains a whole lot of actions taken by racists. especially incidents where racists would burn down arbitrary towns of Black civilians basically to prevent Reconstruction. Reconstruction was the unwanted system, and the violent horizontal attack was the direct action. this is why it's worth asking: is the United States paradigm of Liberal-republican nation-states being inherently useful as tools for enforcing morality on individuals a sensical paradigm, or is that concept just a synonym for colonialism which will ultimately generate anti-government, racist violence? is the alternative scenario where the United States never re-fused and the North just holds the separate South in a headlock like Japan and other overseas countries better or is it worse?
??
Existentialism is why we never automate bosses -> intersubjectivity-theory Existentialists always insist that society changes because people Freely Decide to behave with empathy, but the contradiction in this is that for that to have any chance of being true you have to deliberately design society in tyrannical ways where the destiny of a lot of people is in the hands of one person that you hope is really really nice. if you truly make society depend on a whole lot of separate people at once it tends to behave in deterministic ways rather than the thoughtful rationalist way a single person might think. intersubjectivity Existentialists are likely to also be fine with the notion of schizoanalytic Escape, so they're going to love the notion of creating more capitalists to absorb people who are unsatisfied with current corporations by virtue of the fact the new ones are really really nice and they're supposedly going to spend their donations toward better political ad campaigns. the whole problem and fallacy of Existentialism is that it is all about dividing society into plural populations where the individuals supposedly see each other "as equals". Existentialism is when Twilight Sparkle and her five friends are such good friends that when they see Starlight Glimmer and how she is not linking up with people and being nice to them in exactly the way Twilight has friends, they mark her out as a threat to all their friends.
If intersubjectivity actually worked, there would never have been a Cold War / If Existentialism actually worked, there would never have been a Cold War -> one of the major themes that Existentialism is constantly pounding through people's heads is that the normal, original state of things is for human beings to automatically and immediately experience empathy toward anything different [... ~~angry redacted~~] Existentialism never caused anybody to experience mandatory tolerance of the USSR in this sense, or any Marxist party-nation.
??
The Soviet diaspora was a second Trail of Tears / The Soviet diaspora was the second Trail of Tears -> literally nobody today notices the contradiction that all the progressive theories in the United States are about "culture" and "multiculturalism" and "prejudice" and arbitrary groups of people metaphysically tolerating each other in order to be perfect and not commit sin, but at the same time, the dissolution of the Soviet Union resulted in a bunch of people diffusing out of their towns or national populations to become citizens of other countries, showing that materially speaking nobody really has the inherent right to be part of A Culture and the chunk competition of all individuals to claim their most appropriate spots in the world inherently dissolves Cultures and creates intolerance of identities. on the ground, Cultures are not distinguishable from socially-linked populations arranged into material objects, and arguing to literally dissolve the way people are structured into a population is indistinguishable from declaring people have the wrong culture and a particular named Culture should be illegal.
The United States forced workers' states to consent to capitalism / The United States forced the Soviet people to consent to capitalism -> if capitalism is freedom, then rape is love.
??
??
??
Teamwork is nothing, ontology is key -> a little hyperbolic and potentially controversial by itself. but look into it deeper and you'll start to see what it means. people believe capitalists build successful business territories because the capitalist is a capable strong individual. they don't, they succeed simply because the answer was correct and people did the correct answer. at other times, more Existentialist people want to believe that just having a bunch of people together believing in each other achieves something. not necessarily. whether we're talking about a business or a movement, all the people in it have to do the correct answer or nothing happens. the correct answer to a problem simply is. it can be found by one person studying reality tirelessly or it can be found by a bunch of people in a party, but it's correct because it's true to the real world, not because a smart person said it or somebody believed in it really hard. Jeff Bezos is not key. Jeff Bezos' workers are not key all by themselves. Stalin, Trotsky, and Guattari are not key. the correct answer, the correct ontological model of how to arrange people, is what's key.
Power vacuums begin with order vacuums / All class society begins from Filamentism / All class society begins from competition for parts of graphs to be the first to be connected to other parts of graphs

@@ Line 1,389: / Line 1,389: @@
 </li><li class="field_mdem" value="2973" data-dimension="S2">??
 </li><li class="field_ML"   value="2974" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2974|Trotskyists must eat and occupy space]] / Trotskyists must eat and occupy space before spouting Trotskyism / Anarchists must eat and occupy space before building an anarchism / Poststructuralists must eat and occupy space before tearing apart signs  ->  jamming proposition. funny way to say that thought comes after being, or that chunk competition is fundamental. both of those sound pretty abstract. but it's harder to dispute the remark that first of all people eat and occupy space.
-</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2975" data-dimension="S2">{{TTS|html=abbr|Liberalism|title=Liberal-republicanism}} is all political systems / Liberal-republicanism is the combination of every possible political faction into one country including Marxism and Anarchisms <!--
+</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2975" data-dimension="S2">{{TTS|html=abbr|Liberalism|title=Liberal-republicanism}} is all political systems / Liberal-republicanism is the combination of every possible political faction into one country including Marxism and Anarchisms   <!-- plaintext title: Liberalism is all political systems -->
-plaintext title: Liberalism is all political systems -->
 </li><li class="field_mdem" value="2976" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q2976|Every ideology perceives the absence of others as Freedom]] / Every ideology perceives the absence of other ideologies as Freedom  ->  the major reason I believe that "[[Ontology:Q3076|proposition NO]]" is unlikely. Trotskyists think the absence of mainstream Marxism-Leninism is Freedom, as do Anarchists. but Tories think the absence of Anarchism is Freedom because there are very specific kinds of things they want — some of them very ugly, like deliberate socioempire / Chunk Enterprise. sometimes this goes all the way into the gutter, with White people just thinking the absence of Black people or Palestinians is Freedom, etc. it depends on how much people let "culture" rule their population and buy into the concept of countable Cultures as fundamental to human existence while nation-states are not.
-</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2977" data-dimension="S2">??
+</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2977" data-dimension="S2">Inclusion itself is prejudiced / Inclusion is the choice between two different exclusions / Inclusion has a Shadow which is exclusion (Jungian framing) / You can't spell community without "out" / You can't spell community without "not"  ->  I am so {{censor|fucking}} tired of the word community and people vulgarizing every single graph of people that talks to each other at all into a "community".<br />
+there's no "I" in team + Prejudice is a form of freedom = this.
 </li><li class="field_mdem" value="2978" data-dimension="S2">??
 </li><li class="field_mdem" value="2979" data-dimension="S2">??