From Philosophical Research
Main entry
A nation of ideas is definitionally an empire (United States) -> takes a bit to explain. a nation must be made of structure; the subpopulations inside a nation must be connected somehow to actually produce a combined population instead of literally producing two or more populations. a person eats and occupies space. any particular chunk of socially-connected people eats and occupies space. conflicts over the ability to eat and occupy space result in violence. The State mediates conflicts over the ability of social chunks to eat and occupy space. when Liberal-republican "democracy" is created the representatives of different chunks all contribute to creating The State, although the representatives do not equal The People. what this means practically is chunks of people compete for the right to submit the set of ideas that will rule everyone. but even if representatives were perfect reflections, The People don't really choose what sets of ideas they believe as individuals, they determine them as whole groups that already enforce group ideas on all their individuals. there is something like a tiny undemocratic "republic" inside groups of people before there is any government at all, or even any capitalists — essentially, The Spanishness Office. (the big mistake people make is less thinking it exists at all than thinking it's controllable.) as a result, the Spaniards Machine sputters along spitting out both what people are going to believe and who people's representatives will be, designing and placing people to obey it while oppressing them at the same time; there isn't even really any "manufacturing consent" step in the middle where people choose to be oppressed, the reason people support bad things is they're literally already part of them from the beginning, before they're educated, before anything. ISAs are the societies while The State is their apparatus. anyway. chunks of people which already contain Spaniards Machines generate representatives that represent the Spaniards Machine, the Social-Philosophical System. this leads to Social-Philosophical Systems themselves pushing each other back and forth fighting over parliament (hegemony politics), and fighting over the country. each Spaniards Machine is a tiny nation of ideas already, even if it may also have racist ideas that it is a superior cluster of White people, or whatever. this means when they fight each other over a republic, and inevitably play hegemony politics of "this is a rust country now", "this is a sky country now and all the rust people have to obey sky rules continuously spat out every day by the sky-colored Spaniards Machine", all they can practically achieve is creating a population-to-population hierarchy of one Spaniards Machine directly ruling the other.
- Idealism is the colonizer attitude / Creating a country based on Idealism requires baking sets of ideals into land areas completely separate of the upper layer of actual people, which in turn requires a designated group of people to actively conquer the land area and force out anyone who does not believe the baked-in sets of ideals, creating a king-of-the-hill situation where the territory-grabbers that make all the rules will ultimately get to send their best politics experts to construct republican structures and give everyone "democracy"
Causal / logical process
- A nation of ideas is definitionally an empire (United States) / A nation of ideas must control everyone who objects to the current cumulative stack of ideas, which is to say everyone who is excluded by the form of operation of the current overarching countable culture or community and squeezed out into a second subordinate countable culture or community -> this does imply that if Stalin's government secures the territory of the Soviet Union and elbows out the Trotskyist theorists that they are conquering the Trotskyists. but I can live with that implication. this is basically an anarchist idea I've contorted and tried to salvage to fight the damaging effects of anarchism.
- All human existence in industrial countries falls into the broad shape of either monarchy or settler-colonialism / (9k)
- Maliciously expelling any significantly large subpopulation from a country either through scattering that population or massacring that population, as opposed to packing that population tightly into the least-desirable corners of a country, is settler-colonialism / Settler-colonialism is, regardless of which causal order of events is intended, the process of exterminating a population and then of this event fueling a national population or State gaining official control over the land area -> an attempt to define the concept of settler-colonialism on a Materialist basis without any Idealism. it's key to realize that the alternatives to settler-colonialism which happen when it doesn't happen are also horrifying — manor lords, racially-charged slavery, large homeless camps, there are a bunch of ways people have historically been packed into the corners of a country, various differing degrees of horrifying. there has seemingly been a shift over the past few centuries from populations merely competing to create a government that is a structure that unifies them, and populations actively expanding into and over each other in ways where it is difficult to simply unify them in that way, and these difficult questions come up of whether "Socialism" and trying to integrate everyone into a population is even the right choice or whether people of all ethnicities can only actually have independence and self-determination and the ability to create a dignified life for their population unimpeded if human beings are properly distributed into the right countries and you don't have pools of surplus people that people start fighting with. do we have to start redistributing White people? are non-suffering majority people the new form of populational wealth now? is it becoming pointless to try to tax money numbers, and would it be better to tax people and put whole people somewhere else, telling them, you're not part of this other big international imperial population any more, you can't own a free-floating business, you belong to this country now as a worker. so many of our theories focus on historical periods centuries ago that are nothing like today, and it's confusing what we're even supposed to do now.
- Settler-colonialism outperforms Bolshevism / Settler-colonialism is "better" than Bolshevism / Settler-colonialism is more successful than Bolshevism / The United States succeeded because of settler-colonialism / The United States was successful because of settler-colonialism / The United States succeeded because of a small-scale, molecularized settler-colonialism process in which it opted to toss out all its extra people instead of undergo the considerable strain of incorporating them, in contrast to the Soviet Union where molecular settler-colonialism did not win and people were to be incorporated into the overall federation simply because they were people but because people mattered more than maintaining the imperial structure the system was not robust against the outside ->
this is a complex claim made of a few stacked sub-claims. [... long ramble omitted]
A) Bolshevism is popularly taken to be tyrannical. a central Communist party does not provide adequate "capacity to do otherwise". B) in the real world, Bolshevism is based in incorporating all of the excess people in a population into the population. this is the reasoning behind mandatory employment, which might be better phrased as mandatory hiring. C) people have complained that Bolshevism requiring state businesses to absorb excess people is inefficient and doesn't encourage good work ethic, with an implication that the ability to kick people entirely out of the layer of workers is a critical component of Liberal capitalism. D) Gramscians and their blue-anarchist allies have weaponized the separation between non-owner and "worker" as a supposed way to combat racism and transphobia by kicking bad and mean people out of society and making sure that wealth and income and housing are only had by nice people who believe the right Ideals. E) Gramscians believe that everything they do is consistent with blue- and charcoal-anarchist conceptions of Freedom, although these concepts directly connect back to Liberal-republicanism, and Liberal-republicanism connects directly back to Idealism. F) in principle, Freedom must include the ability to abuse people who do not accept whatever set of Ideals is currently accepted by consensus to be Freedom so that they individually choose Freedom, which will then be assumed just because it is consistent with Freedom to be a free choice. G) people who choose to live in Bolshevism do not respect freedom, so whatever they are coerced into is a free choice as long as the content of it is Freedom. H) the content of right-Liberalism and Gramscianism, which states that people are to be selected on either elite skill or ethics and other people must be tossed out of society until they are appealing enough to be chosen into society Freely, is consistent with Freedom because nearly everyone asked freely chose that it was. (fallacy.) I) incorporating everyone into society "really is" inefficient and unnatural. making sure everyone has a house, a country to live in, and health care is blasphemy. J) gradually forcing people off an area of land and out of the ability to survive when you don't like them is a more effective way to run a civilization as long as you make it all about Freedom and morality or ethics. K) settler-colonialism allowed the United States to succeed and provided the basis for accountability and Freedom.
disgusting result, but it's hard not to look at the history of the United States and its "progressive" movements from 1945 to today and conclude that this is basically how it's all worked. Gramscianism is a continuum into imperialism and so-called "settler-colonialism" that anarchists are falsely convinced they're getting rid of but which no Idealist can actually get rid of.
Ideological effects
- Colonialism is common sense / To ordinary people, colonialism is the accepted and intuitive way of doing things in the same sense that Liberal "democracy" is, almost to the point that criticizing it is unreasonably extreme -> nobody wants to say this out loud. you see great amounts of denial of the pattern, even as it goes on and on.
A) the bourgeoisie found towns and define and regulate crimes. B) nobody can move to a town without appeasing the bourgeoisie or creating a new business territory in order to be allowed to earn and obtain things and pay for a house. C) nobody can move anywhere or enter any industry without waiting for colonizers to come up with all the capital and the laws and colonize it. D) by the time anyone enters a country or moves anywhere or is even born, and goes around "just trying to live their life" in Liberal Democracy, colonizers have defined the entire society they spawn into including where Black people are allowed to live and how racist you have to be. every act of living and existing has to be done to the parameters of the oppressive society in order to happen. E) nobody can imagine a society which is not founded on the basis of founders that secure capital and job-territories, and as a tradeoff, it's always a matter of time before everybody forgets that the system is racist.
Ideologies
- MX onto LR
- MX onto PT
- MX onto W
- MX onto A
