User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-4

Unsorted Items (page 4)

618. The United States got away with outsourcing labor because corporations programmed people to want cheap goods [1] -> so... how is it they successfully did that if it's possible to simply tell people it was done and break it? if people can really be programmed against their best interests that consistently, then why would they listen to you?
     I think people are making excuses for the fact that owners make these decisions and they fundamentally can't control the owners.
618. corporations programming people / the engineering of consumer behavior [2]
618. treating the protagonists of anticommunist fables as unreliable narrators
618. Ideology is Idealism unexamined / Ideology ­— a distorted model of reality usually for the benefit of a particular class — comes out of conceptual models of the world ("concept-material", ontologies) specifically when considered in isolation from the world, according to processes not obvious to the people creating ideology (Engels) [3] -> it should be noted that Marx and Engels have a specific definition of ideology while the way I use "ideology" is slightly different, but I have no problems with their concept of ideology. to me, an ideology is any ontology, and could conceivably be a correct one, but whether it's correct isn't obvious to people of other ideologies, who will see the correct ontology as ideology in the sense Engels says. to me, this definition is easier to apply in a real world where you might have a group of bourgeoisie and a group of proletarians, or some other messier but distinguishable division of demographics, and the populations will have to interact and maybe even work together, but due to the different material content of the populations they will find it hard to see each other's observations or findings as real. how do you apply Engels' definition to a Deng Xiaoping state, where all the bourgeoisie and proletarians have to work together against the outside the whole time even though they will eventually have to separate? the only sensible way, to me, is to label one population crimson and one population blue or strawberry and model them both according to their own class composition and chosen ideology so that you put them both in the right place but they don't have to get confused about who's doing what. it might be easier said than done to get that class consciousness actually into the populations, but at the very least you can use the model to advise workers on what concrete things they should do to avoid the influence of the blue/strawberry populations and reclaim power.
618. freedom (lack of limitation on capabilities; Feuerbach)
618. freedom (lack of necessity; Avakian) [4]
618. freedom (absorption of all necessity applying inside society into theories of society) [5] / The realm of freedom can blossom forth only with necessity as its basis (Marx)
618. Society is held together based on interpersonal subjective moral consensus
     this + Interpersonal relationships can snap at any moment = Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society.
618. Interpersonal relationships threaten to destroy society
618. Interpersonal relationships are no foundation for society because interpersonal relationships are fragile while society must be more durable to successfully exist / Asocialism (generic)
618. A theory that primarily grounds itself in human sociality (Socialism, humanities, Kantianism, secular animism) will eventually become reactionary, because human sociality in and of itself is not equipped to handle the inevitable countable and separable plurality of populations that results when human populations exist in the real world; this is to imply that Marxism is not in fact a theory primarily rooted in human sociality as much as one that simply acknowledges it / Asocialism (generic)
     Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality + A theory of society which is not accurate to material reality will eventually become reactionary = this.
618. dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) -> this is apparently its own specific thing. it seems it's typically defined in terms of how well the soviets can defend the overall country and any governing bodies against the re-emergence of capitalism.
618. Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes; soviet structures are not guaranteed to remain orange because depending on their class and preferred palette of social structures the individual national-employees inside them can add together to turn the structure charcoal, blue, or strawberry -> Trotskyism is weird. it has moments where it's totally unconvicing, and then it has moments where after you've been listening to the actually-okay theorists you have to go out of your way to find, it almost sounds like it got something right. this week, I saw that Trotskyists seemed to be describing the dictatorship of the proletariat as control by one big sea of soviets that are responsible for operating all the other organs of government — the thinking is that if all the soviets are made of proletarians and the soviets are orange, the soviets will keep all of the other structures from turning strawberry or any other unfavorable ideology. but then I thought about it for a bit, and I realized that this isn't an airtight strategy. in the real world, proletarians can level up into non-proletarians through small-scale processes, and it happens all the time whenever there aren't enough job slots or people simply don't fit into existing business territories' "culture". it's very easy for a country that's full of proletarians one moment to slowly morph into a country of skilled workers that all want their own businesses but will also complain when the reality of running them is much harder than they dreamed.
     this became apparent to me as soon as I saw Gramsci talking about a council for the "self-employed". that isn't a red or orange structure, that's a blue or strawberry structure. and those kinds of structures can undo a revolution. but it's also trivial for more of them to be produced through misapplied education or training. if the soviets have full control, it's easy for petty classes to rebel against all the orange soviets and start taking control of the whole country through whatever limited ability they have to assemble together groups of people that outcompete surrounding workers.
     dictatorship of the proletariat (Trotskyism) + proletarians promoting into Careerists = Soviet structures are vulnerable to being overcome by petty classes.
618. the eclectic gruel of philosophy / eclectic gruel (philosophy) / the pauper's broth of eclecticism which is ladled out in the universities under the name of philosophy (Engels) [6] -> there are some descriptions where you see them and you just know, I've seen this, this is ridiculously relatable across time periods. I haven't read these specific philosophies and yet just by that description I feel like I already have.
618. moral evolution (critical theory) / Hegelian evolution of morality / historical development of societies as conceptualized around morality or ethics [7] / procedural theory of rationality (Liberal-republican ethics; Habermas) -> the concept in Habermas of modeling either large or small changes in societies through changes in morality and the resulting changes in society. I'd hate this except that it gets really funny when you apply it to world civilization and actual changes between historical periods, revealing a lot about how imperialism works; in a way, it's so bad it's good. I guess that's about what you should expect to get when you start with Hegel. Liberal-republicanism is frustrating but Hegel really isn't so bad in the end.
618. deformed Liberal states / degenerated Liberal states -> the motif of Liberal-republican countries looking at other nation-states and regarding them as deformed versions of themselves that need to be punished until they form correctly.
     deformed Liberal states + moral evolution (Trotskyism) = deformed workers' states.
618. Morality itself tends to favor a world of "small business hell" simply because the assumptions that lead to people creating morality happen to lead there and all Idealist statements when put together spit out some kind of real-world consequence -> I find it frustrating that people will start from a set of arbitrary Ideals and then just deontologically assume that if those Ideals are good then whatever they produce must also be good. to me Habermas' theory of moral consciousness just doesn't make sense as a material theory of history because in one way all moral or ethical values are always arbitrary; there will always be a point where people assume that what they're currently doing is morally good or superior just because it's the thing a lot of people are doing and none of them want to stop doing it while any other group of people must be morally bad just for doing a different thing that threatens to replace that thing, even before they actually demand other people trade in what they're doing for the new thing.
618. Idealism produces material outcomes / All Idealist statements or combinations of Idealist statements lead to some kind of real-world consequence -> there are many ways to take this. one of the surface conclusions is that Idealism isn't as explanatory as Materialism. one of the most interesting conclusions is that you can "meta-game" Idealism and figure out the best Ideals to tell people in order to get them to create particular material results. this is essentially lying to people to manipulate their behavior, which if it were up to me I don't really like, but a lot of people believe that most human beings' understanding of the world will never go above that level, which might make it ethical under some theories of ethics.
618. Prejudice and structural inequality are not the same thing; getting rid of prejudice does not necessarily get rid of structural inequality [8] -> well. I have to agree with this. I'm puzzled why anarchists in general aren't better at understanding this. but the blue anarchists did get something right.
618. Contact between populations reduces prejudice when four conditions are met: 1) equal status within the contact situation 2) common goals 3) cooperation 4) support from authorities or social norms (Allport 1954, Pettigrew) [9]
618. Negative contact between populations has a greater observed effect than positive contact [10]
618. analytic thinking as opposed to holistic thinking [11] -> I always wondered why it was called analytic philosophy. is this why?
618. WEIRD (pronounced Weird) countries [12] -> I like this acronym in that most of it makes sense except the "Western" part. I have no idea what that means. is Japan Western, or is it not? there are good arguments both ways. this is why I prefer saying "First World countries".
618. If one population's moral priorities are taken as standard, other populations' can end up looking irrational, underdeveloped, or morally confused because they have been strained through a non-neutral lens rather than first looking at the internal history and elements of each culture individually (ethics) -> you know what? this comes at the topic with different priorities than me but I want to mark it violet.
618. peer review auditing -> the motif of sending bogus articles to academic journals in hopes the reviewers will catch the problems
618. peer-review auditing feminist journals [13] [14] / peer-review auditing gender studies journals
     peer review auditing + gender studies journal = this.
618. feminist Mein Kampf [15] [16] -> wow. they really should have caught that. I.... have to read this at some point because that sounds like the best one.
     ...it's online? oh wonderful. this is very opaque and hard to read. I guess that's how they got it through.
618. SEP's analysis of "Stalinism" -> that's... its own specific thing? okay.
618. If the value of money is culturally fabricated ("made up"), but anarchism can realize itself through a sea of individuals spontaneously deciding to create a different kind of society, then anarchism is a cultural fabrication and everybody is free to spontaneously decide not to follow anarchism and follow whatever ostensibly more oppressive system they want to (meta-Marxism onto post-structuralism)
618. today I was "thinking"... / 'today I was thinking—' 'stop that' / 'today I was thinking—' 'you?! I can't believe it' -> the motif of somebody cutting off a statement where somebody was thinking about some specific thing and focusing on the concept of "thinking".
618. Eren Yeager / nazi Eren Yeager (in context of imagining different versions of the story based around different ideologies)
618. Dengist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if Attack on Titan was Western-Marxist (strawberry Marxist, Gramscian, Dengist / Deng Xiaoping Thought) -> so, Attack on Titan has a dumb premise. it reads like a campfire horror story told by nazis in very little irony. but it is really funny to imagine some of the same central themes being used in an approximately Marxist work. like, instead of it being a nazi campfire story the titans are trying to scale a "Berlin wall", or penetrate China or North Korea to take them back for Liberal-republicanism, the titans are hiding out on Taiwan, the titans are sealing people into Cuba and not letting them leave. there obviously wouldn't be a focus on the concept of the big antagonist monsters being 'impure' or 'diseased', that element of it probably wouldn't exist. it would just be kaiju trying to break into the country and do something horrifying. it's gotta be a little over the top. it's gotta be about turning them all into kaiju for some nefarious but useful purpose, like, I dunno, the kaiju feed off negativity and if they all turn into kaiju and fight each other the whole population of kaiju becomes stronger. everyone is horrified about the invasion and it brings them all together.
618. anarchist Eren Yeager / Eren Yeager if Attack on Titan was anarchist -> this is why I am having an increasingly hard time telling the difference between Deng Xiaoping Thought and anarchisms. like, once again, anarchism succeeds when you build a wall around it — probably metaphorically — and wait for the outside to tire itself out. I can't tell the difference between Gramscian Eren Yeager and anarchist Eren Yeager.
     oh god when I just go saying ideologies in a sentence of course my brain is going to shout "Trotskyist Eren Yeager". I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means at all. I dunno, like, the enemies are more like Reptilians or Yeerks and they're hiding out in the central government and nobody wants to believe it so the anti-alien squads are like trying to team up across regions? I tried.
618. 'pataphysical reduction / 'pata-reducing (by analogy to beta-reducing) -> the motif of taking something expressed wholly in abstract Ideals and reducing it down to material models based on the way Ideals already interact with each other, or explaining something material to someone starting at the level of abstract Ideals. the term "reduction" is used in the sense of evaluating a function call down to a computation, as is done in lambda calculus; it is not used in the sense of the popular misconception about science that scientists want to eliminate sideways relationships from models. they don't, if you've ever heard of special relativity.
     this is the real power of wave-machine logic like the logic system used on this wiki; it can start at totally phenomenological models and dig down to find material models.
618. Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality -> anarchists are going to get so upset if you try to argue this at them. they'll try to argue that reality is whatever comes naturally to living things, and different states of natural for each living species must naturally want to go together, blah blah blah. [*] but they're all privileged. they haven't experienced a state of truly being fenced out of society by thousands and millions of people that all simultaneously agree they don't like you (probably without having met you or having much of any idea what they're doing). they especially haven't experienced it owing to the existence of anarchism, because anarchism already selected for people like them. but they should wise up to the fact that anarchism doesn't really pass the veil of ignorance with flying colors. it's quite easy to end up on the wrong side of "community" where you simply have nobody and nothing and also everyone assumes you must be a bad person just because you haven't claimed an exclusive spot in Community that supposedly you only have to be nice to people to get and follow morality though in reality it's much more difficult and complicated and trivial to simply be born wrong and fail to survive the ecological parameters of the 'community-icene'. I think that as a period of biological life the Anthropocene truly began at tribal society, not at industrial society. it was the ability to form entire ecosystems made of nothing but humans that changed things, but if anarchists are correct that the natural state of humans and human psychology is in tribes then all the current destruction of the environment ultimately came from the characteristics of tribes. tribal populations are not wholly innocent for all the horrors of global empire and ecological destruction if at the end of the day we're all still tribes and they're the only ones trying to disclaim that there are bad things about that. really, as crazy as it sounds, they might be accidentally benefiting from a corrupt system that has killed great numbers of people. of course, if humans don't have a seemingly eternal resting state of being in tribes that we have no choice but to return to which in turn implies we are currently tribes in denial and will still be tribes for the next hundred thousand years, then tribal populations carry no blame for what industrial societies have done.
     (* why didn't they say that about workers' states and the healthy state of the Soviet Union versus the very disordered states that occurred at every moment after tearing it apart? they have even less excuse than Trotskyists. Trotskyists wilfully wanting to overwrite another Marxism with their own Marxism is at least logical even if it's terrible.)
618. "Indigenous people" marks a statement as racist / Saying "indigenous people" marks a sentence as containing racial stereotypes [17]
618. Mentioning ethnic groups is racist / Mentioning an ethnic group without mentioning a specific individual marks a sentence as containing potentially-harmful racial stereotypes -> this is what you have to believe for the above statement to be true. like, if "indigenous people" marks a racial stereotype, then saying a more specific group of people like "Inuit" should equally mark a racial stereotype — how does the person you're talking to know that you're giving correct information about all Inuit people and not just saying something false? but if this is true, you couldn't go to Congress and say "Black people" or "Mexican immigrants" for any legitimate purpose without mentioning individuals that supposedly make the example truer. does it actually make statements more accurate to include specific individuals? I feel like it adds nothing but also subtracts nothing.
     this is a really weird criterion for judging whether statements are accurate. I know where it comes from, it comes from people trying to judge everything through positivism and claim that Lived Experiences are a pathway to truth while a lack of Lived Experiences is a pathway to falsity. it's still really weird. it doesn't seem to accomplish the thing it sets out to accomplish at all, and just seems to make all statements said about any group of people more worthy of doubting. "White people have the colonizer attitude"? maybe not!! Ben was doing that, but did you ask Carla?? "Black people experience structural racism"? maybe not!! you didn't mention an individual so in theory you might be racist for even saying that.
     Mentioning ethnic groups is racist + Anti-essentialism is a pathway to truth = Pointing out racism is racist.
618. Referring to Communists without mentioning a specific individual is unacceptably prejudiced / If mentioning ethnic groups without mentioning a specific individual is racist, which is to imply that talking about groups of people in the abstract rather than as a particular countable number of concrete objects is racist, then mentioning "Communists" or "Cubans" or "people who support Stalin" without naming a specific individual for evaluation is equally prejudiced; every time somebody has said "tankies" or "totalitarians" or "Stalinist(s)" outside a particular context has been an unacceptably prejudiced statement -> this is another loophole in this. god I love it when really bad propositions break open so bad they wrap around to supporting Communism
618. "Social construct" is a social construct / Most of the time anarchists talk about social constructs they are trying to imply that things that are undesigned or that come out of interacting elements are deliberately engineered Ideals, but because this overall way of thinking is Idealist, it is also fair to say that anarchists are not working with a model that is well checked against reality and their theory of a given "social construct" being "constructed" is equally as made up as the "social construct" is if not more [18] -> sounds like a deepity until you realize what it's really saying and then your mind is blown
     this is how you get out of what I referred to in another entry as "Gerson Boom BS". you realize what Idealism is and how it obscures whatever non-Idealist relationships between things may exist