From Philosophical Research
Prototype notes
- Prejudices are not obviously bad / It is not inherently obvious to everybody in an equal way through an equal path that prejudices are bad -> the claim that it is difficult to realize prejudices are bad, even if they are bad. most prejudices that center-Liberals would consider "good" are not obvious as prejudices unless you look closely, but they sure do exist.
some Existentialist theories like poststructuralism and schizoanalysis appear to believe this. there are different ways to cast this proposition: MX) prejudices are not obviously bad, so it is not possible to simply convince everyone prejudices being bad is obvious and have that be the truth because it will never be obvious. you need to convince people of something that actually includes prejudices being impossible to operate on directly. W) prejudices are not obviously bad, so we all need to force each other to question prejudices and force everyone to believe prejudices are bad no matter how much effort it takes.
you can see the shovel dreams unraveling. typical Gramscians aren't actually relying on the solid, material regeneration of any substrate of a workers' state, they're just I-believe-that-everybodying people.
- 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.
Related
- 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 -> so, almost 5 years ago, I fell backward into a fight with blue anarchism and basically got thrown out of society. I had very little for social relationships as it was. but I learned on that day that nobody is apolitical and everybody has bizarrely specific requirements to even bother interacting with people and making them part of society or consider them human. what did I do to get exiled that bad? not even anything as bad the time I came up with "a regular Arab, not an evil one". (which I have to add, even though that was objectively a microaggression they never hated me for that. that was "okay".) I questioned the word "colonialism". that's what I did; I tried to start probing exactly what colonialism is supposed to be and where people think it comes from and if having the concept is actually helping anyone. and I tried to start developing the idea of population-societies and that all populations eat, occupy space, multiply, and bump into each other, and because they all develop at the same time in all directions and people's brains aren't connected populations can't control each other. I did not do it very well. because I wasn't trained. I wasn't trained in philosophy or having a highly specific color-tinted ideology of how societies "should" be built from the ground up. I didn't yet know how to line up twenty different conflicting models of a whole society and separate them and analyze the inner workings of each one to predict when and if Trotskyism and Maoism will merge. I was just a person. I really was just curious, and had questions to ask. but I swear what was actually happening was United States movements are fundamentally not curious to have knowledge or know how reality works; they want to tell you stuff, but they don't want you to ask stuff. they want to do this thing described by Deleuze and differently by Badiou where society changes through a bunch of little changes in people. but like, they want the changes to be people unquestioningly accepting axioms without really knowing if they make sense. the more I tried to read blue anarchism theories and try to understand them, like some lost soul trapped in purgatory trying to get released, the less and less any of it made sense. the more I'd read about Deleuze and Badiou and Proudhon and whoever, the more I'd be like, how can you know any human being desires to live in harmony with or be friends with anyone, how can I know people won't kill me or stand in my house packing up or crushing everything I own and driving me out of my house until I obey them, what even is a human right, how do we know we have any of them? because all their baseless assertions without any actual explanation of how they know that would just increasingly make me go crazy. I gained new kinds of racism I hadn't had before because I was suddenly just afraid of Black people or tribal populations or people from another country knowing I existed and deciding I was a stupid idiot because I didn't know something and I didn't understand things in the specific way they did. and I really just had to look inside myself and say, I think I've had enough. I don't care any more if anyone likes me or thinks I "look" progressive. I'm just going to study what's going on and look for truth, because that's all I can do. that's all I can do any more. so I studied Marxism. because I had literally no incentive to try to fudge any of it or learn a lesser version of it just to make people happy; I needed a theory of human survival for my survival that only depended on labor and structure and didn't depend on empathy or people being nice. then over time I started to see that Marxists were believing some very false things about the United States, they were believing that anarchism was compatible with Marxism in the same sense that Menshevism had historically been and that anarchist demonstrations were just 'people forming together' or 'people resisting' when really the substance of them and the hypothetical way to make use of them is drastically different. though they didn't speak directly to me I could just tell that, entailed in what they said there was this implication that a lot of people don't actually matter and people only matter if they magically know how to impossibly mobilize a population of anarchists that don't want to commit to anything into urgently pulling off highly specific goals that are almost impossible for them; these little tiny events that for an anarchist become giant mountains and tantamout to a revolution. the whole thing of "a Left existing" is this thing of people that are highly trained and practically professors leading a bunch of people that don't believe in Materialism where if you don't either take a leap of faith on believing dangerously inaccurate things or have enough training to practically go to a conventional job interview over it there isn't even a place for you to get involved at all, like if the issues are killing you and you're all alone and terrified, tough luck. a White person born to nazis is a glorified nazi, should have been an anarchist, see you in hell. and that messed me up. it was like watching a train wreck seeing these Marxists try to insist they could control "the train" and know what "station" it should go to while each time the train was rolling wildly off the tracks, one time, and then again. I lost my trust in nearly everyone and to regain any semblance of sanity I just had to start reading and recording
shit. I had to just start pinning up propositions on a wall. I think schizoanalysis gave me trauma.
"The United States succeeded because of settler-colonialism". this is a complex claim made of a few stacked sub-claims.
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.
- 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.
