From Philosophical Research
Prototype notes
- A State is so Trotskyists don't die / The point of a State is so 100,000 Trotskyists don't die / The point of a State is so Trotsky can save himself instead of running over to large external empires for help -> I always wonder. if I invoke the idea of "killing Trotsky is bad" enough, and do enough to hammer in the idea that Trotsky making a mistake can kill Trotsky and Trotsky making the right decision can save Trotsky, will blue anarchists ever start thinking and listening. are inexplicably popular images everyone brings up as 'obvious' fables about the human experience enough, or not. how much do I have to dumb everything down before blue and charcoal anarchists finally get it.
I think David Graeber's books are somewhat illustrative. you do have to make things so simple that they seem eternal, and like they could have been discovered 5,000 years ago. it would be a point in the anarchists' favor if they'd bring up science more because physics is one of the only things that really has been about the same for 5,000 years. but it is what it is.
yeah. I don't get why anarchists are so bent on being anarchist, and why they wouldn't be intrigued by the concept Trotsky can save himself instead of going for help to people in other countries that are largely going to contain anticommunists that exploit him. if they're so obsessed with freedom and independence wouldn't it be way better for Trotsky not to depend on First World empires and to gain independence by creating Trotskyism in one country? if he doesn't succeed at that he has no freedom, period.
The point of a State is so 100,000 Trotskyists don't die + ?? = Trotskyism must be created in one country for poly-Trotskyism to be created
Pan-Africanism + Trotskyism = The point of a State is so 100,000 Trotskyists don't die.
Related[edit]
- The politics of desire refuses to deal with the post-revolutionary question of the state (Badiou) [1] -> I think he's close to a good point. based on everything schizoanalysts and blue anarchists say in general, sounds like it's about on the right track to me.
"refusal to seize state power does not really entail refusal to theorise or destroy the state" the fuck is this. in what way? in what way is that possible? like let's take Trotsky and Zinoviev. they don't like the Soviet Union. but for some reason they hypothetically can't go anywhere else. if they don't try to seize state power then how the hell are they going to achieve their goal of converting the Soviet Union into Trotskyism in one country, or in multiple countries? that is their goal. you can't just tell them what to think. and you can't just pull out "anti-essentialism" to be like 'well some Trotskyists don't want to create Trotskyism', because although that's true, the ones that don't historically turn into the worst kinds of reactionaries. you'll be much happier with the ones that want to create Trotskyism. to do that, to 'escape hierarchy' and create 'freedom' they have to create a country, or they aren't free, you could talk to them and that's what they'd tell you. so how are they gonna get the people 'out' of state capitalism and break down 'hierarchy' just by 'theorizing about' a state? like, sure, we can bring in a bit of actual Trotskyist bullshit and say they're convinced they're going to jump over Bolshevism and get all the people of North and South America and Europe to immediately warp to some stage after Bolshevism because they broke down particular problem structures of 'exchange' or 'bureaucracy' or 'centrality' that they believe served to separate populations such that if you take away Stalin you get a whole continent to merge. but it's dangerous to just say that kind of thing to anarchists because they're not going to know it's nonsense. so you have to be a bit harsh with them, and you have to say, here are the conditions under which Trotskyists die, here are the conditions under which they maybe get to live and build something they would be happy with. if you get it wrong they die, they get exterminated and Stalin gets to eradicate everything they stand for. so you have to get the right answers, because the point is not to die. you can't have Freedom if you suddenly die. that should be rule number one of all theories of society. anarchists, please stop being so stupid I have to insult you like this. I'm tired.
blue anarchists are bad with imagining the concept of a proletariat, but given one of these Trotsky scenarios it gets a lot harder for them to walk away from the real questions because they really have to deal with the fundamentals. people are always chunks. they always have chunk structure. they always have conflict between separate chunks of different ideological colors which aren't merged. they always have actual ways of uniting individuals together into structures that keep the chunk from dissolving or represent the chunk — actual physical means of republicanization that aren't just a bunch of words. republicanization isn't truly about control and power, it's more about how the bureaucrats and clusters of households are actually bundled in order to succesfully function together without dysfunction. and I'm tired of these surface-level arguments between Communists that think societies are made of revolution through power and anarchists that think societies are made of revolution through Freedom and no power but neither of them stopping to think about that the new society that emerges isn't actually constituted out of revolution or power or Freedom, it's made of relationships and structural non-dysfunction. if the new society isn't born out from inside what is as a bunch of actual structures, then talking about a contrived concept of a "non-state" in direct response to Communist concepts of a State is just pointless nonsense that does nothing but fill up airtime. what really matters is this: big structures are created, they toss things off their borders, tiny supporting bodies are created that manage them, the structure matures and becomes robust, the owner is expelled because the structure is not growing and expanding. this successfully happened with kingdoms, local-states, and towns. it happened slowly with former colonies that are still struggling through that very first stage of national borders. corporations are one of the hardest things to republicanize because they are always re-dividing and disappearing and reappearing in a way that Texas or Florida doesn't. for capitalism to end on its own you'd see a stage where corporations are just appointing or electing arbitrary people to special board structures that are basically permanent and designed to manage "living in" the corporation as if it's always going to be there and it's an inherent facet of culture and human life, as if "the economy" and "economic competition" aren't even really concepts any more and corporations are more like just weird tiny cities or weird tiny tribes people live in. of course, that isn't quite the way things work. corporations have never turned static like that, and have called into question whether the model of nations being static is even correct; corporations chunk-compete against each other sideways, and nations also unfortunately do, resulting in empires and colonies and genocides or various situations of vast death and destruction. it's kind of like every historical event has primed us to see the world classically and impose that down to the quantum realm when we should have been thinking the other direction. so yeah... wow, I ranted. revolution "actually is" the outer layer of a process of societies simply being created. the key to escaping any particular problem society is to build the new society. if you can't build that new society there is no successful revolution. and every new society has to deal with living in a universe where everything is happening and bumping into each other at once. it has to realize itself as a tangible countable object and keep that object from breaking down. this is where all questions about "The State" really come from. The State is just a bunch of epiphenomena that come out of protecting the population itself and keeping it alive and intact, which is the real actual problem that every ideology has to answer. this all becomes so much more obvious when you take ideologies at face value for a moment and grant that incompatible ideology-populations that fight each other are actually separate incompatible entities, each with a history, each with internal wants and needs, each with culture, and each in some limited senses biologically alive and opposed ecologically. the existence of individual Animals is a fundamental, core contradiction that basically every ideology ignores, often including some Marxisms. Existentialisms get weirdly obsessed with individuals, but there is nothing special about individuals except that they're material and that they're Animals. when you understand that set of colliding elements correctly, it's not something that destroys as much as something that interacts and develops and iterates. but schizoanalysts I am begging you please recognize countable objects, it makes your lines of flight thing make so much more sense that I initially believed that was the actual purpose of it, that it was about countable groups exchanging people instead of the weird incomprehensible Rhizome thing it really is
Ideology codes[edit]
