User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand

I (R.D.) am a bit obsessive about numbers. I had a problem with the idea of Items having small numbers that at the same time were arbitrary. What would be number 10?? What would be number 1??
I considered making all the entries in this wiki take their IDs from the timestamp they were created at, but when Wikibase had no clear way of doing that and it was already installed, I decided it would be easier to do this instead: map out the first 3000-9000 Item entries to the best numbers I can think of, and then stop worrying. A little later, I'd go a step further and scrap Wikibase to make editing individual Items and downloading them as text files particularly easy in all browsers, and allow for Item identifiers to be as pronounceable as possible thanks to the ability to add commas or redirects inside the same namespace.

This is the first prototype of every Item in order. After this, I began to create specific "Ontology" Categories for particular fields and media series, and to create hue list templates to more consistently display the same proposed Item across pages. This page will not use any of the later html-saving templates in order to preserve a more basic and manual version of the hue list markup. However, some especially verbose sections of chapters, episodes, short stories, etc. have been moved to Ontology pages to make the list easier to navigate.

You should be warned that there may be a lot of particular opinions on this page. Whenever I wrote any idea down I poured out the first thoughts that came to my mind on it. I had no intention that any of these first-thoughts would be a permanent part of any of the Item pages that would not change. Some of them were meant as loose guidelines for further examining each thing and collecting research or analyses of them on their pages in a general way, but only really as a starting place. I've always had the rule that "angry" does not belong on Item pages, thus I sometimes absolutely went off here to avoid it going there. Also, you are encouraged to create alternate prototype pages scrawled on Category pages or in connection with other thesis portals — the only major rules are that all prototype notes should be archived on an early revision of their corresponding Item page (whether they are deleted or superseded in later revisions, which is fully expected), and that when somebody actually establishes a block of useful concepts within the Ontology namespace you must build off what is already there while moving existing Items only when there is some relatively important reason another Item should be using that number. If an Item is on a prototype page and has not been properly created, then it is not an issue to move things around, but you should try to keep related blocks together.

Item status: Wikibase set to be removed / Property data must be recovered first, then Wikibase extensions will be disabled / Ontology pages are now canonical Item pages
Once the items on this page have been created, it will be natural for the names and purposes of the items to evolve somewhat over time, and there is no need for anyone to worry about whether the current set of items is "following" this prototype page. Items will become grouped into specific topic-based Ontology pages such that following the list is less unwieldy, or paginated numeric lists including the actual Items by template.

Unsorted Items (page 2)

618. Chunks of humans belong to Thomas Jefferson
618. Soviet Union and foreign goods smugglers / blat (in sense of forming Community unofficially beneath the table so that people can trade for black market goods whenever they want)
618. The Twilight movies veered into epic fantasy plots because Bella died [1] -> there is a specific reason for these kinds of theories coming to be. there's this tension between Materialism and the creation of fictional narratives as models of real-life phenomena with this bridge in between that separates reality from religion, mythical narratives, and fantasy stories. when different parts of the narrative match really badly we start wondering if part of it is an inaccurate model rather than the reality
618. union-made quality -> claim increasingly seen on goods. appears to be an effort to make everyone believe that consumers can regulate capitalism.
618. reverse anticommunist sanctions / sanctioning Third-World countries for not transitioning to socialism -> wholly hypothetical situation that came into my mind when I thought about what the world would look like if "union-made quality" actually worked. like, the best way to make sure goods are made in a union is to only import goods from "North Koreas" that sign everyone up for a union as a policy. it's weird to imagine any workers' party approving that though. they usually have a principle of
618. Gene Sharp and nonviolent resistance [2]
618. "Nonviolence" models color revolutions (United States) / The window of nonviolent resistance has closed, because the entire modern concept of nonviolent resistance in the United States was based on capitalist reversion in the Second World and color revolutions rather than the actual conditions that United States people would be resisting [3] / There is no difference between color revolutions and stopping Toryism (generic)
     Nazism and Bolshevism come from the same cause + revolution (abstract quality) = "Nonviolence" models color revolutions
618. The United States civil rights movement wasn't complete without a defensive army [4]
618. A global culture of teaching empathy is better for stopping human rights violations than examining human rights through foundationalist rationality (Rorty) [5] -> I feel like this has been shown to be false after so many people have been talking about empathy empathy empathy and it still leads to horrible abuses on workers' states which are readily supported by "nice" people.
     it doesn't really help that this guy is a Trotskyist ally and like, they ended up supporting a lot of those abuses. I hesitate to bring that up immediately when he at least had some humility enough to say (jokingly? seriously? don't know) 'I'm a bourgeois liberal' in reference to writing a bunch of philosophy books that sound like deepities and being a literature teacher. but independent of that context the problem is still there
618. A particular layer of mediators (media) take hold of individual lives (lifeworlds) to enforce the division of rationality into three major spheres of science, arts, and law and the division of societies into contradictory industries and careers, thus shattering people's underlying capability of multi-sided Socratic reasoning (intersubjective rationality) [6] -> this is a very unusual anarchism. it at least isn't falling into the usual dumb tropes many of them do but man this is weird. it's trying to take the classic notion of a faceless "They" that caused everything and it's made the They very complex but it's still something kind of specific. it posits that there is this process of people coming together onto a shared conversation but the awful Mediators came and broke it up. I actually kind of like the way it complains about fragmentation as opposed to complaining about "centralization" or "totalization". fragmentation is the real problem ultimately, and a lot of anarchisms just reinforce it. if all the other ones would be more like this I would be way less angry at them
618. Do human beings ever get "transformed" into thing-like beings, or were they always thing-like beings as well as humans? [7] -> I lean toward the latter. I feel like the concept of people being something more than animals is a little overstated sometimes. mainly when anarchists are trying to sneak anarchism into theories of society and they have some very articulate descriptions of things and then suddenly there's a weird assumption about Domination or state apparatuses in there and it's like, I feel like we're overcomplicating this. people expand over each other chunk competition bad
618. We can no longer give substantive answers to the question "How should I live?" (Habermas) -> correct. but only because both Stalin and Trotsky can exist, throwing off the prospect of all countries transitioning to one specific sociophilosophy, to solve a few of society's questions anyway. Habermas gives a lot of propositions that are right for the wrong reasons.
618. intersubjective Materialism / doing Materialism on an intersubjective basis in which two different parties lock onto a shared increasingly detailed understanding of the world as it actually functions -> intersubjectivity in reasoning isn't really the problem I have with critical theory. like, intersubjective rationality would be an okay idea if it wasn't based on weird anarchist standards of how to assign truth values rather than just describing things as they are.
618. Socratic dialectic in critical theory / communicative rationality / intersubjective rationality / di-rationality (sense Habermas) -> the concept of two people reaching a conclusion though attempting to present arguments without force while seeking to reach a shared understanding. this just sounds like Habermas reinvented the Socratic dialectic to me. is there something I'm missing?
618. Intersubjective rationality may not be possible in practice because individuals' position in society may lead to coercion or exclusion before the process properly begins [8] -> that is actually a good criticism. critical-theorists probably don't know how to fix it but I'm going to ignore that because this is true
618. Communicative rationality is not utopian enough (Kompridis) [9] -> I have no idea what this is intending to say, but it sounds fascinating.
618. The ontological understandings and internal experience of other people behave like noumena, which will have to be strained through a particular person or group's ontological understandings and internal experiences / The alien cannot be fully incorporated into the lifeworld as-such (Husserl) [10] -> this is actually true. the notion of treating reality as a bunch of lifeworlds usually drives me up the wall but this is fine, it's just saying that each countable culture or Social-Philosophical System will inevitably strain everything else through its own worldview and individuals do the same thing. well done Husserl, you're one of the only critical theory affiliated people to achieve violet
618. Society is made of language (Habermas) / Language is a foundational component of society, to the point a theory of language can be inserted into Marxism; it is implied this will be inserted in the context of societal systems or psychology [11] -> "don't do this to me," I say to myself every time I have to read just about anything about critical theory and what critical-theorists believe.
618. It is possible to build a model of reason specifically based on the concept of people seeking Freedom from Domination (Habermas) [12] -> this is weirdly Kantian. it's trying to be new but it feels like it's just formalizing Kant's weird concept that intuition is the same thing is logic just because we decided to apply it to morality
618. True and False are artifacts of the existence of propositions / True and False are byproducts of the existence of reason and do not originally exist in nature before there is a person or instrument to create ontological models of nature (Rorty) [13] -> this is fine. this is just an acknowledgement that systems of logic are something that have to be created and have made-up rules in order to function for interpreting the world. which is accurate. anyone who's ever seen Gödel's incompleteness theorem will realize it has to be the case on some level that logic or reasoning is made up in order to be designed for its task.
618. postanalytic philosophy [14] -> a lot of Wikipedia articles on philosophy just feel like garbage — by no fault of the people writing them, it's just that the stuff they have to read and cover is garbage — but this seems like a legitimate category
618. Trotsky and the wild orchids (Richard Rorty) -> so this is a biography but gosh it sounds juicy in terms of Christian theological propositions
     so for an Ironblood story I had made up this movement in irony that was trying to gradually replace US Christianity with Trotskyism but it wasn't religious, it was just sort of secular-humanist and trying to do its part to get people onto Marxist values of the power of humanity. and wow. it's such a find to see Christians actually trying to weave together Christianity and Trotskyism, or somebody like Rorty who is actually taking this position, and what would have been the surrounding historical context.
     gosh I am going to have to add him to my 'cast of recurring characters' in propositions and MDem chapters. even if I might not like his position on basic ontology and logic, he has one of the most interesting positions on religion and literature I've ever seen
618. Philosophy is what sits between Trotskyism and aesthetic beauty / Philosophy lies in the reconciliation of the celestial beauty of orchids with Trotsky's dream of justice on earth (Richard Rorty) [15] -> this is one of those propositions that sounds like an absolute drug trip, like it is on so many planes above anything that makes sense and that's what's wonderful about it. I think the thing that is the most hilarious about it to me is that most of the dumb propositions about Trotskyism on here I made up in some kind of irony as a thought experiment to prove some specific point, but this one I didn't make up myself and that was made completely seriously (by my standards anyway*) happens to be the most bizarre one yet by far.
     * Rorty has this weird thing about not actually believing anything but I'm just going to ignore it for now. he is not one of the believers in the movement, he was a literature professor.
618. Pokémon fighting each other is comparable to feudal Japan (Drawn Together) -> none of the characterizations of main characters in Drawn Together are all that good, except for Foxxy in the first few episodes. especially Ling-Ling. but I'm gonna try and save this. let's look at the statement being made by creating Ling-Ling and see if it's good or bad. Ling-Ling's character has a few steps to it. 1) kaiju are about violence. technically true before Pokémon 2) violence equals feudal Japan: Kurosawa's films, etc 2b) violence equals Japanese global empire, attacks in either direction during the WWII era 3) Ling-Ling is that legend about swordsmen killing a random person to test their power
     the portrayal of the proposition on the show is a little lame. but distilled down to its essentials it's actually not that bad. console RPGs in general are often based on medieval fantasy stories which are often based on history books. so the line through from Japanese history to console RPGs is straighter than you'd think. Pokémon Conquest / Pokémon × Nobunaga's Ambition is an awfully telling bit of evidence in this, in that it was strangely easy to just transplant Pokémon into the timeline of feudal Japan and use them as units.
     another point of evidence is examining the portrayal of the relationship between Japan and China in Drawn Together and then in Pokémon. in Drawn Together we see the United States exploiting China and Vietnam, we see Ling-Ling being a tryhard with the vague implication he is striving to be read as Japanese instead of Chinese or at least that he is like one of those really competitive parents you still find in China. in Pokémon there is like this comical avoidance of bringing up China in a serious way until gen 8 when the Silk Road Pokémon finally appear. fans are convinced that this is because Game Freak wants to avoid the games being banned or edited for China. which, it probably wouldn't be censorship. I wish censorship was split into two words so that one of them was in reference to Ideals and tradition and one of them was in reference to social-scientific facts and updating incorrect information. it's probably the most appropriate that censorship gets the tradition one because the concept of censors dates back to ancient Rome and what did they really know scientifically back then. there was a bit of time where revisionism would have been an appropriate word but that one has really slid and taken on entirely different meanings within Marxism. uh who's the person who updates the actual facts for government but who doesn't do original research. theorist? director? librarian? archivist? historian? I'm gonna come up with another word so it's possible to stop calling factual corrections censorship. I swear that when stuff got censored in 1984 it wasn't even getting censored and it was the other word. that's the crazy thing, that Orwell's book about censorship isn't even about censorship.
618. The material resolves the immaterial / The immaterial resolves in the material / The material calculates the immaterial / Whenever any two groups of people come together to argue over something strictly immaterial which is not simply a fuzzy description of the material, the immaterial is more or less completely arbitrary and the interaction of strictly-immaterial concepts relies on interactions between strictly-material things to decide what its resolution is going to be -> this is basically what Marx did to Hegel but said much more clearly. I might change it to crimson if I find a Marx or Engels quote, etc, that matches it close enough
618. All ontologies are merely narratives (are just narratives; are simply narratives) / When people form mental models of what "a friend" is or what "normal" is they are essentially writing fictional stories which are either hypothetical or counterfactual [16] -> Existentialism, stop it.
     when you unpack this into what it practically means, it's easy enough to see why somebody invented it. in one sense, all mental models are hypothetical. but that doesn't mean they're wrong! like, Trotsky isn't wrong because he has a hypothetical picture of what will happen. he's wrong because the reterministic operation of real elements of material reality against each other is the real calculation of what happens, and the calculation he's doing of how history is formed doesn't line up with the real calculation. but there are correct calculations for all physical objects whose definition has been given as entirely material and not immaterial. the immaterial is arbitrary and finds all its resolutions in the material. like, every time, this is why Protestants and Catholics had to fight wars before coming to an agreement, and why Liberal-republicanism is more of a war than a proper process of reasoning and it keeps progressively breaking down because it doesn't even work. the transition from Liberalism to Bolshevism on the other hand is very sensible. the biggest change that occurs politically is that progress is something everyone constantly participates in through regular activities, where it's possible to create progress by physically aligning more and more people together; instead of voting at elections, people vote just by going to work in a particular way. the whole "Kim Il-Sung put out a ballot with just a 'no' on it!!" accusation is actually a good thing, in concept. because if you do it right the notion of resisting progress becomes more pedestrian and less violent. you no longer have reactionaries trying to kill people for 'taking over The Real America' just because they are trying to bring different Ideals to the nation's biannual Idea Fight, instead the whole process becomes about the central government picking what it believes to be correct answers and actually collecting the reasons that people don't want to accept them to start negotiating about them in a material way and hopefully pulling some people back in.
     god you know what gets me about this "non-narrative thinking" bullshit. "viewing our lives in such a narrow way ..." - here the psychologist is trying to get rid of the concept that "you're the main character of a story" but completely undoes that entire exercise in a second by saying "our lives", which gives the implicit assumption that everything that happens while you exist happens inside your head and has anything to do with your individual choices. if you truly believe people aren't main characters then stop saying "Life" and "Our Lives". you have many other options such as "the world", "material reality", and "history". so why do they always fall back to "Our Lives"??
618. "tacit knowledge" as euphemism for intuition [17] / tacit knowledge (Existentialism) -> I swear right-Liberals use this word to launder non-supernatural superstition about the economy, linguists use versions of it to launder non-supernatural superstitions about meaning, reference, and learning that ultimately led to people thinking building artificial intuition into large language models was the only way to get better at modeling knowledge, and psychology and psychiatry are also misusing it somehow.
     tacit knowledge (Existentialism) + ?? = unsupervised machine learning. tacit knowledge (Existentialism) + ?? = large language model.
618. weak-to-strong generalization -> it doesn't work because LLMs aren't practicing intelligence
618. Mx. Stills can choose students' vote (who students vote for; exmat) / If some arbitrary individual Bob Stills or Bobbie Stills is a teacher, and they and the school board go to school and teach some particular curriculum, grade school teacher Mr. or Ms. Stills can choose who all their students will eventually vote for (teacher Mx. Stills; existential materialism) -> nearly everybody in the United States gets this one wrong.
618. The German language was unintentionally designed to promote Marxism (was accidentally designed; linguistics) / Because the development of written German texts went through various stages as texts were distributed to people of different social classes, noun capitalization spread across speakers of the language as each social class began to become aware of its existence as a class until every identifiable social class was capitalized, leading in turn to the majority of all German nouns being capitalized in modern times, but still leaving behind a rather obvious history of the existence of various social classes fossilized into the overall corpus of older German texts; this is to suggest that for a German speaker such as Marx and Engels or even Trotsky and Luxemburg, etc., the act of conceptualizing statements in the German language makes the presence of social classes and class processes more immediately obvious than the act of conceptualizing statements in other languages [18] -> there is nothing special about languages that inherently changes the way you think except the tiny rituals that ride along with speaking language like having the option to use deliberately gender-neutral words or marking social classes every single time you say a sentence.
     this is ultimately why I designed color swatches and the experimental in-text highlighter system for this wiki, so that just by writing sentences you can start tagging nouns by their approximate class association and start to really think about what each class of people is doing each day within the overall structure of society and historical processes. I made it based on factions rather than classes per-se as a matter of phenomenology and epistemological caution, so things don't get labeled with the wrong class too quickly as that can be very damaging, but yeah, tagging things red, orange, or blue is supposed to help get you thinking about what ideologies come from what classes by starting at the more general point of what ideologies are most worker-friendly, the distinction between red, orange, mauve, and violet versus blue, with strawberry kind of oscillating in the middle. you can go further into believable arguments that only crimson is actually any good while orange and strawberry are just nothing and mauve and violet vary in quality from good to bad (on violet a lot of the "dumb" propositions are just purely experiments that I don't defend as truth, but I might improperly think a couple of them are more likely than they are, and then they're wrong), but again, I didn't want to make the swatch system take a hard position on that too quickly.
618. Anarchemistry is a blue-anarchist concept because of how closely associated it is with "regulating the power of capitalists"
618. Because gaining immortality by taking something away from others is immoral, if God gives people who kill Palestinians immortality in heaven (for believing in God but being against Arabs or Muslims), then supporting God is immoral -> this is why I hate all discussions of fictional immortality. it's a deepity! while this is the good stuff.
618. The worst dystopia is one where everybody's happy and there is no catch but all of it comes at the expense of killing off or enslaving all of the world's other populations; this is the worst form of dystopia because nobody would ever want to end it
618. Arguments about immortality are a deepity compared to arguments about the maintenance of First-World conditions -> First World people are entirely mortal, First World countries are destructible, and yet they can go on and on and on and on anyway at great expense to other populations. this is a much more profound question than how bad it is for a fictional being to drain other things to achieve an immortality that is impossible or how to prevent that
618. game console plurality / console war (First World) -> this is one of the craziest case studies in how economics really works on the ground, and due to all the information it provides about the connection between economic phenomena and national culture, perhaps one of the most important case studies
618. Menshevism is now nailed to AI / Social-democracy generally relies on capitalism existing, and taxing capitalism, but one of the limits of capitalism is that its core purpose is to add new people to a population as a population grows, and to do this, it has to keep adding more and more categories products to society, which it has to do to prevent the population as a whole from losing interest in buying more products and thus preventing corporation growth and preventing employment and preventing population growth, but unfortunately, First-World economies are now maxing out on the sheer number of categories of products they can get investors for or make Third-World factories produce without people realizing that countries have so many unnecessary products it's beginning to become tacky and annoying, and this has caused an explosion in First-World corporations putting all their money into LLMs because they are one of the only things that is genuinely new and that society doesn't have, in turn meaning that a lot of economic production is going to just become making LLMs, that a lot of corporate income is going to be based on LLMs, and that social-democratic policies for nationalized health care and housing are going to come from taxing LLMs, meaning that everyone is essentially forced to use and live with LLMs just so everyone can have health care and housing and the country can still continue to operate on capitalism; this is to imply that unequivocally negative uses of LLMs, like in creating intelligent unmanned bomber planes to attack Palestine, are almost necessarily required to exist just because a country wants to have both universal health care and housing and also have capitalism
618. Menshevism is now nailed to expensive health care -> if LLMs are defeated, whatever brings the most income will become the new foundation of society. it could be the process of continuously producing rare and expensive pharmaceuticals and new types of surgeries, to the benefit of people's physical health but to the dismay of right-Liberal economists who want to believe actual health care prices could be made less expensive
     I swear that macroeconomics is a great new untapped subgenre of science fiction because you could get the craziest predictions about the future of society just out of the consequences of how economic phenomena actually connect materially and what widespread socio-cultural consequences are inevitably going to come out of them. crimson or sky, people say culture doesn't come from the economy, but it depends on how large a scale you're defining "culture". on a scale of national phenomena it almost definitely does
618. If gold is actually better than fiat currency, then why are there multiple national currencies? -> these things seem unrelated at first but actually have everything to do with each other. the supply of a valuable item is inherently related to whether people can be pushed into using or selling a completely different item. when one valuable resource is split in two, it effectively both avoids going through an undesirable value ceiling where relatively few people have it and it's a severe status symbol, and also avoids going through a value floor where there is too much of it for it to be meaningfully valuable. the solution of staving off inflation by splitting currency in two sounds insane, but it's actually quite logical when you think about the fact that one of the purposes of currency is to divide human activity into finite slots and divide society into particular areas of products and corporations. one of the best ways to keep video game consoles from becoming too abundant to drive interest in new games was to create multiple console brands. one of the best ways to keep people from realizing Bitcoin wasn't going to work out was to divide it into multiple currencies. this could be true of all national currencies in general. plurality in a pool of objects dividing that pool in two
618. disproving particular Trotskyist model using Trotskyist history -> whether you're able to do this is the true crash course in what "cultural relativism" and "country characteristics" mean
     the one that stands out to me the most: Trotskyists generally subscribe to "Society are singular", but that doesn't reflect the historical events of the Trotskyite conspiracy. if the interests of all workers of the world were the same, then you'd expect the interests of all the workers in the Soviet Union to be the same, but if the interests of all the workers and peasants in the Soviet Union were the same (at least per class), then you wouldn't expect there would be two clearly distinguishable groupings of red workers and orange workers, red peasants and orange peasants. the existence of the Trotskyite conspiracy and a few disillusioned workers taking Trotsky's side but a large number of them not would seem to disprove that Trotskyism across multiple countries can ever happen without first creating one orange country.
618. The Trotskyite conspiracy proves that Trotskyism cannot happen in multiple countries without creating Trotskyism in one country one or more times
618. Defeat imperialism by telling White people they matter / Contrary to intuition, White people are not actually arrogant beings that believe they are important,
618. Rhizome is the shovel dream of marketism / Rhizome is an idea generated by the marketist mode of production
     Rhizome (schizoanalysis) + shovel (meta-Marxism) = this.
618. Anything which can be packaged up and sold as a self-contained product is inherently objective; something is objective because it can be sold for money to further Lived Experiences that ostensibly make a connection to it only out of Free Will and Freedom, and not because it accurately describes several biased subjects each stuck within material objects (physical human bodies, or larger groups of people in particular arrangements) without taking any of their individual perspectives specifically; something is objective when it takes all individual biased perspectives at once without criticizing any of them -> this is the fallacy which kept coming in with all early attempts to criticise Marxism, and to a lesser extent with Althusser's failed attempt at creating meta-Marxism.
     I swear this is why people think gigantic media series like Pokémon inherently serve the people that keep buying them, and why people think Liberal-republicanism is at all functional.
     on a different note, I've basically created this propositions project as the world's last-ditch effort to hijack people's bias toward self-contained products as "objective" just because they're self-contained, and turn that around into a way to steer people to appreciate the statements that actually are correct
     Anything which can be packaged up and sold as a self-contained product is inherently objective + shovel (meta-Marxism) = marketist mode of production.
618. Socialist Alternative
     Socialist Alternative + ?? (divisive issue) = Revolutionary Workers.
618. Revolutionary Workers (circa 2023)
618. Kshama Sawant [19] -> marking her orange only because she was a member of Trotskyism, can update swatch depending on actions and positions
     Kshama Sawant + ?? = Socialist Alternative. Kshama Sawant + ?? = Revolutionary Worker.
618. Bookchinism suffers from the problem that capitalists from multiple cities can team up at the state level to prevent anything passing in individual cities; each city that wants to try anything has to be prepared to act at state legislatures, and overcome state-level attempts from other parties at the same pro- city policies bill [20] -> Trotskyists demonstrated something really cool recently. this is exciting. finally I have like nothing bad to say about them, just that as small-scale as this is I'm impressed.
     I wonder if we're eventually going to get any information on orange chunks out of this. this is a lot of information already. we know in general that chunks of capitalists take over everything if they can, but other kinds of chunks can take things over under the right conditions — crimson dictatorship-of-the-proletariat, Deng Xiaoping state. orange group almost succeeded at something by stopping capitalists from pre-emptively taking up legislature at higher levels; the higher levels are really hampering the smaller levels from doing much of anything.
618. The point of winning Liberal-republican elections is to implement policies and to stop the wrong policies from getting implemented, not to put in the right party and have the wrong policies / Your job isn't to support the best you've got, but to change the circumstances so that something better is viable [21] -> a statement that's somehow obvious to everyone except the people who actually vote.
618. U.S. democracy is just a market / First World countries operate on an anti-politics that resembles a marketplace; people are programmed to wait for politicians to be spontaneously produced like commodities and then help the politician-producers push for everyone to "buy" them [22] -> couldn't agree more. good going commenter, I think this statement is violet.
618. 'Pataphysics describes creativity (arts)
618. Using 'pataphysics to describe creativity is embracing the ways of thinking that it was intending to make fun of (using for art; Materialism) / 'Pataphysics has two major interpretations, unironic-Idealist and ironic-Materialist; the former easily originates from layers of bourgeoisie realizing that embracing Idealism and abandoning the limits of physics gives them endless possibilities and freedom that understanding the material world could never provide, thus they put themselves into the shoes of the 'pataphysician characters created for parody or satire and unironically take on their perspective -> a harsh but true statement about the podcast that gave me a lot of historical context on 'pataphysics.
     there is a bright side to this, though: the chosen content and ideologies portrayed in art before editorializing are subjective. it isn't a bad thing if and when you entirely know what you're doing and are only doing it as a deliberate aesthetic or narrative choice for the setting or assumptions underlying the art rather than an out-of-universe ideological choice. Communists can write medieval fantasy or Westerns; when you know about real history and have more facts you only have more options rather than fewer. if you are responsible enough to handle endless possibility without "being so open-minded your brain falls out" then you can have it.
618. Acting like you're the true owner of a region of land and the only people ever justified to govern it, purely because you're the most moral group of people according to your own logic, is the colonizer attitude (is colonialism; is imperialist ideology; meta-Marxism onto center-Liberalism) -> this statement implies that early Trotskyists were imperialists but I don't see any problems there. it also implies that tribal populations can perpetuate imperialism if and only if they insist on forms of philosophy that are solely based on making other people accept their own Lived Experiences and internal reasoning. if they simply point out historical facts or ask for remedies on a material basis of transforming what currently is into something that's better, that doesn't fall into this particular trap, and it doesn't count. but if Israel tries to present itself as the only people justified to govern Palestine because Israelis inherently have the moral high ground and that's all you need to establish a government over any arbitrary group of people who "might commit crimes", that's a problem. Tories treat Palestinians in a way they'd never treat 1930s Trotskyites. like, if "committing crimes" or "taking someone's country" is so bad it's worth remedying with imperialism, then Stalin is justified to shoot as many Trotskyites as he wants, and for barely any reason compared with the more solid justifications he actually would have used. they really didn't think that through.
618. The justifiability of enforcing government on any particular individual or group of people depends not on whether some external party believes it's justified, but on what are the observed results of enforcing it (consequentialist ethics, existential materialism) -> this seems to be part of a lot of different ideologies, but I think historically you can most legitimately pin this one on Mao. you find versions of this in anarchism and right-Liberalism and indeed Trotskyism but none of them are very good. whereas Mao and Deng are like the only ones that have ever made letting people loose when they complain about things work out. Western-Marxists like Althusser have never both denounced Stalin and been able to prevent neoliberal policies across their entire country; Deng Xiaoping achieved far more than they ever did. he is like the only good strawberry theorist, which is part of why I put Deng Xiaoping Thought and Western-Marxism in the same swatch.
618. Marxism is a less bad basis for forming new populations than Kantianism -> I think there's a pretty good argument for this. if the United States exists because of Kantianism then people expanding over the continent and putting down an American flag wherever they like and calling it the domain of the U.S. constitution exists because of Kantianism, because this was a crucial part of the development of the United States — after all, 2/3 of the United States and all the things that go on inside the United States wouldn't exist without this potentially unnecessary process of making more and more United States. therefore if Kantianism is going to take responsibility for the United States it has to take responsibility for westward expansion. but, historically, Marxism has generally been about defending territories from empire rather than taking them. part of this difference is historical, not ideological. but either way, you can't really justify Kantianism these days, in this historical period, as a philosophy that's not morally bankrupt. while Marxism shockingly holds up a lot better.
618. Transgender issues are not "tertiary cultural issues" -> because of the contributions of "Jake" and whatseirname at Left Voice to the peripheries of Marxist theory it might be just fine to mark this part of mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism as well as violet Marxism. it's still pretty widely believed in places like China and Iraq that they are, but I think this is in error. this discrepancy in what people think is true about the whole world within different countries is part of the entire reason there's a need for violet Marxism.
618. No legitimate or useful philosophy has been attached to the term meta-Marxism before the year 2020, therefore it is acceptable to reclaim the term for violet Marxism -> I hadn't realized how many bad but thankfully obscure philosophies had tried to be "meta-Marxism" before now. there were like three or four. but they were all very bad. so bad I think most Communist theorists would flat-out want to forget them. but the bright side of that is that if nobody remembers them the term can just come to mean something much better
618. The United States is worse than the British Empire because the British Empire only expanded onto North America in order to multiply but the United States threatens to create colonies simply because it believes other countries are no longer qualified to have sovereign governments and will "commit natural crimes" if they
618. Al-Qaeda is psychoanalytically wrong, therefore violence on another country is justified -> why psychoanalysis and Kantianism are not harmless.
618. Vietnam is psychoanalytically wrong, therefore violence on another country is justified
618. The right-Liberal political compass exists because both center- and right-Liberals want to believe that there is no meaningful boundary between different ideologies and all ideologies within Liberal-republicanism are instead part of a single ideology -> the problem is that it really isn't true because charcoal anarchism and Toryism really are separate, additional ideologies.
618. The right-Liberal political compass contains critical theory and psychoanalysis -> prosaic statement about whose theories were used to create it. just so we know what identifiable things are actually represented on the chart.
618. Gender-criticals are extremists / Gender-critical "feminists" are extremists (United Nations) [23] / TERFs are extremists -> that is... a very blue analysis. to believe this you have to first believe there's a single mandatory ideology everybody in an entire country can't stray from. sounds kind of Communist out of context, until you're told it can't be against the values of Liberal-republicanism because it is Liberal-republicanism.
618. How would one know that transgender rights are not competing with women's rights? / How do you know that transgender rights are not opposed to women's rights?
618. Why do LGBT+ movements threaten civilization? / Why do LGBTQIA+ movements threaten civilization? -> if we're going to question why transphobia is bad then it goes both ways.
618. Richard Stallman -> one of the only right-Liberals that doesn't double as a Tory. Stallman, Masnick, and Paley inadvertently made me question all of capitalism and end up down the path to Communism just because they tried way too hard to present capitalism as a rational system and accidentally revealed unfixable cracks in it.
618. Larry Lessig / Lawrence Lessig
618. Nina Paley -> she gets the Tory swatch for committing to transphobia
618. Mike Masnick
618. gender-critical movement -> I'm not coding this to make it more legitimate. I'm coding this to permanently associate transphobia with the brown Tory swatch.
618. Objectivism (Ayn Rand) -> this is here to be used as an ideology code. an ideology code for neoliberal bullshit (pronounced [BS]). to be honest, I still don't understand what "objective" actually means within this word. it absolutely doesn't mean "objectivity", as much as it's easy to get fooled into thinking that from the context given by Anthem. each time it's used it sounds like it's some variation on Jungian psychoanalysis which is like, only for Tories; they've taken a diagram of society and labeled themselves The Real. is that what it means?
618. A Leninist party allows Marxism to break from ideology (Lukács) / (9k)
618. A Leninist party allows Trotskyists to break from ideology -> the best I can remember from the last Trotskyist text I saw I think they were trying their best to claim the whole thing about Marxism not being ideology also applied to them. so this can be an orange proposition.
     it's a little conceptually funny you have to give Trotskyists totally different advice about how Marxism works than you have to give other Marxisms, but when they tend to have trouble actually understanding things changing and developing, and you do have to break through their revisionism on basic concepts, it's not like it doesn't make sense. this is existential materialism at work.
618. A lot of why U.S. people become progressives is to enhance their reputation without doing any of the productive work necessary [24] -> Jordan Peterson says something backhandedly true. I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean what it weirdly sounds like he's saying, I think he's trying to push some argument that only capital owners contribute anything to society and are the real society. I see that all the time. but it's conceptually funny to imagine that what he really means is that critical-theorists don't bother to do all the work to be Leninists and he wishes people would at least have the conviction to be Communists again.
618. U.S. leftism is little more than video essays on toxic masculinity in kids' shows -> I mean, true. the interesting thing about this statement is that you could replace the observation with the category it's talking about, critical theory, and it would still be broadly true. the "U.S. Left" is mostly critical theory, a.k.a. anarchism beneath a trench coat. that's just what it is.
618. Democracy is when a society/government is beholden to the will of the people, while voting is merely the means to achieve that goal -> this is one of the only definitions of democracy I find semi-reasonable.
     it still has enough problems that I'm beginning to become convinced that the entire concept of democracy is incoherent nonsense created by anarchism, and only material models of how individuals assemble into society-objects are actually going to be able to create better socio-economic systems. like. people don't even have a will really, not individually and not collectively, because external threats can always start trying to engineer it and make you choose survival over what you really want or think.
618. Republics will work (anywhere) if the government, military, courts, and police are entirely sworn to the protection of democracy and the integrity of democracy as well as the constitution over all else [25] -> this feels terribly moot when individual wills can always be engineered through torture.
     there have been a lot of operations to just flat out destroy countries' civil society and make people move elsewhere, in theory to all be replaced exclusively with individuals who vote for capitalism or the interests of First World countries. when you change out the whole population for one with a different ideology, through coercion or neocolonialism, is there any way to protect "democracy" at that point, or to make it mean anything?
     what does "democracy" or love of democracy even mean in the context of a whole country getting stuck with terrible living conditions and being told to read a bunch of stuff and obtain materials to build education systems that surely cost something instead of supply basic needs?
     amorphous as hell. if this fails it spontaneously transforms into new systems whenever people don't get along, constitution be damned. if it succeeds, this is the ideology of a country that was fenced in by ten people who are determined to run it on a particular set of Ideals until the end of time but don't care if it has any residents other than the statesmen who own the nation and require you to believe certain things to connect to them and use their property. this is Gramscianism but on crack
618. Bolshevism is a mode of production / Bolshevism is a mode of production — it is a specific way of adding new people who recently were born or arrived to a country in a particular numerical or spatial order without immediately stirring up chunk competition / When Lenin or Stalin led people to construct the Soviet Union what they created effective at the end of the revolution was a different mode of production -> this statement follows from the way I've defined capitalism as a mode of production. I think Lenin actually did say this in the second form here, but there's an important nuance to this proposition that it's defining mode of production in terms of population growth and the threat of competition between populations, such that the concept of a mode of production either defines or lingers after class society.
618. Existentialists believe that all behaviors and mental models are metaphysical sliders because they cannot conceive of personality or behavior characteristics except in the context of one-on-one relationships and the concept that keeping those relationships is inherently always better than losing them — despite the fact they will quickly tell you that not all relationhips are worth keeping [26]
618. You can't make a bully happy without making their victim sad -> bold statement from Existentialists. probably a total deepity in practice.
618. What is the difference between Jungian solidarity and Deng-Xiaoping-state solidarity? -> meta-Marxism: where there's room for really really sophisticated questions and analyses, but because things get so detailed and precise, sometimes there are holes to go back and re-examine.
618. Trotskyists don't do anything but tail anarchists and claim it's Leninism -> I was confused why recently Trotskyists suddenly turned around and apparently changed their position on Cuba. it isn't because they're sensible, or they would have given a lot more weight to James P. Cannon before today and not said the things about Cuba they kept saying. so what changed? I had to think about it and then I realized that what probably happened was in order to gain anything resembling a mass of people they were probably hanging around anarchists, and the anarchists probably forced them to behave. really ironic when anarchists don't like Cuba either, but they are obsessed with the concept of prejudices and very annoying. for better or for worse once they get something in their heads they don't give up.
618. Socialism and War (Lenin)
618. Marxism sets out to describe transformations that can happen in any country, thus it is not a cultural value of any specific country -> this is weirdly contested even by sky-blue people, although contesting it is to everybody's detriment.
     one reason I think this happens is the insistence that philosophy is always subjective. this doesn't make sense, because if philosophy can only turn objective by becoming science, there has to be a point where it was still philosophy but turned objective enough to create science before it actually created science.
618. People will always choose the amount of freedom and human rights that is the least unaffordably expensive
618. Kantian ethics is one of the definitions of statism
618. Liberal-republicanism is just Existentialism but imperialist
618. Any micro-sized Liberal-republicanism is a form of Bookchinism / Any micro-sized Liberal-republicanism attempting to do the exact same things as the United States constitution but consisting of less than about 200,000 people is a form of Bookchinism
618. equivalent military power (meta-Marxism) -> the abstract concept of a numerical metric which determines how likely a country is to win a cold war. this concept would represent a country's overall capacity to fight off 1900s-style military invasions as seen in the early Soviet Union, Vietnam, and Korea, impending enforcers paid by a mountain of capital as in the United States, unconventional weapons such as poisoned clams, blood-exploder vaccines, attacks that take down electromagnetic networks and power grids, and powerful sovereign citizens who simply decide they are going to bend reality to make it follow them and not obey any form of regulation, as in the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy and select parts of the United States, as well as the threat of 25 external rich countries all joining together and attacking your civilization as a team.
     China would score well on this, the historical Soviet Union would score good but not the best (it was easy for other countries to engineer disasters), BlackPantherism gets a score that is a little bit nonzero, and most anarchisms would score abysmally. [MX onto DX, MX onto BP] A country's equivalent military power is what determines whether it gets to keep its internal form of social organization, not whether that civilization is effective internally or whether its Ideals are the world's most morally righteous Ideals
618. The only way to successfully vote third-party in the United States is to move to another country and align with one of that country's parties (and vote for; meta-Marxist hypothesis)
618. Hollywood ideology (Marxism) [27] -> I don't have full context on this term but it seems the idea is something like, improperly applying the concept of heroes and villains to ignore the actual material conflicts in the world and the historical reasons why they happen. colloquially calling the best or least bad outcome "heroic", ok, makes the act of Soviet ministries commissioning propaganda easier. actually treating history as operating based off Good and Evil like in the Narnia books, Hollywood ideology.
618. As long as a viable people is held in bondage by a foreign conqueror, it necessarily directs all its strength, all its efforts, all its energy against the external enemy; thus, its inner life remains paralyzed, and it remains incapable of working for social emancipation (Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels - On Poland) -> seems weirdly applicable to Deng Xiaoping states in a different way
618. The world of Naruto is very normal / The world of Naruto is very normal except for the fact "Japan" uses ninja as its military; businesses exist, and ninja are only a small part of the country, in a world of several countries (Kishimoto) -> I don't have a link to the actual interview right now because I found this in a video comment but I believe this as something a manga writer would say. they don't think too hard about the logic behind things sometimes.
618. Naruto is designed without respect to the historically-understood material development of technologies or the relationship of technologies to other technologies
     Naruto + anarchronistic technology = this.
618. What does the (not-) United States look like in Naruto? -> this of course doesn't refer to the literal United States, it refers to whatever the counterpart is, like how Pokémon introduced Unova.
618. What does (not-)China look like in Naruto? -> this is quite a legitimate question to ask because as I remember Rock Lee & Might Guy literally bring up traditional Chinese medicine and are designed like they came from another country, so China totally exists, that is not disputable. but this opens up a can of worms, because we have the statement from Kishimoto that the world of Naruto is "basically like our world". and in our world Communism existed. so, like, did Lee and Guy flee the CPC or what the hell happened in the history of these two countries
618. Does the CPC (pronounced Communist Party of China) exist in Naruto? -> this question sounds silly but is a legitimate question as far as how the series conceptualizes history.
618. Did the Soviet Union exist in Naruto? / Did the (not-) Soviet Union exist in Naruto? -> people have pegged Naruto as taking place in "the 90s" so I suppose "did" is a somewhat more appropriate word than "does". it's gotta be asked though
618. The Naruto world contains radios / The world of Naruto contains radios
618. The Naruto world contains TVS / The world of Naruto contains television sets
618. The Naruto world contains VCRs / The world of Naruto contains VCRs
618. The Naruto world contains ACs (pronounced air conditioning) / The world of Naruto contains air conditioning units
618. Sasuke is an anarchist (Naruto) / Sasuke wanted to kill the Kages and lead a mass revolt against the system -> for a long time I thought nothing could make Naruto interesting enough to me at this age to add propositions about it but this made me laugh so here we are. nobody in Naruto is going to be a Communist because there's no modern industry, there's not going to be a Marx. and if I remember anything (maybe I have this wrong?) Sasuke and Itachi hardly have any principles. right? it was like the only thing they believed in was power if I remember right. this overall sets them up to be anarchists if they are going to be anything, because to be an anarchist you only have to assemble an almost bullshit tiny list of values of just freedom and destroying what already exists. certainly the more credible anarchisms go further than that but that's all you need if you want to be an orange anarchist. an obsession with freedom and a knife. I think Sasuke might just have that.
618. What is the social significance of the term "cult behavior"? (United States)
618. What is the social significance of the term "cult behavior"? (Japan)
618. media Trotskyites -> the motif of people who believe that media series will improve specifically from a lot of criticism and negative coverage as opposed to direct attempts at competition and disconnection
618. media Existentialists -> the motif of people who believe that media series will improve specifically from fans disconnecting and refusing to engage with the new entries or connecting to entirely different series and jumping over to a different fandom to punish the first fandom
618. Avoid creating martyrs (Marxism) / Marxism must avoid creating martyrs
     Marxism must avoid creating martyrs + ?? = Don't turn religion into a martyr (Lenin)
     Marxism must avoid creating martyrs + Trotskyism is the prototypical oppressed group = Don't turn Trotskyism into a martyr (meta-Marxism)
618. Don't turn religion into a martyr (Lenin) / Marxists must propagate atheism among the masses, but not make it a legal ban, as that would turn religion into a martyr (Lenin) -> I feel like you could take this sentence and cross out "atheism" and "religion" and replace them with other things such as "anti-Trotskyism"/"Trotskyism" and it would turn into a surprisingly viable violet proposition. that's New Democracy though, that's Mao's violet proposition
618. Don't turn Trotskyism into a martyr (meta-Marxism) / Marxists must propagate anti-Trotskyism among the masses, but not ban Trotskyism legally as that would turn it into a martyr (meta-Marxism)
618. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance with its quantity and quality (Article 118)
618. Citizens of the USSR have the right to rest and leisure (Article 119)
618. Citizens of the USSR have the right to education (Article 121)
618. Women in the USSR are afforded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social, and political life (Article 122)
618. Equality of rights of citizens irrespective of nationality or race is an indefeasible law (Article 123)
618. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens (Article 124)
618. The citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech (Article 125) -> I think there's an implied "under certain conditions" in there but, wow, what's that doing in there
618. The Soviet Union failed on all its guarantees by 1960 -> the original instance of this claim didn't give a year so I'm going to take a guess on what year is most reasonable
618. Global superpowers rise and fall in a 9-stage cycle (Ray Dalio) / (rating sheet) -> one of the most darkly honest models anyone has ever had without endorsing war or genocide. not bad, really.
618. Arceism is part of blue anarchism [28]
618. Arceism is part of charcoal anarchism
618. The existence of small businesses regulates big businesses -> hasn't been true for a while. it can be that tons of independent products exist and not a single one of them will cause the bigger products to change. one of the only things that has is taking Nintendo to court for using the law in a way that shouldn't be legal — essentially accusing them of a would-be legal wrong.
     I know this is a classic part of Liberal-republicanism, but.... it's very weird when you think about it. it's asking for an unregulated process to regulate other parts of itself by running normally.
618. The economy filling up with corporations and not letting any new corporations be created is exactly like ecosystems losing diversity [29] -> no. humans literally exist inside an ecosystem. they are a single species still competing against other species; "one species monopolizing resources" happened well before a single corporation existed, much less before any of them got "entrenched" or "big". it may feel boring to point that out and crush metaphors under the brick of literalness, but ecosystems and species aren't the same thing, and it's very important to understand that to understand either of them. in ecosystems, it's normal for one species to kill individuals of another species and eat them one by one. it's normal for a fox to catch a rabbit, break its neck, and eat it. but foxes and rabbits are individual organisms, like human beings. foxes commit homicide, or in this case predation, to make sure populations don't "monopolize" an ecosystem, or perhaps more accurately that there are not so many rabbits that they are wasted because they die in some remote burrow and won't be eaten. so here's the thing. human individuals multiply at the same time corporations grow, almost but not entirely in step with them — kill some human individuals at one corporation, and you'd probably limit its growth at least a little bit. this generally isn't allowed. the next best way to limit a corporation's growth is to toss people out of employment. this, again, is almost a weapon you can use to kill people. you could forcibly take workers or subsidiaries away from one corporation and assign them to a different corporation, but there you run into the problem that the actual structure of each corporation builds up because of its use to the rest of the structure. it's a bit like tearing an arm off a body and expecting the arm to be as functional as a body, under some kind of cartoon physics where it doesn't actually die but still can't do much of anything. the real problem is the sheer process of leaving corporations alone to assemble themselves without any interaction or cooperation. it doesn't leave any way for big corporations _to_ decide they've gotten too big and shouldn't take on any more workers. just like biological evolution doesn't leave any way for species to decide they've gotten too big and shouldn't destroy the environment; the environment can't actually talk to humanity, and it can't overpower humanity after humanity has already attained the traits that make it more powerful. competition ending in a bunch of corporations that are big and stable but about equally sized is about the best outcome you could ask for. competition is competition, and competition going on for a long time doesn't make it any fairer, it only really makes it less fair. if you try to encourage any more competition at that point, you only risk getting fewer corporations that are bigger and more powerful. it's only stopping competition and recognizing that the big compartments are basically there forever barring an accident that can actually stop the individual compartments from getting fewer and bigger.
     here's the danger of believing this kind of thing. if you believe corporations shouldn't get any bigger, people will keep being born, and it's entirely possible for the country to fill up with small businesses before it runs out of people who need businesses. at that point, every time someone tries to "compete", entrenched or new, some number of people are just plain going to have to accept that they don't belong in that country and they have to go to another country and start the whole "competition" thing all over again. that's if your population _isn't_ so crazy they're turning into nazis and wanting to kill those extra people and have what's there for themselves. if your population _isn't_ crazy, the more it believes in "competition" the more it will become colonial, trying to carve bits out of other countries and try to somehow justify that it's really the one who deserves to own that country, not those nasty other-country people who were there before. Chinese people are doing civilization all wrong you see, you're not supposed to let the corporations get big, it's time to boot those nasty Orientals out and fill the area with Americans so all the businesses can be small like they're supposed to be. do you see the problem? first you have right-Liberals claiming small businesses are the gateway to freedom and it's tyrants and The Left with their Too Many Genders that believe in big businesses. the next thing to happen will be this. an attempt to fill everything up with small businesses and Arceism that absolutely doesn't work but keeps eliminating other ethnic groups in pursuit of one day suddenly discovering the key to always having small businesses. sometimes it's bad to keep believing in your dreams.
     this + ?? = Arceism
618. If one business is milking the system then, strategically undercutting its prices, another business will surely out-exist it and make it go away / (rating sheet) -> note the theme of the most powerful actor in the system crushing the others before the system can be reset or the "imbalance" "corrected".
     the pattern of Wal-Mart putting its prices way too low and driving out all the others and enjoying a monopoly is awfully, bizarrely similar in shape to the way things are "supposed" to work, if not perhaps the exact same shape.
     what if everyone was interpreting Liberal-republicanism wrong and every case of antitrust laws and supposed defeat of businesses that violate Arceism was actually just another case of a business becoming the most powerful and then using The State to eliminate the others in order to reset the system
618. I don't fall in line when the line leads to bullshit (motto spotted on news channel) [30] / (rating sheet) -> if that isn't the most Liberal-republican thing I've ever heard. conform conform conform conform conform conform you're stupid you're stupid you're stupid for saying anything I don't already believe I don't think so I don't think so I don't think so I don't think so have you really seen all of them black-and-white thinking prejudices is that really always the way it is I don't think so I don't think so I don't think s— oh god where did I end up I don't believe in That thing I am a reasonable rational person who only believes in sensible common sense things not Bad things you see so I always come to good decisions I don't think so I don't think so I don't think so extremist how could you ever think that way I don't think so I don't think so holy shit why is our president demanding to use LLMs to pilot military vehicles I didn't ask for that
     it's never the assemblages of people or the individual positions on issues that lead to Liberal-republicanism being doomed, it's... this thought process. whatever this is.
618. Dengism (pronounced Deng Xiaoping Thought) is better-molecularized than Trotskyism / Deng Xiaoping Thought is currently better molecularized than Trotskyism because it contains a description of large strawberry chunks — whole countries with central parties that as a unified object are in a somewhat campist(?) arrangement — while Trotskyism does not contain any useful definition of orange chunks of any size that would contribute to creating the level of success that Deng Xiaoping Thought has achieved -> I'm thinking about that probably brown-aligned guy who laid out a kyklos theory that focused on global superpowers. I do think he's kind of sort of right a little bit if you don't take the theory as having a partisan character toward one ideology or country. but the thing he didn't acknowledge is that if he is correct, then global Gramscianism is possible, and an era of socialism similar to or containing Deng Xiaoping Thought could just take over the global empire slot there's always been without being a traditional aggressive global empire and bring the cycle to an end by making sure all further contradictions happened inside it. global empire stops crumbling and being replaced by becoming global structure or global republic.
     this is quite boring compared to Marx, Lenin, or Trotsky's theory of world transition to an era of socialism. but it does acknowledge the fundamental realities that countries and subpopulations of workers can just be scattered or destroyed through the fact that workers are precisely the groups of people who are worse at reproducing themselves and taking over everything as fast and more vulnerable to dying. the true gap between owners and workers is the ability to chunk-compete each other off the face of the earth. so in some ways the best way to win a world that's better for workers is to make sure that blue or brown countries that are absolutely aggressive and whose large-scale behavior and expansion are too much for workers are controlled beneath the power of several very large strawberry regions of the world inside of which the workers actually can survive. is the actual first era after capitalism? not Bolshevism, but sheer defense against imperialist control and populational scattering, which is not hostile to Bolshevism.
618. Deng Xiaoping Thought is currently better molecularized than Trotskyism -> "straining when you try to separate the parts of a whole structure so the owner end you drove out to another country just goes angrily crashing back into the factory end" (MDem scrap "accountability")
618. Campism is truer than Trotskyism -> to be honest, I still don't entirely know what campism is. I'm recording this proposition so I can find out before I investigate the proposition further
     also: the Trotskyists in South Africa who attempted to stand up to external capital are at least half exempt from this accusation. rarely you find the only good form of Trotskyism.
618. Trump to city: let's build / Mamdani charms Trump with "let's build" / Trump hates affordable housing until he can take credit for it [31] -> this does not feel real, it feels like something somebody created to make fun of Trump
618. "Nadezhda" and Catholicism -> I was wondering why like two important people in the history of the Soviet Union were named Nadezhda [32] — why is everybody named Nadezhda?? — and the answer seems to be that it was associated with three saints named after "faith", "hope", and "charity". you learn something new every day.
618. The United States is taking advantage of the dollar's status as global reserve currency to print more dollars and have whatever foreign products it wants [33] -> god I love min.news, it's far from perfect in terms of framing things well, but the questionable claims coming out of it are incredibly different from US news sources.
     it's... fun. I went about 6 years where I wanted nothing to do with the entire concept of news and suddenly I actually want to read news again. I no longer believe there's any such thing as a neutral news station or that any news station delivers facts as opposed to entertainment, but now that I can start sorting them by ideology in a fine-grained way it's at least become much better entertainment
618. Only industry, food, energy, and technology are true hard currency [34] -> sounds mostly true but I doubt the last one because it's frighteningly easy to devalue just by a circle of capitalists seeing they can't make any more profit and arbitrarily deciding something is no longer trendy.
618. Capitalism is an anarchism / Capitalism ­— not Liberal-republicanism — is a blue anarchism because it is composed of molecularized socioeconomic processes which form before formal government is generated out of them; the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition is the ideology of capitalism-proper, spat out of the daily operation of the blue anarchism sitting below Liberal-republican government; this is to vaguely imply that all successful anarchisms are pseudo-MDems, thriving on molecularized physical processes but neglecting to model the physical generation of government out of a molecularized economic Base or mode of production -> this makes a lot of sense but the one question it leaves open is what the true relationship between anarchisms and anarchy is. is anarchy only the stationary combination of heterogeneous elements? are there other materially definable things that can fairly be called anarchy? where is anarchy in the pseudo MDem? what part of the pseudo MDem is anarchy? it clearly isn't the lack of a formal oppressive State. if anarchy exists inside capitalism-proper there has to be some weirdly specific thing that it actually is that many people neglect to label correctly.
     what I'm thinking right now is that maybe Arceism is the anarchy inside capitalism. you see it turn up in capitalist theory, you see it bafflingly turn up in Liberal-republicanism totally unexplained, you also see a more violent version of it used to supposedly explain international relations. personally? the violent global-scale version is the only version I believe to be materially effective. every other version is hiding something, it's too good to be true.
618. Arceism can be expressed materially as a stationary combination of heterogeneous elements -> seems true, but only in a very wonky way where Arceism is defined by believing the elements are stationary when they're not.
618. Arceist reset -> the motif of a process of many things competing radially leading to an incident of violence or devastation that knocks everyone down and supposedly punishes all the free-floating individuals for their "greed". seems to exist in both models of capitalism and models of global geopolitics
618. Mass shooters were created by the government (conspiracy theory)
618. Tories want you to vote Republican (United States) / Tories and right-Liberals are never actually going to believe that center-Liberals and Menshevik types support "Our Democracy" or "United States democracy"; they believe only the Republican party to be the actual United States
618. China can't innovate / Why can't China innovate? (rhetorical question) -> this was a particular article I saw once, so it's important to find actual articles explaining this proposition
618. Marxisms marked with the strawberry swatch are Marxisms that tend toward addressing things too slowly -> this applies in somewhat different ways to both Gramscianism if you think the United States is currently doing it, and to Deng Xiaoping Thought. Deng Xiaoping Thought is afraid to disrupt chunk competition, Gramscianism is afraid to disrupt the existing process of the United States splitting into two nationalities and is kind of just passively waiting for it to happen
618. Marxisms marked with the orange swatch are Marxisms that tend toward addressing things too quickly -> sometimes I have trouble explaining what the difference between the orange and strawberry swatches are because it was all based on these phenomenological patterns, but I think this is one of the actual material differences. the orange-swatch Marxisms go too fast, even if what they're saying may be technically correct
618. tacit knowledge -> this is one of their new favorites for justifying "decentralized decision-making" and The Free Market.
     but there's a big problem. a lot of tacit knowledge isn't knowledge; a lot of stuff people do and decide intuitively is wrong answers. so if you think decentralized loci are inherently good at deciding compared to "the government" or "the capital city" or "the ministry" then you run into the problem that decentralized loci can have their decision-making abilities corrupted just as easily. and if those screw up they're completely unaccountable for their mistakes; there's no person-constitution you can invoke on a person.
     okay, also? tacit knowledge is what tells a fund with a whole lot of money to buy up all available houses because the more money it has the better a bargain having all the houses is and the more houses it has the more money it can make. this is perfectly logical but it benefits nobody. people believe that decentralized decision-making will ultimately lead everyone to converge onto the same reasonable decisions, such as in open competition supposedly dropping prices (it doesn't, it just makes products go out of print) and in elections supposedly teaching people to converge onto better candidates (they don't, they just result in the worst candidates with the fewest policies that are the best at nothing but winning, and the more candidates are reduced to solely being about winning the more people hate each other and refuse to compromise). but every time people make decisions there are always decisions that are more "powerful" and that have the ability to destroy all other decisions whether they're good decisions or not, and those are the decisions that tend to win the entire game.* those "winning" decisions simply become so powerful that nothing that tries to regulate them and reset the system back to the beginning is necessarily going to work, and they pretty much just get to smash the system whatever you do. the only bright side to this is that sometimes Communist revolution has that status as the "powerful" decision and then you're set because at least everything from before isn't coming back.
     * wow, that game theory phrasing makes me wish there was a video game or tabletop game that had that as its premise because I swear it would be more interesting than Deltarune's premise, the craftsmanship of the rest of the game aside
618. city control of food and housing — the people who want to destroy you and own everything -> it's very interesting how Tories conceptualize this. "the people who" already implies that everybody who wants affordable housing is a separate population. "destroy you and own everything" implies that the Socialist nationality is actively chunk-competing with the Tory nationality, one of them lives and one of them dies, one of them multiplies and one of them dies. Tories don't see themselves and the Socialist subpopulation as even being a single population, nation, or "democracy" at all.
618. What is socially-necessary labor in the arts? / What is socially-necessary labor time in the arts? -> in any other industry socially-necessary labor time is partly defined by which products and corporations other people want. but there's a very entitled attitude in the arts that you should just get to make whatever you want and force people to decide between what there is. how do you apply the concept of socially-necessary labor in light of that?
618. Capitalism is the only system where wealth was not acquired by looting or force and was acquired by production (Ayn Rand) -> now that Deng Xiaoping Thought exists that isn't even true. it's also debatable whether any European country's capital "wasn't acquired by looting". in Europe, World War I happened when all the European countries tried to steal from each other at once as the easiest way to grow. in the United states the land had to be cleared of other people groups before it could be "productive". the US used force to gain better access to Vietnam and Vietnamese factories, which is its own kind of wealth. force is a vital ingredient in capitalism. the reason workers' states fall apart is they don't put much force on people to make them stay.
     Capitalism is the only system where wealth was not acquired by looting or force + primitive accumulation (early Marxism) = Capitalism is a system where wealth is first acquired by looting or force.
     Capitalism is the only system where wealth was not acquired by looting or force + Deng Xiaoping Thought is a postcolonial theory = Deng Xiaoping Thought is the only system where wealth was not acquired by looting or force and was acquired by production
     The universe revolves around you + ?? = Capitalism is the only system where wealth is acquired through production
618. Deng Xiaoping Thought is the only system where wealth was not acquired by looting or force and was acquired by production
618. North Korea is the only system where wealth was not acquired by looting or force and was acquired by production -> these propositions are hilarious because of how much more meaningful and insightful they are. on the surface, they're more true than the original. but the more you delve into them you see that weaknesses in each of them can be used to try to prove the other one. oh, no, see, China acquired wealth by force because something something Mao and landlords something something Tibet, so, you see, North Korea is better because they were only ever defending their population. but you can try to disqualify North Korea on technicalities like that it hasn't had excellent production or something. so both of them are viable candidates as "the only" good system, in exclusion to each other.
     certainly there are other workers' states and edge-case government efforts, but like, you couldn't really use South Africa for this cluster of propositions because you can argue on a technicality that wealth was "acquired by force" to distribute the land to Black South-Africans. there's not a strong argument that that's bad, but the original proposition disqualified the use of force, so, no Che Guevara forcefully fighting capitalists out of countries in these propositions.
618. To increase the availability of houses, just build more houses without disturbing capitalism -> a lot of houses have been built, but every time they get built somebody immediately buys them, knowing that houses are inherently desirable and if all the houses are owned the few parties with money that own all the houses can price them the way they want. or turn them into Airbnbs just as another way to make money.
     once there is enough wealth the whole concept of supply and demand breaks because for the parties with the most wealth the same supply looks like infinite supply and zero demand, they can buy as many things as they want and mark them up to make money all they want, but once they buy them the demand goes way up and the supply goes way down for everyone else. the only limit on price becomes how small a margin the owner is okay with making on the houses by having fewer people to sell them to.
618. Competition leads to planned obsolescence ->
     producing things always costs money, so won't there be a point where competition causes a bunch of businesses to go out of business because they're making very little money or losing money?
     I feel like this is why a lot of technologies like VCRs and DVDs and laserdiscs and movies made without CGI have gone out of use. but when competition drives prices and profits way down and forces new products to be made, eventually people end up with products they didn't want, like live service desktop applications and phones and doorbells that spy on them and generative AI. is that a good outcome of fighting Communism?
618. Nothing can be a right if it must be provided by someone else -> but literally all human rights are provided by someone else. even when the United States military is attacking a country because of human rights they're being provided by someone else.
618. enshittification (Cory Doctorow)
618. Building affordable housing is enshittification -> there are a lot of Tory propositions where I should be mad but I just start laughing because when there's actual creativity in them they're weirdly funny
     enshittification (Cory Doctorow) + affordable housing / The Projects (United States) = Building affordable housing is enshittification.
618. The problem with center-Liberalism is you eventually run out of taxes and there isn't enough money to win the rest of the non-Tory vote -> harsh but probably true.
618. Zohran Mamdani should have to live in affordable housing -> honestly? that's actually fair. the early CPSU lived in basic housing so I support that one
618. Affordable housing causes Detroit -> no.
     this is the kind of thinking that has led everyone across the United States to gut the proletariat and leave literally no proletariat. not "the labor aristocracy profiting off the Third World individually". this.
618. Housing prices came from too many regulations; this is to imply that the Massachusetts plumbing fixture roster and the lead paint inspector requirement made housing unaffordable -> god why are their arguments this bad. this argument is so bad it could be like a South Park episode or something. look I bought a new house for cheap... dude that house is chock full of lead. lead poisoning becomes butt of joke
618. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority but a republic is decentralized and doesn't do that -> then why does the United States have a president, and why are there political parties?
618. Menshevik types come from wealth and comfort, while people who created businesses are less privileged
618. People vote for the Democratic Party or Republican Party due to their membership in class subpopulations, but the Republican Party holds all the granting nodes and the Democratic Party holds all the receiving nodes (Toryism) -> there was effort put in here, but, I don't think so. this is a similar error to Trotskyism thinking the internal structure of the Soviet Union is to blame for everything they hate about Stalin instead of the interaction between First World and Third World countries. I think that by about the year 2000 or something class structures are genuinely not the reason that people sort into United States Liberal-republican political parties.
618. It's better to tax hedge funds than tax New York City -> that could actually be true. the problem is that whenever you try to do federal taxes you get wild pushback telling people to do things as locally as possible. then someone actually starts doing things locally and people lose their minds.
618. Tories believe New York is full of proletarians -> should we trust their assessment, or are they factually wrong?
618. How can I own my body if there are no property rights? -> okay. I mean, that question is stupid, but it's also legitimately thought-provoking, so sure, let's add it.
     my answer is that property in relation to land is not actually ownership but the right to drive other people away from something. so unless people are living inside your body the concept of land ownership in particular doesn't apply to it.
     whether your body is part of ordinary belongings is a more complex question. in practice, belongings are usually materially owned by houses; you don't actually have much control over your belongings if there are disputes over your housing, which can happen for a lot of ordinary everyday reasons unrelated to "crazy" mayors being elected. is your body materially owned by your house? arguably. you are safe from all of civil society in there. but your body being forced out of a house doesn't really mean somebody owns it already. it only really turns it into something of a disputed territory, where you may be fighting someone else over your body but you can only really die in that, nobody ever actually wins that.
618. Why don't Tories refer to overturning workers' states as stealing other people's money? -> if they think this way about landlords then there is no reason they shouldn't say the same thing about stealing state capitalism. whether the Bolsheviks stole anything doesn't matter when we're talking about the raw course of historical events.
618. Why don't Tories refer to overturning the Soviet Union as stealing other people's money?
618. Why don't Tories refer to overturning Chinese sovereignty as stealing other people's money?
618. Why don't Tories refer to overturning Cuban sovereignty as stealing other people's money?
618. Why don't Tories refer to overturning Chinese sovereignty as slavery?
618. Why don't Tories refer to overturning Cuban sovereignty as slavery?
618. Claiming the right to use a landlord's territory is slavery -> the more I fail to block every single fucking (pronounced redacted) news article ever written and let a single sentence by a right-winger slip into my feed the more I question whether human rights were a fucking (pronounced redacted) mistake and some people just shouldn't get an equal right to exist in the first place. this is why you can't tell somebody like me to use prescriptive "I believe that everybody should" ethics rather than descriptive historical theories of meta-ethics — there are going to be some very nasty "I believe that everybody" statements relating to landlords and specifically the ones who say this
618. Territory is the only thing that can make people free
     People use property to gain freedom + ?? = Territory is the only thing that can make people free.
618. Lowering the value of people's houses is the same as seizing physical objects -> this can't actually be true.
618. Lowering the value of people's houses is not taking physical objects because case law, and because Agins v. Tiburon -> oh boy. on one hand they're thinking. on another hand. court cases don't mean much. they get overruled by other court cases and the other branches of government a lot. I feel by now like a large portion of US voters don't think they're legitimate at all. you see disproportionate weight put on state legislatures, when they're just as unstable. maybe horizontal checks and balances were a stupid idea and we actually should have had 100 constitutional amendments with a bunch of back and forth for a bit and then permanence
618. Agins v. Tiburon
618. Lingle v. Chevron -> ruled that regulating rent is taking property, overruling Agins
618. Communists only blame the wrong people for problems, and that's why they turn around and harm their own allies -> this is true for like, five people in all of history. you can single out Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Bukharin as maybe being real cases but yeah otherwise this is nonsense
618. assuming that Mao's concepts of contradictions, knowledge, and practice apply to "life" in the sense of an isolated individual and the contradiction between murky, abstract Ideals [35] -> it's so abundantly obvious when you read Mao texts that he's talking about multiple material objects operating together and how to understand your place within a larger object. but when you search and find pages about "Mao's philosophy" you rather quickly get hit in the face with Existentialism
     looking at this site... the perspectives on China are pretty good but everything that isn't a personal experience is just Existentialism. very blue site. the article that compared the stock market to Buddhism (?) was both maddening and funny
618. It's not time to implement democratic reforms in Tibet (1955) / In 1955, it was not time for the Communist Party of China to pursue democratic reforms in Tibet [36] -> I need to know what exactly democratic reforms means here. are they talking about, like, taking a relatively medieval structure and trying to republicanize it, but the Tibetans might be upset about implementing democracy from the outside in at that time? I don't even know. but this is one of the first believable statements I've ever found about Tibet that I know isn't a lie.
618. The CPC (pronounced Communist Party of China) has no reason to reject other parties if they are actually willing to serve the people and show up in difficult times without stopping halfway (1955) [37] -> Mao's justification for allowing the eight comically similar Liberal parties. a basically violet statement from Mao. New Democracy was one of the major influences for meta-Marxism so any number of propositions related to it can be marked violet as long as they don't contradict some of the most important meta-Marxist methods such as exmat
618. correct ideas pampered in hothouses / correct ideas pampered in hothouses and never exposed to the elements [38] -> what a phrase. funny enough that I'll admit I'm guilty of it, it's not insulting to put the violet swatch on this, it's just true
     gosh you could use this as a proposition truth value. imagine that
618. hypercorrecting "non-revisionist" to "dogmatic" [39]
618. For Communists Han chauvinism is intolerable (1953) [40]
618. Where Mao Went Wrong: Epistemology and Ideology in Mao's Leftist Politics (Womack 1986)
618. the good Mao and the bad Mao [41] -> I just can't get over some of the things bourgeois writers say. some of them are maddening, some of them are just plain hilarious like this one. it sounds like he has two little sprites on his shoulders telling him about Liberal-republicanism versus Bolshevism or something
     edit: what's actually going on is the article identifying Mao departing from Maoism, but it appears to be implying that wanting Mao to go back to early Maoism is wrong, so there is an idea of good Mao and bad Mao in there as much as the article is attempting to say it ironically
618. In the United States, the accepted way to oust ruling classes is to spend another whole population's money on an army and violently beat them up -> this is the great irony in everyone acting like United States Liberal-republicanism is "nonviolent" and "more civilized than a revolution". at best, the United States existing is a violent revolution, against the leadership of every single other country than itself.
618. It's bad to be a traitor to your country / It's always bad to be a traitor to your country / It's usually bad to be a traitor to your country (generally bad; Toryism, monarchism) -> appears in: Space Battle Lunchtime, The Divine Comedy (? this is from memory), Valle Verde
     one of the easiest ways to deliberately create a stupid argument in irony is to create a statement containing "always" or "never" and then delete the outward manifestation of those words while silently keeping them in there. you see many people half understand this when they pick up the concept of "logical fallacies" or "cognitive biases". and then you see the same people still creating their own "hidden always" statements over and over such as "democracy is good", or further abbreviating that widely generalizing value statement to the single word "democracy"
618. If you consider Al-Qaeda your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country
618. If you consider the Trotskyite conspiracy your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country
618. If you consider the Nazi party your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country
618. If you consider the Republican party your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country (United States)
618. If you consider West Germany your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country
618. If you consider East Germany your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country
618. If Goku considers earth his country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country (Dragon Ball)
618. If you consider the Saiyan empire your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country (Dragon Ball)
618. If you consider the Soviet Union your country, it's bad to be a traitor to your country
618. 618Manifesto of the International Communist Current (1975) [42]
618. 618Manifesto of the International Communist Current (1991) [43]
618. 618It is more feasible for a revolution to happen on the basis of joining only one First World country to many exploited countries than on the basis of joining the workers of several First World countries together / more feasible to join one First World country to many exploited countries than to join several First World countries together (abbreviated) -> Sometimes I bite off a gigantic proposition I'll never be able to falsify. but I just have to do it because it's important to discuss all the possibilities versus each other.
618. 618The way to reject culturally fabricated narratives is to move to another city and get a different job or business / "More and more people are reflecting on what they want out of life, they're quitting their job, they're moving cities ... Once you wake up and feel that lie you've been fed and see it for what it is ... you stop optimizing your time and you start owning some of it ... What's authentic to you?" -> the most honest and blatant statement I've seen of this pattern, yet everything I've been underlining in other things ironically because it was questionable was put together and said perfectly unironically.
618. 618Economics isn't conformity vs (pronounced versus) individuality / The category of economics doesn't contain conformity versus individuality / "When I first wrote this video I thought it would be about economics, but it was really about the entire structure of life" -> this is like Mike Masnick claiming economics is "not a moral issue". would you say either of those things in the historical Soviet Union? most people wouldn't. they'd immediately start claiming both that economics is a moral issue and economics favors individuality just so they can shatter the Communist mono-structure that was very much part of economics in that period. you can't just say that's not economics without denying the physical existence of millions of people who are okay with the concept that it is.
618. 618In life there are no answers -> this is just bogus because while no, there usually aren't going to be any big ones, there are always a lot of small ones. most people who become researchers at universities go there to slowly answer things there previously weren't answers to. what is the use of educating everyone if it doesn't leave them with more answers to how to live their lives than if they weren't educated? teaching people that vaccines are safe and lead to a better life is giving them answers on how to life their life. it may sound like I'm taking this hyper-literally, and I am, but I feel like it's necessary because if anyone truly believed there weren't any answers to life they'd definitely overlook areas where there were answers and make bad decisions either factually or morally.
618. 618If there are no answers in life, then why are there therapists? -> think hard about this. there would be no psychotherapists if there weren't at least sometimes correct answers to how to live life.
618. 618If there are no answers in life, then why is there Christianity? -> it doesn't make logical sense to both believe there are no answers in life and believe that God can identify anything as being a more correct answer morally or otherwise. one of those has to go.
618. 618If there are no answers in life, then why are there elections? -> if there are truly no answers in life then you would be equally happy or equally miserable with anyone who got elected and you wouldn't need democracy. so why don't you go around telling everybody democracy is unnecessary? you probably believe there are at least some correct answers in life.
618. 618Therapists exist / In the United States and Europe, from approximately to 2020, therapists have existed -> this could be useful for any number of chains of reasoning, actually.
618. 618The United States constitution can be amended / In the United States, there are constitutional amendments (statement about possibility)
618. 618Because the greed of class society has slowly destroyed the bulk of First World populations to leave only the upper classes, and thereby begun to balance out the comparative numbers of populations across the overall world, Arceism is technically true
618. The world is a single civilization (BlackPantherism) / The world is already a single civilization / reactionary intercommunalism proposition (BlackPantherism) [44]
618. Money was made off of the strife of others, which, simply put, is wrong [45] -> I clicked onto this article looking for something else, but this is an unexpectedly powerful quote
618. Gay characters in movies are Evil because antinormative queer theorists give themselves the same definition as Evil
618. stay together like a pomegranate -> I was looking for physical objects that could be used as crayola-style names for the swatches, and one thing that occurred to me was "pomegranate". I looked at it and was like, huh, when you think about it, it keeps things connected together like a central party. and then I saw on Wikipedia that (it claimed) the CPC had also said that. and I was like, wow. so that's just obvious, huh?
618. There have been two major types of ideologies that have existed both before and during the time of republics: ideologies which physically act through the state, and ideologies which physically act through individuals or small localized formations inside civil society; it is possible but not necessary that the first category are called statisms and the second category are called anarchisms -> this statement is subtle, but very important, because it's setting up the idea that creating republics doesn't stop people from totally forgetting they're in a republic and generating localized ideologies that are specifically the shovel dreams generated by civil society itself as a material object while government itself generates different ideologies. this is one possible "origin story" of how Liberal-republicanism became weirdly molecularized and birthed Existentialism, as well as how Toryism turned totally secessionist as it became uninterested in compromising with center-Liberalism and allowing democracy to meaningfully exist
618. Che Guevara has been coopted by postcolonial theories -> how is it that everybody hates Marxism and yet you see him brought up anyway as if he wasn't a Marxist. something is off here. it also confuses me why people bring up the Black Panthers and hate Marxism; Malcom X was very much like Stalin, he was basically an unlikeable bigot by modern people's standards (anarchist standards) except for the mitigating force that he was a Marxist and it made him open up to criticism
618. blue multipolarity / Arceism (violent international version where everybody in a sea of blue chunks is supposed to respect each other As Equals but ultimately the process of blue chunks destroying a blue chunk that got too powerful can only be achieved by one or more blue chunks also becoming Too Powerful temporarily or permanently in order to take them down) -> the motif that multipolarity of blue chunks where all the blue chunks fight each other the moment they think one of them is too big or too powerful or "doing something unfair" is enough to ensure that a free-floating sea of blue chunks is actually regulated.
     I feel like a lot of fantasy stories run on this. the assertion that destroying something useful for evil is trivial and easy but where in practice somebody has to become terrifyingly powerful themself to actually destroy the terrifying power used for evil, with no actual need to justify that they're good people or that it's okay for them to use their power literally however they want to even if they do something bad because in the end there's no actual abolishing power and no actual regulating what the person or group powerful enough to destroy power does.
618. By Liberal-republicans' own logic, global capitalism should be broken up into many plural capitalisms fully caged inside self-contained workers' states in order to uphold the Liberal-republican value of blue multipolarity where no one party can chain everyone into the same universal structure they control — a problem which has happened with axes of First-World countries or global mountains of capital many times over -> they love it when you break up populations and give pieces of them the ability to stubbornly object, but for some reason they never apply this to the problem of having material objects that stretch around the earth that can actually hurt people.
618. Despair is a form of capitalist ideology -> heard this one many times before. this is one of the only things that kept me going when I was locked-in working on the book, that the first sliver of Molecular Marxism was always creating hypotheses with meta-Marxism, charting out the Lattice model, and not giving up.
618. Analyzing the economic structure of the US is a good way to see where the world is heading -> I really doubt _that's_ true. feels like it ignores the concept of country characteristics. there are at least two kinds of countries, the countries full of retail stores and the countries full of factories.
618. using Humpty Dumpty to change the constitution -> ok, the people who write these things are clearly Tories but this one got a laugh out of me.
     I'll let them point it out only because a lot of center-Liberal arguments today just don't logically cohere together regardless of whether the end goal is good. center-Liberalism is eating itself to everybody's detriment. don't try to "Vaush" this. it's really actually so ineffective that believing in it and wasting time on it is causing harm and killing people. nobody needs it. there are rare seconds of the day when I'll decide that center-Liberalism is so terrible I _hate anarchism less_ than it, although I don't really _like anarchism more_.
618. The Holy Roman Empire was a series of self-contained Social-Philosophical Systems in the form of principalities with a specific religion as their Philosophical System
618. Iraqis have been committing imperialism against Kurds [46] -> this is what it sounds like when you take religion out of it.
     is the problem with Iraq and the concept that Marxism supposedly needs Islam that people in Iraq are as stuck in the middle of imperialism as the United States and can't see it?
618. Kurdistan Workers' Party -> defeated.
618. Democratic Union Party [47] -> these parties have temporarily been given the strawberry swatch due to containing both at least crude Marxist principles and things that stand out as charcoal anarchism. it isn't common to see strawberry and charcoal together, it's more common to see strawberry and blue, but either of them counts as strawberry.
618. Rojava will end war in the region on the basis of Democracy -> seems doubtful.
618. Rojava is evidence that revolutions are more likely to occur on the basis of nationality or demographic identities than on the basis of simply not believing in the things that currently exist -> anarchists will keep denying the idea they believe in nothing but whenever you talk to them they're like, protests bring people together, revolutions bring people together, it's best not to believe in anything at all until the people united by resisting shit win
618. black-ball white-ball demonstration -> it won't work on anyone now it's documented but oh well
618. A meta-Marxist wouldn't be fooled by the black ball, white ball demonstration -> if you have the ability to model different sets of material conditions side by side, you'll understand that it's possible for locality to produce different results that don't come from "perspective".
618. Because anarchists' outward behavior is not predictable from any material model of reality, every value anarchists try to have is in effect an arbitrary narrative -> this is important to point out when it's become so common for blue anarchists to focus on "narratives". to actually get away from arbitrary narratives you'd have to throw away Idealism and make a physically, materially correct model that predicts the real world. at least on the level of how quantum mechanics does it with a bunch of fuzziness. physics which is finally aware of retermination is the only thing that can actually be nonpartisan and not impose potentially harmful or limiting narratives. even things like nebulous squishy definitions of gender that claim not to squash The Subject impose narratives inasmuch as they fail to be predictive. what is objective is what can be physically known. probabilistic wavefunction or otherwise. what is objective contains no debatable or partisan narratives in and of itself.
618. Russia is the country equivalent of a college dropout -> in this metaphor, the Soviet Union is college, and China and Cuba stayed in college.
618. How can anarchists have free time if combating prejudices is a full-time job? / If anarchists want a world with time open for mostly leisure, and they want it as fast as possible, but writing good philosophy about gender identity and anti-racism and other prejudices or forms of "domination" takes a lot of hard work, and yet it's necessary to ever achieve a functional anarchism where people aren't bigots, how will anarchists have time for leisure instead of getting stuck with effectively a day job of working on getting people to stop being bigots for 40+ hours a week with no way to negotiate fewer hours or time off? -> the whole idea of being able to collectively bargain on labor and have any say about the specific conditions of it is a very modern thing that emerged with capitalism and large businesses. abolish capitalism and you're left with a whole lot of tasks of building a country all over again from the beginning that are back-breaking in their amount but non-negotiable. I would know this, as much as these are smaller things than a whole country, from having to build large parts of a giant database plus visual theme and large parts of a linux distro from nothing just to get an experience that contained no disappointment. the sheer state of something not existing yet can be tyrannical because nobody is going to give you a day off until you get a lot of people to see how good it is and put in gigantic amounts of work before you get people to actually use it and maybe finally care about you. it's possible to be exploited more than a worker in terms of the crude numerical ratio of how much you work versus how much you're paid or rewarded. try "you don't have a single damn thing you can be paid for and are constantly trying all day to construct the equivalent of a business to work at or public facility that serves people and always failing".
618. Would it be more just to forcibly break Russia up into multiple nation-states? -> it sounds like the way things are, the governments of Russia don't care about the people and the people don't care about the government. for previous historical periods, people complain that the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union was too big and bloated. but really, Russia is still about that geographically big and as much of a logistical nightmare. the only factor left an Existentialist can "fix" to try to break up Generalized Authoritarianism and take power away is to forcibly chop up the country so the sheer number of connected people isn't able to produce as powerful a government. from here, the claim would be that because Russia had a hard time getting through Bolshevism and everybody only really understands the notion of quietly subverting rules and not playing along, the only way to save Russia is to get rid of overarching authority itself, but because nobody really has the strength to do that right now and some people don't want to, somebody has to break up the country by force. this is the reason I really don't like rhetoric usually in the context of fiction that if there is a locus of power that can hurt people it's easy to solve the problem by destroying it. like, holy cow, that's like saying that because Liberal democracy can be used to legislate against trans people and Mexicans it's necessarily to abolish Liberal democracy and make sure there will never be a Congress with power over the whole United States region as opposed to a tiny part of it. in the real world you pretty much need more power to be able to destroy power, and then when you destroy power you've just given someone more power.
618. How do you know what a Digimon will turn into? / Given a particular Digimon, and a stage which for some reason you know has characteristics of the base form, how do you know what other characteristics are going to be part of the design of that stage, and predict an Ultimate stage with Piyomon characteristics? / Given a particular Digimon, how do you know what seemingly unrelated Digimon will be chosen as its evolution instead of another? -> silly question to make you think about the concept of things transforming into other things while retaining what they already were. it helps that it applies to beings that are essentially civilized or artificial and not to natural ecosystems. it's like asking a question about a country transforming, only fractalized down to the individual. normally I would say that's an improper form of analysis but the shows don't actually define real consequences for only one Digimon reaching the next stage versus a lot of them, so like, it's within canon as written, if not within what's generally a good form of analysis for the real world
618. How do you know what a Pokémon will turn into?
618. the other side of Bolshevism / post-Bolshevism (historical period which succeeds and further develops Bolshevism) / era of communism (generic) / upper-phase communism (generic) / crimson anarchism (generic) -> the motif of a general category of things that happens once Stalin's Marxism is "complete" but isn't any of the things from before that stage including capitalism. it's clear from history that 1920s predictions about what might happen here weren't necessarily correct. but also, it only seems more likely with time that it was possible for Bolshevism to actually transform into something, and for even Deng Xiaoping states to transform into something. what's unclear is what either of them turns into. it's like trying to peek past an event horizon, or see into a wave function; you have no idea what's on the other side of there unless you were somehow able to mathematically start out inside there instead of enter from the outside.
618. Russia was never going to get all the way through Bolshevism to the other side -> there are a lot of historical facts to go over here. I'm not sure what the most appropriate conclusion is. I know it's popular to try to claim the few people qualified to administer the Soviet government were too powerful and did nothing to change the power dynamic that had existed before. I know from another, more reasonable angle you can say that the country was under too much strain to hold together without coercion. but what's the actual answer to how people should have descriptively predicted the history of Russia going in 1920? starting in 1920, what's the actual best outcome that could have happened, not synonymous with "the outcomes Lenin wants to happen"? is it Russia becoming a Deng Xiaoping state and all the border states flying off it and possibly forming separate associations? what is it?
     I obsess about the trajectory of the Soviet Union because I don't want to hate Russians. it's so easy to if you assume that everyone in Russia simultaneously chose the way it generally is today, like what kind of fucking asshole would choose that. it's convenient for everyone that that is literally not what culture is or how it functions and in fact all things referred to as national culture are produced through a heterogeneous soup of processes and strata. but yeah these are the stakes of not materially succeeding at anarchism, everyone hates your entire nationality and thinks it's going to kill them so you had better fucking get it right if you don't want millions of people to be perceived that way effective the day you get it wrong
618. If you can't promise someone that all Australians are nice people who want to follow a particular ethical principle, how can you know that all human beings in existence want to follow that ethical principle? / If you can't promise someone that all Russians want to follow a particular ethical principle, how can you know that all human beings in existence want to follow it? / Australia rule (ethical proposition) -> this is based on a conversation with User:Vidak from I think over a year ago where he determined that there were too many bad Australians to build a workers' state. which is a funny thing to say out loud especially out of context, but I'm only exaggerating or skewing what was said a tiny bit.
618. Communism as ignoring reality / if the Party says that it is not four but five — then how many? (1984) [48] -> it's very common to act like workers' states ignore material conditions and _if they could only see the reality_... no Communism? it's often unclear what exactly people think the reality _is_ and what kind of whole-country system they would realize instead. (Arceism?) "democracy" doesn't explain anything, because the ultimate point of democracy is to select actual policies, so there has to be some material outcome you actually want to vote for over something else - if all policies were qualitatively the same you would be equally as happy if there was no democracy at all.
618. Trans suicide is basically BPD / A transgender person verging on suicide is basically the same as someone threatening suicide to try to take active control of the fear of abandonment [49] -> well. this one's at least creative. you usually hear gender identity compared to wanting to cut off limbs. to come up with an assertion that sounds accurate to a DSM entry is at least more interesting
618. What you defend against you make real [50] [51] -> so it seems this page was trying really hard to teach people not to be bigots without saying anything specific that might upset them. but... I don't think it succeeded. this is a bunch of nonsense that doesn't really make any sense in a physical world. it assumes that there is no such thing as relationships or people that aren't in relationships and that everyone has literally a million friends. that's simply not true.
618. A world full of newly-created anarchisms would be a horrific world filled with war -> the first thing to remember about anarchism is that what anarchisms say is their ultimate goal is different from what their material process of anarchist transition from a fledgling anarchism to a completed anarchism will be. and personally.... what it seems to me is that anarchism wishes for total sovereignty of countable cultures unfettered by Liberal-republicanism or Bolshevism, such that the world would be a patchwork of separate countable cultures neatly separated at the borders of arbitrary socially-linked graphs (Social-Graph Systems). the problem with that is that if any SGS did anything bad according to any other SGS, this would effectively open countable cultures to Darwinian selection where some of them would obliterate each other through bigoted military invasions, sanctions, or other means, and only some of them would survive. one strong pattern throughout history so far is that when you get rid of spatial hierarchies instead of transforming them, or no joined structure forms, they're often replaced by groups of people existing in mutual exclusion and trying to totally eliminate each other. I feel like suddenly turning the whole world into anarchisms would lead to a lot of that. the individual anarchisms would be lawful inside themselves, they'd create internal peace like any society, but they'd have basically zero respect for any other anarchisms outside them because every anarchism simultaneously believes in forming a tiny local Community that transitions to serve itself and has a rather dogmatic list of demands for every other place on earth.
618. People prefer unaccountable systems (anarchism) / People prefer systems that are fully unaccountable to them to ones that are accountable, because seeing a human in a position of power with the theoretical ability to reason and empathize approve bad things even once is especially insulting, while when you see an inanimate object perpetuate bad things it is impossible to connect it back to any concept of morality or ethics and therefore people are forced to just stop shouting at an inanimate brick and let it go -> I think this is the true reason people prefer Liberal capitalism to Bolshevism. the concept of having humans in charge of your country that can be removed with a little effort instead of unstoppable inanimate objects is inherently terrifying, and people are predisposed to only be able to conceptualize crushing and exploding systems out of fear to save themselves before they ever think of new ones to build to prevent the old one from coming back and occupying the same space.
618. The Democratic Party is Communism lite [52] -> the Democratic party isn't even Gramsci or Malcom X or Picasso. at "worst" it's Marcuse, who qualitatively is an anarchist.
618. The CPC controls China but isn't the real China [53] -> how do you even determine what the real China is? really think about that. back in the time China had emperors some people probably thought the emperors could be the real China. so why is it that now in the age of republics people are so obsessed with with finding the real United States or the real China like that actually means anything? it's one thing to try to construct the concept of a generalized dictator and try to get rid of that, but I feel like people who outright say "not the real China" at least partly mean exactly what they say.
618. BRICS is one big conspiracy by an alliance of Generalized Dictators -> by this point, people who argue against China are so fucking unconvincing at putting together a coherent point that makes any sense that if China actually was oppressive I still wouldn't believe them
618. Gender identity should be like freedom of religion [54] -> this is why freedom of religion is a traumatic concept for me and I don't like it when blue anarchists try to inject it down to the Spanishness Office layer as a part of the bill of constitutional amendments all humans are bound to follow when they're born. normal people really have no barrier between political beliefs, religion, and ethnic traditions. tell them to respect gender identity and they'll get offended you didn't accommodate all Cultures and nearly call you racist.
618. Mimi and Eunice [55] -> there are a lot more TERF comics on here than I remember. oh well, they do get a lot better when you swap out the third panel for one of the other comics
618. If speech isn't offensive, you can never prove it deserves free speech protections -> it's weird how most of the time free speech discussions revolve around speech that outright offends somebody, and how when something is offensive it always seems to have a slam dunk case to prove it's okay. people who don't really like South Park suddenly got behind it when it was slamming Trump. Drawn Together got to air basically because it was offensive, while many other things that are similar to other things get hit with lawsuits, and few of them ever get an adequate defense.
618. TV channels with total free speech are generally safer than social platforms with total free speech -> I think this is true, at least mostly, but it's worth asking why. I feel like to some extent something that's an entire business like an animation studio or a room of TV executives has an incentive to think about what is worth creating — what actually has a point to keep putting out week after week, and what betrays the overall goal of the organization. the same isn't really true for arbitrary individual human beings, who will never have a Spanishness Office inside them that's inherently accountable to outside forces.
618. If the earth was populated by immortals, capitalism would be okay -> this is a weird consequence of the way I argue about chunk competition. I've created a scenario where in conditions not very similar to reality my arguments might not hold up any more, and you could only really get through it with anarchist arguments that Domination is bad because it just is dammit (pronounced redacted).
618. It's impossible for anarchists to have charcoal allies who are not part of the core demographic of anarchists -> if true, this is a double-edged sword. from the anarchist point of view everybody who is an anarchist is equally an anarchist. but in practice, it means that if there is any segment of the population that is not suited to be anarchists and has a hard time with the task, that segment of the population will just be permanent enemies of anarchists that are never treated as first-class citizens or perhaps citizens at all. the exact implications of what will happen to these people are not clear, given that anarchism so often rejects any way of dividing individuals into groups other than whether they are anarchists or not. one possible outcome is Zinovievization I guess, where every single structural element of these people's society and structuring element of culture binding them together is torn apart and they are left like that without anything and forced to either build anarchism or migrate to another continent or kill each other over the last scrap of food, as in the early days of Soviet dissolution. I just watched Drawn Together and they had this nightmare challenge where the half of contestants that won the competition got all the food from both halves. that's kind of exactly what happens to Third World countries that get Zinovievized.
618. indie culture [56] -> what the hell does this mean. people intuitively think it's better but I can't promote it if I don't even know what it practically is
618. The big franchises you love were once small companies [57] -> generally true. also generally spun into totally the wrong significance.
618. Tencent puts money into a bunch of business, some of them succeed, some of them fail [58] -> okay, but that's just how all capitalism works. the core process that makes capitalism capitalism is that different businesses go out and make a product although it's impossible to know if they'll succeed or lose all their money, and the only real way to mediate that is for businesses to buy each other or hand each other money. that's one definition of the entire system of capitalism: the point of capitalism is to waste huge piles of individuals and small teams finding the only ones that are especially popular and productive and then letting those go on to be the businesses that compose society. so... China has taken capitalism and distilled it down to its most basic patterns
618. The parasite fears the visionary / Lacking its own ingenuity, the parasite fears the visionary. What it cannot plagiarize, it seeks to censor. What it cannot regulate, it seeks to ban (Andrew Ryan) -> brought up in the context of small businesses supposedly "regulating" big businesses
618. All philosophy is subjective / Because every philosophical text is an opinion piece, no philosophy is actually objective and all philosophy is subjective until it eventually turns into scientific models and applied science -> I don't think this is very controversial. there are ways to spin this that absolutely twist me in knots (please throw all post-structuralism in the trash) and there are also ways to play it that are more reasonable.
618. What exactly are socially reactionary capitalists in reaction against? / If reactionary right-Liberals seek to dismantle Menshevism (in their own country) and Bolshevism (in other countries) because they are in reaction against various countries' capable proletarian subpopulations, then what exactly are people who are socially conservative or reactionary in reaction against? -> it's super easy to disprove right-Liberalism and argue for Communism on the basis of objective observation and Materialist philosophy, but it's never easy to actually face the kinds of reactionaries the United States is full of because they always start arguing about stuff where the actual "correct" literature is absolutely nebulous and squishy and it's unclear what anybody is truly arguing about.
618. People pushing to get reactionary capitalists out of the corporate social platforms they use is Gramscian Marxism; they said so themselves -> when I first started all this around 2021 and had no idea what was going on on the inside of a lot of United States movements due to how exclusive and secretive and supposedly-not-a-movement-centered-in-a-consistent-organization they can be, I started out just listing out the outward characteristics and processes that were going on, and then just a little later, I matched that up with the description of Gramscianism because materially they really looked like they matched. only in 2025 was I stunned to realize that ordinary people probably don't consider these movements or ideologies at all, not even subconsciously, not even within the framework of Liberal-republicanism.
     to ordinary people even Liberal-republican political parties are not distinct ideologies but just something which is emergent — you wouldn't think this is true from how much people slam "Republicans" (or "Democrats") and the specific things they believe that "nobody" "should" vote for, but what I really think is true now from all my observations is that ordinary people believe the United States primarily runs on morality, the thing that is universally moral to all human beings is supposed to win, and people form into Liberal-republican political parties only as a matter of separating one position on an issue from another, in order to figure out which one is Good and which one is Evil, after which everyone is supposed to vote for the Good one and discard the Evil one. you may think the terms Good and Evil are hyperbolic to use there, but what else are phrases like "right side of history" and "basic human decency" supposed to mean? a great many people don't believe in objectivity, and consequently can't believe in objective morality or ethics, so that's just another way of saying "the nationally-universal cosmically-true Platonic ideal of Good".
     (mentioned in MDem v3: 3-101a_INTRO.txt, 3-101r02_elon.txt)
618. People pushing to get reactionary capitalists out of the corporate social platforms they use can only be labeled direct action; it is charcoal, blue, strawberry, orange, or totally colorless, but specifically building itself into a Gramscian Marxism is not the only possible outcome of it, and not even necessarily the most likely outcome
618. the price society forks over for false emotional reassurance (MDem v3) -> one of the few places where I totally hit the mark in MDem v3 and it carried over into MDem v4 and MDem v5 instead of being nonsense. (v3/ 2-32 "classes")
618. The government is against local farmers -> false on a technicality. large farms are against local farmers, and government only emerges out of the substrate of those large corporations. whether you consider large farms the same thing as government depends on whether your political-economic analysis is using orange Marxism or violet Marxism. but it's violet meta- versions of every Marxism here.
618. Existentialism leads to nazism / Existentialism leads to fascism
618. Having everybody equal in the United States means an inferior position for entire populations of people in other countries; the act of making every individual equal to other individuals on paper through philosophy, constitutions, and human rights is illusory because it always takes something away from other individuals out of sight -> this is less in reference to situations like White people vs Black people or gay people vs straight people or neurotypical people vs autistic people than it is in reference to situations like Oklahomans vs Californians or philosophy majors vs or Twitter artists vs Elon Musk. it's about the notion that Existentialist totally flatten class territories and class territory mono-structures in favor of claiming everything is about a cloud of disconnected individuals with no structure and how classes supposedly only exist at all because billionaires are "greedy".
618. The existence of greed is a superstition / greed as superstition (motif) / the greed delusion (motif)
618. The Case Against Education -> tradition unknown. investigate later
618. greedy billionaires colonizing mars / why don't billionaires solve our problems on earth -> I am so fucking sick of this talking point because it achieves absolutely nothing toward stopping billionaires and even leads people in the wrong direction away from stopping them. it's the stupidest fucking thing you can say to say "our problems on earth,,," because guess what, billionaires on mars is a problem on earth. it's the same fucking problem going on on earth that you can never solve because you refuse to understand Materialism. so put your money where your fucking mouth is and tell me what produces billionaires and how you would interrupt the actual creation of billionaires. I bet Existentialists can't do it. I bet they can't stop checking out and focusing their energy on the final results of destructive processes or the metaphysical Ideals that supposedly but not actually start them.
     you know I'm really mad about something when I start talking like Hazbin Hotel. I don't usually do that.
618. Autistic men are a different demographic identity from neurotypical men / I never thought I was actually a man until I understood after reading a whole lot of books that I was an autistic man and autistic men can't be identified by the criteria of a group of neurotypical men -> this is... a lot to unpack. if you take the working hypothesis that gender is a countable culture baked into the brain, then this statement would come across as nonsense on several levels. what's the point of specifically identifying yourself as a man if the more important thing is that you're autistic? how do you know that analyzing gender through animal data is useful if you're still going to analyze everything as personal identities and individual Lived Experiences? isn't there a mild paradox here? the speaker was initially confused about gender due to being too deeply absorbed in his own individual thoughts, but he's solving it with a bunch of personal individual identity talk which is effectively just more of the same thing, so what actually made the difference between the two?
     it's one of the great ironies that like, Existentialists don't want you analyzing identities with science but then the way Existentialism operates through individual actions, it's impossible for Community to actually accommodate all identities, and in order to every be able to leave their house and function in a way that pleases Community people are still stuck analyzing and dissecting the hell out of exactly what they individually are exactly as if it had to be done by science and perhaps more invasively because it doesn't stop at a single journal article about all autistic people, every autistic person has to dissect and probe their own psychology until they know exactly.
618. Does your Black friend have Black friends? / Is the person pointed out as evidence against racism actually interchangeable for the people who would hypothetically be affected by racism? -> many people don't properly explain what the problem with the "Black friends" excuse is. the real problem is that any particular "Black friend" can be a terrible example of the person things are actually supposed to be tested against, or simply not know what other people want. one person simply isn't other people, in general.
618. Kanye West with Black friends / Kanye West saying "I have Black friends", to the disgust of other Black people
618. horizontal balancing (meta-Liberalism) / checks and balances (Liberal-republicanism) -> Liberal-republicans like to do this supremely annoying thing of claiming that horizontal competition across the area of a country is the one and only way that anything can be regulated or held in check. this is not only untrue but dangerously false, because in real life the things that most want to stop the advance of another thing are the things that most want to eliminate that thing and take over anyway. competition in and of itself is wholly incapable of balancing things, because it asks the precise things that destroy balance to create balance. ask anybody who plays fighting games — you can program characters to be essentially equal despite having different abilities or styles, and you'll see one group of players who plays a particular character manage to find ways to exploit the mechanics to make their character overpowered to the point nobody else is able to find exploits for the other characters fast enough to change the rankings and everybody simply considers that a higher-tier character. competition did that. this is not about what is "fair". whether in the context of Liberal republics or fighting games, the presence of competition means that nothing will ever be fair per se. so, we have to take the question of fairness as separate from the question of balance. but it's hard to argue that competition actually balances anything. most of the time, the longer it runs the more you see things separate out into permanent strata of less powerful and more powerful. the Pokémon designers can design
     horizontal balancing + Pokémon types = Arceism. horizontal balancing + The Subject (meta-Marxism) = anarchemistry. anarchemistry + Pokémon types = Arceism. anarchemistry + Legendary Pokémon = Arceism.
618. vertical balancing (meta-Marxism) -> this is the concept of sociophilosophies having antagonisms fully inside them that allow for getting rid of improper uses of power. in China this is well known: there are measures to get officials consequences, some of them especially effective carryovers from the feudal era that somehow didn't need much updating, and they operate without having to concentrate people into toxic factions first; majorities of people simply turn against the officials and the system is vertically balanced.
     a lot of people in the United States and Europe seem to like to believe that vertical balancing doesn't exist and the only way to put safeguards into a system is to create artificial horizontal antagonisms at the top layers of the system. in reality this might be one of the worst things you could do to fix a system. United States people generally love to believe that political factions are illusions and the system operates wholly on morality, "reason", and "common sense" where the competition of the representatives will surely determine what is objectively Right and Good and what everyone has to believe. however, it's impossible to do something like expect the elite representatives at one end of the country to balance the other end of the country without actually getting large numbers of people behind every representative and defeated representative such that large numbers of regular people from different ends of the country are all actively fighting each other every time the Congress starts operating; representative democracy fails to ever actually become symbolic or representative, and just turns into an all-out battle where everyone is still fully invested in the outcome and nobody actually gave up responsibility for the outcome to the people they voted for.
     ironically, refusing to divide people into parties like in China is actually a better way to ensure people don't become polarized, that they all align onto a single set of solutions to issues more often, and that the system doesn't actively try to unbalance itself and destroy one geographical section of the population's freedom to protect another part. that feels like a bizarrely charcoal thing to say, like I suddenly believe in "Community" and the notion of Rhizome fixing everything just because people in the same population inherently want to go together. but it's a legitimate, actually-functional part of any number of Third World Marxisms, at least three of them between North Korea, Cuba, and the vaguely shared Deng Xiaoping Thought of China and Vietnam. if charcoal Community is bogus, then crimson Community somehow works for reasons I don't quite understand. blue anarchism is worse than both of them inasmuch as it preaches that division and fighting is inherently good and there can't be freedom without processes that over time promote literal actual illegal extrajudicial murder.
618. Gramscian hegemony politics has been more effective than North American Maoism / Blue-anarchist hegemony politics has been more effective than North American Maoism
618. The concept of the "labor aristocracy" allows people to be complacent and keep contributing to imperialism; because it gives no material process of transition, it gives no way to hold people accountable or change their behavior -> I hate hearing this term because it's one of the most ineffective models you could have besides Mark Fisher's. this model makes anarchism look effective. really, meta-Marxist analysis of the effectiveness of this model gives arguments that anarchist schemes to 'improve society by forcefully booting out bad person from slot a million times' have actually been more effective. that's really bad. the more you let anarchism take over things the lower the probability you have of getting a country that is compatible with other countries' Marxisms and that doesn't hate other countries. anarchism is a death spiral that claims to be the most progressive system possible but in practice dismantles everything that acts as a safeguard around imperialism and leads everyone back around to imperialism. it doesn't just take the perfect and throw out the good, it takes Freedom and Human Rights and throws out lack of genocide.
618. Capitalism makes human rights materially exclusive between different chunks of people; this is to suggest that copyright is an almost prototypical example of what capitalism is, a perfect simplified test case, even if not the most representative example of the average "case of capitalism" at any given corporation
618. The means of production is the means of producing more raw masses of population, though not necessarily of producing more repeated individuals, because the capitalist means of production specifically produces one chunk of population at the expense of other chunks of population being born -> this is one of the flaws in the Existentialist model of strikes. Existentialists believe strikes are about winning the human rights of an individual many times, because the only reason human beings don't have rights is someone believed they should be taken away, while the actual way capitalism takes them away is to take away the rights of whole chunks of people at a time by giving whole chunks of people those rights exclusively. it's possible to fix the problem incorrectly by giving all the workers at Alice corporation and Bob corporation rights while in the process accidentally taking away the rights of everybody who works at Zhangsan corporation and Iye corporation somewhere else. [59]
     Drawn Together got it half right in the episode about enslaving "China" taking employment away from Vietnam — yeah, in a sense that's kind of how it works. if you look at it on a level of income, people have the right to housing and groceries specifically when and because other people don't have them, so naïvely trying to I-believe-that-everybody your way to magicing people having rights will ultimately result in depriving someone else of rights.
618. The means of production reproduce the mode / The means of production is the means of producing the mode of production -> sounds circular at first but is very important
618. The bourgeoisie are unemployed people who think they can tell the rest of society how to be spatially ordered if they only have enough money -> this is the crux of why Bolshevism hasn't succeeded yet: nobody has figured out the best way to get society to order itself in a relativity-based universe. this is the thing the bourgeoisie actually own. not some means of creating wealth or means of existing as individuals, but the means of ordering the population; the means of production is the means of producing the mode of production. this is why Deng Xiaoping Thought was begrudgingly tolerated while Bolshevism was slammed: Deng Xiaoping Thought doesn't own the means of ordering and leaves the bourgeoisie contained in an isolated capitalism to do ordering. the bourgeoisie own relativity. they falsely take credit for relativity. but they didn't invent relativity, the universe did.
618. the pirates who don't do anything
     the pirates who don't do anything + Western Marxism = the Communists who don't do anything.
     the pirates who don't do anything + eurocommunism = the Communists who don't do anything.
618. the Communists who don't do anything -> the motif of parties or theorists who have a lot to say and spend a lot of time on media outlets or academic circles but really do absolutely nothing anybody can remember.
     you can hit me with this one, I don't even care because I know the reasons are external and they aren't my fault. I'm really doing more than I should be able to do, any "sensible" person in my position would be a reactionary.
618. The System is when a bunch of businesses have to compete over making exactly the same thing the most skillfully and many newcomers lose the race and go out of business, so all you have to do to get out of The System is step out of that market and make a different incomparable product that thus can make you money without all the stress and expense that comes from competition / category of one (motif; right-Liberalism) / cokegender and pepsigender (motif; meta-Marxism) -> you may have wondered why I slammed anarchists talking about "The System" so hard on other entries. this is why. a system is just a group of parts. anyone can use it to mean anything, so it empowers the worst definitions to keep spreading around. you can tell you might actually have a useful definition of a problem when somebody gets angry. in the current historical period, when nobody gets angry about your position it's a bad sign.
     also. I just can't believe US people live in a country where both, people widely made fun of trans people and flowery language describing a million "genders" when we also have businesspeople literally going around talking about a "category of one". they're seriously just inventing their own gender flag in different words. I get Cokegender or Pepsigender, you get absolute and utter transphobia.
     oh god it's turning into a B-side before my eyes. like, an r/AmITheAsshole post or something where somebody accidentally failed to use a business's neopronouns and is working through whether that's bad. Existentialists go on about how businesses possess every human right and they almost can't tell the difference between them — "shoot, is my co-worker actually an entire overseas subsidiary?" business in China goes on the news literally as just this weird sculpture of humans producing verbal utterances by moving people around as its lips, and demands to know why Chinese businesses can't vote in the United States yet. "we really are the most oppressed demographic of person. there are only 189 million of us out of a thousand times that. we'll never have adequate representation in the CPC, they always keep giving it to those investor guys or the tiny people, so we should at least get to vote for the president of the United States. we're just asking for what's realistic." the future Republican president from Florida replaces Black history month with business history month where exclusively these weird human sculpture amalgams are the ones talking on PBS.
618. Molecularization isn't anarchism / "Small-scale social processes existing" should not be labeled anarchism / If anarchists don't want to be responsible for inventing capitalism, they shouldn't claim ownership of every process that is molecularized as part of their own particular theory -> anarchists have a particular way of trying to assert that society always changes one individual making a decision and taking an action at a time. Deleuze and Guattari for instance were weirdly explicit about this, going so far as to suggest that the process of an individual or tiny free-floating indiviudal group of people changing was itself "a revolution" ­— many tiny revolutions happening consecutively is the big one. it's hard to argue with the notion that this is more or less required to happen for any large-scale process to go through; sure, okay, if one bundle of workers go on strike and one business turns into a state business hundreds of thousands of times you get Bolshevism. the one thing I think it's necessary to push back on is that that localized, molecular-scale process of transition is not inherently "anarchism" or "anarchist". it's just the way any societal transition happens, including a transition from monarchy to capitalism, or historically, a reversion from a republic to monarchy (France had it rough, look it up). I feel like to a great number of self-labeled anarchists, implying "revolutionary anarchists", only charcoal anarchism and maybe orange anarchism are anarchism, and they don't even want to consider blue anarchism their own. so unless you want to say capitalism is literally a form of anarchism right now, today, already, just as much as Peter Kropotkin's charcoal-black anarchism, you really shouldn't call things changing at a small scale one by one "anarchism".
618. Climate change is undesirable / Anything that leads to global climate change is universally unethical -> I feel like it's nearly impossible to create an actually objective theory of ethics that isn't so biased it doesn't function to produce ethical outcomes. you can't explain prejudices to people objectively, so you can't treat prejudices as obviously, universally, cosmically bad. one of the only things you can even do to explain ethics to prejudiced people is to appeal to the material consequences of people's actions. this is why you should start out with values like "global climate change is bad" rather than values like "greed is obviously bad" (what is greed? how do you know what greed is? how do you know you got this definition from a reliable source? it's frighteningly easy for somebody to just start saying Black people and Mexicans are greedy for wanting there to be a government, at which point it's easier and better to simply throw away the concept of greed and hyperbolically say that being greedy is impossible because there are different underlying causes that produce the apparent phenomenon of greed).
618. Gender identity is physically stored as culture; asking where gender identity is in your body is as silly or as sensical a question as asking where nationality is in your body -> it's occurred to me within the past few years. when we try to do brain scans to identify gender, are we literally just dissecting culture? are we effectively trying to look for the biological underpinnings and signals that carry culture? if that were the case, it would actually explain why the brain scans were so inconsistent. some of them would be the same because the same signifier-based cultural content was being stored. some of them would be different because different cultural content was being stored over decades of existence despite people theoretically belonging to the same demographic.
618. The way to get out of the question of categorizations being defined by scattered clouds of disembodied Platonic Ideals versus objective and potentially "essentialized" definitions of what is inside something versus sheer identity sets of what things are connected to each other is to ask what commonalities are directly exchanged from an existing group of things to its newest members and back / molecularized ontology proposition -> I don't know what the best word or phrase is to describe this concept but I just had such a killer insight right now. whenever people try to define what exactly race is or what exactly gender is or even what exactly jazz music is versus early rock, it's tempting to try to start listing out essentialized characteristics disembodied from anything (especially in the music example, maybe sometimes in the gender example) but those are never what defines the category. if you try to take an arbitrary track from a game soundtrack and tell someone it has all the techniques of a particular genre therefore it belongs to it (I tried this once) people are unlikely to categorize it with detached objectivity based on the essentialized characteristics used to practically create it, and are more likely to categorize it by its console generation or perhaps its game genre. the groups things physically interact with in the actual course of history are critical to their definition as part of a group; things truly belong to identities in the form of physical groups, not to sets of performances or sets of techniques. this is to say that gender identity cannot be objectively defined without reference to whole groups of people of a particular gender as material objects. it is possible to define a dialectical (reterministic) process of new members interacting with an entire group to produce that group, but not to objectively predict what members will be admitted into that group if they never join it at all and there is no information about what will likely happen if they attempt to join it. thus, the reterministic process of group membership can be quantized into the exact Ideals, rituals, and requirements that are exchanged between the group and the new member at the time the new member is added or at the time a member is expelled.
     let me tell you, once you understand this it makes the system of United States Liberal-republican political parties look really, really bad.
618. Gender binaries exist because of the fact membership in a physical group of people is largely binary / Gender binaries exist because in every intra-populational demographic (every demographic subpopulation) which is not hereditary and which requires doing some activity in an ongoing way, membership in a physical group of people usually must be in a binary state of either obtained or not present, and this characteristic of most everyday experiences of demographics is transferred over to gender subpopulations -> if you doubt this... is it possible for people to "sort of" be part of a closed spiritual practice?
     is it possible for people to "sort of" have decided a show was worth watching all the way through to the end and they want to have enough information on it to write fully lore-compliant fan fiction? is it possible for people to "sort of" be a legal citizen of a country? (I mean, normally that would exist, but Donald Trump really doesn't want it to.) is it possible for people to "sort of" be allies of Bolshevism?
     is it possible for people to be "sort of" unemployed, or do they have to be employed within a particular group to not be unemployed? is it possible for people to "sort of" not go to church, or can they only stop not going to church by fully going to church once? is it possible for people to "sort of" never have smoked, or "sort of" quit smoking? is it possible for people to "sort of" have never watched baseball?
618. Is it possible for anyone to "sort of" have never watched baseball to the point it is impossible to select on a census whether they do or do not watch baseball?
618. Is it possible for anyone to "sort of" not go to church to the point it is impossible to select on a census whether they do or do not go to church? -> I don't think it is. you could say it's possible to "sort of" go to church if you have some standard on what is a little or a lot, but I don't think it's possible to "sort of" not go to church, because there's only really one way to not do something at all.
     now, if you have an essentialized view of what demographics are, it's easy to start splitting hairs on this, and saying that every category must be non-binary because it's possible to take every activity and break it down to infinite shades of doing or not doing, so surely there must be infinite shades of whether somebody actually is a member of a demographic or not. but that is attempting to define demographics solely through the activities and inner life of individuals rather than actually trying to observe the overall population itself in the physical world. this gives rise to strange definitions of demographics like Kero (pronounced redacted) getting to say he's a furry because he actually fucks dogs (pronounced redacted) but believes he can be "sort of" connected to the furry fandom with just a bit of belief he is, or Donald Trump getting to say he's a true American because he can be "sort of" connected to any group of United States people he wants to through the ritual of following all the rules to run for president, or , or Trotsky getting to say he was a real member of early Bolshevism because he was "sort of" connected to the Bolshevik party and "sort of" knowledgeable on Leninist theory. there really aren't infinite shades of being a member of something, because at a certain point the people who are most tightly connected to a thing will push back and attempt to create a hard threshold where some people are expelled.
     this also explains why exactly Tories are becoming so toxic as far as what citizens of their countries will be retained or killed. Tories accumulate the "existiest" people who are the best at competing to secure money, businesses, and territory and multiplying all of that on itself. in one sense, the "existiest" people are the most inherently connected to a country, because they gradually monopolize all the activity within that country to the point they're all you can practically think of when you think of it. this enables them to start controlling the threshold of what people are defined as part of the group that is the overall nationality and what people are to be expelled. they operate through the same process as all morality, friendship, standards, culture-based community, and identity formation or liberation, only they use the very process of defining society and defining what is right for violence. Tories very literally misuse society and Community themselves for genocide. you have to fucking opt out of society and morality and friendship and standards, if only for a second, to actually break out of their ongoing programming and stop them.
618. There's only one way to not do something at all / There's only one way to not be part of an optional demographic of people at all
618. There are always multiple ways to stop not doing something / There are always multiple ways to stop not being part of an optional demographic of people at all, because whenever there are identifiable groups to join, there are always multiple groups by virtue of identifiable groups being inherently plural -> this is more of an axiom than something I know for sure to be true.
618. Socioeconomic classes are the only reason that Tory and "conservative" mean the same thing
618. the compatible left -> is this the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition's real name? or are there meaningful differences in the definitions of these two things when you set them out objectively? I wonder.
618. Picasso was a Communist / Pablo Picasso was a Communist ally
618. growing the Yelp community -> it really sticks with me every time I see corporations try to refer to a customer base as "the Yelp community" or "the Reddit community" or "our platform's liminal spaces community" or such. (or in a smaller way, Patreon creators referring to their subscribers as "the BobExampleYoutuber community". or seemingly refusing to stop and dissect the relationship between product creator, fanbase, and "community".) why do they do this? what material factors lead to them doing this? what does it materially achieve?
     one thing I feel is that this is inherently connected to the concept of blue Communitarian chunks. I don't fully understand the genesis of these chunks or how common they are or how they exist day-to-day over a 50-year time span where some of them will come and go.
618. Whatever destructive thing is done by one free-floating individual person or individual group now will be done by other individual entities before long -> this is the part of the golden rule that I wholeheartedly agree with, even if I think there are some fundamental problems with the concept of ethics. I'll have to find a name for this "rule" later
618. Why didn't people invent meta-Marxism sooner? -> this question haunts me every day.
     one of the only meaningful reasons I can find is that (in the regions it was active) Trotskyism refused to look outside its own local named-Marxist models of the whole world. no other factor I've found has really been satisfying to me as an explanation. "capitalists spread deceptive ideology!" okay, but that doesn't Actually stop people from thinking and one or two meta-Marxist theorists from being produced; if that were true Marxism itself would be impossible. "the CIA cultivated the compatible left!" that doesn't explain why nobody stepped outside the "compatible left" and analyzed how it worked as its own self-contained system.
618. Bōbobo was created for Drawn Together / Bobobōbo Bōbobo was invented for Drawn Together and whether he is depicted as a contestant in any particular episode all the Bōbobo lore takes place within that metaverse or multiverse; you must disprove this proposition without appealing to any Doylian factors including the release dates of the animated or print cartoons, who directed them, what language they are originally in, or the chapter or episode structure of each show -> this is the kind of question that will get people to actually understand how to reason with people that won't accept facts on Covid vaccines. this is, in an abstract sense, exactly the kind of reality they live in
     difficulty to refute: trivial / difficulty to falsify: very hard
     I think one of the only solid pieces of evidence you can find on this is the presence or absence of crossover characters as background gags. at a certain point of taking in all the information from each series you start to understand how things are "coded" or ontologically bisimilar — do the background characters very literally represent proprietary characters they couldn't show, or are the appearances and identities of the background characters diegetic? there are episodes where Captain Hero says Superman exists or hints he is a distinct character. the portrayal of shadowy Mickey Mouse also seems like it's supposed to be taken literally as a Disney AU where the same Disney characters exist and actually look different, much like if Kingdom Hearts and Disney cartoons really did take place in the same canon and actual Disney characters could get Nobody'd, not as if Nina Paley is drawing ink pen doglike characters who are new, different people, or like when Freddy Fazbear is on stage in a pizza restaurant but it is conceptually a separate place from Chuck E. Cheese that got worse reviews while both of them were in the phone book.
618. adults-only comedy for Communists / adult cartoon for Communists -> the motif of a fictional work of some kind that is presented in a writing style similar to Family Guy, Fionna and Cake, Drawn Together, whatever, you have a lot of options, but takes a sudden left turn every time anything about a workers' state or repeated historical process comes up into just saying what's actually true instead of inaccurate old stereotypes, and generally making whatever First World countries are involved look bad
618. Depression and adulthood are basically the same thing -> a motif you see in a whole lot of adults-only cartoons or shows as well as their adjacent "cartoons about being 40" like Garfield.
     the most earth-shattering thing you'll probably hear all week is that this motif that is in absolutely everything doesn't have to exist and doesn't have to be unconsciously accepted by everyone in a workers' state, and it doesn't take something as full-on stubborn as anarchism to get rid of it.
618. Drawn Together illustrates the basic set of general problems that make Rhizome difficult -> Rhizome is hard to explain at first unless you have this show in front of you and then it's like, yeah, look, archetypcial cartoon protagonists from different universes with totally different approaches and ways of doing things or ways things are. this is almost exactly how different your set of hetereogeneous elements that schizoanalysts will ask to form Rhizome without resorting to countable groups and without questioning anything about their differences actually is. even something like Zootopia isn't a truly good metaphor for Rhizome because settings like that always have to make the characters have something in common. real life is a whole lot more like trying to get Clara and Spanky Ham in the same room to agree on something. that's almost exactly it. in the absolute weirdest way there are brief moments where this show really is more true to reality than either an ordinary animated movie or a reality TV show.
     it's a bit like the "So Sorry factor" in Undertale where only a self-insert based on a real furry-fan was capable of acting as a really genuinely accurate Media Representation of what the furry fandom is actually like — a fat loser who is slightly absorbed in drawing themself in odd fetish art and has no sense of boundaries in where you are supposed to put your effectively modern-day-historical-fiction, real-people-fiction, cartoon-reality-show type characters who are porn stars only in some universes but not in others, and yet assuming they weren't Sam, would probably still not be a bad person in most cases, and would come off as endearing despite everything.
618. LLMs are bad because they codify concepts and signifiers into numbered countable objects for someone's use as a tool but only a few people can have the sea of numbered signifiers for producing and expanding over everybody violently rather than the sea of signifiers being created back and forth together in a communal social way by Commu-nity which is inherently nonviolent and nice and not destructive (rather than signifiers being audited; derived blue-anarchist proposition) -> the way normal people would probably describe this project. I'm so tired of people thinking Community inherently regulates chunk competition, but I'm a meta-Marxist, so I'm obligated to recognize all forms of logical reasoning which physical societies use to describe themselves.
618. Communist Christmas carols (East Germany) / East German Christmas carols -> this has been one of my favorite historical facts ever since the moment I learned about it and I just have not been able to forget it. I guess it helps that as a kid I had a year where I hyperfixated on Christmas carols and wanted to know about all of them and was attempting to learn to play them on instruments, and so it's like, I'm a little overjoyed to have a dumb excuse to get obsessed with Christmas carols again, also in a form that's potentially improved. there are so many things I love about this
618. Wooldoor Sockbat has inadequate lore / Wooldoor has inadequate lore (abbreviated; Drawn Together) -> I confess that sometimes I like to make propositions because a particular string of words is hilarious to say out loud.
     this is the claim that while Spongebob is pretty well thought out, it's all coherent and world-built — or for that matter, the Spyro games pass at least the minimum bar on that, when Tom Kenny voice acted them too — there is vaguely something lost in the transition from having what is a very themed character to a character that is literally in some scenes set up as unspecific. it's arguable the specificity is a big part of what defines what Spongebob is. and really the problem is not that Wooldoor looks bad visually or cannot have a good concept but just that his setting is not really very set up. you think about Hazbin Hotel / Helluva Boss and even if those shows are bad they do worldbuild their supernatural settings. I expected something kind of vaguely like those shows or The Good Place because like he looks like some kind of angel-demon or something. maybe he's actually supposed to be more of like, a fever dream or this world that fundamentally doesn't make sense. but whatever he's supposed to be, that should have been established better at every moment he's being characterized. you can tell what Xandir is supposed to be and what his setting is, or Captain Hero, or Foxxy I guess. that's approximately what all the characters should have.
     ok, honestly, I think they dropped the ball on both Wooldoor and Toot. Ling-Ling's story is like, sloppy, but if you've watched one episode of Pokémon you know what's going on, so I'll let that slide. And Spanky Ham might be the only character that could get by without any lore whatsoever, he just makes dumb poop jokes so what does it matter. (although to be quite honest an episode about Spanky unexpectedly having lore and it not being more lowest-tier internet jokes but it being the only Serious episode that effectively loss.JPGs him with some kind of Actually Interesting "start of MLP season" plot and unlike loss actually succeeds at it would be legitimately funny. it would probably have a bunch of stupid imagery like toilets or whatever is offensive tossed over the visuals like a South Park plot but, you know, that doesn't necessarily ruin it. like oh my god do a Pokémon OVA type plot but it centers around Spanky Ham maybe with Ling-Ling along for the ride so people get the hint and make it actually better than most of the episodes but then wedge it in the middle of the show on a random two-parter episode and like that would be the best episode because of all those decisions taken together.)
618. Wooldoor Sockbat does not die (cannot be killed) / Wooldoor has plot armor, as applying to an episodic sitcom -> he died at least twice or three times and there were no consequences.
618. Wooldoor Sockbat can only die if he is killed in a major historical event -> so, there's this episode where the show actually tries to give Wooldoor lore, and they go the disturbing route of trying to detail a "Sockbat genocide". I'm neutral about that plot point; history is dark sometimes. but I find it a little strange that in this particular cartoon setting some characters can die permanently by being killed and some characters are basically unkillable. you don't really introduce a contradiction when characters die of old age, because that isn't the same thing as being killed. but if characters that are logically supposed to be unkillable get killed things get confusing.
618. Every election is a repeated revolution -> this sounds stupid when you first hear a Liberal-republican say it, but then it takes on a whole new meaning when you start imagining it applying to Deng Xiaoping Thought. then you stop and go, oh... oh wait. maybe it is true. maybe it really is the case that republics are continuous processes that continuously create themselves over and over, and the key to getting to new stages is to actively stop realizing that specific process while actively beginning a new one.
618. If Black people were conquered into the population of the United States on rationale of stopping as many human individuals as possible from being violent or destroying parts of society (houses, corporations, etc), then Black people were colonized -> this is a somewhat uniquely anarchist model of what "colonialism" is. look closely at how often anarchists claim it's unnecessary to put people into nation-states and how rarely anyone else says that. between Liberal-republicans, right-Liberals who insist that a State actually is necessary to have businesses, and Bolshevism holding that republican States are needed until people stop harmfully diffusing over the top of each other and simply stay in populational layouts naturally without being told to, the concept that populations are conquered into populations as individuals is not really a common one.
     the context of this statement changes entirely when you talk about Native Americans / American Indians because you can argue materially that there was a process of assimilating individuals one by one. this doesn't apply to that. this applies to the concept that basically Reconstruction was immoral to Black people rather than arguing it was immoral to Confederates. personally... this issue is very complicated but my intuition right now is you can't win that argument.
618. If Black people were stolen as a population and tossed into the United States then Black people were colonized -> this one seems more reasonable at least if you're standing on the 1600s. I think the status of United States populations actually changed over the decades and their relationships are different by now, although I couldn't fully tell you what they currently are.
618. In practice, the word colonialism doesn't really mean anything; it has too many precise definitions by different groups of people to be useful (colonized; colonization; decolonization)
618. If two kingdoms are warring for decades, one of them is justified to conquer the other to stop the wars -> in a time before Liberal-republicanism it's reasonably easy to argue that this is true, but if it's true even at that time, then it implies Kantianism is very medieval in its insistence that the people who rightfully belong to a country are whoever is committing violence on a group of people that agree to be part of a State, rather than people who want to be horizontally associated.
     god, yeah, this was my problem with Dragon Ball. that the people of earth trying to assimilate Vegeta, even after he doesn't have any subjects and isn't really a prince any more, just because they should have the right to stop him doing violence or tracking in mud doesn't really make any sense. when you realize that his own reasoning processes and needs as a different species... would not be respected might be the best way to put it, it's not really like he typically makes good decisions after all, the whole idea of Sun Wukong scrambling to protect his population from outside invaders suddenly makes a lot more sense, when it shouldn't have made sense. Dragon Ball turning everything Materialist in its attempt to make things modern reveals a number of uncomfortable truths about real feudal orders and transitions out of them. wow, it's almost like the reason kings cling on to the power to conquer people and put them under questionable laws is actually to prevent a nation of people from getting forcefully assimilated into another one in a time when nobody can actually control the passive reproduction and expansion of countable cultures. it's almost like Europeans came to the New World half expecting that American Indians would have a king and a line of knights or gunmen if they didn't want to be conquered, because that was the only way to establish consent to be under a government in medieval Europe. it's almost like Kamehameha actually kind of knew general-sense historical materialism.
     it's almost like Kant and Rousseau just flat-out lied about what consent to be under a national government is (intentionally or unintentionally lied, I'm doing hyperbole because extending the reach of words is fun) because they hadn't actually gotten out of medieval thinking. and I think we've been paying the price for that in people believing that nation-states are illegitimate and it's better to be an anarchist.
618. direct oppression (meta-Marxism) -> thought today: "for every act of direct action by charcoal anarchists, there are several acts of direct oppression that came before it. how do you stop people from spontaneously starting over on committing direct oppression again and undoing the whole thing?"
     direct oppression is the concept of people making spontaneous individual actions that are able to oppress people without the use of formal government or even coherent social structures. this is one of the things that causes people to invent the concept of 'overcoming the Spanishness Office'. arguably, it's one of the biggest obstacles to anarchism ever succeeding; no matter how deep you try to extend the concept of 'purging the world of domination' (sounds like something you'd hear villains say on a Pokémon cartoon) you never get so deep that external individuals are fully within your grasp and you can control everything that they want and are; the 'anti-totalitarian principle' of anarchism kind of basically makes anarchism realize it's bad under its own principles and forbid itself. there's no easy way to draw a line between direct action and direct oppression, because materially they operate on the same principles. the false belief that you actually can is part of what's caused Gramscianism to accidentally re-spawn in the United States after all Marxisms were eradicated. Marxism is fundamentally being generated out of disunited individual action rather than any structure or strategy that truly unites people, and most people are not prepared to work with those drastically different conditions and analyze them — even Althusser and Western-Marxists don't really get it because they are trying to act like ideology is collectively rained down on people when there really isn't anything collective, even mass media is narrowcasted and interpreted individually by each person, and not actually collective in the way they believe. basically to give a crude summary I think you need to look at the physical emergent effects like a cloud of people attempting "direct action" and regenerating Gramscianism before you look at what's generating them, because if you don't start from the effects you discard the wrong information and get the causes wrong
618. Every single ideology that completely succeeds ends in an anarchism of the same color that particular ideology is / Trotskyism ends in orange anarchism / Mainstream Marxism-Leninism ends in crimson anarchism / Liberal-republicanism ends in blue anarchism / Deng Xiaoping Thought, if considered a strawberry ideology, ends in strawberry anarchism / Western-Marxism, if considered a strawberry ideology, ends in strawberry anarchism / A hypothetical statist charcoal ideology would end in charcoal anarchism -> I think this is what an actual anarchist might agree to if they fully understood meta-Marxism. some of them would insist that no ideology can actually complete except charcoal ideologies, or some of them might say that everything turns into charcoal anarchism. but the ones that actually understand the material conditions of the Soviet Union would say this, and that everybody needs to accept the notion of most of the characteristics of their chosen sociophilosophy falling away and it turning into an anarchism
618. crimson anarchism -> the concept that something can be an anarchism despite perfectly conforming to the history and society models of mainstream Marxism-Leninism. this set of criteria would almost exclusively apply to the concept of upper-phase communism being considered a form of anarchism.
618. wave machine rock-paper-scissors / wave machine rock-paper-scissors game -> the idea here is simple. you start with a basic wave machine that can take concepts and combine them, and attempts to guess unspecified results from the characteristics of the concepts inside each concept. then you add a second layer of rock-paper-scissors strengths to all the concepts, which again inherits from the concepts inside a concept unless corrected. then you just kinda look at it go, and hilarity ensues
     mainstream Marxism-Leninism is weak against Trotskyist direct action; Trotskyism is weak against anarchist direct action; anarchism is weak against the continuous realization of Toryism; Toryism is weak against atheism
618. Liberal-republicanism is just a bunch of individuals who wake up and individually decide to Dominate each other; this implies that if everyone spontaneously individually decided not to Dominate each other, things would change
618. Abolishing hierarchy naturally results in approximate equality of wealth and power -> oh boy the Arceism is strong. see, my problem with this is that you haven't defined hierarchy clearly enough for this to be true. you've defined hierarchy super muddily as this vague 'domination' thing. where various abstract concepts of prejudice like misogyny, homophobia, racial prejudice, ableism, and The Colonizer Attitude are examples of domination and examples of hierarchy. none of these are material definitions that actually explain where the levers of power come from or how to stop them. none of these definitions explain what structures are in place now and what structures you're supposed to turn them into to practically result in a population of approximately equal people and the dissolution of old forms of power. Bolshevism can explain that: the gaps between corporations are a lever of power, you take away the gaps and make them into a mono-structure, the antagonisms between countries to fill each other with neocolonialism are a lever of power, you put a central party around the country to defend it, and these two old forms of power are gone, even if there is a new form of power. then you look at the new levers of power, and you transform those into a new structure. rifts in the Soviet Union splitting it into two parties are one lever of power. remaining antagonisms from other countries or mountains-of-capital or axes of countries that don't want to believe capital exists and are convinced they're just nice little circles of friends that beat up on other individual countries are another lever of power; that one's hard to face but at least it's materially defined. where are the material definitions inside anarchism?
618. Ukraine was almost freed from Communism (historical claim) -> this.... doesn't sound fucking (pronounced redacted) correct. for one, this would contradict against the popular claim that the Soviet Union not fully occupying Poland was a form of cooperating with Nazi Germany rather than just a matter of buying time and avoiding confrontation. it should be much better known by now than it is that Communist parties stretch over their home regions almost specifically to defend them from external military attacks; that's a major reason Deng Xiaoping Thought hasn't failed despite everything. if you oppose Bolshevism then you get the crudest systems that cover only the most basic needs and maintain potentially harsh authority over people for the sake of guarding that minimal set of needs, where one of the most basic non-negotiable needs populations have is surviving or avoiding war and disconnection attacks on the whole population to deny every kind of aid.
618. If under attack, an anarchism might defend itself with strategic guerilla war -> finally, the first real claim I've ever seen about what an anarchist border looks like. this is.... interesting. I can imagine it happening. I can actually imagine the North Korea or Vietnam moment for anarchism. you have the caveat to get past that if your society is built on free association, people can just all drain out of it and say they don't feel like defending it any more and they want to be wherever there's food and safety — the "bluing" of anarchism, just like the "orangeing" or "strawberrying" of Marxism. but if that ceases to be a problem for some reason and you make it to the day people are going to fight, okay. I think the biggest problem with this claim is actually just the possibility that somebody could fit 90% of the characteristics of anarchism and be an anarcho-Tory, and then you'd get one of these guerilla wars where Tories are defending their sundown towns and telling you to just leave them alone. though it's rare, whole populations of people can be bigoted at once, especially when the population is small. that's the one thing that anarchism genuinely doesn't have an answer to as far as I know.
618. People who move to the Second World have disgracefully strawberried anarchism (derived anarchist claim) -> here "strawberried" is a verb meaning "to desert a revolution to move to a place of safety underneath imperialist armies etc". I sort of get this impression from real anarchist writings but, it doesn't make logical sense to me with the idea that freedom of association and voluntary participation are core values. to a (meta-)Marxist, the notion of people compromising on their values and leaving to survive being a historical process that can happen to Marxist states and anarchist societies in different ways makes a lot of sense. but is there any way for anarchists to meaningfully construct that within their own theories?
     I guess logically they're going to somehow try to claim that if you literally side with imperialism that as an individual you are standing behind figures of "domination" and that in particular is the bad thing to do. but there my main problem is, so why don't anarchists think Trotsky siding with Liberal-republican countries was a bad thing? those are the loci of Domination. he sided with them. why isn't it logically better within anarchism if Trotsky commits to staying in the Soviet Union but somehow building Trotskyism, and thus not aiding Domination? the facts are on the table. even if you hate historical materialism and seeing countries as countable objects the facts are still right there on the table that having Trotskyism-in-one-country would be less bad than trying to push for anarchism at all costs but never getting it and only actually getting Domination and death.
618. Fan game development is an anarchist secret operation -> this proposition is for the purpose of discussions on whether to disallow linking to fan game project pages under the project rule that anarchist secret operations shouldn't be documented. I feel like linking YouTube videos of fan games is probably okay but I am unclear whether linking project pages or wikis or basically first-hand sources is bad.
618. Every human activity which is illegal is unspeakable -> if you think this isn't true, think about what emotion you feel when you hear something is currently illegal in a Communist country even for a temporary time and re-evaluate what you already believe "regulating" things does to them.
     this doesn't have a lot of direct applicability to most issues in the United States — homosexuality being one of the really notable exceptions. what it's actually useful for is probing larger discussions around whether Kantianism and Liberal-republicanism actually make any sense.
618. Every human activity which is not productized is violent -> don't let people get away with talking about "originality" and "plagiarism" and "integrity" and "infringement" casually. hiding under all that is a really nasty claim that every act of creating art that doesn't become a business and turn the creator into a business owner must be destroying society.
618. Communist aesthetics / Communist propaganda (arts) / proletarian culture (in terms of art styles and art movements) -> this is the ideology code for Items I've marked crimson just for their outward flavor. it applies most prototypically to like, the paintings of workers facing a bright future that were put up historically in various countries. so, there's an actual logic behind Items belonging to this ideology code. in my opinion, things that don't understand the actual reasoning behind these kinds of art or slogans and simply try to appropriate them don't belong under this ideology code, and instead belong under the brown swatch or such.
618. Ender's Game but for Communists / simulation presented as arcade game or training tool which actually turns out to be a useful simulation that helped a country win some kind of revolution or in any event solve some very difficult challenge of social transition -> aside from being a really funny image, this is kind of what I hope my silly combination game / math experiment turns into. Ender's Game except it's a building game rather than really being violent, and on the other side of the game is a workers' state that it accidentally yet intentionally built.
618. In the 2020s, class consciousness includes identifying when countries are already in a form of anarchism -> anarchism totally muddles everything up once it starts realizing. to understand class processes at all, whatsoever any more, it's pretty much necessary to study the actual on-the-ground structure of the full set of people who believes anarchism and look at how that cloud of people is materially behaving and predicted to behave
618. What mode of production does the People's Republic of China have? -> you know meta-Marxism is getting serious when it steps out of making up new terms to describe observations phenomenologically and actually starts using the correct words and making new claims about what they practically mean in the real world.
618. A mode of production contains a particular economic base / A mode of production is wholly or partially composed of a particular economic base -> setting down some clear definitions of concepts whether the concepts themselves might be a bit vague.
618. A mode of production is partly defined by how new people are integrated into a population after birth or migration -> this wasn't necessary to point out in the time of Marx, but when critical theory has taken over and tried to replace Marxism and made everything about "prejudice" while a bunch of other people are trying to stop new developments for the purpose of stopping 'prejudice' and 'greed', it's now critical to inform everybody that far from "empathy" coming naturally, one of the only factors keeping people everywhere from being wildly "prejudiced" at the drop of a hat is the ability to put people into a capitalist structure of workers or businesses. abolish capitalism naïvely and like, no women will have jobs any more and White people will start claiming that because their small, local "Commmunity" is already complete there's no space left over for Black people or Mexicans. there's a decent argument that one of the major mistakes of the Soviet Union was taking away swaths of corporate development or development into cities that people ideologically believed to be excessive and in need of regulation and bam, suddenly everything got worse for women because with little exaggeration cities were the only thing making it better.
618. Kantianization / Kantianizing (parallel to "Zinovievizing") -> a generalized process where a bunch of people attempting to form a countable culture all get together and form a State that they leap over anybody somehow captured into the same population with them. may be considered synonymous with democulture, or just a subcategory of possible kinds of democulture.
618. Lacanianism formalizes the concept of Kantianization; they are actually the same concept
618. Lacanianism molecularizes the concept of Kantianization; they are different concepts because one is genuinely more elaborate
618. Can we really trust companies to use their technology for good?! -> this is one of the biggest glaring contradictions in the whole of blue anarchism. that government must be used to contain """technology""", the place power supposedly comes from, but that we're really not supposed to think about government and nearly supposed to forget it exists after an election, and that society must be developed through people spontaneously creating technology with no guidance from anyone else. that feels like a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.
     "power comes from technology" "we only have society when we regulate technology" "well you have to have businesses" "businesses don't have anything to do with anything" "they're a business, they have to make a profit" ""
     honestly, like... anticommunism is one of the most dangerous technologies ever invented, because it makes your government secretly build atom bombs whether you want them. can we ban anticommunism just because it's dangerous and acts as a material process that causes the creation of corporations and institutions thus making it a technology?
618. Anticommunism is a technology
618. Anticommunism is a dangerous technology / Anticommunism is a dangerous technology that must be banned or regulated -> this is so stupid it's hilarious and yet it's one of those moments where I'm like, did I have a moment of dark genius...? would this actually work?
     I know this would be a fun B-side chapter though. Hello, U.S. Congress. This is the Emancipation Party for statist anarchy. I may be an anarchist, but I don't believe in letting dangerous technolgies run around freely. This is why you have to regulate anticommunism as a dangerous technology...
     Anticommunism is a technology + ?? = Anticommunism is a dangerous technology
618. synonyms for anarchist: terrorist ... / "anarchist" has horrendously inaccurate thesaurus page -> I was genuinely just looking for some synonyms of what anarchists would call themselves to try not to be identified and judged, and oh boy the thesaurus pages only contained terms of judgement. these are some pretty killer insults to throw at early Trotskyism though. I never knew "recreant" was a word.
618. Anarchism means abolishing domination / Anarchism is partly defined by the concept of abolishing domination (2003) [60] -> so, there are some people who already believe critical theory is a form of anarchism. noted.
618. Being an authority is good, having authority is bad -> when I read this I automatically assumed the anarchist would call the opposite of the two things bad. being an authority is bad because class territory owners and bigots clinging to positions and generalized dictators etc, having authority is okay because anarchism has to enforce its structure and Ideals somehow. and I was like, oh, wow, maybe anarchism actually makes sense and I'm being too harsh on it. and then, like it always does, it pulled a left turn and ceased making sense, and I was genuinely baffled. though unsurprised, because what came next was very familiar to the kinds of nonsense I'd already heard.
618. Giving orders is having illegitimate authority -> god if this isn't one of the orangest things I've ever heard. not one of anarchism's highest moments in my mind.
618. Social sanctioning is caused by hierarchies -> no. it's pretty damn (pronounced redacted) often caused by Communities.
618. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was an unacceptable class society (2003) [61] -> bold claim. I think there's a subtle difference here in how Trotskyists see this versus anarchists. anarchists are more likely to come out and say the equivalent of the CPSU being an unjustified class society comparable to feudal orders and capitalism, but Trotskyists are more likely to just claim that Bolshevism somehow hasn't been created yet although its central authority "shouldn't" be unjustified if it had been created. which inherently makes Trotskyists a lot closer to being respectable to me; they just barely fail to pass the bar.
     there's a big problem that comes up here between the so-called 'unjustified class society' of the Soviet Union and the need to keep ethnic groups from being scattered and assimilated. anarchists often don't quite discuss ethnic groups as physical populations, leaving that area to be taken over by separate postcolonial theories that may or may not like anarchism. at the point the postcolonial theorists are getting mad about something the anarchists often show up and start claiming that if the postcolonial theorists got mad there must be domination happening, oh no not The Real, oh no it's the ecologically inherent consequence of violating the Golden Rule. but it doesn't seem like anarchists actually like believing in material processes that lead to attacks on sovereignty and angry postcolonial theorists. the whole thing is left reacting to real material problems several steps too late after "hierarchies" have already had several steps to multiply exponentially and claim more ground. and afterward you always see anarchists scrambling around to claim that it's okay genocide happened as long as none of the oppressed people Created Hierarchies.
618. Noam Chomsky is a Trotskyist
618. Noam Chomsky is an anarchist -> I've heard both of these now and I don't know what the fuck (pronounced redacted) is true. is he an orange anarchist? is that what you're telling me?
618. If wages rise, corporations cut each worker down to a small number of hours to avoid having to pay health insurance or paid sick time, and occasionally threaten to fire people -> this is interesting. there seem to be a number of interactions between different scales going on here. I might have to come back to this. the thing that stands out at me the most is, it's like although marketism is supposed to benefit tiny businesses it's like really big businesses equally benefit from it and are using it to become lethal and untouchable.
618. The point of working at businesses is so public facilities don't close -> whenever you ask me to explain how society works I have always had these kind of quintessentially Communist definitions of society. I see things very structurally. the idea that people could genuinely think that town social structures are an accidental artifact of individuals accumulating wealth in order to live and that making money was a definition of living was shocking and alien to me.
618. Communism, No Food (edict; command; threat; imperative) / Communism having nothing and failing must happen (must be the result; is required to be the result) -> this isn't a descriptive idea, this is an external imperative
     Communism, No Food + China = During the Great Leap Forward the United States hit China with sanctions
618. Cuba cannot buy anything that has 10% U.S. made parts / Cuba cannot buy anything that has 25% U.S. made parts [62] -> this gets more sinister when you realize that capitalist allies gloat about everything including pencils being made across multiple countries.
618. Almost every country on earth voted to end the blockade of Cuba / 165/172 countries voted to end the blockade of Cuba [63] [64]
618. During the Great Leap Forward the United States hit China with sanctions, causing a "Communism No Food" scenario -> I don't have facts on this currently but even so it already sounds uncannily like something that could have happened.
618. Cuba embargo (First World countries; 1960-) / first Cuba embargo / Cuba embargo level 1
618. BRICS (pronounced Bricks) has already failed
618. The threat of the United States putting other countries under siege will surely be gone if a whole bunch of countries just connect to each other and excise the United States -> this has happened so many times in history and now, even though we have all the technology and education to realize that Filamentism/marketism is the actual problem and this very statement is self-contradictory, I swear people have learned nothing.
618. Venezuela can't help Cuba because the United States stole the oil tankers [65] -> my first question hearing about "Cuba embargo level 2" was why Venezuela couldn't help if generally it had almost nothing but oil. the actual answer is crazy. the United States has fucking (pronounced redacted) privateers and if you want to help Cuba it's coming down to fucking (pronounced redacted) sea battles
618. scattered-loci-of-capital repression / scattered-locuses-of-capital repression, as opposed to capital-having-generated-a-state doing repression / "[even on campuses] ... shouldn’t we always expect the ruling class to use repression" [66] -> one of the most Marxist utterances to come out of Jacobin in a while. that weird little nexus of theories where anarchists, Gramscians, Marxist-Leninists, and meta-Marxism are all unified
618. "Most [U.S. people] are horrified by Israel's actions but don't yet understand Palestine primarily through the lens of Zionism" (2025) [67] -> this... seems like a claim that's testable against observational evidence. I don't know if it's true but when it's been a year since this article I think it's testable.
618. U.S. people can be persuaded to put money going to Israel into schools and health care [68] -> uh... now this is going to sound terrible, but I genuinely don't think that would work. people are absolutely racist as hell and the overall United States populace genuinely hates funding schools and funding Medicare at all out of fear that Black people or Latinos will have it; I feel like whenever people try to fund those things it just gets taken out by Tories and put back into bombs. so, cynical as this is, I feel like if you truly want to save Palestine, especially with a "broad coalition" or a "united front", and that's one of your top priorities ever, you really have to metagame this. propose something utterly insane like handing everyone a dividend that in all likelihood is going to only pay rent for a lot of people and probably end up withheld from minorities somehow, basically improving the lives of privileged White people. that's something people would probably eat up. especially if you handed it out to each state and said states could choose to put the money into school vouchers or whatever they want that isn't weapons (so, no handing it to police or ICE). put the money into school vouchers, business subsidies, Media Representation art grants, nuclear power plants, or baseball, but not federal schools or healthcare or housing or anything that makes people think "that's a Black people thing so it can't be federal". subsidize thrift stores; pay for a bunch of textbooks to properly teach kids phonics as long as they aren't purely in state schools and are also being shipped to libraries and general retailers; pay hospitals directly to hire more staff; do absolutely anything but federally-based old-style Menshevism. you kind of have to backwards wall jump off people's prejudices to where the prejudices themselves accidentally do good. the Palestine conflict has me really tired because you really do need an absolutely stupid-sounding plan like this to win it. you need to basically slash the federal budget and set up a generic cash flow from federal government into states and when they get the money let the states vote on what all the government programs will be within their state plus other states that vote for the same thing, but refuse to let them vote for lower taxes and destroy the programs-fund under harsh penalties of basically like suing the top 5% of the state population in court for the taxes it owes and doing whatever bad things happen to you if you ignore a lawsuit, until people actually settle onto what programs they truly wanted when they were mad at the federal government making the wrong ones. it's like... I kind of don't think Menshevism has mass support any more, I think if you want a 'mass Socialist movement' with broad support across the population you really need to think in terms of orange anarchism, where it's all based on the idea of getting mad at the federal government and axing it as much as possible. it's pretty damn popular to hear rhetoric that basically The Government is broken but only small businesses in particular are the people and the Democracy and are oppressed. people everywhere absolutely love the idea of Our Democracy empowering a sea of Free Wills when people vote, but they hate the idea of federal taxes, so I think what would actually be popular is transitioning from a federal budget model to a model where all that budget is divided into states and you just hope they work together to build the same nationwide programs. it would be a mess, but you didn't say you primarily wanted to transition the United States to a better system or make people any less racist before taking immediate action on international issues, you said you primarily wanted to take money away from arming Israel. so that's the bed you'd have to sleep in. so, are you sure "we need to work with people we don't agree with on everything" and "we can't afford to be ultraleft" from orange anarchism?
618. Kant and free will as noumenon -> second critique
618. denounced as ultraleftist by Zinoviev / denounced as an ultra-leftist by Zinoviev -> knowing how shaky early Trotskyists were on actually understanding Lenin's theories, this has to be one of the sickest burns in the history of Marxism
618. To defeat Toryism, aid Cuba / One of the best ways to defeat anticommunism is simply to make sure Cuba survives and remains functional despite marketist disconnection attacks — most organizations who are not connected to Cuba probably benefit more from being connected to Cuba and refusing to stop sending things there and to other allies of Cuba regardless of the penalty than they do from being connected to their own abusive First-World republics -> some of the most effective movements are movements the size of a whole national population which are not broken up by fractures inside individual countries. theoretically one unbroken country plus other populations should be even more effective, although this is often undermined by the external populations fracturing in or between themselves. as for Cuba, it's been shown time and time again that the measurement of a society's success is the ability to survive the
618. second Cuba embargo (United States) / Cuba embargo level 2
618. Center-Liberals don't actually believe in realizing the capitalist mode of production, they believe in realizing the marketist mode of production; this is why so many people simultaneously go on and on about "capitalism" as if it's synonymous with neoliberalism or "greed" and is only an "extreme", but somehow accept the term "capitalism" and believe in "Socialism" and 'getting rid of billionaires'; these apparent class expressions are not good omens, and actually suggest that people everywhere are unifying onto making everyone into Filaments of small businesses arbitrarily linked together by countable cultures, Kantian or Lacanian visions of ethics, in-groups versus social drama and fractures, and the mysterious, nebulous historical force of "Community"
618. Orange anarchism is partly defined by pulling chunks of people out of some greater structure or population when they are dissatisfied with their relationship with that population -> this definition explains the strangely large set of commonalities between Trotskyists and right-Liberals while some of their values are drastically different. whether they know it or not they both fundamentally base their ideologies on the concept of splitting society. of course, I think you could say the same thing about uniquely brown "anarcho-Tory" movements — they want to detach out of a greater society they're dissatisfied with due to being nationalists and practicing local-scale nationalism.
618. Brown anarchism is partly defined by pulling chunks of people out of some greater structure or population when they are dissatisfied with their relationship with that population
618. Trotskyism and Kant -> what exactly do Trotskyists think of Kant? do they try to claim he's correct because they often think of borders as fake, or is absorbing traditional philosophy only a thing Western-Marxists do?
618. Dissension and strife do not inhere in man and society [69] -> sounds great but the problem is that man are not singular and society are not singular.
618. Goku is utopia as a person / Goku is the human version of a utopia (sic) / A utopia is a hypothetical place that is so much not like any actual place that it is not a place; a mythical hero is a hypothetical person that is so much not like any actual person that they are not a person
618. All republics are created because a population of people is oppressed -> this seems to hold broadly true for Liberal-republicanism, Bolshevism, and Deng Xiaoping states, if you consider the ongoing threat of countries being turned into neocolonies.
     the really shocking part is this: it rather neatly explains why morality is incapable of truly creating a progressive movement and improving Liberal-republicanism further. a bunch of people can congregate around morality and try to assert that they are uniquely oppressed and that means they get to put a president over the population and rule it and enforce Kantianism over it to get rid of Domination. but in practice, if you build your whole philosophy off everybody being The Subject and basically being the same and Liberal-republicanism working "because we all suffer and all have empathy", there is never any actual leverage for one political party to be preferred as the group of oppressed people who forms a republic to protect against its surroundings, and materially speaking there can't actually be any objective morally-correct side or "right side of history". you can say a bunch of rhetoric about needing to get everybody to vote to "create a republic" to protect Black people and Latinos, but practically speaking everybody in the population has been raised with an ideology that seeks to eliminate the existence of the proletariat and squash everybody into a Careerist or small owner, and once that has been going on for generations, everybody basically has the same standing in terms of who can form a republic-per-se to protect people; everything looks exactly the same and everything turns to mush, nothing able to stand up as a new physical object and become distinct. you can try to assert that Kantianism is a basis for Normal People to group together and form a republic to protect against Abnormal People, but that's about all you can do, make some inherently prejudiced statement about who belongs to a superior or inferior culture and what dangerous cultures have to be conquered.
618. All republics threaten to disintegrate when a population of people is no longer oppressed -> this poses its problems for Bolshevism but there is a potential answer: Bolshevism, a republic, is supposed to transition to some material object that is somehow not considered a republic and after the stages of monarchy and republic is properly called something else.
618. The collective unconscious in fiction is an illusion created by the fact that all the characters actually emerge from a single real mind -> I definitely would not have figured this out as easily without Deltarune. I guess any story that frames itself as a dream would have gotten me here eventually but Deltarune actually makes you ask where the Dark Worlds and all the Light World characters equally come from, so it practically screams this proposition
618. Communists will solve quantum gravity -> it sounds like a joke but the reasons nobody has figured out quantum gravity are similar to the reasons most people don't accept Marxism and haven't put it into practice.
618. gravity Trotskyists -> motif Items are actually meant to be able to be really fine-grained. I just haven't been doing that so far because it makes it harder to get them all organized than if I stuck to things that seem "important".
618. functions are apples being equal / gravity is gravitons being equal / people oversimplifying other disciplines the same way they oversimplify Marxism -> this is just a splendid comedy sketch waiting to happen.
     ethics doesn't work. you really think you can make all people have exactly the same values and behave exactly the same??
     mathematical functions? do you really think you can find the area under a sine wave with just two plus two?
     quantum gravity? oh, like, apples falling to the earth, but smaller? I have no idea how you'd ever pull off a theory of that. like, all the cells in the apple are basically the same, so how can there ever be differing amounts of gravity? how are there even different-sized objects like an apple and the earth in the first place? quantum physics says when you go really small there are just quarks and photons and Higgs bosons and everything is just the same. how do you ever get variety and atoms and different clumps of mass out of that? why isn't the universe just a bunch of identical red apples with identical amounts of gravity?? when I was back in college hanging out with feminists I was considering the idea of gravity but as soon as I found out about quantum gravity and all the ridiculous assertions you had to make at the smallest levels to put together a transition from things being in one place to things accelerating into each other I started to realize that gravity doesn't actually work.
     gosh I love the gravity one. who are the gravity Trotskyists though, is the question. wait, no, I know. those are the people who decide to claim that gravity still works because you just have to stick to Newtonian gravity, the original stuff that Newton wrote; we nearly lost physics because Einstein screwed everything up. also the string theory bureaucracy is still busy ruining it, we could totally explain gravity to people because we totally definitely understand how to teach it if those selfish string theorists would just stop gatekeeping everybody else trying to come into academia and solve the same problems better. (that last part is based on Trotskyists complaining that they're not effective enough to overcome labor union bureaucracies. it's funny because the same problem really is at play in both cases, if Trotskyists really understood how to unify workers together into a body of people capable of permanent revolution instead of every collection of 10-20 workers periodically scattering and losing all their relationships just to find a new place to be because corporations are constantly collapsing or unpredictably losing ground to each other, then at a certain point booting out the 'labor union bureaucracy' would be no problem for them. the real problem is basically just that Bolshevism could handle that unpredictability and carve things up a little more predictably or at least re-assign people, but when a country isn't unified there's kind of a continuous negative feedback loop where the division keeps scattering society keeps scattering society and like, you really just need an actual rupturing process where things suddenly go from a negative feedback loop of scattering to a positive feedback loop of unification.)
618. First-World people and Third-World people become similar on the basis of some segment of the population having almost no space to be born in or practically exist in -> there are several ways to create a one-dimensional categorization of different class territories that can help divide one from another. the worst one is wealth. a better but not entirely adequate one is how productive power creates income. another one is simply how easy it is for people to be born. the more miraculous it is for someone to have been born at all, the more likely they are to be able to form a capable proletarian subpopulation.
     note: I will never call it the "revolutionary subject". that implies a lot of yucky things like that history has a main character (no, it's many things smashing into each other in plurality), that the revolutionary population is somehow inherently justified or 'chosen by heaven' (nope, it's just more physically, materially capable of building a country), or, mostly by accidental overlap between terms, that the revolutionary population is a thinking person or an emotive countable culture with some kind of figurative soul exactly the same as in a single human being ("the subject"). even if the last one is a little accidentally true once Che Guevara starts talking about the tuning fork, I still feel like you don't get very far by copying from the outside something nobody can understand from the outside, and it's just better practice to understand things materially rather than trying to understand them immaterially. so yeah, "capable proletarian subpopulation", not "revolutionary subject". and I also try a little bit to figure out the anatomy of it that causes it to exist rather than not exist. the notion of a "revolutionary subject" is so mushy in comparison, it gives people a totally wrong picture of what Marxism is and a false impression it isn't as rigorous as it actually is.
618. Similarities between the Russian Revolution and East Germany reveal the functional purpose of Bolshevism
618. Similarities between BlackPantherism and East Germany reveal the functional purpose of Bolshevism -> it's a little... "interesting" how if you want to teach a bunch of White people about imperialism you can't really put two non-White populations in the same comparison like BlackPantherism and North Korea, or you'll get a few strawberry anarchists with Black friends absolutely convinced that the chief commonality is getting mad at White people and having racial animosity for the sake of racial animosity (substitute 'White' for 'British-French-German axis of people' or 'Japanese people' as appropriate), rather than looking at the situation honestly and seeing it as a small population of people trying to survive against a large aggressive population of people. people really easily look at the presence of separate racialized populations and race relations being a topic at all and contort it in their minds into 'people actually being racist'. so you almost need to have a population full of White people in there such as East Germany or Soviet Russia just to show that a given process of transition to Bolshevism isn't actually predicated on the concept of race relations or populations being racialized.
618. Similarities between BlackPantherism and Deng Xiaoping Thought reveal the functional purpose of Deng Xiaoping Thought
618. Christian nationalism and Christian "ISAs (pronounced Ideological State Apparatuses)" don't cause Toryism and fascism, they come into being out of a country's obsession with individual morality and I-believing-everybody into the same code of behavior -> this is the next level of Marxism. level 1 is realizing that all philosophies and ideologies emanate from, or at least develop while locked inside and restricted by, the material arrangements of people into economic base elements and modes of production. level 2 is realizing that current modes of production don't directly generate ideologies themselves, and speculating on how exactly new or different ideologies can emerge through methods like social graphs (Toryism), the over-application of ethics to all behavior (Existentialism / blue anarchisms), fractures in large populations (Trotskyism), improper joining of populations (postcolonial anarchisms / transition of tribes to tribal society), and the desire of a lot of totally fragmented people with no state to protect them from state violence to form a single nation-state or federation with an actual presence of laws and which actually functions together more than they want 'freedom' from each other (Bolshevism). any particular sociophilosophy operates on class structures inside it, but it isn't necessarily classes that start the ball rolling on what will ultimately be a class-based process. why do some members of the same class join together to consider a new system at any given moment while some don't? that's one of the most critical parts of the process, and class analysis can't really explain it. in my mind, exmat does finally explain it. it's the whole sum of people joining together that does anything, not individuals, not even small islands of individuals. as the islands get bigger the whole Lattice structure begins to spread knowledge about itself across itself and start trying to build accurate models of its own development and physics in order to predict the best ways for it to form fully and thus win. the capable proletarian subpopulation or proletarian Lattice never fully turns into a person but it does gain a very minimal ability to pilot its body almost like a person does only if it has collectively created and spread a map of itself. in a sense, a proletarian Lattice is several times smarter than ChatGPT. it is an inanimate object that contains an ontology of things, mainly of itself, but is actually able to act on that and respond to events based on that in a reasonable amount of time.
618. center-Toryism
618. Toryism merely defends chunks / A basic nationalism consists almost solely of the statement that the only purpose of a national population is winning chunk competition; many other suggested core characteristics of nationalism including various prejudices are actually just consequences of the imperative to keep a chunk of connected people functioning together to fight off other chunks, and perhaps continuously growing
618. Homeostasis generates Idealism
618. The purpose of labor is to manufacture more class territories in order to turn everyone into small owners -> I like works written in irony as nickels more than unironic examples [70]
618. Hero and villain are physical categories that materially emerge out of the stream of history; the state of being Good or Evil, Right or Wrong, is a physical process in and of itself which can be computed without human consciousnesses; this implies but does not guarantee that an actor's moral position can be calculated with a mathematical equation -> what absolutely everyone seems to believe, with a slight twist. this is what I imagine would be produced if somebody found out about exmat but didn't want to believe it could be used to invalidate blue anarchism and tried to co-opt it into being an Existentialist concept. trying to turn morality into a Materialist mathematical equation in order to still get away with it in a world where philosophers are increasingly secular and physics-based.
618. An LLM is a philosophical zombie -> LLMs are one of the first machines that can kind of pass a Turing test by fairly closely replicating one specific kind of human behavior, but they replicate that behavior without having any inner experience. philosophical zombies have finally been realized.
618. Roll a square number with square root dice / A die roll from 1 to a square number can be substituted for two die rolls of horizontal and vertical coordinate without changing the probability of each outcome
618. Epicurean materialism -> recorded partly so "EC" can be the ideology code for all Materialist philosophy that approaches Hyper-Materialism and doesn't try to treat ideas as actually being some kind of fundamental physical immaterial object or something
618. Anarchists benefit from empires smashing national sovereignty and independence -> they like to deny it. but if your theory truly revolves around daily individual actions and shuns the idea of establishing any new power structures as a material way of obtaining freedom because supposedly the world has too many and the easiest way to stop propagating class society is just to immediately stop making power structures... the easiest way to accomplish that is to stand by and let the United States bomb Vietnam and do several very violent things to it so that at the end of it, without having to lift a finger yourself, you have your precious disappearance of borders and freedom of movement, association, and thought. when you believe that society is uncountable, it's easy to get that effect in a world of countable societies by just expanding a single countable society over the world.
618. Never run LLM experiments using online LLMs -> there are three ways this statement can be taken: as a project policy stating that online LLMs should never be used for this project (fully offline LLMs are approved for experiments as long as you never ever leave any generated text or reasoning that hasn't been checked manually on pages; use an LLM to generate a Wavebuilder combination, and if you give a really good manual reasoning not from the LLM for why that's totally the answer you won't get caught), as a statement that even outside this project online LLM experiments can never be as useful as offline LLM experiments, or as a prescriptive statement to basically never use online LLMs. all three statements seem sound to me, really.
618. Power comes from technology / Power comes from material inventions and philosophical technologies, including corporate structures, government institutions, and ideological conditioning -> no. now, I like the definition of technology here. that part is not really the bad part — honestly, it's pretty cool and fitting to be able to call something like Marxist historical materialism a technology. that said, this is an Idealist model of where power comes from. it doesn't look like it at first, when it appeals to material objects like spears, bomber planes, and datacenters full of LLMs, but the telling part is when it considers policies to be technologies on the same level as physical inventions. while that shouldn't be a bad thing it's definitely being done for the wrong reasons. what's being implied is that technologies are something that are deliberately created as social constructs by individuals based on what they personally want — based on individual knowledge, individual ideology, and individual will. the article says that individual actions and decisions can never fully be prevented, which is correct, but then it claims that they can be contained anyway, based on some oddly specific between-the-lines reasoning that if people decide to do something it must then be possible to tell them not to decide to do it. this is not correct. people are countably separate material objects capable of multiplying their capital and capacity for destruction before they are rational agents, so if you try to believe that Ideas and Free Will are the basis for government then you'll end up at the conclusion that government is almost impossible. all you can really claw back from the harsh facts of reality is the concept that because people have the capacity for destruction that in itself means that there's the right for a nation-state to assert government over them. but nation-states are countable, so you have to decide which nation-state has the inherent right to capture which people. and if you decide it wrong, the United States will forcibly assimilate a bunch of individual Native Americans into the United States identity and culture just so they are incapable of waging a war against it. or, for a more fun example, if you decide wrong the Communist Party of the Soviet Union will forcibly assimilate a bunch of Trotskyists that would rather create their own countably separate Marxist party, and make them operate within and construct the Soviet Union even as they don't really want to. this really is not how government works or where it comes from.
618. Government is nearly impossible -> the concept that everything that Liberal-republicanism seeks to "moderate" is something that has the inherent power to multiply itself and continuously become stronger than all it oppresses and simply destroy all that wishes to contain it.
     here, the problem is in looking at objects in isolation and thinking, I need to control that individual object, let's pass a law, rather than looking at the entire overall sea of objects and their interactions. and please don't say the word "system"; too many systemic analyses of seas of objects only end up assuming there's something special about a particular sea of objects and the processes it contains and letting all the objects in the sea continue to interact the same way. you have to understand reterminism, the way things interact all-directionally into each other to produce an actually interesting process which changes the system's resting state. people always go around claiming they don't like determinism, and then, like, nothing about their understanding allows them to get beyond single-variable determinist models that assume a system will never actually change and predict it will keep doing the exact same thing.
618. marketist mode of production -> in early MDem entries I was a little reluctant to say the phrase "mode of production" because I was afraid I would be misusing it, but I think I'm now at a point of understanding where I've begun to accurately recreate the concept in exmat such that however I use the term will be close enough and it's okay.
     the marketist mode of production is a method of adding new people to a population where the graph connections in markets are more powerful than wads of capital. there may be a ton of separate similarly-sized businesses and it looks superficially egalitarian, but there are powerful forces of control at work inside it. the simple ability to reject people and say "no" leaves people in fear and has them constantly playing mind games and punishing themselves before the people with power, the receiving nodes, really have to do much of anything. nobody can be authentic, because you have to calculate exactly what everyone expects you to do before you do anything just to be sure you'll be added to society and not thrown out or locked away in your house; your identity and self-concept in your house is drastically different from your self-concept in town or your self-concept on a public internet platform, or even on public internet platform B. leave your house, talk to anyone, and you're a product, to be thrown out if you're defective for a narrow purpose.
     this is the specific mode of production which invades Third-World countries. it isn't even capital per se (except in cases that capital is buying drones or bomber planes and sending them in or something; that's capital). it's just little Filaments of friends forming market connections that explode borders in harmful ways. Existentialism and blue chunks and Filamentist oppression are the surface manifestation, marketism would be the actual Base process beneath all that that a Lenin type figure would be interested in.
     the word "marketism" is already in use to describe a kind of right-Liberal worship of markets, [71] but the funny thing is that the definitions are fairly similar such that "advocating marketism" and "advocating marketism" would basically mean the same thing, so I think with a chapter defining it it's at least pretty safe to use this term in the book. much like "Careerist layer"/"Careerist system"/"careerism", where the biggest difference is just that the standard usage of "careerism" is this individualist model of individuals selfishly building up a career and the alternate usage is fairly close to just duplexing that concept so it means a whole bunch of people doing that at once.
     tangent: when I searched marketism I found... a very interesting little thing. [72] its theories of society are often pretty spot on, it managed to understand the basic ideas of chunk competition and the mountain of capital that slams down The State, but its actual remedies for problems are weirdly Kantian and center-Liberal. I suspect critical theory wrote this thing, though I can't be mad because this is kind of a collection of its greatest hits. so... my one issue is this. it claims government has the power to fix the underlying processes in the socioeconomy which actually create power. [73] but... how do you know the destructive processes aren't just going to immediately dismantle government as fast as they can with their outsized actively-multiplying power and make government impossible? this is kind of a paradoxical, self-defeating model.
618. The United States partly contains imperialist-capitalism and partly contains marketism
618. I just woke up in Molecular Marxism. What does it look like? / I just woke up in a violet Marxism, in some form of workers' state or dictatorship of the proletariat. What does day-to-day life look like? -> one of the most basic beginner questions anyone would want to know. they say you can't tell people anything and you have to show them; I think that's also true of Marxism.
     first of all. there are going to be a lot of stupid questions from people that are like, "can I write BL" "can I contribute to OpenStreetMap" "can I write Existentialist philosophy books you claimed were dumb" "can I talk about Indian tribes transitioning to tribal society instead of to Bolshevism" "can I insult Steven Universe" "can I say nasty things about the founders of Molecular Marxism and accuse them of a bunch of crap (pronounced redacted)" "can I write poetry" "can I run a fediverse instance from my house" "can I believe in a deistic god" "can I stick with basic accounts of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie instead of going deep into exmat" "can I call early Trotskyists criminals" "can I form a social circle where reactionaries aren't allowed". and the answer to these is generally "yes".
     the main thing that a Molecular Marxism is going to restrict or crack down on is improper fragmentation, like trying to take a public facility and tear it out of society to gut it for money, or trying to take a business and use it to effectively build a separate nation-state with its own laws without having proper cause for that. (these days most populations are made out of smaller Particle Elements so every national independence movement will probably just be made of a bunch of linked businesses, but there are still ways to tell which ones are legitimate and which ones aren't.)
618. I just woke up in Bolshevism. What does it look like? / I just woke up in a Marxist civilization founded by mainstream Marxist-Leninists, in some form of workers' state or dictatorship of the proletariat. What does day-to-day life look like?
618. I just woke up in Trotskyism. What does it look like? / I just woke up in a Marxist civilization founded by Trotskyists, in some form of workers' state or dictatorship of the proletariat. What does day-to-day life look like? -> this is probably something of an umbrella question with several variants because I'm convinced by now that there are multiple forms of Trotskyism that would all have different eras of socialism and the fact that they have conflicting descriptions is part of why Trotskyist groups keep breaking up and failing to unify.
618. When Marx claimed that the British conquest of India would "improve" India, the practical Materialist statement that is implied in what he said is that it's worse for a population if another population doesn't even recognize it as existing and tries to totally exterminate its people and culture off the face of the earth than if the imperial population decides to conquer it into another structure, and thus in leaving the colony nation alive accidentally gives it the opportunity to transform from being a colony into being a republic and developing a modern mode of production specifically for itself -> if this is really what Marx said he doesn't deserve this nice of an interpretation of his error. and yet, either way, this is what I've always seen the core purpose of Marxism as being — that we can never change the past but we can find ways to make awful things the past has created into better things. looking at the United States and seeing it break out of the British Empire you can sort of see how a European would naïvely think that maybe India could just break out of the British Empire something like that. it's not a totally illogical thought, it was just horribly incomplete in its details. Marx was never going to get to a correct description of India without at least China and North Korea happening, in actual conditions where the theorists are observing a population fighting off empire. but now that that's happened and we're in the age of Maoism, there's not really any denying that Marxism can happen in India any more.
618. The Confederacy came to be by stealing a population of people / The United States Confederacy came to be through as a population owning another population of people that it had no real reason to own; colloquially, it might be said that the Confederacy "stole" the Black population from itself, in the sense of it once being a free-standing population or populations that belonged only to itself as an independent object, but then losing that general-sense ownership or membership into itself to become owned by another population
618. Why aren't LGBT+ people a democracy? -> putting a little pressure on Liberal-republicanism. this idea that populations of people don't in fact have a Base just by virtue of being populations, and identities somehow exist on their own layer of reality as a smallest-scale component of towns is silly. if you can really just be gay or trans without having a class position in society, then like, why isn't there specifically a gay Congress or a gay president right now? why aren't LGBT+ people a free-standing country with their own democratic institutions specific to them? why do they have to be a subpopulation in another country and use that other country's system of representation? follow along with me. in Liberal-republicanism and a lot of Existentialism people just kind of assume that "democracy" can be a basic part of society that exists before all else, before nation-states, before businesses, before anything, just, human individuals and consciousnesses exist and then suddenly democracy exists. but in practice, every single democracy consists of material pieces like national borders and constitutionally-defined republican institutions with actual buildings they meet in. so if democracy really came first before anything else, then it would be reasonable to expect gay people would have their own gay president and gay elections and everybody would have a gay passport and who knows, there might even be a gay national healthcare system. but that's not really how it works in practice. on the other hand, if the order of events was that human beings exist and then modes of production exist, where people need particular things and they are added to social structures to fulfil those needs that are physical or otherwise basic, and that is the way people join society, then the observed pattern of gay people being workers or owners like everyone else and merely being added into a larger subpopulation instead of having their own nation-state is about what you'd expect to happen. where is the Black president unique to all Black people that isn't president of the United States? it's almost like over 100 years ago Black people were forcibly added to the United States inside a mode of production.
618. we don't need more ads, we need better games! -> it's amazing how at a certain point even the most normal people get tired of capitalism that you'd think are far too trapped in capitalism to notice. people who won't question Liberal-republican party systems, won't strike, won't protest, will just one day suddenly notice the fact that throwing money into marketing instead of the product is a horrible use of capital and they don't really like some arbitrary person being able to decide where the capital goes.
     just watching enough videos about Pokémon has really convinced me that some of the stuff Fisher and Althusser say is flat out wrong. people are smarter than Western-Marxists think they are. it's just that "the Superstructure" doesn't really work the way they think it does as some kind of ocean of propaganda or something. "the Superstructure" is in some ways just the arrangement of the Base, like the unarranged set of workers that goes into a video game company might be called the Base, or the specific arrangement of subsidiaries and teams they're in, but the actual finished video game is the Superstructure. they aren't separate things, they're woven together like spacetime. actually that's a very apt analogy, because spatially arranged particles bumping into each other are the cause and time is the effect.
618. Whenever you claim that every country specifically has an "LGBT+" subpopulation (and not simply a "two-spirit subpopulation" or a "T subpopulation [China]" or a "hijra subpopulation [India]"), you are proving Marxism very slowly; what Marxism actually says is that independent societies develop inner subpopulations independently through the society's internal interacting elements, but that there are a limited number of processes that keep happening repeatedly inside different societies as long as their overall characteristics prior to that development are somewhat similar
618. Superstructure is a physical object / The point of "the Base" in Marxism is that it represents individual people before assembling into large ideology-objects that are "the Superstructure", such as ministries or political factions, so to claim that "the Base doesn't dictate all social relations" is somewhat nonsensical as it implies some human individuals don't physically exist or don't actually assemble into populations; this is not a sensical thing to say about minority subpopulations successfully assembling together, because in the case of LGBT+ subpopulations for instance something is already assembling them together into "a community" on a daily basis, and if a town populated entirely by gay and trans people living there through their own power is mathematically possible then there has to be a Base inside the town such as retail stores or Artisanal practices where people draw art commissions, etc. / If a physical town composed entirely of lesbians exists for years at a time then it has a Base -> if a gay town is sky blue it still contains money, it still contains incomes, it is still a chunk, and it still has a Base.
618. fediverse nickel bank -> I don't totally trust this wiki project to be the central, "most reliable" place to collect nickels. it's a rather general-interest, wide-scope activity; this wiki has a somewhat narrow ultimate purpose before technically it could be transformed into multiple proposition wikis each handling a specific conceptual area, much like the difference between Wikipedia and Fandom wikis.
     so here's an idea. somebody puts up a fediverse instance, conceptually kind of like a mastodon instance, whose purpose is specifically to capture links. the data structure for links should have a few features tailored for keeping track of YouTube videos (and PeerTube videos if those are relevant), as well as other particularly common kinds of links. (any link or searchable post identifier which is or was publicly accessible can be posted, from videos and Reddit threads to news articles, old versions of pages on wikis, and anything else.) people sign up to the instance, get a username, and then they can post links. other people can edit the links. (whether the post is truly edited or replaced with a new version doesn't actually matter, though in principle I feel like the post should store all the previous IDs it had when it gets re-made because this isn't person-to-person messaging and we want the posts to have permanent links.) once the links are posted and finished, people can assign the links to tags. the tags represent something you want to gather evidence for, or demonstrate as a phenomenon. then as a silly gimmick every tag gets a "nickel score" in U.S. dollars so you can roughly judge how common it is or at least how popular it is on the site.
     the fediverse compatibility would be that the tags have their own posts that like the nickel posts can be remade, and it's possible to share the tags with their current description, nickel score, and other details. this is the "API": when you want to know about a particular tag, you pull the post and read the fields inside the JSON data. if there is a lot of traffic, there could be a mirror that simply serves all the posts as static JSON files, and each post edit could archive the post to the write-only version of the mirror that the read-only versions periodically update from daily or weekly or something based on a list of post IDs that have changed.
     the nickels themselves would not be federated to "truly social" instances, to make moderation easier and limit potential for abuse. you just know people are going to archive weird shit (pronounced redacted) like a private Twitter message on this thing, so, best to stop that at the source before it leaks out.
     there are a very broad number of things you could track on this thing. you could make a tag like "Elder Scrolls fans being misogynistic", or you could make a tag like "Deltarune theory: Susie is half human" to compare the popularity of different Deltarune theories. there would have to be localized rankings for specific kinds of tags so you can see which ones are actually comparable or conceptually related.
618. dignity (Marxism) -> a Materialist definition of dignity? okay. nice. [74]
618. Marxism would experience a forced encounter with the Other that challenged its prescribed trajectory [75] -> this is.... right but for totally wrong reasons. if early Trotskyism or the collison between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Maoism counts as ""the Other"" then yeah, that actually did happen.
     if they don't... why are postcolonial theories so keen on erasing neocolonialism and the concept of Third-World countries. sure, I only bring up China as an easy example, and not because it's inherently important. but if you're failing on the easy examples it becomes dubious to trust you with the hard ones with a bunch of racial baggage. their example is India. but it doesn't matter what Marx said about India because a bunch of tiny Maoist parties have sprouted up in India. that wouldn't have happened if anything this is saying about Marx is actually valid. like, Marxists in India are right there and the postcolonial theorists are flat-out speaking over India. which is the thing they effectively said you have to throw theories out for. bye?
618. decolonization (post-Marxism) -> after seeing what they did to the word "power", I'm nervous what they'll do to this one.
618. class essentialism / (9k)
618. power beyond the factory floor / to theorise power beyond the factory floor (theorize; post-Marxism) / (9k)
618. symbolic politics / (9k)
618. Robber barons were militant Existentialists -> the biggest wads of capital that are laying important structure in the industry of a country or globally aggressively protect themselves. in this sense, they are similar to blue anarchist concepts that minorities deserve to exist 'just because they exist and are'. on some levels all societies are anarchic no matter how violent or "hierarchical". this is the nexus between capitalism or capital per se and blue anarchism per se
618. Transition from early capitalism to upper-phase communism involves workers constructing various compartments of public life — applying labor to useful ends to each task of transforming a society of tiny shops and Artisanal practices into larger enduring public structures — and creating a society that finishes each compartment and lets it stand rather than continuously tearing them down and starting over again, steadily producing at all popular compartments until a lot of common things drastically drop in price and are sometimes free -> I know "compartment" is a weird way to put it, "public facility" would be just as intuitive, but what do you really call something like Wikipedia where there are basic questions and procedures and then task forces and then there's just a bunch of content and everyone comes and reads it and it just is? there are a bunch of things within societies that have similar life cycles to idealized businesses that just... don't sell anything, and just are. and I feel like analyzing those things gives a lot of insight into what is supposed to be done with businesses.
     look at YouTube. one stage of developing society is for there to be books, but there won't always be enough of them, especially if they're rather dense books and there are only a few people you'd logically sell them to, counter-intuitively keeping them expensive. but then another wave of people starts making videos about the books that are available free and easier to understand. the fact that manages to happen within capitalism is a lesser miracle. the proliferation of capitalists would seem like it doesn't guarantee anything is affordable as long as all the capitalists make enough money to sell to each other expensively. (see: Switch 2 and ascending video game prices.) but the fact that capitalists can never fully run away from parts of society being complete to where they're all over thrift stores or otherwise old news and anything that tries to add anything more to that having to be available free can work wonders. one of the only tricks they have left is either constantly reinventing the same exact products under different proprietary brands to sell them new and turn them rare again, or putting lots of emphasis on the arts and trying to make everyone believe that despite genre fiction, despite there being things like TV Tropes that create long lists of works containing one highly specific detail, despite everything, that every single TV show is totally unique and you've gotta buy it new.
618. Mexicans occupy Indian lands / If nobody should act entitled to the West half of the United States who wasn't there in 1780, Mexicans aren't entitled to come into it either / If the most important factor in the United States is the presence of "stolen land", then Native Americans benefit from keeping Mexicans from coming into the United States so there are fewer European descendants to fight to see the land returned / ... autonomous agents are scary (censored title) -> I don't really like "stolen land" rhetoric because beyond clearly-specified plans that will be able to turn over specific areas to reservations — which are fine because they can actually produce something — Mexicans were once a European empire, just like the United States. logically all European-descended Mexicans are on stolen land, but they can still be oppressed by internal class conflicts and relationships between countries. the conflict between individual Mexicans and individual United States people over the overall area of the United States and Mexico somewhat overshadows the original conflict of that area once having been taken by Europe. if anyone were to actually take the side of eliminating Mexican immigrants from the United States it would only empower the worst and most powerful corner of White people to eliminate anybody they want, and in effect make the "land thieves" more able to take land because it's only the most powerful ones operating outside anyone's control that matter in the first place. which is a counter-intuitive result if land is truly the big thing or the United States truly benefits specifically from land. if "stolen land" is truly as simple as 'land that belonged to somebody that was taken and needs to be returned because it's theirs', then that would logically imply that driving all Mexicans out of the stolen land would be a worthwhile activity as long as by the end of it you get enough White people out of the land for it to be returned, and once it is returned the whole problem is solved. but that isn't the way things actually work. the way it really works, there are three sets of White people and one of them is hostile and violent but the other isn't, and when a third set of White people comes in they join up with the second neutral set of White people or the minority groups and it actually makes things less bad. how about driving Mexicans out of Hawaii to protect stolen Hawaiian land? you never hear that proposed either. because once again, people can be descendants of European empires that once arbitrarily took the continent and perhaps even be flooding into a place like they're entitled to it but still end up as minority groups that are aligned with other minority groups.
     the key thing here is that populations operate anarchically and populations chunk-compete. when White people decide to get aggressive towards immigrants, it's directly a group of people versus a group of people almost for the sake of there being more of one group of people, and none of it is really dependent on how much land there is — European empires can get very aggressive over what should be plenty of land. people just genuinely get tense about the existence of other groups of people and feel the need to "make sure" that they're the only group of people so future conflicts won't happen. it's really that ugly. "Manifest Destiny" is more of a lie than you even think it was. in some ways it's just very much like the United States wanted to be the only population. but the real crux of it is the ability or inability to predict other populations. if you can't imagine peacefully coexisting with the Soviet Union in 1950, and can only imagine the threat of an actual nuclear attack, then you understand why White people are so keen on killing anything that moves. autonomous agents are scary. you don't know they'll be nice. and perhaps it's horrifying to you that anyone would see tribal populations that way; it should be. but your task is get everyone to understand all populations as predictable entities. if you don't do that, you'll never be able to control autonomous chunks of hostile White people, and you'll never be able to get them to stop seeing people as the enemy.
     with all that said, I haven't actually heard this specific example posed seriously as something real people get mad about. it's just a counterexample for where particular kinds of rhetoric can lead.
     knowing how almost-real they are, I don't especially like anti-Mexican hypothetical scenarios. when I can I'll always take a "stupid" hypothetical scenario where somebody is prejudiced against or facing the prejudices of Trotskyists, or modern Russians.
618. Native Americans would have benefited from preventing the dissolution of the Soviet Union, because if people aren't forced to move out of the Soviet Union to the United States, it would shut off one of the actively-running faucets of new White people trying to claim land in the United States and make it easier to return land -> this is like the Mexico proposition except not from the vantage point of bigotry. the major difference is that a lot of people wanted to remain in the Soviet Union, so if they stay where they are, "keeping them out of the United States" is not oppressing them.
618. China is a top-down trend (statement that the People's Republic of China was founded by experts who figured out the correct way to put together a functional country before regular people would fill up the new republic, inexplicably said in the tone of a "gender critical" blog claiming that gender identity is engineered, but only in irony within the context of meta-Marxism) -> sometimes language makes me mad. but sometimes I love language because of the absolutely dumb ways you can phrase things.
     the point of this statement is that if you actually knew about the topic you'd know it's wrong for subtle reasons — exactly like with gender identity. and here's why: experts can sometimes show up with correct models. in this case because Materialism exists. as with gender... the explanation of how the experts know is a little harder. that has always frustrated me. that it's literally easier to explain the entire history of China than it is to explain gender. and yet that the impossible questions are the ones we have to argue about, not the possible ones.
618. stopping CoIntelPro with a lawsuit -> it's super weird to me that that even worked. what, in principle, obligates the FBI to tell anyone what it was doing or pay up? every part of the U.S. government is just a piece of paper except maybe the military and ICE.
     I think this event reveals something non-obvious. it doesn't reveal that Liberal-republicanism is inherently honest or fair. instead what it actually reveals is something like that human beings are inherently arranged into countable cultures and if you step entirely inside a particular countable culture and play by all its specific rules no matter how shitty (pronounced redacted) they are then you can get people that agree to be connected to that countable culture to do what you want. this has good implications, and dark implications. one of the dark implications is that you have to be completely jacked into QAnon and genocidal imperialism or whatever people genuinely believe on the ground and think all of that is genuinely okay to stand by and condone to reach Republicans; you have to believe literally everything they believe except one little thing that would improve that specific countable culture strictly under its own reasoning. one of the good implications is that if the United States just went and talked to the CPC and played by its rules a lot of the things people find scary about China could probably be solved. medium-shade implication? if U.S. people were just smarter and less stupid within the fraction of people who get law degrees nobody would truly need democracy, the experts would just figure out what they're supposed to do themselves, they'd stop fighting other countries, and this messed-up country would just steadily run itself. I don't like it but sadly it's probably true.
618. Humans reason inside cultures / Human beings will not respond to reason unless they are compatible as individuals and both fully contained within loyalty to a single countable culture
618. Marxism failing to predict trans people -> this is one of the greatest thorns for Marxism. any number of issues can come up that affect only a small number of people and yet have not been predicted at all in anything Marx or Lenin said about transition out of class society and make Marxist methods of "understanding societal development and the future" simply look really stupid. outside of deliberate attempts by capital to discredit Marxism, this leads to people merely trying to understand the concept of "the future" gravitating to weird notions that the future is immune to science and can't be understood through Materialism because reality is truly unreachable and all human beings cram the universe into their heads.
618. Human culture is inherently campist -> populations aren't as sturdy and are more fragile than Marxists think they are; arbitrary free association, in motion, is stronger than Marxists think it is.
     this statement isn't focused on workers, parties, or movements — it's specifically a statement about national borders, interpersonal relationships, and countable cultures, and how those underlying things affect workers, parties, and movements. like, the term "campism" usually applies to Marxist parties, but this is literally applying it countable cultures before bringing in any "Marxism per se" (by which I mean models of Marxist parties or movements, so you could also call it "meta-Marxism per se"). the proposition is what it says on the tin, rather than implying anything else.
618. Your love for characters cannot save them, but taking those lessons to the real world is valuable [76] -> ten years playing after Undertale I feel like this idea is something of a deepity. it's vaguely wrong on both of its points.
     A) people can and do write AUs. there's another side discussion to be had about whether there's a point to doing that, but I think all in all it has about as much point as the original text did, you either come to an interesting insight about how the elements of the story interact or you fail to and you just don't, and because fanfiction "doesn't really matter" either one is okay even if succeeding at pulling the new narrative together is better.
     B) the more interesting and more controversial problem. leaving behind a tragic happening isn't inherently good, and taking your emotions somewhere else doesn't inherently help you make anything better. the reason I have such a dark interpretation of this is I feel like it encourages people to interpret real-world historical events wrong. to a limited extent there's only so much of a different between history and fictional stories — you see it the most clearly with either fantasy stories that are silently drawing from history books, or stories that are so mundane real people look at the fake story and say "I remember this happening to me". so there are some cases where even leaving a fake story behind and saying "well that was tragic, I guess I can only learn lessons" is encouraging people to trivialize real events. Animal Farm stands out as one, by literally turning real history into a fable about individual behavior instead of presenting a Materialist style framing of the overall picture of what is happening globally in the scenario. but equally, there could be a book about the United States Civil War and a White person could read it and get really focused on the characters and their individual emotions and actions and put the book down deciding to "learn abstract lessons" while forgetting that racism is a large-scale ongoing issue and that slavery isn't a metaphor and was a real societal problem that was happening through material processes above the scale of individuals. — I feel as if you always have to spontaneously start talking about the United States Civil War or slavery for anyone in the United States to understand basic concepts, but there you go.
     as for Undertale... I think it is primarily meant to be taken a bit figuratively as some kind of dream that projected out of the world of Deltarune, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with taking it literally. before Deltarune was released, it sort of encouraged and misdirected you to take it literally. I think fun things come out of taking it literally when you're not entirely supposed to, like imagining silly scenarios of monsters trying to form a workers' state so they don't have to go to war, or comparing the rhetoric used in designing Undertale to real-world anti-war movements. or Handplates. the literal interpretations of Undertale can get really dark, but that's part of what's fun about them.
     I may be inclined to give very specific interpretations of this topic as someone who is taking real-life history and essentially fanfictioning it to create historical fiction. the point of historical fiction is partly to realize that history actually has moving parts to it and it isn't just a fable somebody made up. that it's a material situation, that if you put something in there there are particular things that can and can't happen and if for instance you want to tell the story of a social movement there is a particular "challenge run" associated with that with a particular difficulty and particular success and failure states, with tension, with ways to win or lose. it's not just that we make stories and whatever authors want to happen happens, the reason guides about writing go on and on about "conflict" is that stories are simulations of particular situations or ideas and whether you are making a story or an actual simulation game it's equally the case you have to make a good simulation of difficulty, success, and failure to get people invested into it. that was really wordy. anyway, I think historical fiction has the power to fix history in certain teeny tiny ways purely by showing people the inner workings of a particular historical era, not simply by showing people how you personally think it could have gone better, but specifically by giving them a functioning simulation of what success and failure actually meant back in that particular time. that's quite valuable, and I think it's an insult to the power of stories to try to say that the Material components of the story functioning together don't actually mean anything unless you walk away from the story and grind everything down to abstract Ideals. maybe taking stories literally isn't a bad thing. sure, sometimes they have incorrect facts in them and you basically have to fix them or frame them in context to get anything out of them. but I honestly don't get what is so bad about taking the material pieces of FNaF or Deltarune and trying to solve them, or how "themes" are somehow different from that. themes are just repeated patterns of material objects doing stuff! they help put each individual event in the story in better context and connect each instance of a motif to all the other instances and tell you they operate similarly or point to the same thing, but that's all themes really do.
618. Enlightenment reason is 'pataphysics / Enlightenment "reason" is actually 'pataphysics -> follow along with me. 1) 'pataphysics is creating physics models by combining arbitrary working models, usually Idealism, sometimes fictional Materialism, in total detachment from reality 2) Enlightenment reason often bases itself in assuming that humans can never actually check things against the external world just by virtue of it existing first, and that even empiricism is necessarily solipsistic in its own way 3) Enlightenment reason and 'pataphysics are equally as related to the material world; depending on your set-theory definitions the first is part of the second
     it's important to note that there is a super easy way out of this, which is to stop doing 'pataphysics by checking your goddamn (pronounced redacted) models against real-world physical processes so they actually have something to predict. it's not hard. you can operate off old recorded information in the beginning until you get something that's at least self-consistent, and then if you have a really good model, you actually run controlled tests on totally fresh information with no ability to re-do, and you keep doing that until you have a predictive model. there are ways to take tests and make them smaller so you don't have to run them "intrusively", and can just run your test mathematically to reconstruct what the data will be, and then observe and record the actual pattern. this is what equations are. this is what determinism is. you guess what the graph will look like using an equation, whether two-dimensional or multi-dimensional, and then you plot some data and see if you correctly predicted the overall shape.
     it's a little atrocious that Marxism hasn't landed onto any pretty, presentable equations yet that summarize the major processes of country development. I think that will be possible eventually. you have to actually characterize country layouts in a fine-grained way so it's like you can tell apart different Marxisms and different anarchisms and predict what category of Marxism is going to happen if any of them does happen. but given the right ways of categorizing structure and creating "buckets" of pieces of countries suitable for graphing, it's possible to graph any specific social transition from system A to system B so it has its own visual pattern. the only challenge in that comes down to like, how do you coarse-grain a complicated process of individuals forming into specific structures of different colors and then the varying numbers of each color of structure versus each other without losing the most important small-scale variables. saying "proletarians", "bourgeoisie", "crimson people", "blue people", "orange people" works in text, it's just a matter of finding something that works well on a graph, and ideally also doesn't give the illusion of individuals being more important than structures as wholes. like, do you do f(x,y) = t, with x and y being things like number of big businesses and number of small businesses? I think there's something to the idea of having t be a dependent variable instead of an independent variable, so somewhat like in material reality the material pieces colliding leads to time rather than the other way around.
618. Relativity changes the intuitive definition of determinism
618. Relativity changes the intuitive definition of reductionism -> thanks to wave functions and measurements, which are ultimately kind of just special relativity but really tiny. in theory, we could talk about galaxies in the conceptual vocabulary of wave functions because of how long it takes most causal events to travel between them, we just don't. and of course, then there's gravity, which appears to happen on a different scale from quantum particles.
618. Individualism is a country characteristic (United States) / The presence of individualism might as well be a permanent country characteristic of the United States national population / A "collectivist mindset" does not inherently bring any change or ability to bring change, so it's ultimately more productive to think about individualism as a permanent country characteristic until new structures are actually created that cause collectivist thinking
618. fake general strike / Marxists knocking a general strike because it isn't truly taking a position or making sacrifices (North American Maoism onto blue or charcoal anarchism) -> I can't believe we're actually at this point. both because A) Marxists are reluctant to actually identify the extent of blue anarchism and the damage it's done versus standing around and hoping any 'mass movement' people come up with with actually be useful and B) it's surprising to me blue anarchism can manage to "do" this much at this scale and yet not do anything
     I think we're learning that class struggle can actually happen in the form of protests horizontally protesting protests, in the form of one Social-Philosophical System fighting another one due to a holistic opposition to its actual internal structure and basic principles more than due to the action of many individuals in one group on many individuals in another group; a whole blue group can fight a whole strawberry or crimson group as named groups.
618. Hypocrisy is not as important as lack of understanding / The problem with hypocrisy is not that individuals don't follow principles in a "what about" context, but specifically that when individuals fail to follow principles it shows they have no understanding of a given concept in any context including both their own "pot" context as well as the other "kettle" context where they attempt to falsely apply or enforce a concept they don't even understand in the first place; the objective of invoking hypocritical situations is to present a concept in the form people will find simplest and avoid having to explain books and books of history or material facts within the other context just to get people to apply concepts correctly in the other context when it's probably the case they wouldn't even want to absorb all those facts in the first place
618. anarchy! ...how do you say Guattari? / speaker attempts to talk about politics or history in terms of the imperative to be friends with other Cultures and not have prejudices, fails to correctly pronounce Italian-French name "Guattari" -> I can only remember seeing one specific instance of this in a video but that's still too many.
618. Tribes are basically the same as countries or civilizations -> this is just an axiom I go by, but I think it makes it a lot easier to do material analysis of history without fully committing to a single ideology as definitely correct.
618. Individuals can't have rights / Individuals can't actually have rights / Aside from the question of whether it is ethical or desirable, it isn't physically possible for individual people to have human rights because human individuals are unpredictable and human rights belonging to individuals would require the ability to control all other individuals on earth; this suggests that populations can possess human rights to distribute among their individuals but individuals themselves cannot possess human rights without being part of a population -> if this is true it explains a whole lot about why people are anticommunist far beyond all benefit to them — their incorrect belief that human rights can belong to individuals rather than tribes or nation-states is ruining everything.
618. quiver (meta-Marxism) / tightly connected bundle of co-ops, capital chunks, or individual Artisanal practices functioning as permanent formal government with obligations similar to a Liberal republic and permanent citizens all locked into it exactly as much as a birth certificate or passport means republican citizenship -> I call this a quiver due to the potential capacity of it to simply foster anarcho-Toryism and turn into basically fascism without a violent army that's just a bunch of equal arrows passively believing shitty things without a central axe.
     almost every scenario I can imagine where critical theory and its seemingly nonsensical concepts of 'stopping all things that cause resistances' or 'overcoming Fascism specifically defined as a violation of the totally abstract concepts of justice and dignity' actually succeeds tends to end up with some weird new thing of "capital states" made of arbitrary floating chunks of industry that broke out of a larger republic and became two or more new nations specifically based on particular local chunks' horizontal affinities with these blue chunks over here and against these brown chunks over there — this very molecularized scenario where unfortunately the molecularization doesn't actually get rid of the core processes of capitalism and kind of just solidifies most of them except the notion that entire chunks of subsidiaries have to be owned by somebody versus just agreeing to be connected into an object and subsequently having to become an actual fully-featured republican government if they want to prevent sudden violence or contentious competition over scope and allowed and prohibited behaviors between separate capital chunks. like, it's not one of those scenarios of totally free corporations with no government. this is something different and new that I feel like a lot of people are not ready for. it really sounds like a mess compared with Bolshevism if you ask me. assuming they live in peace and don't kill each other you'd have interdemocracy going off constantly and any number of chunks trying to prevent the others from doing anything they want to do much to their confusion; there wouldn't be protests, there would just be localized capital-states showering each other in a bunch of un-vote envelopes, sometimes justifiably, sometimes at moments that just feel like everyone is making the wrong choice and things are a mess. one day you get an avalanche of un-votes about pollution, another day you get one about banning polyamory from representation in ads.
618. The lack of anarchist-equality allows people to be unified -> it is so completely bizarre how, out of people who hate Marxism and whose worldview shouldn't contain the existence of classes you will just suddenly start hearing class analysis about some set of business territories with some oddly exact number of employees like 0 or 15 or 100. they hide it in words like "small businesses" and "indies". and there is this weirdly widespread assumption that somehow even though it's impossible all businesses should choose to magically hover around the mark of having 50 employees forever and they should all just fall to equilibrium and never become Big and never disappear. you'd have to successfully turn businesses into fully-formed political states with permanent citizens to pull that off, complete with bills of rights decked out to every single imaginable concept of anti-discrimination, "government programs" and everything.
     (and I'm not knocking the idea of someone laying out an anarchism and trying to actually make it make sense, I mean, if anarchists would do anything strictly Materialist that isn't Idealism I would love to see that so much more than what they're always doing today. as a theory book, it sounds cool. my problem is that none of the fake-anticapitalists ever have that kind of commitment to even design a society that has no "stock market" or "labor market" or "business-territory market" and contains no chunk competition, like the allocation of people to borders can change, but gamified competition over borders just doesn't exist.)
     this thing of having a ton of perfectly consistent non-vanishing businesses with exactly 20 employees doesn't happen. and yet when it doesn't, utterly gigantic fandoms form that appear to unify people around the world, I've multiple times heard the phrase "Pokémon Go was the closest we got to world peace". people everywhere seem to have a totally wrong model of what unifies people and allows people to coexist. they all keep tossing out this "Arceist" model and it's all wrong, even Pokémon advances that model and it doesn't match the structure of the business saying it. what's up with that?
618. All Idealisms are nationalisms / All hypothetical Idealist civilizations are secretly micro-scale nationalisms -> follow me here for a moment. attempts to design Idealist civilizations (countries, tribes, etc) often begin at notions like "Moralities are a fundamental layer of reality", "Nothing should be done unless everyone thinks it wonderful". when these frameworks are met with any framework that builds a different kind of civilization, like Mainstream Marxism-Leninism, Juche-socialism, or Trotskyism, they try to assert that any framework that isn't basically identical with theirs is Actually an affront to universal cosmic ideals, as if they had any idea what those were, and that if you don't conform to universal cosmic ideals immediately you actively chose to be evil, and must be conspiring to take away people's Freedom and use them as tools. but if it really was the case that Ideals could unify people despite all of them wanting to smash other countable civilizations, Ideals must be unifying them into a countable civilization. that countable civilization claims to be based on the sheer description of the essence of humanity and on the concept of universal human individuals. but any actual social connection between two "universal" human individuals is a nearly tangible object. people forming into a healthy social group is inherently countable, if only because everyone in that group rejects Communism and "totalizing" country structures. every group of people attempting to be a universal humanity is first a group of people that is physical and very countable, that speaks a particular language or languages, and contains finite social links which are localized in space and not shared with other people, links which are identifiable. and the more those people all have particular Ideals that at least some countable group of people doesn't have, the more they possess a countable culture which describes the conditions of their specific countable social group, because we've established that any moment of being human and socially behaving as humans, when taking place in a specific bounded population, becomes countable. the more a set of ideals about what is supposedly universal has a history and is simultaneously bounded inside a countable patch of humanity, the more it's a national history. people can't run from the way that as soon as they form one social link with one isolated person they're potentially part of a nation. that's just how populations actually work. humanity can never be uncountable. it's always countable because it's always made of countable and tangible individuals. so it's not possible to be anticommunist and uncountably the only universal humanity at the same time. you can only do one of those. you can have the future where Bolshevism dissolves only because all ideologies have dissolved and equally become one because they've all actually accepted each other and suppressed nothing, a few reactionary ideologies excepted. but you can't have anticommunism and have that. if you choose anticommunism you ultimately divide the world into hostile nations one way or another.
     to be perfectly clear, it's not even being a nationalism that makes critical theory or anarchisms bad. center-wing nationalisms can, surprise, lead to national independence and the ability to counter empires. what makes nationalisms bad is when they explicitly form themselves around being bigoted against other things. I don't want to hear about "totalization" or "central authority" if your goal is to totalize your region and the world with anticommunism and the underlying wearer of that cloak, sheer anti-Chinese and anti-Russian/Ukrainian and anti-Vietanese and anti-Cuban sentiments. that's not simply hypocritical, that's flat out lying to people, attempting to dissolve ethnic groups, and erasing ethnic history. the more you try to pretend it's actually a way of preventing those things for other populations the worse it gets. you're just using Native Americans as pawns to justify other populations' destruction. I will not accept that they're saving the world with critical theory and "indigenuity" until Existentialists stop pulling this on multiple thousand million people in the Third World.
618. "Economics" and all social behaviors are not possible to separate / socioeconomy proposition -> (my laptop ran out of battery and I lost about three lines of prototype notes.)
618. Trotskyists are projecting / Trotskyists have to accuse other people of being bad Leninists or being "Stalinists" because they're afraid of being thrown out of movements or organizations and don't want to realize it's actually them that are the bad Leninists -> I literally dreamed this one. I woke up too early and went back to sleep and the dream was pretty boring but one of the things that happened in it was just me idly laying out this proposition. but, it's not really wrong? so I added it. I find it a little funny that like, most of the time I am not this ruthless and often I try to be nice to them and somewhat hear them out... but it looks like the filter came off and the dream was just like, so here is the basic concept unprocessed
618. Empire will never be coherent (Fanon) / According to Frantz Fanon and Homi Bhabha, empire will never actually make coherent sense if asked to justify itself -> I'm just taking a wild guess on the swatch based on what motifs it resembles. there are actual sources to dig up to properly pick the swatch color and examine the concept but I'll get to it some other time
     my first thought is this: in the way I saw it formulated, it's false. empire can come from the raw logic of physical objects colliding before they even think, it doesn't necessarily even come from conscious decisions. this isn't as relevant for frontier wars and genocides because those take effort, but when it comes to neocolonialism and capitalism seeping through whole Third World countries and draining them of people and making the people assimilate into the margins of the First World, yeah no, empire doesn't need any thought whatsoever that could possibly lead to that moment of 'why am I doing this', because there's not really any "I" "doing this" in the first place. neocolonialism performs all the tasks that colonialism asks for — stealing land entirely, exterminating other groups of people, erasing nationality, erasing national culture and identity — but it requires no active choice to do violence. there's no moment of actively choosing to stab Sans. it really just happens. it really just creates that Peter Singer situation where if you don't choose to act two objects run into each other and violence causes itself and happens automatically.
618. What is oppression? / How should oppression be defined or modeled for the purposes of assuming that any oppression leads to resistance? -> words can be used a lot of ways, but this is specifically in relation to the proposition below, "Oppression leads to resistance".
618. Oppression leads to resistance / where there is oppression there will be resistance (motif; incomplete thought) [77] -> my only problem with this is how you define what oppression is. you can't identify it just from seeing resistance. Tories can be legitimately upset about things that aren't really oppression. Trotskyists can be legitimately upset about things that... might maybe be oppression, but that they respond to in totally wrong ways. I have a lot of problems with any attempt to 'save morality and ethics from the iron grip of science' because almost any time you introduce the concept of oppression versus resistance you actually lose the ability to tell what's right and what's wrong.
     say a gay man lives in the Soviet Union in 1930. the government is not in favor of autonomous gay movements (although 'autonomous' is the intended key word in that sentence, not 'gay'). a great number of people accept and side with the government. the gay man participates in an unauthorized movement. the public responds with resistance as if hurt. if the public produces resistance in response to someone's actions and choices, does this mean the public is oppressed? did the individual in fact choose wrong? should he have fully sided with the central government on the position of defending the Soviet Union from division and external attack in order to not be oppressive and dominating? this particular scenario actually gets a lot easier if you know the historical context and that it's not actually scary to say the answer is "yes". but for most people looking at workers' states from the outside this scenario is really difficult, and it shows that a simple rule from anarchism / critical theory is quite unsuited for real situations.
618. Regarding two individuals with guns or knives as produced by the interaction of two self-contained physical reterministic mechanisms is The Scientific Mindset [78] / Dialectical materialism can only operate at the scale of exactly two people but not more -> no. this is totally wrong because it ignores the possibility that interacting populations are material objects. that would be The Scientific Mindset.
     it's funny how this is almost the perfect demonstration of the Trotsky test. border trolley problem: seems to be one immigrant or one guard, actually turns out to be 1,000 immigrants or 10,000 guards. Trotskyite conspiracy: seems to be one wrecker or one cop, actually turns out to be 100,000 wreckers or 1,000,000 citizens. problem that seems like it should be mathematically solvable when analyzed at the wrong scale turns unsolvable because the content and size of populations are both incomparable.
     methodological individualism + dialectical materialism = this.
618. Idealist reason vs Materialist reason / Cartesian reason versus Marxist-Leninist reason / 'pataphysical reason versus physical reason -> this is such a critical distinction and yet I never see anyone actually split the word "reason"/"rationality" this way. what you always see is people arguing over the definition of the word "reason" and arguing that reason "isn't really" Cartesian reason "when people use it correctly" without even explaining why not.
618. Morality is beyond Idealist reason -> technically correct, because at the end of the day almost everything is beyond Idealist reason.
618. Morality is beyond Materialist reason -> no.
618. The Right hates freedom / Conservatives maintain traditional race and gender hierarchies while opposing movements for equality -> that's a word soup. it sounds like it should mean something but it takes books and books and books to understand any of the words and then they still don't clearly mean anything.
618. A population of slaves has no leader / A population of people literally held in slavery has no leader -> one of the major holes in modern anarchism. people get hung up so much on "big greedy" and "hierarchy" that they forget that simply freeing people from society doesn't make everyone free.
618. Marxism-Leninism recognizes factions / Mainstream Marxism-Leninism recognizes Social-Philosophical Systems / Each class [subpopulation] is guided by its own ideology (Stalin 1906) [79] -> a little surprising to realize, because I don't think it fully recognizes Philosophical Systems by themselves (hypothetical Bauplans) or Social-Philosophical-Material Systems (real Bauplans).
618. methodological individualism -> so this is the fancy word real Existentialists use to describe Existentialism and act like they don't have an ideology. this is the thingy in Rothenberg's book that I called an "atomic theory of society" or "room full of helium atoms"
618. Anarchism is a form of Idealism / Anarchism is an exaggerated and mad idealism (Georges Palante 1909 / prototypical Existentialism) [80] -> I don't think this is actually controversial. give an extensive description of Idealism in the right way without saying "Idealism" and anarchists would probably just say "yeah, we believe in that"
     it's. funny and ironic that someone who is a prototypical Existentialist (supposedly not against Socialism, but strictly modeling societies as clouds of isolated individuals to the point of being anticommunist) would dislike Idealism. like, that kind of model of society is very hard to divorce from Idealism and turn material regardless of how much you want to.
618. Idealism can't actually model itself / A faction based on Idealism can't actually model itself -> I'm pretty sure Marx said this in different words.
     Anarchism is a form of Idealism + Idealism can't actually model itself = Anarchism can't actually model itself.
     ?? + ?? = Trotskyism can't actually model itself.
618. The Pure Crystal is a Black Shard (Deltarune) / The Pure Crystal is actually a Shadow Crystal concentrated or distilled until it becomes a Black Shard; it is called the Pure Crystal so it will be a unique key item that has to be obtained a specific way instead of allowing you to use regular Black Shards without learning where they came from -> what if we're all overthinking the Twisted Sword? the description seems a bit deceptive. Seam is full of despair. So how do we know that "purified by the cat" wouldn't just purify a Shadow Crystal into a Black Shard, which is being called a "Pure Crystal" for story purposes so it's a key item and we have to see how it was made? and when you combine it with the Thorn Ring you just get a Thorn Ring you can equip to Kris.
     the Twisted Sword might actually just be for players who uniquely hate Kris and want to put the Soul back in them and divert Noelle's suffering back onto them. we don't know what the sword looks like but it could be some gnarled thing totally made of spikes — a bit like the grass blade in Adventure Time where it winds around your arm and if you use the sword it's basically going to take your arm.
     the only hole in this is that there isn't a combination for Black Shard and Thorn Ring to make the Twisted Sword. maybe the lore rationalization would be that the Pure Crystal is even more concentrated than the Black Shard or something to a perfect degree, to where the Thorn Ring and the Pure Crystal are both these perfect 'elemental' representations of pain.
618. The Shadow Mantle boss is Image_Friend (Deltarune)
618. Everyone will buy a Switch 2 to play Pokémon generation 10 [81] / Large numbers of people will buy a Switch 2 to play Pokémon Winds/Waves -> this could really, really go either way. it's possible it could happen. it's also possible it won't. it would be crazy if Pokémon gen 10 was the first in the main series to get ported to another system just because people aren't buying the Switch 2. but it could happen. I feel like it wouldn't be backported to Switch 1. I think it's kind of possible it would be ported to the PS5. a bunch of people really don't like the Switch 2 but it could also be an iPhone 7 situation where many people end up with one anyway.
618. unseen force propels people forward (Pokémon) / the world has been going on from generation to generation and will keep going on; an unseen force creates life in tides and destroys in storms; driven by an unseen force people are propelled forward [82] -> this is a hell of a statement to make a Pokémon game based on. this quite literally sounds like that weird thing Slavoj Žižek said which he pulled from Ilyenkov
618. deep time
618. Communism must come because humans mirror the universe, where creation and destruction are intertwined (Ilyenkov) [83] -> I'd have to reread the source text to figure out if I processed that proposition correctly, because the full one was complicated and confusing. what I'm much more confident on is that Žižek revealed a lot about how he understands Marxism. he thinks that it's primarily about destroying things; Zinoviev burning down a building is the best Communist to him.
     the problem is that this ignores about 66 years of historical events. it ignores the goals of Stalin, Deng Xiaoping, and whoever brought Dengism into Vietnam, as well as the failed goals of the Black Panther Party. it's an almost uniquely Trotskyist position to think Marxism is about destroying things instead of protecting things, if you're standing on the year 1953. it's only in about 1990 it starts maybe becoming a legitimate position again (and even there I doubt it, because I doubt anything good can come of advancing it). I blame Marxism saying proletarians have nothing to lose, when in reality Materialism requires the understanding that one of the major reasons you'd choose to nudge everyone into allying to create Bolshevism is to preserve material lives and keep them from being lost in a populational genocide to systems that inherently limit population size and exterminate excess population. and which don't even do any of that in any "good" way because it's all just a limited number of people being as wasteful as they want that kills the excess people, it's not to be more efficient or have a lighter footprint or anything. the pain of capitalism is the pain of individualized systems (corporations, countries, populational chunks or "communities") casually operating in mutual exclusion such that they all harm each other and then punish each other for operating, getting furious that they can't make each other choose to be "considerate" before they crash into each other when because they have no control over each other that is utterly impossible.
     this + ?? = Ilyenkov is the only Soviet Marxist who deserves to be taken seriously (Žižek)
618. ... creation and destruction are intertwined -> misinterpretation of Marx/Stalin? "continual motion and development ... an eternal process of destruction and creation" [84]
618. Ilyenkov is the only Soviet Marxist who deserves to be taken seriously (Žižek) -> ok, like, the only good thing about Žižek is that when he's not making a statement that's utterly terrible his boldness is entertaining. this is one of those where I'm left going "huh, this has to be something said so boldly it's gotta be wrong, but I currently don't know the actual reasoning why, I just know the ideology swatch color or code is very suspicious".
618. cosmological perspective (Žižek) -> so everything Žižek says is hard to understand because after the first seconds where you get past his accent and the particular way he slurps words it's always stream of consciousness. he starts by contrasting "the naïve realism of dialectical materialism" with "the transcendental in Western Marxism", which sounds like he thinks the division between Materialism and Idealism is more arbitrary 'than people want to believe it is'. then he starts to say something about subjectivity and overdetermining. then he starts to say that stepping outside humans to look at the universe can tell us something, which devoid of any god concept is a relatively Materialist idea. what?
618. canonical statement (truth value) / statement explicitly made within fictional text (truth value)
618. Vietnam surrendered to the U.S. army / Terrified of the U.S. army, Vietnam surrendered / When faced with bombs and horrifying weapons, Vietnam gave up the fight against global empire and surrendered to the United States -> this fact is so much more powerful when you put it in the negative as a counterfactual statement. [85]
618. Black Panthers becoming Che Guevara -> today I read a post where somebody described 'the United States scattering the Black Panthers by bombing cities' after I think it was a different post saying 'it's Black people who end up doing all the work'. [86] and thinking about the Ironblood setting my imagination went wild thinking about history in war game or action movie terms. just the Black Panthers trying their damnedest to survive the city bombing and save the United States from itself. sounds like a pretty kickass (pronounced [awesome]) vignette story honestly
618. Trotskyists losing internal election and leaving party [87] -> wow, now there's a social process. knowing everything I know about Trotskyists I don't know how this is something I'm newly recording — it's kind of exactly how they would behave if they were just a bit better than they were in 1930. that said. I'm not sure it's something I can really insult them for per se. as any resident of the United States knows well, any republican process that operates specifically on factions conquering each other can be really frustrating. so maybe they aren't unjustified to start getting tired of their own party when it's specifically operating on a unified block of things you have to contest? I don't really know. I'm not sure if this is the usual thing that democratic centralism means or not. I thought it was usually mostly about positions on issues.
     I do find it mildly funny that they just focused on the actual processes and managed to get through an article without calling an uncontested block of delegates "Stalinist". not bad. I wish they'd do that more often. also. the usage of generic parliament terms like "loyal opposition" is... interesting, though I have no opinion on it.
618. party conducting structural renovation on empty building [88] -> I'm laughing. great metaphor
618. When everyone is talking about campism versus non-campism they've lost the plot / When everyone is talking about campism versus non-campism everything has already been pushed into the arena of international Liberal-republican politics and is not really in the hands of proletarian subpopulations or Marxist parties at all -> it's kind of cool to see Trotskyists actually attempting to talk about an international issue with substance, but I think they subtly dropped the ball yet again. [89] they're singling out campism as "Stalinist", i.e. related to Stalin's Marxism, but even if you're talking about the effects of something historically, that just doesn't really make sense when countries change so drastically in the absence of Stalin's Marxism that basically the whole playing field changes into capitalists versus capitalists and ethnicities versus ethnicities and there are no longer any good answers at all, not just a lack of good answers on how Stalin should carefully weave together with other countries to create the biggest bloc of proletarian allies. how bad was "Frelimo in Mozambique" that modern "Stalinist" parties are supposedly defending? I have no idea. one of the only things I know about Africa is that Burkina Faso is trying again after previous attempts so even if it has problems there are a few points toward supporting it. I think it's possible this blog is getting a bit too lost in details about situations with no actual good outcome within a world full of capitalists versus capitalists. to be fair, the "campists" are doing that too, but I am not sure if there's an actual good way to correct that when it's an artifact of the real world scenario, not necessarily an artifact of party policy.
618. Novels are phenomenological; their main and most effective purpose is to catalogue possible phenomena within society or otherwise without truly passing judgement on them
618. Sparks, a tale of ink (unfinished) [90] -> are these two stories connected? they feel like drafts of each other but I have no idea if that's really the case.
     the only clear bit of evidence I have is that they both released blog posts in January 2025, which seems to point to them being separate.
     so far if I had to choose one I think I like Sparks better. it may be verbose but it at least gets more of the lore out there faster and gives you something to chew on, while Spark Hearts barely got started at all.
618. Spark Hearts (unfinished) [91]
618. Is it an anarchist pipe dream to want a world where people can create concepts for fictional settings which are simply "community concepts" or "an additional thing created by me" without anyone who creates such things having necessarily created a new cycle of exclusive, closely-guarded bourgeois culture?
618. It is necessary and unavoidable to compare yourself to other people in everything that you do if you wish to be part of society -> I'm sick of people acting like "comparing yourself to other people" is something you can just stop doing. in everyday situations there is no other way to know if you're moral or if you're a bad person than to ask other people and compare yourself to other people. it's terrifying, when other people can just be cruel, but if you don't do it you don't earn other people's trust and you never get positive feedback.
     even when it comes to activities that are about individual expression you still have to study what other people are doing and understand exactly what it is they're doing and why they're doing it really well, deeply, entirely, to be able to stop doing nothing and do anything yourself. you have to understand the exact goals of it and the exact emotions it makes normal people feel and significance it has to them even if you don't feel them. you can't just have your own opinions and emotions for their own sake without first knowing what other people's are, or other people will feel like they haven't been heard and they're being cruelly overlooked. if you don't compare yourself to other people you just retread what's already been done and fail to fit yourself in socially and just sort of waste everyone's time. any particular genre of art emerges due to actual socially-linked circles of people and the needs particular groups of people have collectively, and not due to the overall space of unexplored possibilities not being filled in; the seemingly repetitive patterns that emerge in genre fiction or within a long-running media series are because large portions of people really genuinely want to see those core things and don't want them left out.
     I am actually talking generally and not about anything in particular, but maybe an example will help bring all of this around. Pokémon. if you don't understand what people who are just naïve fans of it actually want to see in Pokémon you won't be able to design a better Pokémon game, no matter how many emotions you have about what you'd like to see. you have to really put yourself in the place of somebody who unironically liked Pokémon gen 8 and wasn't swayed from gens 8 or 9 by bad performance or the limited dexes. you have to know that fan in and out and effectively be a step ahead of their own specific thinking process to predict what would actually impress them. there is a certain art to creating an unexpected or improved version of a particular thing rather than just something totally unrelated.
618. vice signaling [92]
618. Tiananmen Square "Massacre"? - The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence [93]
618. When communities are under attack, the thing that will save them is community [94] / When countable subpopulations are under attack, the thing that will save them is subpopulations miraculously coming together just because they are all subpopulations and all of them being subpopulations somehow turns them into a stationary combination of heterogeneous elements (I tried my best; not canonical) -> blue anarchism is so out of control it's now just regurgitating definitions of itself sometimes.
618. Erich Fromm -> "psychologist". claimed to be a Communist ally — named Marxism unknown. [95]
618. The alternative to socialism in one country is living in one of multiple countries -> the way Existentialists think is fundamentally different from the way Communists think. Communists want to take a country and see it improve. Existentialists want to falsely equivocate everything as being as good as everything else, at the cost that you actually have to take nationalities and rank them by which ones you think are better and then go live there — and the second cost that populations are material objects and run out of empty canvas, further ranking nationalities as better or worse according to who meets the local standards of which ones. quite literally everybody is equal but some ethnic groups are more equal than others. the nerve to put that in a book when you have no idea what concepts mean or how they apply
618. If something in a secondhand reading, retelling, summary, or analysis of a work of fiction feels controlling to a commenter, then it actually is immoral (feels like domination; feels bigoted; critical theory adjacent proposition; Kantian ethics adjacent proposition) / If Mr. J posts a fan theory that unintentionally sets a story up to be coded as an incestuous relationship, but one thread commenter out of 200 feels unsafe or like the retold narrative is setting up Loci of Hierarchical Control and Domination, this one person's action is immoral with respect to all of society or all human beings / If Ms. Y posts an analysis of a narrative that claims it contains a metaphor for rape and 20 thread commenters out of 200 feel unsafe at the concept of the metaphor meaning that, regardless of whether the analysis is accurate to the influences of the work, Ms. Y's action is immoral with respect to all of society or all human beings -> internet posts really shed light on how Kantian ethics just fundamentally doesn't make a lot of sense. so you created a society with a social contract. where does "society" actually begin and end? what people does it actually control? what people is it obligated to listen to and take orders from? how is it not countably plural? how is it not the case that "society" in a Kantian framework is just a bunch of little clustered islands that arbitrarily agree on the same morality and formed through the people that can tolerate those particular rules staying there and people that hate those rules and like other rules going elsewhere to their own rules island?
     Kant has this notion that reason is just this one thing and being moral and being rational aren't different even though his notion of morality seems to be intuitive rather than logical and clashes against what I would think reason is, and I am always at such a loss for how Kant thought that the concept of falling back to whatever is morally intuitive would ever unite people into a single society rather than multiple societies.
618. small-scale internationalism
618. CIA-funded union [96] -> the United States has a very big problem with hegemony politics and Tories carrying out hegemony politics. what many people don't acknowledge is the real mechanism is that there is a mountain of capital because the United States is a First World country, and that mountain of capital comes down on anything the United States wants to quietly influence. usually hidden all the way over in other countries, but sometimes inside the United States. capital often doesn't confront workers directly, it does this horrifying thing of hollowing out people's allies and turning them into puppets that can't be ignored but can't be trusted. on the big scale and on the small scale it's hegemony politics with a mountain of capital on top of one side.
     the really frustrating part is that the great majority of blue anarchists in the United States recognizes hegemony politics but fundamentally doesn't understand the concept of a huge avalanche of capital. that isn't created by values or attitudes or "domination". it's created by simply existing and existing and existing and some people building up more money. which means you really can't stop it by focusing on The State or The Cops, capital is properly anarchic, and yet while it doesn't belong to any one faction it can also become an avalanche that comes down all at once and turns unions into nazis. the only thing you can do is survive that. you fundamentally have to survive. you fundamentally have to avoid Zinovievization, you have to avoid somebody cracking the walnut, you have to avoid the whole walnut being eaten and devoured, or you're just a genocide victim, full stop. how is it that anarchists are all about countable cultures and "communities" but they never give the correct answer on self-genocide?
618. Gini coefficient [97] [98]
618. central contradiction of China [99] -> this is a floating label that applies to whatever major issue is the most important currently. sort of the way "central contradiction" has always been used, but just a little different in that it's inside the context of Deng Xiaoping Thought and the specific kinds of five-year plans that happen there
618. Communism (empire) / Communism (forcing one population to be part of another when it would prefer to be independent) -> one of the rare but very uncomfortable overlaps between genuine charcoal-anarchism and Toryism. this concept that a bunch of individuals clustered together has a group individual-will applying to the group as an object and the structure or central government imposed on it by a larger population is the improper abuse of a living self-aware entity, stomping over its emotions — and also, that this conflict is a defining feature of Communism. for anarchists this just means it is a fundamental flaw baked into the definition of Bolshevism though not necessarily the objective of it. for Tories, who sometimes just plain don't know anything, this means Bolshevism is founded on and created for the purpose of sapping away Free Will and only either big nationalism or teeny tiny local nationalism can fix it.
618. The Left hijacked schools to introduce a Communist agenda [100] -> the key to this proposition is to realize that "Communism" doesn't refer to Bolshevism or Stalin or Mao or like, anything that you'd think it refers to. "Communism" refers to maybe the Black Panther Party specifically, not because they're Marxist but almost specifically because they're Black and they took local action against racism. remember, Tories don't understand the ideological content of Communism at all, so they can't define it based on its actual content, they can only define it based on people they don't like being Communists. step one is to identify Communists as never being your friends. step two is to construct a confusing argument about how their existence is an infringement on humanity and almost on biology and ecology because their ideology is grounded in slurping up Freedom and decision-making and creating a decision "asymmetry". step three is to turn vast numbers of decent people into racists because nobody likes the limitation of Freedom — even if you inform them that people are talking about it for racist purposes they'll still turn around and say "okay but it was still a good idea". humans are addicted to freedom and have almost zero tolerance to anything attacking it once they notice the thing and they just don't care. god I hate Existentialism.
618. Reconstruction is Communism / Reconstruction was basically Bolshevism -> once again, one of those concepts you laugh at when you see it, until you decode it and see what it's really saying. this is an anarcho-Tory proposition. by Communism, they somewhat literally mean "violation of anarchist values". they're working with the Existentialist concept of generalized dictators, and they are totally incapable of defining what Bolshevism actually is and why anyone would create it, so they think it's actually deliberately created for the purpose of taking away Freedom and creating suffering, as nonsensical as that is if you have read a fucking (pronounced redacted) history book. starting from that "understanding", they begin putting together an argument that .
618. empty room of wonders [101]
618. Trotskyist pyramid scheme [102] -> one of the funniest phrases I've heard all week. it's just a little bit terrible that this motif applies to the "IV" code, not the "Zv" code and it's still quite an accusation. sometimes there is just no saving Trotskyism
618. There is an inherent asymmetry between decision-making bodies and the people subject to decisions that makes states unstable [103] -> the surface claim here has a certain amount of logic to it. what I don't really like is how if you believe this you sort of inherently fall into baking people into countable Cultures and racializing them. maybe that will sound wild to people who are new to meta-Marxism. but a population has to be materially united by something to be a population. a state is the easy way; if people are united by a state, or at least a thoroughly Materialist understanding of a population as might hypothetically replace a state in the future, it's easy to be anti-essentialist about who is part of the population. if a society is "decentralized" then, like, social connections and cultural traditions are inherently going to be a big part of defining its shape and how or if it fragments. and if that's the case it sort of becomes a game of building a superior culture, just while ostensibly not being bigoted against anything except Third World countries' national independence.
618. A revolution cannot immediately abolish authority in that it contains authority (Engels) [104] -> fairly classic proposition.
     also might be good for the purposes of defining what "Zinovievizing" is: it involves the collision of two separate Social-Philosophical Systems / "crabs" which can't resolve their problems peacefully because resolving them requires colliding and colliding might bring violence.
618. When a council meets the individual members are not exercising authority [105] -> this one would seem to apply to the way people talk about the US Congress, making me think it's actually blue. but it would also seem to be false in both cases as soon as you think of how upset people get at having rust-tinted congressmen. every one of them has a small amount of authority as the overall Congress has a bigger amount. that's why hegemony politics is so tempting: to control that authority.
618. anti-filtration -> the motif in anarchist writings or news events of groups of people distinctly doing the opposite of filtration — attempting to join together while distinctly disregarding each group's principles and pretending they don't matter whatsoever to the point that the joining of the two groups might or might not create a toxic or dangerous relationship but it is still asserted to be necessary and good on the principle of overcoming divisions and becoming closer and more connected just for the sake of it.
     this motif is not synonymous with "Rhizome", due to that Item representing usages of "rhizome" in schizoanalyst texts where it was originally created. basically: Rhizome - case of - anti-filtration
618. Liberal-republicanism Zinovievizes countries in the same sense that Trotskyism Zinovievizes countries, despite the difference of wanting to replace their content with blue content instead of orange content
618. Factories have superseded small proprietors (Engels) [106] -> this was definitely true from about 1870 to 1930. but somewhere around maybe 1960 weird stuff happened in First-World countries to make everything go the opposite direction. it wasn't just outsourcing. this is another process that happened after outsourcing and the replacement of factories by retailers. and it seems weirdly correlated with an explosion of anarchists and blue and charcoal anarchisms. I am not fully sure if blue anarchists actually caused it or not. the only thing I know is that the sheer amount that they justify everything that's happened is annoying.
618. Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to destroying the power loom to return to the spinning wheel (Engels) [107] -> thank you Engels. I often feel like I'm going crazy because nobody sees this and it seems like everybody actually does want to go from the factory back to the spinning wheel, only to end up having to work just as long selling Artisanal products through Jeff Bezos.
618. AI is no more reliable than an undergrad entering in unproven conjectures on a wiki / LLMs are no more reliable than somebody with an undergrad level of knowledge in a subject at most entering in untested hypotheses or conjectures on a wiki -> this would take time to test by picking a few propositions that editors are supposed to reason through and then an LLM claimed to be a good one is supposed to reason through, but it would technically be testable. that is the real beauty of this project. I enter in "stupid" propositions all the time. this project doesn't exactly claim to be so much better and smarter than an LLM, but it doesn't have to, because all it really has to do is demonstrate that LLMs are much worse and humans doing non-binary logic are adequate.
     the funniest thing here is imagining coming up with a problem that current language models genuinely wouldn't be familiar with because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability threshold and isn't already in a bunch of ingestable articles, and really struggling against the "AI" to get it to understand it. I remember when just out of curiosity while I was waiting for the wiki to come back up, I went to the only LLM I use which is duckduckgo's that they somehow thought was a good idea to put in search results (ChatGPT 4o-mini/5). every time I test that model against a task it literally always disappoints and hardly ever gives an answer to the question; it's like it can really only handle summarizing the search results and nothing else. so, out of curiosity I asked it to define meta-Marxism and explain how it's used to create an MDem. it got everything wrong. it hasn't been reading this wiki, for better or worse. it sort of correctly guessed the connotations of the words in context, notably v5 got "meta-" basically right, but it only got "molecular" half right, coming up with a bunch of stuff that sounded like critical theory or anarchism. it also thought "MDem" stood for "meta-democracy" — which was a decent guess but no. it couldn't make the leap to guessing that the "M" actually contained a description of what making things "meta" would do to them qualitatively (molecularize), that there was literally a hint in the question that it just wasn't on the right "MatPat" level to be able to predict. (Just think of how Deltarune fans were only given the letter C and a significant number of people managed to guess it stood for "Carol". it's possible.) I would have actually been impressed if it had been able to reason through the word "meta-Marxism" and the historical context leading up to the probable reasons for creating that concept so well that it guessed by chance that out of three or so possible expansions M stood for molecular. but it didn't. it had this unique inability to realize that if you wanted to improve Marxism you'd be doing it to solidify the grasp of Materialism over Marxism and keep the Idealism out. which, like... for a human, if you'd only read Marx you would have enough information to see that "reducing" things to arrangements of material objects was a key theme; one of the major differences from Hegel to Marx was that Marx was always tying ideologies and models back to the material arrangements of objects that produced them. it almost would have to have read a lot of Western-Marxist texts to forget that. (I say that neutrally, but also from experience, because as much as I have nothing bad to say about him I know Vidak has done that sometimes — read all the Western-Marxism, didn't quite pick out the emphasis on making everything into material objects in meta-Marxism. I guess this nuance is just much too hard for AI.)
     the only good thing about ChatGPT is it offers this weird lens into exactly how people can be dense and fail to understand what you're saying. it's almost a good model of stupidity, in a really weird way. I still refuse to use it as a test reader until I figure out how to run it locally and it has to either complete on limited RAM or crash my computer. at that point it could be fun to see how badly it understands my book chapters but yeah, I will put no verbatim generated text on this wiki. not even on pages about testing the AI. you only get manual summaries of the stupid, which funny enough would probably waste your time less by getting to the point much faster. you've seen how I write, rambling wildly, and yet, like, you know how in only a couple sentences LLMs get seemingly nowhere, they actually waste space.
     ok ok I am done "bragging", I will actually avoid that on the Ontology pages. but just imagine how much ChatGPT would struggle to solve the simplest true/false problems. I feel like even if you asked it a fully verifiable question that just isn't usually asked prior to meta-Marxism, that's explained in multiple existing sources but actually requires synthesizing propositions instead of purely treasure-hunting, it would absolutely sputter; you could break down the question carefully into a lot of smaller propositions and it still wouldn't get easier.
618. The Lattice model does not describe the United States -> the more that events unfold the more colossally confused I am. especially every time I read more about the things that are supposed to explain what I don't understand. literally nothing makes sense. mainstream Marxism-Leninism blatantly doesn't match some things and you see people improperly apply statements like "the United States is mostly proletariat, all the businesses are consolidated, it's not going backwards into big businesses shattering and being replaced with a bunch of tiny businesses" - no. but every time I read about anarchism nothing makes any sense, it never gets to making any more sense than it did before. anarchists are constantly going on about how the United States will never work or function because it's too racist and you just have to tear it apart or run away from it. they manage to vaguely understand the concept that Liberal-republicanism isn't defeating "fascism". but then all the protests are about everybody sort of spontaneously standing together across the exact lines of oppression that makes things not work? the exact shit that anarchists tell people not to expect — sometimes vehemently like you're a bad person to even think it would work — just kind of unpredictably happens after consistently not happening and not happening and not happening. I don't know what to believe or how to understand any of this.
618. Why are the most taxing kinds of work paid the least? (most damaging kinds of work; theme in Marx) / "The longer, more painful and more disgusting the work they are given, the less they are paid" (Buret) [108] -> there are going to be multiple reasons. Marx pointing out the pressures to pay as little as possible and profit as much as possible is one correct answer. but I think there is another answer: the "easier" jobs that get paid more are simply scarcer and harder to get. many of these people are lesser experts at something, and as a commodity it takes time to produce them. some people will try to spin Careerist salaries as some kind of respect, but I think there are much colder processes determining them — Careerists are capable of sending labor through the dragon process to make it uniquely rare and more costly, thus circumventing having to do any actual class struggle through their sheer process of building up themselves as greater wealth. it's easy to point to how common or "low cost" the things produced at low-paying jobs are, but it's always an unsatisfying answer when really, in comparison to workers only getting "what's logical" the owner getting a bunch of extra pay looks quite like an arbitrary social construct that if extended out could fix everything. but if you look the other direction up to rare things, things start to make more sense. to some extent common things are valued relative to rare things. gold in particular was a currency at times and people used it as a comparison against more common things like silver or cloth or eggs. fiat currency is still a little bit rare in a certain sense that only a small group of people gets to carefully decide when to print it. (I still have a video dancing around in my head that claimed fiat currency has never been successful when like..... okay, but a bunch of countries are measuring their own currency by the U.S. dollar, and that's a fiat currency. so what's up with that? it'd seem like fiat currency is actually doing pretty good right now.)
618. A many-to-one relationship is not a function (algebra) -> I was always told this in grade school but I don't see why it has to be true, and f(x,y) = z can't be considered a function. it's definitely different from single-variable functions but I feel like the better way to distinguish these graphs is just by what kinds of coordinate systems they use, or two-dimensional versus three-dimensional.
618. Taking any action is gambling / Whenever you take any action as an isolated individual you are gambling -> people are somewhat predisposed to believe in Free Will, and hate to give it up. this is one of the only good retorts that should make any reasonable person pause and go "oh, that's terrifying".
     Individual actions contribute to the future + You can't predict The Subject = Taking any action is gambling.
     Individual actions contribute to the future + No point in space can measure the state of any other point from a distance that would need to be accessed faster than the speed of light (general? relativity, Einstein) = Taking any action is gambling.
618. The existence of Free Will would make you responsible for other people's actions, always having to steer around them, apologize for them, or commandeer them, even though you do not have the power to predict them or replace them with the ones you would prefer -> any attempt to save Free Will that denies this essentially crumbles into arguing for non-absolute determinism. if you are not responsible for other people's actions, then up to 300 million things happen every hour that you aren't in control of, and the future you will have to face tomorrow morning is essentially mostly determined by factors other than you. the thing most people miss in discussions of Free Will is that physicists' determinism isn't scary, and gives you more control than you'd otherwise have. if your future is determined then you can predict it and survive it better, because absolute determinism does not apply and only clusters of things are determined relative to each other. there's a little extra complexity that comes from separate clusters actively trying to outwit each other, but that's the only real problem left.
     Individual actions contribute to the future + Taking any action is gambling = this. this + ?? = Free will is incompatible with the golden rule
618. The golden rule can be formulated in the third person without assuming that anyone has Free Will: the golden rule is an overall system-wide process that is in effect when individuals do not behave differently toward others than they expect others to behave toward them in order to create a single coherent society -> when you define the golden rule this way, it becomes clear that there are situations where you can predict that people will stop following it; only heading off those situations will actually cause the state of people following it.
     people seem to sort of understand this when it comes to the Trotskyite conspiracy, often proposing remedies to prevent it albeit usually misguided ones, but they totally don't understand this when it comes to anarchists or Black Panthers stepping away from the United States, even though the motivations are similar. those people aren't just shearing off into a new society and dissenting against society, those are evil enemy terrorists! what's the difference? what's the real, substantial difference between Trotskyites and Black Panthers? for a Tory at their particular level of understanding different ideologies and the development of plural societies there shouldn't be any difference.
618. Is wanting to commit suicide abnormal or expected? -> we often assume it's abnormal but really at a certain point we're just pathologizing the desire to leave society and create a new society or go to another country. this is the second time I'm basically going to therapy for Communism and non-patriotism, and I'm tired.
     the thing that really gets me is that Deleuze was trying to solve this kind of thing but ultimately, like, he doesn't get out of the paradigm of psychology, he's still just producing psychology, and it's still going to pathologize forms of society that it isn't equipped to model.
618. Nationalities and ethnic groups are basically the same thing -> this is one of those propositions that sounds really weird and out of the blue at first, but I do have a stack of careful reasoning as to why this might be true.
     one thing that is notable is how the people of the Soviet Union did not merge into a single nationality despite some people thinking they eventually would — in line with, if not necessarily identical to, some of the earliest ideas way back in the "Trotskyist" period of Leninism circa 1906 that national borders and divisions between nations were arbitrary and imposed. or in line with some anarchisms. it would be easy for a certain rather-specific kind of anarchist to say that the 14 populations of the Soviet Union merging into one heterogeneous but united nationality was part of the natural process of people "Rhizoming" together and forming anarchy.
     another thing that is notable is Brexit. a lot of people constantly talk about "Whiteness" or "The West" as if all Europeans have truly become a single giant ethnic group regardless of where they are in the world, but incidents like Brexit should cast doubt on that because, for good reasons or bad reasons, Brexit was a step toward separating English people from a neatly unified larger civilization of Europeans or White people. in the same vein, Northern Ireland still acts as a dividing line between populations of English and Irish people, and there had been a division in the United States between Irish people and people that amounted to Germans or Dutch people, etc., largely along Catholic versus Protestant lines. ultimately nobody truly cares about the fine details of religion, Irish people and non-Irish people simply start out as separate coherent populations that mostly notice their physical separation through things like religious sects, and the sheer separation itself invites conflict.
     this isn't really to deny the fact that nationalities can contain multiple ethnic groups inside them — instead, the framing here is that ethnic groups can easily contain other ethnic groups. this also isn't to deny that some national borders such as in Africa hardly even function as nationalities whatsoever, and are something of a featureless bag of disconnected ethnic groups. the purpose of reducing the concepts of nationality and ethnic group into one thing is this: people like to dance around topics just because they sound nasty on the surface, like the concept that identifiable deterministic processes outside the individual can lead ethnic groups to fight each other over territory or government or (non)membership in each other as ethnic groups. they'd rather believe that racism can be willed away than that there exists any specific set of conditions where it's "inevitable". denying this sweeps away the real problem of large groups of people not wanting to associate with each other for human reasons, just because the two groups have a reciprocal bad relationship, and in turn, the possibility of addressing or healing these bad relationships. when anarchists are always trying to make things into lines of flight and Freedom and things automatically merging and essentially all of humanity being made of ethnic groups and nested sets of ethnic groups rather than truly being made of socio-economic theories or politics, we all ought to be mature enough to actually examine and analyze the possibility all populations are made of relationships between ethnic groups. statements like "Trotsky tried to break apart the Soviet Union and work with other countries supposedly slated to transition to Trotskyism because he was not well suited to be part of Soviet ethnicities and would have preferred to become part of a different ethnic group" are genuinely interesting propositions that offer an opportunity to see the world in a less adversarial way where no population or faction is actually the good guy or the bad guy; it does a lot to muddy the overall worldwide story of humanity when we unnecessarily try to de-racialize things just to fit some preconceived notion of anti-discrimination laws and constitutional amendments inside a specific Liberal republic.
     anyway... because I'm a little afraid that I've never known what ethnic group means or is formally defined as in the first place, in my more serious writings that are aiming to become "finished" I only say "countable culture".
618. Don't talk about "systemic" -> a lot of people genuinely don't know what to do when faced with the concept of "systemic" because they are predisposed to reduce it back down to how individual actions stack up to "systemic" behavior and push for individual remedies. even something like an anti-discrimination law is ultimately an individual remedy because as it's written it expects individuals to simply follow it.
618. Don't talk about "means of production" -> this is a genuinely confusing concept to anarchists so it really has to be completely spelled out.
618. The prisoner's dilemma becomes a zero-sum game if both players are gambling to win a profit -> people often say the solution to the prisoner's dilemma of neither player confessing is "obvious". but that's the anarchist solution to the problem. in a society of Existentialists, most people are going to respond to real-world prisoners' dilemmas as if they're gambling and trying to win against the other people.
618. Every investor is a gambler [109]
618. Maximum risk brings maximum reward (probability) / Given a particular kind of probability game where the integral of all payouts is positive, the biggest wager brings the biggest winnings / Maximizing profit guarantees total loss (correction) [110] -> it's easy to show this is a stupid thing to do, and yet... it's kind of an orthodox way to run capitalism, and basically what's currently being done with the money that goes into AI companies.
     Maximum risk brings maximum reward + prisoner's dilemma = The prisoner's dilemma becomes a zero-sum game if both players are gambling.
618. The subject takes philosophy out of Idealism into empiricism / The subject takes philosophy out of essences into empiricism (Kant) [111] -> congrats Kant, you just discovered a material model of positivism and solipsism. The Subject really doesn't permit empirical observations. it only describes how we created Idealism in the first place.
618. All of reality actually lives in any particular individual's unconscious mind [112] / (9k)
618. A "psychology of the mind" can't actually model real individuals / A "psychology of the mind" can't actually model real individuals because real individuals can't be universalized (Deleuze; blue-anarchist framing) [113]
618. psychology of affections / a psychology of the mind's affections [114] -> I do not know what this is supposed to mean, but, the concept that "a psychology of the mind" can't capture the differences between individuals? yeah. I think cognitive science is fine but I am so tired of Lacanianism. go ahead and destroy popular psychology in the places where it's clearly not basing itself in science, the philosophical parts of it are weird and insular and bourgeoisie-specific and aren't even doing anyone any good. as far as this one thing goes Deleuze might be wired actually
618. Social contracts emerge at stacks of capital -> one of the best responses to weird anarcho-Tory theories of capitalism, the Heidegger types, that try to posit a conspiracy by some nebulous "they" to "trap everyone in cities and Algorithms". reply that society is created by Them and every notion of civilization and morality forms around capitalists. as long as capitalism exists it's only a slight exaggeration. it shouldn't even be objectionable to a lot of right-Liberals and Tories. god though, my "favorite" is when you get a person who sometimes rants about the genius of "entrepreneurs" but then also at other times sinks into conspiracy theories about how "they" maliciously brought in modernity. who do you people think "They" are???
618. getting rid of politics to create anarchy / blue anarchism as silent destruction of political processes -> this is one of those core Existentialist / blue-anarchist ideas that defines what it is and especially separates it from Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republicanism believes in political processes like a constitution and a presidency existing, and having periodic elections; blue anarchism doesn't believe in any of that. ostensibly to keep from disrupting those things and letting those things tear each other apart, but in reality, nothing is complementary or separable to the extent both Liberal-republicans and blue-anarchists like to believe, and when you attempt to teach piles and piles of bizarrely specific areas of society to "do their job" and not get involved in politics for long enough, what you create is a world where everybody is trapped in blue anarchism for much of their waking hours interacting with any particular part of society and nobody has any time to think about democracy, and potentially, democracy just flat out dies because stupidity filters up from the vast body of regular people who aren't allowed to think about democracy to get rid of candidates with actual policies and produce uniquely uninformed democracy-hating candidates that run in elections. you can't neatly separate amorphous and molecularized theories of society, any more than you can separate classical physics from quantum physics; for any two, the molecularized theory is generally going to win out and take over the whole country up to the big scales, whether it's based on tiny person-to-person rejections and Filamentism or whether it's based on large business territories aggressively chunk-competing against the rest of society. it's in this sense that center-Liberals and Tories sort of really are distinct ideologies, purely because they contain different inner Bauplans. center-Liberal allies may genuinely believe that individuals cutting off relationships and forming new relationships is the primary engine that creates society (whether those individuals are CEOs or not), and right-Liberal or Tory allies may genuinely believe that stacks of capital or business territories or Christian morality and allegiance or non-allegiance to a code of morality is the primary engine that creates society.
     a lot of "apolitical people" in the United States are just flat-out conservatives full stop, and committed racists full stop. the reason they become this way is that they have no idea they are analyzing the most basic processes of society through faulty models of, for instance, stacks of wealth being related to nothing else, and all interactions in society running on morality rather than morality appearing as a band-aid solution to underlying amoral processes. the ability to actually analyze and re-examine molecularized models of society might make all the difference at some time in the future. if nothing else Liberal republics would actually get accurate political party colors and be forced to reckon with some five or something major parties at local levels. of course this is much more powerful in the hands of Marxists, who would become able to theoretically comprehend conflicts or relations between two separate national populations which are transitioning into different Marxisms or anarchisms, even wonky strawberry or orange or blue "Marxisms".
618. contradiction between media products being shared congregating points of "A Community" that must be tolerated for the purpose of tolerating other individuals at the congregating point, and exclusive individual expressions of directors or corporations that must be judged on their ability to have produced the product well and to deserve their position on a particular social graph node within society
618. In the future the United States will transition to a system without workers where individuals run businesses using AI -> descriptive prediction based on current patterns, not endorsement.
618. Bolshevism mustn't contain narratives (critical theory) / Bolshevism is bad because it consists of narratives, and social transition can strictly only happen through tearing apart all narratives -> I have never liked this kind of thinking because like, "I'm Uyghur and China is oppressing me" is a narrative, "I'm Black and there needs to be more minority representation in social structures" is a narrative, "I'm transgender and I first experienced gender dysphoria at 7 years old, not at 30 when you claim I made it up" is a narrative, not to mention "The Soviet Union needs to maintain its government and border so it doesn't become a colony" being a narrative despite everybody already not wanting to believe it. it's trivially easy to not believe narratives, and as such, it's trivially easy to decide to be racist and never listen to critical theorists. all Lived Experiences are narratives! it makes no sense to me that it's popular both to constantly talk about Lived Experiences and constantly talk about destroying narratives. those two things absolutely don't go together. and out of the two, Lived Experiences are actually the better choice because if you accept a bunch of individualized narratives they can all be tied together into a unified picture of reality without logical contradiction. Lived Experiences allow for creating a meta-ontological picture of reality even though they will present material contradictions between individuals and don't necessarily make it easy.
618. All narratives are biographies / All narratives are lived experiences -> there are enough instances where this is false to mark it inaccurate.
618. All lived experiences are narratives -> this is different from the converse implication that all narratives are real or imagined Lived Experiences. I think that out of the two, this statement is truer. It may depend on what things you think belong in the category of narrative, but to me a narrative is defined by ontologies, interactions, and series of events; narratives are histories, in the physics sense of the formation of time, that happen either alongside a specific point of view or from a bird's-eye view where it simply happens. narratives can be told from within a particular factional ideology, like a Trotskyist newspaper or a bible story (Christianity) or a PBS news report against Venezuela funded by the Freeman foundation (this will be on my wall of shame forever). narratives can also be told from no particular ideology, like an account of the first two billion years of life on earth. meta-Marxism hopes to make it possible for historical accounts and accounts of possible futures to come close to this level of telling events while supporting no particular ideology, in ways that Liberal-republican and blue-anarchist frameworks currently absolutely do not.
618. It's possible to overthrow White supremacists -> this seems like a widespread notion these days among like, everyone. Gramscians or Black Panther allies, anarchists, critical theorists especially, "anti-fascists", even the occasional center-Liberal. but it's never made any coherent sense to me because it's like.... what the hell is that transition supposed to look like physically. throwing 150 million White supremacists into the ocean? Marxism makes sense because you can describe a transition to Bolshevism as scattered points of workers assembling into a Lattice, practicing filtration to find good representatives, cross-linking through crimson structures that create production or survival, building a republic, and putting everyone under jurisdiction of the republic. I can tell you almost exactly what a Communist revolution looks like except for specific clashes between the proletarian Lattice and bourgeois allies that are historically-contingent events; "there will be some" is what's easiest to say. but when everyone is going on about racism and prejudices as "a revolution" but a lot of the discussion is treating it as intangible Ideas and Attitudes and Narratives I just have no idea what people are even saying. are they imagining a charcoal-anarchist Lattice? what physical object are they imagining? I never know what object is supposed to form during the transition to post-capitalism (or "post-racism" I guess) if everything is so immaterial. how do you not just get stuck in an infinite loop of thinking the transition has happened but everything actually being the same? if the end result is physically the same as the start then how can it be a revolution?
     now, if people want to talk about reconstructing the Third-Worldiest parts of the United States, that makes physical sense to me as something that could happen. but I don't understand how it makes sense to call that a "revolution". it doesn't involve the Black subpopulation (for instance) forming a new country or union republic, which is what the second definition of the Russian Revolution would be: the formation of the 14 SSRs. in a lot of blue-anarchists' minds it doesn't even involve changing the United States republic at all. so to me it's like, what the hell do people think the word revolution means? the only thing I can sort of get from ingesting way too much Existentialism is that people think the concept of Freedom is somehow core to the definition of Revolution; regime change or a change in the internal structure of countries doesn't define Revolution, and somehow Freedom itself defines that. schizoanalysts believe something a little like that, which is why they terribly misuse the word "revolution" and sprinkle it everywhere as a metaphor.
     god I hate the misuse of the word revolution. I know it's absolutely everywhere and I can't shove it back in the bag but I wish it hadn't happened, because it leads to the most insulting mockeries of the concept of revolution as people blatantly denounce revolutions and then go around lightly using it as a metaphor. ??? why. why would you use something totally forbidden in your society or "Community" as a metaphor like that. if Bolshevism is really such a great injustice and revolution itself is so bad that the French Revolution shouldn't have been one... throwing around the word revolution is the equivalent of going around saying "wow, you really committed genocide on those roof leaks" or "right, no information got out before the trailer. she's such a good project manager, she pulls off regular pizzagates" or "man, what a great article, you really crucified him". why the hell do United States people talk this way casually saying "a revolution" "revolutionized" when to many people that's one of the greatest sins you can commit and it's not considered good at all. it's not even like nonbelievers vulgarizing expressions like "the damned" when somebody else once took them seriously; this is something a great number of people agree on regardless of religion and demographic so it doesn't even make sense. maybe one day by cataloguing enough motifs and traditional philosophy books I'll finally understand the reason why. for now... I think I've just come up with a pretty good B-side chapter idea. a cluster of critical theorists spanning a few universities finally bans the word revolution from public discourse leading simultaneously to some people willingly spreading around some rather confusing informational materials and to a lot of confusion. hmm, maybe that one could be a second forum thread chapter, a philosophy forum is one place that could happen.
     It's possible to overthrow White supremacists + ?? = The United States destroying other countries' governments is a revolution.
618. The United States destroying other countries' governments is a revolution
     The United States destroying other countries' governments is a revolution + ?? = color revolution.
618. as smart as a glass of water -> appears in: MDem 5.3.
618. Money is useful because people chose it / You can know currency is the best choice when it is the one people naturally aligned onto (Austrian school of economics) -> deeply misleading. even if people make an adequate choice, the fact they made the choice isn't the inner logic that actually makes it a satisfactory choice. this is the kind of economic theory that reduces the meaningful reasoning ability of human beings to people being exactly as smart as a glass of water.
618. The purpose of Marxism is actually to defeat post-structuralism / The purpose of Marxism is actually to defeat Blobonomics -> so often it's not the owners that are actually causing the problems, it's everyone's commitment to the notion of structures being temporary and constantly being fixed not by any sort of knowledge or analysis but by breakages, swapping, "lines of flight" to other structures. physical post-structuralism has the power to take anyone who desires to form an organization and turn that person into an isolated shop. it's bad news.
618. What anarchists think is Archons or "domination" is sometimes literally just the existence of larger populations (believe to be the Spanishness Office; believe to be cultural hegemony; meta-Marxism)
     Populations always have the ability to decide not to do something + chat plays Undertale = this.
618. Decisions and consequences happen at the same time / Decisions do not happen on a special layer of all human decisions that exists before all actions happen, and instead decisions constantly happen from other directions before anyone makes their own, and because of processes like large inanimate objects or people's unconscious nervous systems making decisions, some decisions and actions separately issue out of the same entity without being linearly connected from decision to outcome -> this is one of my big problems with almost all of traditional philosophy. like, if you discuss "consequentialism", people will quickly assume you are saying that the consequences after a particular decision are good, and start slamming you about "the decision". and if you try to explain that you're focused on the consequences because they don't always come from decisions, then people will quickly assume you believe in absolute determinism and that you think decisions don't meaningfully exist. but in both cases what I actually think is simply that all decisions can't possibly come before all outcomes. some outcomes happen before decisions because they come from separate entities. some outcomes happen before decisions because the decision-making and outcomes are on the same entity but the outcome happened before the decision-makers were conscious of it. sometimes with some skill you can successfully make a decision and steer an entity toward its next outcome. so a lot of inanimate or "unconscious" decisions are constantly being made and every self-aware agent has to live with not being able to control a whole lot of decisions that simply happen outside it, some of which are far bigger than it will ever make; even if you have Free Will, it doesn't matter because most of the world isn't affected by your Free Will. Trotsky can want the best for everyone in the whole world and not be able to change any of it. that's why studying mere consequences of processes that happen without thinking of them as a special thing that agents made can be so useful and important.
     I think this statement is actually crimson because it lines up really closely with the themes in Marx. you see pretty clear Hyper-Materialist themes in his texts where he wants to drill down to the physics-like character of all social structures and not focus very hard on what mental models they have and decisions they attempt to make — people can still attempt to make decisions such as forming labor organizations, but they first have to understand the underlying structure of reality and the way different layers of reality are constantly interacting and making background decisions to do that effectively.
     Nothing can be done unless everyone considers it wonderful + special relativity = Decisions and consequences happen at the same time.
618. T/F?: Co-ops are anarchism / Are co-ops charcoal anarchism? / Do co-ops lead to realizing charcoal anarchism? -> right now what it looks like to me is the answer is "some occurrence"; "Co-ops are anarchism" is true sometimes but not always.
618. T/F?: Co-ops are Existentialism / Are co-ops blue anarchism? / Do co-ops lead to realizing blue anarchism? -> I doubt this one specifically because I think in some senses the most iconic "structure" of Existentialism is refusing to commit to structure and constantly changing it.
618. T/F?: Co-ops are Western-Marxism / Are co-ops strawberry Marxism? / Do co-ops lead to realizing strawberry Marxism?
618. substance pluralism / substance dualism (duality; model which proposes two kinds of structural elements instead of more than two) -> the word dualism can mean many things in different contexts*. here it means the separation of the structural elements that make up things into at least two different kinds of structural elements.
     * this is a part of traditional philosophy that is just infuriating to me. none of the words philosophers use really mean anything, especially when they end in "-ism", and most people immediately look stupid if they try to use any of them, to where you really have to learn to actively refuse to use most words you find in Wikipedia articles if they look the least bit like spaghetti or you will get them wrong and in making any attempt to discuss them become incomprehensible. this is not a matter of "depth", "field", or "pay grade", as much as people love to toss out those words without thinking. you can't wait for an expert to read fucking (pronounced redacted) books for you. our world is on fire. we all need to be able to read arguments and actually understand the core of them as soon as we get out of high school. the fact that we can't and basically all information you read is spaghetti has made the internet and digital systems like library catalogs nearly worthless — it's easy to find information but nobody can actually understand it, making it hard to look up anything you actually need in practice because you need "the proper words" which no matter how many terms you learn are always terribly arbitrary. the truth is that all high-quality information is capital in a sense and we've entrusted possessing and using it to the people who "need it the most", or said another way are the best at being capitalists. AI has been about the only thing that's ever remotely claimed to solve that problem, by ingesting every word and telling you how to convert it into other words, and it's a solution to a problem that should never have been a problem.
     maybe I'm just mad after I got burned on thinking "structuralism" and "determinism" sort of meant something instead of being abstract adjectives, just because they were nouns. is it too much to ask to want a noun to actually be something in particular that can be modified?
618. Class is a single substrate / The substance dualism advanced by early Marxism is not fully accurate because its dual substances operate under substance monism internally -> it's easy to go around saying that Marxism talking about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is wrong, and be totally wrong about it. I am claiming something much more sophisticated here. I am claiming the proletariat and the bourgeoisie do exist but that there is a layer of structure between them that is what differentiates them into dual substances, like quantum numbers appear to be able to twist energy into matter, or a single layer of fundamental particles makes up the heterogeneous realm of atoms. I have not fully figured out how this works, though I've been ranting about scattered thoughts on it for more than a year. to keep from rambling on too long, here's the short version. people who would be proletarians can 'level up' into Careerists, although they don't always do it. they do it more often in First World countries and less in Third World countries. Careerists and workers combined as a single substance compete over the totality of slots in a business territory. the smaller bourgeoisie that exist are actually Careerists that are being the bourgeoisie, and are specifically made that way in the process of being part of a structure. sometimes but not always they lose their structure and cease to be bourgeoisie; sometimes they store up wealth and become permanent capitalists, only because that wealth provides structure. the genesis of a usable business territory is what truly makes the bourgeoisie the bourgeoisie, not even the act of exploiting workers — because, and everyone already accepts this part, one territory full of one bourgeois without employees still contains the bourgeoisie.
     in one really weird sense, all stacks of capital are already state businesses. except in the case of businesses formed out of exactly one Careerist, businesses only exist at all because they consist of multiple people. I know that sounds like a tautology or a deepity but I'm getting somewhere. every business consisting of at least two people gets bigger on the basis of capital adding more people. the owner doesn't truly do that, capital itself truly does that. capital adds people and capital creates growth by absorbing people. owners then falsely believe the purpose of capital is to make them money, and exploit workers. but that isn't true; the purpose of capital is simply to order people into groups and compete over area. capital doesn't come from nowhere either, it absorbs the underlying all-vs-all contradiction between all individuals as an alternative way of doing the same thing. people invented markets to theoretically alleviate chunk competition between individuals and because this wasn't stable it produced the terrible result of producers clumping together and chunk-competing over the market instead. anarchists falsely believe at times that either owners created the entire thing or competing chunks can sort of just decide not to chunk-compete. but this ultimately comes from raw individuals at the scale of their own bodies before they are really workers, Careerists, or owners, who experience a constant impulse to protect their bodies, which is equivalent to the impulse to seek Freedom, which is equivalent to Free Will. our false belief across the United States that Freedom is a matter of reason or "democracy" or even ethics and not just the sheer desire to survive is really sinking us, because at the end of the day, a great pile of philosophies are just competing chunks trying to justify their sheer desire to survive on their own based on their suspicion that others will block their survival or what would make them happy. chunk competition is capitalism is imperialism is anarchism is Trotskyism. chunks kill. post-structuralism kills.
618. Orange chunks are actually blue Communitarian chunks -> I think this is unlikely to be true, but when Trotskyists and Bordigists have flat out attacked the entire concept of businesses (!) it is worth examining if the reason they hate state businesses is that they actually want to create blue chunks. I think this is unlikely to be the case because quite literally, they can't create soviets if they replace business territories with people spontaneously throwing donations into a hat that goes away after a while, the soviets would just dissolve. and Trotskyists really do like their soviets.
618. Real-world morality isn't rational / Real-world morality doesn't operate based on reason / Within the real world, morality is not a philosophical exercise in the sense traditional philosophers discuss morality and ethics, and instead exists in the form of the irrational, emotional response of a socially-linked group of people to physically protect itself from threat or maintain its Freedom -> a generalization of the more specific (and icky) example in Q12,1,22 / Q12,1,21.
     this has its ups and downs. on one side of the coin, it becomes depressingly easy to understand the behavior of Toryism. on the other side of the coin, you can turn it around to start arguing at center-Liberals and Tories that Deng Xiaoping Thought and the mainstream form of Bolshevism that existed historically are each categorically moral in that they follow the exact same pattern as all typical moral claims.
618. Japanese counter word humor [115] -> the motif of choosing counter words very deliberately and not necessarily the usual way they are used to imply something about the thing being counted. for example, using "一件" to imply something not usually considered an incident or a crime is an incident.
     I decided to do this to translate the proposition "Society are not singular".
618. Dragon Ball has a nearly perfect model of ethics / Dragon Ball series has a nearly perfect model of ethics because it deals with the emergence of ethics out of an almost strictly amoral, non-ethical world where even Evil is not the background state, and where people must decide to actively invent ethics and particular systems of ethics or ideological factions they will join into simply because the consequences of living in an amoral world are worse -> if you think Dragon Ball is too simple to embody a system of ethics, I wouldn't totally tell you you're wrong, but what I would then say is that at its heart ethics is a relatively simple concept to the point that even this kind of show or comic can embody it. to me the most important part of ethics is actually just to realize that "ethical" is never uncountable and there are always countable systems of ethics associated with countable groups of people, or the possibility of there being an amoral world with no morality or ethics at all. it then becomes true that even a superficially simple fantasy story about "Good" and "Evil" can just barely succeed at representing that.
618. great man theory of ethics -> you have to understand I'm joking when I say this, but: I subscribe to the great man theory of ethics! the great man theory of ethics is the theory that generalized ethical scenarios containing "anyone" don't work to actually teach people to include all people, and people only actually learn to form consistent and sensible systems of ethics when you throw oddly specific historical figures, celebrities, or other bizarrely-specific individuals (anybody who's appeared in a newspaper will do) into an ethical scenario and try to predict what would happen with that very specific person, effectively writing real people fiction about somebody to properly figure out the solution to your ethical scenario.
     this concept doesn't go against the meta-Marxist notions of "repeated patterns" or "lambda-calculus determinism", but complements them perfectly, by taking generalized functions and actually using them and testing them by feeding in a particular "x" value.
618. Stereotypes are necessary to create peace (anarchist phrasing) / If countries could not predict what another population was doing, they would constantly have to prepare for the possibility of war or horizontal "terrorist" attack, while if populations have ontological models or even essentialized Idealist models of what various parts of another population are like, they will be able to predict with reasonable accuracy that the other population will not attack their country, and create peaceful international relations (meta-Marxist phrasing) -> "stereotypes" here of course doesn't really mean stereotypes, it obliquely refers to the anarchist concept that having any model or description of a group of people — such as "people know they're transgender by 13 years old" or "people in Vietnam are focused on putting their effort into building a connected country" — is prejudiced, although in practice this would make Media Representation and applying a group of people's Lived Experiences impossible. everybody but anarchists knows these kinds of claims all carry an implicit caveat of "(this statement has a truth value of 'some occurrence')". yet it seems to be impossible to get people in general to stop improperly ignoring that without utterly destroying and smashing everyone's concept of formal logic. people can go on all day about how "things aren't binary"... and then fail to realize that most statements they hear from other people don't have to be True or False, and many statements they thought were claims of things being binary actually weren't.
     every day I become more convinced that you really need to mess with post-structuralist anarchists and pull at their basic emotions by repeating the language they would use back at them in the coarsest forms possible just to get them to stop believing such stupid things about how countries and borders and history work, and that the practice of refusing to have models of other country populations or meaningful demographic-identity movements to supposedly "prevent prejudices" is lazy and racist.
618. Could you convince a starving unemployed person not to join the United States military? / Could you convince Dave Pelzer not to join the United States military and go to war in Vietnam? -> to succeed at this you have to actually have somewhere else for people to go where they can consistently produce for their household. anarchism is going to be quite bad at that, while Marxism, with the ability to control the overall layout of businesses and new jobs, has a chance.
     always remember that this was a real problem in the 1970s, it's not a fake problem. the United States military preyed on people when the economy was bad, promising them a salary if they'd only help in the important mission of making sure Vietnam suffers and doesn't have freedom. this is one of the biggest problems with trying to define a concept of 'social-ism' as "people looking out for each other". Dave Pelzer really did get fed the lie that fighting Vietnam was like having a family. that really happened. so are you going to internalize that fact and realize that only controlling production has the power to prevent global empire or not?
618. Stalin's government leading the country to rapidly build up heavy industry and Deng Xiaoping Thought are basically the same thing
618. Gramscianism is like post-structuralist anarchism as a Marxism / When people within a Liberal-republican capitalist country practice post-structuralist anarchism and actually do it well with the actual goal of overthrowing the layer of capitalists, it turns into a countable Marxist movement whose named Marxism is Gramscianism -> you look at schizoanalysis, one of the most coherent bodies of philosophical literature connected to post-structuralist anarchism (although to be clear schizoanalysis is terribly incoherent, so that's really saying something), and a couple major themes like ending up on the best escape route and change proceeding person by person would basically just lead to the same outcomes as Gramscianism would, assuming that you do either of them well. either of them effectively produces an island of people who trust each other surrounded by a sea of reactionaries, or if things go more favorably, a caldera of people who trust each other surrounding a sea of reactionaries.
618. Post-structuralist anarchism led to the YouTube algorithm -> when you think about it, "Algorithms" are almost tailor-made to mess with post-structuralist anarchists. they let you act individually. they let you withdraw from people with awful views that you don't like. they let you sort around and reward people who supposedly are free from "domination" (like "colonialism", I'm starting to hate that word for how much a typical use of it vulgarizes the concept it's talking about). they let you withdraw from the rest of society as much as you want.
618. Post-structuralist anarchists effectively hate China -> another proposition that's a bit of a troll but I do think it's true. post-structuralist anarchism is sometimes (apparently not always) defined as this sort of absolute-maxing-out of critical theory and the motif I dubbed "anarculture". this kind of anarchist believes both that we must purge everyone of all forms of culture and society that potentially contain biases and domination, and also that this is impossible so in a way we just have to stop trying. this may sound really stupid but practically, it still could lead to an anarchism if everybody basically just shuts off their brains and assembles into a society stochastically, in a very picky and mercurial way, purely based on their emotions and whatever they subjectively think is "freedom"; it's literally anti-Enlightenment and irrational, but not necessarily in a bad way because it at least makes sense mathematically. so, on with "trolling" anarchists. this kind of post-structuralist anarchist says that it isn't entirely possible to get rid of ideology, which I think is true; everyone sorting into red or orange or blue Social-Philosophical Systems is just going to happen. but they say that once you don't immediately participate in it it's okay to stop thinking about it. that logically means that you're still going to be part of an ideological faction whether you like it or not, and that faction as a whole material group of people can stochastically go brutalize other factions whether you like it or not, including destroying the governments of other countries and turning them into neocolonies. thus, assuming they do not live in China, post-structuralist anarchists effectively hate China.
     to be fair to anarchists: I am not adding a Z Item or ideology code for "post-structuralist anarchism" at this time because I know for sure I do not fully understand it. a motif Item? maybe; I have to collect these first impressions somewhere.
618. To be postcolonial, accept Dengism / All it takes to be truly postcolonial is accepting the existence of Deng Xiaoping Thought (abbreviation, misleading) / Because global empire is only truly defeated when countries that are positioned to be colonies physically stop being colonies and don't become colonies any more, everyone who accepts the existence of Deng Xiaoping Thought is doing more to bring about a postcolonial world than anyone who recommends that Deng Xiaoping Thought should be smashed to bring people "freedom", whether they obsess over the "colonizer attitudes in people's minds" or don't -> this one is here basically just to make anarchists angry. it's one of those roundabout propositions that is true because of other things — almost intentionally backhandedly-true.
     Capital is the true seat of government + China/Vietnam/Cuba will never be free if it's controlled by another nation's government = To be postcolonial, accept Dengism
618. Populations experience natural physical separations based on language, religion, or degree of stacked rank-goods and dragon process -> A) language is self-explanatory. B) religion is not metaphysically special, but means that people will have a different body of models of the world and repeating social structures (church, diocese & papacy, pilgrimage site, cloud of local-god shrines, etc) from another population. C) the presence of nobility, royal family in command of wealth, or a very big stack of capital separates First World countries from Third World countries and former colonies through the threat of creating global empire. many people in many ideologies get this wrong. you hear anarchists and Trotskyists act like borders are an imaginary fabrication, but
618. Capital is the true seat of government / Government and the nation-state or global-empire-state emerge from the locus of stacks of capital -> if you actually understand this then you understand Third-World countries and Deng Xiaoping Thought. unfortunately, many people don't quite understand this.
     Capital is the true seat of government + ?? = Pillows are not ideologically neutral.
618. "Everyone" includes everyone (historical) / "Everyone" includes everyone (period.) / "Everyone" includes every possible person on earth in the current historical period or any other historical period -> this is the proposition I'm really invoking when I spontaneously bring up "Trotsky" as a possible person things could apply to. it's difficult for large numbers of people to grasp something as abstract as "all people on earth across all historical periods", but it's easy to grasp bizarrely-specific examples.
618. "Everyone" includes everyone (global) / "Everyone" includes every possible person on earth in the current historical period or historical period in question -> a lot of Marxists believe they stop here but where they actually stop is confusing to figure out. Trotskyists seem to stop at a weird combination of the subpopulational proposition combined with part of the global proposition, as if they all lived in the new British Empire or the goal is to find the secret British Empire inside every country. mainstream Marxist-Leninists reach a similar level but divide things a bit differently — it's hard to describe the division exactly, but it often seems to include that they are obsessed with national independence movements entirely separately from the concept of ultimately realizing Bolshevism, and while that shouldn't cause problems, it becomes deceptive at the point countries actually free themselves and create a workers' state and then suddenly the mainstream MLs don't like what they've done and want to take it away. mainstream Marxism-Leninism is currently really really bad at understanding concepts like that Deng Xiaoping Thought might be necessary for China to have national independence and any future transition into Bolshevism is absolutely required to transition out of that. it's like mainstream Marxism-Leninism is unable to actually understand the concept of country characteristics, and when it happens that countries truly build a different-looking Marxism because a country is historically positioned to be a colony, suddenly they don't understand characteristics at all.
618. "Everyone" includes everyone (national) / "Everyone" includes every possible person in a country in the current historical period -> the typical Existentialist tends to stop here.
618. "Everyone" includes everyone (subpopulational) / "Everyone" includes every possible person in a highly specific subpopulation -> and this is where Tories stop.
618. To free the proletariat from the draining grasp of the bourgeoisie, it is not enough for people to be arranged into a mass of workers; to overcome the whole nation of owners on the layer above them they must be arranged into a whole nation of workers that can be said to have created the overall nation, while in many populations the structural foundation of the population is in constant flux and this is not true yet -> note/warning: this was prompted by grading an AI video (this one was shockingly okay?).
     I lost the first version of this proposition in a computer crash when a single webpage took up like a gigabyte of memory (booo notion.so), which was infuriating because I typed quite a long paragraph here and lost it. I don't even remember how I worded the proposition the first time. but, I at least remembered the entire substance of it.
618. Walk away from corporations, and you lose the opportunity to have caring co-workers [116]
618. missing proposition -> policy-guide concept. the most basic form of article quality review on this wiki comes through strategic use of logical And between two propositions that someone has claimed should go together — for example, although only one of these is a proposition, "Item labels should not contain swear words" versus a page named "Bullshit Jobs". given any two propositions, one of them that is deemed the most correct will suggest ways to update the other, or at least ways to add new M3 questions and S2 propositions for investigating the contradiction; in the example, the sensible solution is to add another policy proposition reading "Item labels do not need to be censored if the title of a self-contained work would become difficult to recognize". one problem with the contradiction method of investigating and improving articles is that sometimes there will be critical pieces of context missing from one of the propositions that would have made them both easier to evaluate, or drastically changed the answer. that is what this Item represents. a proposition, motif, or phenomenon that would have stood behind one of the propositions but didn't happen to be there.
     in cases a missing proposition is discovered, try to overhaul existing Items a minimal amount. it is okay to totally rewrite things like Background or Usage Notes sections, but the one thing you should keep close to the way it was is the verbose Item description at the top. add a tiny clarification of what was "missing" from the Item so that its character as a "strawman" or such is apparent, and then go make a new proposition which actually captures the missing proposition. philosophy "out in the wild" tends to have a lot of errors and missing propositions in it, so this policy allows all those errors in existing texts to be captured and analyzed even if editors add them accidentally rather than intentionally; as unique as you may think your error is, it's not unlikely somebody made the same error before.
618. Communitarians (meta-Marxism) -> the concept of a class-like socioeconomic layer of people defined by their connection to a particular Community, in particular a countable blue or strawberry chunk held up by a bunch of interconnected horizontal payments and donations. if Communitarians exist, they are not just "the petty bourgeoisie" — the presence or absence of links between the individuals is critical, and similar to the difference between a room full of carbon dioxide molecules versus a room containing a block of wood or a diamond. the full connected blue chunk is fundamentally different from a bunch of disconnected tiny shops. however, if the blue chunk is functioning effectively, it may be highly resistant to transition to Bolshevism or transition back to corporations which would allow regenerating the proletariat and transitioning to Bolshevism. Community chunks like to continue believing that individuals choosing to be nice and inclusive by coming up with cash and not failing to arrive with tangible money or production is sufficient to hold together a society, while they don't like to believe that the physical structure of society could stand to be more efficient, despite the contradiction that this is true of their Community chunk in that people who fail to produce have a higher probability of getting kicked out because they are less able to perform prosocial behavior and more likely to be seen as useless to the chunk if they ever make an ideological mistake; whether they go over to outside brown chunks or blue chunks or just to people inside the same chunk, it's a logical consequence that anyone with fundraising powers is more likely to be retained.
618. enough scientific ramblings, now back to lived experience / "enough of the stupid scientific bullshit (pronounced redacted), I need to talk about myself now" [117] -> I saw somebody say this in a media analysis and it stuck in my mind. I feel as if I've heard versions of it many times before, especially in relation to fiction and the arts
618. Blue "Communitarian" chunks composed of either small businesses or assorted individuals graphed into a circular structure of everyone connected to a particular node tossing money into a donation "hat" until they don't feel like it are capable of scaling up into gigantic chunks composed of interconnected circles of big businesses -> so, today it is common for the strawberry bloc of people containing social-democrats, Western-Marxists, pure LGBT-tradition members, and blue-tinted "small-and-local" Artisan-anarchists to give you some version of the story that society can rebuild itself solely based on distributing the notion of stacks of capital into this vortex of donations where miscellaneous people unpredictably put money in a hat and supposedly this will take away the social power of nasty large sponsors. this particular blue or strawberry chunk concept is separate from the concept of government programs, although the two do interact in unfortunate ways — if no particular organization necessarily knows where its money is coming from, how do you ever collect taxes on any of this, instead of just finding out every single "Communitarian" business doesn't have any extra money to spare and Medicaid is dead? now, one could reasonably go into meta-Marxist graph economics to answer this and say that the question is irrelevant because taxes are already obsolete and the system is now all about reconfiguring actual human relationships and group shapes to get "the Medicaid community" paid, but most people advocating this kind of thing actually do want Medicaid type national programs and really haven't thought that far ahead.
     anyway, I found something shocking today. the way that AI companies are developing looks bizarrely like a gigantic version of a blue "Community" chunk. several businesses and the RAM chip makers are all connected together in a circle passing each other money such that the "AI Community" doesn't waste any money and is weirdly efficient. as blue anarchists might remark, it would be much better if humanity did this same thing with corporations that were actually useful. but really, I think this is a terrifying hint that blue "Community" chunks have exactly the same problem capitalism has of always eventually growing bigger and gaining power over all surrounding chunks in the sense of the power to make big decisions, slurp up resources, and commit violence. everyone wants to believe this fallacy that it's possible to take a system with an all-directional contradiction where all the pieces get bigger and simply "moderate" that or "balance" that. when in reality every system of interacting parts evolves to new possibly-worse forms as it goes on and time passes. it's precisely the shape of the system itself at the first moment you build it that makes people eventually hate it when it gets "big". perhaps it is true that mainstream Marxist-Leninists cannot overcome this cycle and there is no such thing as linear progress to the best class(-less) structures, there is only a pile of miscellaneous Bauplans and we just have to go through trial and error until we find the good ones. either way blue anarchists are way too confident about theirs.
618. series (oppositional combination of heterogeneous elements) [118] -> the text used to explain this thing just sounds like weird dumb capitalist propaganda. one of the major themes in it is claiming that competition brings balance if people would only be put into something in the correct proportions. an age-old idea that has never been good. I think one of the biggest problems is that fundamentally nobody has control over the proportions of "the elements of the series"; they always move and grow and shrink on their own before you can set them up ideally.
     to be fair, what Charles Fourier says is that the ideal proportions involve majority groups of industry and minority groups, which is rather different from the typical model given today that every business should just sort of be the same size and you have to get rid of big ones because they only get big out of evil. I can see a certain logic in there in that the process of building industry is a process of change and if a collection of things is truly balanced it's harder to get change than if they are unbalanced; look at Marxists pointing to the ideal bad scenario of great imbalance between the owners and workers which supposedly has a good chance of leading to crisis. (part of the problem there is there are actually a lot more factors that can prevent a scenario that looks right from producing anything. no, "culture" isn't one of them. fear of demographic subpopulations getting massacred and genocided is one of them.)
     hmm, honestly. you could read Fourier's text as implying that structural racism is "actually" a good thing because people wouldn't work hard without it. I think some people actually kind of believe that, when they spin the neutral phenomenon of a lot of immigrants coming to the United States to start businesses as positive specifically because they have to build up something from nothing. you do often see the belief that having minorities come in that are specifically under pressure from a huge majority "brings diversity that improves our country" specifically because the minority populations really have to struggle and have a lot to overcome. on the bright side, you could turn that idea on its head by saying that the severe constraints the Soviet Union took on by separating itself from First-World countries forced it to become more effective. and yet that hasn't quite worked in North Korea. would the Fourier types claim this is because in its isolation it's safe from oppression and really North Koreans just need to be under more active pressure from blocs of other countries? in a way, South Korea is. I'm surprised how much this cruel idea kind of holds up.
618. Proudhon's method was similar to poststructuralism [119] -> one of the most coherent claims I've seen anarchists make in a while. I don't understand all the sub-claims but at least it's easy to start testing given a few examples claimed to be good ones.
618. molecular Idealism (meta-Marxist term) -> this is what a lot of anarchism feels like to me. it's like they are trying to molecularize definitions of society from really big scales into small scales but they often refuse to base it on material structures of people-into-groups, people-into-production-processes, people-into-nations, etc., and instead, they want to like, start scribbling nebulous clouds of connected ideals on a map with various different colors of chalk (these would be the named anarchisms) and hope they go together. I find it baffling when they will admit no anarchist theorist sounds remotely like another and then still keep proceeding along like there's still something that connects them all (or at least several of them at a time) which is suggested to be immaterial more than tangible. [120]
     it's like they're building the most cursed Lattice model imaginable.
618. Post-structuralist anarchy is indistinguishable from Toryism / Because she is willing to adapt to new situations and coast through science academia and critical theory getting defunded, Sabine Hossenfelder is not just a Tory but a post-structuralist anarchist -> this is one of those things you only arrive at after thinking about a whole lot of things to derive an ontology of different Bauplans; if the proposition is confusing to you, you just haven't been following along with meta-Marxism. anyway. recently I was revisiting the video where Sabine Hossenfelder talks about how defunding academia and letting it fall to a bunch of private organizations is basically just the same thing as having government programs and it doesn't matter to her; having a philosophy where she literally just adapts to anything, she was fine with the idea of taking a flawed structure, smashing it to pieces, and letting a diffuse cloud of individuals including academics and capitalists just sort of stochastically assemble through their individual motions and individualized judgement back into something functional. by some people's rubrics, she is an average Tory, not a blue anarchist or anything. but as far as I can tell, the way she goes about her day is indistinguishable from "poststructuralist anarchy". [121] the whole thing seems to leave a giant loophole for Toryism to fester wildly and spawn nazisms. I can see how it isn't identical with individualist anarchism because it has that sort of "pseudo MDem" character of localized countable objects (individuals) interacting and assembling into larger countable objects. but even so it seems like garbage. no matter how much chaos magic you invoke, every "changeable structure in flux" will be made of eating, space-occupying organisms which can kill each other, and due to that, the more things are open and in flux the more killing can happen.
618. Democracy is inherently postcolonial -> I think a lot of blue anarchists read Kant and then started thinking this. no. it isn't.
618. Extinction is randomly-generated genocide -> this is the problem with acting like the stochastic movements of individuals and corporations will actually fix things or is the most intuitive way to fix things. the phrase "state of nature" can never capture how horrifying the unmitigated background state of reality actually is. the stochastic, superficially random interaction of different animal populations periodically just blatantly destroys diversity and identity although at the same time new species will emerge at similar rates.
     not all populations are ethnicities. but, ethnicities are populations. species localized to a particular area are populations. extinction is the loss of a population. there are broad mathematical similarities between extinction, especially in situations like where humans deliberately exterminated all thylacines, but occasionally in situations where cyanobacteria take over and many kinds of cellular life go extinct, and genocide. "randomly-generated" captures the concept that none of this is deliberate or intentional or designed.
     Existentialism really gets to me sometimes. listening to Sabine Hossenfelder (Tory, brown Existentialist) just sit down and accept that having government grants and having islands of corporations and nonprofits is 'just the same thing' kills me. a complete lack of government is not a government but sometimes they really seem to think it is and like they're even brilliant for figuring that out. ah, yes! back to nature. back to groups of things basically hating each other for a few seconds at a time and killing each other over food as some of them utterly die out and given intelligence the other ones get to explain and frame everything. Commu-nity will be the end of us all.
618. Why are reactionary propositions allowed? / Why are Tory and fascist propositions allowed? -> one of the top reasons is simply "to debunk them"; "to educate people what is more correct". another reason is to show how they are related to better propositions through error or correction.
     it's important to remember there are certain minimal rules to be followed. a questionable proposition can't be phrased in a way that sounds like Tories are actually editing this thing or that you endorse the conclusion. sometimes, particular proposition titles that are simply too much will be banished to the "unsuitable Item label" Item. other times, it won't really be possible to think of a way to phrase something that doesn't sound sort of like a fraction of Tories would say it. in that case you don't have to think too hard as long as at least the full Ontology page makes it clear what is wrong with the proposition.
618. refuseism (prejudice) / anti-nonlogisticism (prejudice) / There exists a form of prejudice from tribal populations to White people, but it is not racism or "anti-Whiteness", it is best defined based on the sheer boundaries of groups and the notion of people being outside a group instead of inside of it, and would be described something like "anti-nontribalism" (in reference to the lack of tribal society), "anti-nonrepublicanism" (in reference to the presence of republics or absence of non-republics), or "anti-nonlogisticism" (in reference to a concept of industrial populations being defined by logistics), constituted by the inability to accept that industrial populations actually need parts of their "oppressive" structure to not die and not kill a bunch of people out of each other's countries in huge wars, as well as to practically "abolish cops" or "abolish prisons" without descending into household-on-household killings -> this thing is the bane of me whenever I actually try to read and understand anarchism "with empathy" for even a second. half of anarchism has become all about prejudices and not having prejudices and yet like every anarchist ever holds this one against people who aren't Native Americans or people who aren't anarchists. again this is complicated because it explicitly isn't "White people are bad" "majority populations are bad", it's more like it specifically hates excess White people over a magic line of moderation of a perfect number of White people, as if it were possible for people to just choose not to be born. the people anarchists hate and don't want to have existed are ironically the only people who have any incentive to dismantle majority populations and create anarchism, while if everybody just took what anarchists said at face value and did it, current majority populations would become absurdly hateful and nazi and impossible to change. anarchists don't want to believe a very fundamental thing which is that the material structure of populations physically births people and people aren't just made of culture and conditioning, nobody actually chooses to be part of Whiteness but the thing is that if they are born they will be exposed to it, so as soon as you're born you've lost and it's won.
618. The great dilemma of civilization is not how to make people happy but how not to kill people / The great dilemma of civilization is not how to "govern" people or "let the people govern the people" but simply how to, every day, keep emerging internal borders inside populations from leading to people killing each other -> people scoff at this and try to tell you humans aren't inherently violent. then they experience "group drama" and get absolutely terrified somebody's a pedophile (pronounced redacted) or dangerously racist and will hurt someone they know and they don't know what to do when the hazard people just keep flowing into Community thinking they belong there, and then somebody spontaneously leaks docs or feeds somebody a needle. groups of people always defend their borders with violence (or at least serious harassment) when they fear violence, so the sheer act of "having a Community" always turns into this hot-potato game of who's going to be the cop or warrior or border guard, because somebody has to do it. typical anarchists always sound like this, and really most of the United States in general: anarchy, anarchy, anarchy, anarchy, oh god I can't believe a zoophile (pronounced redacted) exists, unabolish the police immediately and send the fucking (pronounced redacted) cops and put him the fuck (pronounced redacted) in prison.
     these are the issues people care about in their daily lives, they don't care about wages or government programs or even Palestine, they care about sex offenders (pronounced redacted) and people accidentally or intentionally dogwhistling racism instead of being kicked out of society and only nice people being able to earn money, so this is like the only way to yank people out of Idealism and teach them Materialism.
     the one, single thing I genuinely loathe and don't like about furries. furries are super anarchist and they are always creating these ethereal Rhizomatic groups of people from around the world that are about forgetting the bad parts of being human and Tolerating Everyone.... and then they always end up in these weird dramas where borders and miniature wars spontaneously erupt inside their groups and they never know what to do except get mad that anybody is even talking about the issues instead of purely solving all issues by exiling people and dividing groups and not talking about it again. Idealism sinks them. they start everything with Idealism of wanting not to be human, as much as they'll quickly clarify for you that the imagery isn't literal and it only applies to the arenas in which human beings are actually different from animals and where it actually matters, and then their Idealism makes their "communities" fall apart and sinks everything. they need a Marxist theorist to like, transition the furry population to a better stage of civilization.
     honestly. if furries don't like Zootopia for "racializing" a fantasy furry setting or "turning it into copaganda" maybe they aren't thinking hard enough about it, and maybe it does raise legitimate questions. just remove the part about racializing things and make it about chunk competition but keep the overall plot of the first movie the same. I just think that would be really funny, a version of Zootopia that is like, more accurate to real life, and includes black panthers who were Black Panthers. you can keep the Lynxleys too if you make the (fan?) perspective on them a little less stupid.
618. A theory of society which cannot explain the Trotskyite conspiracy is no theory of society at all -> a statement which is bold but as far as I can tell completely justified. mainstream Marxism-Leninism can't actually explain the series of events which would prevent Trotsky going to the external empires and betraying the Soviet population. early Maoism was actually closer to being able to solve this problem, even though there are still problems of people leaving countries and becoming their enemies, all of them smaller in scope than the Trotskyite conspiracy.
618. Helluva Boss would have been okay if it had presented its central relationship as a horrifying inescapable fate rather than something that can be fixed -> if you want them to get back together, then why not, you can write whatever you want to. I think what upsets people is when the premise of the work and the consequences of things happening don't match each other. it always traces back to non-Materialism. Media Representation and its absences and racism, "morality", everything. it's so infuriating that people don't see this and they keep thinking that art is just... this totally special area of activity with its own special rules that you have to take people aside and teach them, when actually, the reasons that art would be upsetting simply trace back to it not matching reality. it's really quite simple.
     this brings up an interesting question: if natural law shouldn't exist in that there's no reason for it to already exist, but in general fiction becomes bad when it doesn't line up with reality, does this mean natural law does in fact exist, just not in the form people think it does? if you rebuilt the whole concept of natural law using exmat, would it still be natural law or would it be a different ship? I guess in a sense that's the same question as if you rebuild Hegel using Materialism whether that's still Hegel, or if you rebuild Trotskyism using mainstream Marxism-Leninism whether it's still Trotskyism. I think it has to do with the functional purpose the thing fulfils and if its purpose is the same
618. adult cartoon -> general category of animated shows which are not for teenagers, or at least "generally" "not really" for teenagers. we all know some of them watch them anyway.
618. adult cartoons as strictly crass / adult cartoon (United States) -> you almost need a separate Item just to convey the specific idea of shows like Family Guy and Helluva Boss and how the United States is convinced this is what an 'adult cartoon' is
618. adult cartoon as story / adult cartoon (Japan) -> "adult cartoons" from Japan are so much often better, and I think the big difference is that they tend to be story-based and pick a particular messed-up story to tell that just doesn't fit into the box of what a teen-rated show should be. I think adult cartoons trying to strictly be sitcoms is part of what sinks them. Fionna and Cake for instance succeeds on the basis of being a story, much like Homestuck does
618. Why does Family Guy have banned episodes? -> most shows that have banned episodes are like, shows for kids that have standards of what they can show, and the purpose of Family Guy is the opposite of that — to be as offensive as possible, spread carefully across a lot of plot and episodes, within limits (this would be "theoretically offensive to the fictional universe it portrays" more than "actually offensive", to be fair; it's part of writing a good adult cartoon to allow that sometimes offense comes from the characters in universe having unreasonable standards... as the opening of Family Guy tries to suggest). so, like... why are there banned episodes. there are absolutely things in early episodes that are unacceptable now yet the episodes are still airing. why bother to ban any of them?
618. analyzing Family Guy as a soap opera -> I have never liked this show but if you want to take it semi-seriously to ask questions about who the characters are and how their development works per episode and in relation to other episodes, this is the way to do it. god, seeing people analyze Family Guy this way is funnier and more entertaining than the actual show
618. Escape routes are a definition of prejudice / Lines of flight are a definition of prejudice -> this is why "lolcow" videos exist. the bigot believes that bad behavior is oppression, detaching from the badly-behaved people is escaping oppression and seizing freedom.
618. Real systems are circular / Real-world collections of objects and processes perpetuate themselves and stamp out the possibility of change, and there is no logical contradiction in saying this -> something that seems to have upset Rothenberg yet which under the point of view of traditional dialectical materialism or even a simple introduction of relativistic determinism would be wholly unobjectionable.
     this proposition leans toward Badiou's concept that change must be brought through separations. but there's a complicated relationship between them. I don't want to unpack that in full right now. in short: Rothenberg and Deleuze's concept of unknown information bubbling up would make it no problem for systems to be circular; they've created a model where change is incomprehensible through models, so why would it bother them when change is incomprehensible through models? if they were sensible, they'd just open themselves up to the notion of a "hidden-variable" theory. and let it fail if it fails or succeed if it succeeds, let it be statistical and not-exact-to-every-individual-event-in-the-universe, but let it try to have a hypothesis.
618. Non-circularity brings Calvinism / If systems weren't circular, they would change in an absolutely-deterministic way
618. Idiocracy (2006)
618. Idiocracy is less horrifying than the real 2010-2024 United States
618. Idiocracy is backhandedly true / If intelligent people were less good at cooperating, then the "dumbest" people would indeed have more effective social groups, and Idiocracy would be accurate -> this person asks the real questions.
618. therians and autism
618. movie writers inserting weird shit (pronounced redacted) is okay and requires no criticism but fans noticing it and having emotions about it is an awful perversion -> what every other video shaming furries reads like.
     the average person has this really weird complex where they find censorship forbidden and want authors to be able to make just anything but they won't think about the actual consequences that having that position causes and that you will have to actually go clean up the consequences of that every day in your interactions with other people... and when they see a consequence they basically want to do something analogous to victim-blaming. it's this position that basically the bourgeoisie is untouchable and can do nothing wrong but the proletariat and the non-owners are all evil. I can't stand this. this is intellectually offensive to me.
618. By Deleuze's logic, Liberalism (pronounced Liberal-republicanism) shouldn't exist -> A) masses of people are an inseparable multiplicity of unknown heterogeneous elements. (primitive anarchy of all populations, basically) B) history is not about creating separate material objects and developing them according to the rules of those objects. C) the development of a population cannot be understood through the decisions of the people inside it, only through its interactions with outside populations. [I don't remember in what sense I meant this, but I think it was in relation to critical theory and preventing prejudices] D) by the logic of Deleuze and Guattari, Trotskyism makes more sense than schizoanalysis, because it takes into account the inseparable multiplicity of all human individuals on earth grouped into interacting populations.
618. A medieval kingdom is a one-party state -> Liberal-republican theory often assumes this is true. it's somewhat arguable it is the case, if for instance you use idealized fantasy novels for reference you see kingdoms are often represented as if they are groups of friends that trust each other.
     but the thing is that this doesn't lead to the flattering conclusions Liberal-republicans and Existentialists hope it leads to. Liberal-republican theorists hope it will show that medieval kingdoms are tyrannical and unethical, and Liberal-republicanism is natural and obvious. instead it makes it easy to highlight that Liberal-republicanism is not a natural or obvious development but an arbitrary choice to divide countries into multiple sloshy countries per country, fully as arbitrary as it believes Bolshevism to be, which potentially engineers multicapitalism and the problem of two separate capitalisms trying to kill and crowd out each other's people for not being part of each other and then complain that eating and occupying space too much and existing too much is really mean and people should have thought more about that.
618. Theorists are academics / If you spend all day reading and researching and you do not produce a sellable product, your activities are academic, and if you produce a book which is usable but entirely theoretical you are an academic -> I once saw someone claim after using a bunch of technical jargon that what they were doing wasn't "academic". and this is why I always throw around the word "theorist" copiously. in hopes that people will come to understand that any strong division between the theoretical and the practical creates academics, and that in a few limited cases that can actually be a problem. at the heart of it, the goal of a Marxist is to stop being an academic, and to become better at survival and daily activities due to theory rather than to just become better in some limited domain that theorists live and compete in. I genuinely think that may be true of everything. it's a very corrupt system to have these article piles people make money by selling to at a price that will probably never be enough but where very few people will get to use and apply them, where like, all academic activity kind of just enriches researchers (and not very much, just enough to give them a teeny amount of privilege such they can ignore the existence of the rest of the world). it may be better at this point for people to just apply their research practically and sell books so they can be in regular libraries and used book stores.
618. If you had total artistic freedom, and you could literally make whatever you wanted, and nobody would ever call you out on any of it, giving you the total freedom to make mistakes and learn what is right and wrong on your own, but to have that you had to live in a country which was an empire and benefited from allying with other large empires to beat up Third World countries and force people off their land or put most of their populations into factories to turn your country into a series of malls and tiny shops, and you could not stop Palestinians from being killed every day, but as long as you shut up you would get to write romances about The Onceler or serial killers or draw Jack London wolves banging (pronounced redacted) or write about weird fetishes (pronounced redacted) or things people debate as being stereotypes or normalizing toxic relationships or literally whatever you want to express, would you take that trade-off? -> I swear people answer this question wrong every single day.
     the question here may be slightly hypothetical and contrived in that the causality on some of these things doesn't connect directly to empire, but you still see people saying the inverse proposition that they think Freedom is more important than literally anything and they would choose Freedom if it did. that's the key. as long as Freedom is more important than not killing people, not only will you never get to build the temporary cages that reconstruct all of society in a form where chunk competition is far less easy, but generally, you'll never get people to be ethical at all.
618. Password (2024) / Password (furry visual novel) [122]
618. Password and racism / Password and xenophobia (Orientalism; etc) -> there is nearly nothing worth discussing about this visual novel except the fact it's a really interesting case study on writers who don't know anything attempting Media Representation in racist ways.
618. It is impossible to explain the existence of ethics without Materialist philosophy -> so here's the thing about Idealism. minds can model anything. minds can model the most unrealistic thing you can imagine; minds can write a book which portrays real-world race relations and historical interactions between countries so badly the book becomes racist. the ability of minds to contain just anything makes it questionable how a mind could ever know that any ethical proposition is true. what if somebody makes an ethical proposition which says "The existence of Russians is immoral and it is ethical for the United States to torment Russians until they have been exterminated"? (in all these thought experiments I pick groups of people like "Russians" so the statement won't be as inherently charged and icky to even read as saying things like "Black people" or "United States Jews", even though certainly there will be some people that exist that are that level of racist. when I instead say "Russians", the statement inherently feels more made-up and hypothetical, and becomes easier to just laugh about as a weird bit of dark humor given it "isn't really happening".) if somebody says that's what's ethical, how would you know whether they're right or wrong? you can't just say "because X ethical statement is obvious" or "because X ethical statement feels good emotionally" as your justification for why a statement is suitable for checking other statements. to the other person, it might be "obvious" and "feel good" that they need to exterminate Russians, and they can always say that treading on their claim attacks their Lived Experience. so it's only really interactions that happen in the material world that can verify a statement as top-quality. even "a marginalized person recounted an experience" isn't itself a fact. Trotsky can show up and say "I'm a marginalized Soviet person" and then "I think the Soviet Union needs to be destroyed", and his Lived Experience won't be reliable or factual.
618. Because normal people prefer to think in terms of Liberal-republicanism, we must teach them everything in terms of Liberal-republicanism and give up on teaching them Communism -> very flawed when Liberal-republicanism absolutely can't address the question of empire and the global-empire prejudices termed "colonialism" at all. the point of Liberal-republicanism is to control people and keep regular people from exerting agency except in line with what a limited array of experts says. that's the point. whether you think of that process as a positive or negative thing, that's the point. so when Liberal-republicanism decides it has to take over issues like Israel-Palestine and shit (pronounced redacted), and legislate and amend people into being "postcolonial"... it just plain can't. a republic can beat everyone into position but the people who are the most elite and most existiest will out-exist everyone else and if they just happen to be in support of Israel they get the people-controlling device and there's no winning. even stacks and stacks of Gramscian theory can't fix it. you've written yourself into a corner where survival itself is a virtue and non-survival and weakness and sickness are vices, those rules are not negotiable by anybody, and where literally only a theory of building the most physically-robust, best-surviving population of Communist or anarchist allies that believes in no Idealism and makes absolutely no mistakes of believing that anyone will choose to be kind or reasonable or hope itself will ever work can possibly save you.
618. Loyalty to anarchism is equally as "colonial" as loyalty to nation-states / If loyalty to a Liberal-republican or Bolshevik nation-state causes people to kill and dominate, then so does loyalty to a countable anarchist "civilization" or materially-realized anarchist population-society / If loyalty to a Liberal-republican or Bolshevik nation-state causes people to kill and dominate, then it is being part of a population at all which causes it; this implies people actively moving between populations and deserting, betraying, or abandoning them periodically is the only thing which would not cause individuals to contribute to killing or domination, despite the contradiction that some of these things are acts of war and amount to killing or domination, for example in the time of the Trotskyite conspiracy ->
     field: existential materialism.
618. blocking Donald Trump from taking office using section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment [123] [124]
618. States can't disqualify a presidential candidate under the Fourteenth Amendment [125] -> United States case law. this is discouraging, but does make some amount of historical sense, when the Civil War and Reconstruction were a nationwide effort and such.
618. It's impossible for you to deserve anything without allies who agree that you deserve it -> descriptive claim of what is possible. not a prescriptive claim of ethics, etc.
618. If life isn't fair, why are there constitutional amendments? -> to uninformed center-Liberals this would seem like a non sequitur, but it really is a relevant question. if life isn't inherently fair then there is no grounding to have an amendment saying everyone is entitled to something. this is a serious crisis for Liberal-republicanism in cases the majority of the population can't be made to come to an agreement on a particular thing and the amendment process isn't producing anything including amendments.
618. Neutrality aids the non-oppressor -> people like Deleuze want to talk about "fidelity to an Event". but if I understand that concept at all correctly, those are like, movements and things. and movements are a sticky subject. misinformation or wrong actions can sink a movement. so you* don't necessarily want people even participating in them if they're going to do it wrong. sometimes doing absolutely nothing would make everyone happier. especially if we're talking about dark forest situations where acting as if you have no knowledge of a movement and not getting any reactionaries thinking about or talking about the subject of the movement would make them less likely to think they need to take action on the other side. (* by "you", I mean anarchists and Gramscians, not anyone else.)
     I don't like that things are this way but it's kind of the way things are now.
     Neutrality aids the oppressor + hegemony politics = Neutrality aids the non-oppressor.
618. Tent of freedom poles is the shovel dream of wealth / The concept of "equal freedoms for all at the limit of equal freedom for others" is an object-having-consciousness-of-self prompted by the physical arrangement of a cloud of people accumulating stacks of wealth by any means necessary in order to obtain as many options or capacities-to-do-otherwise as possible when faced with any given conflict or undesirable situation — making it appear as if ethical and philosophical choices are caused by rational thought while rational thought does not actually provide the initial basis for them to be thought versus not thought -> in a sense, Liberal-republicanism could not construct itself without the right "technology". separate stacks of wealth does this strange thing of making "the limit of equal freedom of others" possible precisely when and if you're willing to run to the ends of the earth and perhaps over the top of other populations to materially obtain "equal freedom for all".
618. Thomas Sankara -> Burkina Faso. heard him mentioned enough I'm researching if he should have an ideology code.
     looks like some stuff has been going on in Burkina Faso over the past few decades. despite some failures the first time they're trying again.
     is the Alliance of Sahel States one of the major differences this time? were the countries doing this individually before or together?
618. The right to vote isn't synonymous with the capacity to do otherwise / The right to vote isn't synonymous with having lines of flight from a situation of un-freedom (having Escape routes; schizoanalyst phrasing)
618. A million tiny "revolutions" are rendered moot if every progressive ally is dead
618. Retailers lessen chunk competition / Within capitalism stacks of commodities, only within public spaces, act to partially mitigate chunk competition occurring inside the national or local population — however, not all kinds of chunk competition are mitigated, only some -> I think Bordiga may have gotten this really wrong.
     A) on a basic level humans are Animals. B) given sufficient resources Animals will not fight. C) a particular slice of the population which is not the whole population has access to stacks of commodities which are in public spaces. D) on creating capitalism, a particular slice of the population is partially removed from chunk competition, whereas it might have been in chunk competition in other periods: US-Mexico war, frontier wars, Dust Bowl (not really any fighting, but migration), wars to secure South Korea and Vietnam. imperialism is a big elephant here, outright conquering other populations has been one of the easiest ways to stop fighting your own people E) people are not removed from chunk competition in cases where one person must be assigned to one unique object, notably in housing, or there are no more open worker slots and they need to run business territories F) 'profit' can never be a stackable commodity, because it comes from change in business territory borders. available space fills up, and as said, when borders stop changing is when stacks of commodities come to be G) worrying consequence: population growth is not stackable. population added requires profit added, which requires an act of chunk competition, which may require an act of imperialism. H) neutral consequence: when population growth hits replacement plus or minus a bit, the era of profit and the warring states period of businesses should end, and the era of workers should begin. I) strictly speaking, the "workers" are Careerists, not classically-defined proletarians. an important difference separates them here: the end of warring-businesses and the creation of state businesses potentially puts a squeeze on which people can have which slots in society, although not a tight one because there should basically be a slot for everyone, just not necessarily where they are currently. if there's a central party that can supply trains etc and move them that won't be a big deal. J) if you try to create a Trotskyism, the broader it is, the more "inescapable" it is as an entity, and the more people will be locked into a specific nationality and culture. the connection of countable populations to countable cultures is probably inevitable. this is to say, the bigger your Trotskyism is the more likely somebody calls it "Whiteness" in a derogatory tone and tries to tear minority ethnicities out of it into new union- or independent republics. Bolshevism seems to require the division of humanity into relatively small units closer to the size of Germany than the size of Russia. although it should be the population number that matters more than the spatial extent. maybe "spatial area adjusted for population number at specific standard density" would be a good measure?
618. proletarian internationalism / プロレタリア国際 (pronounced こくさい)主義 (pronounced しゅぎ)
618. The Long Transition Toward Socialism and the End of Capitalism (Torkil Lauesen) [126]
618. Unequal Exchange: Past, Present and Future (Torkil Lauesen) [127]
618. Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism? (Gabriel Rockhill) [128]
618. Western Marxism: How it was born, how it died, how it can be reborn (Domenico Losurdo) [129]
618. How the World Works: The story of human labor from prehistory to the modern day (Paul Cockshott) [130]
618. The Global Perspective: Reflections on imperialism and resistance (Torkil Lauesen) [131]
618. Socialism With Chinese Characteristics: A guide for foreigners (Roland Boer) [132]
618. Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance (Roland Boer) [133]
618. Class Struggle: A Political and Philosophical History (Domenico Losurdo) [134]
618. Proudhon did not care about feminism (Losurdo) -> Proudhon and Bakunin both have these nasty accusations tied to them and like, the general landscape of (blue) anarchism is you have to throw away people who did the slightest thing but nevertheless the charcoal anarchists keep bringing them up again and again. I guess that's a difference between blue and charcoal anarchists, really.
618. Proudhon was a passive imperialist who condoned stationary empire (Losurdo) -> yeah, once you lay out those observations, they sounds about right. haven't read much about Proudhon compared to Marxist divisions, but modern anarchists have very little regard for the notion of how populations are divided, so... yeah.
618. 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.

Unsorted Items (page 1)

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/proposed-1

Items 1 - 225

Critical concepts and best-known countable philosophies

1. process of Being
2. sea of free-floating entities
3. countable entity
4. countable concept
5. countable object
6. spatially-unique object / unique object
7. spacetime-unique event / unique event
8. series of unique events / timeline of unique events
9. [S0] series of non-unique events / repeatable historical pattern
10. repeating process
11. material-history -> the series of physical events that defines what any particular object or population is; the topic historical materialism studies
12. set of all objects in material reality / Facticity (MDem)
13. countable graph of people / countable set of connected people / countable community
14. countable body of claims / countable philosophy -> particular list of axioms or beliefs which is to be shared by some particular group of individuals; intended to be used to define the term "Social-Philosophical System"
15. countable philosophical framework / philosophy not considered an ideology
16. countable ideology -> the major difference between a countable philosophical framework and a countable ideology is that a countable ideology can be realized into a new Social-Philosophical-Material System distinguishable from other kinds of societies in a countable way; some kind of "countable Culture" or countable political system with its own individual identity and name (USSR, Spain) as well as perhaps its own repeatable but fully distinguishable category (Marxism, Liberalism) is produced
17. revolutionary event / event which creates new regime with new population structure
18. countable religion or spirituality
19. historical account -> subset of: non-fictional work
20. work -> subset of: countable object
21. non-fictional work -> subset of: work
22. fictional work -> subset of: work
23. mythical or legendary work -> subset of: work
24. religious text -> subset of: mythical or legendary work
25. sign / signifier-signified pair
26. signifier
27. signified
28. signifier equation / sign containing signs
29. ontology / graph of associations / graph made of signifier equations
30. ontological model / model of concept or process / オントロジー
31. falsifiable model
32. unfalsifiable model
33. conspiracy theory / model unsubstantiated by all current knowledge / model proposing hidden individual or group agents with bad motivations
34. religious cosmology
35. philosophical metaphysics model
36. fictional factical system / fictional world or setting rules construct / fictional physics model / video game physics equation
37. non-fictional physics model
38. falsified or unsubstantiated physics model
39. current physics model
40. civilizational shape (model) / ideological nested-graph model / metaphysical society model (Existentialism) / Particle Theory (MDem) / Bauplan (MDem) / Philosophical System (MDem)
41. [S] nihilism
42. early existentialism / existentialism / existence-philosophy / Existenzphilosophie / existentialist tradition
43. [S] absurdism
44. rationalization for the continued connection of a graph of people / rationalization with a partisan character / rationalization based on existence of in-group separate from out-group
45. logical proof / proof in mathematics / formal logic argument
46. philosophical argument or thought experiment
47. religious apologetic -> subset of: philosophical argument or thought experiment
48. anecdotal argument / argument from Lived Experience
49. observation / original research statement with associated nickel Item or link
50. philosophy or science term
51. literary motif
52. historical time period
53. historical civilization / unique feudal order / unique dynasty / unique empire / unique republican period
54. unique named relationship / Group Subject (MDem) / relationship / connection / pairing
55. graph theory
56. game theory
57. social sciences
58. population science
59. mathematics
60. field of science
61. life sciences / ecology / biology
62. natural sciences
63. physics
64. astrophysics / physical cosmology
65. quantum physics / quantum mechanics research
66. general relativity
67. special relativity -> subset of: general relativity
68. string theory -> unsubstantiated but awfully neat at the time
69. quantum field theory -> substantiated
70. analytic philosophy
71. field of study diagramming signs and signifiers / semiotics (generic) / structuralist linguistics (generic) / meta-ontology (generic)
72. phenomenology / Husserl's phenomenology (Existentialism)
73. Existentialist-Structuralist tradition / Existentialism (abbreviation) -> note, early-existentialism is already Q42
74. structuralist linguistics / structuralism (linguistics)
75. poststructuralism
76. psychoanalysis / Freudian psychoanalysis (generic) / Lacanian psychoanalysis (generic)
77. schizoanalysis
78. alterity theories / postcolonial theories (theories about how colonialism is a prejudice about a group of people in someone's mind)
79. post-Marxism / (9k)
80. continental philosophy
81. Materialism
82. mechanical Materialism / mechanical philosophy
83. dialectical materialism / diamat
84. historical materialism (specific-sense) / histmat
85. Marxism believing itself to be uncountable / generic Marxism
86. existential materialism / exmat
87. Idealism
88. named nationalism / named fascism / named Identitarianism / nationalism distinguished into cultural category / uniquely Spanish nationalism / uniquely Japanese nationalism / uniquely United-States nationalism
89. spacetime-unique ideology / named ideology -> an "S2" style ideology with a definite Particle Theory / Bauplan, or at least a specific series of axioms; an instance of an ideology as opposed to a pure set category having no particular beliefs; in religion, a denominational religion as opposed to an umbrella religious category
90. named Marxism / Marxism differentiated for country conditions / Marxist sect -> save the concept of named Trotskyisms for the 4000s range
91. named republicanism which is not Marxism / named Liberalism -> Alexander Hamilton & Thomas Jefferson are examples
92. meta-Marxism
93. argument for general-sense historical materialism -> argument for the presence of semi-predictable cause and effect in history, for time itself as a physical process made of repeated physical patterns, and for basic kinds of predictable patterns within populations and societies. basic kinds of arguments which do not bring up class subpopulations but can serve as a foundation for these kinds of analyses
94. claim X is a case of Y / claim something is a case of something else
95. claim X is an instance of Y ideology / claim something is an instance of an ideology / claim something is a case of an ideology
96. reactions journal / reactions file / reactions blog / media thoughts journal -> a file or physical page, or series of microblog posts, etc. where you write down your impressions of something either in terms of emotion or some level of analysis of how or why the thing you're looking at is the way it is. apparently this is a big novel concept to some people that they have to learn at school? for me I learned it from people posting reactions to things on Twitter. and then I just started progressively finding deeper insights on things the more of them I did until I eventually turned into a low-tier Marxist theorist. now I've put up this wiki and begun to encourage people to put these things into thesis portals. don't let the grandiose name turn you away, you can make one for all your reactions to cartoons, or anything. a "thesis" on some serious philosophical theory is just what the very top fraction of thesis portals turn into.
97. data Entity / Wikibase Entity
98. meta-philosophy (field)
99. meta-ontology meta-ontology
100. source -> work functioning as ontology example or ontology description for larger work or later work relative to earlier work; ontology graph taking the form of work
101. printed source / text archived online
102. audiovisual source
103. interactive source
104. non-interactive recording of interactive source
105. commentary on interactive source
106. false interactive source -> Petscop, 3D workers' island, Homestuck
107. book / book which exists in print form -> book - conveyed through construction having parts - volume
108. book compilation
109. multi-volume book / multi-volume reference text
110. book in book compilation
111. course textbook / college textbook / grade school textbook
112. book chapter / article compiled in book
113. foreword, preface, or introduction
114. article / short story
115. article serialized in magazine or newspaper
116. article serialized in theoretical journal
117. article serialized on blog or substack
118. article serialized in online archive
119. article on miscellaneous personal homepage
120. article serialized in unknown printed source
121. article or chapter in book compilation
122. article, poem, or story compiled in anthology
123. transcribed speech
124. transcribed interview
125. court transcript
126. bop entry
127. bop scrap
128. bop revision entry
129. unfinished book chapter serialized as bop scrap
130. book chapter serialized as bop scrap
131. nameless publisher / independently published
132. general publishing entity
133. publishing organization / propaganda group
134. academic or theoretical journal
135. online book or article archive / not magazine or journal
136. master's thesis
137. non-serialized comic / graphic novel
138. serialized comic
139. multimedia serialized comic
140. animated series / anime / cartoon
141. song with lyrics
142. poem
143. computer or console game
144. short story
145. novel
146. novel in multi-volume series
147. novel in multi-volume series adapted into comic / Scholastic graphic novel
148. online video
149. YouTube video
150. PeerTube video
151. thing part of finite numbered series of things / thing part of collectors' index -> collectors' indices have serialized parts, similar to episodes or chapters; technically, a wikibase Item is an instance of this
152. citation in local Item / work described in Item -> source - conveyed through model having parts - local Item
153. citation in qualifiers / work described in qualifiers -> source - conveyed through model having parts - set of qualifiers
154. citation in external Item / citation in external wikibase / work described at external data item / work described in wikidata Item
155. citation in external wiki / work described or anchored in external wiki article
156. citation buried in other work / work unknown or unconfirmed but referenced in work -> source - conveyed through model having parts - citation
157. video described in qualifiers -> online video - conveyed through model having parts - work described in qualifiers
158. ??
159. numbered series of things / finite numbered collectors' index of things / spatial map of things where all the things have numbers -> equally applies to an index of TV show episodes, a list of wikidata Items, a list of Pokémon, and the periodic table of elements.
160. text / written work (book; story; article; web page) / visual work (comic; animated series) / aural work (audiobook; podcast) -> I think the major thing that this entry excludes is compilations of things. like, a magazine with many articles is not a text, although it is a periodical issue and by other definitions a work.
161. part (book division)
162. ??
163. serialized part -> numbered part which is syndicated or expected to release periodically
164. non-serialized part -> discrete part which may be released in an all-at-once or timeless manner
165. volume -> physical printed book, or book-sized division. I'll say this doesn't refer to science periodical volumes unless they're physically collected into a self-contained book you can browse or something vaguely resembling one.
166. chapter (non-serialized part) -> in reference to novels.
167. episode / chapter (serialized part) -> in reference to works that are entirely planned for serialization, like manga, or some prose stories submitted to magazines which were not treated as standard novels when published later. personally I'd take the bold stance that there's no serious difference between serialized chapters of printed things and episodes of voiced things. but, this Item will have both sense-labels to minimize confusion.
168. serialized video game chapter
169. ??
170. ??
171. ??
172. ??
173. unit for constructing works / unit for constructing texts / unit of work or series construction / serialization unit or unit of work construction -> note that this one is so general that "text" can be a unit for constructing texts, although "volume" or "episode" could also be.
174. atom-like entity -> an atom-like entity is a mostly-indivisible unit which contains the capacity for particular patterns when combined with particular other atom-like entities. a chemical element is the prototypical example: two hydrogens and one oxygen form water. but one hypothesis I am trying to investigate is the possibility that individuals of particular ideologies are atom-like entities, and when put together in various "compounds" they form specific ideologies. I feel like there is some remote possibility that one day there could just be a periodic table of ideologies that is as prosaic and numerical as the study of chemical elements and chemical compounds.
     an atom-like entity is not an entity that can be considered in total isolation from all others akin to a helium atom. I really don't like models like Rothenberg's that imply that, because not even chemistry works that way. chemistry may be reductionist, but the predictable emergences from the elements are the whole study of chemistry.
175. ??
176. ??
177. ??
178. wiki page -> non-serialized part; text not in the form of volume. move these two to later number?
179. MediaWiki category -> non-serialized part which clusters wiki pages
180. analyzing a text for motifs -> there are different connotations to this. Freudians do this because they think motifs reveal the rules of psychohistory. schizoanalysts do this because they think motifs reveal the rules of finding Freedom. Marxists do this because they think many motifs come from the rules of populations and material-history.
181. solid phase
182. liquid phase
183. gas phase -> may be shown as either STM swatch or ES swatch, due to how I like to use "behaving like a room of helium atoms" as a metaphor for Existentialism.
184. plasma phase -> a form of matter where atoms do not remain neutrally-charged and can create electric arcs passing on electrons from atom to atom.
185. quark-gluon plasma -> exotic phase which usually doesn't exist under the current conditions of the universe, which push these particles to stick together.
186. supersolid / Bose-Einstein Condensate
187. phase change
188. phase of matter / non-classical state of matter -> practically, phases of matter are just a continuous way of describing states of matter. they can capture the edge cases like hot ice, liquid crystal, etc.
189. state of matter / classical state or phase of matter
190. software package
191. UNIX-style package / UNIX-style program
192. Free Software package
193. nonfree software package
194. Debian package
195. Arch package
196. Linux package / Linux program
197. Lisp module / asdf system / .asd system
198. emacs package
199. MediaWiki extension
200. phase diagram (chemistry)
201. reading list / unique reading list / unique list of thematically-related works -> "unique reading list" sounds beyond weird as natural language, but it sounds perfectly logical to me after thinking in the language of linked concepts
202. chemistry
203. organic chemistry
204. chemical substance
205. chemical element
206. chemical compound
207. ??
208. quantum number
209. metaphysical slider / hot-cold slider (alchemy) / wet-dry slider (alchemy) / virtue (purported middle of purported slider) / vice (purported end of purported slider) -> a metaphysical slider is a quality presented as having a middle and two extremes.
210. four elements (alchemy) -> these oddly mirror the four states of matter, especially if you count fire as a partial plasma. it's like, a long time ago people thought chemical substances were made out of hot, cold, wet, and dry, and the next level up was solid, liquid, gas, and bright burning things (fire, lightning, plasma). then Newton arrived and we renamed those the states of matter. then science kept going and we realized phases of matter were more complicated than we thought they were and there were a lot of in-between phases like hot ice, supercritical liquid, and so forth, although the four "major" phases of matter were still the most common and important within the bounds of either Earth or the sun.
211. emergence / ergodicity (sic - movement of free-floating entities toward particular patterns which may become consistent structures; MDem 4.3) -> the real-world phenomenon or non-fictional motif of smaller objects functioning against each other to produce larger objects or processes.
212. alchemy / hermeticism / Historical study of chemical qualities and quality-based cosmology -> "Alchemy, the great secret"
213. alchemical symbol / alchemical motif
214. European alchemy / alchemical concepts in Christianity
215. Buddhist alchemy / alchemical concepts in Buddhism
216. consistent repetition or replicability -> component of predictability, used to define "repeating process" and events that are easy to empirically verify
217. Marxist text
218. defined reality -> a specific collection of material objects united by physics, which may be a whole reality or part of a reality. similar definition to a "system", but intertwined with the concepts of relativity theories
219. no real-world defined reality
220. hypothetical object
221. hypothetical interaction / hypothetical process
222. hypothetical series of events
223. prime number
224. ??
225. nickel link / (9k)

226 - 900

226. fictional reality / fictional universe / fictional cosmos
227. fictional object / non-unique fictional object
228. unique fictional object -> do not make Items for every single kind of fictional object, just also tag it as the real thing
229. fictional process / non-unique fictional process / fictional physics process
230. unique fictional event / unique fictional process
231. fictional historical event / canonical event / confirmed theory
232. unconfirmed fictional process / unconfirmed fan theory
233. unconfirmed fictional event / unconfirmed fan theory
234. ??
235. ??
236. ??
237. fictional population
238. ??
239. ??
240. earth as relative to fictional world -> wasn't totally sure whether this should be an S Item or a Z Item. mostly, it is quite literally just the real world with all its real-world characteristics, only looked at from the angle of a fictional universe. it's a very literal thing. it's technically used as a motif because everything in a work is a signifier, but... everything in a work is referenced through a signifier. I think this is a Z Item.
241. audience as relative to fictional world
242. ??
243. ??
244. ??
245. ??
246. ??
247. ??
248. ??
249. ??
250. ??
251. ??
252. ??
253. ??
254. ??
255. ??
256. ??
257. ??
258. ??
259. ??
260. source with particular rarity / source at some particular level of abundance
261. source found at library
262. source found at distant library -> sub-case of: source found at library
263. source found at used book sale / used book found locally (comic, video, etc)
264. source found at free bookshelf -> sub-case of: source found at used book sale
265. source found used online
266. source found new locally
267. source found new online -> this is for physical texts that are purchasable through the internet
268. source found new as eBook / source found new as digital audiobook -> this is for non-physical texts that are purchasable through the internet
269. source reprinted online -> this is for texts that are free online, in any format
270. ??
271. ??
272. ??
273. ??
274. ??
275. ??
276. ??
277. ??
278. ??
279. ??
280. statement with no possible backing claims
281. ??
282. ??
283. ??
284. ??
285. ??
286. ??
287. ??
288. misinformation or disinformation
289. ??
290. ??
291. 'pataphysics
292. relativistic gap -> gap between physical objects made of something bigger than quarks. when there are no fundamental interactions such as photons crossing the gap between objects, there is no serious causality going on between objects. great separation between objects in terms of how easy it is for them to interact is relativistic separation: two planets several light-years apart have a difficulty in interacting with each other measured by the fact interactions through physical signals take years. in this, there is a certain inherent connection between relativity and quantum physics. relativity talks about gaps that photons travel across. quantum mechanics talks about gaps photons travel across. this means something for gravity, but nobody knows what that statement actually will be.
293. ??
294. ??
295. ??
296. ??
297. ??
298. transfer of packet between objects / transfer of free-floating packet from one free-floating object to another
299. physical interaction -> critical concept for relativity, and Heidegger's book, because it is arguably the sheer definition of physics existing
300. particle physics
301. fundamental particle / fundamental force quantum / fundamental force packet
302. fundamental particle interaction / Feynman diagram reaction
303. hadron / composite subatomic particle -> nucleons, mesons
304. interaction that assembles composite particles / force that holds composite particle together -> strong interaction, weak interaction, electromagnetism; may be totally synonymous with "fundamental force" except that we don't know what interactions gravity is composed of
305. fundamental force -> strong interaction, weak, electromagnetism, gravity
306. quantum (amount) / quanta
307. ??
308. quantized gravity (hypothetical theory) / quantum gravity model / theory of quantum gravity
309. paraparticle -> [135]
310. boson physics
311. boson
312. boson field
313. double-slit experiment
314. gauge boson
315. scalar boson
316. higgs boson
317. dialectical reversal / quantity into quality process (process of many small changes adding up to a big change; dialectical materialism, mainstream Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism) -> the motif of the physical composition of a particular historical-period object changing over time and at a particular point going through a stark breaking process similar to a chemical reaction resulting in some kind of notable social change, particularly a change in the position of what Marxism would already identify as a class. this is not the same thing as "revolution", which would be the biggest possible dialectical reversal. this motif can refer to smaller events which obey a pattern of particular Bauplan elements that connect particular repeated ways all changing in similar ways at the same time that have clearly added up to a substantial, important event based on the internal "chemistry" of the movement firing off again and again yet which overall have added up to a relatively small event.
     dialectical reversals are a genuinely tricky concept, and yet they're still core to what Marxism is. although we've seen them happen many times in history they only happen rarely. it's easy to call them wrong and say something isn't a dialectical reversal that is, and turn against a beneficial movement. it's easy to call them wrong and say something is a dialectical reversal that isn't, and start spinning a backward-facing change as progress or at least as higher priority to defend the country than other forward-facing changes. sometimes people will correctly call a given dialectical process as high priority while it stands in contradiction to the rights of a minority demographic, such as the Soviet Union downplaying gay or trans movements over national unity, and people will get very mad. when I see people getting mad like this I know they've failed to understand some of the actual methods of Marxism and current-day problems for fixing Marxism. I hate to say that, but there really are Western-Marxists and psychoanalysts that misunderstand Marxism just badly enough they take the wrong side on real historical questions that have happened. you can't do that. Third-World countries can't afford to act like morality substitutes for a theory of history or they "understand" questions just because they have the answer at the back of the book.
     I think the crux of all this is that dialectical materialism has not been clarified and explained to people adequately and it's just too muddy and imprecise to describe a lot of real-world situations, while if it included concepts such as separating and joining unique country identities and trade between unique countries factoring into dialectical processes and the relationships between individuals and laws and populations and diplomacy where everything is a bunch of unique rippable tearable objects and the object borders and physical biological organisms matter, the same dialectical materialism would become useful again. like, if you could describe the dialectical reversal that would allow Trotskyism to tear out of the Soviet Union and transition into a workers' state without striving to hurt its "older brother", it wouldn't be hard to get to the level where you could describe LGBT movements and the transition out of Deng Xiaoping Thought and everything else. the hang-up is just things like individual living peasants and living Trotskyist theorists and populational borders and self-determination, and the confused arguments people get into about "democracy!!" when they're actually talking about material borders and arrangements and identity distinctions and countable Cultures and they don't know they are.
     meta-Marxism explicitly recognizes the possibility of dialectical reversals. it doesn't try to dance around Marxism "being about culture and ideology now" or anything of the sort. equally, it looks down on people trying to say that every single crisis is about to lead to a dialectical reversal. if you have no actual predictive power of whether it will or not you aren't doing meta-Marxism, and you also arguably aren't succeeding at Marxism.
318. ??
319. graviton (hypothetical particle)
320. fermion physics
321. fermion
322. fermion field
323. exclusion principle
324. quark -> color charge
325. lepton -> no color charge
326. ??
327. ??
328. ??
329. ??
330. dark matter problem
331. supersymmetry / SuSy -> unsubstantiated; doesn't have a lot of evidence as of yet
332. neutralino -> unsubstantiated; a supersymmetry solution
333. weakly-interacting massive particle (WIMP) / WIMP (hypothetical particle) -> looks unsubstantiated, but not totally falsified
334. axion (hypothetical particle) -> currently being researched
335. Matter-antimatter annihilation converts dark matter to matter
336. Dark matter particles interact with visible matter through Higgs bosons / Higgs portal hypothesis
337. technicolor Higgs model
338. Gravity interactions are just one big coincidence / postquantum gravity -> [136]
339. dark matter / unknown solution to dark matter problem -> [137]
340. quantum field
341. photon field
342. gluon field / strong field / quantum chromodynamics field
343. W & Z boson field / weak field / flavor swap field / stellar fusion field
344. Higgs field -> scalar field not transformed by relativity
345. ??
346. ??
347. ??
348. ??
349. theta field / axion field
350. physical field
351. scalar field
352. vector field
353. spinor field
354. tensor field
355. classical field
356. electric field -> vector field
357. magnetic field -> vector field
358. gravitational field (classical physics) / gravity field (classical physics)
359. radian (unit)
360. degree (unit)
361. No individual object moves faster than a photon / No object moves faster than gauge bosons / Nothing moves faster than the speed of light in a vacuum
362. ??
363. ??
364. ??
365. ??
366. ??
367. ??
368. ??
369. ??
370. linear algebra
371. matrix
372. linear combination
373. determinant
374. An identity matrix has a determinant of 1 [138]
375. A matrix with identical columns has a determinant of 0 / When a matrix has identical columns the determinant is 0 [139] -> I think this provides some kind of clue as to what "star" is. I don't entirely know what a determinant is or why it has to make columns cancel each other out but I do know it's important.
376. A determinant of a linear combination is a linear combination [140]
377. ??
378. ??
379. ??
380. ??
381. ??
382. ??
383. ??
384. ??
385. ??
386. ??
387. ??
388. ??
389. ??
390. ??
391. ??
392. Most science is not done in reality / Most science is not done in the material world / Most science is not done in the field or in laboratories / criterion for identifying scientific revisionism, defining the failure to recognize correct models as revisionism -> sounds shocking at first but logically has to be true. textbooks and teachers present science to children like every scientific claim is always substantiated by testing it in the material world. but that leaves people with a really bad understanding of science by the time they have to actually go interpret complicated discusssions in string theory and quantum field theory which will take a long time to go to some kind of particle accelerator or highly indirect apparatus that was unusual in the early days of science and finally get tested. these days most claims in science actually get tested against highly accurate models of experiments instead of in actual experiments. that's what you actually do when you cross-check a new hypothesis against older equations and existing experiment teams — those equations and memories of experiments are models of experiments. and this is why I find non-Materialist interpretations of literature frustrating. the people saying that fiction is not internally consistent in a way where some claims (although not every claim) can be tested against coherent models of a fictional world's internal physics may not actually understand real-world science, because at the end of the day, taking your best coherent model of Dragon Ball and testing something against it and taking your best coherent model of current experiments to understand the universe and testing something against it are not actually all that different. unpopular opinion, building theories about fiction and trying to solve if everything is actually consistent shows you are building a good understanding of the real world. also, most science of historical processes and ideologies would not be done in the real world. if you understand how science truly works, then you'll understand how Marxism truly works and how meta-Marxism truly works. it's very possible I had to invent the category of meta-Marxism purely because people around the world don't understand that most Marxist "experiments" amount to thought experiments or peer review through the means of models of old experiments. I've always been confused why Marxism wasn't already meta-Marxism. why wouldn't Marxists test their models against each other for accuracy, and why would Marxists end up dividing into different competing versions of Marxism that become unfalsifiable?
392. The abstraction of matter, of a law of nature ... all scientific (correct, serious, not absurd) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, truly and completely (Lenin) [141]
393. ??
394. ??
395. ??
396. ??
397. ??
398. ??
399. ??
400. reductionism
401. upreductionism (pronounced up-reductionism) or ana-reductionism / retermination (relativistic determination or determinism; framed as a new kind of reductionism) / emergence (the subset of emergence which is relatively predictable and involves one scale of things producing a larger scale of things) -> science communicators and anti-science people need to understand the distinction between splitting atoms to find the quarks and attempting to predict atoms from quarks, and realize that the latter is still sometimes possible even if it's a lot harder. let's think about weather models: a lot of big objects like cold fronts and warm fronts interact to produce a weather outcome. when the weather report is correct you've managed to do up-reductionism.
     it's taking all of me to not flip the swatch color to STM from MX and say this is already science. no, I need a science article. a credible science hypothesis in an article will do as far as marking this a motif; you'd need more to mark it Z0 but that would prove it's being discussed in science and not just in philosophy.
402. constructor theory -> a weird and interesting scientific hypothesis that, the more I think about it, the more I doubt could possibly be true. I think humanity has more chance of cracking a model of up-reductionism / retermination than this being a theory that makes sense.
403. cube dimensionality -> the kind of "dimensions" that most people usually think of as dimensions: the real number line extended into a plane, and into a cube, or into a tesseract, with all the infinitesimals in between each corner of the solid.
     cube dimensionality exists on three known axes in real life, so... Z0. there are three of them, you at least know what a fourth one would look like in fiction even if it is not confirmed to physically exist.
404. non-spatial dimension -> easy to comprehend with treed dimensionality where a dimension isn't a whole plane of real numbers. more confusing as the dimension-on-paper gets continuous. I mean, just try imagining a non-spatial dimension that's not time. it took me years and years to ever think of one.
405. There is a probability dimension below time / We live in 3+1+1D (pronounced three-plus-one-plus-one-dimensional) space with a dimension of probability and a dimension of history / We live in 5D space with a dimension of probability below time -> somebody has to have discovered this hypothesis before me. I cannot be the first one. it's too simple, it's too obvious. it's almost too obvious to be correct?? attacking this thing is where the real fun begins, I suppose.
     thought 1: did I rediscover hilbert spaces? I don't think so but I do not even know.
406. ??
407. ??
408. Spacetime can be broken down into a probabilistic process / To find quantum gravity, create a probabilistic version of general relativity [142] -> a tall claim, but one I think is plausible. quantum mechanics is inherently similar to relativity thanks to things like wave functions and fundamental interactions. this all begins at a contradiction of whether and when we can assume that things happen or measure each other independent of our observations (hidden variable theories)
409. Quantum mechanics is secretly a science of ordinary stochastic processes / Quantum systems can be modeled as non-Markovian stochastic processes -> Jacob Barandes; I don't understand the mathematics but it already makes so much sense. technically a hidden-variable theory, but claimed to be much simpler and bring in a smaller area of non-classical behavior [143] [144]
410. time travel
411. world line / correlation shown on Penrose diagram
412. predetermined future -> this concept is so general it could apply to real-life historical theology debates, but I'm coding it as a fictional trope for science fiction reasons.
413. time paradox
414. original timeline
415. desirable future
416. undesirable future
417. future as mathematical superposition
418. treed dimensionality -> the mathematical definition of "dimensions" as how many levels deep you are in a choice tree, or how many columns deep you are in a table. this is not the only definition of "dimensions" nor the most common one. it's generally preferred to define "dimensions" as things that can create whole fields of numbers like a whole real number line that can be expanded out into a plane and a cube of coordinates. I have no issue with that, of course. but, this is the kind of dimensionality that "Item dimension" or "Item dimensionality" refers to in the context of all these numbered Items. the simple depth of a rooted tree that we are referring to as dimensionality.
     the first place I saw treed dimensionality was either in statistics — "n-dimensional analysis" — or in reference to quantum numbers, where once again you have multiple degrees of freedom where things can slide along axes, and it seems possible though not certain that some people are literally confusing them with cube dimensionality and turning them into spatial dimensions.
419. The Hat Man
420. Was this made on drugs?? / How could anybody have made this sober / I want what they were smoking
421. Actual drug trip artwork / Ambien post
422. Flatland (1884) [145] -> I watched the animated movie recently. I have to say, when the commenters labeled it cosmic horror, that's perfectly fair. my first thought is that it was a "look how advanced the aliens are" plot, especially when the Spacelanders want to wipe out the Flatlanders. I think this is exactly the right number range for it.
423. ??
424. ??
425. theory of spacetime with more than 3+1 dimensions
426. Kaluza-Klein theory [146] -> a model that proposes a 5th spatial dimension to explain gravity. the 5th dimension is a tiny cylinder with a radius only 23 times the Planck length. a proton is on the order of 1×10¹⁹ Planck lengths.
     some people try to use this to argue many-worlds, when, do you really need many-worlds if you have more dimensions? [147]
427. reference frame (relativity) -> mostly mentioned in special relativity. but I did have a weird thought of, what if there were reference frames in general relativity, and you basically just squash them really small? they may or may not be infinitely small. the assumption they actually are infinitely small might be leading us to singularities while they are actually a little bigger than "infinitely".
428. Entanglement is four-dimensional [148] -> okay, but the entanglement of what?
     let's take quarks. quarks actually exchange something between them, distributing a particular quantity or directionality around so it sums to zero. that's fairly easy to understand in three dimensions, if you take an oversimplified analogy of a ring of three things bending one direction and bending the other direction to not tip over. this object would be conserving downward forces. quarks, for some reason, are always sending strong interactions to each other, and "giving them back" somewhere else because it's far easier to do that than break a color-confined object apart. it's a little like part of water moving and pulling the rest of the water along with it. that is already a whole object. we can already see the whole object, at least in the form of a proton. where are you putting the color charge?
     this is the kind of thing that made me weirdly suspect string theory was confusing treed dimensionality in the form of quantum numbers adding variables with real spatial dimensions that exist near the Planck length
429. ??
430. fringe science / pseudoscience
431. fringe history / pseudohistory -> I don't even know what swatch to use for this.
432. ??
433. ??
434. time cube theory
435. ??
436. ??
437. ??
438. ??
439. galactic bible -> the motif of a pseudohistory detailing large events between multiple civilizations, where it may be that not a single one of the civilizations or events is verifiable. Atlanteans vs snake people, Mormon bible almost equally fall under this motif.
440. zero game [149] -> a game which essentially is over. neither player has a legal move, and the board may as well be empty.
441. player score point -> a player-specific score tracker in a board game or similar.
442. team score point
443. move in N direction / move in negative direction (game theory) -> these are the more technical definitions of scoreboard points. you can choose to define scoreboards or game spaces in terms of positive and negative numbers, although it results in the strange artifact of star numbers that act oddly like a new version of zero you can multiply. all of this rests on the assumption of a zero-sum game, akin to tic tac toe or checkers.
444. move in P direction / move in positive direction (game theory)
445. space in neutral direction / playable game space in direction which is neither player N nor player P -> while moves in a zero-sum game must go a particular direction, game spaces don't have to. this is part of the definition of "star", although I still don't understand what the full definition is.
446. ??
447. ??
448. ??
449. game rules manual / card game rules sheet / board game rules sheet -> to be used for reference statements, or entries preserving official rules sheet links
450. board game piece / board game card / board game token / card game token / unspecified game card / unspecified game piece
451. playing card / unspecified game card
452. playing card deck -> has three uses. explaining card game mechanics; references; explaining Deltarune / Homestuck
453. trump deck / poker deck
454. pinochle deck
455. tarot deck
456. mahjong set / mahjong deck
457. creature deck / medieval kingdom deck / Arcmage-style deck / Magic-style deck
458. named trading-card-game deck / named deck
459. trading-card-game set
460. chess piece
461. pawn (chess piece)
462. knight (chess piece)
463. bishop (chess piece)
464. rook (chess piece)
465. queen (chess piece)
466. king (chess piece)
467. promoted pawn (chess piece)
468. checker (board game piece)
469. 8 by 8 checkerboard / checker board / chess board -> they are not strictly the same, as apparently one is smaller, but they sure are awfully similar
470. draw deck -> board field, either central or player-specific
471. card suit -> the concept of something that goes in a card suit
472. object-based card suit / playing card suit / season-based card suit / plant or animal card suit
473. elemental card suit / card color
474. numbered card
475. face card
476. resource card / Resident card (Aurora) / mana card / land card / energy card
477. character card which may act as figurehead / character card / creature card / monster card / Theorist card (Aurora)
478. event card / Action card (Aurora) / instant event card
479. continuing event card / Condition card (Aurora) / enchantment card
480. card area / board field -> in general
481. main draw deck / deck / central draw deck / market deck (Tea Dragon Society) -> board field
482. player draw deck / deck / library / character deck -> board field
483. hand / player hand / hand cards / hold (Tea Dragon Society) -> board field
484. character area / creature area / Army (Arcmage) / Member Zone (Aurora) -> implied to be player-specific but not stated to be
485. condition area / permanents area / Condition Zone (Aurora) / terrain area / supporter area -> could be plural
486. figurehead area / commander area / Guide Space (Aurora) / main character area
487. removed from the game / exile zone -> board field
488. prize card area -> central or player, either can exist
489. discard pile / graveyard / GY / Devastation Zone (Aurora) -> implied to be player-specific
490. in-play card area -> superset of: character area, etc
491. stack of connected cards -> solitaire, Member Zone masses/groups (Aurora)
492. modifiable card
493. modifier card / equipment card / enchantment card / power-up card / card eaten by character card -> refers to visually representing cards more than to effects
494. face-up card
495. face-down card
496. generated card / token card
497. modifying token / modifying counter / damage counter / power-up counter / status effect counter
498. free-floating token / board game token -> miscellaneous token placed on some space on table for status purposes
499. transient card / effect card which does not enter play
500. card field / card stat / card metric / card attribute -> superset of: object suit, suit color, number
501. card category / card kind -> Condition, Action, etc. should usually be represented through "instance of" property, this is just to define what a category technically is
502. card suit / card element / card color
503. card name / card title
504. card cost
505. card worth / point value / victory points
506. card power / offensive power
507. card endurance / defensive power / stamina / hit points if same as defensive strength
508. card resource value / energy value / mana value / growth value (Tea Dragon Society)
509. card rules / card basic effects
510. card flavor text -> the concept of flavor text. put especially memorable flavor text in "relevant quote"
511. card with in-play effect / effect permanent / enchantment creature -> could also be a "modifier card", but in some games may take effect in hand / graveyard / etc. a card which has an effect when in something a particular game considers an in-play area
512. card with draw effect
513. card with discard effect
514. card with in-hand effect -> Tea Dragon Society is the only game I can think of that does this, off the top of my head
515. card with in-discard-pile effect / card with in-graveyard effect
516. card with in-draw-deck effect -> never heard of this one but maybe it exists, who knows
517. card with in-deck effect / card with different rules in particular decks / card affected by figurehead card / card affected by main-character card / card affected by commander card / inherently tutorable card / fusion mechanic card / synchro card / pendulum card / card that complements other cards inherently
518. single-use game piece / single-use card / card which is discarded after effect
519. card with unique rules -> superset of: card with draw effect, etc.; card which is not neatly described by set theory statements
520. twenty-sided die
521. face-up card area / card area with cards face-up
522. face-down card area / card area with cards face-down
523. faced-away card area / card area with cards face-up toward one player / face-up card area specific to one player / hidden face-up card area -> this is for coding player hands.
524. card area with cards laid out horizontally / card area with cards separated
525. card area with cards laid out vertically -> superset of/instance of/consists of?: bound stack of cards
526. bound stack of cards / stack of cards which is deck-shaped -> as opposed to informal card stacks in solitaire, equipment-card stacks, etc.
527. ??
528. ??
529. resource card area -> doesn't necessarily exist in game rules but likely to exist on svg images
530. truth value (top level category) / non-binary truth value
531. spring (card suit) -> technically exists in mahjongg as well as Tea Dragon Society
532. summer (card suit)
533. autumn (card suit)
534. winter (card suit)
535. Hackenbush [150]
536. tic tac toe -> seems like a silly thing to be talking about until you realize how complicated combinatorial game theory makes simple things, and then you absolutely won't want to use a more complex game than this.
537. super tic tac toe / tic tac toe with a tic tac toe board on each square -> this thing reminds me of Communist Internationals. there's definitely something to that. like, the small boards are the countries containing the class populations. the large boards are either the global class populations or the rival Internationals. I wonder what is the simplest board game you'd need to represent mainstream Marxism-Leninism versus Trotskyism, making the unrealistic assumption they are both equally powerful.
538. star (unreal number) / star (number-like object in game theory; number that is neither positive nor negative, cancels out itself, and yet can be multiplied) -> this thing is unbelievably interesting to me. it feels strangely like a non-numerical object thrown into the slot of a number. it's like the Missingno of numbers.
     let's see... GIGO / undefined behavior + Pokémon = glitch Pokémon. undefined behavior + numbers = abstract algebra. or something.
539. binary truth value -> sub-case of: non-binary truth value.
540. False / FALSE / F -> formal logic or boolean value
541. True / TRUE / T -> formal logic or boolean value
542. communication rating level / work rating code
543. U / Unknown -> highly implies "probably not false" but doesn't state it
544. NG / Not Good
545. G / Good
546. (communication rating level)
547. (communication rating level)
548. N/A / Not Applicable
549. E / Excepted
550. zero or more
551. one or more
552. exactly 52 / deck of 52 -> subset of: order of magnitude
553. ??
554. ??
555. ??
556. ??
557. ??
558. ??
559. operator for applying a model to analyze another model / operator for applying a conceptual ontology to analyze a physical-structure-blueprint ontology (philosophy, meta-philosophy) / operator for applying a philosophical framework to analyze a Bauplan (meta-Marxism) / ideology composition operator [151] / monoid act for non-binary logic [152] [153] / (9k)
560. ideology applied onto other / ideology applied onto other ideology / ideology-onto-ideology code / (9k)
561. MX onto A / meta-anarchism (generic)
562. MX onto W / meta-Gramscianism (generic) / post-Gramscianism (old, discarded term)
563. MX onto ML / meta-Marxism (generic)
564. IV onto LR / Trotskyism (generic)
565. MX onto ES / meta-Existentialism (generic) / post-Existentialism (old, discarded term)
566. MX onto ??
567. MX onto Fy / meta-Marxist literary analysis (generic)
568. MX onto PT / meta-Toryism (generic)
569. MX onto DG / meta-schizoanalysis (generic)
570. MX onto ??
571. MX onto LR / meta-Liberalism
572. MX onto MX / meta-Marxism onto meta-Marxism -> for when meta-Marxism does self-criticism and explodes its own models using new meta-Marxist models
573. MX onto ??
574. MX onto IV / meta-Trotskyism / post-Trotskyism (old, discarded term)
575. ??
576. ??
577. ??
578. ??
579. ??
580. ??
581. ??
582. ??
583. ??
584. ML onto ES
585. ES onto W / anticommunism (Existentialist-Structuralist tradition against Western Marxism; generic) -> there was a bunch of this in Rothenberg's book.
586. ??
587. ??
588. ES onto PT / liberalization (generic)
589. A onto PT / anarchist anti-fascism (generic)
590. ??
591. ES onto ML / anticommunism (generic)
592. proletarian (Bolshevism) -> case of: atom-like entity, meta-Marxist "shovel" object - ideology color: crimson. this is the Item for individuals within the general body of workers that exists in Bolshevism and which often is required to be accepted at open business territories. when the Refuse layer is abolished to turn people into a general body of workers and nobody is hurting to just find an income and pay for housing and at least a small basket of food (no, workers' states rebuilding from wartime destruction are not "cages") then this "proletariat" exists. this Item does not refer to workers in Liberal-republican capitalism. there may also be named Marxisms where this kind of worker technically doesn't exist yet. people should call out those Marxisms.
     number: "92" is usually used for defining meta-Marxism but it can be for "local" Marxism sometimes, I mean finding the correct Marxisms is what it's for in the first place.
593. method for measuring the ideal size of a workers' state / method for measuring the minimum size of a workers' state / method for measuring the maximum size of a workers' state
594. total spatial area
595. total population
596. population times standard population density / population adjusted by standard population density -> if you use this measurement, you see that New York City is a big population constrained by resources, but Russia is also a big population constrained by logistics.
597. ??
598. ??
599. many
600. ??
601. fictional incident, tragedy, or crime / un-true crime
602. ??
603. ??
604. ??
605. ??
606. ??
607. ??
608. absence -> the lack of something that would otherwise be there, usually physically, sometimes within a logical framework
609. inanimate object / countable inanimate object
610. living thing / countable lifeform -> any of a number of kinds of living things, real or fictional, which is not an inanimate object but is countable
611. ??
612. dystopian alien nation
613. Beast (AllDir simulation) / Beast (mathematics) / Beast field atop natural resource field -> vector representation of an individual animal; see scrap MDem 4.4/"starclan"
614. ??
615. ??
616. ??
617. placeholder -> the concept of placeholders
618. proposed Item
619. ??
620. ??
621. ??
622. ??
623. ??
624. ??
625. ??
626. ??
627. ??
628. ??
629. ??
630. ??
631. ??
632. ??
633. ??
634. ??
635. ??
636. ??
637. ??
638. ??
639. ??
640. Pascal's wager / god grid (Christian philosophy)
641. ethics problem involving Trotsky / ethics thought experiment involving Trotsky / Trotskyite variant of existing thought experiment / Trotsky problem (philosophical dilemma which centers around Trotskyite conspirators or early Trotskyism; meta-Marxism) -> there are bound to be some new ones that come up but the variants of old ones can also go on this entry
642. ??
643. ethics problem involving workers' states
644. Trotsky's wager / Trotskyist god grid -> Pascal's wager except with early Trotskyism.
645. ??
646. ??
647. ??
648. ??
649. ??
650. trolley problem -> I swear the principle of these is violated by anticommunist memoirs. think about it. every anticommunist memoir sends the trolley over thousands of people to save one person.
651. single victim (philosophy)
652. trolley (philosophy)
653. trolley sacrifice (philosophy) / fat person (fat man; philosophy)
654. Trotskyite trolley problem -> there are at least two possible "Trotsky problems". one is the god grid with Trotsky where he loses everything if Trotskyism is wrong. one is the Trotskyite trolley problem where there are 1,000 Trotskyites on one track and a million Soviet people on the other track. this entry refers to the "train tracks" Trotsky problem.
655. five victims (philosophy)
656. ??
657. ??
658. Communist trolley problem -> this is already a coherent concept but I just don't have a perfect idea of what it means. I think... a Communist trolley problem is simply a trolley problem where all the objects in the diagram are labeled as things that exist in workers' states.
659. ??
660. morality or ethics / morality (method of distinguishing Right from Wrong; MDem 5.1-5.2) -> I at first wanted to put morality at number 333 but that was already filled up by quantum physics concepts. this will do
661. local morality -> localized conception of morality produced by the motions of a particular countable culture
662. ??
663. class-based morality
664. ??
665. ??
666. moral wrong / Wrong (morality and ethics)
667. moral right / Right (morality and ethics)
668. ??
669. objective morality / ethics (objective study of how groups of people construct morality and what are the best ways to construct morality)
670. ??
671. ??
672. ??
673. ??
674. ??
675. ??
676. ??
677. ??
678. ??
679. ??
680. ??
681. ??
682. ??
683. ??
684. ??
685. ??
686. ??
687. ??
688. ??
689. ??
690. ??
691. "I wish comrades existed" / wishing comrades or solidarity existed in real life (motif) / "the love of humanity" is usually not reciprocated (motif) / (9k)
692. comrade (mathematics) / mathematical description of which individuals or localized graphs remain part of a Lattice model / (9k)
693. ??
694. ??
695. ??
696. ??
697. ??
698. ??
699. ??
700. ??
701. assume a spherical cow -> the motif of mathematics problems, or perhaps general thought experiments, presenting a test case which makes perfect sense yet to any reasonable person looks unlike reality
702. ??
703. ??
704. ??
705. ??
706. ??
707. ??
708. ??
709. ??
710. ??
711. ??
712. ??
713. ??
714. ??
715. ??
716. ??
717. ??
718. ??
719. ??
720. ??
721. ??
722. ??
723. ??
724. ??
725. ??
726. ??
727. ??
728. ??
729. ??
730. ??
731. ??
732. ??
733. ??
734. ??
735. ??
736. ??
737. ??
738. ??
739. ??
740. What are numbers? / What are integers? / What are real numbers? -> has several different technical definitions within mathematics.
741. Integers are multiples of True / using True to construct numbers -> common in programming languages. was not used in the lambda calculus video I watched, which was closer to using sets.
742. Integers are actually functions / using function to construct numbers / using succession function to construct numbers (iterator function; lambda calculus) / Church numbers -> a method used in lambda calculus.
743. Integers are actually sets / using sets to construct numbers -> Peano arithmetic. in a way, using sets to construct numbers is not very different from using an iterator function. it's pretty easy to argue that putting a set around a number is its own kind of function, in the computer programming sense or maybe in a lambda calculus sense.
744. Integers are actually graphs / Integers are actually undirected graphs -> I haven't found a solid application of this aside from the most preliminary descriptions of graph economics and the Lattice model; right now I don't have a single small, obvious demo, so this is currently more of just a "weird thought". this is the concept that depending on what kind of objects you're counting, any particular collection of people or snowflakes or water molecules is better modeled as an undirected graph than a Peano-style set. in the real world, quantities of things are largely important because they either are grouped together or are not grouped together, thus creating separate physical objects that can interact.
745. Numbers are whatever is between two sets / Numbers are whatever is in the middle of a Dedekind cut / Game theory can make a number system / Game theory can be used to create a number system / surreal numbers proposition / Hackenbush numbers proposition -> very interesting. looks like some version of complex numbers with more axes?? or maybe some form of superpositional numbers. I'm surprised I haven't heard of that before. I mean, how can it be that there are all these quantum physics equations and no superpositional numbers regarded as their own objects instead of just error bars? the wikipedia article says it's a weird new form of infinitesimals.
     [edit:] wow, that was not correct. I think the explanations I watched just had a lot of trouble explaining it in a way that made sense. surreal numbers mostly get complicated because the sets get infinite and they're having to number countable infinities.
746. Numbers are secretly error bars -> I had to go over the definition of surreal numbers several times to properly understand that this wasn't what those were.
747. ??
748. ??
749. ??
750. fuzzy logic -> proposition-based logic which uses real numbers from 0 to 1. I don't think this is the only way to do non-binary logic, but it may be one of the easiest ones to explain and demonstrate.
751. fuzzy set -> a fuzzy set is a lot like any set, but its membership uses a non-binary truth value in the form of a rational number from 0 to 1. it's like one big circle with a bunch of numbers or Algebras around it where every object is a particular distance from the center to the outside. and of course, where the exact position around the circle doesn't matter, the circle is for flavor.
     I'm thinking. I think if you threw these into a Dedekind cut, you'd have to define what each number in the set is first. one intuitive way to do it is to draw a real number line, with a ramp of numbers rising off it so you start at zero membership and go all the way up to one or higher if you want. and I think that would be complex numbers; I think one way to define a fuzzy set is to say basically each integer in a fuzzy set is a complex number that only goes up to n+i.
752. ??
753. ??
754. ??
755. ??
756. ??
757. ??
758. ??
759. ??
760. ??
761. ??
762. ??
763. ??
764. ??
765. ??
766. ??
767. ??
768. ??
769. ??
770. people-gambling -> the usually non-fictional motif of sorting through a lot of people to hit the jackpot and find the right people. this motif is inherent in most "job interview advice", as well as some "relationship advice", "product marketing advice", and rants against "social media". however, it also comes up in other unexpected places, like looking through a lot of books on a particular topic to find a book which is considered good or useful for some purpose. most people consider people-gambling perfectly normal. (as much as that totally baffles me.) this is often missed in critiques of "social media" as uniquely bad — if everything in life involves gambling on groups of people like some kind of poker deck, why wouldn't it be obvious for videos or microblog posts to work that way? people-gambling + ?? = Carl Sagan's professors. people-gambling + kaiju = Pokémon. people-gambling + Difference makes you useful = Wackytown fallacy.
771. Dedekind cut / {...|...} -> an operator used for defining numbers, whether the real numbers or the surreal numbers. a number or set can be put on each side, and the result of the operation goes in the middle of the cut.
772. ??
773. surreal numbers -> a grouping of numbers defined in a different way than the real numbers are typically defined. reading books about these things you'll quickly come to the realization that fractions and decimals are a social construct and there are actually any number of different ways to define what number comes before or after a different number or how to divide a range of numbers.
774. Surreal Numbers (Knuth 1974) -> in dialogue format.
775. Winning ways for your mathematical plays (Berlekamp, Conway, and Guy 1982)
776. social event horizon / Vegeta effect / Entei effect -> the non-fictional motif of people having a horizon around themselves which other people cannot pierce through to control, with only a few exceptions for such things as people forming a social structure that makes a decision of how to use all its people. this motif doesn't directly include those exceptions. this motif combines with other propositions to form particular historical or contemporary conceptions of "free will", but it doesn't really have to be used that way if you instead wish to study people through existential materialism.
777. Free Will -> a motif I have never liked because of the fact nobody can actually define it. whenever you try to discuss Free Will the discussion becomes confusing, because what process are we even debating the existence of? worse yet, people who think they can disprove it typically try to counter it with concepts that are difficult to substantiate or falsify. even Sabine Hossenfelder, who is convinced she knows exactly what hypotheses are so up-in-the-air they aren't science, tossed out an unfalsifiable hypothesis to counter Free Will. this entry.... will be a messy one. there will be about 10+ different models associated with what is supposedly the same thing.
778. freedom (top-level category) -> one of the only terms worse than free will in terms of how many definitions it has. genuinely don't use this except to list the category on category pages
779. ??
780. ??
781. ??
782. ??
782. formal logic
783. non-binary logic -> the concept of a system of proposition-based logic which doesn't combine propositions based on binary True or False answers and yet does have propositions and logical operators. propositions are given "truthy", "falsy", or "unknown" answers simply to summarize whether they should be taken as accurate and not specifically to operate on mathematically. the combination of any particular two propositions is actually the material or concrete models inside the propositions combined together. if you "And" two models they produce a model containing both processes only if both processes were given a "truthy" label of being accurate to reality or whatever is being modeled. if you "Or" two models you are putting them in superposition and saying you think either model could happen as far as you know but you're not sure whether one or both of them could happen. for instance, you could "And" together classical physics and quantum physics to represent both of them happening and one stacking up to the other, or you could "Or" specific results of a chemical reaction into a superposition of most probable and least probable results before the reaction happens and is measured. for another example, you could "And" together a model with a truth value of "some occurrence", like "Cats have white fur" and a model that is "true" like "Cats can have partially-expressed patterns" to produce a piecewise statement that all-white cats can produce kittens with spots but the possibilities for other colors of cat are different.
784. ??
785. ??
786. ??
787. ??
788. ??
789. ??
790. formal logic operator / logical operator / logic gate
791. NOT (logical operator) / NOT (logic gate)
792. IMPLY (logical operator) / material conditional / → / P → Q -> silly question: do these arrows go the text direction in RTL and vertical scripts? I'd think they would but I have no idea
793. converse (logical operator) / ← / P ← Q -> not always equal to IMPLY operation
794. NAND (logical operator) / NAND (logic gate) -> absolutely everything except an overlap
795. XNOR (logical operator) / XNOR (logic gate) -> there was some reason I needed this in the past. I think it was for tearing apart Rothenberg's set theory chapter.
796. OR (logical operator) / OR (logic gate)
797. AND (logical operator) / AND (logic gate)
798. XOR (logical operator) / XOR (logic gate)
799. NOR (logical operator) / NOR (logic gate)
800. set theory
801. set (set theory) -> collection of elements modeled by mathematical structures; mathematical structure
802. empty set (set theory) / ∅ / {} / void set / size-zero set -> my nemesis ever since Rothenberg bizarrely abused it to explain The Subject
803. non-empty set (set theory)
804. multiset (set theory) -> set that behaves like a programming language array, with non-unique members allowed
805. subset -> set contained in another set; empty set is a subset of most non-empty sets
806. union (set operation) / OR (set operation) -> combination of two sets; empty set causes no change
807. intersection (set operation) / AND (set operation) -> overlap of two sets only; use the empty set, get the empty set
808. symmetric difference (set operation) / ∆ / A ∆ B / XOR (set operation)
809. absolute complement (set operation) / NOR (set operation)
810. set theory axiom
811. set property / set characteristic / set indicator function result
812. Sets are equal if they contain the same members / axiom of extensionality (ZFC set theory)
813. No set can be a member of itself -> true in ZFC set theory, but not all set theories
814. Defining sets based on properties that cannot be true creates a set that cannot exist / There is no set of all sets that do not contain themselves / Russel's paradox / Sets must be defined following the rules of sets in order to be sets (ZFC set theory)
815. A set definition will never outrun the biggest possible set / Sets cannot be defined based on the biggest possible sets / Cantor's paradox -> this one is easy to escape if you want to number countable infinities, because mathematicians simply use other structures than sets
816. bisimulation / bisimilarity -> when two mathematical ontologies have equivalent behavior; when two mathematical objects are functionally indistinguishable regardless of whether they are the same spacetime-unique object; suitable mathematical equality test for Particle Theories / Bauplans
817. hyperset -> a set which definitionally contains itself in a bisimilarity relation
818. hyperset theory
819. ZFC set theory / Zermelo-Fraenkel Choice-axiom set theory (ZFC) -> set theory where sets are "computational" and pointers into the set cause a kind of infinite loop bug in the logic
820. non-well-formed set theory
821. anti-foundation axiom (set theory)
822. Sets are actually just directed graphs containing the same arrows (AFA) / Aczel's anti-foundation axiom (AFA)
823. Sets are actually just tree graphs that cannot be rearranged (SAFA) / Sets are trees connecting Quine atoms with no interesting automorphisms (SAFA) / Scott's anti-foundation axiom (SAFA)
824. Sets are actually just directed graphs with no exact symmetries / Finsler's anti-foundation axiom (FAFA) -> this one sounds pretty similar to the popular AFA if you don't look closely, but it's based on rotating the graph around and renumbering it
825. Sets are nothing more than baskets of tiny sets / Sets are a proper class based on collections of Quine atoms / Boffa's anti-foundation axiom (BAFA) -> some mathematicians really don't like this one but I don't know enough to say why it would be objectively bad. I'm not even sure I've found a good/correct definition of BAFA yet
826. atom (set theory) / set element that cannot have set-structured members / urelement
827. set-based atom (set theory) / Quine atom (set theory) / singleton / graph node serving as one-element set / graph node mapped to ur-element in binary relation -> Quine atom is one of the most arcane terms I've ever seen and I refuse to use it just yet
828. univocality -> mapping from one unique name or object to another unique name or object. signifier equations sometimes do this, in cases such as technical jargon
829. biunivocality -> a really fancy word for counting. no, I'm serious. a biunivocal mapping exists when one set of unique names maps onto a set of unique elements, as if counting things with natural numbers. Deleuze and Guattari once abused this concept to try to forbid counting and grouping individuals and try to turn them into a non-local beam of photon-people
830. ??
831. ??
832. two indistinguishable iron spheres called Castor and Pollux -> I love when mathematicians actually think of entertaining thought experiments
833. proper class (set theory) / class (set theory) -> the repeated pattern of having a given characteristic or returning a given indicator function result, which is not a set. similar to "class" or "interface" in object oriented programming
834. graph-to-set mapping / exact picture of set -> a concept that comes up quite a bit in defining non-well-founded set theories
835. ??
836. ??
837. ??
838. ??
839. ??
840. ??
841. ??
842. ??
843. ??
844. ??
845. ??
846. ??
847. ??
848. ??
849. ??
850. ??
851. ??
852. ??
853. ??
854. ??
855. ??
856. ??
857. ??
858. ??
859. ??
860. ??
861. ??
862. ??
863. ??
864. ??
865. ??
866. ??
867. ??
868. ??
869. ??
870. graph node
871. disjoint union -> logical combination of internally unconnected graphs/sets. seems like I might have to use it to describe populations some day
872. hypergraph -> a mathematical graph that could theoretically store a 3D model composed of a bunch of triangles, or the collection of all subpopulations in a population including overlapping subpopulations
873. ??
874. ??
875. ??
876. ??
877. ??
878. ??
879. ??
880. graph (graph theory) -> a collection of nodes and node pairs, typically visualized as a path
881. undirected graph (graph theory)
882. directed graph (graph theory) / 𝒢 (variable)
883. cyclic graph (graph theory)
884. acyclic graph (graph theory)
885. tree (graph theory) / tree graph -> acyclic graph, one path between any two nodes, every vertex a particular point in space on a map essentially
886. rooted graph (graph theory) / pointed graph / arborescence / anti-arborescence -> an arborescent graph points away from the root. also: according to Deleuze and Guattari it's basically the devil. you didn't know there was a Good and Evil to graph theory did you, but now you know
887. star graph (graph theory) -> graph with everything connected to a central node. how I often visualize what non-well-founded sets are supposed to be, you just put the empty set in the center
888. ??
889. ??
890. Gödel's incompleteness theorem / Gödel gap (barrier beyond which an individual entity cannot reason without interacting with another object)
891. ??
892. metamathematics -> this is it. Marxism : meta-Marxism :: ontology : meta-ontology :: mathematics : metamathematics
893. ??
894. ??
895. ??
896. ??
897. ??
898. ??
899. casual steganography for fun -> how Spore creatures are stored in an image [154]

901 - 1999

Historical events, texts, etc.

901. MAI reading list / Anti-Imperialist Movement Marxist-Leninist reading list
902. national liberation movement / national independence movement (generic)
903. ??
904. ??
905. ??
906. ??
907. ??
908. ??
909. ??
910. ??
911. ??
912. ??
913. ??
914. ??
915. 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.
916. revolution against feudal order / bourgeois revolution (Marxism)
917. 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.)
918. ??
919. ??
920. Whenever somebody belongs to a marginalized or imperialized group their current position compounds on any effort to get out of it / Frantz Fanon conjecture / (9k)
921. Every scientific theory should be consistent with previous scientific theories
922. Models of the same object should not contradict each other
923. Physical processes can contradict each other / Processes can contradict themselves
924. ??
925. 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
926. ??
927. ??
928. ??
929. metaphysical thought experiment
930. Materialist thought experiment
931. scientific thought experiment
932. historical-materialist thought experiment
933. existential-materialist thought experiment
934. ??
935. ??
940. jamming proposition or question / jamming antithesis
941. jamming proposition -> seems to be a major component of 'pataphysics, but also of meta-Marxism
942. 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.
943. ??
944. ??
945. ??
946. ??
947. ??
948. ??
949. your-choices vs. (pronounced versus) yours-choice distinction / your-choice versus yours-choices versus yours-choice distinction / (9k)
950. tiered levels of grouping / tiered grammatical plurality / (9k)
951. one-member concept / singular term / (9k)
952. group concept / collective term / (9k)
953. subpopulational concept / particular concept / particular term / (9k)
954. populational concept / universal concept / general concept / universal term / general term / (9k)
955. global concept / global term -> a concept which applies to the largest possible scales of populations or generalizations, such as worldwide / (9k)
956. concept about many separate individuals in parallel / applying to many separate individuals in parallel / (9k)
957. concept about many separate groups in parallel / applying to many separate groups in parallel / (9k)
958. concept about separate subpopulations in parallel / concept about several separate subpopulations in parallel / (9k)
959. concept about separate nations in parallel / concept about several separate populations in parallel / (9k)
960. method of defining a set
961. local characteristics or members / intensional characteristics / localized spatially-unique set members or characteristics of said members
962. entailed characteristics or members / extensional characteristics / extensionality across characteristics or subpopulations
963. ??
965. ??
970. ??
975. ??
980. language register / language proficiency level
981. 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
982. widespread vernacular term -> applies to contexts such as dialects of English
983. uncommon term
984. common term
985. technical term taught in grade school / scientific term taught in grade school
986. university-level term / technical term taught in four-year degree
987. university-level term widespread in particular ideology / technical term widespread in partisan ideology
988. 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.
989. technical term within local research group / field-specific academic jargon term
990. ??
991. 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
992. 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
993. 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
994. ??
995. ??
996. ??
997. ??
998. lower boundary / minimum threshold
999. upper boundary / maximum threshold -> may used to define concepts such as carrying capacity, lethal dose, and minimum amount of matter required to create a black hole.
1000. plateau (philosophy) / plateau (schizoanalysis) / thing claimed to have no beginning or end / spatially-unique object which does not remain unique
1001. formatting device -> any kind of device which styles, tags, or structures text. Unicode encoding might count as a formatting device
1002. 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
1003. basic bop formatting - ad-hoc markup language
1004. Markdown - markup language
1005. HTML - markup language
1006. prototype -> an early version of anything made for testing. not related to markup languages.
1007. 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
1008. CSS classname -> instance of: formatting device
1009. Item usable as Hue list classname
1010. unique language
1011. English (en)
1012. French (fr)
1013. German (de)
1014. Spanish (es)
1015. ??
1016. ??
1017. Russian (ru)
1018. Korean (ko)
1019. Japanese (ja)
1020. Chinese metalanguage (zho)
1021. Mandarin Chinese (cmn)
1022. Cantonese (yue)
1023. ??
1024. ??
1025. North Korean dialect
1026. South Korean dialect
1027. Chinese character (hani)
1028. Traditional Chinese (hant)
1029. Simplified Chinese (hans)
1020. uncommon, constructed, or system-internal language / language possibly coded as mis
1021. simple English (en-simple) / en-x-pona / en-basiceng [155] -> 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
1022. toki pona (tok) -> implied to be either sitelen pona or sitelen Lasina
1023. toki pona, sitelen Lasina (tok-Latn)
1024. toki pona, sitelen pilin / sitelen emoji (tok-pilin)
1025. toki pona, sitelen jelo (tok-jelo)
1026. ??
1027. taxonomic names dictionary (la-sci) - [156] [157]
1028. work citations dictionary (qww)
1029. Wikimedia message ID (qqx) - [158]
1030. (reserved for languages)
1040. (reserved for languages)
1050. ??
1055. ??
1060. toki pona derivative / tokiponido
1061. toki pona but with English / meta toki pona / en-x-pona (motif) / ja-x-pona (motif) / de-x-pona (motif) / (9k)
1065. ??
1069. ??
1070. fantasy work
1071. ??
1072. ??
1073. ??
1074. ??
1075. ??
1076. ??
1077. ??
1078. ??
1079. ??
1080. speculative fiction
1081. memoir fiction / literary fiction (fiction which is not categorized into a particular genre yet almost invariably becomes a boring slice-of-life story) -> the specific kind of fiction that appears uncategorized yet starts with boring accounts of individual lives. overlaps with or contains slice-of-life fiction.
1082. utopian fiction / utopian literature
1083. dystopian fiction / dystopian literature
1084. anticommunist fable / anticommunist parable / "dystopian fiction" created to attack a progressive theory
1085. socialist realism
1086. metatransitional literature / meta-transitional realism / meta-transitional fantasy -> like socialist realism or science fiction, but for meta-Marxism
1087. afterlife fiction / Bangsian fiction
1088. horror work
1089. 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. [159] I am becoming slowly convinced that the use or implication of this story genre is a major reason Pokémon appeals to people.
1090. 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.
1091. superhero story / superhero narrative
1092. fictional history
1093. evil empire narrative -> distinguishable from hero's journey narrative because it explicitly involves populations. may simultaneously be an anti-imperialist fable, or might not.
1100. ??
1110. 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
1111. 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.
1112. cue ball
1113. pool ball
1114. ??
1115. ??
1116. ??
1117. ??
1118. eight ball
1120. ??
1121. ??
1122. ??
1123. ??
1124. ??
1125. ??
1126. ??
1127. ??
1128. ??
1129. 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.
1130. physical constant
1131. ??
1132. ??
1133. ??
1134. ??
1135. order of magnitude / scale of particular numerical base / power of ten / power of two / multiple of one
1136. multiple of number -> subset of: order of magnitude
1137. 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
1138. 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.
1140. ??
1145. ??
1150. 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.
1151. When matter disappears it becomes something else / When matter disappears from a defined section of reality it usually becomes something else / matter conservation
1152. When energy disappears it becomes something else / When energy disappears from a defined section of reality it usually becomes something else / energy conservation
1153. 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.
1154. ??
1155. ??
1156. ??
1157. ??
1158. 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.
1159. 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
1165. ??
1170. ??
1175. ??
1180. 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
1181. 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.
1182. ??
1183. ??
1184. ??
1185. ??
1186. ??
1187. black hole
1188. going back in time to kill Hitler / (User:RD/9k/Q11,88)
1190. ??
1200. alternate history / alternate timeline
1201. alternate-timeline version of figure or character in narrative
1202. alternate-timeline version of real country
1203. ??
1204. ??
1205. ??
1206. ??
1207. ??
1208. ??
1209. ??
1210. ??
1211. ??
1212. variant of fictional character / alternate-universe variant of fictional character -> this is your
1213. variant of historical figure (historical fiction) -> applies to historical fiction works / simulation games like Hearts of Iron IV, and historical-materialist thought experiments.
1214. ??
1215. ??
1216. ??
1217. Communist variant of fictional character / Communist-ally variant of fictional character / Marxist variant of fictional character (implied to be based on mainstream Marxism-Leninism or other attempts at Leninism, not Deng Xiaoping Thought or Western-Marxism)
1218. Socialist variant of fictional character / "Marxist" variant of fictional character (implied to be social-democracy/Menshevism, Western-Marxism, etc.) -> for that off chance there's an edge case which doesn't fit into Q12,17 but sure is a variant of a character.
1219. ??
1220. leitmotif / leitmotif (prose) / leitmotif (music; generic)
1221. leitmotif (music) / character motif (music)
1222. ??
1223. using number as leitmotif / using number as spoken or written narrative theme, but usually not as part of music, unless a musical track contains patterns consisting of specific numbers of notes or phrases / number as character motif / numeric sign (Item pages)
1224. using calendar date as leitmotif / numeric sign (calendar date)
1225. character embodying abstract concept -> the prototypical example is "December Holiday" (12/25), or "Piatya Holiday" (11/5), but it can be a little less specific than that. Princess Celestia (sun) would probably be another decent example. the rest of the MLP cast are... weird, because they're presented like they're supposed to be this and then the elements of harmony don't exactly matter to their character and they aren't really their concepts, they either have complexity or are at least about five-note characters. I half feel like Starlight counts though because she does begin at a single abstract concept: "worse Twilight".
1230. ??
1240. ??
1250. ??
1260. ??
1270. ??
1271. ??
1272. ??
1273. ??
1274. ??
1275. ??
1276. The Good Place
1277. good afterlife / Good Place
1278. afterlife
1279. The Middle Place -> appears in work: Cloud Eight
1280. bad afterlife / Bad Place
1290. ??
1295. ??
1300. ??
1305. ??
1310. 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
1311. action against society by countable group of people / incorrect action by countable group of people -> used in defining what protests are about
1312. street protest
1313. ??
1314. ??
1315. ??
1320. ??
1325. ??
1330. ??
1331. Study populations within their own history / Populations must be studied relative to their own traditions / cultural relativism proposition
1332. Study populations that will exist within their own history
1333. ??
1334. ??
1335. ??
1336. ??
1337. subculture -> refers to any subculture, although QID references internet subcultures.
1338. ??
1339. ??
1340. ??
1341. ??
1342. ??
1343. ??
1344. ??
1345. ??
1346. ??
1347. ??
1348. ??
1349. ??
1340. poll taxes and segregation [160]
1341. poll taxes in Burkina Faso [161] -> not a thought that crossed my mind before but wholly unsurprising. it's always been a bit like, apartheid is similar to racial segregation except at least five times more violent and worse
1342. Poll taxes are okay under Idealism / Poll taxes are okay if you operate on a contrived abstract concept of what racial subpopulations actually are rather than a realistic picture of the current (though not eternal) material conditions of the actual subpopulation -> think about this one long enough and you realize it's basically the same error made against the Soviet Union. is Trotskyism inherently racist, just in that it is inherently xenophobic?
1343. poll taxes in Florida -> having hyper-specific topics is meant to make it easier to find citations based on observations of specific places.
1344. poll taxes in Louisiana
1345. poll taxes in Alabama
1346. poll taxes in Texas -> it's easy to forget the Confederate states can extend to Texas when all of the worst stuff is often happening in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. but Texas had poll taxes.
1347. ??
1347. Poll taxes are unacceptable under Materialism
1349. Poll taxes violate the 14th Amendment (United States) -> one of the better demonstrations of "Washington's filter".
1350. structural racism -> material phenomenon as described by real-world evidence, and not whatever papers and books say, should that somehow be a problem
1351. redlining
1352. ??
1353. ??
1354. ??
1355. ??
1356. ??
1357. bioempire / subjectivoempire (discarded term; meta-Marxism) -> the motif of living, breathing, eating, space-occupying individuals being the building blocks of empire, war, or genocide, although it is strongly implied they can usually only accomplish these atrocities by joining together in Community and friendship. a group as small as maybe two individuals joins together and produces positive feedback loops (think of the "brilliant" undertakers in CEO biographies), and at that point is creating bioempire. it must be noted this is solely talking about The Subject as a living being that makes decisions based on its needs; absolutely none of this motif is about "culture" or "attitudes" or "mentality" in the senses each of those terms tints the others. this motif has the connotation that all of those things are produced as justification after individuals have already joined together into bioempire or socioempire.
      it can be argued that the motif of "bioempire" exists in Buddhism, though from what I know, I think it may be missing the concept that linking individuals together results in "unhealthy attachments" as opposed to them somehow existing specifically inside individuals. if I'm wrong about that you can totally put this in the motifs section of a Buddhist text without putting it in the "subjective motifs" area.
1358. existence as empire / socioempire / gentrification results from small-scale empire / chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy (near-synonym)
1359. critical race theory / CRT
1400. 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
1401. ??
1402. ??
1403. ??
1404. ??
1405. ??
1406. ??
1407. ??
1408. ??
1409. ??
1410. ??
1415. ??
1419. 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
1420. drug legalization
1430. ??
1440. ??
1450. ??
1460. ??
1470. ??
1480. ??
1481. ??
1482. ??
1483. ??
1484. chunk competition (motif; meta-Marxism) / all-directional contradiction between individuals / chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy
1485. ??
1486. historical fascisms / nationalist regimes recognized as fascisms by historians -> a somewhat deceptive term explicitly excluding the British imperialist framework but including falangism
1487. Axis powers of World War II -> Nazism, Italian fascism, and Japanese global empire
1488. Nazi germany / Nazism
1489. Fascist Italy / Italian fascism
1490. Falangist Spain / falangism / Francoism
1491. Imperial Japan / Japanese global empire
1492. British Empire / British imperialist framework (hypothetical)
1493. United States global empire / United States imperialist framework (hypothetical)
1494. 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"
1495. 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
1496. Duginism
1497. European New Right
1498. claimed characteristic of fascism / claimed warning sign of fascism
1499. 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
1500. ??
1501. 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?
1510. Umberto Eco's list for fascism
1511. cult of tradition -> claimed characteristic of fascism.
1512. rejection of modern culture / descent into depravity
1513. cult of action for action's sake
1514. 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.
1515. fear of difference
1516. appeal against low-ranks / appeal to a frustrated middle class
1517. obsession with conspiracies / obsession with the plot
1518. enemies are too strong and too weak
1519. pacifism is trafficking with the enemy
1520. in-group superior to the weak / contempt for the weak
1521. die a hero or become the weaklings
1522. machismo
1523. selective populism
1524. nationalistic buzzwords / newspeak
1525. ??
1530. ??
1531. ??
1532. The Prince (Machiavelli 1532)
1540. ??
1550. ??
1560. ??
1570. ??
1580. ??
1590. 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
1600. ??
1601. ??
1602. ??
1603. ??
1604. Guy Fawkes
1605. Gunpowder plot of 1605
1606. 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.
1607. 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
1608. 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.
1609. ??
1610. ??
1611. ??
1612. ??
1613. ??
1614. ??
1615. ??
1616. ??
1617. revisionist history (field) -> to be used for actual instances of updating the facts and making them more accurate
1618. progressive anthropology -> subset of: revisionist history (field); in my mind, refers largely to studies of ancient people-groups as done in Magic: a history
1619. inclusive history -> subset of: revisionist history (field)
1620. 1619 Project (2019) -> attempted education project by inclusive-historians
1621. 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
1630. ??
1640. ??
1650. ??
1660. ??
1670. ??
1680. ??
1690. ??
1691. witch trial as town court / witch trial as conflict
1692. 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.
1693. witch trial as treason -> this appears to develop in response to [L] (pronounced L:) Wasp swarm1:-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.
1695. ??
1700. ??
1705. ??
1710. ??
1715. ??
1720. ??
1725. ??
1729. A modest proposal (Swift 1729)
1730. ??
1735. ??
1740. ??
1741. The German Ideology part 1A: Idealism and Materialism
1742. The German Ideology part 1B: The Illusion of the Epoch
1743. The German Ideology part 1C: The Real Basis of Ideology
1744. The German Ideology part 1D: Proletarians and Communism
1745. ??
1746. ??
1747. ??
1748. ??
1749. ??
1750. United States constitutional amendment / Bill of Rights (United States)
1751. Amendment 1
1752. Amendment 2
1753. Amendment 3
1754. Amendment 4
1755. Government will not seize property (Amendment 5) / (9k)
1756. Amendment 6
1757. Amendment 7
1758. Amendment 8
1759. Amendment 9
1760. Amendment 10
1761. Amendment 11
1762. Amendment 12
1763. U.S. (pronounced United States) people will not own slaves (Amendment 13) / United States people will not own slaves
1764. A Confederate constitution is not legal (Amendment 14) / Black people will not be expelled from the United States population through federal or state law; Congress can block former Confederates from being elected / (9k) -> If I'm reading this thing right, there's a serious loophole in it that it doesn't really prevent individual towns doing terrible things through force of law.
1765. Amendment 15
1766. Amendment 16
1767. Amendment 17
1768. Amendment 19
1769. Amendment 22
1770. Amendment 23
1771. The United States will not charge people for elections (Amendment 24) / The United States will not charge people to enter an election for president, vice president, or House or Senate members, federal or state
1772. Amendment 25
1773. Amendment 26
1774. Amendment 27
1775. taxation without representation
1776. United States constitution
1777. United States independence movement (1776) / American revolution
1778. Amendment 18
1779. Amendment 21
1780. ??
1781. ??
1782. ??
1783. ??
1784. ??
1785. ??
1786. ??
1787. ??
1789. French Revolution (1789-1790)
1790. democracy (center-/right-Liberalism) / democracy as defined in center-/right-Liberal republicanism
1791. metric system / International System of Units (SI) / Système international d'unités (SI)
1792. 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
1793. Thomas Paine treason trial (1792) -> there's something to be said about this in relation to the Moscow Trials. I'm not sure what.
1794. French First Republic -> very notable given there was a second one
1795. ??
1796. ??
1797. ??
1798. 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
1799. Napoleonic empire -> French civilization under Napoleon's dictatorship
1800. 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
1801. ??
1802. ??
1803. 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
1804. Hundred Days -> Napoleon comes back from exile to rule Europe again; every European country goes to great effort to stop him
1805. Bourbon Restoration -> restored French monarchy which remained until 1830
1806. Sixth Coalition -> Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Sweden, and Russia, united to defeat Napoleon at the Battle of Leipzig
1807. Seventh Coalition -> Sixth Coalition plus Switzerland and the Bourbon Restoration; each alliance contained many smaller territories too
1808. ??
1809. ??
1810. ??
1811. ??
1812. ??
1813. ??
1814. ??
1815. ??
1816. ??
1817. ??
1818. ??
1819. ??
1820. ??
1821. ??
1822. ??
1823. ??
1824. ??
1825. ??
1826. ??
1827. ??
1828. ??
1829. ??
1830. Indian Removal Act of 1830
1831. Trail of Tears (1830-1850)
1831. ??
1832. ??
1833. ??
1834. ??
1835. ??
1836. ??
1837. ??
1838. ??
1839. ??
1840. ??
1841. ??
1842. Theses on Feuerbach (c.1845)
1843. What is the relationship of Jewish people to German citizens? / Jewish national question / Jewish question (not Nazism)
1844. On The Jewish Question (Marx 1844)
1845. The German Ideology (Marx 1846/1932)
1846. ??
1847. Communist manifesto / Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) / 共産党 (pronounced きょうさんとう)宣言 (pronounced せんげん)
1848. United States westward expansion
1849. "Go west, young man"
1850. ??
1851. ??
1852. ??
1853. ??
1854. ??
1855. ??
1856. ??
1857. ??
1858. ??
1859. A Tale of Two Cities -> this book is about the French Revolution. I somehow did not know that until today.
1860. Confederate States of America (1861-1865) / Confederacy / The South
1861. Jefferson Davis (Confederate president 1861–1865)
1862. United States Civil War (1861-1865)
1863. Emancipation Proclamation of 1863
1864. Reconstruction (1863-1877)
1865. ??
1866. ??
1867. Capital volume I (Marx 1863/1867)
1868. Capital volume II (Marx 1863/1893)
1869. Capital volume III (Marx 1863/1894)
1870. Capital volume IV (Marx 1863/1963)
1871. Theories of surplus value -> sometimes separated from Capital vol IV, sometimes grouped into it
1872. (further divisions of volume IV?)
1873. (further divisions of volume IV?)
1874. International System of Units (SI)
1875. On Authority (Engels 1874)
1875. ??
1876. ??
1877. Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science / Anti-Dühring (1877)
1878. ??
1879. ??
1880. ??
1881. ??
1882. 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
1883. ??
1884. ??
1885. Beyond Good and Evil (Nietzsche 1886/1913) -> not totally sure what this book is arguing but it did sound really interesting. knowing Nieztsche was an Identitarian-fascist type in general, marking it in the Tory color just to be safe. it can be changed to blue if it's actually good
1886. ??
1887. ??
1888. ??
1889. ??
1890. ??
1891. ??
1892. On Sense and Reference (Frege 1892) -> early precursor to structuralist linguistics. discusses the concept of how and whether words refer to anything.
1893. ??
1894. ??
1895. Caesar Antichrist (Jarry 1895)
1896. Exploits and Opinions of Dr. Faustroll, Pataphysician (Jarry c.1911)
1900. ??
1905. ??
1906. ??
1907. ??
1908. The National Question (Luxemburg 1909) / (9k)
1909. Materialism and Empirio-criticism (Lenin 1909) [162] [163] -> a text that had textbook status in the Soviet Union. worth annotating entry with important motifs / propositions / Lexemes.
1911. Anarchism or Socialism (Stalin 1906) [164]
1911. Course in General Linguistics (Saussure 1911/1959) -> approximate benchmark for finding the birth of "broader-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.
1912. ??
1913. ??
1914. ??
1915. ??
1916. weeks where decades happen / days into which twenty years are compressed (Marx) / In the space of a few days ... other countries have required decades (Lenin) / (9k)
1917. Russian Revolution
1918. German revolution of 1918
1919. ??
1920. The State and Revolution (Lenin 1918/1920) / (9k)
1921. Terrorism and Communism (Trotsky 1920)
1922. The trade unions, the present situation, and Trotsky's mistakes (Lenin 1920) / (9k)
1923. ??
1924. ??
1925. ??
1926. ??
1927. Being and Time (Heidegger 1927)
1928. Terrorism and Communism chapter 8 [TC8]
1929. On correcting mistaken ideas in the party (Mao 1929) [165] / (9k)
1930. founding of Communist Party of Vietnam (1930)
1931. On contradiction (Mao 1937) [166]
1932. On Practice (Mao 1937) [167] / (9k)
1933. ministry rearrangements in the USSR -> makes timelines of ministries comically unreadable, but makes a lot of sense when viewed as graph theory
1934. forced population rearrangements in the USSR -> complicated. some of this was moving isolated farmers into collective farms & social structures; some overlapped with deportations
1935. deportations of nationalities in the USSR -> mainly I think of the Chechen & Ingush incident
1936. The Revolution Betrayed (Trotsky 1936)
1937. Moscow trials
1938. My visit described for my friends (Feuchtwanger 1937)
1939. testimony of Bukharin
1940. death of Trotsky (1940)
1941. World War II
1948. founding of North Korea
1949. founding of People's Republic of China
1950. founding of East Germany (1949)
1951. Universal declaration of human rights (1948)
1952. 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
1953. 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).
1954. On the Juche Idea (Kim Jong-Il 1982) / (9k)
1955. Juche concept / Juche idea [168] / (9k)
1956. On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences (Khruschev 1956) -> major "founding work" of the anti-Stalin movement after 1953.
1959. Common Lisp -> first serious Lisp compiler completed 1959.
1960. founding of Cuba (1959-1976)
1961. Bay of Pigs invasion (United States versus Cuba, 1961) [169]
1962. Joint World Congress to reunify the Fourth International (1962)
1963. 1963On revolutionary medicine (Che Guevara) / (9k)
1964. 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.
1965. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865) / Alice in Wonderland
1966. Through the Looking-Glass (1871)
1969. Stonewall riots (1969)
1970. Settlers / Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat / Read Settlers (slogan) [170] -> 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.
1971. ??
1972. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism And Schizophrenia
1973. A Thousand Plateaus (Anti-Oedipus vol. 2)
1974. The Parallax View (Žižek 2006) -> not the movie. though that movie providing a date which was an empty number was a wonderful coincidence. I also wouldn't be surprised if the book was referencing the movie, knowing what I know about the weird memer that wrote it.
1975. Chester Pierce / Dr. Chester Pierce -> founder of Black Psychiatrists of America, coined the term "microaggression". [...]
1975. ??
1976. ??
1977. ??
1978. German reunification (1989)
1979. Losing Earth: A Recent History (Rich 2019) -> a recap of climate change investigations and debates. narrative-style and memoir-like, very readable
1980. The Excessive Subject: A new theory of social change (2010)
1981. The End of History and the Last Man (Fukuyama 1992)
1982. Childhood's End (Clarke 1953)
1983. Animal Farm (Orwell 1945)
1984. 1984 (Orwell 1949)
1985. Anthem
1986. The Giver quartet
1987. The Giver (Lowry 1993)
1988. Gathering Blue (Lowry 2000)
1989. Messenger (Lowry 2004)
1990. Son (Lowry 2012)
1991. dissolution of the Soviet Union -> as series of real concrete events
1992. Molecular Marxism / Marxist Molecular Democracy (MDem)
1993. GNU/Linux operating system
1994. 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
1995. virtual pet / virtual pet keychain / virtual pet game
1996. Tapers -> really underrated metaphorical story, especially by its creator. fix up the dumb little direct-from-the-author comments into something more stylistic, rewrite the text just a bit, and this is as print worthy as like a third of books I see at thrift stores.
      although this is a shorter work it did have chapters; I guess it's like, a beginning writer making a novella, which are italicized.
1997. Petscop
1998. 3D workers' island
1999. Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? (Fisher 2009)

2000

2000. Item with primarily literal associations / Item with literal meaning -> Z items, and S items used as part of fictional facticities
2001. Framework believes model to be incoherent or wrong
2002. Probably no serious symbolism
2003. The Subject (exmat)
2004. social graph connection (non-unique)
2005. connection weight (society models)
2006. 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)
2007. material graph struggle / chunk competition (MDem) -> individuals or Social Systems (SGS) competing to secure a specifically physical territory
2008. mutually-exclusive filament-based construction / Filamentism (MDem) -> stochastic construction of a larger society through many small localized graph struggles
2009. violent material graph struggle / violent chunk competition (MDem) -> graph struggle at the expense of human life.
2010. expulsion from social graph / social rejection (mathematical) / cancellation (Toryism)
2011. class territory
2012. class territory owner
2013. class territory resident
2014. The Communist Necessity (Moufawad-Paul 2014/2020)
2015. feudal order
2016. duke
2017. marquess
2018. earl
2019. count
2020. baron
2021. manor lord
2022. Existential Physics
2023. duchy
2024. march (feudal territory)
2025. earldom
2026. county (feudal territory)
2027. petty nobility
2028. feudal manor
2029. principality / princedom
2030. kingdom
2031. emirate
2032. caliphate
2033. shogunate / bakufu
2034. empire
2035. global empire
2036. imperial colony
2037. site of proxy war / buffer state
2038. republic
2039. supranational federation
2040. business territory
2041. state business
2042. state business ministry
2043. party-nation
2044. workers' state / countable instance of Marxism
2045. countable Marxist movement / countable instance of Marxism
2046. Communist International
2047. plural Communist Internationals
2044. rival proletarian revolution
2045. class subpopulation
2046. nationality subpopulation
2047. demographic subpopulation
2048. ethnic subpopulation / Black community (Existentialism) / Latino community (Existentialism)
2049. religious subpopulation
2050. historical heritage subpopulation / cultural Christian subpopulation / secular-Jewish subpopulation
2051. LGBT+ subpopulation / LGBT+ community (Existentialism)
2052. disability subpopulation
2053. neurodivergent subpopulation / autistic subpopulation
2054. city or town subpopulation
2055. industry subpopulation / Artist subpopulation / musician subpopulation / grocery clerk subpopulation
2056. capitalist ally subpopulation
2057. proletarian ally subpopulation
2058. capable subpopulation / capable layer
2059. [S] class (spatial rank) / middle class / rich and poor -> spatial slot hierarchy; money is capital
2060. [S] class (repeated relationship) / Individuals are comparable because they belong to a class
2061. [S] class (subpopulation) / Classes become powerful through capable subpopulations
2062. [S] unskilled worker
2063. [S] skilled worker
2064. [S] Artisan type
2065. [S] Artisan layer
2066. [S] Careerist / social mobility (center-Liberalism)
2067. [S] Careerist layer / Careerist class
2068. [S] Refuse class / refusariat (outdated term)
2069. [S] labor aristocracy (Maoism)
2070. Liberal representatives / Liberal legislators
2071. Liberal government employees
2072. charity employees
2073. [S] Bureaucrats constitute a class / professional-managerial class / The Bureaucracy
2074. ruling population
2075. leaping State
2076. [S] shepherd ruling population / shepherd sheet
2077. [S] herd-of-cats effect
2078. [S] birdcage model / economy separable from republic
2079. [S] not a matter of black and white cats
2084. worker / group of people said to qualify as "workers"
2085. proletariat / class of workers / working class / group of people who practically functions as capable subpopulation
2086. Proletariat includes unemployed
2087. Proletariat consists of unskilled workers
2088. Proletariat includes skilled and unskilled workers but not unemployed -> really unusual to have a proposition that's used in both reactionary philosophies and in meta-Marxism for totally different reasons.
2089. Proletariat excludes First-World workers
2090. Proletariat excludes Second-World workers -> Trotskyism
2091. Proletariat is singular and multiple countries can unite at once -> Trotskyism, some anarchisms
2092. 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
2093. Proletariats are plural and belong to specific national populations -> Juche-socialism, Maoism
2094. First-World workers will form capable subpopulation -> Trotskyism, Marcuseanism
2095. Second-World workers will form capable subpopulation / Second-World countries will become capable subpopulation -> Stalin's Marxism, MDem
2096. Third-World workers will form capable subpopulation
2097. Any educated people can form capable subpopulation / Proletariat is immaterial to forming capable subpopulation -> Marcuseanism
2098. Third-World countries will become capable subpopulation / First World defined strictly by neocolonialism / First World defined strictly by global structural racism
2099. multiple capitalisms in one country / multicapitalism (meta-Marxism) / (9k)
2100. countable area of capitalism / (9k)
2101. 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 / (9k)
2102. Different societies contain the same repeated patterns / societies contain repeated patterns in the manner of quantum fields / (9k)
2103. Societies have developmental processes from one set of repeated patterns to another / (9k)
2104. Men enter into definite relations not of their choosing -> one of the big problems within Marxism these days is Existentialists do not believe this. Existentialists, the majority of all people, instead believe that every relationship is a choice, and every change in relationships is a matter of Free Will. the important consequence is that Existentialists rely on people finding okay bosses versus terrible bosses and okay landlords versus terrible landlords and okay towns to work in versus terrible towns as an important part of the process of building progressivism. Deleuze & Guattari and the notion of "lines of flight" or "rearranging bodies/machines" — this is what is meant by all that
2105. ??
2106. ??
2107. ??
2108. False consciousness isn't false / False consciousness isn't false, because it's a true model of the wrong thing / (9k)
2109. shovel (meta-Marxism) / (9k)
2110. shovel dream / ideology or consciousness associated with a specific repeatable kind of population which is countable and separable and has a particular kind of internal structure (associated with Social-Philosophical System; meta-Marxism) / embodied cognition (model of objects that perform cognition doing it through studying the relationship of their physical object toward the world, here also applied to groups of people instead of just individuals) / (9k)
2111. Capitalism can be characterized by diagramming Existentialism and working backwards to the material causes of the ideology / (9k)
2112. ??
2113. socialism in one country
2114. socialist transition
2115. era of socialism / lower-phase communism -> workers' state
2116. era of communism / upper-phase communism
2117. further transitions (Marx)
2118. creatorism (MDem)
2119. Particle Theory / Bauplan -> ideological nested-graph model
2120. Social-Graph System (SGS)
2121. Social-Behavioral System (SBS)
2122. Social-Philosophical System (SPS) / Particle Theory (MDem) / Bauplan (MDem)
2123. Social-Philosophical-Material System (SPMS) / Particle Theory (MDem) / Bauplan (MDem)
2124. realization / construction of society form
2125. "the hand bone is connected to the arm bone" / "Dem Bones"
2126. receiving node
2127. granting node
2128. Economic processes comprehensible through graph models / Economic processes will one day be comprehended through graph theory / Historical processes comprehensible through graph models
2129. economic graph model
2129. 2129Rethinking Althusser's Meta-Marxism (Andreas Beck Holm 2024) [171] -> so, "meta-Marxism" has rarely been used for describing Western-Marxism for some reason. rest assured, this is not at all what "meta-Marxism" is referring to on any other page on this site. here meta-Marxism is a particular thing called violet Marxism. if we became successful at what we were doing here you would search meta-Marxism and there would be 100 results about violet Marxism and 5 results about Western-Marxism.
      but, I'm interested to see exactly what the word is supposed to mean in Althusser's context and like how arrogant he is to think that Mark Fisher's tools can actually step outside Marxism or what exactly is going on here.
2130. 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.
2131. Western-Marxism about hegemony politics / Gramscianism (motif; meta-Marxism) -> a very basic definition of what Gramscianism is.
2132. 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
2133. Gramsci is closer to Materialism than Mark Fisher -> Gramscianism, however accidentally, carves out a role for competing subpopulations as material objects rather than purely treating nazi subpopulations as "ideas" as you would be tempted to if you treated the love of capitalism as "ideology" rather than the action of toxic Community.
2134. socio-politico-economy (early Marxism) -> the ongoing connection from production or economy to social structures and then to political structures with an indivisibility of the three layers from each other. [172] this can be read as either a crimson concept or a violet concept; this is one of the times that there's no real distinction between crimson and violet.
      to me, this is 'existential materialism put to use'. exmat starts at "the fun stuff" of bashing Free Will and showing that individual will operates back and forth in all directions within the structure of groups, this thing that either comes from individuals' physical needs and their emergent emotions and personalities on top of those, or emerges from interactions between people where neither individual really controls it and yet it at the larger scale it happens. then it progresses up to "the hard stuff" of showing how the needs of individuals and their current physical arrangements work together to produce seemingly complicated sociophilosophies like Liberal-republicanism, mainstream Marxism-Leninism, a hypothetical Trotskyism, a specific anarchism, nested tribal populations, and so forth.
      to Marx and Engels this is kind of just 'the rejection of Ideals creating material shapes' (as long as the ideals contain either abstraction or prescription and aren't literally just descriptions of material shapes). Marx is in one sense trying to center the "socioeconomy" as the place where history really happens through the sheer interactions of individuals to form a society being the "actual cause" of specific historical periods, and not the words or actions of governments. when you look at things that way it's much easier to see how capital has power and how when capital is an important part of a society it becomes able to wield governments and armies in and of itself. in one sense all societies are anarchic, in the sense that socioeconomic structures are what truly runs and decides everything. exmat isn't necessarily new, when you look at Marx and Lenin doing slightly muddy versions of the same thing that nonetheless manage to laser-focus onto some basic conclusion of what causes bring what effects.
      and in that sense something like Deng Xiaoping Thought at first seems really concerning because, how do you know all the free-floating businesses aren't going to take control of the thing? but of course, there are other considerations at the same time. the notion that all societies are technically anarchic means that China having any kind of socioeconomy that is going strong has an important role in creating a border around China and a sovereign government; governments don't drop out of the air. as well, the central party-nation is a socioeconomic structure in its own way. it has or previously had the capacity to move people between regions or try to get them to stay in a certain region, and it has the capacity to address living standards and get people out of peasant-level living. the interaction between the people and the central party and especially everyone trusting the central party to carry out tasks is a socioeconomic phenomenon. one of the only things saving China from a color revolution is basically that it contains a socioeconomic phenomenon which is so big and extended across the country it's hard for the capitalists to break it up. (it doesn't help that the capitalists aren't neatly united into two parties, there are about eight parties with comically similar names outside the central party and as far as I know none of them are as "important" as the U.S. Republican or Democratic parties.) the layer of capitalists and the central party are sort of going along on separate levels accomplishing different goals. which loosely suggests that they might not actually be getting in each other's way. (and in a weird way, doing almost exactly the opposite of which job you'd think each one of them would be doing. the capitalist layer creates the nation-state, the central party provides for the people?? it neatly matches up with Marxist predictions, I mean, when do capitalists actually care, but it's still weird to look at.) it's unclear how either layer is supposed to get out of Deng Xiaoping Thought and lead the country into the next stage. the material development of social structures in China and Vietnam is weird and you pretty much need meta-Marxist Bauplan analysis to understand it. which just makes things harder given that meta-Marxism / existential materialism isn't even complete
      case of: Marx going meta.
2135. "Raising awareness" is Liberal-republicanism / "Education", "awareness", and "outreach" are Liberalism manifest [173]
2136. base-to-superstructure process / base and superstructure (Western Marxism, etc) -> this is only captioned "Western Marxism" to reflect that I think it's given more importance there than other places, it's not to make this motif specific to Western Marxism
2137. Mao's theorem / P > C + B -> this applies to very few situations that would ever be found in the First World, nearly none of them.
2138. Biden's theorem / W + C ≫ B -> every time people think this it empowers Liberal-republicanism to claim that everyone but billionaires can exert class control over billionaires just by not being them and every time it fails. it only "works" when there is a Marxist party that is making it work and making all the ordinary workers and Careerists irrelevant
2139. Gramsci's theorem / If the set of Communist allies occupying a sector of industry is greater than the set of Careerist and bourgeois allies, the revolution is unstoppable / W > C + B / capable subpopulation theorem (Gramsci) -> Gramsci put forward this nearly mathematical concept that if there is a large enough, strong enough population of Communist allies — workers, theorists, and immediate comrades, he didn't mean for it to be vulgarized into the broad United States concept of issue-principle-believing "progressives" — then the Communist ally subpopulation will defend itself and repel the reactionaries. this is one of the few things he said that I think is most likely correct. throw out all the stuff about "ideas" and "mentality" and "culture" but keep this and anything similar to this, and that form of Gramscianism could maybe succeed given the right country. it would be a molecular Gramscianism using the Lattice model, just by implication of what this mathematical inequality means.
      how this got vulgarized: United States sees Gramsci's theorem in various phrasings. United States assumes that "allies" means "progressives". United States starts rounding up every group of nice people who don't like some specific group of mean people and putting them all together, resulting in one big game of musical chairs to take the exclusionary system of the United States and simply make the reactionaries homeless or beaten in prisons instead of the progressives. Gramsci's theorem is vulgarized into "Arceist" anarchism.
2140. 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.
2141. newspaper Marxism / Marxism is when a single Leninist theorist goes off about Marxism not happening fast enough
2142. Socialism is Subjects having means of production [174] / Socialism is when people own means of production (Richard Wolff) / Marxism is when people own a co-op (cooperative; Wolff) -> one of those propositions 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. 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, and trying to work backward and forward from capitalism to that. and at that point it isn't obvious where the error would have come from. that's Materialism, isn't it? but the problem would seem to be that it isn't historical materialism or dialectical materialism. materialism it "just is". so why did Wolff think you can have Marxism without either of the interesting materialisms?
      and here's what I think is the problem. people like Wolff confuse "The People" with "people — several persons each separately in parallel". they don't know the difference between individual person-objects and groups-of-people objects, much less how to categorize groups-of-people objects as class-structures and separate the workers from the owner. there is a critical gap in Marxism as it's been taught to people where they aren't taught the missing piece that allows them to properly distinguish between a workers-object and an individual-worker object standing next to an individual-owner object that each look identical. but beyond that error made by Marxist theorists in communicating Marxism, it's also fair to say Wolff ate up the old Liberal-republican idea that three individuals can be the majority of all people just because all people are tent of freedom poles with "the same freedoms limited by equal freedom of others". that isn't how Marxism goes. Marxism is based on a literal group of millions and millions of people all actually being able to do stuff because they're physical people; literally, people say Marxism happens "on paper" but the point of Marxism is that it happens exactly because it operates directly off stuff that isn't on paper.
      interesting to note: anarchists don't really talk about "means of production" in this same sense. Lenin did, but anarchists don't. anarchists frequently talk about peasant life or tribal populations or some imaginary Kropotkinist city which is holistic but they don't really fixate on the concept of corporate or government social structures as they exist in Liberal republics and rearranging those exact structures to create something better. that seems to be a major divide between anarchists and Existentialists. Existentialists do hijack the concept of means of production or "institutions". Western-Marxists do the same thing for reasons that would be similar, but maybe not identical.
2143. Teaching Marxism in school is socialism [175] / Teaching Marxism in school constitutes a part of socialist transition -> I think this is technically true. I question how much it accomplishes when it seems like the most important part of Marxism is analyzing the active arrangements and interactions of social graphs on the ground and tipping them over into the next arrangement correctly, going beyond the narrow description of "classes" to see the whole thing.
2144. Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in Disguise (Olgin 1935) / (9k) -> Soviet record of the history of Trotskyism up to the first attack. [...]
2145. Trotskyism is the shovel dream of small owners / Trotskyism is the shovel dream of the petty bourgeosie (small owners; Artisan types; mainstream Marxism-Leninism) / (9k)
2146. Community gardens are socialism [176] / Community gardens constitute a part of socialist transition -> this claim comes from Vietnam. I think it's partly true. I'm doubtful on it being totally true, because on the surface it sounds a bit like "Free buses are socialism".
2147. this train is too slow, I'll jump off / riding this train together is very slow, if I jump off the train and run alone, I can probably go much faster (Ho Chi Minh) [177] -> I bet this was aimed more at Ayn Rand types at the time, or maybe anarchists, but to me this is also exactly what was wrong with early Trotskyism and led to a lot of its errors. the word "individualism" doesn't fully capture what the problem is, because it can occur with things that among themselves are bound together into groups and yet shard off the main body and fail to cohere into it.
      gosh, I remember back to the early drafts of my text when I was flailing around trying to describe "Meshonomics". it was this idea that people cohering into larger structures is good for a country materially, besides these kinds of moral or cultural framings of what "solidarity" is. these kinds of ideas have always been intuitive to me since the day I was convinced to study Marxism-Leninism and that it had to be more correct than what I'd been told, although I am such a burnt-out vessel from living in the First World that the emotions I have about them are different.
      Sacrifices must be made to create the Second World + Nothing is more important than Free Will = this train is too slow, I'll jump off
2148. 2148A revolutionary doctor must be surrounded by socialist transition / An individual isolated doctor cannot be a revolutionary because a revolution is necessarily a movement of a whole people that all must learn unity with each other; finding purpose as a doctor specifically through the form of individual actions of isolated people that start out separate from society must disappear (Che Guevara) / (9k)
2149. 2149We must not separate all men into children of the working and peasant classes or counter-revolutionaries because there is nothing as effective at creating class traitors as living in a revolution (Che Guevara) / (9k)
      Trotsky is your new hero + Che Guevara = this.
2150. The Spanishness Office -> within this wiki, first brought up in MDem "democulture" entry.
2151. 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.
2152. 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.
2153. Gramscianism is a grift -> the claim that while Gramsci had no ill intentions he created a theoretical system which by its design will mostly be used by grifters.
      I would grant this some truth except for the relationship between Gramscianism and Deng Xiaoping Thought.
2154. Socialist transition involves building women's industries / Molecular Trotskyism involves building the light industries often taken up by women [178] -> the bright side of "Socialism in one country bolsters The Patriarchy". in the form I found that claim, it implied that transitioning people out of peasant work into light industry would be the way to wrench people out of the process of falling back into competing individuals and physical structures such as dependence on marriage that regenerate reactionary peasant ideology. so... is this a potential definition of a molecular Marxism? it puts all the people into light industries as fast as possible to keep people from regenerating the same model as they would live by in a kingdom to understand the one big material object of Bolshevism? this has the advantage that it can counter Dugin and the weird belief that the Soviet Union never stopped being the Russian Empire, because it proposes a mechanism for how that happened. I don't know how robust it is but it's far more specific than anything Trotsky ever said, so at least it's something.
2155. Western Marxism is one big distraction -> it can be true there are Spanishness Offices and false that Western Marxists remotely understand them.
2156. Western Marxism is not scientific socialism -> found on some kind of Marxist periodical. (technically meta-Marxist? late Trotskyist? Bordigist? I can't tell what's going on here) I think it's best described as "miscellaneous Marxisms writing in without being aware of violet analysis of each other". [179]
      although this claim seems really bold I do actually think it's true. a lot of what I've been doing has been revolving around scraping out all the utter crap (pronounced redacted) of Western Marxism. it may be I am not building a theory of volcanic, imminent revolution, because I don't think that kind of thing has been imminent over the past 15 years. but I think we need to advise individuals to act and arrange themselves materially, actually separating good choices from bad and stacking up collectively to a population that can stand strong and endure until the hypothetical day of imminent permanent revolution, instead of talking about a bunch of nebulous stuff like culture and ideas and attitudes or "action" without any plans.
2157. ??
2158. ??
2159. ??
2160. A population's current Social-Philosophical System is human nature, populationally speaking -> whoa. I don't think I would have just come out and said that. [180] I find it... hard to immediately dispute though. I think somebody just unknowingly mapped Marx onto meta-Marxism. I'll take it.
2161. Every civilization makes philosophy about itself / Every Social-Philosophical System mostly produces philosophy describing the SPS (pronounced Social-Philosophical System) as it is, and not as it isn't
2162. Capitalism makes philosophy about itself / Liberal capitalism produces philosophy describing Liberal capitalism as it is
2163. A workers' state makes philosophy about itself / A proletarian civilization produces philosophy about itself / A proletarian subpopulation will produce philosophy describing the SPS (pronounced Social-Philosophical System) as it is
2164. A worker subpopulation can explode capitalism / A proletarian subpopulation can burst through capitalism / A proletarian subpopulation can burst a capitalist SPS (pronounced Social-Philosophical System) / birth proposition (early-Marxist metaphor)
2165. 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
2166. 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.
2167. 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.
2168. ??
2169. ??
2170. 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.
2171. 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 / (9k)
2172. Advanced workers and backward opportunists [181]
2173. A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social-Democracy (Lenin 1899/1924) [182] -> 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.
2174. 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 (generic) / (9k)
2175. Class consciousness includes identifying the overall structure of a national population (of a country; meta-Marxism) / (9k)
2176. ??
2177. ??
2178. ??
2179. ??
2180. This Soviet World (Anna Louise Strong) [183]
2181. Workers don't control Bolshevism / There is no effective way for the working class as a whole to control a central government / (9k)
2182. ??
2183. ??
2184. ??
2185. ??
2186. ??
2187. ??
2188. ??
2189. ??
2190. ??
2191. 2191Marxism will necessarily fail because it cannot do overall calculations on a distributed system / (9k)
2192. 2192The economic calculation problem is over (meta-Marxism) / Marxism no longer has an economic calculation problem, because it is logically provable that something much broader and more complex than a particular socioeconomy can be modeled from the outside: all common chemical and quantum processes on earth / (9k)
2193. 2193A contradiction is a process of form f(x,y) = z / A contradiction is a physical process in which two separate free-floating objects which may lack the ability to directly read or predict each other interact, with the general form f(x,y) = z / (9k)
2194. ??
2195. ??
2196. ??
2197. ??
2198. Gramscianism is already molecular Dengism (pronounced Deng Xiaoping Thought) -> 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.
2199. 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.
2200. retail shelves as global empire / retail empire (MDem) / (9k)
2201. republic of Walmart / people's republic of Walmart / (9k)
2202. imperial republic of Walmart / (9k)
2203. Socialism cannot endure if it remains poor (Deng Xiaoping, 1979) [184] [185] -> 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.
2204. 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.
2205. 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.
2206. Dengism (pronounced Deng Xiaoping Thought) 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.
2207. The key to Leninism is assembling a 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.
2208. 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.
2209. 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.
2210. 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.
2211. ??
2212. ??
2213. ??
2214. ??
2215. ??
2216. 2216Nation-states are neither natural nor intentionally constructed (not natural; artificial; not intelligently designed; un-designed; existential materialism) / (9k)
2217. 2217Strikes are acts of courage / Strikes are perilous / (9k)
2220. 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.
2221. 2221Determinism can form out of non-deterministic elements / (9k)
2222. 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.
2223. Nature is a multiplication table / All physics equations are actually multivariable functions / (9k)
2224. Punnett squares can apply to anything / (9k)
2225. 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.
2226. MDem versus RDem (MDem 5.1; here MDem literally abbreviates "molecular democracy" and does not abbreviate "molecular Marxism") / destructive versus constructive democracy (MDem 4.3) / the problem of Trotskyite democracy (when put in contrast with "constructive democracy"; MDem 4.3) -> 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.
2227. Materialism can't explain self-awareness / Materialism can't explain how matter can be aware of itself / Science and linear time can't explain how the universe can be aware of itself [186] -> laughably wrong. as soon as a human being describes a chemical reaction you see how the universe being aware of itself is possible. if it weren't possible chemistry would be a total mystery.
      step two: realize that social processes are only a little more complicated than chemistry.
2228. determinism (physics) / lambda-calculus determinism / lambda calculus style determinism / mathematical function determinism / necessity (process of individual things being determined by laws of behavior and surrounding conditions) / 必然論 (数学; necessity - mathematics) [187] -> for some weird reason people always assume that determinism equals Calvinism, where there is one set of conditions that lead to a single ending, rather than determinism itself being the path from a million initial conditions to a million associated endings. this is the intuitive definition of determinism if you've studied enough Newtonian mechanics: if a ball and a ramp start in one particular position they end up in one particular place but it always depends on what position they started in which is not necessarily controllable by an experimenter in the context of daily life. [...]
      determinism is when there is an uncontrollable variable "x", similar to a person, or an unknown quantity of water, or a tennis ball of unknown mass, but you know what the "x" object is going to do even if you don't know exactly how. x goes into the lambda-calculus style function, and it pops out some wide array of possibilities based on the wide array of possibilities that go in — a graph of stuff looking like a curve or a filled shape or a volume, not a single point, describing the outcome. the presence of two objects "x" and "y" doesn't change this, it just creates a 3d graph z = f(x,y) containing a bounded cube of possibilities rather than a bounded square. the top thing to ask people who want to deny "cube determinism" is, do you want people to be able to infinitely deny that there is a possibility they will have to stop being racist, or would you be okay with the possibility of a world where them choosing to stop being racist is inevitable? if that possibility or the possibility of finding it inside the bounded cube sounds good to you, certainly that doesn't make "cube determinism" a known fact about reality, but it does mean you should investigate it.
2229. 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.
2230. 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.
2231. 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.
2232. 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.
2233. 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.
2234. 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.
2235. State businesses change the flow of history / State businesses transform the current set of material social processes into a new set of structures and potentially though not invariably set the stage for the development of new consciousness; move the shovels, move the shovel dreams -> this isn't a claim that state businesses will cure everything or won't have their failings, only a claim that they are not exactly the same as a historical period without them and will bring a new historical period where different things will happen — Communist parties hope the different things will be better, they may not be better, they will be different.
2236. 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.
2237. ??
2238. ??
2239. ??
2240. 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 [188] -> 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.
2241. 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.
2242. 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.
2243. 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.
2244. 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.
2245. 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 / (9k)
      world of Alert + state businesses are incorrect = this.
2246. 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 to suggest that knowing about plural histories is the only form of knowing about history when knowing about the history of your own group is also a thing that can exist too. it's clearly best to have both, but if you can manage to teach people only about the historical processes that shape their own group, it's better than nothing.
2247. ??
2248. ??
2249. ??
2250. intelligent design
2251. creationism -> intelligent design which is brave enough to admit it's Christian
2252. Atheism makes people into Communists -> well... kind of, but not directly. it usually doesn't.
2253. Darwinism makes people into Communists -> haven't heard this one but I feel like it's in the back of some people's minds.
2254. Creationists should be Communists -> this is incredibly silly and yet you could totally destroy Idealism by complying with it and successfully arguing this.
2255. God is a communist? -> the motif of a fictional or hypothetical scenario that explores an afterlife or higher power but where the higher power is in favor of Bolshevism. seen in: MDem 5.1-5.3 entry "scenario", MDem 5.3 entry "and-it-was-good"
2256. ??
2257. ??
2258. ??
2259. ??
2260. 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.
2261. 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.
2262. ??
2263. ??
2264. ??
2265. ??
2266. ??
2267. ??
2268. 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.
2269. Democracy is the least bad system / Liberal-republicanism is the best system only compared with all the worse systems
2270. something better than science / if there was something better than science, I'd want to know -> appears in: Demon-Haunted World.
2271. 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.
2272. ??
2273. 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.
2274. 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.
2275. Inside fascism, Trotskyist revolution is moral / Inside fascism, Trotskyist revolution is morally right / Inside fascism, it's morally right for Trotsky to lead a Trotskyist revolution even if it does not succeed -> Caleb Maupin doesn't believe this. and it seems to be a fatal error in his reasoning. it seems like it's actually true that at some point anybody opposing a bad ideology is okay even if it's Trotskyists. don't try to apply this to center-Liberalism or academic Existentialisms such as poststructuralism and schizoanalysis. it's for Marxisms and non-academic anarchisms only.
2276. ??
2277. ??
2278. ??
2279. 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
2280. 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.
2281. Marxist states are people-groups -> it's crazy that people need to be reminded of this, but they do.
2282. 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.
2283. 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.
2284. 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.
2285. Citizens of the Soviet Union can speak about what is morally right in the Soviet Union
2286. 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
2287. Anarchism is definitionally Evil / (9k)
2288. 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.
2289. 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.
2290. 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.
2291. Bolshevism is obviously Evil (Communism; Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Deng Xiaoping Thought; wicked; cruel; Bad; morally Wrong; ethical hypothesis) / (9k)
2292. How can we identify moral wrong? / How do we truly know whether things are right or wrong? / (9k)
2293. 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.
2294. 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.
2295. ??
2296. True people versus False people / (9k)
2297. True people / (9k)
2298. False people / (9k)
2299. ??
2300. 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.
2301. Something that exists is more perfect than something that doesn't -> true of mainstream Marxism-Leninism versus Trotskyism, not true of God.
2302. Unicorns are incredible / 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 / incredible (adjective with the connotation that something totally unbelievable happening is amazing and wonderful rather than just silliness that can be dismissed) -> used in Douglas Gasking's joke argument against God in which he "argues" that the most impressive god is one that never even existed and still accomplished everything without there being a god. I love how this overall discussion that was supposed to prove God was so bad at proving God that it instead birthed what is effectively a very useful definition of miracles and fantasy creatures. a unicorn is incredible, and that's what makes it interesting to fantasy readers. Mr. Incredible is incredible, and that's what makes a superhero story. a god is incredible in every way, and that's what makes it "supernatural": the fact that it really cannot be believed.
2303. Extraordinary events must have happened / Incredible events are credible
2304. Extraordinary events are unlikely / Incredible events are incredible
2305. A Marxism that exists is more perfect / A Marxism that exists is more perfect than a Marxism that doesn't / actually existing socialism (motif that a Marxism which has been realized to any degree is better than a Marxism which has not been realized) -> it's strange how many people get this wrong.
2306. ??
2307. ??
2308. ??
2309. ??
2310. 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, for instance that a universal declaration of human rights containing totally contradictory things will be of any use to the world rather than ending in ultimately sacrificing one of them, or that creating an anarchy around Existentialists and nazis all casually exchanging "speech" will surely purify the nazis eventually. 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. don't be quick to start fights you can't win.
2320. ??
2330. ??
2340. ??
2350. ??
2360. ??
2370. ??
2380. ??
2390. ??
2399. ??
2400. Palestine is not complicated / (9k) -> 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. [...]
2401. needlessly complicating Palestine / (9k)
2402. ??
2403. ??
2404. ??
2405. ??
2406. ??
2407. ??
2408. ??
2409. In a world where all Palestinians were racist, it still wouldn't make sense to kill them / (9k)
2410. A monarchy spanning two continents is global empire -> not easy to dispute. an empire which is global in scope is global empire.
2411. 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.
2418. ??
2419. 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.
2420. 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.
2421. 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.
2423. ??
2424. ??
2425. ??
2430. ??
2431. 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.
2440. ??
2444. ??
2448. All human existence in industrial countries falls into the broad shape of either monarchy or settler-colonialism / (9k)
2449. 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 / (9k/Q29,83, 9k/Q691)
2450. 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 / (9k)
2451. Prejudices are not obviously bad / It is not inherently obvious to everybody in an equal way through an equal path that prejudices are bad / (9k)
2460. ??
2470. ??
2476. ??
2480. ??
2485. ??
2486. South Africa's Black Economic Empowerment program failed / BEE (pronounced Bee) has failed (South Africa (pronounced Black Economic Empowerment; South Africa)) -> I am not sure if this is true or false but the arguments for it sound very fishy. [189] the people making these arguments really want to crack some walnuts. but could it be true that this program amounts to corporate welfare that hasn't done much of anything? maybe. I'd need to look at it more closely.
2487. "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
2488. 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)
2489. 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
2490. 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".
2491. 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.
2492. 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.
2493. ??
2494. ??
2495. ??
2496. ??
2497. ??
2498. 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.
2499. 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".
2500. ??
2505. 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
2506. ??
2507. ??
2508. ??
2509. ??
2510. ??
2511. For the next two minutes, you were born in Kazakhstan
2512. For the next two minutes, you were born in Florida
2513. For the next two minutes, you were born in Detroit
2514. For the next two minutes, you were born into Trotskyism / For the next two minutes, you were born in a Trotskyist workers' state which may be larger than one national population but is not the size of the whole world
2515. For the next two minutes, you were born in China
2516. For the next two minutes, you were born in Taiwan
2517. For the next two minutes, you were born in the Soviet Union -> this doesn't actually specify you are aligned with Communism.
2518. For the next two minutes, you were born into an anarchist population
2519. For the next two minutes, you were born into a tribal population
2520. For the next two minutes, you were born a woman / For the next two minutes, you were assigned female at birth
2521. For the next two minutes, you were born a man / For the next two minutes, you were assigned male at birth
2522. For the next two minutes, you were born intersex
2523. For the next two minutes, you were transgender at five years old
2524. For the next two minutes, you were gay at fourteen years old
2525. ??
2526. ??
2527. ??
2528. ??
2529. ??
2530. ??
2531. ??
2532. ??
2535. ??
2540. ??
2542. ??
2544. ??
2545. ??
2550. ??
2555. ??
2560. ??
2565. ??
2570. ??
2575. ??
2580. ??
2584. ??
2585. ??
2588. QAnon is democratic / Despite being fundamentally anti-rational, QAnon was democratic in that it allowed groups of people with grievances that weren't being answered to cluster together, discuss their grievances, and find people who would represent them and force other groups of people in their national population to respond to their grievances; the structure of QAnon is not easily distinguishable from the basic principles of Liberal-republicanism that may include people nominating representatives of their choice and Kantian ethics / (9k)
2589. ??
2590. ??
2591. ??
2592. ??
2593. ??
2594. ??
2595. ??
2596. ??
2597. ??
2598. ??
2599. 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.
2600. animal home territory (ecology) -> relevant to describing real-world crow behavior, Warriors series, chunk phenomenon.
2601. individual animal
2602. ??
2603. ??
2604. ??
2605. ??
2606. ??
2607. ??
2608. ??
2609. Animal populations are countable -> this is really easy to demonstrate with the distinction between ring species and separate populations capable of speciating.
2610. petty bourgeoisie / (9k)
2611. Indie games are the petty bourgeoisie / (9k)
2612. Andrew Hussie is a member of the petty bourgeoisie / (9k)
2613. Scott Cawthon is a member of the petty bourgeoisie / (9k)
2614. Trotsky was a member of the petty bourgeoisie / (9k, 9k) -> claim given in Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in disguise (Q21,44).
2615. 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.
2616. A private sector is not the bourgeoisie [190] -> 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.
2617. Toby Fox is a member of the petty bourgeoisie / Toby Fox was a member of the petty bourgeoisie in 2016 / (9k)
2618. ??
2619. Everyone in Deltarune is the petty bourgeoisie / (9k)
2620. 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.
2621. 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.
2625. ??
2630. ??
2635. ??
2640. ??
2645. ??
2650. ??
2655. ??
2660. ??
2661. ??
2662. ??
2663. ??
2664. ??
2665. Why is your hypothesis wrong? -> one of the most important questions in science, with little exaggeration. successfully answer it with a statement accurate to reality, and you've gone from hypothesis to factual scientific model
      also arguably a very important question for all Marxist models of socialist transition. with models of revolution, as opposed to models of building an unimpeded society, you can push it aside temporarily with arguments that the bourgeoisie isn't answering the right questions and such, although once you have the correct set of literal material questions it may be time to start asking it again
2666. 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
2670. ??
2675. ??
2679. If mathematics is purely arbitrary, Krillin can punch Chiaotzu for any answer
2680. 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.
2681. 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.
2682. ??
2683. 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
2684. ??
2685. ??
2686. ??
2687. ??
2688. 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" [191] -> 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.
2770. 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.
2771. 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.
      this specific metaphor is thought to have come from The Three-Body Problem (2008)
2772. Smart aliens don't send signals / dark forest hypothesis (SETI (pronounced Setty))
2773. Trans visibility is a dark forest / Transgender visibility makes surveillance and identity policing easier (Beauchamp 2019) [192] -> yeah, that's about accurate. sad as it is.
2774. Anti-racism is a dark forest -> one of the major motivations that has made Gramscianism so popular.
2775. ??
2776. Goku cannot decide what Vegeta does / Goku cannot Freely Will what Vegeta does
2777. ??
2778. Vegeta will inevitably do what Goku wants / Shenlong effect / Goku effect
2779. cat in superposition inside box / Schrödinger's cat
2780. 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
2781. quantum dice / quantum coins / funny metaphors for wave functions
2782. quantum shoes / funny metaphors for entanglement
2783. box filled with overlapping lions / quantum Social-Philosophical Systems
2784. Starlight Glimmer paradox / Trunks paradox
2785. 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
2786. 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
2787. 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
2788. Communist Bardock
2789. 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
2791. ??
2792. Lattice model
2799. ??
2800. Subject-internal perception / Lived Experience (exmat)
2801. Subject-internal interpretation
2802. Subject-external interpretation
2803. map and territory fallacy
2800. 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.
2801. plagiarism
2802. 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.
2803. large language model
2804. AI text generation / generating videos with large language models or advanced neural networks / AI-generated article (social phenomenon, Z0)
2805. AI image generation / generating images with large language models or advanced neural networks / AI-generated image (social phenomenon, Z0)
2806. AI video generation / generating videos with large language models or advanced neural networks / AI-generated video (social phenomenon, Z0)
2807. If a book is well-sourced, but written by AI, it is a reliable source / If a book looks entirely factual and traces all its statements back to a bibliography containing valid sources, but is written entirely by AI, it is a reliable source -> this is the huge problem with everyone's heuristics for what supposedly is and isn't a source. Wikipedia is generally going to be much more reliable than ChatGPT; the same machine beginning with the same data could output entirely factual statements, and total nonsense if that's the path you lead it down. but people have all been taught the heuristic that individuals are what make information reliable — if a book was written by an individual and it can't change, it's good, if it was written by multiple people and it can change, it's bad. this is a really bad rule given that instances of ChatGPT are individuals in the same sense that humans are individuals or house flies are individuals and they all produce static works that don't change. we've effectively taught everyone that ChatGPT is the easiest way to get high-quality information, while anything produced by humans is potentially unreliable. if you don't believe me... would you sooner believe a human-generated rant by me that I carefully checked against all my observations of material reality but didn't have time to add sources to, or a perfectly-formatted essay by ChatGPT that did end with a bunch of valid sources? yeah. think about that. we have a genuine problem.
      this is one of the several different reasons I have for creating this Ontology project. I think there needs to be a way for people to check the validity of statements without resorting to specific human individuals or specific books. it's good to take a verifiable concept and put a bunch of examples of reliable books on the entry that confirm it. but books aren't what actually makes things true or accurate. what makes things accurate is their sheer coherence with other understandings about material reality. that's why I am building this big bank of propositions. so you can take the most real and verifiable ones and use them to test the most dubious ones, whether you have books, whether you have experts, whether you can re-test observations of the material world positivist-style. this could one day be more reliable than Snopes because it wouldn't rely on special talented individual human experts versus just anybody who has a high school education and is sufficiently good at reasoning. assuming the claim you're testing isn't too new for all the required information to be recorded in here.
2808. 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.
2809. 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. [193] 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.
2810. 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.
2811. 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
2812. Mastodon is turning people into Communists (creating Communists, creating Marxists; abbreviated proposition) / Mastodon is teaching people to use social platforms for their own sake instead of for profit by the platform owner or the individual users, functioning as a sort of "state business" attached to a countable culture, and as such, is creating an environment which is conducive to the emergence of Communist allies -> 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.
2813. Mastodon is turning people into anarchists / Mastodon is turning individual people into anarchists -> the inner substance of these two claims is different. they could both be true, unless there is some greater emergent process which is actually moving even the "central" people in a given population to create not a Marxist party-nation but an identifiable large charcoal-colored societal structure.
      I wouldn't rule out the possibility of kingdom-sized charcoal Bauplans actually emerging within the next century. the one caveat is... anarchism is infuriating in how it always acts only at the tiniest scales and effectively as the world has shifted into post-structuralist anarchisms you never actually know whether an anarchist transition process is happening or not. I think post-structuralist anarchisms are just confused theories created by cowards who want to spin utter failure as revolutionary adaptation, but at the same time, I think the same people that practice them may be capable of creating society-wide anarchist transition mostly by luck as the unintentional actions of millions or billions of people all just happen to stack up to an emergent process of change. you'd really need meta-Marxism to be able to notice and describe that transition though. most people who go fumbling through life not thinking about bigger patterns make really stupid decisions. these days it's dreadfully common for people to all separately align onto a model of "replacing big corporate structures with networks of indies" when the result would not be any different; people's lives would be ruled by algorithms similar to YouTube and Amazon where individuals keep trying to grab each other's attention, and everyone would face huge pressures to greatly specialize at something while not having any guarantee they wouldn't suddenly be thrown out of society and told to start training at something else all over again, everyone still treating people as disposable novelties.
2814. ??
2815. ??
2816. ??
2817. 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.
2820. Patreon type -> we can define this somewhat precisely, it's a specific real-world phenomenon. Z0 Item.
2821. YouTube creator
2822. video creator contractor / YouTube creator contractor -> a YouTube creator contractor is a gig worker who is contracted to make something for YouTube creators.
2823. video creator employee
2824. Nebula creator
2825. CuriosityStream creator
2826. ??
2827. ??
2828. ??
2829. TikTok creator
2830. companies buying subsidiaries to use their content as AI training data -> the biggest example is Elon Musk creating a new AI company to own Twitter. in this case, the whole process was controlled by one person. however, this process is interesting for the potential that separate billionaires could show up to buy companies and this could just become the new reason anybody ever buys companies any more.
2831. ??
2832. ??
2833. ??
2834. ??
2835. ??
2836. ??
2837. ??
2838. ??
2839. ??
2840. ??
2850. ??
2860. ??
2870. ??
2875. ??
2879. R.D. has not done meta-Marxism correctly / (9k)
2880. If money is infinite, why do we still have poverty? / (9k)
2881. dragon process / (9k)
2882. LLMs cause people to seek authenticity / LLMs will cause people to seek "authentic" work with real reasoning, real voices -> this is probably true, but it brings up a lot of slightly different questions. do people always seek rare things, or is there a point where they will truly be content with common things? do people really want the human content because of its quality or are they actually looking for its rarity or novelty?
2883. Wealth gets rid of poverty / to each according to his work (Toryism) / (9k)
2884. statement that could have been said by either D'Souza or Stalin / Tory statement that equally applied to Stalin's government / (9k)
2885. to each according to his work / (9k)
2886. There is a difference between utility goods and rank goods / (9k)
2887. 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) / (9k)
2888. All wealth comes from labor / (9k)
2889. 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.
2890. 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 / (9k)
2891. Societies operates as one / Societies is singular
2892. 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 / (9k)
2893. the only correct thing Trotsky ever said / the one correct thing Rosa Luxemburg said / (9k)
2894. the only good form of Trotskyism / the only good version of Trotskyism / non-revisionist Trotskyism (hypothetical possibility; motif) / (9k)
2895. Trotskyism is my favorite fairytale / (9k)
2896. 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) / (9k)
      The God Delusion + Trotskyism = this.
2897. 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.
2898. meta-Marxism is a concept, not a person / meta-Marxism is an ontology, not a person / (9k)
2899. rejected meta-Marxist hypothesis
2900. meta-Marxist hypothesis / Molecular-Marxist hypothesis / MDem hypothesis / existential-materialist 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
2901. Inventions are purposeless without a permanent caretaker or institution / Inventions cannot be valued by any society as a whole
2902. 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.
2903. 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.
2904. Messing with free will is messing with culture (interfering with; blue anarchisms) / An attempt to change Free Will is synonymous with an attempt to change culture / (9k)
2905. 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".)
2906. 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?
2907. Political positions part populations (bills; policies; divide; split; meta-Marxism) / Whenever a body of people wishes to enforce a particular policy or transformation back onto itself, it will materially divide people into a countable team of people who are loyal to carrying it out and a countable team of people who are against it / (9k)
2908. 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.
2909. 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"
2910. 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?
2911. 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.
2912. 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.
2913. 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.
2914. 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.
2915. 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.
2916. 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.
2917. 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
2918. What is 8 billion times 8 billion? / What is eight billion factorial? (question used to imply order of magnitude of possible ways to arrange world population) / (9k)
2919. Is Trotskyism a form of Bolshevism?? (rhetorical question) / If it quacks like Bolshevism, it is Bolshevism -> 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".
2920. Finite packaging facilitates gaining attention / (9k)
2921. 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.
2922. Would this have a worse connotation coming out of Stalin's government? / (9k)
2923. ??
2924. 2924Trotskyists are a microcosm of Bolshevism; just as an individual Trotskyist theorist or ally always has a chance of breaking off from Marxism, Bolshevism itself is a material object which always has a chance of breaking; this is to imply that Trotskyists end up quitting Leninism because they really were Leninists who mentally positioned themselves within a Material System of Bolshevism or a Leninist movement before the day they quit — sometimes to their detriment when these processes did not yet exist (meta-Marxism) / (9k)
2925. 29,25What is one eighth times one eighth? / (9k)
2926. ??
2927. Bibles are appealing because they number propositions / Biblical verses and proverbs are just numbered propositions / (9k)
2928. 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.
2929. 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 / (9k)
2930. 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 / (9k)
2931. Every moral statement is a scientific prediction (hypothesis; existential materialism) / (9k)
2932. Subjects accept moral standards when they want to maintain relationships; Subjects might reject moral standards when they do not want to maintain relationships (people accept; ethical standards; existential materialism) / (9k)
2933. Morality is a form of culture and identity / Morality is carried in the bonds of social graphs / (9k)
2934. Moral oughts are indistinguishable from material imperatives / (9k)
2935. Culture is the opposite of liberty / Authority isn't the opposite of liberty; the opposite of liberty is culture / (9k)
2936. 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.
2937. Culture exists as the relationships between individuals / The real uncountable culture was the friends we made along the way
2938. 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.)
2939. 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
2940. 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.
2941. 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.
2942. 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".
2943. 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.
2944. 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.
2945. 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
2946. 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
2947. 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.
2948. 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.
2949. 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.
2950. 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.
2951. 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.
2952. the cause of Property is humans setting boundaries / the cause of Property is individual owners seeking to control relationships or interactions with others
      this is a neutral statement about Liberal-republicanism and Toryism, but it's important to note it's technically something Tories say and that they can say very misleadingly and spin toward weird fantasies of creating capital-feudalism
2953. 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.)
2954. 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.
2955. ??
2956. ??
2957. 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
2958. Being right is not a matter of moderation / Being wrong is not a matter of extremes / Being correct or incorrect is not a matter of being moderate or being extreme -> field: meta-ontology.
      What is progress? + Being right is not a matter of moderation = Progress is what is accurate to material reality
2959. "Moderation" is the shovel dream of empires / The golden mean is the shovel dream of Social-Philosophical Systems (the shovel dream of communities; the structure-thought of factions; the Group-Subject-idea of localized countable cultures) / The golden mean is the shovel dream of socially-linked groups of people operating as political factions that may have the ability to realize themselves over other socially-linked groups of people, including but not limited to a segregated band of White people knitted together into a group of Tories or neocolonial bodies that exploit whole populations of Third World countries and push to be allowed to design their governments to allow that -> really simple idea. really hard to explain to stupid people.
2960. "Is", "can", and "should" are different things -> a three-way is-ought distinction. first is everything that is exactly as it is, second is what can and will be, the alternate normals at various levels of functional and dysfunctional, third is what you want to happen but may have no existing mechanism of happening. practically nobody these days understands the difference between the latter two. and there's a good reason: everybody tries to define Can and Should through specific ideologies that amount to specific Social-Philosophical-Material Systems. and when two people belong to different sociophilosophies they don't predict each other correctly because they each use their own. they each toss out "I believe that everybody" statements that just plain aren't happening, because they think that Should equals Can.
2961. Individual decisions cannot manufacture Freedom
2962. 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.
2963. Cultures separate due to their internal content / Countable cultures separate due to their internal content -> A) FNaF comes out with various series of books, some people love them, some people hate them, people start forming separate circles. B) the internal content of Trotskyism is not the same as mainstream Marxism-Leninism, which ultimately led the Social-Philosophical-System of Trotskyism to fight against it and act like it was oppressed.
2964. 2964Social contracts can only be formed in plurality / A social contract cannot be created in the real world without forming the basis for a countable society and thus existing in plurality with and potentially in mutual exclusion with the social contracts of other countable societies -> this is part of my reasoning for A) the claim that a Trotskyite conspiracy is a separate society with a separate socioeconomy and a separate State B) the claim that proletariats are actually plural in material reality on the level that countries are plural; Taiwanese workers and PRC workers are not necessarily the same people-group or population just because they're workers C) every industrial country firing off in revolution literally at once is physically impossible in the same sense that teleporting to another star to see what's happening right now instead of what happened 10 to 1,000 years ago is; even if Trotskyism were true it isn't possible to go through proletarian revolution without creating countries because the physical reality demands that countries A and B join and become a particular regional entry before they join up to country C D) Trotskyism must exist in contrast to Marxisms, anarchisms, or Liberal-republicanisms that are not Trotskyism unless imperialism already does not exist any more, because the presence of a bloc of First World empires mandates the existence of at least one country for there to be a crimson or orange anything let alone an orange country, thus anyone who does not support creating a country will be forced to form a second rival country assuming they are truly anti-imperialist E) when center-Liberals or Tories form social contracts agreeable to them their localized social contracts fail to mesh into each other and split countries into two nationalities defined culturally and "nationalistically" rather than by class in particular
2965. ??
2966. ??
2967. ??
2968. The existiest will rule / In a society where all existences are nominally equal, people will exist unequally and brutally fight to be the most existiest; the absolute existiest will survive to destroy and take everything from the least existiest / When all people are equally The Subject, in practice the will not Be The Subject equally well and the absolute most Subjectiest will subjugate the others / (9k)
      tent of freedom poles + Subjects eat and occupy space = When all are existences, the existiest rule.
      When all are existences, the existiest rule + golden mean = Greedy people are a class.
      Greedy people are a class + Zootopia = Zootopia 2 is a good class metaphor.
2969. 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 bullshit (pronounced redacted) 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.
2970. 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
2971. 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 piss (pronounced redacted)ing 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.
2972. People destroy what takes away their lunch / People will always tear down something that takes away their lunch ->
      here's what I think is the crux of people being anti-science. the incentives are wildly misaligned, thanks to material reality. when you want somebody deciding on what science will be funded, you want someone impartial, who can think clearly about what society as a whole actually needs. in today's world a country of material human beings is generally not able to do this. purely because people are living breathing things, they are busy clumping up into microhierarchies and fighting each other over the last scraps while insulting each other with claims that everyone will get paid as long as they perform the right morality and be-human good and clearly people who aren't succeeding are just not good at being human and are subhuman monsters. in that environment, people will not be able to make decisions well. so, back to science. it sure would be great if we elected some impartial experts to decide on what science would get funded, who represented the people but weren't under any serious pressure that could cloud their judgement. it wouldn't be as good if we relied on random suffering people clamoring for the last open job who are upset at society spending stuff on random or arbitrary things irrelevant to them and the improvement of living conditions for the people while they suffer. oh wait. oh no. we invented a system where anyone with enough money can persuade everyone to vote for them, and anybody can vote on things despite the entire existence of government and a shared society and rich people asking them to vote every so often being a leech on their existence they just want gone? well no wonder people are voting for everything ever to be defunded. we've left society in shambles to where most people in the United States don't need any more science to increase their quality of life and the one thing they desperately need is money being allocated into things like free health care and public transit, that the life-granting corporations we bleed for money won't give. no wonder they all want to tear down the whole entire government and eat the rich. they need all the science locked up in publishers being released, not more research being done. they need all the corporations that would use that research allocating people to the right towns and workplaces and giving people full employment. they need every single person who is keeping money out of social programs and yet with the ability to fund everything people need anarchically despite neoliberalism expropriated. they need a republic which is robust against the living, growing chunks of society becoming conflated with individuals who wilfully hoard mountains of sheer Subject-existence and keep any more people from being born and living.
      of course, there is another side to this coin which explains exactly why people don't take action. people are organisms. chunks or Filaments are the natural state people form into. they go from individual living, breathing organisms to a socially-linked "Community" of a few living, breathing organisms functioning as one. a colonial organism — in both the figurative physical sense of being joined, and in the charged philosophical Anarchist sense. each chunk primarily wants to live, and it wants to be exactly the way it internally wants to be. so when you do anything to interrupt the independent growth and living of a chunk, it will often get upset. simply looking to a bunch of free-floating animal-like beings to stab a spigot into and bleed to fix society can leave people very confused on what they're actually achieving even if it doesn't make them angry. local chunks are coherent, but society isn't inherently coherent. as well as explaining why social-democracy isn't intuitive to people and it's so easy to assemble desperate people into WASP swarms around their oppressors, this explains exactly why there are Trotskyite conspiracies. "Trotsky", your displaced Marxist theorist, is trying to form a chunk. he's trying to form a chunk of allies to him who want to build a workers' state. this wouldn't necessarily be bad, when Lenin can recruit any number of peasants who are there for their own interests and only half understand Marxism. but his differences with the central party and different mental model of a workers' state form a fence between his chunk and the capable subpopulation of workers. the best he can hope for is that he genuinely assembles a second party full of real Leninists that build a second separate workers' state, although most Trotskyists are not smart enough to figure out this is what their theories are aiming at. but if he doesn't understand what's going on, the easiest thing that can happen is for the biological competition between separate clashing chunks to take over and a bunch of local chunks which just hate the central government to start claiming they support Trotsky, or vice versa. it's not "the bourgeoisie" that takes hold exactly, it's the separate chunks, which only sprout them. if Trotsky just lets the chunks go he can't control them. if he could abolish microhierarchies, he would have a chance. but, of course, that requires him to understand the concept of tiny conflicting chunks joining into a bigger society that he can't just choose not to be a part of, and building socialism-in-one-country before he builds poly-socialism in multiple countries.
      negative democracy + the science bureaucracy = People destroy what takes away their lunch.
2973. Underlying subpopulations generate republics / The underlying structure of social networks generates republics / "The social" is made of individuals and psychological interactions (Rothenberg; Lacanian psychoanalysis) / "Liberty is the mother of order" (statement that desirable arrangements of people produce republics rather than republics generating such social structures and arrangements "of freedom"; Proudhon; Proudhonist anarchism) [194] / Multiplicities exist purely through themselves (statement that geometric surfaces and clusters of subpopulations each do not need to be contained through external means to have an intensional definition of being put together into a single object; Deleuze; schizoanalysis) / Republics contain plural population-societies with inner structure which all together ultimately generate all characteristics of the republic (meta-Marxism) / molecular republic proposition (molecularized; statement that republics form and regenerate themselves through the "molecular" bonds of social interactions or relationships joining individual people into localized groups, rather than through their external border) -> one of the first things that made me recognize there could be an "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" — one of the few claims it made that seemed correct and genuinely wasn't stupid. only later did I learn that this one smart Existentialist claim had been coopted from anarchism, like a whole lot of their theory if not "every bit of it, actually".
      in my mind any philosophy or group that understands this has the potential to eventually understand Bolshevism, because it isn't quite what we've always thought it was, and making it a reality actually lies more in the gaps between chunks of society than who owns them. the moment people understand that society is actually made of chunks and it isn't just one big land-area that is intrinsically dyed with laws and rights, they are closer to being poised to start putting the chunks together like a puzzle and creating a workers' state.
2974. 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.
2975. Liberalism is all political systems / Liberal-republicanism is the combination of every possible political faction into one country including Marxism and Anarchisms
2976. 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.
2977. 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 fucking (pronounced redacted) 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.
2978. Community is the opium of the masses -> a new saying for you. I believe this. I think this is a major part of how "social media" corporations 'ruin peole's lives'. it's not about grabbing people's attention, or maximizing ad views. it's about selling people a false illusion of Community, which in a lonely and isolated world everyone is perpetually addicted to. it's only when you stop being addicted to Community that this kind of stuff truly stops having a hold over you.
      Religion is the opium of the masses + the community delusion / Some people prefer poetry to science = Community is the opium of the masses.
2979. Trying to "disprove Marxism" is like trying to disprove Liberal-republicanism (disprove liberal democracy; meta-Marxism onto Liberal-republicanism) -> which is to say, it is theoretically possible under certain conditions but everybody living within a country based on the whole huge framework with great piles of other optional frameworks inside it in question is going to wonder why the hell (pronounced redacted) you'd ever want to do that
2980. Bad books are instructive / There is a lot to learn from bad books as long as you have a sufficient foundation in what's correct / (9k)
2981. Borders were invented as a limit on empire / Outside the convenient narratives of First-World empires, the functional purpose of national borders and nation-states is to limit the expansion of empire and the transformation of sovereign countries into imperial colonies (to limit colonialism; meta-Marxism) -> if the only end goal of this wiki were to put out a "bible" full of propositions to be memorized by present-day anarchists, but that happens, it will still have served its purpose.
2982. 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 / (9k)
2983. 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" / (9k)
2984. In the First World Trotsky is sacred / Most people in First-World countries consider "Stalinism" to be a real prejudice and anti-Trotskyism to be a real oppression / If you want to work with "The US Left" it is a "reality" that Stalin and the Soviet Union are a danger and your enemy / (9k)
      In the First World Trotsky is sacred + ?? = Anything that would kill Trotsky is bad
2985. Trotsky is your new hero / 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) / (9k)
2986. If Marcuseanism was true, Trotskyism would be true / If subjectivity-Marxism actually worked, nobody would have dropped out of Trotskyism -> it suddenly occurred to me, only in the middle of 2025, that, Marcuse's whole concept of people Subjectively choosing not to be part of capitalism? how does that make sense with the observed fact that so many people drop out of Trotskyism and go back to Liberalism? it's actually a very big thing in Trotskyism to go around trying to educate everyone on Marxism and get them to choose not to be members of capitalism any more. so if that hasn't really worked for Trotskyism, why would it work for Marcuseanism?
2987. Government is not the primary thing that limits freedom, nor are upper-class individuals or "hierarchy"; the factor with the greatest power to make ordinary things illegal is chunk competition / (9k)
      Capitalism is a system where cultures compete to be human + ?? = this.
2988. All ideologies invent direct action / 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?
2989. ??
2990. 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.
2991. 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.
2992. Inside a proletarian civilization, further transitions are about graph arrangements / After creating the dictatorship of the proletariat, all subsequent transitions are about structure more than class / Red-Structuralism proposition (misnomer, means something more like Red-Existentialism; red republicanism; charcoal Marxism with class-territory analysis; historical-materialist class analysis without class territory owners as part of analysis; headless Marxism; red anarchism with historical-materialist analysis; violet anarchism; violet meta-anarchism) -> currently controversial but really shouldn't be. a proletarian society has to actually have policies to build itself. and what are those policies going to be? if everyone's the proletariat, you can't make all your policies based on who is the proletariat or who is the owners, because there aren't any owners to pick on, there are only the factors that make your workers or experts able to do their best work. now, if you're a Trotskyist and you also somehow have a brain, you could argue that all the owners are in other countries so the next step is to overcome other countries, shatter their borders, and join the people of various populations together into a single civilization. fortunately or unfortunately, the Trotskyist perspective has more or less been defeated in favor of every single ideology on the planet considering countries fundamentally separate, some arguing that they are actually separate for "cultural" reasons and others simply realizing that populations have to have autonomy for anything else to happen at finer-grained levels. the other major argument you can make is that the division between workers and experts is a problem to be solved, and if you said that you'd be right. the only issue is nobody truly knows how to solve it because it's connected to chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy, networkism, and Social-Philosophical Systems, and up to now nobody understands any of those. defeating Napoleon's Pigs is no easy feat.
      further transitions (Marx) + ?? = Inside a proletarian civilization, further transitions are about graph arrangements
2993. 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.
2994. 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 (pronounced redacted).
2995. 2995National will regurgitates needs / National will is a mere conduit for immediate needs / There is no such thing as a national will that authentically represents what individuals or populations "really want" because people's will can always be engineered and replaced by external pressure and the strain of internal divisions -> this proposition only gets more interesting as you connect it to the concept of a pyramid of needs — when basic needs are fulfilled people's national will presumably changes to ask for different things
2996. ??
2997. Those who control the correct mathematics control the future -> the only way "nonviolence" successfully solves anything in and of itself. say we want Stalin and Trotsky to coexist nonviolently. there is going to be a correct way for this to happen, and many incorrect ways which won't result in it happening. if Stalin solves the correct method for Stalin and Trotsky to coexist as part of one structure, he holds the power. there's nothing Trotsky can say. if Stalin arranges all the Trotskyites into the correct structures and all of them are content with those structures, then whenever the two or so that aren't commit violence, all the former Trotskyites which are already coexisting nonviolently will stop them and squash their rebellion. the future is retermined. people don't choose what the future is; it's calculated from the multivariable function of people that surround each other put together. the sheer power of retermination is why Existentialism has worked the way it does and been so effective at stopping anything else from coming into being.
2998. 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.
2999. 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

3000

3000. S0 Concept / S0 Item / mathematical structure Item / abstract category Item / Item for highly generic motifs -> general category of all S0 Concepts
3001. S Item / S1 Item / Signifier Item / motif / image / theme / signifier / elementary Signifier Item -> general category of all S Items; repeated image which is not necessarily being broken down into particular models of how it explains itself or what it prescribes
3002. S2 Statement / S2 Item / Signifier Item stating claim about first-level Signifiers / Signifier Item for interpreting Signifiers / double Signifier / claim Signifier / statement signifier / fan theory signifier / parallel ontology / local ontology / partial Particle Theory / partial Bauplan
3003. Item for wiki-internal categorizations / internal-category Item
3004. lion of Trotskyism -> L940 Leo as Trotskyist name
3005. lion of courage / lion of strength / predatory beast of strength / predatory beast of fortitude / (9k)
3006. lion red in tooth and claw / lion of naturalistic carnivore life-history / Jack London wolf / carnivore supposedly in nature / predator ostensibly portrayed realistically / (9k)
3007. security culture / (9k)
3008. lion of leadership / (9k)
3009. lion of kindness / lion of Good / lion lying down with the lamb / predatory beast of kindness / (9k)
3010. lion as monster / carnivore as monster / lion of inhumanity / dark-forest inhabitant / here there be dragons / (9k)
3011. "F1 Item" -> use for some kind of Item. for now F1 Items do not exist.
3012. F2 Statement / Signifier Item stating claim about first-level Signifiers which appears to be false
3013. "F3 Item" -> use for some kind of Item. for now F3 Items do not exist.
3014. storytelling device
3015. folklore trope
3016. fictional trope
3017. slogan or motif promoting Bolshevism / slogan or motif promoting mainstream Marxism-Leninism, hypothetical Trotskyist workers' state, Third World Marxist party-nation, etc.
3018. slogan or motif promoting non-proletarian Marxism / slogan or motif promoting Gramscianism/Althusserianism, etc.
3019. lion of England / (9k)
3020. Z0 Concept / physical structure Item / natural structure Item / real-world physics model
3021. Z Item / Z1 Item / basic Item / elementary Item / non-fictional model / material thing / widely-attested thing / work to be analyzed / field of works to be analyzed / real-world unique group of people / real-world unique organization / real-world event / real-world civilization
3022. Z2 Statement / Z2 Item / basic Item stating claim about elementary basic Items which appears to be substantiated / physics model / physics theory / physical equation
3023. "Z3 Item" -> use for some kind of Item. for now Z3 Items do not exist.
3024. "Z4 Item" -> use for some kind of Item. for now Z4 Items do not exist.
3025. lion of empire / (9k)
3026. North-Korean point of view (NKPOV; policy guide)
3027. Schizophrenic point of view (SPOV; policy guide)
3028. Items study social phenomena / The LithoGraphIca ontology project is a medium for doing informal observational science on social phenomena -> policy guideline, in a manual-of-style sense; prosaic statement not meant to be controversial.
3029. ??
3030. M0 Meta-level Question
3031. M1 Mid-Positioned Trace / M1 Superpositional Object
3032. M2 Mid-Positioned Relation
3033. M3 Meta-Stating Question
3024. "M4 Item" -> use for some kind of Item. for now M4 Items do not exist.
3035. The Real -> Lacanianism
3036. The Symbolic -> Lacanianism
3037. The Imaginary -> Lacanianism
3038. squashing The Subject
3039. spaghetti philosophy / concept spaghetti / spaghetti (philosophy)
3040. floating signifier
3041. moving like a room of helium atoms
3042. missing the forest for the trees / ignoring ergodicity / ignoring emergence
3043. God is dead
3044. existence philosophy (motif)
3045. nihilism (motif)
3046. Absurd (motif)
3047. theism / theists
3048. nonbelievers / atheists / atheism
3049. Atheism is something different from nonbelief
3050. Agnosticism is something different from nonbelief
3051. Truth specifically excludes physics / Truth (religion) / Māyā (Hinduism)
3052. invisible dragon in garage
3053. "if God exists in one of all possible worlds..."
3054. if Trunks exists in one of all possible worlds... / Trunks is invincible
3055. Socialism (Toryism) / socialicism / Socialism imperializing partisan politics
3056. not coming from specific ideology equals biased
3057. cultural Marxism (Toryism) -> Western Marxism, Marcuse, Gramscianism
3058. complete apathy -> depression symptom, interpretation of aliens - Dragon Ball
3059. Can't turn off my mind reading / thought broadcasting -> schizophrenia symptom, interpretation of mind reading - Wings of Fire
3060. science imperializing philosophy / scientism / scienticist / rationalism (Existentialism)
3061. squashing Difference
3040. assigned liberal at birth / the Democratic Party is a sheer collection of abstract ideas on a metaphysical quality slider, never an organization or collection of people (motif) -> the motif of Liberal-republicanism asserting people belong to a single population of "liberals" (progressives) regardless of whether they actually belong to multiple conflicting populations of non-center-LiberalRepublicans.
3041. The U.S. Democratic Party is metaphysical / The United States Democratic Party is a sheer collection of abstract ideas on a metaphysical quality slider, never ever an organization or collection of people (proposition) -> if you want to understand why "United States people refuse to detach from the Democratic Party" to form a social-democratic subpopulation of workers and bourgeois allies, this would be why. Liberal-republicanism has made people so dumb they don't even understand what collections of people are. this is not a joke or hyperbole, I'm very serious when I say this. people really really literally think the Democratic Party never becomes a collection of people and is always carved out metaphysically as if from the cosmos. so when you say the phrase "detach from the Democratic Party" they literally don't understand what that means because to them that's like deleting an idea from your brain or deleting an idea from the universe. in their mind it's a law of nature that anybody whose brain contains the concepts of the Democratic Party is automatically a member. it's like an SCP report. the Democratic Party is like a hazardous anti-meme that deletes the whole concept of any group of people being a material object that it's optional to be a part of when it invades your brain. if the Christian god is a mind virus the Democratic Party is a mind virus that's ten or a hundred times worse.
3042. undialectical idealism, historical non-materialism, and class non-analysis / undialectical idealism, historical existentialism, & class non-analysis / (9k)
3043. Democratic Party as cognitohazard / U.S. Democratic Party as cognitohazard -> this can be in a fictional context or a metaphorical one, said in these words or other words. get creative
3044. Reactionary and progressive are two ends of necessity / Trotskyist horseshoe theory / Bolshevism and reaction have the same cause: necessity (Trotskyism)
      historical horsheshoe theory + Every Trotskyite Stalin eliminated was a Leninist = this. Every Trotskyite Stalin eliminated was a Leninist + assigned liberal at birth = this.
3045. ??
3046. ??
3047. ??
3048. ??
3049. ??
3050. ??
3051. ??
3052. hegemony politics / musical chairs attack (MDem) / stealth activism (center-Liberalism) -> the motif of people trying to "prevent fascism" by filling up business territories or government institutions with linked groups of people who are "not fascists" as fast as possible before "the fascists" get in. one of the chief strategies of Gramscianism. seems to me like it doesn't really make any sense because it is so chiefly defined by creating countable Cultures of people who belong in a particular cultural identity and carrying out competition between countable Cultures to exist instead of each other existing. that seems a lot more like it's the problem than the way the problem is resolved. realistically, you have to get all your progressives to good landlords and good capitalists who will pay the landlords if you want to end the graph struggle, and put good capitalists in all the reactionary businesses before you can drive the reactionary workers out. the capitalists have to lead this for it to be maximally effective and actually bring change. but it also clearly demonstrates that capitalist populations consist of multiple separate populations divided based on something other than who is a capitalist; you don't have a capitalist population and a worker population, you have specifically a Tory population and a center-Liberal population that recruit people into the nation and "allow" them to work. the bigger question to me is what creates these two populations. it isn't religion, because two people can be Protestants and still divide into these two populations. it has something to do with the inherent collapse of Liberal-republicanism.
3053. Liberalism is designed to collapse into Toryism -> the claim that Liberal-republicanism is unintentionally designed to be incapable of making a good distinction between gridlock and conservatism, and as a result it encourages conservatives to build up a socially-linked countable Culture below the level of Liberal-republican politics that becomes unbreakable and eventually takes over the population. every single progressive policy can be defeated by gridlock but creating a "conservative" or reactionary party is an inherent loophole in that it doesn't have to successfully create anything new to win.
3054. assertion real thing is fictional / assertion that real thing appearing in fiction is instead fictional
3055. History books contain battles -> sounds like a tautology out of context, but is apparently a genuinely radical thing to say in the context of why people write fiction.
3056. Real life doesn't contain battles -> ever read a history book? it certainly used to. depending on your definition, real life also contains battles every time an Archon makes a terrible decision and prompts a protest.
3057. ??
3058. Historical idealism makes erasure easier / Historical non-materialism makes erasing demographic identities easier (Idealist history, historical existentialism; as viewed from general-sense historical materialism) -> if you don't believe that history is made of causal processes, you can always go around asserting that even when a bunch of transgender people all congregate into a community over and over that it isn't a repeated historical pattern because being trans is fabricated on the spur of the moment just like neopronouns are artistically created. people with a brain shouldn't find that any better because logically then it's erasing a countable culture which is also a repeated historical pattern. but Tories don't value having a brain. if you tried to explain to them that people voting Republican or Tory over and over was a historical pattern and progressives at universities are "making their life difficult" because they erase that pattern of Tory identity Tories probably still wouldn't get it. you might have a little more luck trying to explain that Trotsky was oppressed because Stalin's government didn't recognize being Trotskyist and if they did Trotsky might not have had to leave.
3059. Art is a substitute for world history textbooks / Only the arts can teach us about experiences, so only the arts can teach us about demographic identities -> incredibly common claim I even found in a Liberal-republican economics text, but seems to fail a whole lot in practice. Undertale and Deltarune caused people to misgender nonbinary people, Warriors caused people to bash Native Americans for "bad worldbuilding". people think Media Representation will teach people empathy, but in practice you have to hand them a textbook on the demographic identity to get them to understand what they're doing wrong. this + Warriors = medicine men don't exist. [195] this + Deltarune = misgendering Kris. this + Pokémon = never heard of France before. this + Kirby = Spongebob is sexless
3060. assertion description of an identity is not real / assertion that traits fitting a real-world demographic identity are not real
3061. what if men could date men?? / what if men could be in relationships with men?? / slash (motif of homosexuality being a fictional construct)/ I know I wrote a gay fanfic, but there's no way I could be a lesbian (generic) -> the fictional motif of insinuating a lack of understanding that homosexuality is real by claiming that it is an invented fictional concept.
3062. Spongebob is sexless / Spongebob is asexual (ecology definition, not queer theory definition) / I don't know, that's just Kirby -> there is a very complicated distinction between the way people talk about gender when they have no idea what it is at all, and how they talk about it when they actually know what a transgender person is instead of not knowing. saying that Kirby is "sex unknown" or "gender unknown" is more likely to mean "I genuinely haven't thought about it, I don't know anything on the subject and I don't know where to start" than "I think Kirby could actually be neither male nor female". "neither male nor female" is a really hard concept for normal people to understand if they've never heard of it before. it's easy to create a fictional trope accidentally just by combining concepts but that doesn't equate to an understanding that such a thing is real. (just look at the difference between A/B/O and understanding what transgender people are, and you'll understand it almost exactly.) likewise, people can come to understand that animals in nature can have unusual sex configurations, having both gametes or reproducing asexually, but they tend to be bad at internalizing what that means, and to remain at a totally baseline lack of understanding of what gender is.
3063. medicine cat? medicine men don't even exist / Warrior cats is so unbelievable, I mean, medicine men don't even exist -> the motif of somebody failing to even recognize that a fantasy book is based on an older form of society and proceeding to bash real-world people-groups for bad worldbuilding. it's like there are at least two levels of racism. one is where you know Native Americans exist and you don't like them, or you put "interesting" people-groups on some kind of pedestal like more than being people they resemble some kind of reality TV show that you can attach fake rules and interpretations to. one is where you don't even know they exist and act like they're totally made up. this distinction seems to exist for all demographic identities.
3064. you think The Matrix is trans?? / The Matrix was wild! ...it's trans? / cis people relating to The Matrix but claiming it is not about transgender identity / cis people claiming The Matrix is about becoming a Tory but isn't about gender identity (red pill; redpilled) -> on one hand this is gross. on the other hand, viewed from a larger context it's just really, really weird. like, can somebody be charcoal-pilled, or orange-pilled? could you go around claiming The Matrix is about becoming a Trotskyist or an anarchist but isn't about being trans? Trotskyists totally feel like the way they see the world is the real model of the world, just like Tories do. do Tories even think about that.
3065. ??
3066. Furries don't have to think about race / Furries never have to think about race (furry-fans; furry fandom) / When you read furry media, or create it, there's no need to think about race -> I think this is really stupid precisely because, if we take kid-friendly shows for an example, Kimba can be a story all about an abstract civilization and then blatantly have blackface in the manga and one people group in Africa oppressing other people groups played as a joke. this proposition is using furry characters as an excuse to be "color-blind".
      white-bread fantasy + furry fandom = this.
3067. ??
3068. wealth brain / human beings as wads of money with legs -> the motif of people acting like cash or houses or donations are a genuine element of population dynamics or populational culture. exemplified by things like the Wings of Fire book where characters acted like a hunk of gold in and of itself produces basic needs and could in and of itself actually improve characters' lives if only the evil queen would let the hunk of gold be Free. it takes an expert to do any of those things, and the expert has to accept gold in the first place. the notion that gold is a badge for achieving high rank is what even makes it valuable.
3069. anarchy brain -> the motif of people acting like societies are directly made of Freedom or identity rather than being made of physical people or any kind of actual material structure which could descriptively explain why anybody would be breaching said Freedom or identities.
3070. protest brain / protest consciousness -> Marxist texts speak of "trade union consciousness", a phenomenon where because large groups of people can only participate in trade unions, large swaths of people only gain the level of understanding that unions are able to learn; said another way the union itself learns, so arranging people into correct structures is paramount for them to learn anything. in the United States, I'd swear there's such a thing as protest consciousness. people are only able to participate in protests, they're not even able to participate in unions or groups of workers, so they build their entire understanding and concept of what resistance is around individual protests. this seems to be one of the material causes of so many people believing anarchism. the notion of different subpopulations automatically liking each other and banding together for the sake of freedom mostly only applies to protests themselves, but because people now have protest consciousness, they go around talking like it's a general model of "community" and "The Multitude", like they understand the notion of transitioning a society into a new society when they don't yet understand that.
3071. don't like, don't read
3072. Parallel diversity of different fandom tags equals Freedom / Tearing any particular thing out of fanbases is dictatorial [196] -> not a proposition I have problems with, although interesting to analyze. it's... oddly specific when you think about it. why is this the claim that people spontaneously show up and make? if all the tags in a fandom are so different they don't even like each other, what exactly is it that binds them together and keeps them from tearing apart into multiple groups in the first place? what is it about the "united states of states of states" that people find so immediately intuitive as if it doesn't need to be explained? there is going to be some Anarchist theory bullshit sitting behind this ready to explain it that I'm going to need repeated to me 100 times.
      edit: yeah, there totally was. I had to go read an article specifically about anarchism for other reasons to finally run into it.
3073. united states of states of states / China full of Chinas full of Chinas / USSR of SSRs of SSRs / tribe of tribes of tribes -> the motif that a country is always just a voluntary link between demographics. that the United States is composed of Black women and White women spontaneously opting to be the same country, or Black women and White women opting to be women that then together with Black men opt to be the United States. etc.
      this motif is neutral. I am not trying to say it's bad or impossible to use well, although I would say it confuses and baffles me how intuitive this concept always is to everyone else for reasons I do not understand. or more specifically, how intuitive it is precisely to everyone who is oppressed while being completely unintuitive to a single individual with the power of oppression and as far as I can tell mostly ineffective on them. the sheer ineffectiveness of it on everyone I have ever known personally makes it greatly unintuitive to me, yet to everyone else there's almost no other way to think, and this always leaves me confused.
      I do have some days where I can almost understand it, specifically in cases like the USSR being made up of 14 republics, or a cluster of Iroquois tribes binding together into one big tribe. to me this motif makes lots of sense as a way to understand societies and history when you strain it through Communism or some very crimson-tinted general-sense historical materialism, but it doesn't make a lot of sense as anarchism, exactly the way everyone actually looks at it. so then I end up sitting around confused going, I'm supposed to understand the USSR as being effective specifically because it was made up of 14 nationalities that came together, but how is that even possible when it needed the Material System of Bolshevism to unite them? does this mean that when Trotsky attacked the Soviet Union he went against anarchism and the charcoal-tinted workers' state process? funny enough, that would actually make sense. but it's totally not the way anybody ever sees it in the United States. you don't see United States people going around saying "Trotsky brought down the USSR and that's why you have to vote Democrat, you don't want to become East Germany and let the Great Wall of Biden fall down only to let West Germany start hating and oppressing all people named Kevin". it'd certainly make internally-coherent sense in its own way, and yet nobody ever says it because everybody is committed to anarchism being the enemy of Communism but not the enemy of the United States government. doesn't that make anarchism literally "Western", full of prejudice in favor of "The West", and unable to do what "Settlers" claims? anarchism always completely twists my brain in knots because I always end up actually thinking about it and it never makes sense.
3074. united nonviolence of special oppressions -> the motif that a country is composed of "superior people" and a ton of endless categories of people who fail to function as perfectly as society's most elite people for some highly specific reason, that if you have any trouble getting into society there must be some highly specific reason you are specially oppressed which requires you to find other people who are specially oppressed exactly the same way and for all the highly specific groups to convince each other at length not to hurt each other and oppress each other. I am so tired of this, specifically because of that last thing. it's clear that over time our basic assumptions about capitalism and Liberal-republicanism have simply ceased to be true, and the way the whole thing operates is a bit different from the way people think. it seems less that people inherently want to accept each other because they're different and more like there are many separate subpopulations of people shoving each other around all trying to fit onto an island too small to fit all of them.
3075. LGBT+, STEM, and HASS are comparable / There is no meaningful difference between LGBT+, STEM, and HASS -> the claim that STEM and HASS are just clusters of identities based on particular theoretical frameworks — the art history framework, the music theory framework, the set theory framework, the game theory framework, the quantum mechanics framework, etc — and this is indistinguishable from the concept of grouping together gay people based on a theory of gay & lesbian identity with trans people based on a theory of transgender identity. each of these groups of people is socially connected to a philosophical theory of a real-world thing and then the theories are connected together. the question then arises: why are so many people against the notion of an LGBT+ population existing while they don't get immensely upset that HASS or STEM exists and say "STEM is made up! technologists and mathematicians have nothing in common, and I'm not even sure math exists!!". really think about it. people may have conspiracy theories that NASA is greedily taking money for its own sake, yet they don't typically say "NASA is in league with mathematicians to take our tax dollars". why is the case of LGBT+ efforts for government programs viewed so differently? united states of states of states + lesbian / gay = LGBT+. united states of states of states + physics = STEM.
3076. Capitalism ends through many rounds of "Absolutely Not" / United States capitalism ends when we realize every protest is about "NO (pronounced No!)" / proposition No (hypothetical transition to anarchism) -> derived anarchist proposition. the claim that in the United States, specific-sense historical materialism revolves solely around protests that say "no" to something, while movements about actually creating anything in particular won't form any enduring connections. protests about gender identity or abortion or specific forms of racism or even pollution aren't actually protests for anything, they're solely protests against somebody prohibiting or destroying something. there are an alarming number of examples for this. A) "Black Lives Matter": no police shootings. B) during COVID, there were more people than there should have been banding together across charcoal and rust factions to simply side with "no requirements". C) blanket resistance against "AI" without thinking about the origins of the problem in disorganization, conflation of products with individual Subjects, and the nonsense that is copyright disputes. "no AI". D) widespread negative sentiment against "social media", "phones", and The Big Guy that "greedily" devised them. these idle critiques are all "no" statements to merely take the thing away. E) "No Kings": it's in the phrase. arguments it could be true: this is the only kind-of convincing claim I've heard for how rival demographics could directly join together because of their identities despite the pressures of Liberalism. it's consistent with the notion that nations begin as population-societies which must begin with links and outer boundaries, by suggesting the boundary directly forms the population. argument it could be false: this could lead to horizontal conflict of two or more factions mutually protesting each other, as already happens on things like abortion clinics. argument 2 for false: this feels like it clashes really badly with the history of Afrikaners I briefly outlined in another entry. feels like an Afrikaner model could be as useful for challenging some of these claims as the Trotsky model
3077. replacing Shadow with Sonic / replacing Tails with Sonic -> silly metaphor from MDem drafts. gets a little complicated to explain quickly. the point of it is that neither two individuals nor two populations are interchangeable due to the fact they are separate objects, depending of course on the context and reasons behind people trying to swap them. sometimes this doesn't apply because the shapes of two things are comparable enough they actually will behave the same way, allowing for historical materialism. sometimes this does apply because people assume that one population is the whole world instead of realizing that societies emerge in plural from different points and appropriately modeling them each behaving and interacting separately game-theory style.
3078. thing which is illegal in Europe but continues in the United States -> there are so many of these, and you learn a lot about what people consider "democracy" to be in different countries every time you hear about them.
3079. thing which is illegal in the United States but continues in Europe -> there are fewer of these, but it tells you a lot more about Europe.
3080. cultural religion member / cultural Christian / secular Jew / cultural Hindu
3081. Protestant or Catholic atheist -> famous story from Northern Ireland which is seemingly being repeated only a little less violently in the United States
3082. cultural Tory / ideological state apparatus (people belonging to a socially-linked group of people which claims not to purposefully have political beliefs but transmits bad political ideas as a tactic for staying socially-linked and maintaining group agency and "freedom" versus its surroundings) -> a term I said in irony once but am terrified could be real. the motif of people being part of a family or town of Tories and being fiercely loyal to "their family" or socially-linked group of people without actually bothering to believe Tory political beliefs for their content. the group itself believes the Tory beliefs, rather than the individuals, and the overall structure of the group compels all the individuals to act as if they believe Toryism. however, the cultural Tories then proceed to practice Tory beliefs whether they really believe them or not.
3083. Catholicism is a backdoor for Bolshevism -> found this one in Democracy for Realists. had a good laugh at it. who would bother to organize entire Catholic churches just to make sure everyone becomes atheists and learns Marxism? but this is really how people thought back in the 1950s or so. the actual content of Bolshevism isn't what defines Communism to people, it's failing to be loyal to a particular population-society.
3084. Big Brother
3085. not my president / #NotMyPresident (Twitter tag) / Donald Trump is not my president (2017 bumper sticker statement) -> a seemingly-simple slogan that opens up a huge discussion of what is the correct way to study groups of voters using set theory
3086. Kevins don't belong in Germany / Only someone who doesn't belong in Germany would be named Kevin / (9k)
3087. Karens don't belong in Seattle / People who don't belong in the United States are named Karen / (9k)
3088. greeting nonbinary Representation with misgendering / misgendering Frisk (Undertale) / misgendering Kris (Deltarune) -> I swear this one is in every other YouTube comments section. I think that really says something about how effective Media Representation actually is or isn't. Kris + signifier mad libs = this.
3089. Propositions appeal to Liberal-republicans / Proposition-based logic is appealing to center-Liberals — anarchists and staunch schizoanalysts excepted / (9k)
3090. Liberal-republican institutions are the brain of the United States / The constitution is the brain of the United States / Washington's filter proposition (constitution and Liberal-republican national institutions) -> traditional Liberal-republican position. dubious. doesn't explain the process of right-Liberalism actually overcoming Liberal-republican institutions.
3091. Bolshevism is over
3092. Quality-slider speak is a cover for bigotry / center-Liberal appeals to alchemy-like metaphysical quality sliders conceal bigotry / Arceus really did a number on Ultra Space, huh? (center-Liberal parties) -> the more time goes by and the more I look back at each instance of this phenomenon, the more I begin to feel like every word center-Liberals say in the vein of "extreme" and "too much" is an after-the-fact justification while the real reasons are snap judgements against something outside and unknown that they don't want to learn about. center-Liberalism is this particular socially-linked group of people that protects itself by resisting any suggestion that it could be structured differently. and yet, everyone is trying to do this totally impossible thing of integrating racial struggles into that, when it's like, you are trying to fight racism by using bigotry. that is always going to result in problems, either in people failing to accept anti-racism education because they're too steeped in bigotry, or a select group of people who does accept it becoming bigoted against other socially-linked groups of people who do anything to threaten center-Liberalism even in cases where that thing would benefit other demographic identities. this approach to fighting racism will generally manufacture a group of dedicated racists. a kind of, dark solidarity between one group of people who have not been absorbed into the center-Liberal SPS and other groups of people excluded for other prejudices. even the worst filters you can think of are dialectical. there is always an unintended effect next to the intended effects based on the fact two separate objects are actually interacting.
3093. ??
3094. China's ideals apply to the U.S. / If somebody in China "believes that everybody", it includes the United States / If somebody in China says an "I believe that everybody" statement, the United States is obligated to do it -> one of the easiest counterpoints against the effectiveness of "I believe that everybody" statements. If the people of China don't get to vote in United States elections, how do you really know that a bunch of people saying "I believe that everybody should" will actually change reactionaries instead of the result being them complaining that a different population of people with different values shouldn't get to tell them what to do?
3095. ??
3096. "Compartmentalization" is a form of compartmentalization -> I think this thought had come to me when listening to a FNaF theory where Vanessa used the word "compartmentalized" to describe not truly having dealt with something and in one sense only really having categorized it. I said, yeah, now there's an accurate metaphor. so much of the way we use language, and by extension philosophy itself, has turned into this weird exercise of attempting to self-contain things that aren't self-contained and think we understand them just because we've labeled them. we labeled abuse and manipulation! now we understand all forms of them in all contexts. we labeled structural racism! now we clearly know the entire context for why it happens and how to prevent it. but it doesn't actually work that way.
3097. There is no such thing as Idealism -> the claim that nobody actually desires to believe in Idealism, and people only believe in Idealisms because they happen to also be FreeWillIsms; all Idealisms are actually variations of Existentialism. I think this is slightly incorrect because people really have this thing for inventing metaphysical sliders that go from one end to the other and trying to abstract away that the "balance" in the middle always has a way of coming to be instead of being what automatically happens when you avoid the "ends" of the slider. I still don't entirely know why it's so appealing to do that.
3098. What does slider-speak actually achieve? -> this is a good example of an M3 question because it undoubtedly has multiple answers.
3099. "I believe that everybody" statement -> a more specific category of statements than it might sound; this generally doesn't include "to-you" statements like "I believe everybody should have housing". this is about moralistic statements like "I believe that everybody should vote for Joe Biden" (are there even any ballot boxes left?) or "I believe that everybody should donate to charity" (a clear case of acting like everyone is the bourgeoisie to appeal to their sense of Filament in-group and trick them to into doing things). "I believe that everybody" statements are a problem because they often describe impossibilities that people can't actually be made to do, whether this is for bad reasons where people are becoming uncontrollable through a Vegeta effect or because of reasonable physical limitations.
3100. ??
3101. What is the meaning of chunk competition? / Why are we here competing over gentrifying neighborhoods? / What is our purpose in working at one corporation against another? / What is the cosmic significance of anyone fighting for the right to live in the United States versus move away? / What is the greater meaning of dissolving the Soviet Union and making its people move to Australia versus fighting to keep it standing so people can be Ukranian and Kazakh? / Why are we here trying to build China-specific industry when the world is trying to tear the whole country apart? / What is the greater meaning of trying to push for Trotskyism over socialisms-in-one-country? / What is the greater meaning of trying to push for socialism-in-one-country versus Trotskyism, particularly should Trotskyism-in-one-country be possible? -> humanity's biggest question that nearly nobody thinks about. Stalin's government apparently could not answer this question in a satisfactory way (or promote the formation of groups who did), leading to the slow dissolution of the republic into its individuals.
3102. What is the purpose of a republic?
3103. What is the purpose of Liberal-republicanism? / What is the purpose of a democratic republic? (Liberal-republicanism, Liberalism) -> many people think the answer is obvious, but it really isn't.
3104. ??
3105. ??
3106. ??
3107. Capitalist organs fled the body to obtain freedom / The "body without organs", in the negative sense of runaway expansion Machines or paperclip-organisms, came to be because the body that previously held things in place was stationary empire and nobody really liked it, everybody wanting to be released from it ->
      follows from "Larks have free will" and the claim that free will is rooted in the drive to obtain biological needs
3108. postcolonial impulse -> the concept that countable cultures wanting to be freed from empire, imperial colonies, or "Stalinist tyranny" does not inherently generate freedom or democracy by itself and can exist for any ideology dissatisfied with being wedged inside any other ideology no matter how toxic the inner ideology actually is. Existentialists are unable to notice this, and characterized by the fallacy that Trotskyite conspiracies must necessarily be postcolonial even if capitalist restoration inside a Trotskyism is considered equally postcolonial. this in turn opens the gates for Afrikaner types and Tories to act on the postcolonial impulse and assert that they have the right to be free from center-Liberal governments and Black people.
3109. Culture is revolutionary / Countable cultures are revolutionary because they are "communities", which is any socially-linked graph of people -> implied in a whole lot of Existentialist-Structuralist and sometimes anarchist-labeled stuff. sounds super dubious on the surface, and yet hard to disprove. exemplified by: A) widespread pushes for nonbinary representation and rights after a bunch of random teenagers standardized the word on tumblr. B) theories of disability that say that particular clusters of disabled people linking together and passing around culture and presenting culture to others and people requiring this arbitrary local culture to be respected is the gateway to liberation for various disabled groups. C) theories of racism that acknowledge the tendency of groups of people pushed out of society to cluster together and form a concept of a particular racial subpopulation
3110. Communists as some arbitrary non-Communist ideology / Communists as some arbitrary ideology that is not Bolshevism -> quite common if you would like to present Communists as stupid idiot garbage trash
3111. Communists as subset of Utopian Socialism
3112. Communists as hippies
3113. Communists as anarchists [197] -> extremely common in PragerU style videos. they absolutely cannot tell the difference between Communists, anarchists, postcolonial theorists, and progressive Existentialist-Structuralist tradition members whatsoever
3114. Communists as religious prophets [198] -> featured in Aster/Aubepine.
3115. Communists as concealing nationalism / Communists as fascists / socialicizing the population / nationalizing the people / socializing the people -> appears in: 1984, resembles: Identitarian fascism / Duginism.
      generalized dictator + ?? = Communists as fascists.
3116. ??
3117. ??
3118. ??
3119. No Communist is a functioning adult -> it often feels like a lot of Liberal-republicans and Existentialists think this — not least of all Lacanians, who think they know everything about the human life cycle and psychological maturity process based on a bunch of philosophy that isn't science. well, the good thing is we can almost solidly say it's false, because all of the people who became Communist leaders were these highly-educated, really high-functioning people by anybody's standards. it isn't your degree of functioning that actually determines what "swatch color" you get.
3120. Within Liberal republics, Communists are treated with cultural assimilation and social darwinism -> this results in anarchism becoming prevalent because it survives the selection pressures crushing down on all populations and socially-linked graphs of individuals.
3121. I'm not racist, but... -> there is only one valid situation where you can say this, which is to say that anti-racist movements are not using the correct strategies to achieve the goal of surviving and countering racism. basically any other instance of it deserves to be mocked. especially the ones that invoke the concept of "qualified" or the concept of "tacky", which are each just a much more honest way to voice why somebody definitely is racist.
3122. I'm not homophobic, but...
      I'm not homophobic, but... + Media Representation = Lesbian writers would never write about lesbians
3123. I'm not transphobic, but...
3124. I'm not anticommunist, but... -> you find so many of these hidden in Trotskyist and Western-Marxist writings.
      to be perfectly honest: I am always a little scared to be mean to Trotskyists or much more so Third-World named Marxisms because I know it's very bad to say "I'm not anticommunist, but". I have had this absolutely crude concept of what tolerance is pounded into me and pounded into me to the point that even if I really hate it for how much it makes no sense in reference to Existentialism I start defaulting to it as a way to understand Marxism because Marxists of any demographic are the only people I like and I am terrified of scaring them off.
3125. ??
3126. ??
3127. ??
3128. ??
3129. Not Racist Butt (comic) / hey there, I'm the Not Racist Butt [199] [200]
3130. representation in media / rep (abbreviation; Existentialist philosophies, anarchism, civil rights movements) / Representation in Media (Signifier Case; meta-Marxism) / Media Representation (Signifier Case; meta-Marxism)
3131. John Egbert is obviously White [201] -> despite this topic seeming uninteresting it's actually really interesting because it feeds into the question of what does and doesn't count as Media Representation, or stereotyping, of some particular ethnic group. how much unlike a particular ethnic group can a character look and still be Media Representation? people go around trying to teach the concept of Media Representation with phrases like "brown kids on screen" but realistically a whole lot of actual instances of Media Representation will just be voice actors and things that people would recognize as representing particular histories but which may not seem inherently linked to a particular appearance. this is true for both positive and negative portrayals.
3132. Goku is White -> I'm not sure who even thinks this. I think I've most often seen people assuming Goku is abstractly Japanese
3133. Goku is obviously Japanese / Goku is obviously an abstraction of the people of Japan based on the language of the show and the people animating it
3134. Goku is obviously Chinese / Goku is obviously an abstraction of the people of ancient China based on who wrote Journey to the West and the vague "everyman" positioning of the characters in that text
3135. Goku is obviously Imperial-Japanese / Goku is obviously an abstraction of the people of Imperial Japan, specifically the people who supported empire and in his case the one person who might have defected from it -> I think this is the most correct answer looking at the way characters are positioned relative to each other in the narrative.
3136. Vegeta is obviously Imperial-Japanese
3137. Vegeta is a reactionary / Vegeta is obviously an abstraction of the concept of reactionaries in situations such as the Russian Empire or Imperial Japan
3138. Media Representation on Sky News / hello Sky News, I'm so glad I got my colostomy bag [202] -> I just found an article on notorious Tory news outlet Sky News that was exactly in the shape of an Existentialist or Gramscian call for Media Representation. obviously there's nothing wrong with a visibility effort for stoma bags. a little unusual, but sure, getting unusual problems out there is the point isn't it. the one thing that baffles me is seeing this kind of thing on Sky News. I'm guessing it got there because it sounds like an old people problem?? it's often old people watching these things, so maybe they think any medical problem sounds enough like their own problems to not be upsetting to them. that isn't a joke; I just genuinely don't know what's a good guess.
3139. Printing books won't educate people / Production won't educate people / Producing more books cannot educate people (implied "usually"; comics, shows, games, etc; discrete product available for price or advertisement revenue; anti-Gramscian proposition) -> the claim that in every case, people receive better education if you can get something out of existing resources made as many as ten years ago than if you require new resources to be made. "we have wealth, the big problem is we haven't distributed it" correct. and one thing that means is that people need to be taught to use old books rather than buy new ones. printing more books just to put minority representation in them is meaningless, depending on the subject of the books and whether they deal with very serious non-fictional history or plans to create movements.
      I allow that this proposition could be false. there is some potential that, say, if there were the five Communist parties of the USS and they actually decided to defund Media Representation produced in their parties versus distributing books and teaching people to use them it would deal a heavy enough blow to the process of assembling marginalized workers together into their own movements that join into the big movement that it wouldn't be worth it. there could be a real contradiction there that could falsify this proposition depending on exactly what we specify the proposition to apply to. to me, when I'm typing this, I think it applies to areas of the US that aren't major cities. I am not sure what times it does and doesn't apply to the Third World. I think the times it applies are rather structural, it applies to specific kinds of towns more than broad historical periods of a whole country.
3140. toon animals as inherently coded / furries as inherently coded / anthropomorphic animals as inherently coded to something
3141. Hello Kitty is a person / Hello Kitty is not a cat, she's a little girl from London
3142. Furry media exists to create a unique ethnic appearance for all gay people / Furry media exists to create a unique outwardly-visible demographically-specific appearance for all gay people -> this claim would be to counter the claim that furry media gets rid of the need to ask questions about "race" or the history of interactions between populations. the furry aesthetic, or any number of possible furry aesthetics, serves as a way to preserve a concept of diversity vaguely similar to the concept of people being different ethnicities and nationalities which may be vaguely identifiable from the outside (thought they also might not), while creating a concept of demographic unity similar to the concept of everyone in the group being gay or lesbian. furry characters share in being gay; furry characters share in being furry. the less-outwardly-obvious commonality of being gay is replaced by the highly obvious commonality of being anthropomorphic animals, because the things the characters share internally need to be externalized and visualized for the artistic purpose of expressing shared emotions.
3143. ??
3144. ??
3145. ??
3146. ??
3147. ??
3148. ??
3149. ??
3150. ??
3151. ??
3152. ??
3153. ??
3154. ??
3155. ??
3156. ??
3157. ??
3158. ??
3159. ??
3160. ??
3161. ??
3162. ??
3163. ??
3164. ??
3165. ??
3166. ??
3167. ??
3168. ??
3169. artistic abstraction -> the motif of art deliberately separating itself from reality and representation. Magritte's pipe is a decent example. early newspaper-type cartoons are another example. [203]
      artistic abstraction + children's slice-of-life show = Hello Kitty is a person
3170. artistic signifier equation / signifier equation in the middle of poetry, literature, or the arts (poetic, artistic; structuralist linguistics) / the snark was a boojum you see / selagadoola means menchickaboola roo -> I like the Cinderella example because it literally has "means" or "equals" in the middle of it.
3171. empty but grammatical sentence / grammatical sentence without real signs / the gostak distims the doshes / colorless green ideas sleep furiously / the snark was a boojum you see (nonsensical English sentence) / selagadoola means menchickaboola roo (nonsensical English sentence) / technically grammatical statement / technically grammatical paragraph / technically grammatical text / technically grammatical presentation / technically grammatical sermon -> I believe I recorded this Item after finding an AI generated Christian sermon, because all the sentences sounded a bit like this.
3172. fruit flies like a banana / stroked his lover with the edge of a knife / (9k)
3173. Black people are White people too / autistic people are gay people too -> the rarely-stated, usually implied motif of trying to assert that some particular demographic subpopulation of people inherently belongs in another subpopulation just because subpopulations are both populations and populations inherently want to merge into each other. you're more likely going to hear it with the word "community" as if calling populations "communities" somehow inherently explains why populations that have processes constantly separating them from others in fact inherently want to merge. the problem with this motif is not in trying to claim it is possible for human beings to get rid of prejudice and for some particular individual from another demographic to join a population. the problem is the mechanism or process by which this is suggested to happen.
3174. White people are Black people too / gay people are trans people too / Christians are Muslims too / White people belonging to the republicanized empire are Native Americans too -> the motif of trying to suggest that majority groups of people inherently belong in protests for minority groups of people purely because they are both populations or both The Subject and with no real attempt to explain why minority populations will accept and forgive them or cooperate with any more complicated strategies the outsiders may propose.
      this one bit me. I got fed up with it because The Lefts were asking people to do things that were physically impossible, going to protests that don't exist and pitting 2 people against 100 reactionary people, and I just genuinely did not understand how it made any sense as a model of reality that was supposed to solve the problem. and that made people angry. people got super angry if you didn't tell people to "support" movements that wide swaths of people can't even contribute anything to where you'd really just be telling a chain of people to tell each other lies about how involved they are in causing the problem and how much they can do to stop it but otherwise do nothing. this was before I knew any Marxism. I was in an almost ideal untouched state of not being "corrupted" by Marxism and suddenly generic progressives are putting people through the ringer demanding people understand things even their experts don't have the tools to understand, which mesh poorly with all the other contradictory things they believe to supposedly Create Society Good and where nothing makes any sense. the anarchists and generic-progressives threw me out of society for not understanding contradictory things and I never really found any way back in. I just ended up in hell where every progressive, reactionary, and non-political person, maybe the Marxists too, want to stomp me for not successfully being human and the regret of being born that I always had is at its peak. I eventually came to the conclusion that anarchism genuinely doesn't make any sense and clearing people's minds of non-anarchism doesn't make it make any more sense, and the only way to actually create effective movements where a bunch of people don't just sit around begins at deconstructing every part of anarchism, including the superficially sensical parts like "community and communities". when you look into them they don't actually make sense. these "processes" don't explain how they themselves function and don't simply fail. biologists can explain how a pancreas succeeds or fails. physicists can explain when fundamental particle interactions do and don't happen, at least to a satisfactory extent, even when relativity and quantum mechanics only partly line up and don't perfectly line up. anarchists can hardly explain the processes behind anything.
3175. why didn't they just build bigger towns / town more than big enough for the two of us / (9k)
3176. town ain't big enough for the two of us / (9k)
3177. ??
3178. humorous euphemism for trash / please pick up your campaign promises and put them in the designated bag / what kind of Lacanianism is this? / what kind of Western-Marxism is this?
3179. humorous euphemism for trash-talking / I'm in the mood to South-Park South Park
3180. stupid idiot garbage trash / (9k)
3181. progressives as stupid idiot garbage trash / gender studies professors as stupid idiot garbage trash (generic) / (9k)
3182. non-Liberals as stupid idiot garbage trash / (9k)
3183. Communists as stupid idiot garbage trash (Communist allies as; motif) / (9k)
3184. Trotskyists as stupid idiot garbage trash / (9k)
3185. party-nations as stupid idiot garbage trash (Communist parties; Communist theorists, anarchism) / (9k)
3186. imperialists as stupid idiot garbage trash / (9k)
3187. employees as stupid idiot garbage trash / (9k)
3188. ethnic group as stupid idiot garbage trash (city people as; neighborhood as; legal or illegal immigrants as) / (9k)
3189. homeless people as stupid idiot garbage trash / (9k)
3190. elite experts as stupid idiot garbage trash / university professors as stupid idiot garbage trash -> one of the most contradictory concepts you hear out of Toryism: acting as if the literal most educated and most qualified people in fields are unnecessary to society just because Bob from South Dakota doesn't understand what they're saying. and the more people believe in capitalism the stupider the statement gets — right-Liberals go around acting like taxes are so bad and it's best to choppify society into the most autonomous chunks it can be, but then when they get their wish and that results in Careerism and households expending their own money to train elite experts who get into government bodies and start ordering people around, there's still presumed to be some argument that they don't inherently have the right to do that. all elite experts are just expressions of capital the same as a business territory is.
3191. art students as stupid idiot garbage trash / (9k)
3192. specific scientific field as stupid idiot garbage trash / (9k)
3193. what passes for macroeconomics in Croatia / (9k)
3194. disabled people as less than real people / ableism (motif) / (9k)
3195. ??
3196. ??
3197. pre-judging yourself out of the feeling that it's unethical or rude to not be mean to yourself and present yourself to others as bad
3198. ??
3199. particular name as stupid idiot garbage trash / (9k)
3200. ??
3201. [S] random event generator -> "Fetch" / FNaF brought this up?
3202. ??
3097. Subject-style being / virtual-pet-style being
3098. excessive subject -> a Subject defined by its unpredictability. sounds like a good definition of Freedom at first, but makes people indistinguishable from twenty-sided dice.
3099. excessive raincloud
3100. ??
3149. that (minus a buck fifty) / the zero dollars that doesn't get the coffee
3150. the buck fifty that gets the coffee / a buck fifty / a dollar fifty / the dollar and fifty cents that actually gets the coffee -> I use this metaphor way too much in too many contexts. one time I referred to the concept of a Yamcha + Vegeta fusion as Vegeta being "the $1.50", as if even though only one thing is useful you actually do need both things. one time I may have referred to Rosa Luxemburg's theory of movements or Trotsky's projection of international permanent revolution as the movement being "the $1.50". sometimes I use the metaphor as if "that" is useful and necessary, and sometimes I use it like "that" is not useful.
3155. ??
3160. ??
3161. phoenix
3162. bestiary reindeer / Parandrus / Tarandrus
3163. panthera (mythical beast)
3164. griffin / gryphon
3165. winged horse / pegasus
3166. European dragon / "draco" dragon
3167. unicorn / monoceros (unicorn)
3168. chimera
3169. hydra
3170. filtration / filtering -> produces movement with Bauplan
3171. filtration sifts out party-nation / unions and party are different / complicated system of pulleys (Lenin) -> retrieve Lenin text
3172. filtration and party-nation are same thing -> The Communist Necessity
3173. filtration requires Subjectivity -> Marcuse
3174. filtration through morality-shaming -> Gramscianism, Existentialism, center-Liberalism
3175. [S] filtration through national essentialism -> Toryism
3176. ??
3177. [S] fictional race
3178. [S] humanoid being / humanoid race
3179. [S] beast humanoid / furry
3180. [S] intelligent beast / civilized beast
3181. [S] intelligent monster / intelligent kaiju / civilized monster
3182. [S] intelligent construct
3183. [S] fictional being for which physics is suspended
3184. [S] toon-style being / rubberhose cartoon style being / Acme cartoon style being
3185. [S] toon animal -> intelligent beast - in the capacity of - toon-style being
3186. [S] mythical being / paranormal being / supernatural being / magical being
3187. [S] tokusatsu-style being / 1960s live-action style being
3188. [S] LCD-keychain-style being -> see: Digimon, Tamagotchi
3200. purely-hypothetical historical period / purely-hypothetical civilization or structure that population has
3201. horses in cubicles -> can we just take a moment to appreciate the horses in boring offices and shouting at each other in traffic in James Baxter's story, versus the way civilizations of horses are depicted in My Little Pony, with these tiny businesses and walkable everything. even Manehattan is idealized to where nobody actually hates living there. there's a particular disconnect between the theory of society in MLP and anything that's realistic or superficially realistic yet very nonsensical as in Adventure Time. horses driving cars is really silly, and yet, this complete walkability you see in MLP is nothing like what living beings experience in real life versus these surprisingly relatable nonsense images of horses in cubicles. (Adventure Time season 8, episode 18)
3210. animal intended as realistic animal / semi-realistic beast / intelligent animal in nature / intelligent Eukaryote in nature / intelligent organism in nature -> includes Warrior cats. does not include Wings of Fire because of the existence of certain uniquely human behaviors in the books, like small capitalism.
3211. unrealistic animal / imaginary organism in nature / unrealistic organism in nature / flatlanders in nature / kaiju in nature / unicorns in nature
3212. an animal, not a beast -> the motif of distinguishing between humans and nonhuman Animals but only by their capabilities.
3215. ??
3219. ??
3220. animal rank (ecology)
3221. animal spatial rank (speculative fiction) -> see: Saiyans, Icewing leaderboard
3222. animal tribal population / animal tribe -> Warriors
3223. animals in warring states period / animal feudalism -> Guardians of Ga'Hoole
3224. animals in feudal order or monarchy / animal feudalism -> a couple SCP entries
3225. animal empire
3226. animal republic
3227. animal city or town
3228. ??
3229. ??
3230. fictional workers' state -> almost always framed negatively in fiction, and yet, there are more of them than you'd think there'd be.
3231. fictional federation of workers' states
3232. planetary workers' state (fiction) -> bizarrely not synonymous with Trotskyism. in fiction the equivalent of Trotskyism is usually multiple worlds
3233. fictional Communist International
3234. galactic Communist International (fiction) -> one way to end Dragon Ball.
3235. Communist International of universes or timelines -> one way to end Dragon Ball Super.
3236. galactic cold war
3237. cold war over timelines
3238. ??
3239. ??
3240. ??
3241. planetary nation / planetary population / planetary tribe
3242. planetary civilization / planetary civilizational formation
3243. planetary kingdom
3244. planetary empire
3245. planetary imperial colony / planetary Third-World civilization / planetary exploited tribal population
3246. planetary army
3247. planetary police
3248. galaxy or universe police
3249. cosmic police -> the fictional motif of a police force that operates outside the material universe, perhaps over a multiverse or from the afterlife, etc.
3250. ??
3251. ??
3252. ??
3253. seasons as warring states / seasons as kingdoms
3254. seasons as impending doom / winter is coming -> see: Animal Farm
3255. ??
3256. ??
3257. ??
3258. ??
3259. networkism (meta-Marxism)
3260. spatial slot hierarchy (meta-Marxism)
3261. filament (meta-Marxism) / tiny local subpopulation / nameless tiny subpopulation
3262. Filamentism (meta-Marxism)
3263. Blobonomics (meta-Marxism) / What is this, Blobonomics?
3264. Meshonomics (meta-Marxism)
3265. Market Society (meta-Marxism)
3266. behavior-control device (meta-Marxism) / behavior-control machine -> business territory, Blobonomics
3267. Blobonomics requires a "Blobonomist"
3268. Everybodyism (meta-Marxism) / nameless prejudice against all other individuals
3269. Populationism (meta-Marxism) / nameless prejudice against all other populations
3270. Anarchism is acting as if you are already free / Freedom is using individual will to realize Anarchism -> well, here it is. a claim said by anarchists which says the thing I call Existentialism is one specific form of Anarchism. (found in the context of an interview with David Graeber, who was claimed to be an anarchist at some point in time.) I think this claim is inherently contradictory such that it could not possibly be true. if anarchism is acting as if you are free, some people are already anti-vaccine, anti-immigrant, anti-Islam/anti-atheist Tories before they do that, and then they can do "anarchism" on top of being a Tory. so Anarchism would then be a system where half of the population transitions to fascists with a fascist state and half of the population is Anarchists and the fascists kill the Anarchists (potentially). I think most anarchists would not say fascism is part of any anarchism, so this is not a definition which can actually mark off where anarchism starts and ends. on the other hand, the claim that anarchism generates Liberalism is more plausible, because nothing rules out Liberalism being what anarchism looks like in reality, and it doesn't rule out the possibility that anarchism generates Liberalism and Liberalism then generates fascism.
3271. Freedom is the discovery of escape routes / Freedom is the rearrangement of social connections -> schizoanalysis
3272. Freedom is the ability to make decisions
3273. Freedom is the absence of unnecessary populational divisions -> Lenin, Trotsky
3274. Freedom is the absence of manipulation and abuse by territory owners -> Lenin, some anarchisms
3275. ??
3276. Freedom is individuals having no accountability to others
3277. Freedom is business territories existing without government
3278. Freedom is the discovery of new possibilities / Freedom is the creation of new combinations -> meta-Marxism
3279. many tiny fragmented things equals Democracy / decentralization (chopping things up into tiny pieces to supposedly create Freedom)
3280. (Communist leader) ruined my life / implied statement that specific Communist leader ruined individual's life / explicit or implied statement that miscellaneous ruler who is not clearly distinguished from Communist leaders within the framings of the text ruined individual's life
3281. Lenin ruined my life
3282. Stalin ruined my life -> three kinds of people say this. Existentialist-Structuralist tradition members; Trotskyists; anarchists.
3283. Mao ruined my life
3284. anticommunist memoir -> like an anticommunist fable, but historically realistic. despite the name of this entry, may be either a real anecdote or a fictional story that resembles one
3285. Che Guevara ruined my life -> relatively rare versus the others, although there's no particular reason you'd expect it to be. "Mao —" is one of the most common for some reason.
3286. Ho Chi Minh ruined my life
3287. Trotsky ruined my life -> you practically never ever see this in anticommunist memoirs one can typically find in the United States. but anyone from the Third World or whose parents are is statistically a tiny bit more likely to say this than anyone born to First-World parents.
3288. Nazis ruined my life -> the motif of a story centering around horrible things Nazi Germany did in order to convince readers that Nazis are bad because I the narrator am a human individual and nazis ruined my life. not to say there is no value in these stories whatsoever, but the more I look at other books on different topics with this same form being used to push untrue conclusions, the more I feel like the specific way these are put to use to "educate" people is vaguely disingenuous.
3289. Gramsci ruined my life -> most likely to be said by Tories who, odds are, also incorrectly believe psychoanalysts and schizoanalysts are indistinguishable from Marcuse and Gramsci.
3290. Marcuse ruined my life -> here we go, the one I've more often seen.
3291. Anticommunist memoirs are educational -> by age 30, I honestly doubt this is even true.
3292. Communist texts are educational / Communist texts educate people about history and other countries -> I think reading texts about what Lenin and Mao were actually doing has taught me way more about anything than a book like The Giver ever did
3293. Anticommunist fables are educational
3294. Deng Xiaoping ruined my life / (9k)
3295. In 2025, China detained BL writers for violating obscenity laws / (9k)
3296. In a world of furries, exercising Community fixes everything -> if you think furry media isn't interesting in the context of a philosophy book, think again. there are about two or three themes that I see coming up again and again that are really interesting and strange. one of them is the general motif of a perfect garden of animals versus The Fall. another, which is closely tied to it but acts as a less poetic and more literal counterpart is the concept of people just kind of fixing everything with Community because presumably all problems are individual problems. you can see this in terms of real furry events where individuals are filling voids by meeting people, etc., but you see it become more deep and extensive in fiction where people are just solving everything for each other. furry stories seem to work best when you set them in what is basically a highly developed workers' state that is maybe not platonically perfect or all the way at the end of its development but far beyond any that have already existed. I wrote a furry short story in the afterlife as a joke about religions controlling sex and started casually designing impossible infinite-supply in the shape of a platonically complete workers' state, thinking, hmm, how can I make this infinite supply use the smallest amount of magic and be as realistic as possible, and I was shocked at how little difference there was between what I did deliberately and what "normal" furry writers do accidentally
3297. Pokémon is metatransitional literature / Pokémon is solarpunk / Pokémon is equivalent to metatransitional literature because it shows the values we need to have in order to build an Anarchism
3298. Snufkin is an anarchist -> apparently anarchists do not seriously believe this is true. [204]
3299. assertion something is an anarchism -> seems a little random, but is oddly useful for defining silly fan theories like "Snufkin is an anarchist".
3300. anarchism (top-level category) -> it took me toward the end of making this list to add anarchism or its color swatch. this is partly because I don't know much about any particular named Anarchism, and partly because I have my doubts a lot of concepts in anarchisms are actually unique to them rather than being borrowed from Liberalism or Existentialism. I am not against the sheer concept of anarchisms; particularly when they have specific civilizational shapes they form if they form successfully, they fit into meta-Marxist analysis as well as anything else does. there are just a few things I have problems with like the vagueness of anarchist philosophy and the failure to distinguish between utopian imagery and realistic models of constructing post-capitalist societies. "scientific" anarchisms with the specificity of a named Marxism are at least as legitimate to describe here as Trotskyism.
3301. Existentialism is anarchism plus the bourgeoisie -> this one seems more accurate than Q33,02. real anarchists have particular things they say, but you see a lot of those things seemingly co-opted into weird Existentialist "spaghetti" philosophies. I think one of the few anarchist sayings that can't be co-opted is that anarchism intends to remove the owners. but adding them back in seems to be exactly the missing link between anarchism and the arcane "spaghetti" philosophies like Lacanianism.
3302. Anarchism is Existentialism with a coat of black paint / anarchism is near-synonymous with Existentialism -> the claim that Anarchism's actual model of society is the same cluster of Existentialist models Liberalism uses, and then each of them builds other larger-scale village/town/region propositions on top of that. I don't really know if this is true. it would take a bit of investigation to build a decent logical proof either way. this concept comes out of the works of Horst Stowasser, [205] who claims that anarchism is "not an ideology" (impossible, but go on) but a cluster of things based on "freedom", "hostility to domination", "solidarity", "mutual aid", "autonomy of the individual", "networks of small units", "self determination", and "rebellion against foreign determination". 5/8 of those are Existentialist values, and half of them can be co-opted into Liberalism.
3303. ??
3304. ??
3305. ??
3306. ??
3307. ??
3308. ??
3309. ??
3310. buried Existentialism -> generic motif for discovering some period of Existentialism inside fiction. as this might be found in nearly any piece of fiction, there should be some very clear piece of evidence given for the themes being very specific and potentially unfamiliar ideas particular to Existentialist philosophy, thus making the reader ask "what is this and what is it doing in here?". the mere presence of something like character growth or identity doesn't inherently count as Existentialism. a more specific proposition such as "a Subject can decide on their own identity without the constant and inevitable input of others" (then where does their development come from?) or "nobody can ever predict other individuals" (even when we all have mirror neurons?) might very well count.
3311. ??
3312. Nation-states are anomalously non-tribal / Humans aren't tribalistic; nations and empires are anomalously non-tribal -> this sounds like something an anarchist or schizoanalyst would say, but it could be the case it's true. look at how ubiquitious it is for every single movement for human rights to turn into building a countable Culture that then tends to end up competing with other similar countable Cultures. maybe the cultural tribe is a fundamental unit of human social organization and in lack of a proper scientific model all our social sciences are denying it and we're all screwing ourselves over by denying it. maybe Existentialist-Structuralists would have some real success if they totally threw away psychoanalysis and the notion of individualized trauma and pushed for officializing subpopulations and giving them all "government-issued IDs". maybe the true problem with gerrymandering is that people want all the people in their voting unit to be part of a socially-linked tribe and only that form of organization would get everybody to vote and stop trying to take voting away. maybe when we're all "tribalistic" there's literally nothing wrong with us, and it's society that's wrongly designed for human beings.
3313. Culture is indistinguishable from behavior -> a proposition which is implicit in a lot of Existentialist / schizoanalyst works, including Foucault and Deleuze. despite this being a blue or charcoal proposition, I genuinely think it's most likely true. I also think that most Existentialists haven't thought through the full implications of it. attempts by psychologists and Liberal-republican representatives to control behavior necessarily squash countable cultures? true. countable cultures inherently want to get along with each other once free? false. countable cultures would never marginalize each other out of each other just for not being each other? false. countable cultures want to help each other exist instead of fight each other? false. countable cultures might want to kill each other? true. countable cultures like to cluster into empires specifically so that at least one countable culture can be marginalized and excluded from the cluster? true. Trotskyism is a countable culture? true. Trotskyism would brutally conquer other named Marxisms if necessary just to realize itself? unknown. possibly true.
3314. The Soviet Union contained 14 proletariats / The Soviet Union contained at least 14 proletariats plus a few additional smaller ones -> a little subjective, but depending on what words you assign to what collections of objects, this is already a fact.
3315. If we separate the people, party, and Red Army, we cannot achieve any merit ... the individual cannot be happy and glorious (Ho Chi Minh) / (9k)
3316. Communist party as tuning fork / "Fidel and the mass begin to vibrate together" ("Socialism and man in Cuba", Che Guevara) / (9k)
3317. culturally-defined Communist / cultural Communist (by analogy to "cultural Christian", etc) / subjectivity-defined Communist (Marcuse) / (9k)
3318. Bolshevik identity politics / (9k)
3319. If Communist-ally is not an identity, East Germany wouldn't have existed / If Communist-ally is not an identity, there would be no North Korea / (9k)
3320. freezing society's violent conflicts in place to promote peace -> important theme in State and Revolution: Liberal governments have a particular way of attempting to use this, workers' states have a different way.
3321. white-bread fantasy story -> the specific kind of fantasy story written by and for a segregated group of middle-rank White people that knows very little about other countries or about the outside world. (substitute "White people" for "majority Japanese people", etc.) includes Harry Potter, Warriors, My Little Pony gen 4, etc. you could probably name several more off the top of your head. works like Dragon Ball are kind of borderline because there is marginally more thought in there about the concepts of history and separate populations and empire, but I would say they count. honestly. you could probably make a decent though not solid argument that the Christian bible is one of these. small, insular, potentially bigoted group of people writing an "epic, engaging story" which is supposed to be universal and teach everyone universal lessons. in that sense there are some uncanny similarities between the bible and Harry Potter, aren't there?
3322. flappy planes and stick towers / XKCD 3322 "Winter" / (9k)
3323. Because an unemployed person who has never been able to work is tied to the identity of historical Marxist movements and workers' states without being tied there through the material conditions of actually being the proletariat, post-Marxism has to be true -> somebody is going to find my writings and try to pull this.
      so here's the thing. even if you take away class analysis, there are reasons this is clearly spurious. say Alice is a Marxist ally who talks about East Germany, but is not connected to Marxism by having been the proletariat. to say that Alice is inherently connected to East Germany just as an identity implies that Alice is specifically trying to be an East German. when you simply won't stop talking about a country just because you like its culture, what do you call that, other that raising your level of alliance or membership toward the level of there being a remote possibility of moving there and changing nationality? but East Germany doesn't exist any more, so that's not something she can do, and most likely she clearly knows that. it just doesn't make as much sense to try to characterize theories that invoke other workers' states existing as being about something other than the existence of similar repeated patterns in those workers' states, such as but not limited to class struggle. Marxism doesn't have to solely study the repeated pattern of conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. but overall it is about repeated patterns that independently develop in separate countries.
3324. jasmine-rice fantasy story / white-rice fantasy story -> a fantasy story which tries very hard not to be a white-bread fantasy story and tries its hardest to include identities known about in modern times like "lesbian", "transgender", and maybe "anarchist", but still bakes in clear expressions of ignorance about the outside world and in the end only barely does any better. Deltarune has to be placed here because of Spamton and how it can be argued he is a bad representation of countries like Nigeria.
3325. masala-chai fantasy story -> a fantasy story which accurately represents at least one other country specifically because the book was physically imported from another country. Dragon Ball rises to this level solely when it is read outside Japan. any book written in North Korea would probably also meet this bar.
3326. fusion-cuisine fantasy story -> a fantasy story which actually manages to represent multiple countries or countable cultures without making mistakes about one of them based on the level of knowledge about the outside world that another one has. in practice, these are very very difficult to pull off. to create one you quite literally need two countries' worth of education; if understanding how to write an accurate story about your own country were a four-year degree then you're looking at an eight-year degree.
3327. measuring-cup fantasy story -> a fantasy story which attempts to get around knowing about the entire world and all about "cultures" and "every culture" by modeling the social world as basically mathematical — "populations" and "cultures" and "languages" etc are a generic historical pattern that shows up again and again rather than an artistic representation of any specific real-life ethnic group or historical situation, and their overall behavior obeys the rules of general-sense historical materialism. if fusion-cuisine fantasy stories are the fantasy stories of Existentialism, this is the meta-Marxist counterpart. there are some ups and downs to this because in practice it may end up a bit like a white-bread fantasy story that holds up and isn't noticeably bad. it still has the pitfall that someone might interpret it as similar to a real-world situation because it accidentally left in mathematical similarities to that real-world situation without putting that particular historical process in context. basically, Marxist racism is possible but it's easier for any particular individual human being to correct because it just involves checking over the mathematics again and re-reading history for better mathematical descriptions of history.
3328. Spanish people can be anything / anti-essentialist proposition
3329. Human beings cannot form into A Culture -> a false belief I had during early MDem drafts. I had a problem with the way sociology, progressive anthropology, and most notably fantasy books characterized civilizations as "cultures" when they were always made of populations of material people. it seemed to me that if you defined groups of people (or fantasy beings, etc) as coming into existence through "culture", then it inherently promoted defining people by stereotypes and didn't explain the underlying processes that produced the people who didn't fit them. over time, I thought about this more, and came to see that what I actually had a problem with wasn't the concept that people could separate into new groups by culture — 1930s Trotskyites, modern anarchists, and particular clusters of Toryism in places like the United States clearly try to do that — but the actual problem I had was that people like fantasy writers assume a whole empire or kingdom-sized area is made of one Culture rather than every ethnic group, nationality, or fantasy race being made of multiple Cultures. my stance after that was that countable Cultures are real but they actually exist because populations are made up of subpopulations, not because people are unified.
3330. otaku / weeaboo (person who regenerates the subcultures of Japan elsewhere) -> this is a signifier because it typically comes up in a very "culturally-embedded" context of groups of isolated individuals with particular personal histories interacting with other groups of people with different personal histories while neither of them is trying to analyze the workings of societies or truly understand how anything has actually happened and they're all coming at things from these insular views having no idea how anything works and directly reacting with horror and confusion to each other's specificity and nonconformity and ignorance. it's like, one of the most "cultural" concepts there is in the negative sense of it having almost nothing to do with reality. honestly, "brony" exists through a pretty similar process.
3331. anime, which is always bad / anime, which is bad / anime >:/ / tokusatsu films, which are always dumb / Japanese Young Adult media, which are bad / Japanese shows, which are always dumb -> this almost never goes as far as the "stupid idiot garbage trash" Items are meant to suggest. those are meant to suggest something that is fundamentally not tolerated and pushed away every time, while "anime, which is bad" is meant to apply to things that are about halfway tolerated and halfway rejected.
3332. anime, the trash I love anyway -> this + Q1337 subculture = otaku
3333. Soviet-Union otaku / tankie (pejorative by anticommunists toward person obsessed with Communist imagery) / Stalinist (rare pejorative by Mensheviks, right-Liberals, and Trotskyists toward person who does not adopt complete culturally-embedded intolerance of Stalin's government) / fellow traveler (person who is a Communist ally but is not physically able to contribute much to the cause) -> the concept that otaku are created by the push of Existentialist-style Social-Philosophical Systems to defend exactly their socially-linked blob of people from other blobs of people and push people who do not neatly link into the exact set of individuals that make up that blob out to the margins of still being forced to exist within a particular population-associated countable Culture. thus otaku can be a phenomenon that exists in Japan, otaku can be a phenomenon that exists when people don't conform to the individuals of the United States, and otaku can even be a phenomenon of people learning too much about the wrong ideology or history that initially had nothing to do with Japan.
3334. brony / pegasister -> may mean varying things to people who create the label voluntarily, but in surrounding society, typically connotes a very specific kind of person who has no real connection to society except through cozy and inviting cartoons about friendship
3335. ??
3336. ??
3337. ??
3338. it's not Japanese, it's just a video game / Pokémon, which is not Japanese -> I don't think this motif is "offensive" or anything, I just think it's strange and has never made sense to me
3339. Japanese media must be understood from within Japan / Japanese media must be understood relative to how the people of Japan see them -> one of the only progressive-anthropology lessons that crusty isolated White people sometimes miraculously understand. [206] if Japanese media seem totally inexplicable, some half the time or more they actually do make perfect sense in Japan. (when it isn't the case Japanese writers just want to be silly and spontaneous, which also does happen.) Dragon Ball is constantly mocked, even though everyone has inexplicably watched it. but Dragon Ball has a rich history behind it of Buddhism in Japan, rejecting Buddhism, Journey to the West, and trying to juxtapose the mythical, fantastical feel of that story with "what is modern", in an act of turning the story's own themes of fantasy or adventure versus daily life around on itself, not to mention the vague nods in "Bardock" to casting off Imperial Japan — a historical event that happened to Japan but has never really happened to the United States. not only is Dragon Ball better in its thematic cohesion and story structure than a lot of other Japanese action shows that vaguely copied it or coincided with it, but if you compare Dragon Ball to something like Avatar: The Last Airbender there is no comparison. Avatar's worldbuilding feels vaguely "fake", like United States people tried their hardest to act like they knew what Asian countries were but in the end they just didn't. Dragon Ball actually feels like something someone from Japan would write for people in Japan, as much as it provides rather shallow portrayals of any other country or countable Culture of people. the crux of this seems to come down to "China is a medieval kingdom". people in Japan know that Japan has had more history since feudal times and what it's like to live in a Japanese city, while people in the United States seem determined not to know that. the concept of Asian immigrants writing fiction is a different discussion entirely. but when it comes to White people it really seems like a lot of what appears to be acts of embracing diversity in embracing Asian fantasy settings is actually an act of escaping learning about real China or real Japan or the real Koreas as they exist today. the probable surface reason: that would be modernity, and modernity is bad! the unintended implication: I don't know I have a lack of knowledge about other populations which in itself is effectively racist and in escaping from reality before I know about reality I am unknowingly evading education and perpetuating xenophobia. see also: why is there no fantasy Leninism?
3340. If two works are similar, one is the other's bootleg
3341. Digimon is a bootleg of Pokémon -> not true on several levels, at least on the surface. but the more you look into it, the more complicated it gets. can something be "a copy" just because people believe it to be undeserving of a greater rank? if so, this becomes much harder to evaluate. is Steven Universe the real Dragon Ball? if so, it's harder to say Pokémon isn't the real Digimon or vice versa.
3342. Pokémon is a bootleg of Digimon -> you practically never see this, but it would probably be fun to argue. Pokémon evolutions?? how do those make any sense. Tamagotchi and Digimon put real thought into this stuff, but you're telling me a garbage bag becomes a bigger garbage bag just because?
3343. Pokémon is a bootleg of Ultraman -> one of the statements that's truer that Pokémon being copied into Digimon. the show follows the same basic kaiju-of-the-week structure. Pokémon trainers are analogous to Ultraseven, using monster capsules. Ultra Series has the Plasma Spark and the Spacium ray, Necrozma is the sun-powers monster. every show has a new gimmick device. there's a pretty good argument that Pokémon is a copy of Ultra Series if you literally mean a bunch of things about it being copied. the only problem is that isn't what people actually mean.
3344. Telefang is a bootleg of Pokémon -> false impression people got from Waixing making a bootleg of Telefang. somewhat ironic that people thought Telefang was a bootleg of Pokémon because Waixing turned Pokémon into a bootleg of Telefang.
3345. Pokémon fan games are bootlegs / Pokémon fangames are identical with bootlegs -> what corporations tend to believe, or imply that they believe.
3346. ??
3347. ??
3348. ??
3349. ??
3350. How is it video games make people study other countries? / How is it that while being perceived as shallow video games are the most likely to make people study other countries? [207]
3351. China having products is stealing / Third World countries making the same product as First World countries is stealing / Third World countries independently replicating products existing in the First World using resources in their own country is stealing -> this claim only gets worse and worse as a claim the more you spell it out.
3352. Communism, the trash I love anyway
3353. Why is fighting okay in fantasy books? / Why is fighting okay in anime shows?
3354. Why is fighting okay in Digimon? -> it's definitely not just because stories are arbitrary, because you can create a story and have it not resonate with anybody, while other stories genuinely do appeal to people at least somewhat. and it's definitely not because stories aren't real, because Undertale can exist and say the opposite thing quite convincingly. so there has to be a particular reason behind author decisions. here the reason would seem related to real-world history. fantasy battles are often an abstract depiction of history. a few Digimon plots, I think the one I'm thinking of is Xros Wars?, definitely come across as national independence movements. others center around a more abstract idea of individuals defending their local friends from idealized malicious attackers. those are harder to work with, but not impossible. in some cases you can draw a line between the mere existence of eating, space-occupying Subjects and the imperative to stand together and have a national independence movement. in other cases we get into the complicated concept of population-societies and how if they can find some kind of equilibrium against others where they aren't being attacked they won't attack anyone else.
3355. Why is fighting okay in Dragon Ball?
3356. Why is fighting not okay in Undertale? -> this is much more complicated than you'd think because if there were a game similar in story to Undertale but it was Digimon, it probably wouldn't be designed around avoiding fighting or killing. even though, at the same time, Digimon doesn't believe in violence for the sake of violence; there's a whole game about recruiting Digimon to a city so they can live in peace that was one of the first Digimon console games. (in its own particular way, this is definitely bourgeois propaganda — inasmuch as it rewrites medieval history to suggest corporations made the world inherently peaceful while anything against them was inherently violent. still a great game regardless.)
      in reality, the entire reason probably requires bringing in all the lore of Deltarune. we don't even have the real reason available, so we have to get creative with finding general reasons that could have been the reason whether they actually are or not.
3357. XKCD 1357 "Free Speech" [208] [209]
3358. Rejection means you're an absolute ogre and people are showing you the door / Rejection means you're a monster and people are showing you the door / If you've been expelled, it's just that you're an asshole and people are showing you the door -> the censorings made it really easy to show what I think of this. I think by assuming that everything that upsets people is made of prejudices, at a certain point we're just creating all-directional, mutual prejudice between non-reactionaries. why is it it's so much easier to communicate that complicated concept with the simple ironic statement "Rejection means you're a monster"
3359. Fantasy books are designed for Tories -> the claim that the purpose of fantasy books is to go back to a time before progressive issues or democracy ever mattered so that none of that needs to be discussed. there are many examples which would seem on the surface to back this up, from Harry Potter to the phenomenon of console RPGs or a "white bread" show like MLP:FiM enabling the problem of people being trapped in little pockets of bigoted Tory culture and never having to learn what racism is or in some cases what a woman is. this + Russian revolution = Fantasy would be more accurate with Leninisms.
3360. China is still a medieval empire -> really, bizarrely common fictional trope if you live anywhere but China. sometimes this will be blended into a setting full of feudal orders such that it isn't noticeable, as with Neopets, or Dragon Masters. other times it will be more blatant, with fictional stories about China always being medieval but fictional stories about the United States often being futuristic. you can see it subtly inside My Little Pony gen 4: Ponies live in Manehattan and Canterlot, but Kirin live off in some remote village, they don't have a Kirin city. here's the question to ask yourself: if fiction is full of Japanese high school students and Neopets has a futuristic space station, why is China always a feudal order?
3361. What causes populations of people to be kingdoms? -> the answer isn't an obvious one. you might think you know what it is, but look at actual history and you might find the real answer is very different. Hawaii: formed into a kingdom to defend against external empires. China: formed together to stop having repeated wars. Korea: had a "three kingdoms" period, just like China. formed together to stop having wars. meanwhile fantasy works like Adventure Time will just go and say that kingdoms exist because somebody wants to rule people. to be fair, it doesn't quite say that about all its kingdoms, it just presents that as a possible reason.
3362. Fantasy kingdoms are Third World countries / Fantasy settings are comparable to Third World countries -> every time a story has a fantasy kingdom with modern technology. many center-Liberal types find it confusing and ask "what time period it's in", without thinking about why countries have time periods. but I think the only reasonable comparison is to say that a kingdom with modern technology is actually a fictional projection of a Third-World country. "time" doesn't pass the same way in the Third World. it can be 1930 and there can be cameras but still be kings and peasants.
3363. Fantasy would be more historically accurate with Leninisms / Fantasy would be more historically accurate with Communist movements -> this is one of those things that will seem like a joke and that you'll either love or you'll hate. there's a funny thing about kingdoms: a much greater number of them than you would expect had workers' movements. Aghanistan had a workers' movement. Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, and the Russian Empire had workers' movements. something happened in Zimbabwe that I currently do not understand. Italy and Japan had workers' movements. Germany had two workers' movements; Germany was still a kingdom in 1933, and then a little later it spawned East Germany. fantasy books seem to assume that kingdom-shaped countries turn into Liberalism, but in real life it's almost more like the accurate fact is that kingdoms turn into workers' movements or workers' states and gigantic nightmare empires turn into Liberalism — Napoleon = United States. if you ask me? Equestria would turn into a workers' state if it was real. to save itself from some kind of attack by the dragon kingdom or something.
3364. Writing about Communists driving out the First World is edgier than Game of Thrones (braver than; bolder than; meta-transitional socialist realism) -> think about it. which one would get you more actual controversy? an edgy medieval setting people already perceive as "reality", or writing something that fundamentally questions whether anybody reading your work should have any loyalty to their country or abandon everything they do every day to actually think about the perspective of people in another country?
3365. ??
3366. ??
3367. ??
3368. ??
3369. ??
3370. open world, but at what cost? -> I think it would be funny to have a game that lacked a railroaded adventure a la Pokémon or Dragon Quest, but where you quickly learned that the consequences of that were having to reckon with a semi-realistic progression of history where characters compete to take the world away from each other and basically there are empires and imperialized people and your character could be either
3371. Pokémon is not metatransitional literature -> an important distinction when you see some people try to label Pokémon "solarpunk". this is, in my opinion, inappropriate for the kind of socioimperialist structure that churns out oceans and oceans of merchandise and more and more consoles while producing fans that ignore other series and fictional ideas to come back to what is familiar or where their friends are, and exterminating fan creations to be sure fans don't step out of their lane of not being allowed to think. Pokémon is fairly dystopian the moment you stop watching the show and step back to the real world. in light of this, we have to realize utopian narratives serve to illustrate and legitimize our prejudices about what is and isn't true — Pokémon is not a believable future, but the mistaken belief that chunk competition is not happening and everyone can instantly Freely Choose to live in harmony right now. that was a bit angry. anyway, it's worth repeating that utopian literature is not metatransitional literature, because it does not describe a method of transition.
3372. Group Subjects willing things is how we deceive ourselves / Group Subjects willing things is literally the way we deceive ourselves -> a claim against utopian literature and "I believe that everybody" statements, especially through the on-the-ground structure of Existentialism.
3373. Feuerbach modeled an unreal Man / Feuerbach modeled an abstract Man rather than real people / Feuerbach modeled an abstract peasant rather than a real peasant [210]
3374. Stalin modeled an unreal Trotsky / Stalin modeled an abstract universalized Trotsky rather than the real Trotsky -> the leap between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and meta-Marxism.
3375. Intuition is better at justice than logic / Intuition is better for understanding history than logic / The I Ching shows us that intuitiion is better for understanding conflicts in society than written law (Alan Watts) -> recorded from some kind of old TV program. [211] it's so weird and ironic that he uses China as his example because China is not really a very intuition-based country any more since about 1940. you could attribute that to central governments doing whatever they have to to encourage modernizing to compete with other countries, any number of "kingdoms" will do this. but what if you didn't. is natural law really a sensible way of looking at things when you could draw 100 Chinese people at random and there's a nonzero chance you'd only get people that say according to their intuition Communism makes the most sense? is that to say that people transitioning to a highly logical way of thinking is what's truly obvious?
      there was this one line in 1984. "there were no laws, but there were crimes". you know, you know full well that if anybody in China today read justice according to intuition like those ancient imperial judges this is exactly what people in other countries would be thinking, and they might just clamor to force the government to read justice by exactly what's written simply so that spooky scary Communism doesn't behave unpredictably. if China were to not have a constitution people would be terrified, even though reading justice according to intuition is almost exactly why that would be the case.
      human beings want their own country to be as anarchic as possible but they want other countries to be perfectly and utterly regimented like robots so they aren't left guessing what other people will do. this seems to come down to a poor ability to take situations and duplex them in order to understand what two people or structures doing the same thing will produce without one structure seeking to control the other and produce a single structure.
3376. Natural crimes are worse than imperialism / Natural crimes are more pressing than U.S. invasions / Moral code of empire is more important than existence of empire / Imperialism is just the planetary police / justice through war -> logical result of: leaping State; appears in work: "Should America be the world's policeman?" (PragerU)
3377. leaping State process (meta-Marxist term; meta-Marxism onto Toryism) -> possibly attested in other things under other names. the motif that all populations of people, as soon as they are clusters of friends containing particular Bauplan elements, a group of frontier farmers with fences or whatnot, generate a State from inside their Group Subject because they are a socially-linked group of people, and if they come in contact with another group of people whose structure, development, or goals drastically conflicts with the way they administer their own group of people, they will leap their own State over the other group of people and attempt to conquer them or at least wilfully destroy their government and 'make them create a new one'.
      this concept is well known with the United States and workers' states, or various Third World countries perceived as not having 'democracy'. but the really interesting thing is you can see it happening with the Soviet Union and Trotskyism.
      it may also be possible that it happens with industrial empires and tribal populations. there is a strange new phenomenon of tribal populations getting weirdly insistent that anarchism is the only correct way of being human and they have the right to break open republics and tell them what to do, which wouldn't even be offensive except that none of the stuff they say actually makes sense. like, to be perfectly honest, I'm really tired of the United States so if you break it up I'm not sure I'd even care, like I want to be out of here and go to another country so it's not really skin off my nose. but what bothers me is they're telling people to urgently do a bunch of garbled nonsense toward no particular goal that nobody could possibly actually succeed at; that's where it gets insulting. I also don't like when theories from tribal populations inside First-World countries seem to infect First World people and possess them to talk more about cracking open Third World countries.
      I feel like there are eventually going to be human rights investigations into whether tribes actually have the right to crack open Third World countries if it would cause them to fall to First World empires and become colonies. because that has absolutely never felt right to me.
3378. natural treason -> the motif of people intuitively defining treason "to" an ethnic group or socially-linked group of people outside of the scope of laws, constitutions, or anything based in logic as opposed to Lived Experiences of people who "just know" that somebody is the enemy of the country.
      after knowing the amount of history that I know I feel oddly like for much of human history this was the only definition of treason.
3379. natural crime / "crime" defined without legal codes or legislative processes -> the motif of people thinking there are intuitive definitions of a violation of the law before any laws exist. this is bafflingly common. 1984 makes a big deal of "there weren't any laws but the government defined crimes", while.... that's kind of just how every Liberal-republican society operates too? laws would seem to be more like an effect of people's intuitive perceptions of what is bad than the actual way most ordinary people define what a "crime" or "atrocity" is. it's complicated whether this is even a bad thing. is it actually a good thing that people have criteria of what is bad that they can argue in Liberal-republican parliament to create laws? at first glance you'd definitely think it is. but when you think about it more you then realize that things like religion are dictating what people believe to be "inherently a crime". local culture predetermines what will be considered a crime before laws or democracy formalize it. and that's very bad when local culture predetermines that the laws will be that homosexuality is illegal or rape is only to be taken seriously to pre-emptively accuse Black people of it to remove them from society.
3380. natural law -> this motif is literally for texts that mention and invoke natural law, or that follow up on texts that mention it — texts which are in the natural law "tradition". there are some other related motifs here such as "general-sense psychoanalyst", but those are not defined relative to this motif even if they may in practice overlap or functionally be the same thing.
      this motif is charcoal because I swear anarchists frequently invoke the concept of natural crimes even if they do not mention natural law by name.
3381. Anarchism will never be able to solve Hatfield attacks -> unsure if this is true or false, but has definitely been on my mind while writing the book. would like to see a counterpoint of how Anarchisms can possibly solve Hatfield attacks from other "small and local" populations that don't like them. you know there are going to be some of them. a great chunk of reactionaries in the United States sound basically like anarchists in about 70% of everything they say until they get to anything about demographic identities and whether they hate them. work makes no sense? check. big business is ruining everything and it's better if everything is small circles of friends? check. cities are unnatural and modern culture is oppressive so I want to go form a Culture that's more natural to me? check. Stalin and Trotsky are tyrants? check. you can't make me use particular language or design or user interfaces or platforms? check. you can't make me acknowledge transgender people as real? you can't make me watch Black people on TV? wait. so yeah. it's like, US Tories are like anarchists that just want a bit more freedom, specifically total Freedom from race mixing. they abuse every concept you hear from anarchists to be especially bigoted.
      this is why when anarchists go into weird opinions about "what the web should be"... it feels off to me. it feels a bit like my relatives not wanting to see Spanish. when is a way of presenting something a form of communication and expression and when is it an imposition on how other people wish to communicate? is a "webmagazine" with print-like visual styling unacceptable? is a console RPG non-accessible? are there times a printed book is non-accessible? accessibility is the best argument against "the web" to me because it's objective whether people can see or hear something period. but anarchists love regular books when they can be non-accessible, and say things against videos when videos are highly accessible in multiple senses. to some people a podcast is more understandable than a TTS reading of a webpage. I think about the concept of what forms of media are understandable and what makes each one understandable a whole lot.
      argument against: if meta-anarchists show up with a flow chart about Iroquois anarchism and a plan of action on how to actually create a "united states of states of states" that achieves the same result, we'll say it's maybe the size of Vermont or a little smaller, this could be falsified. unless of course there is a good reason the plan wouldn't work, and then the proposition is open again.
3385. reparations -> a general concept of transitional justice which seeks some kind of compensation toward a whole group of people to try to end a conflict against a demographic. I feel like there's something to be said about how compensation at the tiniest scales and compensation at larger scales are related concepts, though I don't entirely know what conclusion to make.
3386. blood feud -> the motif of an ongoing small-scale war between households or very small chunks of a population. common in feudal orders or when a population is very underdeveloped. the Hatfields and the McCoys occurred after the time of "medieval" periods per se, but sure did happen. this motif also showed up in FNaF of all places, in reference to old Japan and what I think are Kurosawa movies but I'm not sure, also the violence between Henry and William's families. in one sense this seems like some kind of hallmark of an ill-developed country but it also can happen in any time period.
3387. blood money / wergild / botgild / reparations (payment for individual crime; medieval Europe) -> according to historians, one of the major reasons for getting everyone to use money in 1500s Europe (although we may never know the single biggest reason) was to abolish blood feuds by making everyone demand a fine instead. [212] having everyone use money has several advantages: regulating banks and the people with the most money if possible; taxes; this. in this article it also details how European church taxes basically created counties and county sherrifs, when otherwise mobilizing people's money to do something for a local group of people would not have been as easy. and these programs don't have to be violent, because today county-scale church taxes run schools. this is really worth bringing up toward anarchists. the world is full of a lot of people who as soon as they feel something has been taken from them will just go kill someone. (counting the Trotskyite conspiracy as a different variation on the theme that occurs at larger scales, you've got a few more.) Liberal-republicanism has been ineffective at stopping this just by making violence illegal and sending cops, or having people send representatives to parliament for that matter. however. if the whole United States were to just abolish the United States and live in villages tomorrow. how would anarchists get all the crazy Tories living in the rust-red states to agree that something other than killing people in another village was fair compensation?
3388. Hatfield attack / horizontal attack / Hegelian conflict, violent / crime (sometimes labeled as such without reference to any legal code, sometimes labeled in response to a corresponding law) / natural crime (incident; Existentialist-Structuralist framing, psychoanalytic framing) / local warfare / crime-war / war crime / stochastic terrorism (individual incident)/ William Afton is real (statement that spontaneous murders exist) / hacking pedophiles to pieces with an axe (incident in Celebration, Florida; Celebration axe murder, generic) / deadly cookie (fandom drama incident) / ice ax incident (incident of two particular Marxist parties violently attacking each other outside any legal order)
3389. Anarchism can oppress people / When it is constructed in the real world, there exists a form of anarchist society which can oppress people -> anarchists think this couldn't be true because they've cleverly defined anarchism to be everything which is not oppressive, but if you ask every Tory, the history of Communism already shows that any system which is built in reality can oppress people including anarchism. a whole lot of Tories are already convinced anarchists are bent on oppressing them. what is the reason this happens? why would there be so many people claiming this non-extraordinary, mundane claim if it was totally impossible?
3390. 3390Anarchism is something to overthrow / Anarchism is not something to transition to, but something to overthrow / Anarchism is not something transitioned into, but something to be overthrown / (9k) -> follows from: anarchism can oppress people, Liberalism is a realized Anarchism. this idea has been all over MDem drafts at varying levels of intensity, but arguably has already appeared in many mainstream Marxist-Leninist writings under terms such as "bourgeois ideology". I do not know whether this statement is true or false, and I wouldn't solidly claim either. I have written a lot of things assuming it's false just to promote groups of people tolerating each other in a world where every individual is in competition and it's so easy for everything to fall apart and turning into the ~10 separate Lefts there have always been fighting each other.
3391. 3391Non-greedy people are a class / (9k)
3392. 3392If nature had a legal code, it'd be exmat (pronounced ex-mat) / If nature had a legal code, it would be existential materialism -> the claim that "the most intuitive outcome" for a collection of individuals can only be described by the totality of possible interactions of those individuals. there is no intuitive outcome which represents "justice", as much as simply one outcome which is possible or probable based on individuals' and groups' biased personal experience. sometimes the possible outcomes contain a good or best outcome. intuition doesn't necessarily get us there.
      one way to describe human reasoning is that we all use Bayesian reasoning, but taking Bayesian reasoning and formalizing it on paper reveals the inherent problems in human reasoning rather than acting as any kind of method of doing it better.
3393. 3393What is the alternative to hate crimes? / If money, wealth, artisanal careers, and fines are the alternative to murder, what is the alternative to hate crimes?
3394. game show challenge / challenge on a game show which is not serialized across multiple episodes / challenge on a game show which is usually not sports
3395. reality show challenge / game show challenge of an action or serialized-story-arc variety / game show challenge involving significant non-cooperation or drama -> funny enough, came up in the MDem revision about afterlives, because it's always funny to imagine the afterlife being a game show. or a reality show. it's kind of hard to distinguish between reality shows and game shows when talking about challenges that only take place in a single episode. my best guess is that reality show challenges are more intense
3396. voted off the island -> very interesting because it gives you a different perspective on the concept of "voting"
3397. Survivor
3398. nonviolent horizontal attack / SLAPP suit / copyright takedown -> an event which looks for all the world like a Hatfield attack but is perfectly legal.
3399. Stallmanism -> technically right-Liberalism but it's tried really really really really hard to be an anarchism.
3400. named anarchism / anarchist Bauplan / anarchism containing specific collection of civilizational characteristics which distinguish it from another anarchism
3401. L is real [213] [214] -> the concept of Luigi secretly being in Super Mario 64
3402. L is unreal [215] / L was never real -> the motif of Luigi being absent from everything, including Super Mario 64, including Luigi's Mansion which is now just "'s mansion". seen in a disappeared toby fox thread
3403. 3403democratic confederalism (motif)
      democratic confederalism (motif) + ?? = Makhnovism.
3404. 3404town chock full of Trotskyists -> a motif I always like to bring up to illustrate the concept that ideologies are physical arrangements that structure populations and create populational behavior. a town full of Tories behaves one way, a hypothetical town full of nothing but Trotskyists that all know things about Lenin would behave another way. as far as I know my meta-Marxist writings or drafts are the only thing I have ever seen talking like this.
      certainly Liberal-republican writings will try to do things like attribute neoliberalism to Toryism as this block of Tories deciding to invent "greed", but they aren't doing that from a Materialist standpoint that actually asks what processes assemble isolated individuals into specific kinds of larger groups or harmful behaviors as they simply attempt to live their lives.
      case of: Bauplan element / ideologically-charged Bauplan element / complex Bauplan element.
3405. 3405Anarchists can be a class (meta-Marxism) / (9k)
      Non-greedy people are a class + ?? = Anarchists can be a class.
3406. ??
3407. ??
3408. ??
3409. ??
3410. Proudhonism
3411. Kropotkinism -> appears to be one of the most popular anarchisms besides Proudhonism.
3412. Bookchinism / Communalism (anarchism) / (9k)
3413. ??
3414. ??
3415. ??
3416. ??
3417. ??
3418. Makhnovism -> I doubt anybody calls it by exactly this name but hey, I've given any number of things needlessly specific names like "Zinovievism" (orange anarchism) and "Cannonism" (Trotskyism that doesn't destroy workers' states), so what's another name going to hurt
3419. mixed anarchism / anarchism combining multiple named anarchisms -> I feel like most of the time people believe an anarchism it's going to look something like this. still, it's useful to characterize the named ones so they can be analyzed and there are actual tangible structures in them to work with.
3420. conservatism -> this motif is almost exactly what it says. no numbered Item is a linguistic dictionary word to contain dictionary definitions, but whatever you think this word means is likely to count for this Item. the only caveat I can think of is... should this be divided into differnet historical periods? I feel like a monarchist period is very different from a republican period but on the other hand I don't know how much "conservative" people's thinking has even changed since 1600. some days it feels like it's exactly the same.
3421. There are four kinds of conservative parties -> the reactionary; the republican; the tycoon; the cult leader. [216] well, that's a claim. I think these categories are not very distinct from each other. also. what makes you think you can control any particular kind of conservative subpopulation and magically make it smarter? saying the United States can choose what kind of conservative parties it will have is just an empty "I believe that everybody" statement.
3422. Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, from Eisenhower to the Tea Party (Kabaservice 2012)
3423. How Democracies Die (Levitsky & Ziblatt 2018)
3424. Constructing Democratic Governance: Latin America and the Carribean in the 1990s — Themes and Issues (1996)
3425. Democracy is the act of convincing upper-rank people to vote instead of merely capturing the population -> found in Q34,24; claim about the causes of governments labeled as authoritarian in Latin America. very interesting, but sounds dubious. raises the question of, is a democratic republic even achieving anything whatsoever or is life exactly the same with or without it? seems like a glitch in the model that we should be asking that question.
3426. A republic exists for upper-rank people to fight over land / (9k)
3427. Nonviolence leads to settler-colonialism / If money, wealth, artisanal careers, and fines are the alternative to murder, the nonviolent alternative to hate crimes is paying to not share the same space with minority demographics ... [verbose proposition] / (9k)
3428. anarcho-colonialism / (9k)
3429. Black lion or white lion, any republic is okay if it promotes a thriving White countable culture / Black lion or white lion, any republic is okay if it promotes a thriving Protestant-specific nation (England) / (9k)
3430. anarcho-Toryism / (9k)
3431. you are educated stupid and evil (Gene Ray) / (9k)
3432. An anarchist U.S. (pronounced United States) would believe time cube / If you turned everyone in the United States into anarchists, they'd basically believe time cube / (9k)
3433. What if Gene Ray was a Communist? / Which Marxism would Gene Ray subscribe to if he had become a genuine Communist ally? / (9k)
3435. ??
3439. ??
3440. ??
3444. fighting fire with fire / using poison to cure poison / stopping a questionable process with the same process -> this item should be considered a fictional trope, but I can't help think of Trotsky trying to defeat a flawed Marxism with a "Marxist revolution"
3445. confusing the problem with the solution -> I'll think of a catchy trope name for this later. the thing that Trotsky and Žižek do, as well as Deleuze & Guattari. fighting fire with fire + phenomenology?? = this
3446. anarchist psyop / (9k)
3447. anarchism and spontaneously abolishing borders / (9k)
3448. ??
3449. title comp / combining things with Batman (Dinosaur Comics) -> so this has a name apparently
3450. mad libs [217] / mad lib
3451. madlib card game / apples to apples [218] / cards against humanity [219] -> this is one part of the appeal of this ontology project that I neglected to properly explain before. like, to some extent, it's supposed to be that Wavebuilder combinations are fun or interesting because they're a lot like a black-card-white-card game where you put down your black card "going to the afterlife" and your white card "Leon Trotsky" and then there will be a new entry based on that "card round" actually explaining the concept of "Trotsky going to the afterlife" — which you can then use as a new "white card". you're intentionally nudged to find really stupid combinations of black cards and white cards, such that they produce either a really funny and weird concept with a bunch of new abstract associations, or an actually good philosophical insight
3452. ??
3453. ??
3454. ??
3455. ??
3456. ??
3457. ??
3458. ??
3459. signifier mad libs [220] -> when an audience fails to ask what a fiction or non-fiction work is actually trying to communicate and begins carelessly filling in all the nouns, verbs, and adjectives with their own meanings
3460. ??
3465. ??
3470. If Black people are the first ones to start a Marxist movement, there will be a race war; there has not been a race war prior to attempting Leninism -> false because there already is a race war. it's already been happening, to such an extent that Marxism couldn't newly start it.
      what people really, really don't understand is that every time an anarchist hides out and "lives life by anarchism", at least one Tory does it along with them. and if it goes on long enough, Tories become cops and shoot Black people just as part of "living their lives by anarcho-Toryism", exactly the same way people do post-structuralist anarchism, just in khaki brown. anarchists are really really bad at duplexing things and realizing what their ideologies lead to.
3471. Color, Communism, and Common Sense (Johnson ??)
3472. Manning Johnson orchestrated a Communist plot to divide Black churches [221] [222] / Stalin planned to use Black people as expendables (sic; referring to a proposed vanguard) -> it appears the main error here is taking the phrase "general conflagration" and not realizing the key word is "general". looks like the substance of the plan is that if there is a rebellion in the United States then it will occur when Black people and all the other workers join together. but in reality, the Soviet Union has made an error because since about the US Civil War its subpopulations don't really spontaneously join together like that. it's always been movements for really specific identities only that on top of that take a really really long time or sometimes go backward. so yeah, "Stalin's" theory was wrong. look at people today and weirdly, the most effective and popular issues for joining people together are negative issues against things, especially a million people against a specific individual. people are very "anarchy-brained" and seem really incapable of comprehending actually creating policies versus exactly and precisely not having something bad that's annoying or frightening them.
3473. Highlander school of Communist troublemaking [223] -> this phrase makes me laugh. it's really the cherry on top that it has the same cadence as "Hogwarts school of wizardry". it sounds so official.
3475. ??
3476. ??
3479. At some time between 1980 and 2025, Mexican anarchists told people to flood into the United States in an attempt to defeat nation-states and borders (unverified claim) / (9k)
3480. The Peter Principle
3481. Greed is bad, therefore everyone getting more and more education and aiming for higher and higher positions is bad -> major proposition of The Peter Principle. this is the dark side of everyone claiming that the constant push to innovate and innovate and "innovate" is a product of greed. when ordinary people hear that, they'll just tell you that every single case of incompetence or incorrect behavior was a case of arrogant people being greedy when they shouldn't have been there and everyone would be better off if they'd kept their heads down and done nothing.
      I'll repeat it again and again: growth is a product of population growth and the desire for an overall population to have more. the process of Kimberlé Crenshaw doing a whole lot of research to build a progressive theory and the process of somebody pouring education and research into creating an AI are the same process. if you label that process "greed", the results will not be pretty. it takes a lot of "greed" to practically elevate people out of literally having been slaves.
3482. ??
3483. ??
3484. ??
3485. ??
3486. ??
3487. ??
3488. Fascism is true / Fascism works / As long as no individual cares about themself nor loves anything more than they fear or hate criminals and people who do not obey the procedures of their republic and carry out extrajudicial actions, the principles of realizing fascism technically are effective and as possible to follow as Liberal-republicanism or Bolshevism / Fascism is truer than Trotskyism / Fascism is truer than anarchism -> if you want to be a Materialist philosopher and describe real-world phenomena accurately so that people can prepare for them or counter them, there are some very difficult realizations that nearly nobody wants to acknowledge. this is one of the big ones. many philosophies or ideologies we think of as "untrue" are technically more true and possible than we think of them as being. a lot of people think of Christianity as untrue, but it's a wonderful superstition to have if you want to win wars and crush ethnic groups through people standing together with money and "love" and teamwork. likewise, we all want to believe fascism is untrue because it's cruel or such. but that's not really how ideologies actually work. many ideologies that are not entirely effective are still effective enough to go on for a while or pose problems. people don't want to believe Bolshevism could work, but even after the Soviet Union effectively lost it, to this day it's been more effective than Google. stop and think about that for a moment when you are gauging the effectiveness of fascism.
      despite all that, there is one thing we can do to turn the tables from fascism being true to fascism being untrue — actually create populations which are stronger than socially-linked Filaments of fascism. it won't be easy. people will have to actively fight uphill against crumbling (multi)capitalisms and, counterintuitively to what a lot of old Marxist texts say, not simply take advantage of crises to break things but instead become so powerfully united they pull civilization out of crisis and make it functional again, making everyone able to operate together despite all threat of anyone pulling capital and making businesses break apart or cease to exist and hemorrhage workers. it's at that point that fascism can't win.
3489. ??
3490. Capitalism is bad because everyone is greedy / Capitalism is bad because it makes owners imperialistically greedy and customers materialistically greedy -> the claim that the only problem with capitalism is that every individual on earth doesn't strive to live "in balance" without "going over the line" into other individuals. this might sound all right if you have never heard of the concept of Social-Philosophical-Material Systems, and come to realize that competition between individuals occurs at the level of socially-linked groups of people merely existing, not at the level of people stating out loud at debates or in advertisements or news headlines what they're going to do next. if you have heard of it? you realize this proposition is nonsense because not only can nobody will what anyone else does, but definitely nobody can Freely Will how anyone else physically exists and develops as an organism. Existentialism claims to give everyone Freedom but in reality causes everyone to assign everyone else a designated purpose and required way to exist that will almost inevitably conflict with everyone else's purposes for themselves and others.
3491. Is it greedy to go to art school? / Is it greed when people choose the wrong career? -> if the answer is yes, and some individuals are obligated to spontaneously predict when it is wrong for them to go to art school or study epidemiology or designing circuits and say "well I guess I won't go to college" just to take money away from Disney and iPhone and Big Pharma, or because they instantly know there will be too much of those industries 4-8 years later, then you can call capitalism greedy.
3492. Human existence distorts perception of time / Human existence creates distorted perception of time / Ruler of Everything is about how human existence distorts human perception of the universe / Ruler of Everything is about how early-existentialism is the shovel dream of limited human existence but this is not an objective model of the universe -> I think we all commit one big Last Unicorn fallacy on time.
3493. "This is why Arceus created ... 3 states of matter" / real world made by Creator of fictional universe -> House MD, season 8 episode 8. This probably subsets another signifier something like "hypothetically speaking of god of fictional universe as having created the world". or maybe is it. I'm not sure.
3494. Art is in the audience's experience / The nature of what art is revolves around the audience's Lived Experience / Art must be experienced by someone to be art -> of all the things you could invoke Lived Experience about? this is the only one I feel might be correct. I can't think of any argument against it. this might just be true.
3495. Ruler of Everything (Tally Hall) -> this is blue because it's early-existentialism in a nutshell. nothing wrong with the song though
      tangent: sometimes I feel like the problem is existentialism is Bergsonism and Bergsonism is positivism. I sound like the fairy godmother right now. being a Subject means / seeing until you die / but the thingamabob that does the job is earth can come only from I
3496. ??
3497. Science ignores shovel dreams / Science ignores plurality (statement about multiple objects having perceptions and interpretations) / The biggest reason people reject science is that it doesn't recognize plural objects containing different perceptions -> as soon as you say that out loud it seems really silly. does science truly forbid the existence of multiple brains experiencing? but it doesn't seem silly to any of the people who have "discovered" it. fail to teach people about general relativity and they will insist that "linear time" fails to capture individual Lived Experience of time, and end up in positivism. fail to teach people about the process of multiple populations forming countable cultures and each constructing religion, and people will insist that "experiencing god" is actually experiencing some external thing rather than deeply hallucinating into a lack of data inside the self to fabricate a person. fail to teach people that perceptions are ontologies and ontologies can be right or wrong but people act on ontologies rather than what is in other people's heads, and people will get upset you didn't invent a way to force Christians and atheists to tolerate Muslims just because they're both freedom poles that are ostensibly born with "inalienable rights" which in actuality are totally fabricated by society and do not inherently exist in the minds of oppressive people to be activated. people get super upset that science doesn't understand the plurality of "different cultures" or different individuals on the level that Alice the individual intuitively understands Bob the individual, even as individuals are a unique kind of object and most of material reality cannot do what individuals do and science only studies material reality. people think tent of freedom poles is the single most important thing in the world, and if science can't deliver tent of freedom poles then it's time to throw out all science.
      the solution is this: you have to teach people a mathematical study of the sheer interaction of individuals and groups of people. you have to show them how many bad interactions are possible, and how truly unlikely a good interaction is no matter how much you hope for a good interaction. you have to teach them that they are genuinely not in control as individuals over whether people choose to obey "tent of freedom poles", and the only thing they control is how much to oppress those people for not getting along with them — they can change other people through authoritarianism, war and violence, or love and perfect integration into another highly specific culture with bigotry fully baked into it they might not have control over. there isn't really a middle ground where you can assume people automatically want to change but won't fiercely fight to keep their freedom to not change when their wants don't match yours. the key to teaching people this begins at things like lambda calculus demos, and fuzz graphs going across to quantum Goku or quantum Vegeta
3498. ??
3499. All events revolve around you / All events that occur while a particular person exists occur within that person, as part of "life" / (9k
3500. Buddhism is actually an early attempt at historical materialism -> it sounds silly until you actually look into it. and then you realize... oh. one of the major reasons for Buddhism continuing after it declined in India is that people in a warring states period really needed an ideology about uniting fractured groups of people together into a functional group of people again. to state that there are any general rules you can follow to do that with any success which are not strictly situational is to argue for general-sense historical materialism.
3501. It's easier to argue against Buddhism than Christianity -> subjective of course, but interesting. to argue against Buddhism you only need to talk about the supernatural claims or material results of religion. to argue against Christianity you actually have to contend with the dynamic of religion being used to justify small or isolated groups of people. people believe in Christianity or sometimes in Islam because they want their local group of people to survive against another group of people while humans are in constant competition over everything. so naturally they don't give up Christianity as easily. worse yet they become attached to Protestantism or Catholicism against the other because a unified Christianity wouldn't defend their local chunk of socially-linked people against others within the actual competition that's going on within their country or region. the claim of Christianity, that there's a single god, becomes laughable the more time goes on and you look at how Christianity is actually used to defend small, local, specific groups of people who each believe they were chosen as more legitimate by God rather than to in any way serve the whole world. I'll keep saying it, Christianity is strangely similar to Trotskyism. in Trotskyism you just replace God with Lenin. what really bugs me though is that in center- and right-Liberalism you replace God and Lenin with sheer intuition on which individuals are Individually Societying In Parallel Correctly and the "stupid idiot garbage trash" divide. nothing about that makes sense. I swear Trotskyism makes more sense.
3502. In a world of karma and attachment, why are there monotheists? -> this was demonstrated really well in one episode of Dragon Ball with just, the whole universe having a roughly Buddhist cosmology and then some people who are desperately praying to "God". it raises some deep questions. if Buddhism were true and practically speaking anybody who believes in monotheism probably has some sort of unhealthy attachment that makes them fight other groups of people, then why do monotheists physically exist? you really end up having to invent general-sense historical materialism to explain the answer. you have to explain how groups of Christians developed as populations of people and how that history caused them to end up with religion. and by then, why wouldn't the same be true of Buddhism?
3503. Buddhism would be the same if there was no reincarnation / Would Buddhism be any different if there was no reincarnation? (semi-rhetorical question) -> I'm fairly convinced it would behave the same way but it would just turn into an honest account of the fact people are born into different positions in the world, it's bad to be in a low one, people sometimes struggle their way out of low positions, and it's better for people to try to form stable structures where they coexist than to have warring states periods.
3504. ??
3505. ??
3506. ??
3507. ??
3508. ??
3509. ??
3510. the perfect law that gives freedom / people who don't create peace aren't Christians (motif) -> James 1:25. this is the kind of thing that makes me think that in its crudest forms Existentialism has been around for hundreds and hundreds of years before being renewed into Existentialism-Structuralism proper in the 1900s. the core of Existentialism is that it promises a way of creating empire without kings or nobility, simply by linking people together into one big group of friends that is ready to fight anyone outside it at the drop of a hat. I think this may be the crux of why Christianity adapted so well to Liberal-republicanism and became such a tool for bashing Bolshevism as well as genuinely oppressive republics. the values of Christianity happened to coincide with the physical structure of several Liberal republics banded together into an axis of First-World powers.
3511. Christianity would be the same if there was no afterlife -> mirror to Q35,03. the claim that most of Christianity could still continue on exactly as it was claiming to have benefits even if there was no god or afterlife.
3512. Anarchism is just secular Christianity / Christianity is just mystical anarchism -> this is a funny statement but it's not really much of an insult at anarchists as much as a dry statement that as secular theories of society Christianity and anarchism run on the same principles. depending on the specific sect or variation, both of them are a bunch of statements that "people should" behave a certain way and join together with each other and that will fix everything. and both of them run into the problem that people always belong to countable populations instead of ever being a single uncountable humanity that behaves as a single rational ""we"" rather than separate material groups of people with separate conflicting values fighting over material space and stuff.
3513. Anarchism is just secular Buddhism / Buddhism is just mystical anarchism -> sometimes anarchist principles seem to come from Christianity and sometimes they seem to come from Buddhism. there is this weird unholy convergence between the two religions the moment they try to operate in reality, as if the two were never actually separate and in the end the supernatural claims never actually mattered.
3514. Any attempt to turn religion Materialist creates anarchism / Any time you try to turn religion Materialist it transforms into anarchism -> case of: conjecture. an odd thing pointed out by Valenoern while messing with the idea of "hollow shells" as an alternative to souls.
      evidence: A) the Christian motif of "powers and principalities" asks Christians to Zinovievize empires even when they are separate in order to return humanity to a supposed primordial united state. (see: And they found dragons) B) the Buddhist motif of non-duality has a few different meanings but one of them is to undo the borders between populations to supposedly tear down prejudices and join two populations into Community. (okay idea for feudal China, really terrible idea to apply to the United States where individuals are genuine threats to each other and people shoot because of genuine two-way threat of one kind or another.)
3515. ??
3516. ??
3517. ??
3518. ??
3519. ??
3520. ??
3521. ??
3522. ??
3523. ??
3524. ??
3525. ??
3526. ??
3527. "Sometimes true" means false / Propositions that are sometimes true are false -> axiom used in the traditional practice of formal logic. I think this has done a lot to ruin logic and generally ruin language. if every proposition has to be precisely 1 or 0 and it can't be precisely anything between that, then propositons have to be ridiculously long in order to be evaluated as what the person who said them actually intended the proposition to mean and refer to. and that creates a complete and utter mess the instant you start talking about "democracy". formal logic works fine in a monarchy, but what if people do experience structural racism in Alabama and don't experience structural racism in California? there will be every temptation for all the voters and representatives who don't live in Alabama to say that the propositon "Black people experience structural racism" is false and there shouldn't be a national policy about something that's false. likewise, every time somebody makes a video essay and says any statement at all, such as "linguists fall into two categories", formal logic incentivizes everyone to instantly pick apart the statement exactly as it's written, and say things like "that statement is false! I know about another category of linguists!" rather than realizing that "fall into two categories" could inherently mean that two categories of linguists exist and other categories of linguists exist while none of them exclude the possibility of the others.
3528. "Sometimes true" means true / Propositions that are sometimes true are true -> this axiom is vastly more forgiving to any claim that real people make with the intention of educating other real people about real problems. when most people attempt to say a true statement they often don't mean to exclude other statements from also being true. "horizontal killings are bad" is not necessarily meant to exclude "defensive wars are not bad", but when you think in terms of formal logic you're often pushed to think "horizontal killings are bad" being true means "war is bad" becomes true. the rule of a statement having to be always true to be true does a lot to make statements that shouldn't be exclusive turn mutually exclusive and destroy discourse because truth values don't encourage people to compromise onto a shared set of true statements. working with sometimes-true statements being true can be a little challenging, but the way you do it is you basically separate large-scale philosophies or ideologies from small-scale ones and the ideologies of different regions from each other and treat them all as material objects, such that something could be true in one of them quite fairly and quite fairly not be true in another, without causing any problems, just because different civilizations have different physical structures and different physical arrangements of people. formal logic was really really badly designed for the existence of multiple countable cultures, and yet, you don't really need to invoke "culture" to fix it per se, you only need to invoke Social-Philosophical Systems of populational structure and the physical gaps between populations. if you separate California and Texas into different bodies of knowledge where the same thing isn't always true even if the population is functioning well, you've basically fixed it.
3529. Is the number five smaller than a breadbox? -> demonstrates the need for non-binary truth values. the answer isn't yes or no. it isn't even "40% true". the only good answer is "not applicable", "category error", "this is not a physical object" as totally distinct from false.
3530. Truth value of ... ? / What is the truth value of ... ? -> generic meta-question or operator asking the truth value of an S2 Statement, implied to be a non-binary truth value.
3531. What is the truth value of "This statement is true"?
3532. What is the truth value of "This statement is false"? -> A) statement claims statement cannot contain true information. B) propositions are to be evaluated for situations in which they are true, rather than assuming they apply to everything — quarks axiom. C) propositions can carve out specific areas of reality that they apply to before asserting something is true there — Trotskyism axiom. D) when a statement asserts that something is true or false, it asserts that there is a defined field of study in which the statement applies, such that that field is able to claim particular things are true or false — Digital World axiom. E) the statement contains an internal model of the statement. F) the internal model that a particular object holds of itself is not necessarily true — shovel dream axiom. G) the internal model of an object is true when it accurately models the object — North Korea axiom. H) the statement itself is an object with internal components. I) one component of the statement is the model of itself, containing the concepts of "this statement" and "false", and assigning the state of being false to "this statement". p(x) CONTAINS (x HAS RELATIONSHIP false VERSUS p(x)) J) in the model, "false" refers to the state of being inaccurate or un-sound, the same as what it is usually assumed to mean. K) in the model, "this statement" refers to a hypothetical version of the statement, and not the real statement — see Digital World axiom, Trotskyism axiom. the hypothetical statement is inaccurate to something. L) we do not have to begin by seriously assuming a statement is true as much as potentially-false or undecided — Sagan axiom. M) the statement "This statement is false" could hypothetically be an inaccurate model. N) the statement claims to apply to itself, and does not claim to apply to other things.
3533. What is the truth value of Wikipedia? -> anyone who uses wikis a lot might laugh at this, but it's a worthwhile question when we're asking how people actually decide whether sources are reliable or unreliable. say we agree Wikipedia is "not provably true". is some bound, compiled reactionary rant by Dinesh D'Souza more likely to be true than Wikipedia just because nobody can change it? the truth value of that would have to be "good for some purposes, not more likely to be sound".
3534. What is the truth value of non-fiction? / What is the truth value of non-fiction books?
3535. What is the truth value of fiction? -> basically another way to pose the question of whether fiction is educational, or to ask whether fictional things "exist" — leaning more toward the latter.
3536. What is the truth value of the bible? / What is the truth value of the Christian bible?
3537. What is the truth value of folklore?
3538. What is the truth value of fan fiction?
3539. What is the truth value of creepypastas?
3540. ??
3550. ??
3555. If I had a nickel for every time ... I'd have two nickels — which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice / (9k)
3560. ??
3570. ??
3580. ??
3585. Faith is better than Determinism / Hope is better than secular or religious Calvinism -> I know this is in reference to the philosophical "Determinism" everyone believes exists as a model of reality for some reason and not any sensible definition of determinism which is actually practical for use in science. but it still bothers the hell out of me to be honest. like not a single bit of it makes any sense. faith isn't a thing. philosophical Determinism isn't a thing. neither of these things is real. so when you even say this statement it can't be true. it's all chaos magic, whether you believe in Christianity or Existentialism or whatever you take faith or hope to be. and none of it's true! it's all just everyone persuading themself that their own chunk is the best and the most human and the most existiest and and the most worthy of surviving and squashing others and pushing people out of Community into the homeless people tent area where nobody will actually agree to pay taxes and house them, and living their lives and being racist and prejudiced but acting "nice" and normal and superior to anybody that doesn't perfectly conform to the most commonly repeated behaviors of Community (pronounced Commu-nity). I'm sick of it. I'm done with it. Communism is the fight against chaos magic, at this point in history.
      you know though, the one positive thing I can say is that Undertale and Deltarune together are potentially a great portrayal of why chaos magic is really dumb and hopes-and-dreams actually mean nothing despite what all the people stuck inside the Undertale world imagined by the Deltarune world may believe ­— believing in chaos magic only made them willing to kill six human children from the "real" world or the outside world, and Chara is precisely a deconstruction of other games depicting killing large numbers of enemies as the manifestation of an empire's hope. it could be that when Deltarune is done there are a lot of people who will decide they hate Deltarune but like Undertale because they don't want to give up chaos magic. I hope toby fox isn't one of them, because if he wasn't that would make the moment epic and make these games an actual masterpiece.
3586. ??
3587. Organized religion is a conspiracy theory about what ethnic groups are inherently more capable or worthy of surviving / Organized religion, including Christianity, Islam, historical religious Judaism, Chinese Buddhism, and Hinduism are a supernatural interpretation of the background competition between individual human beings and emergent formations like populations and nation-states which seeks to rationalize and moralize particular groups of people succeeding or failing at existing / Organized religion is a conspiracy theory ... (censored label)
3588. Every ideology created before Marxism boils down to calling ethnic groups good or bad -> this depends on the definition of any identity-based social graph of people nested a certain degree of identity-groups deep as being an "ethnic group". in order to falsify this statement, there has to be an ideology which claims to comprehend history but doesn't reduce the actions of populations to "incorrect culture" or whole populations "deciding" to do Evil and instead recommends morally neutral methods of fixing populations. this is much harder to find than you'd think. something as simple as a statement like "the West has been Orientalist" vilifies an ethnic group called "Western culture(s)" rather than asking what material things are inside that culture. equally, a statement like "non-Buddhists cause empire because they have the wrong attitude" or "religious wars happen because people aren't Christian" is vilifying ethnic groups who do not have the demographic identity of Buddhism or Christianity. here's the interesting part: I really feel like in some senses, "early" Western Marxism is literally no better. it reduces itself to saying the Soviet Union is a bad and wrong ethnic group because Engels, or implying that the Western Culture is inherently great and destined to defeat other major ethnic groups because it includes stuff about The Subject.
      why are these propositions placed next to nicer things? because 88 had to be something.
3589. corvid as example of simpler life / corvid as anarchist motif -> don't take the color swatch too seriously. I half just thought having the ideology swatch the same basic color as a crow or raven was fun.
3590. "Taming of the Shrew" arc -> character arc in which an Evil or fierce character is socialized into society through questionable methods, calling to mind the incorrect description of falconry in "The Taming of the Shrew". although the Shakespeare play in question was about the concept of men not understanding women, the character can be of any gender.
3591. revenge of the shrews -> abstract concept, or trope, of characters with "Taming of the Shrew" arcs turning around and not having any of it. in my mind this trope is largely for fantasy animal types of characters, aliens, neurodivergent characters, whose nature isn't understood correctly, kind of like the original notes for Zootopia. but it might apply to more "realistic" scenarios too. did I just imply autistic people only exist in fantasy books? well, every day I don't feel real so it does check out.
3592. Hope is nothing, determinism is key / Chaos magic, hope, and faith are not worth anything compared with the careful exercise of deterministic models that predict only the physical shape of limited patterns within the universe, a single process and not the whole universe -> I'm semi-confident this was basically what was believed in the time of Lenin and not just a new extra assertion of meta-Marxism because of one thing: Trotsky really did try to build Marxism around hope and friendship and no serious self-correcting predictive theory while the way "the Stalinists" that Trotskyists kept turning against would plan things was to chart out the possibilities somewhat pessimistically and be prepared to defend against them and only then come to the people and let them have hope and encouragement for the psychological benefits but not really rely on that. this is like, one of those cases of a Trotskyist error Lenin was already prepared not to commit.
      I have no source on that immediately, I'm just coasting off mathematical intuition (I do that all too much), but I have reason to believe there are some if you only look. note that you have to look at historical events that happened, not just principles Stalin or someone says. principles can mean nothing but the events don't lie.
3593. Empathy is an act of science -> empathy is an act of deliberately understanding something from the outside in when it was not previously understood because that knowledge was not had. in contrast to the notion that empathy is this, like, faster-than-light telepathic process where people instantly know the inaccessible facts of another person's existence just because they are both The Subject, and you're practically not allowed to ask any questions about how people are the way they are because it would undermine the power of the fact They Just Are and have the power to out-exist you out of reality if you make them mad
3593. ??
3594. ??
3595. ??
3596. ??
3597. ??
3598. ??
3599. Warriors is programming Russians to be reactionaries / Warriors is programming Russian children to be reactionaries -> derived Gramscian proposition. everybody says "well the books have to be censored to sell to Russia", but nobody thinks about the implications of what effect "selling books to Russia" has on Russia.
      I think this is way funnier if you leave off "children" and just let it weirdly imply that adults believe whatever they read in a kids' book. the point of it isn't that children must be protected from bad literature anyway, it's that the upper crust of two countries getting together to determine what both countries will be reading is gross. although disappointing, it'd be far less disgusting to know that reactionary-sounding literature was being written by Russians than to know it came from the United States and people are making excuses for it because supposedly the retailers of Russia are the whole Free Will of Russia. if the bourgeoisie currently have so much power to determine what books the United States sells to Russia then why don't they get together to make Russia buy good books rather than censoring them? why doesn't anyone ever ask that?
3600. The God Delusion (Dawkins 2006) -> contains the infamous claim that religion is a delusion.
3601. Religion is a delusion about material reality -> a claim that is very much not violet, although possibly crimson; it might technically appear in the works of Marx, Engels, or Lenin. once you start looking at things through meta-Marxism, you realize that Dawkins' version isn't a Materialist position because it doesn't take into account the possibility that groups of people are each material objects and the "correct" belief that "isn't" a delusion would have to correctly model a socially-linked group of people who would be Christians as a material object. this causes Christianity to be replaced with a concept such as political parties or conflict between ethnic groups. or, if people were actually smart, the concept of arranging people into federations of countable cultures which have each been transformed into a proletarian civilization.
3602. ??
3603. Demon-Haunted World (Sagan 1995) -> this had to be marked blue because of the weird amount of anticommunism in it in baffling contradiction to everything else it says.
3604. Trotskyism is as good as the bible / Trotskyism is as good as Christianity -> derived Trotskyist proposition. but also one that they actually say, if somewhat implicitly.
3605. God is the statement that belonging to a culture is moral / Christianity is the statement that belonging to a particular countable culture is morally good -> what else can it truly mean to say things like "hell is separation from God" and "Good people convert to Christianity". "God" is generally the god of a countable Culture.
3606. If you exist at the expense of others, there's always hope / With enough hope and determination, Vegeta will prevail / Super Saiyan God fallacy -> in Dragon Ball Super's era, the Saiyan kingdom quietly searches for some mysterious power called Super Saiyan god to restore their hope... of continuing to exist as a brutal, murderous empire. this is my big problem with Existentialism, early- or otherwise. every time people appeal to "believing in yourself" and "overcoming the future" it's inseparable from the background state of individuals and countries competing against each other. it always potentially turns into a case of Saiyans hoping and hoping they will prevail so they never have to turn away from imperialism and genocide and simply being little shit (pronounced redacted)s that get to kill whatever people on earth and not care about any of them.
3607. Dragon Ball is as good as the bible / If the bible is useful for demonstrating life lessons or relatable emotions, Dragon Ball or any secular book is equally as useful, especially assuming it contains elements of a mythical narrative -> I don't think there's a good religious argument against this. the only argument you can really pull at this point is that religion is better than secular books because it's the ideology of global empire and a secular book can't help you pulverize Black people, Palestine, and all of the Third World; the only remaining arguments for religion over mere-poetry are basically definitionally evil. on a lighter note, I always find it hilarious to imagine someone arguing that if secular books aren't as good as the bible then Trotskyist books are equally as good as religious books, because ostensibly Trotskyism is a global ideology that is the only Marxism or "socialism" that can unite everyone in the world. at face value, isn't that what Christianity is trying to do but better? you can't be a fascist if you believe in Trotskyism, you have to side with at least all the people oppressed by a particular individual fascist figurehead, even if you can be a total deserter to a particular country. but Christianity doesn't even have standards that high.
3608. Siding with God is like siding with Goku / A personal relationship with God is like being allied with Goku / Personal relationship with God equal to personal relationship with Goku / A person having a "personal relationship with God" in the real world is equivalent to a person in the Dragon Ball universe having a personal relationship with one of its heroes -> this can be said in either a positive tone or a negative tone. positive, in that the narrative purpose of God in a bible story or an anecdote is to be a reassuring ally, just like Goku. negative, in that the way things work in Dragon Ball, its universe doesn't have inherent cosmic morality, and whenever you ally with a hero and hope they can defeat your enemy, you also take a gamble that the hero isn't evil and you haven't created an Evil faction. see: Super Saiyan God fallacy.
3609. Spiritual people aren't delusional; they're highly cultural / Spiritual people aren't delusional, they're just deeply absorbed in culture, poetry, and romanticism -> this becomes very apparent if you read enough secondary-source Christian media totally detached from the opinions of any Christians as if it all fell out of the sky yesterday and you're the first person that ever saw it. the point of the stories is poetry. to tell things that would make sense said another way through really opaque poetry. that's just it.
      the reason it's so frustrating to try to get people out of religion is this. religion was never about the supernatural. people don't necessarily care about a supernatural or afterlife existing whatsoever. the true draw of religion that keeps sucking everybody in is culture. religion is culture. people are really obsessed with culture, they absolutely love culture. (while I'm one of the only people in existence who doesn't; I hate culture and love math.) a normal person sees a poetic description of some Lived Experience purportedly universal to multiple people's lives in a bible story or a novel and goes crazy for it, they flip out about how much they related to it and go pour out their emotions of how much they love whatever simple trope of "love your neighbor", "lesbians got together", etc with however many other people who are all there just because they're flipping out over a little shred of poetry. and these normal people intrinsically trust each other and trust that they each belong there flipping out over a line of poetry and it's completely expected nothing bad will happen and they won't spontaneously turn out to be enemies because they come from different subpopulations. if that happens they just go "it's unthinkable for that to be able to happen" and act quickly to suppress it and crush the way things really work. (not that that's a terrible thing, should they actually succeed.) because they're totally wrapped up in poetry, they're under poetry's spell. people get together around a bit of poetry and become spellbound that whatever people they clustered together can become a stable ongoing countable culture and a "community". and from there they can get so wrapped up in poetry and "community" that they even start to have serious faith in their poetry-group out-enduring every human being who doesn't belong to it. this, I feel, partially explains the typical narrative around the New Deal and "fireside chats". people keep bringing up the fireside chats because they love the poetry of it. the simplicity of just collecting people together and sharing the same bit of culture and poetry, and thinking that this will supposedly make all of the suffering of the United States bit by bit slowly go away. but then it doesn't. the events that come next reveal people's attachment to poetry to be a mythology. it's revealed that the most innocuous case of people gathering around a national campfire and uniting together around poetry is a Cartesian system of reasoning that doesn't account for the existence of two separate plural groups in conflict with each other. the ignored group not integrated into the poetry gets upset and Zinovievizes the Roosevelt followers and the whole thing comes crashing down. and this, I think, is a microcosm of all of Liberal-republicanism. the human brain really isn't built for intuitively understanding separable multiplicity. the whole artistic, cultural, poetic, spiritual mode of thinking practically always fails to catch the existence of whole different countable cultures with whole different internal realities.
3610. Some people prefer poetry to science -> the answer is to give them proletarian poetry. think about it this way: fantasy books are poetry. they tell what are supposedly life lessons or at least meaningful statements about art through really thick, opaque, poetic framings. I think in some senses some people really need to be hooked into the poetic fantasy or history-myth that workers fight terrifying battles and the owners right next to them in their own town can be "kings of darkness".
3611. poetry (literary flair) / poetry (expressive style of creating art or narrative style or expressive form of framing used in any form of storytelling; poetic quality of mythic narratives)
3612. Alternian movie title -> the motif of something being named by a rather long and verbose but also precise description of it. this came to mind because honestly, almost all systems of proposition-based logic require this.
3613. Anarchists would rather read fiction than history -> hypothesis. can we successfully teach anarchists historical materialism with enough Warrior cats?
3614. may Trotsky be with you -> a while back I saw this on Left Voice I think. it was trying to be poetic, the intention was like, as long as there are Trotskyists Trotsky lives sort of and all the theorists living or dead are connected, but the phrasing the article used was so funny it began to resemble some very bizarre new religion where Trotsky was just a protector deity now. I laughed at it but at the same time the idea stuck in my mind and kept turning over many times in different permutations to where it had become less like I had anything against the article and more felt like it was a gift in its own way. I got weirdly obsessed with the comparison between Trotsky and religion, how his history messed with every scenario I could imagine of him going to the afterlife and how Trotskyism was or wasn't a similar historical process to Christianity. was he actually a good figure to have on anybody's side as a particular faction? what would it be like if ghosts existed and he haunted the earth? I think some of these ideas I just spun up because I was bored and there was nothing bad about me getting obsessed with this history and these thought experiments, while it did make me learn stuff. but I do think this silly article had some part in getting my gears turning.
3615. Christian devotional about Ted / Christian devotional about Alice, Bob, or Mike / prayer book but God is Trotsky -> after the "may Trotsky be with you" motifs corrupted me I had this one little game I thought was the funniest thing where you take some kind of devotional or commentary book only talking about the themes of the bible that isn't a bible, and you replace every mention of god with Trotsky. you could equally say "Alice" or "Bob" or "Mike" or any random name; I just think picking a historical figure who believed himself to be important makes it especially funny. what I think this demonstrates is that once we establish how bad an authority "god" is according to every mythical story and supposed example, he may as well just be any human being, and when you read devotionals that way you start to see how strange it is that people need this oddly specific thing outside them specifically to do things they could already do. that said this "game" isn't all negative. sometimes it shows you how people really just want someone to talk to and they want a break from the unending division and hostility of the real world where they can actually dialogue with someone and maybe connect with others. the actually positive sentences might be the most insightful about religion as a historical process.
3616. ??
3617. bedtime bible stories except with Lenin / easy-to-follow bible retellings, only with Lenin -> I'd love that to be a book so bad. just imagine this by no means being mandatory yet being a thing you could read. but not knowing who would write such a thing I might have to settle for writing a single B-side chapter to demonstrate the concept
3618. ??
3619. founder of darkness / pioneer or colonist of darkness / ancestor of darkness (artisan or expert type antagonist; wizard; creator of ancient science-fiction technology) / capitalist of darkness -> the capitalist counterpart to "king of darkness". to fit this motif the villain must be somebody who could plausibly be considered an indispensable part of a town or city once and that might even have been treated as an "ordinary", "understandable" protagonist once but that by now people are now afraid of. it has to be vaguely like, in book one Firestar is good and relatable, in book nine Firestar is talked about as the enemy of the new generation. in book one Harry Potter or Clay and Glory and Starflight are the nice likeable heroes, in book ten they're the enemies of the new generation who are appalled they made the decisions they did. in show one Spike and Rarity and Rarity's boyfriend are everyone's friends. in show two everyone is suffering because of the decisions they made and mad at them. although the early "book one" part of this large-scale generational arc doesn't literally have to be the main narrative, it can just be backstory that is suggested or described at some point. (these examples are also just analogies for what the trope looks like, not suggestions for how these narratives "should" have gone.) the theme of generational antagonisms is likely to come up though not strictly necessary — it's one of the simplest ways to portray the concept of somebody owning part of society and taking up decision-making power and making bad decisions without an author having to truly understand class analysis to have thought of it.
3620. just war -> the motif that a particular war is believed to be necessary or morally right. found in both Toryism and center-Liberalism. arguably also found in a totally different form in anarchism, Trotskyism, and mainstream Marxism-Leninism, in the sense of either secret operations or defensive wars. in one way or another almost everybody believes in just wars, but ideologies determine when that metaphysical category is applied.
3621. If just wars exist, it's possible Che Guevara fought one / If there are just wars, it's possible Che Guevara was fighting one / If there's such a thing as a just war, then it's possible Che Guevara was fighting one -> my thought today when I remembered what I think was either PragerU or Fox News complaining that 'kids these days don't understand that there's any such thing as a just war'. I think it was PragerU. this is the comeback you hit them with. ok, so there's such a thing as a just war. what is the definition of a just war? do you really want to open that can of worms? if you simply decide to believe there is no such thing as a just war then you don't have to accept Che Guevara's war, but you also lose the ability to defend the Trotskyite conspiracy tearing apart Stalin's government to create its own. so choose wisely.
3622. ??
3623. A war to defend the proletariat is a just war -> the full-stop version. there are definitely texts containing this one.
3624. A war to clear away obstacles to Trotskyism is a just war / A violent action against a workers' state to clear the stage for realizing Trotskyism is justified -> it's fairly hard to successfully argue this one, mostly on account of how it destroys the best or only possible allies to Trotskyism.
3625. ??
3626. ??
3627. Diversity is natural / In nature, variation between different populations as well as variation between individuals inside a population happens spontaneously without intervention and generally takes unusual situations to eliminate -> out of the many things anarchists say this is one of the only ones that's true.
3628. Diversity is strength / diversity is our strength (motif taken literally) -> debatable. nothing can really justify the act of purposefully getting rid of diversity. diversity is always fine as an end rather than a means. but at the same time, the top reasons anybody needs diversity in order to have strength also have contradictory effects of making diversity the worst way to get it. it's typical to say "diversity is our strength" just to persuade people you aren't out to get them. but if you're saying that it's a tautology. if bigots really were out to get them they'd all find that diversity didn't strengthen them in their goals, and the minority demographics would find that letting in too many identities was a real strain on their ability to protect themselves when they typically start out with few people and not much for resources to spread over all the people who aren't already strong enough to stake out territory to keep away from bigots. whenever things get tough you see things like "stop admitting trans people to LGBT" pop up, or "stop admitting White people to pride" (if I've ever actually seen that one, it's only said as a joke, but the general sentiment of wanting to "communitize" everything and whittle everything down to the minimal closely connected "community" of people that Truly represents it is definitely a common thing). once you see beyond protest brain and the perception that progressivism and inclusion only take place at individual street protests and never happen at all anywhere else, you start to realize that movements are really messy things that no matter how much they try to call themselves "communities" and pretend to be non-political entities, the more they start revealing that every single Community is inherently exclusionary and there is nothing about Communities that inherently causes them to include each other. we're all just a bunch of blobs of Animals that fight each other daily over people-arrangements that aren't decided and suffer as groups when anyone fails to perfectly represent the greatest strength, the greatest ability, or the most elite compassion-and-kindness-and-sensitivity skill. if anybody is just tired of all of it and the horrible contradiction of having to fight and displace and exclude and kill people the best through niceness and performance of being the goodest virtuousest existiest individual who exists the best and has the most existence to generously hand to people without getting mad at anyone, the blobs of Animals throw them out and demand better erasing of bad thoughts and memories and better performances.
3629. ??
3630. criterion which expels something from a group / judgement criterion which causes people to expel someone or something from a social group (prejudice) -> one of the only definitions of prejudice I can think of which is meta-ontologically sound, as in, the definition itself doesn't change depending on what ideological faction people are on. the downside is that under this definition some prejudices are almost objectively good. everyone wants to have a prejudice against fascists per-se. most people want to have a prejudice against Communists per-se, but not against business territory owners. if you're a Marxist this definition will actually be somewhat appealing because it allows probing exactly why people side with the bourgeoisie. assume that prejudices can't be changed with "Subjectivity" or "culture" the way Marcuse says and then figure out where they're really coming from. from what I know, the answer is long and complicated but it begins at "the smallest unit of humanity is voluntary subpopulations (Filaments), not individuals".
3631. criterion which declares one thing more important than another thing / hierarchy (anarchism) -> this is the anarchist-approved definition of prejudice?? this is. terrible. I mean, excuse me for Perpetuating Hierarchy, but this definition is not possible to identify in the material world. every movement will inherently think it's more important than other things simply due to the calculation everyone has to make of what to put effort into, which unfortunately kind of explains how everyone ended up in movementist hell where at various times all the movements just fight each other. it's also not hard to see how exactly ideas that appear to have come from anarchism keep getting vulgarized right back into center-Liberalism or right-Liberalism: people can just equivocate the concept of one thing being more important than another thing to say every viewpoint is important even if it's terrible, capitalists are important too, empires are important too, Europe is important too, White supremacists are important too, the works. it's fatal to a movement to not recognize that "hierarchies" are actual spatial structures where the prejudiced people are actually penning together other groups of people and conflating themselves with that fenced-in social graph. you never even get rid of the Archon if you don't recognize the microcolony as a structure and boot the Archon out of that. the Archon will just keep claiming to be nice and "not subscribed to a hyper-competitive mindset", "not subscribed to the colonizer attitude", "totally as important as you, why are you so prejudiced against me", "why don't we all do it together as all classes at once". and so far anarchists don't seem to have much of a defense against that. they just kind of let all the owners corrupt anarchism into Existentialism and let everything keep getting worse.
3632. hyper-competitive mindset (attitude; framing; perspective; anarchism) -> I have heard anarchists and Western-Marxists who have absorbed all their models from anarchism say this at least twice, but I still have no idea what it means in real-world terms. like, say Dinesh D'Souza has a "hyper-competitive mindset" — you could fairly say this from reading his book. why is it that he has it and won't give it up no matter what? I don't think anarchists have a good answer to that, which makes the model implied in this term that a hyper-competitive mindset is something you can get rid of rather unproductive. charcoal or khaki swatch depending on who mentions the basic concept.
3633. North Korea does not have the colonizer attitude -> I think it's pretty easy to argue this. North Korea doesn't want to conquer anybody. all it does is defend itself. the same thing about halfway goes for China, although that half of the time is only when considered from the perspective of Maoism or Deng Xiaoping Thought. so why is there so much resistance to noticing this and thinking about it? why isn't North Korea the hero of Western Marxism and postcolonial theories? how is it they can go on and on about culture and attitudes and how supposedly we have to change every scrap of culture and attitude before we get anything but center-Liberalism, yet they don't think of this? I have my suspicions that people might secretly believe that North Korea does have The Colonizer Attitude somehow. it's the particular way nearly every single Existentialist talks about "generalized dictators" as if that means something. in the real world it generally seems that groups of people form, then leaders appear, "dictatorial" or not. but Existentialists have this very conspiratorial way of thinking where they seem to think "generalized dictators" show up and then create the groups of people.
3634. North Korea is your new hero -> the claim that North Korea is consistent (by which I really mean has been consistent circa 1948) with the overall themes, mostly as taken by themselves, thrown around in postcolonial anarchisms, critical theory, and so forth, because North Korea emerged from being slaves, threw out colonialism, and does not have the colonizer attitude. sounds like a solid case at least at first. so what could possibly be wrong with it? you know that practically nobody in the United States labeled progressive who isn't a crimson ideology would agree with that. but why, exactly? the facts don't really support that.
      and this is basically why I'm going to such lengths to analyze the nuts and bolts that drive every ideology: so we know the real reasons that political parties and organizations and miscellaneous individuals oddly committed to specific swatch colors are pushed to believe what they believe. sometimes it's prosaic, and Marx pointing out the bourgeoisie is just fine as a short explanation. other times it's genuinely more complicated, because other elements of societal structure than class territories, such as individual human organisms themselves and social links themselves, are driving particular theories and people to be particular ways.
      note: this proposition can be filed under the JC ideology code because of the fact there was a brief movement to try to build Juche-socialisms in Africa that learned from North Korea; these hypothetical Marxist states would count under the JC ideology code.
3635. criterion which declares people of lesser worth / criterion which declares people "not equals" -> this motif is meant to be the center-Liberal definition of prejudice. which, to be honest, the mechanics of this definition have never made any sense to me. how do you keep people from inevitably judging each other if you believe that making everyone the same class is a fool's errand? you must believe some people are better than others if you don't believe people can all coexist without any individual being the official occupant of a societal activity that gets to subjectively define who else links to that activity. and if so, in what way are people meaningfully "equals"? look at affirmative action: it achieves the wrong thing. it assumes that "hatred" is what's keeping people out of top positions rather than it actually being really hard for anyone to achieve that level of skill over anyone else especially if a particular population of people for some reason begins with limited means. if you don't fix what's going on at the bottom scales of things (redlining, etc) the processes at the bottom will never hurl enough people upward that "removing hatred" and "offering training" to be the best actually matters.
3636. ??
3637. anarchists believe in gender identity?? / I've met some great anarchists, but I can't believe some of them are still gender ideology believers / (9k)
3638. Race divides household anarchies in two / Households are not anarchies because interracial marriage / An anarchy of Black husband and White wife is impossible -> there are two forms of this. one, that households should be anhierarchies with man and woman perfectly on opposite sides of the time cube. two, that households should be medieval-style spatial hierarchies. in either case, you see that racism is emerging from the existing household structure more than it is truly fundamental to the core principles of the time cube theory. the time cube model falsely believes that racism and misogyny are the same thing but its own concepts do not require an external "holistic" source to spawn both of them. one can be derived from the other, suggesting that neither of these concepts is actually a principle and they may be processes.
      An anarchy of two racial subpopulations is impossible + Some households are not anarchies = this
3639. the colonizer attitude / colonial racism (Colonial Racism (pronounced sometimes capitalized); MDem) -> do not refer to this as "colonialism" within Item labels. reserve that word for the physical processes of global empire. you may refer to colonial prejudices with any number of terms such as "colonial racism" or "alterity" or "Manichaeanism"(?) if you think readers would understand them, and you may use "colonialism", "imperialism", and "global empire" interchangeably with each other. the one thing you must not do is imply that The Colonizer Attitude and global empire are the same concept. it is critical to separate these things in order to discuss which one causes the other one.
3640. ??
3641. ??
3642. ??
3643. Believing in free will is a prejudice / Free will is the only prejudice postcolonial theorists will never ever give up
3650. generalized dictator / the totalitarian psychology (authoritarian; mentality, personality; Lacanianism, psychoanalysis, psychohistory; sic.)
3651. North Korea is psychoanalytically wrong -> a cluster of different claims, probably. one would be that opting to be a Marxist theorist or General Secretary is morally wrong under psychoanalysis and the non-traumatized Real Human Being opts not to do it.
3652. Nazism & (pronounced and) Bolshevism come from Materialism / Nazism and Bolshevism have the same cause: Materialism / Horseshoe theory is backhandedly true (in reference to different framings of the Lynxley fallacy) -> the claim that observing the material process of chunk competition causes some people to become Communists and some people to become nazis, contingent on level of education and various other factors.
3653. Nazism and Bolshevism have the same cause / Nazism and Bolshevism are caused by the same thing / horseshoe theory (hypothesis that nazi ideologies and Communist ideologies are instances of the same prototypical thing)
3654. Nazism & (pronounced and) Bolshevism come from class war / Nazism and Bolshevism have the same cause: class war / historical horseshoe theory / Horseshoe theory is right for entirely the wrong reasons / Horseshoe theory is backhandedly true -> components: horseshoe theory - case of - backhandedly correct statement. better horseshoe theory goes as follows: mark up the horseshoe as a timeline of events, with a straight arrow cutting from middle to ends. the middle of the horseshoe is a period of peace; because things are peaceful everyone remains moderate and similar. the next period of the horseshoe is a period of upheaval; as things become turbulent people separate into two groups and each becomes less moderate and more hostile. at the ends of the horseshoe, the separate groups may become violent, regimented, militaristic, and "similar". this has nothing to do with the specific ideologies of the groups, and everything to do with the fact they're divided and competing against each other and possibly literally at war. when you look at it this way, it's fair enough to say the horseshoe describes both the Nazi Germany period and the East Germany period. but what it really describes is the phenomenon of populations splitting because they can't stand each other and having to create borders and border police because they aren't one country. when you realize this you see that the horseshoe is a great oversimplification of the problem. the real problem is: is it worse to divide a country and live with the "extremes" of new borders, or is it worse to live in the same country with nazis and have to treat nazis as full citizens of your country as they're busy actively trying to act like they're the only true citizens and nobody else is? there's no option for "there are no nazis". center-Liberalism is, to some extent, the statement that given enough highly-educated experts siloed away from society nazis and non-nazis can be forced to live in harmony by a bunch of cops and courts despite how internally violent and hateful they may be every single day and despite how much the nazis may want to lock everybody else up as criminals for making them nervous.
3655. Anarchism & (pronounced and) Toryism come from Existentialism / Anarchism and Toryism have the same cause: Existentialism / Anarchism and Toryism have the same cause: capitalism / Communist horseshoe theory / Communist fishhook theory (statement that theories stuck in capitalism circle back to the center whether they go "right" or "left") -> the motif or claim that so-called "far-left" ideologies in the United States are similar to "far-right" ideologies in that they both believe in giant amounts of freedom, but no matter how hard they try to escape oppression with freedom they don't escape capitalism and keep perpetuating all the patterns and toxic principles of capitalism, or worse, they literally tear apart into two countable areas of capitalism that become violently hostile without successfully forming borders, turning the false Idealist slider of "political positions within the same nation" into a down-facing horseshoe, center-wing capitalism on the left, center-wing capitalism on the right.
3656. North Korea can undergo a Deng Xiaoping process without being Deng Xiaoping Thought -> I think this is true.
3657. Anarchism is indistinguishable from Juche-socialism / Juche-socialism is indistinguishable from anarchism -> troll proposition. if anarchism is better than Bolshevism because it doesn't divide people into The Community Process and The Party, then surely a Marxism that mixes them both together must be better, right? if anarchism is people joining into A Community then how do you know it's different from Juche-socialism? how do you know they're not the same?
      Arceism + Juche concept = this.
3658. Your response to a Marxist text is deterministic / Your response to reading a Marxist text is deterministic / Each person's response to a Marxist text is deterministic -> this is what's strictly true if you don't believe in Free Will, yet somehow practically nobody thinks about this. the better question, though, is how? if my response to reading a Marxist text is deterministic, in what way is it actually determined? personally, I would argue that the answer is reterminism. the stimulus and the human body as it is both have to act together to produce the result. determinism exists but it isn't a closed system as much as something that forms semi-spontaneously in the middle of chaos. that does imply you can't predict exactly when determinism begins, and can only predict what happens after it begins.
3659. Those who don't believe in free will could become Communists / If you truly don't believe in free will, you may be destined to become a Communist -> I am so sick of people claiming they don't believe in Free Will but then clearly secretly believing in it when they try to say historical materialism is impossible because of The Subject. nobody arguing about Free Will seems to actually understand what Free Will would practically be in real life.
3660. East Germany was indistinguishable from an Anarchism / East Germany was actually an Anarchism -> I am pretty sure this is false but I could not actually explain why. so this is basically one of those "man is equivalent to a chicken" type statements. the heart of this probably-spurious claim would be that because events like Black Lives Matter and the Paris Commune were built around people of a particular idealistic countable Culture assertively occupying a particular spatial area, the distinction between a hypothetical successful Anarchism and a real-world historical fortress state is rather fuzzy. what actually is the difference? you can't say that a fortress state is different from an Anarchism because it's based around the proletariat, because North Korea became a fortress state and hardly had a proletariat at all. I guess you could appeal to "The State", but personally? in my opinion an army always counts as having a State. that's the easiest way to interpret the Trotskyite conspiracy as the seeds of a plural Marxism and open up the road to diplomacy and healing traumas between rival Marxisms. so like, if an Anarchism always realistically has to have a State to perform realization and exist, how is it actually different from a fortress state?
3661. Deng Xiaoping Thought is a postcolonial theory / Deng Xiaoping Thought is part of a new category of postcolonial theories solidly based in Materialism instead of Idealism -> the claim that because it is primarily focused on maintaining the national independence of China and not on creating Bolshevism or abolishing capitalism, Deng Xiaoping Thought is not a Leninism but does instead qualify as a postcolonial theory. if this is true, there would exist a category of Marxisms which are postcolonial theories based in Materialism but are not Leninisms.
      I'm not positive on this one, yet there is just enough of an argument here to change over Deng Xiaoping Thought to the strawberry swatch, as a rather complimentary use of that swatch that contrasts all its negative meanings. it's better than giving any statist things the charcoal swatch. probably... Deng Xiaoping Thought needs its own ideology code now. ok. MZ and DX are the new codes for Maoism and Deng Xiaoping Thought.
3662. Juche-socialism is a postcolonial theory / Juche-socialism is part of a new category of postcolonial theories solidly based in Materialism instead of Idealism -> I think there's also equally as good a case for this.
3663. East Germany was a postcolonial movement / East Germany provides evidence for a new category of postcolonial theories solidly based in Materialism instead of Idealism -> I think this is one possible answer to the jamming question of whether East Germany was "an anarchism". the claim would be that all successful instances of creating a workers' state have been postcolonial movements, and it has been a fundamental truth of workers' states that they operate on ensuring the whole population is competitive against or defended against all the other countries around it who every day still eat and occupy space — postcolonial movements are in contradiction with degrowth and the environment, contrary to what everyone wants to think, and only either industry or a very concerted push from as many Third World individuals as possible to form a coherent and operational civilization and a unified government can actually make Third World nationalities free. said another way, if Third World people can solve Trotskyism and merge into one big country of like 5 billion people they're good on having to build more industry or damage the environment, but it's still the case anarchism has to go.
3664. Culture is nothing more than the set of signs many individuals spontaneously make up -> this is ultimately why people think there's a "Spanishness Office". Existentialism. they think that if they tell one person, who is perfectly equivalent to the whole population, to change their way of thinking that everybody will spontaneously change, unanimously flipping over the policies of the Spanishness Office. but there are several wrong assumptions in there. one, knowledge doesn't travel faster than light to everybody at once. two, individuals have different content, and whenever they hear the same message, this sorts them into different factions and different opposing courses of action. imagine any two individuals, Stalin and Trotsky, Goku and Vegeta. you tell them the exact same statement, and they take it to mean totally different things, and any allies they have take it to mean the same thing. "Freeza is descending on Planet Vegeta". (if you live on earth, is it a good thing for Saiyans to cease to exist?) "The Soviet Union will fall apart if people don't properly participate". (Trotsky, Zinoviev: that's fantastic!) "Inclusive history education will give marginalized people more power." (Floridians: then let's destroy it, we can't have that.) you have to plan any attempt to "inform everyone" around this inherent separation into ideological subpopulations.
3665. No one should make their own meaning unless others consider it wonderful / People shouldn't spontaneously make up culture and signs unless it's wonderful -> Q3667 + Q?? everyone creates their own meaning = this. anarculture proposition / democulture proposition. I think this one is anarculture but it turns into democulture practically speaking with another proposition
3666. Individual choices immediately shape the health of society / Individual choices immediately contribute to the health of society -> the nexus point where we see Existentialism being born inside the context of ancient religions; what is in my opinion the core of defining "sin", as well as the Buddhist concept of "unhelpful mental factors" that impede meditation and also society.
3667. Do not what others would not "unto" / Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful / "they had such good reasons for doing what they did that the ends justify the means" / (9k)
3668. Manipulative and abusive people seek to destroy Freedom / (9k)
3669. Abusers manufacture emergencies / Manipulative people manufacture emergencies in order to create desperate behaviors / "manipulative people shift context to normalize extreme behavior" [224] / (9k)
3670. COVID measures were devised in order to create Bolshevism / (9k)
3671. Gender identity is a top-down trend / (9k)
3672. Gender identity cannot possibly be secular / (9k)
3673. Gender identity is not intersectional / (9k)
3674. Defeat Stalin with gender identity / (9k)
3675. ??
3676. Freedom requires rejecting COVID measures
      COVID measures were devised in order to create Bolshevism + (government has no right to control Tories?) = Freedom requires rejecting COVID measures
3677. Stupidity filters up / It isn't only the shovel dreams of class society that filter down through society from ruling classes — stupidity common among the whole population at large also filters up to all ruling classes until some of them finally manage to use their privilege to become aware that the ideas seemingly everybody believes are wrong / (9k)
3678. Nobody is actually an atheist / Nonbelief is a fabricated idea and nonbelievers are a fad / Nonbelievers or infidels ignore reality / Not believing religions is an extreme position (generic) / Nonbelievers can't know that atheism is true / Nonbelievers can't have any knowledge or evidence that atheism is true / Nonbelievers can't have any knowledge or evidence that religion is not true -> too many people have fallen for this hook, line, and sinker and absorbed a brown proposition into their perfectly blue worldview. make no mistake, this proposition is bright khaki brown. the content of individual people's religions is, statistically, often against the process of forming solidarity across households, subpopulations, and religions, if not outright hateful to the existence of outside countries (the only silver lining is it's more often countries than ethnic subpopulations), and to say that not believing something hateful is something somebody "can't know to be true" is just insulting. there are a bunch of complexities to all this and it takes a long time to discuss and unpack correctly. but morality is actually the best opening argument that God is less likely than no God, you just cannot unify all of philosophy let alone all of religion. ...yeah, actually, refuting Žižek's bad interpretation of Hegel might be an even better place to start, it's really just a matter of logical contradictions that don't also get resolved through physical "wavefunction collapses" of different models of physical objects interacting physically.
      (if you find a good reason this proposition is something other than brown, you can change the Item page to reflect that. just don't change this page. it's here for historical reasons.)
3679. Nobody is actually transgender / (9k)
3680. If nobody ever built towns, everyone could live in harmony / If nobody ever built social structures, everyone could live in harmony / If nobody ever built social structures, people of every ideology could live in harmony -> the founding axiom of Proudhonism and Distributism, seemingly. note that it's literally untrue when Hatfield attacks can always happen out of the blue.
3681. If nobody went to work and made money, there'd be no need for labor movements
3682. If nobody ever voted, nobody would get angry about voting
3683. If nobody ever left their houses, nobody would have to wear masks / If nobody ever left their houses, it wouldn't be necessary to force anyone to wear masks
3684. If nobody ever got vaccines, we could have perfectly rational discussions about them / If nobody ever got vaccines, there'd be no need to debate them -> jamming proposition to catch especially stupid thought-diversity rationalists. I, personally, am sitting here never getting vaccines just because since the beginning of COVID everybody was treating vaccines as a conspiracy theory and you couldn't discuss them, so I ended up never leaving my house in order to be safe during COVID, and never being able to ask anybody to take me to get vaccinated when I can't drive on my own. I could walk 8 km for the whole trip there and back, or tell a lie, but both of those take enough effort I usually don't have the energy. the ideal method is for me to ride a bus by myself, but this place doesn't believe in public buses, so I get no vaccines. this isn't even due to health insurance coverage; Medicaid covers them. it's due to the fact societies are built out of factions and if you don't fit into them you have no society. if I gripe to someone about a lack of buses they'll ask me why I need vaccines, as well as why I need buses. the only way I can allow Tories to exist and stand by and "criticize" them is to sit in my house all month and never vote and not get vaccinated. if you think society is not fundamentally made of factions and you can just stand by "criticizing" them you're stupid. and I'm going to fill this wiki with propositions until you can't function as a capitalist or a Liberal representative any more because everybody sees through all this bullshit.
3685. Information is just for your information
3686. I'm just putting information out there / putting information out there to make sure you have a choice / putting information out there so you can do your own research -> an excuse used to publish anti-vaccine material legally; this particular motif is distinctly negative, although Q36,85 might be positive sometimes. [225] seems connected back to core Existentialist propositions. in its own weird way it's like a nonfiction parallel to "don't like, don't read".
3687. Putting Harry under the stairs is freedom from Harry Potter -> this is what bugs me about anarchism. every time everyday people oppress you in your life, they're probably doing it because they want freedom from you. anarchism thinks you can fix that with freedom freedom freedom but it just doesn't make any sense when freedom is actually one of the quickest roads to prejudice and oppression.
3688. Prejudice is a form of freedom -> follows from: solidarity is strictly optional. this is really awful to realize; it's not something you want anyone embodying and making use of. but, it neatly explains exactly why people continue to have prejudices. people have prejudices because when you give them enough freedom they will simply decide what demographics they do and don't want to interact with, turning freedom into this runaway train you can't stand in front of without it declaring your death under the train is less important than it having ownership over the railroad it's already barreling down.
3689. vaccine hesitancy / vaccine distrust / vaccine refusal / vaccine denial (center-Liberalism) -> I was unsure what swatch to give this because it's just a phenomenon people do and turning it brown seemed a bit too negative. I went with "anarchism" because there have been anarchists seen condoning this, and it seems fair enough to slam them for that. as much as some Black towns have genuine reasons to be afraid of doctors, anarchism is an ideology promising social transition; even a few anarchists against vaccines is a few too many.
3690. Anything is true if your population is small enough / Sunny's dream world fallacy -> "Sunny" in reference to Omori, and how it becomes "true" that he has no problems if he isolates himself in his dreams.
3691. All facts are culture, thus one Culture is superior to another / Because culture is the only thing that's true, one Culture is superior to another -> this is the crux (no pun intended) of Christianity reaching its fascist form and why religion causes problems. it's true that in theory, you can combat hateful religion without ever talking about religion or telling people they can't believe it. but if you want to do that, you have to realize that religion boils down to the assertion that whatever ladder of cultural signifiers people stack up into an ontological model of how the world works is the truth. monotheistic religions archetypically assert that their group of people is behaving the correct way to be chosen by God; what this means in practice is that they have the correct culture to keep persisting as a civilization and telling everyone else what is moral while somebody else has evil, incorrect culture. progressive anthropologists and various people often unknowingly duplicate this same assertion that culture is "somebody's truth" in trying to define what tolerance is and how it is that people tolerate identities, but this is a nasty fallacy that nobody should be using. people in each town believe that culture is the truth because we can never experience reality except through culture, but whenever they do this they always believe the culture of one town is the truth for the whole world, not just for that town as sociology wants them to. this leads to the bigoted behavior of acting like one town's culture is the truth but another town's culture is lies. it's easier to get everyone to tolerate each other by simply asserting that culture is never the truth and Lived Experiences are not the truth, while creating a working model of how the universe works including a meta-Marxist analysis of how each society or subpopulation internally functions of its own power and under its own values is a different matter. maybe our model of reality is never reality, but culture, being the shared ontology of a specific socially-linked population of people, is definitionally insular and definitionally ignorant.
3692. Any "inevitable" social structure inevitably holds up a gun / a phenomenon which is real and tangible is capable of holding up a gun -> a little opaque out of its original context but very clear in context. societies are composed from elements which are material, and which must live and exist materially as any Animal does. any proposed element which makes up a society in a consistent way across time or throughout various different events would have to be material. if The Subject is an unavoidable element of society, then we should expect The Subject has the ability to fight for its life and try to kill us whenever we try to impose something on it it doesn't like. if political parties are an inherent or permanent fixture of societies, then we should expect that whenever we make reactionary political parties accept pronouns or whatever makes them really mad reactionary political parties will fight to the death and try to kill us. whether these two hypothetical cases have actually happened yet is debatable; one could argue that these cases have happened or that they haven't truly happened, depending on whether one feels that "unavoidable" or "fight to the death" is the more important part of the conjecture. either way, if we assume "unavoidable" is the part in question versus reality, then it would be the case that we should want it to be true that the unavoidable elements of society are fairly large, and not want unavoidable elements to turn out to be as small as we can imagine. thankfully, it's arguable that the smallest unavoidable element of society is the Social-Philosophical System, which is of variable size but in some cases can be as large as a society itself. Catholic, Muslim, Latino, native-Hawaiian, Trotskyist, mainstream Marxist-Leninist, Kropotkinist, North Korean, and certain unclear sections of majority-China might be examples of unavoidable social units, but "The Individual" might not, and likewise, "The United States" might not, being too big to meaningfully form its own "organism". which, if true, is very good in terms of the (il)legitimacy of global empire. there is no easy answer in terms of exactly how local units are supposed to be combined to create peace. but, we do know that the more we understand and substantiate Social-Philosophical-Systems the implications would be that coexistence becomes increasingly obvious while empire makes less and less sense.
3693. Vaccine distrust is a deeply human response -> every human being is near-deterministically obligated to strive against things that will harm their own survival or their children's survival if they want children. the intuitive human defense to threats is to group together with people who are trusted to protect a person's survival. if somebody just suffered the death of a child and you tell them "life is unpredictable, there's nothing you can do about it" [226] then you are generating anti-vaccine social groups through your actions, because human beings require enough predictability to be able to survive and reproduce without their babies dying. they won't lie down and accept a world where they can't build a group of people to help them survive better. I feel like the appropriate response is actually to connect all of these people to research on their specific baby disease or something so they can have a "community" which isn't just opposing vaccines
3694. no one in these comments supports gay marriage! / awful CNN comments section -> looking at a CNN comments section, there was a certain contradiction to it. it seems like only a certain swath of older Tories actually watches "the news" any more. so they all come to the CNN comments section and post about how "I've never seen anyone support gay marriage", because the only commenters they've seen are the commenters boring enough to watch solely The News and hardly anything else. the easiest way to fix a comment section like this is to report half of them for the blatant TOS violations in their posts, given that "hateful content" is already not allowed. but there's something not satisfying about that. the problem here is that comments sections are designed expecting a bunch of progressive people to flood into the comments section and post comments, as if everyone has identical interests and there are never self-selection effects. two countable Cultures are graph-struggling over the comments section in an unavoidable competition and in order to stop "echo chambers" you have to ramp up the competition by progressives over every comments section to change who wins. but progressives are never going to watch every single video, even collectively. there's no way to just "push them upward" in the struggle over every video and win the comments just so Tories won't see a comment section full of Tories. people don't want to watch the videos toxic Tories watch. but you don't really want to ban news stories with negative outcomes just because Tories will flock around them. you always see some sort of shepherd sheet structure forming purely because there is networkism and the ability of people to freely associate around one social-graph owner instead of another potentially generates negative, anti-social behavior. if there isn't a Communist party then there will be a central body of YouTube experts determining what are the terms and conditions to not have horrible anti-social Cultures forming inside YouTube. people think you can escape the prospect of having a government that regulates the formation of Cultures but you really can't. escape an overarching Culture-federation in your republic and you'll just get a smaller one inside the chunks of society large numbers of people actually use.
3700. ??
3709. the freedom to not encounter Jews -> it is strange and bizarre how much some people can get offended by "BCE".
3710. the freedom to not encounter Black people / freedom to not encounter particular ethnic subpopulation -> the motif of people insisting that a few Black people cast in a movie or TV show is due to "a political agenda" — which is, of course, some mysterious secret agenda beyond people wanting to see more demographics represented on TV shows. I never had any idea what my parents were even grumbling about until I got to the age of 27 and I finally learned about the existence of Gramscianism and went "....oh". everybody had been lying to me, some lying that Media Representation was an evil conspiracy and others lying that there was no such thing as Gramscianism. the terrible thing is that when you finally find out what it is, the United States has utterly vulgarized Gramscianism to where it's like, everybody take over all the job slots before the White people notice you've done it so the center-Liberals will get votes and there will never be Gramscianism, but if they notice too fast you're trying to get a few Liberal-party votes for anti-racism they'll all get furious you're even doing that. that's this motif.
3711. freedom to not encounter LGBT+ people / the freedom to not encounter lesbians
3712. ??
3713. ??
3714. ??
3715. ??
3716. ??
3717. freedom to not encounter social-democrats / the freedom to not encounter social-democrats -> somewhat rare to see, but several Marxist articles complain about it and tell Marxists not to shun people who could help build overall national movements. so this is a motif in what some people say
3718. freedom to not encounter Stalin-followers / the freedom to not encounter Stalin-followers (Stalinists, mainstream Marxist-Leninists; Trotskyism) -> basically every Trotskyist believes in this, whether they say it out loud or not. to me it's never made sense because it seems just as stupid as Q37,17.
3719. freedom to not encounter White people / the freedom to not encounter White people -> when "freedom" goes on long enough you'll get small groups of Black people or LGBT+ people just absolutely and utterly tired of straight White people to the point they almost don't want to see them, most often in reference to fictional media and not necessarily in reference to its audience.
      Berdly's character feels like an instance of coding this in the middle of an abstract fictional world — in a way that is mostly inoffensive until perhaps the moment you spell it out like this.
3720. freedom to not encounter U.S. (pronounced United States) people / the freedom to not encounter the United States -> an idea which is nearly specific to China, or other Third World countries. definitely not as known in countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, or Australia.
3721. freedom to not encounter HTML / the freedom to not encounter HTML -> although I can understand this for about five seconds before I really think about it, it drives me up the wall and makes me not really want to use Gemini or the fediverse, just because it is so uncomfortably similar to all the other entries next to this. I have gone into detail about this on another entry.
3722. freedom to not encounter Javascript / the freedom to not encounter Javascript -> this one? this one is actually valid. when it's implemented as a kind of personal defense inside a browser where you can forbid all Javascript and only sometimes allow it when it's actually useful, that's about ideal. I don't really like attempts to try to ban the use of something that was already standardized such that there are no competing proprietary versions of the basic thing. the world needs more things like that, not fewer of them.
3725. ??
3730. ??
3731. ??
3732. ??
3733. ??
3734. ??
3735. ??
3736. ??
3737. Pointing out demographics facing racism is racist / If Trotsky says people in Alabama are racist, Trotsky is racist / If Joe Biden says "if", some hypothetical, "then you ain't Black", Joe Biden is racist -> both of these anecdotes of people saying this are real, unfortunately.
      the second one is the absolute worst because somebody actually tried to use it to explain logical fallacies, and in the process I think that person showed formal logic to be one giant fallacy itself. Joe Biden saying "...then you ain't Black" is a "some occurrence" statement, neither entirely true nor entirely false. it's another version of the trap statement "Black people experience structural racism. true/false?" to which the answer is "some occurrence". no other answer creates a sound statement than "neither true nor false, some occurrence". just like the trap statement "Communism is oppressive. true/false?" where the truest it gets is "rare occurrence" and it never gets all the way to "true". it says a lot about people's general ability to reason when they take the two statements "Communism is oppressive: rare occurrence" and "Trotskyism will succeed: no occurrence" and a ton of people sided with Trotsky. what those statements say is that Trotsky literally has no power to prevent Communism from being "oppressive" even if it was, and supporting Stalin or supporting Trotsky would have the same result if you actually want to end neoliberalism. if you support Stalin then you don't get Trotskyism, and if you support Trotsky then you don't get Trotskyism. and yet even so you get your Noam Chomskys who would literally rather take the 0% chance that Trotskyism succeeds.
3738. Tribes contain bureaucracy (tribal populations; indigenous people-groups; social structures) -> that slowfactory video was the weirdest thing. "we're better because we choose not to continue to be a corporation after our task." "we don't choose to continue to be a corporation because to stop colonialism we can't believe in bureaucracy". but older forms of society aren't inherently pure. in tribal populations for instance, there can be "bureaucratic" structures like a circle of elders. that was the entire premise of The Giver: that if you simplify society in the name of Communism that would (supposedly) cause it to revert to an earlier form and create an elder council that made all the decisions. humanity did not enter modernity because it created bureaucracy.
3739. primitive communism -> a motif in early Marxism which basically amounts to remarking on how tribal populations are not yet divided up into tiny competing populations of one person each due to property lines or otherwise, and instead tend to form a single cohesive unit. this entry represents the motif exactly as it would appear in Marxist texts. the propositions below take it and attempt to make it more materially precise or fit for an era of meta-Marxism where there is not only one ideology interpreting things and we have to lay out the anarchist hypotheses as well as the Marxist hypotheses.
3740. Tribal populations model something about current societies -> in general this has to be true because even under historical materialism all societies contain the same palette of structures and processes.
3741. Tribal populations are a model for anarchy / primitive anarchism claim
3742. Tribal populations are a model for individuals taking care of other individuals -> pay attention to how quickly people leap in logic from this to it being materially possible to create government programs.
3743. Tribal populations are a model for a classless society / primitive communism claim -> rather old now. somewhat doubtful for reasons nobody could have expected.
3744. Tribal populations are a model for the whole world being one population -> because the Item number was 44, I tried to think of some reason that tribal populations could be a model for Trotskyism. the first thing I thought of didn't make sense whatsoever. then I realized that the total nonsense statement was more insightful than things people actually say specifically because it was clearly wrong. Trotsky is like when you tune your guitar and you adjust it way too low so you can tune it up and tell where it's actually going. I swear Trotskyism will save us all specifically because it's the only thing where its wrongness is obvious; it's the only actual baseline standard of wrongness. yeah, anyway. one of the most obvious things about tribal populations is that they're plural. they were never a single indivisible population, and they easily come into conflict at various times in history. it seems to be fundamentally hard for humans to understand this fact, just looking at the Christian Old Testament, and Buddhism, and Trotskyism, and general-sense psychoanalysis or all its counterparts of the bourgeoisie becoming convinced that chopping everyone into a bunch of tiny islands makes humanity one population instead of a billion humanities as it actually does. human beings around the world have a really hard time with the concept that countries are plural, whether they want to dominate others or want to cooperate with others but end up being bad at it because their failure to understand plurality makes it impossible.
3745. Tribal populations are a model for not destroying the environment / primitive environmentalism claim / indigenuity claim -> before anyone makes fun of this one, we have to remember that the tribal populations could be proposing it in this case. this doesn't mean they can't be wrong.
3746. Tribal populations are a model for government programs / primitive Menshevism claim -> why do we not. take a moment and realize that tribal populations are much smaller than the huge population we want to apply government programs to. they don't have government programs. (?) not in the specific large-scale sense the United States would have.
3747. Tribal populations are a model for Deng Xiaoping Thought / There is such a thing as primitive Deng Xiaoping Thought -> this sounds like a total troll proposition purely put here as a joke, but I swear it's a proper jamming proposition. this is the claim that the thing tribal populations model is solid borders between physical populations where the people in the population interact mostly with each other and only sometimes with the outside and this encourages the population to develop or to take care of itself. it is then proposed that Deng Xiaoping Thought is a way to restore "primitive Deng Xiaoping Thought". if this proposition is accurate, it would provide evidence that there is a missing step in mainstream Marxism-Leninism. a country can achieve Whatever This Is before it creates Bolshevism, or it can create Bolshevism before Whatever This Is while risking that outside countries totally tear it apart. it also may be possible for a country to create Whatever This Is inside a country using multiple subpopulations, and in the process get rid of one of the major problems plaguing the United States that people become stuck on elections but every election becomes about badly arguing over whether subpopulations should destroy each other.
3748. There is no primitive Menshevism / The "primitive communism" concept doesn't apply to Menshevism -> many people observe over and over that tribal populations in North America, Australia, etc, or around ten thousand years ago, often had this particular configuration where people inside a tribe "take care of each other" without attaching payment to the concept. what practically nobody realizes is there is a very particular set of conditions surrounding a tribe under which this happens. a tribe is often isolated from other groups of people by a large physical area such that even if they meet occasionally they cannot come into conflict. this one thing is drastically different from the modern age where tribe-sized subpopulations are constantly squashed into each other and fighting each other over things. the real question to ask ourselves on primitive Menshevism is whether societies of old would be able to take care of their people if they were constantly fighting each other, or constantly fighting European empires.
3749. Industrial societies are a model for Existentialist-Structuralist ideologies / primitive Existentialism claim -> I think this is relatively easy to show. this is just a statement that the assumptions inside early-existentialism, Lacanianism and psychohistory, and so forth come directly from baking in certain aspects of Liberal-republican capitalism without ever thinking they could be different.
3750. ??
3751. ??
3752. ??
3753. ??
3754. ??
3755. ??
3756. ??
3757. ??
3758. ??
3759. ??
3760. What is the function of a union?
3761. The function of a union is to change capitalist behavior / The function of a union is to change the behavior of individual capitalists -> what I swear is the position in center-Liberalism and connected Existentialisms.
3762. ??
3763. ??
3764. Unions are for creating workers' governments / The function of a union is to directly create workers' governments -> weird position in early Trotskyism that was strongly countered by Lenin.
3765. Unions are for empowering workers to change culture / The function of a union is to empower workers to change the popular mentality -> I have no citation for this right now, but this proposition is supposed to be the Gramscian position on unions. it can be redone if necessary
3766. Unions are for the next generation to secure its right to exist / The function of a union is for the next generation of people to fight for subpopulational possession of territory against older generations who form into capitalist Filaments and Wasp swarms -> mainstream Marxism-Leninism doesn't like to think this way, but it's the kind of question we have to contemplate to end Gramscian identity politics and Idealism. one of the things that keeps Liberalism going is clashes between whole demographic subpopulations as socially-linked subpopulations, and petty-bourgeois experts rising to the heads of the subpopulations to make sure each subpopulation is safe from whatever the other one is really or supposedly about to do to them. these could be a Black population versus a White population, or they could be a Democrat population versus a Republican population, or a Protestant and Catholic population against each other, etc. to take away the power of those experts to dictate everything that politics is, you have to have models of entire subpopulations operating headlessly as coordinated subpopulations; a simple statement that subpopulations have Archons and the Multitude has to kick the Archons out will not be enough to stop the subpopulations from kicking out their Archons and then descending into a blood feud. so, we begin here: the function of a union is to tie together people of a local subpopulation to fight for the right to be a proletariat instead of getting scattered off a territory and effectively Artisanized. the function of larger unions is to create a proletariat instead of plural proletariats. in the United States the entire existence of the proletariat has been attacked, and it has been variously shattered into smaller proletariats or sometimes extirpated from a region. this does have racial correlations — although not in the way that people want to think it does. United States people try to extirpate the proletariat because they are already linked into countable cultures covering spatial areas, such as "The Democratic Party" or "White Southern Baptist Christians" and they see the birth or entrance of the proletariat as a threat to existing countable cultures. in some senses, it is a threat — when a subpopulation of proletarians forms it forms its own countable culture socially and politically and may break up old traditions and bigotries. at the same time, it's quite easy to have a process like Black people trying very hard to integrate into the United States republic, studying the constitution and case law and becoming representatives and so forth, and in the process creating their own anti-proletarian subpopulation of experts that threatens to extirpate the Black proletariat if it doesn't do exactly what they say. it's generally the dynamic of whole countable cultures colliding with each other while containing separate proletariats that causes all the problems.
3767. ??
3768. ??
3769. ??
3770. Carl Sagan was lucky to land the best professors -> Demon Haunted World. I find it pretty funny I cite this book for Careerism more than for secular philosophy against religion
3771. job doomscrolling -> I have never seen this term but I don't know why, as it's perfectly intuitive to me as a concept that follows from saying people-gambling on social platforms is bad. if so, is there a point where you can be "doomscrolling" jobs looking for good ones but really just being addicted to the concept they'll magically get better and you'll find the only good one?
3772. The reason petty bourgeoisie won't carry a revolution is precarity -> I won't mess around and try to tell you the bourgeoisie are the prime ingredient in a workers' movement; that would be ridiculous. the only reason I have to talk about such stupid things is the way literally all discourse in the United States is run by the bourgeoisie and has become this weird game of "how do we rationally convince the bourgeoisie to not be asshole (pronounced redacted)s". all right, let's examine the Western Marxist question seriously. why is it the bourgeoisie are bad at committing to a workers' movement to break through capitalism? I'd say one of the top reasons is simply precarity. there are a far greater number of petty bourgeoisie than anyone wants to admit. and for them in particular, their career is always really precarious. they can't expect to remain in the same town. they can't expect to stay there and learn from all the workers. they have to attend to this fragile tiny business constantly and it takes away from their time to even go around and connect different groups of people. their ability to live is constantly threatening to shatter itself and they have nobody to turn around and protest about that. it only makes it worse that capitalism contains a natural shattering process where over time any particular business easily dies and when it dies everything the workers built up over their lives potentially dies and all the people become Artisanized a bit, pressured to make new businesses and start from scratch in their careers or have nowhere to work. when businesses are dying sometimes they guard against death by laying off a bunch of workers and keeping the non-dead part the best they can. a business which is greedily thriving is easy to strike against but a dying business may be harder because there's simply nothing to take back, it's just a case of the proletariat dissolving into nothing and if it fails, everyone being converted back into the bourgeoisie. now to be fair, in a Third World country people can have absolutely no hope of survival and build a workers' movement to gain that. in a First World country people chicken out of situations of great poverty and migrate to the first place they aren't precarious any more, and this has to do with the way that anyone who isn't suffering in First World countries joins into these big nightmare Filaments where 2,000 people oppress one poor person before even 50 poor people can get together. in one sense the United States has always been colonial, aided by the "friendship" of people socially linking together just to build a farm and build a business and build the next generation and build the next generation, but dragged down by that same "friendship" when individual people fail to fit into countable cultures and suddenly 200 other people in the countable culture are all oppressing them at once. you see how a lot of the way, social problems are tied to not being able to predict the way populations reproduce and build and realize this structure and that structure from generation to generation. people being selected out of colonial cesspools in the United States and Soviet microdistricts failing people over generations are each ultimately kind of the same exact problem. that Marxism still sees human populations as static and doesn't model humanity as a thing that continuously reproduces and re-creates and realizes. as a material object that regenerates new instances of itself called "towns" or "suburbs" and can always suddenly regenerate the bourgeoisie just because it reproduced. if we knew the chemistry of this continuously reproducing thing and the different possible regeneration processes, we could fix it so that capitalism didn't realize again. it's in thinking that a single revolutionary event actually fixes the fundamental problem, rather than a science of actual continuing development, that we make our great mistake. back to this entry: having that particular science, you could maybe get some of the bourgeoisie into position so towns are more stable against business failure and they don't run away. no guarantees though.
3773. There exist towns where public space contains 1 owner per 1 worker / There exist towns where public space contains 1 owner per 10 workers, and the majority of people is owners plus unemployed -> I am convinced this is one of the biggest differences between the First World and the Third World. in the Third World you get a ratio more like 1:100 inside the workplaces. in the First World you simply have to be able to work with that 1:1 ratio. but North Korea did it. you can do it if you have a genuine reason for the population to be united and for everybody to form into a larger object.
3774. ??
3775. ??
3776. Solidarity is strictly optional / Any individual being part of any particular faction or subpopulation or town or business or party or ideology or country is strictly optional and voluntary -> the heart of how Existentialism in particular generates capitalism and anticommunism, how Deleuze and Guattari are essentially just screwing us over by exalting what oppresses us all. everyone's conception of progress is fundamentally this weird kind of "Freedomism" where it's thought that the exact opposite of any particular social oppression is Freedom. this is dangerous because it takes the notion of "solidarity" that emerged during the French Revolution and breaks the whole thing in two. if you think Freedom is the secret to everything (or even that Lived Experience is) then nobody will ever be required to form an enduring group which experiences solidarity, full stop. people will just look at their own needs and whenever their biological organism experiences suffering they'll get up and leave — exactly the way people left East Germany just because being in group of people doesn't make survive good. center-Liberals try to rapidly toss water out of the sinking ship by asserting that people have to be bound together by morality, and surely if nobody has to be connected they'll all connect together just because not standing with marginalized people against racists is morally wrong, but that doesn't really work. morality can never overcome ability and disability. if people are "free" to do whatever they will always desert you the moment the ability of their biological organism to perform the actual actions that help you drops off. this is how the notion of progressive struggles gets vulgarized into "the few people who are able to leave donations donating money". that is baseline existence before progress happens. donations are the symptom of everyone having separate parallel existences and not actually being able to help each other with anything because they are each individually struggling to stay alive. donations punish disability and reward the people who miraculously have the physical ability to do what is required of them whether or not anyone has made the requirements clear or left everybody to flail.
3777. Democracy is government of the person by the people / Democracy is government of the person, by the people and for the people / culturocracy proposition / democulture proposition (one of them)
3778. Democracy is government of the culture by the people / Democracy is the people overcoming the Spanishness Office / democulturocracy proposition / democulture proposition (more proper one) / anarculture proposition (one of them) -> culturocracy is a "real" meta-Marxist term, but "democulturocracy proposition" is to be taken as a proper name, not an actual term; even I think that word is too silly.
3779. state apparatus signifying regime -> not necessarily phrased this way, but this is the implied whole phrase. the motif of a "deterritorializing power" marking up particular required ontologies of groups of people and sellable units of land; to be contrasted with "rhizome sign regime". I don't like the subtle implications in the uses of terms like this that "centralization" is anything in particular, which never lead to anything good.
3780. rhizome mathematics -> terribly mathematical descriptions offered by D&G themselves; "neither one nor multiple" yet still growing sideways in some kind of graph-theory terms
3781. arborescent society / arborescence (schizoanalysis) -> I have no idea what this even means. we're going to find out edit: this fundamentally has to do with countability and the countability of subpopulations. Deleuze was trying to be all smart about the perfect principles that would supposedly keep a society from dividing, and basically ended up with the notion of a unity of opposites, which he decided to name "multiplicity". in the middle of this he seems to have obscured one of the most important distinctions in Materialism: the sheer division between material objects including populations.
3782. rhizome sign regime / rules by which rhizome contains uncountable(?) Philosophical System -> sounds impossible in real life but definitely very interesting
3783. rhizome (schizoanalysis)
3784. The United States already is democulture / The United States already has democulturocracy -> the claim that the United States actually operates on a system of forcing every single individual to perform a certain list of cultural values at gunpoint, and "democracy" (republican structures) serves only to spread out that basic process of culturocracy over the whole population or at least a selected ruling population of representatives derived from the population.
      the corollary, not directly included in this proposition, is that mainstream Marxism-Leninism really is demo-ocracy: government of the physical population of people by the people. a Marxist state truly only wishes to "control" people's bodies while Liberal-republicanism seeks to completely control people's minds and exert authoritarian control over countable cultures and ethnicities that are more closely connected with themselves than with it. in some senses it will always spawn anarchism in response to its strange, incomprehensible methods, because countable cultures fundamentally don't like being culturally controlled like that, White or non-White.
3800. ??
3805. ??
3809. ??
3810. Linear time cannot capture lived experience / Linear time can never capture the intuitive experience of time (Henri Bergson) -> Henri Bergson's assertion contrasted with Deleuze, which is this weirdly positivist conception of time that somehow inner experience equals time. when it generally really doesn't. if Bergson had just known about relativity he'd have seen that there can be separate parallel timelines (world lines) without any of them necessarily being consciously experienced. follows from: all events that occur around a person occur inside that person
3811. ??
3812. lived experience and Santa Claus / Existentialism and Santa Claus -> this phrase sounds like a joke but I'm mostly being serious. Christmas movies are so weirdly obsessed with even after they are secular, appealing to what is basically Lived Experience. this seems to happen because of how religion takes a long time to fully leave people and thus people are always tempted to frame replacements for religion in magic-ritual terms. thus, you get these weird themes in Christmas stories about how Santa Claus just has to be experienced. to deny magic is to squash the Lived Experience you could be having but have closed yourself off to. the story is secular in that magic is taken as a fantasy element, imagined by the narrative, but the purpose of magic in the narrative is that it stands in for the notion that Lived Experience just has to be experienced and there is nothing like it except to experience it. Santa Claus stories are smuggling in Henri Bergson.
3820. ??
3830. ??
3838. Can science be the Last Unicorn? / Is scientific data vulnerable to the Last Unicorn fallacy? -> I think the answer is that it can be but it doesn't have to be. getting more information about different but similar scenarios can help break out of "unicorn" illusions. in some ways "psychical elements" are just one big problem with human perception that causes mirages.
3839. drawing out a totality of human capacity (Marx) / the possibility for each human being to develop all powers, capacities, and talents they possess for the benefit of the overall society (Daniel Guérin 1970) [227] -> a motif in Marx that for a while I would always keep thinking about periodically. what does it mean? should it be taken literally, that people have various abilities? or should it be taken more figuratively, that people have time to have well-rounded personalities with many interests? at first I took it literally, and I was like, is this a wrong projection of the future, given that people do that today as a product of dissolving the proletariat and "Saiyanizing" society into a fierce competition between individuals that paradoxically stands together? now I wonder if I overthought it and it was meant figuratively to simply say, if Bolshevism is prosperous then this incidentally happens, this is just the goal rather than a step anywhere in the middle.
3840. Applin is a scam -> several ideas to unpack
3841. The "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" equals Idealism / The "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" is synonymous with Idealism -> I would call this statement "fair" but missing only one tiny nuance. I think that Idealism is trying really hard to evolve into an ideology which is fully as elaborate as revolutionary ideologies, which is genuinely capable of replacing every part of Marxism. so I speak of the "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" to try to characterize the process of Idealism narrowing itself down into the "perfect" Idealism capable of creating the perfect "anti workers' state". this seems to be a very messy process which has had many many attempts going in different directions and which has had many failures getting there, and also which may go multiple directions when it gets very close to being finished, producing a plurality of two or three different schemes for Existentialist republics. just as there are multiple competing Marxisms — mainstream Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Gramscianism, etc. the bright side is that Marxisms can actually reason through their differences to ultimately come together, while Idealisms are incentivized all the way through to fight each other.
3842. It's a Wonderful Life
3843. A Christmas Carol
3844. superstructural world or cosmos -> superset of: superstructural fantasy world, superstructural boring world.
3845. superstructural fantasy world / Superstructure, meet base / what happens out there affects us in here (check wording? FNaF World)
3846. superstructural boring world -> rather special case. Deltarune, Fionna & Cake
      historically, may technically exist in Gnosticism
3847. non-magical magic creatures -> somehow Fionna and Cake and Deltarune are like the exact same genre of thing. Fionna and Cake is exactly the Deltarune of Adventure Time
      using the horror swatch rather lightly but it can definitely be cast as mildly horrifying.
      non-magical magic creatures + Pokémon vs Digimon = F2-55,40 Digimon is the Deltarune of Pokémon.
3848. Unicorns left texts due to extinction / Unicorns vanishing from manuscripts means unicorns went extinct (The Last Unicorn) / Dragons are only seen in books because dragons went extinct (The Fire Within) / Last Unicorn fallacy (proposition) / Last Unicorn effect (perception-internal, "Amalthean" framing) -> the motif of mistaking descriptions or perceptions of reality for the reality a text's author experienced. named for the book or animated film The Last Unicorn, where this fallacy was used imaginatively to portray a fantasy world where unicorns vanishing from manuscripts happened because real live unicorns gradually went extinct. (at least, apparently — it's a long story.)
      I partly wanted to make this the charcoal color for Idealism, but the fantasy color might be better, just because of how The Last Unicorn is in some ways a quintessential embodiment of what fantasy stories even are.
      also... oh gosh. this + Trotsky = Trotsky's letter describes an alternate reality
3849. Perceptions are names for objects / Perceptions are names for perceptual constellations making up real-world objects / Inside the mind sensory information is indistinguishable from signifiers -> what I thought of instantly when Mach talked about "symbols". but somehow that wasn't what he was saying.
3850. crossing from mental images into physical world -> appears in: Materialism and empirio-criticism, Deltarune. this motif is blue because it appears in Jungian psychoanalysis. (which is also arguably part of the basis of Deltarune)
3851. Experiencing a unicorn doesn't make it real / Regarding the whole world as qualia fails to explain where the world comes from -> there are definitely reasons people try to build models like this, and I think those reasons are somewhat orthogonal to this complaint. I think the justification will often be something like trying to explain human error from lack of knowledge, or individuals' prejudices. the dumb thing about that though is Idealist models are never prepared to comprehend the existence of multiple minds having different kinds of errors, or how that actually affects behavior or interactions. it's always, I could be wrong but I'm still the only person that exists. you could do better with Gödel's incompleteness theorem. that actually presents a way of taking logic or thought and stepping out of it to treat it as a self-contained thing to evaluate how well it can evaluate itself. Idealism is like meta-ontology but bad.
3852. People's minds are not a single mind-plane / We don't live in Deltarune / Idealism is unworkable because Stalin doesn't perceive reality through Trotsky / Stalin doesn't perceive reality through Trotsky / Vegeta doesn't perceive reality through Goku
3853. If the brain was a liver you wouldn't see anything / If the brain is a liver, you won't see anything / If the brain secretes consciousness like the liver secretes bile, that does not explain where external objects come from and how there are any external objects for people to see
3854. Structuralist linguistics is better than empirio-criticism -> I don't think this is much of a hot take. I think structuralism gets better when you see it specifically as ontology rather than language, but otherwise, yeah, it's literally better
3855. If we can only perceive sensations and not object models, there's no way to predict how they will connect -> somehow both a problem in Idealism and fiction
3856. ??
3857. ??
3858. ??
3859. the earth was the experience of a worm / prior to man the earth was the experience of a worm -> this one is violet because this thought experiment would get you all the way to meta-Marxism if you only did it with "the world before mainstream Marxism-Leninism" or "the world before Trotskyism". if Trotsky was only smart enough to be able to see a world where he hadn't been born and realize that for a Marxist theorist people are fungible and the actual world shouldn't be different we wouldn't be in this mess
3860. Sensation is a fence / We can only perceive psychical elements, not physical elements -> the positivist core of empirio-criticism
      yeah, it's more of a fuzzy boundary between a lawn and a road if it's anything.
3861. Everyone has their own unicorns / Last Unicorn effect (neutral, "Beagelian" framing of the phenomenon) -> the claim that all perception is vulnerable to the problem of people's internal ontological models distorting into incorrect "fantasy worlds" containing unreal mirages known as "unicorns". the unicorns are artifacts of everything a person knows, sees, creates, or discusses with others, but not what real material things a person actually bumps into. sometimes, unicorns are harmless — some unicorns are cultural fabrications that some number of people manage to agree on and thus are able to communicate with each other about without any confusion even though they are not "real". to some extent, unicorns enable us to be able to do pure mathematics, construct systems of logic, write fantasy books, and generally think abstractly. at the same time, they can cause problems when they blatantly do not match the real things they are supposed to represent, or when they are abstract and two people do not have the same particular unicorn they need each other to understand and frustratedly keep trying to explain it to each other but for some reason one person refuses to stop and reconstruct it.
3862. "𝖺" (pronounced object small a) is a unicorn (pronounced unicorn) -> the claim that Freudian theories are often talking about the Last Unicorn effect, and specifically that the concept of "𝖺 (pronounced small a)" is a unicorn because it is always generated in the mind instead of reality. I honestly have my doubts that the small-a concept is even true, because it's like, no, the whole body generates desires, not just the mind, so some of them have to be real needs that are in contradiction with the world, not simply imagined things that are false. even the things that you come up with intellectually could fall under this, because they are separated by the barrier between your body and the world, not the barrier between your mind and reality itself.
      I do not think you can end up at an accurate analysis of Trotskyism unless you have an interpretation something like this. and you know what that means. it means you don't understand the assembly of societies or the progression of history. and if you don't understand history, you can't even predict with strong confidence that "democracy" will still be standing tomorrow, so don't even try that.
3863. Concepts don't cause themselves / Ideas don't cause themselves -> slightly complicated, because it depends on what you mean by "idea". if idea is the same as ideal, then definitely ideals don't cause themselves. but if they are imaginary physical objects they can create causality through reterministic wave-machine interactions.
3864. Revisionist Marxisms don't cause themselves -> the claim that the internal models of groups practicing revisionist Marxisms are not causing modeled realizations of the models that then empower actual realizations, and only underlying class phenomena cause revisionist Marxisms. this one seems rather up in the air. I lean toward the possibility that this actually can happen yet there is a mix of each outcome happening. some incorrect Marxisms are good enough to model their own realization and realize, but some of them are just obscuring underlying class processes.
3865. Ideals don't cause themselves / Concepts in the Idealist or Platonically-rational sense do not cause themselves (in the Cartesian sense; rationalism) -> likely true.
3866. Models don't cause themselves / Models can cause models (admitted possibility) -> likely false. A) given enough lore rules, sans undertale can cause himself; Undertale rules can cause sans. B) necessary to do physics experiments.
      the first case is a little fraught because fiction always chooses some rules arbitrarily and intuitively, and those don't cause themselves. but it's incorrect to say fiction never contains materially-consistent models.
3867. Models can cause unicorns / Physical or materialist models can cause models which do not refer to reality but are internally consistent (Last Unicorn effect; meta-ontology, meta-Marxism) -> not the exact same thing as ideals causing ideals.
3868. ??
3869. ??
3870. Chinese-speaking room / Chinese room thought experiment -> it's supposed to be about language but it is weirdly relevant to all forms of perception.
3871. Dr. Mary in the monochrome room / Dr. Nancy in the monochrome room (typo) / colour-ese speaking room / colour-ese room (color-ese; thought experiment)
3872. Mary in the monochrome room does not understand perception
3873. Mary in the monochrome room understands perception / Mary the color scientist in the monochrome room does understand color perception (colour; scientific studies of conscious perception) -> controversial, but I feel like this is the better Materialist position. you can't actually experience other people's Lived Experiences, so at any given time the absolute best ways of studying people's perceptual processes from the outside are sufficient. there is nothing wrong with observational studies of people's anecdotes, but it is implied in this proposition that observational studies of people's anecdotes are also equally considered studies from the outside, because you are never inside their heads.
3874. Henry-seconds and Felix-seconds -> a concept that came up on Term:multiplicity, to demonstrate the relationship between general relativity and Lived Experience. two people Henry and Felix may each be having an inner experience of the "irreducible" flow of time, but if Henry will never experience Felix-seconds then it is useless to try to get him to appreciate Henry-seconds by talking about Felix-seconds or vice versa. although relativity may be mildly unintuitive at first, it does do a great job of showing how Henry-seconds can exist even though Felix doesn't experience them. Henry and Felix are each experiencing separate timelines that interact, not a single overarching timeline. no need to get into Henry-seconds and how great and un-captured by science they are, when assuming they aren't described by science is just failing to understand science.
3875. ??
3876. ??
3877. ??
3878. A palette swap can see a different red / A CSS stylesheet can see a different red / Paint-chip colors are connected to absolute colors by signs, therefore a tool that edits all chip-to-perception signs at once has changed perception -> this dawned on me while testing a colorblind stylesheet and I haven't thought about the "different red" question the same way since. if a webpage says "box_red" and the CSS stylesheet turns it from rose to sea or from rose to fir, haven't you then finally figured out how to experience a different red? or if you take a Famicom-era game designed for a certain limited color palette and you swap the colors. only while you're looking at the color-swapped sprites you'd be seeing a different red, and I cannot justify why it wouldn't be in the exact same sense as the thought experiment. colors are always defined relative to each other. a sprite palette designed based on the real world is almost exactly the same thing as how colors are relative to each other in real life.
3879. Colorblind people also have a different red / Colorblind people are indistinguishable practically from people with a different red / Colors are practically identified through similarities between paint-chip colors, not by what absolute color people see, so only a difference in which paint-chip colors are grouped together should count as experiencing red differently -> it's so typical for people to say "when I talk about people seeing a different red, I don't mean they're colorblind". why not? what are you asserting the difference to be? it could be that philosophers think that there are unique activations in the brain for red and blue, and they are saying that the eyes are the same but the brain is different. this is at least somewhat possible, in that some people with brain damage cannot recognize colors as particular names. [228] but. let's consider the world as a collection of material objects. every person learns to recognize colors by grouping physical things, like water on a sunny day and blue jays. if the person cannot see blue, and groups sand and water together, there is a difference in perception, because the person sees the details of the objects as belonging to a new signifier. if a person groups cardinals with pine trees, that is distinctly a colorblind perception, but if a person groups cardinals with sunsets and pine trees with jade, that is distinctly a typical perception. say that somehow there was such a thing as absolute color, and red and green were cosmic objects, but humans always named things in crayola colors: cardinals are rose, blue jays are robin, pine trees are forest, and sand is lemon. say that in that world, there are three people: Alex, Bob, and Carol. Bob says that cardinals are forest and pine trees are rose; he sees cardinals as yellow and pine trees as yellow. Alex says that cardinals are rose and pine trees are forest; they see cardinals as red and pine trees as green. Carol says that cardinals are rose and pine trees are forest; she sees cardinals as green and pine trees as red. there is no practical difference between Alex and Carol. every single thing they communicate with each other will be understandable, and every action they take in the world will be comparable. Carol can even create art that does not look colorblind and looks perfectly normal to Alex, because Carol has always observed the natural world and the relationships between things in the natural world the same way she draws them, while Alex also perceives the same set of relationships between all things in the natural world. we need to step back and look at the social impact of that. Alex and Carol are much closer to seeing the world the exact same as each other than Stalin and Trotsky. Stalin and Trotsky see the same colors but the messages they attempt to communicate with each other and their ability to perceive those messages are drastically different. they technically both believe in Leninism. they should be the same. but they're not the same, because Trotsky perceives a particular arrangement of groups of people one way and Stalin perceives it another way. if significance to an ideology and recommended action were a color, Trotsky sees state businesses as robin, Stalin sees state businesses as rose. the difference between them is in what category or signifier they parse a particular object as being part of. but, in whatever way this may have happened, they have learned this categorization of objects into signifiers during their lives. and this active categorization and assignment is what makes perceptions different; if you didn't choose what category something is in and somebody else was assigned the exact same categorization system, they are mathematically equivalent perceptual systems. let's go back to Bob. even though he did not choose to be colorblind, it directly affects the process of his brain categorizing objects into signifiers, in his case in a nicely predictable way. when Bob categorizes cardinals as forest or pine trees as rose, it is subjective in the same sense as Trotsky categorizing state businesses as robin based on his knowledge, because both perceptions rely on The Subject taking objects and putting them in signifiers. subjective perceptions matter to daily life because differences between them result in the need to understand subjective experiences and experience intersubjectivity or empathy, or at the very least in the need to do meta-Marxist analysis of the development of countable cultures and ideologies. if Trotsky had some weird perceptual issue where he literally looked at state businesses and saw an undulating hydra, but all he said was that state businesses are rose and genuinely believed that signifier and all around was a mainstream Marxist-Leninist in both his actions and his beliefs, that inner experience wouldn't matter to anyone. it's when Trotsky looks at state businesses and sees them as robin and then says they're robin versus somebody else categorizing them differently that it actually matters to everybody. so, really, colorblind perception should be more significant than a stupid thought experiment where Alex and Carol both agree cardinals are rose and pine trees are forest. when Bob says that cardinals are forest, that is his red. everything that has ever been red to most people is yellow to Bob, but as Bob goes through life he always has to see everybody else call it red, so it is red to him inasmuch as it is rose to him. I guess what I'm saying is that there is no practical difference between red and rose or green and forest. I have a mathematical reason, in structuralist linguistics and perception. I have a historical reason, in Stalin and Trotsky going through subjective perception and forming warring "countries", which nobody should want. I have a humanities reason, in that it is pointless to talk about inner experience and lived experience and qualia if the point is not to better experience it and understand how to treat other people — well, inasmuch as those results are the whole reason people usually talk about lived experience in the first place and without the usual motivating rationale of talking about lived experience then what is the logical reason to even bring up lived experience. I feel like that's pretty sufficient, even if not exhaustive. this old thought experiment misses the point of talking about perception.
3880. paint-chip color / Crayola-style color
3881. absolute color
3882. dreadfully unclear word (meta-Marxism) / ambiguous word or phrase / term useless for communication / term with different interpretations in every philosophy, ideology, and belief system -> earlier today this started as a half-joke labeled "words RD hates", but the rules are that you're supposed to be able to cite some kind of work or in-draft manual, so I settled for this being some heading in a hypothetical meta-Marxist manual about word usage. ironically enough, this Item itself is highly useful for defining our policy on Lexemes. Lexeme - instance of - dreadfully unclear word
3883. ??
3884. ??
3885. ??
3886. ??
3887. ??
3888. molecularized nationalism / molecularized theory of fascism / molecular fascism
3889. ??
3890. ??
3891. atomized theory / atomic theory / theory defined by individuals
3892. molecularized theory / molecular theory / theory defined by Particle Theory / theory defined by graphs or constellations / theory defined by connections but ostensibly discarding individuals
3983. ??
3984. ??
3895. Caesar Antichrist sees all possible worlds while men glimpse just one
3896. ??
3897. ??
3898. ??
3899. ??
3900. ??
3901. ??
3902. The only two ideologies are small government and big government / There are two ideologies: small government and big government / There are only two genders: small government and big government -> this is so far beyond untrue. it's... provably untrue with just a few historical events. let's say Stalin is in favor of Big Government. well, Trotsky is also in favor of Big Government! he wants all the world's countries to spontaneously form into a world government. by some metrics you'd think a civilization with the area of the world is the biggest government. how many people are even in the parliament or council of soviets?? but the two of them are fighting each other even though they both believe in Big Government. there are more than two ideologies. they're all separate and they all begin from different local sets of interests and goals. how do you even square the notion of small vs big government with the United States fighting over Catholicism? Protestantism and Catholicism also show there are more than two ideologies, once you get to Islam and Buddhism and all the other religions there have ever been.
3903. ??
3904. D&D (pronounced Dungeons & Dragons) is not gay whatsoever / Dungeons and Dragons is absolutely not gay [229] -> arguably, it's been a wave of minorities that were previously excluded from it that even brought it back. it's been this special case of not even nostalgia but genuinely people discovering it for the first time and catapulting it out to "normal" people or vice versa in a certain back-and-forth.
      sub-case of: Lesbian writers would never want to write about lesbians.
3905. Lesbian writers would never want to write about lesbians / Show writers including lesbian relationships is always fanservice / Show writers writing about lesbians are never lesbians -> encountered this in a video recently. video essayist seemed to believe writers would only ever write about lesbian relationships if some great Rhizome of people came down on them and forced them to. which is a really funny belief when their two examples, Adventure Time and Steven Universe, included actual LGBT+ people at least somewhere on the cast. you can't exert democulture on a lesbian to force plots about lesbians when the ideas are already there. that said, there is a deeper issue to look at. what do we term graph struggle between microcolonies? if people are mad that one microcolony for LGBT+ characters is enclosing people instead of another microcolony, is ignoring this some kind of lesser parallel to condoning inter-imperialist conflict? lesbians or progressive people taking over what amount to empires is only so much of a victory if the real complaint is people are tired of being herded into empires and told what to think, even if the things they're told to think are good things.
3906. Whenever books are sanitizing the existence of genuinely hateful factions in real life, fanfiction and fanfiction writers are the culprit [230] -> well. this one is at least creative. it's wrong on a technical level. beginning writers existing didn't result in a bunch of Deltarunes. (that's a funny sentence to even say, because, like, "despite" at least half the main characters being gay or bisexual nobody would say Deltarune was written by a beginner.) but at the same time... okay, Tories, you produced an actually interesting proposition that's kind of worth talking about for the wrong reasons. should literature be realistic? should literature try to genuinely portray things as they actually are? I think there are times that's good and times it isn't necessary. the presenter of this video, ironically, doesn't understand abstraction and thus has bad media literacy. I could fairly accuse her of being a beginner-tier "once fanfiction author" if this problem appeared in her books.
      other thought: how does this concept interact with the idea of taking fictional settings and using them to write meta-transitional socialist realism? like, if this writer is correct, writing a fan fiction where there are Communist parties or workers' states would be a good thing because it would be more realistic; it would include things that have existed several times historically, and it could discuss the difficult challenges of actually doing these things instead of falsely presenting Marxism as "utopian". that author thinks fanfiction is bad because it's "self-indulgent". but it could go either way, you can get into making seemingly rosy settings really dark just by exploring the realities of trying to counter imperialism and this idea that many people who seem nice can become utterly cruel when they detect that Communists exist. when I was messing around with the MLP setting I just knew what would make the most sense and be very funny is after Twilight learns the SSSR is not so bad for Celestia to suddenly heel turn and be like yeah we're going to destroy them in a horrible cold war, no more friendship, no nothing. but I kind of liked how Undertale is so absurdly friendly I just couldn't imagine anything but Asgore seeing the Communist party and being like "yeah ok" ""
3907. ??
3908. ??
3909. ??
3910. ??
3911. Twentieth Century Continental Philosophy (May 1997) -> not-especially-remarkable compilation book outlining many of the periods of philosophy which appear to form a single tradition known here as the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition. I do not believe either "analytic" or "continental" to be synonymous with this tradition; it seems to straddle both categories at times.
3912. ??
3913. molecular nationalism / molecular Toryism -> believed to refer to: right-Existentialism
3914. molecular imperialism -> believed to refer to: capitalism
3915. molecularized democratic regime / molecular democracy (generic)
3916. molecular Liberalism -> believed to refer to: Existentialism
3917. molecular Socialism
3918. molecular Anarchism
3919. molecularized Multitude theory -> I'm slowly becoming more certain that Rhizome is this
3920. molecularized Existentialism -> Existentialist periods that believe in graphs or Social-Philosophical Systems
3921. ??
3922. ??
3960. al-Qaeda -> basically, it's a tiny army for fundamentalist Islam spread over a few countries, and it was associated with 9/11. it appears that many people especially in Russia have gotten very confused about it and sometimes insist it's protecting the Third World from the United States when in reality it's not necessarily doing anything good for anybody. I vaguely know about three other buzzword names that get thrown around when people want the United States to hate other countries. I don't know very much about the motivations behind any of them.
      note: al-Qaeda is relatively "Take It Seriously", but joke statements where the joke is focused on something else are fine.
3961. Turning Red's universe experienced 9/11 / The Turning Red universe experienced 9/11 -> this is so funny because like, it's technically true, but not exactly. would 9/11 affect the overall country even in the universe of the movie? yes. would it necessarily affect the city or town the movie takes place in? no. that's just it. this statement is "has some occurence" but it's not flat-out "true". this goes in the "Causality in fiction" ontology along with "Steven Universe revived Pinkie Pie"
3962. Turning Red's narrative should mention 9/11 / Turning Red's narrative would be affected by 9/11 -> this is the version MrEnter (pronounced Mr. Enter) actually said.
3963. Al-Qaeda is anticommunist -> this statement might sound dumb because many people are immediately going to say "aren't there more obvious reasons to be against it?". but in terms of world history and where things came from, it's very much worth pointing out. if Communists don't win in Iraq, then somebody is obligated to "protect" Iraq from the Soviet Union. and if al-Qaeda is there they're certainly going to try. and if the United States eradicates Communism in Russia, Alexander Dugin can look over at al-Qaeda and go, hmm, at least there's still one group of people protecting the Third World from the United States. being anticommunist in the Third World is a dangerous game, and the United States doesn't understand this at all — if the United States is a nation of ideas founded on freedom and prosperity why would anyone be afraid of the United States? and that's the fatal fallacy of Existentialism. that walnuts can be free when other "free" walnuts are constantly threatening to crack them open and take away their "free will" by any reasonable definition.
3964. The CPC (pronounced Communist Party of China) is not as bad as al-Qaeda / The Communist Party of China is not as bad as al-Qaeda -> seems objectively true but many people don't figure it out.
      honestly. I don't think Trotskyists have figured this out.
3965. ??
3966. Simon Nkoli -> South Africa; founded GLOW in order to have a gay/lesbian rights organization within the context of the struggle against apartheid, instead of from the context of bettering Europe(?). I've never heard of him before today but sounds good so far
3967. it's hard to separate the desire to look stereotypically like a man or woman from the pressure society puts on us to conform to one of them to fit neatly into an actual socially-linked demographic Community of people [231] -> that's just it, isn't it? the best way to prove that gender identity exists is pointing to socially-linked subpopulations of men and women or miscellaneous LGBT+ people that people managed to socially become part of. but once you've shown that, all you've done is also show why queer people end up ejected from society. the same thing that defines gender identity at all, the subpopulations, has the power to expel anyone out of it and say they "aren't really" part of anything valid.
3968. I wish people would trust experts on gender identity rather than their own toxic biases [232] / (9k)
3969. Transgender inner experiences deserve their own autonomous existence regardless of whether cis people understand that they exist or what the majority thinks [233] / (9k)
3970. male rivalries and gay subtext (fiction) / two male rival characters fixating on each other has gay subtext -> one of those things that's often not intended to be true but then based on evidence that piles up becomes confusing and hard to ignore. it's one of those cases of accidental representation, where the author doesn't think something is possible and then accidentally depicts it.
3971. ??
3972. there are only two genders... -> motif or internet meme of starting a sentence with this and finishing it with something that absolutely should not be the answer and is hard not to crack up laughing at.
      example A: two ordinary restroom doors and a mysterious door in the middle labeled "there are two genders: male, female, and maintenance closet"
      example B: two photos of a terribly cluttered desk and a perfectly clean desk labeled "there are only two genders"
3973. Reactionaries are just like Voldemort / Center-Liberals are just like Harry Potter fighting the death eaters -> this old trope becomes so bizarre when you realize how much transphobia and destructive nationalism comes from buying a Harry Potter book. comparing Harry Potter to the real world is like death eaters versus death eaters. the really terrible thing about this proposition? you'd have to prove center-Liberals have more principles than the Harry Potter series to prove the analogy is not accurate, and I'm not sure that's actually possible. the most accurate assessment might actually be that transphobes versus nazis is about where actual United States elections are, and the comparison is right for entirely the wrong reasons.
3974. Transgender people can't own Harry Potter books / Gay people can't own Harry Potter books -> there's a pretty good argument for not buying new ones. that said, some people really do go as far as getting rid of all of them because they know a transgender person, and not knowing the context that would look pretty weird. [234] this begins to look like the same basic form of statement as "Protestants can't be gay". it raises a lot of questions about where this general form of statement is coming from in terms of what basic social dynamics are producing it.
3975. Platform 9¾ / Platform nine and three quarters (9 3/4) -> this came back to mind when I was thinking about schizoanalysis and Rhizome and their worship of everything "in-between", and then how Platform 9¾ becomes the key to letting wizards freely exist in the Harry Potter universe. runs narratively parallel to: secret abnormal Gaster hallway
3976. retroactive LGBT+ character / Dumbledore is gay / Word of Gay (TV Tropes) -> Rowling's idea of representing the anomaly and the exception. very interesting when you think about it that people hate this when an author does it but when fans do the exact same kind of retcon people more or less receive it well. what would the difference be? in either case the same group of "meddling executives" is telling the writer or fan that the original work, that any self-respecting Disney show, can't show people a queer couple, so they're both getting around it with secret retcons.
3977. unofficial LGBT+ retcon / "I don't care if it isn't canon" (LGBT+)
3978. assigned harpoon at birth (Ahab) / Land Gay Before Time / Lesbian Gay Pikachu Eevee / Lesbian Gay Bacon Lettuce Tomato (South Park) / (9k)
3979. don't listen to the MSM -> the motif that gay and bisexual people are supposedly at all media outlets or every popular media outlet filling them with "the LGBT agenda"
3980. taking baby, fleeing Estonia / taking baby, fleeing Russia / taking the baby & escaping dystopia / taking the baby and escaping the bad society -> now that this has appeared in two things, The Giver and a Growing Around theory, it can be a motif.
3981. In any particular anticommunist fable, Liberal countries exist -> the generic fan theory that if a story like "1984" continued on it would be ~10 external Liberal countries that show up to destroy the anomalous civilization, just like in real life
3982. In any particular anticommunist fable, other socialisms exist -> the generic fan theory that every anticommunist fable is technically meta-transitional literature and if it went on other kinds of civilizations with particular named ideologies would happen. appears to be the case for The Giver, where people are blatantly constructing Anarchisms.
3983. cognitohazard / infohazard -> I think entirely too much about how this is similar to the concept of containing information about a government or society that would cause people to take a narrow view and behave the wrong way. I mean, when this concept is connected to crazy conspiracies about what the government is "really" covering up, of course it is... but SCP entries and modern 2010s horror stories in general have really taken the concept in a new direction by making the anomalies something people genuinely would not want to know and regret learning about.
3984. secret room of forbidden books (The Giver, Girl from the other side) / decisions made in elder council (The Giver) / figurative priests (anarchism) / "hermetically-sealed compartments of knowledge" (Demon-haunted world) -> Sagan's quote is so good
3985. The Giver quartet is about wrecking Trotskyism -> this sounds random until you look at the books very closely to discover how they have clearly misinterpteted specific Trotskyist texts
3986. The Giver quartet is about building an Anarchism -> when I capitalize Anarchists, it's a placeholder for civilizational shape words like "Kropotkinism" or "Bookchinism". I don't have a lot of knowledge about specific "Anarchisms" but I do know a few different kinds of named "Anarchisms" clearly exist and it's worth distinguishing which ones to be able to evaluate whether they will be successful. also? if anarchists get mad when you try to broadly categorize different kinds of Anarchisms, it only further identifies that they do have specific beliefs that set them apart as a specific group of people. being an Existentialist and thinking that believing in utopia really hard or believing in the concept of non-ideology really hard will unite people together and build an Anarchism is also an ideology. you aren't free of ideology just because you believe in Existentialism.
3987. The Giver is about Anarchists wrecking Trotskyism / The Giver quartet is about Anarchists wrecking Trotskyism to create an Anarchism -> this is such an interesting concept to talk about because if true, the book is a sectarian quarrel or inescapable conflict between two different civilizational shapes (Bauplans) rather than a universal message for everybody. don't even try to twist that into an anti-Anarchist, pro-center-Liberal argument though. if the inescapable conflict between Social-Philosophical-Material Systems supports Liberalism, then it supports the constant oppression of different groups of people beneath each other such as center-Liberals under Tories because minus colonialism no group of human beings would ever be guaranteed to behave.
3988. ??
3989. The Soviet Union exists in the Fantastic Beasts films -> if realistic footage of World War II exists this is technically true.
3990. ??
3991. Philosophers have tried to change the world; our job is to interpret it / Philosophers have only tried to change the world in various ways; our job is to interpret it -> my pet peeve and the absolute heart of most of the E-S tradition
3992. named molecular Marxism -> a named molecular Marxism is simply a named Marxism which has been molecularized. when this entry was first added to the list I had some actual names of Marxisms below this but I decided those more appropriately go in the 4000s next to all the "things that are more materially possible than Trotskyism".
3993. ??
3994. ??
3995. ??
3996. ??
3997. ??
3998. reverting from the anomalous hyper-future to the past
3999. beyond the end of history in the hyper-future / Communism as bad fake historical period -> the motif of real history versus fake historical periods applied to workers' states. usually a workers' state is asserted to be a "fake" historical period for reasons having to do with central government; that seems somewhat more common than it being based on fine-grained social structure. people will pinpoint one figurehead or a tiny council of people as a reason to attack a whole population.

4000

Concepts related to Trotskyism, or named Leninisms in general.

4000. Bolshevik-Leninism / Leninism (Trotsky's definition) / (9k)
4001. Stalinism (corruption) / Stalinism (prejudice) -> use to mark the concept of "Stalinism" specifically as defined in Trotskyist texts, and not in any non-Trotskyist text. if you simply gather up data on this you'll realize it refers to something much more specific than you'd think it is. "Stalin's Marxism" isn't actually the same thing as "Stalinism", even though in practice the concept of "Stalinism" is being used to reject Stalin's Marxism.
4002. Stalin's Marxism isn't Leninism / (9k)
4003. degenerated workers' state (Trotskyism)
4004. restore the soviets
4005. State businesses equal capitalism -> Hayashi
4006. State capitalism inevitably evolves to uncontained capitalism -> Hayashi
4007. Workers will all take action given crisis
4008. Workers will all take action given spontaneous tiny breakages / clinamen (Althusser) / The Fracture (meta-Marxism) -> Althusser actually
4009. ??
4010. internationally-scoped collection of connected Trotskyist groups -> important element of - international-conference Trotskyism, international-party Trotskyism, Trotskyism in one identity-federation
4011. Abandon Trotsky, and Bolshevism has failed / If Bolshevism fails to take the educated individuals who are dedicated supporters throughout a revolution and integrate them into society such that they will not starve and can use their talents to improve society then Bolshevism has failed -> sub-case of: I'm not anticommunist but. this is about the only anticommunist argument I have ever found convincing. every anticommunist argument that wasn't Trotsky was totally confusing to me and just left me digging deeper and deeper until I saw how false every one of them was. but this is the only one that's sort of held up as I got more and more information. and it's haunted me ever since. it's easy to blame Trotsky and say he made the wrong choices. but like, what happens if he obeys? if the country is actually failing at things and every time he tries to get into a position the should theoretically be worthy of the experts just kick him out until he's standing next the handful of peasants still starving, isn't there actually some point where he has a right to complain? that has never sat right with me. the notion that even when you build Bolshevism it could have a fraying edge where people are still shunted into a world of individualism with no support, and perhaps treated really badly for just failing to spontaneously be unbelievably excellent at things, tossed quotes about revisionism because their actual skills are not perfect. it feels like there are natural points where people simply aren't materially part of the material object called society and it makes them angry because in a world where everything is claimed by a group of human beings they don't want to be treated as not human beings.
4012. A Trotskyist group is a countable culture / Any particular Trotskyist group is a countable culture / (9k)
4013. Trotskyist groups are a safe space for Trotskyist identity / (9k)
4014. Trotsky syndrome of countable cultures / (9k)
4015. ??
4016. Trotsky, who founded the CPSU / Trotsky, who was the founder of the CPSU along with Lenin [235] / (9k)
4017. Trotskyist revolution -> very theoretical concept despite a great number of Trotskyists claiming they are described in the collected works of Lenin
4018. They'll have to talk about Trotsky someday -> I am madly trying to find a video. there was this video by the IMT, and Alan Woods is on a stage. the overall room looks kind of bluish. it's kind of like he's giving a Ted Talk or something. and he says, he says something to the effect of "They're going to have to talk about Trotsky someday. [glib, barely not winking]". I cannot find this video for the life of me. does anybody have any idea where it went (2023-12-06)
4019. Trotsky disappearing from pictures -> one of those things that's very important to normal people as a "memorable historical event" and yet almost never gets talked about by Marxist theorists. unless maybe they're Trotskyists.
4020. named Trotskyism
4021. international-conference Trotskyism -> motif, Particle Theory
4022. international-party Trotskyism -> motif, Particle Theory. Fred Weston believes that certain groups apart from Ted Grant were getting absorbed into reformism; Grant, apparently, is a believer in watching for crises (S2-4007). was trying really hard to name this thing a person's name but couldn't quite land on one
4023. multiple Trotskyisms in one country / multiple local Trotskyist parties -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - North American Maoism / New Democracy
4024. Trotskyism in one supranational federation / Trotskyism in several union republics -> hypothetical Particle Theory; actually suggested by Trotsky once or twice regarding North America and Europe
4025. Trotskyism in one subpopulational minority / Ethnic Trotskyism -> believed to be different from: Maoism in one subpopulational minority
4026. Trotskyism in one union republic / Trotskyist nationality / Trotskyist local-state -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - local state
4027. Trotskyism in one country / Trotskyist nation-state -> hypothetical Particle Theory
4028. Fortress Trotskyism -> subset of: Trotskyism in one country; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - Juche-socialism
4029. Trotskyism in one identity subpopulation / hegemony Trotskyism -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - Gramscianism; superset of: Ethnic Trotskyism
4030. Trotskyism as structure integrated with other theory's structure / Trotskyism as large Particle Element containing smaller elements / Trotskyism as small Particle Element contained by larger elements
4031. Trotskyism-in-Maoism -> subset of: Trotskyism in one union republic
4032. Maoism-in-Trotskyism -> subset of: Trotskyism in one supranational federation
4033. Trotskyism in one identity-federation / international-identity Trotskyism / world hegemony Trotskyism / Trotskyism in Gramscianism in Trotskyism -> hypothetical Particle Theory; International or international-party on top, otherwise-anarchic political-identity subpopulations below
4034. economic peace Trotskyism / Deng Xiaoping Thought in Trotskyism in Wilsonianism -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - Deng Xiaoping Thought
4035. Trotskyism for export / Deng Xiaoping Thought in Trotskyism in Liberalism / Trotskyism in Deng Xiaoping Thought / economic-imperialist Trotskyism -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyists hide inside Liberalism and smuggle all their activities through Third World exploitation. honestly, one of those possibilities I ironically came up with just because it was horrifying
4036. Stalin is basically Monokuma / Trotskyites don't know the difference between Soviet history and Danganronpa -> an analogy I used in a historical fiction summary and now after digging up again cannot get over. the idea is that people think the Soviet Union was just one big trap where because people are in such fierce competition to exist until the country is properly built up, the government then just starts accusing people of things to preemptively get rid of them. almost exactly like Monokuma sets the students up to be in trouble for killing each other, blaming them for each other's graphic deaths over and over when really he started the whole thing
4037. Pigs theory / (9k)
4038. Pig state / (9k)
4039. A Pig state isn't the end of the world / A Pig state is not the end of the world / Orwell handed Russians to butcher knives / Orwell handed Ukrainians to butcher knives / Animal Farm is a reality where George Orwell saw an effort to take a living, breathing, thinking ethnic group and cut them up with butcher's knives and eat them and didn't think it was worth it to do everything to resist that -> when you think about it hard enough, Animal Farm's setting should make the choice to stick to Bolshevism way easier rather than any harder. it really says something about the people who would read or write a book like this when they can't see it as arguing Marxism by accident.
4040. ??
4041. Great productive forces mean great carrying capacity -> very popular and common remark in early 1900s Leninism, still pretty controversial to challenge, yet graph theory + chunk competition models bring some worrying suggestions for how trivial it is to make a reality. doesn't mean it's impossible to solve of course, just harder than we thought
4042. Extra production over the number of people who will buy at full price is waste -> the typical counterpart up to the time of Lenin; why Lenin's and Masnick's line graph is not widely accepted. notable weakness: does not explain how to actually tell if society needs something or not, only how to sell an unnecessary thing for as much as possible
4043. Socialism-in-one-country is basically Existentialism with countries -> Ted Grant
4044. Hegemony politics is reformism and Gramscians are a bunch of bureaucrats -> Ted Grant
4045. ??
4046. ??
4047. Having a movement at all is half the battle (having an SPMs (pronounced a Social-Philosophical-Material System); is step zero) / The key to beginning socialist transition is grouping people into a movement / (9k)
4048. Capitalism only ends when workers' states cover the world -> note how different plural Trotskyisms twist this different ways, some claiming a sea of socialisms-in-one-country is enough, some claiming there are more stringent requirements of having a Fourth International, freeform international party, etc
4049. Capitalism only ends when workers' states form into a single government -> the generic Trotskyist version.
4050. derived Trotskyist proposition / statement that Trotskyists should logically believe although in practice they might not -> there are so, so many of these if you think about anything Trotskyists say for even a moment.
4051. Socialism in one country will fail because borders leave people unconnected / Socialism in one country will fail because the point of Bolshevism is to connect people, and borders leave many people unconnected
4052. Any particular group of individuals pursuing socialist transition benefits from being part of something larger -> molecularized version of the statement that there can't be a socialist transition in one country.
4053. If Trotskyists turn against a workers' state, they create a population too small to succeed -> logically true if you accept Q4052. if most of the people in the Soviet Union don't want to join Trotsky, the best result for Trotsky is he forms a teeny tiny Trotskyist workers' state, and if there can't be socialism in one country, by Trotskyist logic, that tiny Trotskyist workers' state will fail.
4054. Trotskyists benefit from standing together with mainstream Marxism-Leninism -> clearly follows from Q4052 and Q4053. if it is more or less impossible for Trotskyists to ever form into a workers' state bigger than South Korea without eventually running into "Stalinist" interference, they will only ever overcome the rest of the world's capitalists by joining together with other named Marxisms and each socialism aiding the others.
4055. Rosa Luxemburg was not an anarchist -> it's frustrating that anarchists still believe she is, and that people still have to be told this.
      to be fair: Rosa Luxemburg was a bit of a sloppy Leninist who was okay with workers solving the whole shape of society and did kind of condone "Zinovievism". so, y'know, pretty much like Trotsky. it is wild to me that 'matching Trotskyism' is not enough to dissuade anarchists from thinking someone is an anarchist
4056. ??
4057. ??
4058. ??
4059. ??
4060. ??
4061. ??
4062. ??
4063. ??
4064. ??
4065. ??
4066. ??
4067. ??
4068. ??
4069. ??
4070. Trotskyism-in-one-country would not be a Trotskyism / Trotskyism-in-one-country would not fit the definition of Leninism given by any Trotskyism / (9k)
4071. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be a Maoism / If a group of Trotskyists built socialism in one country it would actually be a Maoism and they would not be Trotskyists any more / (9k)
4072. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Juche-socialism / If a group of Trotskyists built socialism in one country it would actually be a Juche-socialism and they would not be Trotskyists any more / (9k)
4073. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be mainstream Marxism-Leninism / If a group of Trotskyists built socialism in one country it would actually be an instance of Stalin's Marxism and they would not be Trotskyists any more / (9k)
4074. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Trotskyism / If a group of Trotskyists built socialism in one country it would distinctly still be Trotskyism and have its own particular Trotskyist content and identity, regardless of what other groups of Trotskyists feel like saying about it / (9k)
4075. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Bordigism / (9k)
4076. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Deng Xiaoping Thought (troll proposition; meta-Marxism) / (9k)
4077. ??
4078. ??
4079. ??
4080. ??
4081. ??
4082. ??
4083. ??
4084. wage slavery / slave class of workers (Marx) / slave labour (in reference to proletariat; Marx) / (9k)
4085. ??
4086. ??
4087. ??
4088. Whites working for Blacks is slavery / White people working for Black people is slavery / (9k)
4089. wage slavery in fiction / workplaces as wage slavery, portrayed in fiction / (9k)
4090. Bordiga hates talking about theorists [236] -> I don't really blame him, because it's dumb we always have to. why not focus on the objects, processes, or ideas instead? but god (pronounced redacted) everything he says is so hard to read because I never know what point it's actually building to. as a writer or orator he could have learned a lot from Gramsci
4091. Wage slavery is when somebody is blocked from being a Careerist and forced to be a proletarian / (9k)
4092. Communism doesn't work, but polycommunism (pronounced poly-Communism) does -> the claim that a central party-nation such as the Communist Party of China is incapable of steering a country toward the right path because of how little control it has over the rest of the world and the needs of the population inside the country to survive, while a bloc of two or three Communist parties is actually capable of making decisions that affect all three countries as long as the countries are tightly linked economically. a reasonable person would allow that this could be a new form of Trotskyism, but I am not sure if Trotskyists are reasonable people.
4093. poly-Maoism -> case of: Bauplan. the hypothetical configuration of several separate Maoisms forming as party-nations, going through Deng Xiaoping Thought, and then connecting to each other only to turn back into one large Maoism.
4094. poly-Trotskyism -> the hypothetical configuration of several smaller Trotskyisms-in-one-country forming and then joining into a bigger more favorable Trotskyism. if there is anything categorically wrong with this according to Trotskyists the color swatch can be changed. this entry does not specify the content of the Trotskyisms-in-one-country beyond that they dislike Stalin's government (if asked about that historical period) and are "somehow" Trotskyisms.
4095. poly-Bordigism -> knowing that Bordigism is supposedly more than one country to begin with, this may be logically possible?
4096. ??
4097. ??
4098. ??
4099. poly-Menshevism -> the hypothetical configuration of three or more center-Liberalisms joining together to make it so that not having social-democracy in any of the individual countries is somehow utterly illegal and considered basically treason. I don't know how this would be possible, but if you propose poly-Maoism or poly-Trotskyism somebody's going to propose it.
4100. Leninism (top-level category) -> this entry is the same thing as "Marxism-Leninism"; it ignores Trotsky's claim that Stalin did not correctly continue Marxism. it also tentatively grants that Trotskyism is a garbled version of the same Marxism-Leninism, just as it says it is. (well, it doesn't admit "garbled", but, you know.)
4101. early Marxism -> this refers to Marxist theories or movements that existed before Lenin, notably Marx and Engels. it genuinely might not include the people Marx thought were "hardly Marxists". definitely not if those people can be shown to be integral sources to Western Marxism or in some particular grouping of their own, like Menshevism or some new category of "proto-Western-Marxism" or whatever. at the same time: it is always technically okay for things to be grouped into multiple traditions if they were important to both.
4102. Third-World Marxisms
4103. mainstream Marxism-Leninism / Stalin Thought / Stalinism (Marxist model used by Stalin; rarely used definition)
4104. Trotskyism / Leninism (Trotskyist movement) / revolutionary socialism (Trotskyist movement) -> this is the top level category for all things Trotskyism, not the signifier for what specific Trotskyist subsets say Leninism is
4105. Juche-socialism / leadership socialism
4106. Maoism / (9k)
4107. Deng Xiaoping Thought / Dengism / socialism with Chinese characteristics (Deng era)
4108. Western Marxism
4109. Gramscianism
4110. Bordigism (named Marxism) / Bordiga and ICP's Marxism -> this is not affiliated with Trotskyism as far as I know right now. it has the swatch because from the little I've heard about it, I half remember somebody accusing it of being sectarian. still learning about it, so the swatch may change later
4111. ??
4112. ??
4113. ??
4114. ??
4115. ??
4116. North American Maoism / (9k)
4117. ??
4118. ??
4119. ??
4120. ??
4121. ??
4122. ??
4123. ??
4124. ??
4125. ??
4126. ??
4127. ??
4128. ??
4129. ??
4130. ??
4131. ??
4132. ??
4133. ??
4134. ??
4135. ??
4136. ??
4137. ??
4138. ??
4139. ??
4140. ??
4141. ??
4142. ??
4143. ??
4144. ??
4145. ??
4146. ??
4147. ??
4148. ??
4149. ??
4150. ??
4151. ??
4152. ??
4153. ??
4154. ??
4155. ??
4156. ??
4157. ??
4158. ??
4159. ??
4160. ??
4161. ??
4162. ??
4163. ??
4164. ??
4165. ??
4166. 4166BlackPantherism / Black Panther Party's Marxism / Huey P. Newton's Marxism / (there are a few other people you could equally point out as putting together 'uniquely Black Panther' theories, add them later. these are for completeness, I honestly just say "BlackPantherism" instead of these) / (9k)
4167. ??
4168. ??
4169. ??
4170. ??
4171. ??
4172. ??
4173. ??
4174. ??
4175. ??
4176. ??
4177. ??
4178. ??
4179. ??
4180. ??
4181. ??
4182. ??
4183. ??
4184. ??
4185. ??
4186. ??
4187. ??
4188. ??
4189. ??
4190. ??
4191. ??
4192. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be upper-phase communism / The end state of Stalin's Marxism is the beginning of Trotskyism-in-one-country; with no errors, Stalin himself would create the conditions for Trotskyism-in-one-country / (9k)
4193. Trotskyism does not have socialism / As a named Marxism, Trotskyism does not anticipate an era of socialist transition; anything that happens before a period of upper-phase communism is not recognized as part of the named Marxism / (9k)
4194. ??
4195. ??
4196. ??
4197. ??
4198. ??
4199. unknown Marxist subdivision / Marxism unknown -> may be used for coding any work that "sounds" Marxist but whose particular preceding Marxist theorists or movements haven't been traced. in practice, some works that are technically anarchist or Existentialist in their affiliation may get marked with this, just because sometimes it can be difficult to separate these non-Marxist traditions from Western Marxism. again, sometimes that is not necessarily harmful, and there's a "topology" effect where a non-Marxist theory describes something very real, and yet the theory is something other than Marxism.
4200. In 1992, the vast majority of self-professed Marxists supported counterrevolution [237] -> I can't tell if they are talking about Zinovievizing or not, or if they mean Western Marxism and Existentialists, or what. if they do mean Zinovievizing it would be a huge admission from Trotskyism, while if they don't the same statement means nothing at all. this is a really common problem in Trotskyism, that you never know if a statement that sounds correct internally is good or whether it's weirdly a lie.
4201. Trotsky thought he believed in Leninism -> the claim that Trotsky thought the theory he held of workers' movements, revolution, and/or constructing workers' states was the same theory Lenin had leading up to 1925. mostly uncontroversial, although some may tell you Trotsky was absolutely nothing but a liar. I think that's an exaggeration, because he spent significant effort telling parties in North America and Europe things that sounded like correct Marxist positions (but had subtle errors hiding behind them in terms of actually applying them). I think the evidence supports that Trotsky was dedicated to Leninism but his "Leninism" managed to be a garbled, totally wrong version of Leninism. many Marxists don't like to admit that that kind of thing is possible, because it would vulgarize Marxism into a mere identity that doesn't guarantee the class composition of the movement. but I think the dark truth of things is that that has always been the case. mathematically, all arrangements of people are identities, even if they're class subpopulations. organizing people always creates identities. the fact East Germany came to exist shows that all workers' states are identities, like any other nationality. so what's wrong with realizing that "theoretical" Marxism and the basic phenomenon of people sorting into movements are always separate until they're not? it explains how there can be multiple rival Marxisms. it might be that several of them are not connected to the people at all, that some of them connect to a really specific subset of actual workers but not all of them, or that none of them are correct, none of them predicting or guiding what people are actually doing at all. it's particularly believable this could happen if every current movement is operating under a different theory of connecting people together that replaces Marxism.
4202. Rosa Luxemburg thought she believed in Leninism -> I am actually not totally sure on this one... but when "the three L's" exists as an expression I mean I think other people thought she did. are they wrong? is everyone just projecting which Marxism or anarchism they actually want Rosa Luxemburg to be?
4203. Every Trotskyite Stalin eliminated was a Leninist [238] -> read Trotskyist talks really closely and you see the assumptions between the lines. past Trotsky and Zinoviev (? if he even was, which I usually assume he wasn't.) practically none of the Trotskyites were Leninists or "allies of the world revolution" — which, sure, they only have to be workers if the conditions are right, but knowing how many capitalists were in there, you'd have a stronger claim if they were Leninists. can you build a revolution with enough Gramscis? who knows, but if you have anything less the chances don't look good.
4204. The Fourth International was an act of filtration / Leon Trotsky sought to regroup the best militants from the Stalinized Communist International [239] / (9k)
4205. Bonapartism is when Germany prevents the Berlin wall / Bonapartism is when a bourgeois and proletarian subpopulation become deadlocked and The State becomes an instrument for keeping the lid on the country and preventing the proletarian subpopulation from breaking out -> okay. that's more of a word definition than something that's strictly a wrong application of a concept. I wish this wasn't the same word as they use to criticize Stalin though. if this is what it means then why do they use it on Stalin?
4206. ??
4207. ??
4208. I'm a Leninist but China needs to be Zinovievized / I'm a Marxist-Leninist but China needs to be Zinovievized / I'm not anticommunist, but... (Zinovievizing China) -> this feels like one of the biggest blunders of modern Marxism besides people around the world thinking Trotskyism is more valid than any of the Marxisms that have actually worked. like, no, you've lost the plot. one of the major reasons for Marxism is to understand how countries have developed in order to understand how countries can stop fighting each other, and this does neither of those things. you genuinely need some kind of meta-ontology to understand China, which actually deals with the prospect of a totally different Marxism existing and the "correct" Marxism having to exist alongside it, broadly predict what it will do, and take appropriate kinds of actions to unify with it against non-Marxisms.
4209. Trotskyism puts Leninism below universal rights / (9k)
4210. British Trotskyists care about Vietnam / British Trotskyists cared about Vietnam in [year?? try to retrieve year this was said] [240] -> Trotskyists are so quick to tell you that this is true but I highly doubt it. Trotskyists assembled against the Vietnam War? believable. Trotskyists actually care about Vietnam? don't think so. behind the scenes there is this oddly specific thing they do where it's almost like they are taking advantage of other countries rather than actually helping them. imagine Trotskyists were effective, and they liberated Vietnam from empire. what would they do then? they'd probably start trying to subtly dominate the country like Vietnam has to do what Greg and Ted in Britain and some random Rosa over in Vietnam want rather than what the workers of Vietnam want.
4211. U.S. Trotskyists care about Cuba / (9k)
4212. Militant opposition to Castro drilling into Cuba from outside would only serve his cause (1960) -> U.S. government makes a claim about Communism I fully agree with. look how badly attacking North Korea and Vietnam backfired, it's like it made Kim Il-sung a hero twice over.
4213. If a Trotskyist civilization committed imperialism, what would it look like? / (9k)
4214. The Cuba blockade preserved the republic / The blockade of Cuba is what's preserved the regime (Alan Woods) [241] -> as far as I can tell, that's correct. one of the most successful things Marxists have ever done is simply close off Third World countries from foreign capitalists.
4215. Deng Xiaoping Thought has a limited lifespan / You can't have both capitalism and a Stalinist regime, it'll blow up (Alan Woods) / It's like a pressure cooker (on Deng Xiaoping Thought styled countries; Alan Woods) [242] -> this seems to be the opposite of what's true. [...]
4216. Alan Woods had books published in Cuba / I've had my books published in Cuba (Alan Woods) / Cuban Marxists are turning towards Trotskyism -> this remark really stands out because it could mean at least two things: A) the private sector in Cuba likes Trotskyist books B) Cuban Marxism has actually become tolerant of Trotskyism. I have no idea which of these is true. Woods really wants to believe it's the second one and specifically that all the Cuban Marxists are turning into Trotskyists.
4217. Trotskyists don't understand global empire / The reason Trotskyists bash Deng Xiaoping states and East Germany is that they don't understand global empire -> I think there's a pretty good case for this. you lay out what a Deng process is and it seems Trotskyists really don't get that. they are really against measures that happen to make countries actually independent from imperial powers and protect them from utterly being colonized. the bright side? this is a colonialism discourse I actually can stand. fine-scale neocolonialism and crude national independence are both things that make material sense, unlike the notion that prejudices in White people's heads are somehow colonialism.
4218. Che Guevara got his ideas of international revolution from Trotsky -> this seems laughable to me. it's like... didn't everything he did originate from the Latin American people. it's so weird how they have to set up that Che Guevara is supposedly positioned with early Trotskyism to explain why him supposedly turning against the Cuban bureaucracy is good
4219. Che Guevara could have become a Trotskyist [243] -> kind of a ridiculous claim when Trotskyists are saying such bad things about Cuba now. what does it mean for Che Guevara to fight for the people? it means Che Guevara and all the more peaceful Third-World Marxists fight to defend Third World populations from First-World populations. if you tear down their "wall" they'll probably hate you. that said, if you look at this from a class analysis angle it manages to be a little less terrible. here again we have Trotskyists trying to claim Cuba has the wrong internal structure and if it had the right internal structure The Pigs wouldn't have won and created a "Pig state". this thing they keep saying should hypothetically be testable, if you could somehow do a crude simulation of the internal structure of workers' states and watch that structure stack up emergently and develop. I'm really feeling that Marxism can be a science someday if we just had the right meta-Marxist mathematics.
4220. Reason in Revolt (1995) -> this is apparently one of the Trotskyist books that has been published in Cuba. on the surface it seems to lean into "Trotskyism is early-Marxism" and not go into any of the "Stalinism controversy". so, I guess it isn't all that surprising he got it through. still kind of funny he talked about his books like they were really subversive, and from that angle, worth discussing the possibility of what a genuinely critical Trotskyist book getting through would mean.
4221. crisis of capitalism -> Trotskyists are always talking about these. as are most Marxists. it's a fairly good talking point.
4222. crisis of Bolshevism -> the motif of a system within a workers' state ripping apart and not working as intended. everyone outgrowing microdistricts as populations expand could be considered one, as could ripping open the economy into a trapped capitalism. a country opening up to imports and exports isn't necessarily a crisis of Bolshevism in and of itself. in general these are more "orderly" than crises of capitalism; the central party can often see them coming and see why they happened whether they ultimately get stopped or not.
4223. crisis of named Leninist movement -> system-breaking crisis that occurs in a Marxist movement which has not become a workers' state.
4224. crisis of Trotskyism -> there are about two kinds: groups falling apart and everybody simply dropping out.
4225. crisis of schizoanalysis -> when schizoanalysis tries to assert that different movements are inherently connected but the different movements just start fighting each other.
4226. ??
4227. ??
4228. the boring Bread store [244] -> Dennis Prager's dumb, funny way of slamming state businesses. he says that private businesses don't necessarily not exist but then he gets upset about "boring" established state businesses anyway — kind of contradictory. if tiny businesses still exist why are the boring big ones even a problem to you? reading what he says generously, he might know that Marx implies a future historical period when the tiny ones go away to leave only the big ones as something a bit like republicanized micro-states inside nations and local-states and counties because people just don't need to do those things as businesses any more, and maybe do them for no money if they are really important, the way people just kind of put up educational videos on YouTube instead of getting hired to produce them.
4229. fonts as culture of The Government [245] / Stalinist font / font of The Totalitarian State -> I have heard this trope all my life and I am so sick of it. what is the big deal with "Stalinist fonts" and what is so bad about them. fonts standardize all the time without Stalin, considering how there is this one font on signs that everyone knows, I think it's Helvetica. this concept is so stupid.
4230. Stalin built the country wrong / Stalin's government built the country with structures that are bad although we are not specifying what the actual error is / (9k)
4231. Ministries existing means there is no democracy / (9k)
4232. ??
4233. ??
4234. ??
4235. The internal shape of a workers' state leads to buffer state conflicts / There is something about the internal activity of a workers' state which can cause it to participate in international war or not / (9k)
4236. I'm eating stale rat bread and I can't take it any more / I'm eating the stale rat bread and I can't fucking (pronounced redacted) take it any more [246] -> when somebody attempts to criticize corporations for having made bad "culture" that is bad precisely because it intrudes on a person's individual Lived Experience and not because the structure and function of the corporation has any effect on the larger society such as the health of workers or impact on the internal functioning of socially-linked communities that decide to tie themselves to the product. Žižek is guilty of this: he makes strange claims that Lenin and Stalin couldn't create good "culture", which make no sense until you realize he is trying to make a Marxism that has nothing to do with workers and is all about the Lived Experience of existing in the midst of a bunch of bad products — or when it stoops to being about workers is about bad working conditions being a bad individualized Lived Experience. the Zinovievist accusation of bad "culture" is strange. it's like wrong culture is about the consumer's Lived Experience, but the problems with corporations essentially become about corporations Freely Willing to do the wrong thing when they could have Freely Decided to do better. some chunks of Existentialists seem to conceptualize literally every movement as democulture including the function of unions and so-called ""corporate greed"". they don't even believe in Menshevism and political parties. they think all society is just made of good-idea orthodoxies stomping bad people and forcing them to behave better, squashing bad people's otherwise sacred Lived Experiences and forcing them to exist better when they weren't existing good.
4237. the science bureaucracy
4238. science Trotskyites -> the non-fictional motif that there are people who oppose established structures of science purely for their failures without thinking about their successes. this could be a good thing or a bad thing. some people could have legitimate complaints that universities are stagnating and churning out a lot of papers that do very little. other people are Alexander Unzicker and sound comically similar to The Revolution Betrayed in that their criticisms sound like facts but in context do not even make any sense.
4239. science Tories -> the non-fictional motif that people should be presumed to not actually be knowledgeable about science because they "Are Actually Part Of The Right". (examples: Richard Dawkins, Sabine Hossenfelder.) this isn't really correct on a factual basis. somebody can be an absolutely horrible person and still understand science and create an informative book or video about science which is educational to people of all ideologies. in such a case, the work becomes valid through death of the author and other people reappropriating the work, exactly as with fictional works. it is also possible that misconceptions about science will lead somebody into Toryism, or that facts or models will become misinterpreted through Toryism into models that don't actually make sense. but this happens for reasons that a lot of center-Liberals don't want to think about: people form ontologies to comprehend the world, they strain everything through ontologies, sometimes the ontologies are inaccurate, sometimes the ontologies are accurate. in recent decades people really hate the notion of ontologies because of the fact ontologies can form stereotypes, so they want to smash all ontologies, but that's a bad plan when all countable Cultures and marginalized religions and things they want to protect bring ontologies, so smashing ontologies is an easy way to let people get away with forced assimilation, the opposite of the goal. there is such a trend to say reality can't be predicted and people can't be predicted to try to encourage people to be open-minded, but it never really works because people need to form ontologies to avoid catastrophes in their lives and physically survive, and if you don't give them objectively accurate ontologies of how to successfully survive and build society they will use stereotypes for the same purpose, taking down notes to avoid "all men" or "all Black people" just to have a better day-to-day experience with less pain in their individual lives. back to science-Tories: science-Tories are the motif that people form countable Cultures of Toryism and then they do science for the "Tory ethnicity", and you have to root them out of science because the Tory people-group is an evil malicious people-group which intends to use all pieces of the Tory machine to eliminate the center-Liberal people-group so all pieces of the Tory machine are bad. even if this is true... do you see how there are undercurrents in this which indicate some nasty biases or fallacies of some kind? not in the sense of "Tories could be good", but more in the sense of "nations must be adversarial to the extent of internal imperialism and there's nothing we could have done to prevent this, we've just gotta divide and fight a civil war one day because that's the only way countries can be".
4240. Absurdism, nihilism, and existentialism are all the same thing / Existence-philosophy, nihilism, and absurdism are all the same thing -> sounds like it couldn't be possible, but all three of them say individuals make their own meaning. all three of them are versions of the same existentialism. (this has nothing to do with Trotskyism, and is only here because of the number.)
4241. Optimistic nihilism is about making your own meaning -> sic. heard somebody say this verbatim. five years ago I might have gotten pedantic and said "that's (early-) existentialism!!" but now I think there is no actual difference.
4242. Is there a point to believing in existentialism? / Is it possible for individuals to assert existentialism is meaningful? / Is believing in early-existentialism meaningless? -> the hyper-existentialist question. does the premise of existentialism apply to existentialism? entropicism would argue that ultimately this is not true, or at the very least, this is not a thing people can say trivially and it's a really difficult question.
4243. A Trotskyism-in-one-country could invest in Vietnam / A Trotskyism-in-one-country can invest in a Third World country -> not sure why this wouldn't be true considering China does this. but the implications of a Trotskyism doing this are maybe a bit chilling. imagine there's a Trotskyist Britain. it invests in Vietnam before other countries get there, ostensibly in order to keep Liberal-republican countries out, but also to make sure Vietnam doesn't team up with "Stalinist" countries — stay on the good side of Trotskyism and there will be no Trotskyite conspiracy, but the Communist party of Britain controls your factories. British Trotskyists position themselves like they are trying to be nice and they will listen to Vietnam's workers, but the whole thing is an inch from erupting into Trotskyists just gutting Vietnam's government and putting the population of Vietnam under colonial rule of Trotskyist theorists. ostensibly not doing anything worse to them than a workers' state would do to its own people and yet they have absolutely no national autonomy because Trotskyism didn't value it. you know what's worse than this hypothetical scenario though? the fact capitalism can already do this with no responsibility to anyone. if Trotskyism was exploiting Vietnam there would at least be a consolidated group of people to hold responsible. if capitalists complained about the human rights abuses of Trotskyist Britain you'd never hear the end of it. but capitalism manages to be worse than Trotskyist empire would likely be because it's always hiding behind the notion of globally universal individuals that have to be free yet get to dominate everyone with all the choices they make about how everyone else has to be.
      this statement is false if it can be conclusively shown that there's no such thing as Trotskyism in one country and there would never be a group of Trotskyists that would create it at least without all of them deciding they are not Trotskyists any more. if this statement is appropriate to a different named Marxism in one country then a new proposition must be created.
4244. ??
4245. Is ethics ethical? / Is morality moral? / Is ethics moral? / Is morality ethical?
4246. Academic science is a planned economy [247] (7:37) -> Sabine Hossenfelder's somewhat pitiful attempt to justify why science in an environment of chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy carefully modifying behavior to conform to selection pressures and survive is somehow the wrong way to operate in that environment. very bad choice of words because you've literally described capitalism.
4247. Academic science is capitalism / Academic science is an undesigned system which creates selection pressures and where the science that gets produced operates on the logic of assembly theories such that scientists are obligated to join socially-linked countable cultures in order to survive expulsion from the environment as opposed to thinking for themselves as individuals
      it'll throw some people off that this claim is violet, but it's using the particular meta-Marxist definition of capitalism as a social-darwinist struggle between countable cultures which each individually would otherwise be the proletariat in the time of a workers' state. I abbreviated it to "capitalism" because in the end saying "it's capitalism" is a nicely equivalent, easily recognizable, and shorter statement.
4248. Absurdism, nihilism, and existentialism are the biased political compass of philosophy
4249. Absurdism, nihilism, and existentialism are reversed stages of grief -> thought of this while adding "all the same thing". first comes absurdism, then nihilism, then existentialism, so it's like, acceptance, depression (optional), then anger and denial. first we realize that nothing actually makes coherent sense including morality or justice. then we get upset. then we try to convince ourselves "in each of ours groups separately in parallel" there really is a meaning and we have the answers
4250. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in The West [248] / (9k)
4251. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in the United States / (9k)
4252. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Britain / (9k)
4253. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Australia / (9k)
4254. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Canada / (9k)
4255. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Germany / (9k)
4256. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Spain / (9k)
4257. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Japan / (9k)
4258. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in South Korea / (9k)
4259. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in South America / (9k)
4260. String theorists are not suppressing dissent / String theorists are not creating localized Spanishness Offices which become more about cliques and socially-linked groups of people protecting each other than actual objective standards of science -> oh boy. one of those questions where I don't like having to talk about it because I know the parties are talking past each other and not even talking about the same thing. when Sabine Hossenfelder and Jim Baggott or people like that allege that string theorists are suppressing dissent, they mean inside individual specific institutions such as a university or a journal. they don't mean nationwide. what The Hossenfelder or The Baggott or The Science Trotskyite is saying is that there is a process that takes hold sometimes inside particular institutions where some particular individual or Filament of individuals takes over them and if you don't fit into that limited local countable culture of scientists and play by exactly the rules it wants then it doesn't let you play the game. while it can be true that Not All String Theorists do it, the accusation itself is that it's an undesirable process that happens spontaneously somewhere without recourse and so it feels like anybody anywhere can "get Gramsci'd". and here's how it historically goes in each of these cases of people complaining about "suppression": when you get Gramscianized or musical-chairs-attacked you start to feel paranoid like all the Stalinists across the Soviet Union or all the string theorists everywhere across all of Germany or all of the United Kingdom are joining together to find you and kick you out — whether such a statement is accurate or not. whereas, the claim that string theory has been improperly accepted across all of Germany is a claim of much greater scope than anybody is practically intending to make. the problem The Science Trotskyites are talking about is less a science problem and more of a social problem of localized countable cultures of people meshing badly and failing to share localized institutions such that the group of people has to divide and each countable culture has to aggressively secure its own territory. really not a problem that has much to do with the scientific method.
4261. Prediction markets could pick the best researchers -> there is definitely something wrong with this but it would take a lot of unpacking to figure out exactly what weird thing is going on. I'm thinking this is a matter of networkism, where in one sense Serializers rule the world because every successful industrial structure can be phrased in terms of a prediction of the future and when everybody believes the future is not a matter of physics investors profit off all of us.
4262. ??
4263. Steven Universe is actually about Trotskyism / Steven Universe is definitely about Trotskyism -> this was the subject of an MDem chapter I didn't finish — one of the off-the-wall satirical "B-side" chapters. I think it works better in chapter form but this proposition can still be about the underlying concept that it's possible to argue a work into meaning utterly anything.
4264. The Matrix is actually about Trotskyism -> troll argument / jamming proposition. the claim that The Matrix is actually about realizing capitalism makes no sense and will inevitably fall into crises, while the whole world is stuck in the illusion that it won't so you have to break the whole world out of it, which leads to Trotskyism. it's funny how almost logical this is when it began as a total ass (pronounced redacted) pull, more so than the Lion = Trotskyism one. I think what's so funny about it is that the whole trans erasure red pill proposition is so toxic but although this is meant to be the same thing in a different color it's more or less harmless; if Trotskyists are convinced their message is more important than a trans identity message it will probably just wrap around to them pushing parties that support trans identity anyway.
4265. ??
4266. ??
4267. ??
4268. ??
4269. ??
4270. ??
4271. ??
4272. ??
4273. ??
4274. ??
4275. 4275Every color revolution is blue / (9k)
4276. 4276Color revolutions are revolutions (Liberal-republicanism, Existentialism) / "Color revolutions" aren't revolutions (meta-Marxism; metaphysical statement) / (9k)
4277. 4277Trotskyists believe in exporting revolution / Trotskyists believe in effectively selecting or installing particular people within a country who are specifically dedicated to realizing an orange civilization and insisting that only the orange theorists get to bring about Communist revolution, which often conflicts with the Marxisms and theorists that would appear if Trotskyists from other countries didn't attempt to intervene, thus Trotskyists are attempting to export revolution; this is to imply that if China produces Maoism and Trotskyists don't like it and think the entire thing should have been a different orange process they are exporting revolution; this is to vaguely imply but not argue that if China produces Deng Xiaoping Thought and Trotskyists don't like it or understand it and think Maoism and Dengism should have been replaced by an orange process they are exporting revolution; this is to strongly imply but not require that Molecular Trotskyism is fundamentally different from non-Molecular Trotskyism because Molecular Trotskyism, grounded in a theory of Bauplan elements that make up individual countries from the inside and constitute the process of countries flipping over to specific colors, would not actually ground itself in exporting revolution -> this statement does depend on which Trotskyism and which Trotskyist theorists you're talking about, because everything about Trotskyism depends on which theorists you're talking about.
4278. 4278Trotskyism cannot be exported / Trotskyists within any particular country cannot practically orchestrate whether other countries actually turn orange as opposed to crimson or strawberry; this is to imply that only Trotskyism in one country could be relied on for successfully completing a revolution without reverting to capitalism
4279. 4279Revolutionaries do not include Tony Cliff / "revolutionaries (a category which does not include Cliff)" [249] -> I should expect this kind of sass in Leninist texts but the needless specificity of this one blindsided me I mean depending on your definition there are a lot of Communist parties which have hardly done anything, so, speaking really literally you might say this is true. but I think there are also a lot of theorists or organizers (some of them even good at what they do) for which "revolutionaries" isn't quite the right division, and "Communist allies" or some synonym ("fellow travelers" etc) versus non-allies would be a better division of things. the early stages of a Communist revolution take a lot of skill, education, and correct perception to where there are just these select few people that will actually be able to lead it and fulfill that statement that "without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement". like, a lot of the people who are actually going to carry a successful revolution aren't even revolutionaries.
4280. commodity (Bordigism) / (9k)
4281. Commodity production suggests enslavement / any existence of a mass of commodities suggests ... If in the past there was commodity production ... it was not because the labour-power was sold "voluntarily" as it is today, but rather because it was squeezed by force of arms (Bordiga) / (9k)
4282. ??
4283. ??
4284. ??
4285. Commodity production destroys socialism (Bordiga) / (9k)
4286. ??
4287. ??
4288. ??
4289. ??
4290. ??
4291. ??
4292. ??
4293. ??
4294. ??
4295. change your profile pic to Clippy / change your profile picture to a Clippy [250] -> normal people baffle me. how can they so confidently believe that "corporations treating people like human beings" is a coherent thing that corporations would intuitively understand and wouldn't need a whole book explaining it to them. I'd need a whole book explaining it to me just to understand how they think a bunch of Clippy could actually teach anyone the intended message. people who would defend factory workers getting confused about "artists" and whether they're workers is one thing, this is entirely another thing.
4296. ??
4297. ??
4298. Socialism: Stalinist or scientific (Hayashi 1998/2000) / "Stalinism, socialist ..." (typo)
4299. State capitalism isn't even bad / Complaining about state capitalism is like complaining about nationstate localstateism (pronounced nation-state local-state-ism)
4300. What was wrong with East Germany? / Why was the existence of East Germany a problem? / Why did center-Liberals dislike the existence of East Germany? -> I know "center-Liberals" can almost be neatly replaced with "bourgeoisie" to create a laughable tautology, but come on, we have to at least pretend to sound fair.
4301. Why did Trotskyists not consider East Germany to be progress? -> you have to think about this a bit to realize that it's a good question. Trotsky wants each country in Europe to overthrow capitalists and create a workers' state. East Germany pushed out capitalists and created a workers' state. if other European countries had each become "East Germany", it would have been one possible route to a union of European socialist republics — even one independent from the USSR, potentially, given that the USSR stopped occupying East Germany at a certain point. the process of creating East Germany is more or less in line with the mechanism Trotsky proposed for creating Trotskyism. so why were Trotskyists not on board with East Germany?
4302. East Germany was too small to be Trotskyism / (9k)
4303. East Germany did not have the correct internal structure to be Trotskyism / East Germany had the wrong internal structure according to Trotskyists / (9k)
4304. If East Germany had been a Fortress Trotskyism, it would have been okay / If East Germany had had the correct internal structure to be Trotskyist, Trotskyists would have found it acceptable / East Germany could have built up to a Fourth International if only it were Trotskyism in one country -> derived Trotskyist proposition. I have literally never heard this. but it's rather confusing why nobody says this. 1) Trotsky believed every country in Europe could become Trotskyist 2) The European countries form workers' resistances separately around local groups of workers, then they link up into a Trotskyism 3) What's wrong with each of the European countries being Trotskyism in one country, when it's the only way you can build a bigger Trotskyism? put another way, if several European countries can be Trotskyist and oppose Stalin's government, why not just one? how does one prevent there being others? I guess you could argue from Stalin's point of view that because Trotskyisms are sectarian two Trotskyisms-in-one-country would fight each other, but I don't think Trotskyists would actually be that mean in criticizing their own parties. I don't think they see it that way.
4305. ??
4306. ??
4307. ??
4308. ??
4309. ??
4310. non-Marxist error in Marxist text / non-Marxist error in Marxist talk / "can't believe all these Trotskyist errors!" (the errors are typos) -> non-fictional motif which may be framed either humorously or seriously. this concept first came to mind when I was reading the first edition of a Trotskyist text with typos in it. but it could apply to any number of things, like Marxists making a background-information error about science, etc. Trotskyists using Kalinin as Trotsky's actor would fall under this.
4311. Slavoj Žižek is an anarchist / Slavoj Žižek is not a Trotskyist in any sense and can only be termed either an anarchist or an Existentialist -> this is true if Q43,12 is true. Slavoj Žižek is "a Trotskyist" if Zinovievism is Trotskyism. if Zinovievism, when separated from the small number of Leninist theorists who would lead it and claim it is Leninism, is definitely an anarchism, then Žižek is not a Trotskyist. this proposition has the charcoal swatch because I saw an anarchist text define "anarcho-nihilism" and it seems very similar to the definition of Zinovievism although I honestly do not have extensive enough historical background information about either of them to verify that they're the same.
4312. Early Trotskyism was actually an anarchism / Zinovievism is an instance of anarchism, not a double-vulgarized Trotskyism (black swatch instead of orange swatch, charcoal instead of flame; meta-Marxist terminology) / The functional purpose of 1900s Trotskyism was to create anarchist movements which would then attempt to realize a world Anarchism -> I know this sounds batshit. but this claim is specifically making a historical argument. it begins with the claim that the Trotskyite conspiracy was not really practicing Leninism and mostly lying about being Leninists — this is a relatively fair thing to say. from there it observes the results of Trotskyist movements, which tended to disintegrate into something of a disorganized mess. Spain contained something of an attempt at Marxism or "a socialist party" but is much more famous for anarchists, and George Orwell. Trotsky and ex-Trotskyists like Orwell became weapons for First-World countries to allege that Trotskyites never were Leninists and that was a good thing. Ted Grant shows up trying to create a hypothetical Leninist Trotskyism that never existed. a little later, schizoanalysts show up trying to explain how countries are made of organic assemblies of parts (is this true? maybe) and implying that the components of any particular entity are arbitrary and throughout history periodically change. core concepts of schizoanalysis become wildly popular. schizoanalytic "science" of joining and separating entities merges into anarchism to supposedly create a practice of non-ideological unity of demographic identities. schizoanalysis-influenced crowds continue to "non-ideologically" unify with Third World anticommunists and bash Third-World countries. so overall, the claim here is that because Zinovievism and modern anarchisms share the characteristics of having no real ideology or end goal, allowing chains of First-World countries and defectors to bash whole Third World countries, and generally having a distinctly international scope, modern anarchisms existed as early as Zinovievism, and it was basically concealing the emergence of modern anarchisms inside it. I'm not at all sure that this claim is true. but if it somehow turns out it is, the Zinovievism swatch can be changed to charcoal. the Ted-Grant-ist Trotskyism swatch can stay orange.
4313. Kalinin as Trotsky's actor / Kalinin in place of Trotsky -> every so often with independent videos you see a video accidentally use a picture of Kalinin to represent Trotsky, as if he's not Trotsky but he plays him on TV. as far as I know this doesn't really happen with actual Trotskyist parties, thankfully.
4314. ??
4315. ??
4316. ??
4317. ??
4318. ??
4319. ??
4320. ??
4321. ??
4322. ??
4323. ??
4324. ??
4325. ??
4326. ??
4327. ??
4328. ??
4329. ??
4330. ??
4331. ??
4332. ??
4333. ??
4334. ??
4335. ??
4336. ??
4337. ??
4338. ??
4339. ??
4340. ??
4341. ??
4342. ??
4343. ??
4344. ??
4345. ??
4346. ??
4347. ??
4348. ??
4349. ??
4350. ??
4351. ??
4352. ??
4353. ??
4354. ??
4355. ??
4356. ??
4357. ??
4358. ??
4359. ??
4360. ??
4361. ??
4362. ??
4363. ??
4364. ??
4365. ??
4366. ??
4367. ??
4368. ??
4369. ??
4370. ??
4371. ??
4372. ??
4373. ??
4374. ??
4375. ??
4376. ??
4377. ??
4378. ??
4379. ??
4380. ??
4381. ??
4382. ??
4383. ??
4384. ??
4385. ??
4386. ??
4387. ??
4388. ??
4389. ??
4390. ??
4391. ??
4392. ??
4393. ??
4394. ??
4395. ??
4396. ??
4397. ??
4398. ??
4399. ??
4400. ??
4410. ??
4420. ??
4430. ??
4440. ??
4444. sectarian Communist International / Communist International formed around specific named Marxism and not admitting other named Marxisms -> on one hand, it was kind of inevitable these would be invented. on the other, it feels like they have never ever been effective. it may be worth saying under the "spanishness office principle" that sectarian Communist Internationals are probably a symptom of Marxist parties consisting of detached Filaments of bourgeoisie that have no inherent reason to work together. (the spanishness office principle: if people are complaining about Spanishness Offices, they're the bourgeoisie, because people who fight for control of "institutions" of elite experts are generally the bourgeoisie. institutions includes the Communist International should it happen people are fiercely squabbling over it.)
4450. ??
4460. ??
4470. ??
4480. ??
4490. Why is Trotskyism so ironic? / Why is Trotskyism the biggest irony? / Trotskyism is one of the most ironic things ever (proposition phrasing) -> it always stands out as weird that Trotskyism intends to unify everybody in all countries but it does almost the polar opposite of that, turning countries against each other and dividing people inside countries. why none of them ever notice this and stop and say, "oh wait, we're dividing people" would seem like the biggest mystery. you'd think that after the Soviet Union dissolved and generic resistances were indistinguishable from the Trotskyite conspiracy even if not the same, they would have stopped and thought about it then. but it seems like they always double down and they never do. observations: A) Trotskyists genuinely believe in Trotskyism B) Trotskyism is intended to stop exactly the thing it doesn't stop C) Trotskyism has not succeeded D) Trotskyism is ironic simply because it failed.
4491. Every incorrect progressivism produces irony / Every incorrect progressive theory produces irony -> it's easy to notice this but not common to notice why it happens. the point of progressive theories is generally exactly to prevent the "ironic" things, so their failure naturally produces irony.
4492. Molecular Marxisms are not ironic / If we first assume molecular Marxisms are possible, then they are identified by having theories that correctly predict reality to some extent, charting out the most important details of specific realistic outcomes which describe their success state, and thus do not produce irony / Irony is the failure to predict reality to the point outcomes are logically consistent (in the context of meta-Marxism and hypothetical molecular Marxisms) / Correct predictions are more important than specific theoretical content to molecular Marxisms (contrast with Trotskyism, where theoretical content is almost maximally important)
4493. ??
4494. ??
4495. ??
4496. ??
4497. ??
4498. ??
4499. ??
4500. ??
4510. ??
4511. Treason of what? / What is treason? / Treason is not a Materialist term (meta-Marxist answer to question) -> on the surface, Trotskyists will love this one, although when you actually drill down into it the question is very complicated. Communism is treason to the United States! okay, but treason of what? the constitution!! okay, but why is the constitution there? you still haven't really answered treason of what. one somewhat valid answer would be "the population". this answer is somewhat meta-ontologically sound, as both the United States and the historical Soviet Union could say it. if there are one million people behind Stalin and ten thousand Trotskyites attack, attacking Stalin's government is treason of the one million people by the ten thousand Trotskyites. however, this also means that if there are half a billion people behind Deng Xiaoping and anybody attacks that government, this is treason of half a billion people. that's so many people that although it should be less bad, in a logical contradiction it should also be much worse. the United States also has a third of a billion people, which is definitely a few. so is Liberal-republicanism good then? no. the amazing thing about Communist revolutions is that if and when they happen they open up the weirdest loophole in this question — if nearly all the people in the United States defect from the United States, can they even meaningfully commit treason against themselves? and the answer is no. this is one coarse answer to how revolutions happen, or at least how they stop not happening. but with that said, how do you teach Trotskyists and Tories and even anarchists that the Sunny fallacy is different from a successful revolution? every single group of people that separates from anything will try to claim it can't commit treason against itself.
4512. ??
4513. A revolution in the United States is revolution against two separate countries at once -> this is part of why it's so hard. in daily life people have to pretend to be part of two separate countries which are violently hostile to each other (quite literally when there are so many shootings), and only a small portion of people are skilled enough to even pull off that act. it's almost trivial for one of the two countries to prevent a strike simply by breaking up the graph population of workers and owners along the lines of the two nations and call foul on one countable culture violating the cultural self-determination of the other countable culture. conditioned by things like religious teachings about the sanctity of religion and humanities teachings about the sanctity of inner experience of individuals and identity-demographics, people are quick to flare up even across countable cultures when they think any "community" is getting hit by an external threat. all this is to say that Lived-Experience nonsense is the weapon of the bourgeoisie against the people. it facilitates the general pattern of all existing owners and their allied [L] (pronounced L:) Wasp swarm1:-1:-1 banding together to crush anything that could actually bring change better than it facilitates anyone actually overcoming them. which should cast a lot of doubt on whether schizoanalyst concepts of the united nonviolence of identities should just totally be dismissed as inherently incorrect. I'm not quite confident enough to say that just yet, although I think with a better explanation of what is supposed to replace them that might become okay. my thoughts are something like this: A) people are made of populations, not inherently born into culture or identity. A1) culture can be developed or created in a group of people once they are linked. B) the proletariat is born beginning at all the slots for people to even be useful for anything filling up, and people thrashing their way back in to be able to work without creating a whole new business. C) the United States is saved if some unknown significant ratio of people thrashes back into industry like ten or fifty times the number of workers to owners, and the subpopulation of workers creates almost everything in society of its own will while nobody with the power to create a business creates much of anything. D) this outcome is really different from the way things work right now in huge swaths of the United States. E) the cleanest process, which I don't think will happen, would be your fifty Tory types per owner overtaking Tory businesses as a coherent population and your fifty progressive types per owner overtaking progressive businesses separately. F) most identity-politics populations all fall inside the progressive subpopulation and inherently only have the power to take back half the country. G) progressive types have an interest in overcoming all the Tory owners but Tory types have no serious interest in overcoming Tory owners. these two political subpopulations belong to truly different ideologies and different Bauplans, as different as West Germany and East Germany right now at this second. that map with Mao and the KMT graph-struggling over a giant area comes to mind. H) postcolonial theories have to go because at the present second no matter what ideology you choose (center-Liberalism, Toryism, anarchism, unnamed-Frantz-Fanon-obssessed-ideology...) every single good outcome is colonial. this might be fixable with the brightest Marxists working on it, but that's not the step the United States is at right now. I) unity between the two proletariats or twenty proletariats wouldn't actually matter if each proletariat somehow had the ability to win and guard its sector separately. but right now the individual proletariats are very weak and not very functional as industries. the [L] (pronounced L:) Wasp swarm1:-1:-1 is honestly just hiding behind its owners pretending that isn't true. I1) that technically means that if there were a totally bourgeois Marxism and it somehow defeated all the Tory owners tomorrow the Tory workers probably wouldn't put up much of a fight. but then of course you'd have a bottom-tier Marxism. it would have absolute dumpster level theory as bad as all the Gramscian and Existentialist theory going around now or worse. J) if all the progressive workers were able to conquer the whole Tory population as a sheer whole monolithic chunked-together ethnic group, ripping their owners away from them, Marxism can win. J1) actually stopping and thinking about this, and realizing it is inherently colonial, anarchists will hate it. the sheer bulk of all actual progressives beyond center-Liberalism would not want to acknowledge the truth. K) banish the Tories to West Germany, you get East Germany. banish the KMT to Taiwan, you get the People's Republic of China. conquering a monolithic [L] (pronounced L:) Wasp swarm1:-1:-1 is hard, but banishing them actually does work. where exactly would United States Tories have to go? on what lines would the country have to be sheared in two?
4515. ??
4516. ??
4517. Revolution happens when the group of people defecting from a country is so much bigger than the country it cannot commit treason against itself
4520. ??
4530. ??
4540. ??
4550. ??
4560. ??
4570. ??
4580. ??
4590. ??
4591. Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party
4592. Bolshevik party
4593. Third International
4594. Left Opposition
4595. Menshevik party
4596. ??
4597. ??
4598. ??
4599. ??
4600. Trotskyist group, organization, or party
4601. International Secretariat (1953) / ISFI (attempted International)
4602. International Committee (1953) / ICFI (attempted International)
4603. ??
4604. ??
4605. ??
4606. ??
4607. ??
4608. ??
4609. Committee for a Workers' International (defunct) / CWI (attempted International)
4610. local Trotskyist group unaffiliated with larger formation
4611. Denver Communists (??; United States Midwest)
9999. Japan Revolutionary Communist League (JRCL) '23 -> you find the weirdest things when searching for arbitrary Japanese words. one of them is miscellaneous Trotskyist blogs. every time I find one of these, I am like, man, these are the coolest people in Japan. most of the time Japan is so crushingly the same but... if you look around enough.
4612. ??
4613. ??
4614. ??
4615. Žižekian
4616. Zinovievizing / Zinovievize / Zinovievism (process noun / nominalized verb, similar to "imperialism") -> to declare another entire ideology a conspiracy based on the whole group of people believing the wrong culture, and attempt to bash the SPS to pieces. I have a bad feeling that given enough time most Anarchisms naturally do this to each other.
4617. terrorist (Zinovievism) -> wrecker, rival proletarian revolution
4618. ??
4619. ??
4620. Trotskyist group affiliated with the Fourth International of 1938
4621. Socialist Workers' Party (United States) -> helped split the Fourth International into the ISFI and ICFI, funny enough
4622. ??
4623. ??
4624. ??
4625. ??
4626. ??
4627. ??
4628. ??
4629. ??
4630. International Marxist Tendency (party) -> international-party Trotskyism
4631. Workers' International League (1938) -> [251]
4632. "The Militant" -> [252]
4633. Revolutionary Communist Party -> [253] [254]
4634. In Defence of Marxism (outlet; Britain)
4635. Socialist Appeal (Britain)
4636. Socialist Alternative (United States)
4637. ??
4638. Fourth International (1938) -> became: Q46,01 International Secretariat, Q46,02 International Committee
4639. ??
4640. ??
4650. ??
4660. ??
4664. ??
4665. contentless revolutionary socialism - Rosa Luxemburg
4666. contentless Trotskyite-conspirator ideology / Zinovievism (meta-Marxism)
4670. Literature and Revolution (Trotsky 1924) [255] -> the origin of most of the stupid claims about Trotsky in The Giver. ex-Trotskyist novelists really had some problems with this text apparently.
4671. Trotsky wanted to abolish sex / Trotsky hated the concept of sex and wanted to get rid of it, according to the text Literature and Revolution -> I found this BS in a YouTube comments section once, and ever since then I have not been able to forget it; it was just too funny. the misinterpretation seems to have stemmed from a work where Trotsky was lightly criticizing people escaping from their problems through one or two genuninely weird pieces of sexual literature that had been put out recently — the key word was escaping, not sex. I have no idea exactly what group of people were getting things so twisted but man, when people want to misinterpret Communists they really go all the way. this was one of those things that led to me realizing that The Giver was actually a skewed portrayal of Trotsky in the first place, because you see the theme of abolishing sex and "controlling emotions" in both places. in the original Trotsky text he was talking about "emotions" like clinical depression and anxiety, when they did not even really have psychotherapy in Russia.
4672. Lenin hated the concept of sex -> this one is actually somewhat true. Lenin felt like whatever he or anyone else sacrificed to make the Russian Revolution happen was more or less okay in that the longer you are committed to having principles and not falling into a bloc of bourgeoisie the more there are some things you stop caring about giving up because the alternative to the choice that led to that is simply so much worse. this whole situation is much easier to understand if we look at a totally different example like North Korea "banning radios". Third World countries have to have this crushingly strict discipline about building things in their own country and only using their own stuff no matter what kind of short-term suffering that brings just because trusting the totally untrustworthy bloc of foreign bourgeoisie is so exponentially worse that they have to wrest themselves free just to be free and be able to think, exactly like if an individual was in a toxic relationship and has to get a divorce and be poor just to not endure spousal abuse.
      so... if you're taking Trotsky at his word he has nothing to say about sex, but if you think Trotsky believes whatever Lenin believes then you might think it's transitively true that Trotsky hates people having sex because Lenin does. but actually, that logic is a little off because Lenin's reasoning goes A) people should make sacrifices to create the Second World B) people might not have sex C) the proletariat cannot or might not have sex. but Trotsky doesn't really adhere to the first proposition. Trotsky just hates Third World countries and likes Europe, so he doesn't really like temporary solutions and sacrifices. that means his reasoning is more like A) socialist transition is taking too long B) sacrifices are dumb unless they produce socialist transition right now C) have sex if you want but I'm going to smash the Soviet government and create a Marxism purely based on ordering everybody around and not on compromises, let's just see if any Marxist states survive me
4673. People must make sacrifices to create the Second World / If an individual's higher needs and an imminent process of creating the Second World are in conflict — an imminent revolution or transition process is one that's happening across the next couple of years with little uncertainty — the Second World is more important -> this is like, the single proposition that tenuously allowed Juche-socialism to have the red swatch instead of the strawberry one. I suppose that in the end I think that historically this concept has been very important. considering countries like China and Cuba, I don't think it has the level of relevance now that it did in 1910-1950. but I still think it's worth always remembering that it did have relevance then. it still has some limited relevance over in North Korea, and terrifyingly, in the rust-tinted areas of the United States that aren't the major cities. some days I swear we actually live in one big North Korea that never saved itself from the teeny tiny United Stateses that rule it.
4674. ??
4675. ??
4676. ??
4677. ??
4678. ??
4679. ??
4680. ??
4690. Left Voice (federated outlet)
4700. ??
4710. ??
4720. ??
4730. ??
4740. ??
4750. ??
4760. ??
4770. the Vegeta of Communism / the Vegeta of Bolshevism (Marxism, Leninism; motif) -> a very silly metaphor I came up with early in MDem 5.1 when I was thinking about Dragon Ball and the relationship between it, religion, non-belief, wars, and historical materialism. there was this particular concept of two people in a rivalry and one of them really upset about not being able to get into the top position of something instead of ever cooling down about it, and it just haunted my mind. I was like, honestly, Trotsky is the Vegeta of Bolshevism. and it never really left me.
4775. ??
4776. negative democracy / un-voting (act of casting a vote for something to not exist) / Antiliberalism (in the sense of "anti-matter" or "anti-clockwise", not "anti-war" or "anti-communism"; hypothetical republic based on voting against things more than for them) -> the motif of defining democracy specifically as a bunch of people voting for something to not exist. note that this does not refer to protests. this actually refers to a hypothetical ballot box or equivalent exercise of individual (non-)allegiance within a system where people cast a ballot for not-the-president rather than voting for said president to be president, or cast a non-purchase to get rid of a corporation they are tired of.
      I could totally imagine a hypothetical Trotskyism implementing this on everything, and honestly... in that context of a country having a central Leninist party where some people will be appointed by representatives but then if people don't like them you take them back, and you can also take the representatives back, it doesn't sound half bad. Antiliberalism might actually be better than Liberalism. see, my biggest problem with Trotskyism has always been that it hasn't happened, not in the concept of people trying it if it did exist. really. this is one way to stop the Trotskyite conspirators. simply let them un-vote and watch the numbers until the problem has reached its minimum solution and they stop un-voting. once they stop un-voting you've got their loyalty and the country stays together.
4777. Trotskyism succeeding will be a black swan event -> the claim that all the previous events of Trotskyism failing are not predictive of what it will do in the future relative to those events. honestly, this is basically what Trotskyists already say. but given that it has had almost a century to happen and hasn't happened, while mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Deng Xiaoping Thought each have happened during the same time, it's probably fair to mark it false.
4778. Trotskyism is like cold fusion -> it would be so useful if it was possible but it never comes to be.
      if cold fusion becomes possible before Trotskyism in one country, then this statement is false.
4780. ??
4790. ??
4800. Maoist group, organization, or party
4809. ??
4810. ??
4815. ??
4819. ??
4820. ??
4825. ??
4829. ??
4830. The Energy Conspiracy (Seman 1981) [256]
4831. ??
4832. The correct group will make you free / The correct relationship and shared culture will make you free / The truth will make you free (John 8:32) -> if you read this the way it's intended, like, it applies to Marxism if Marxism is true — though it equally applies to Anarchism if Anarchism is truer. it is so telling that Tories would use this in a context totally outside of religion and purely against "Big Government". it shows that some people cling to religion purely because they believe having the correct Social-Philosophical System, the correct group of people and culture, will give them a better life either taking away their worries or crushing their enemies, or both. [257]
4832. ??
4833. ??
4834. ??
4835. ??
4836. ??
4837. ??
4838. ??
4839. ??
4840. ??
4841. ??
4842. ??
4850. ??
4855. ??
4859. ??
4860. ??
4861. Trotskyites as similar to Confederates / 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy as similar to Confederate States of America (Confederacy, The South; United States history versus Soviet history) / a poison mirror of your own philosophy (hypothetical remark from mainstream Marxist-Leninist allies to United States Trotskyists) -> there is a lot to get into as far as actually explaining this. it definitely has nothing to do with the ideological content of Trotskyism or claiming they aren't Leninists or aren't progressive. this is a very mathematical argument based entirely on the outer borders of the Trotskyite conspiracy and the Confederacy versus a larger republic. this argument is solidly grounded in meta-Marxism, existential materialism, and general-sense historical materialism, it's not very much like any form of argument most people are used to in Liberalism or Trotskyism.
4865. ??
4869. ??
4870. ??
4875. ??
4879. ??
4880. ??
4885. ??
4889. ??
4890. ??
4895. ??
4899. ??
4900. prominent Marxist theorist or organizer / notable Marxist theorist or organizer -> this is the colloquial usage of "very notable", not the Wikipedia usage of "notable"
4901. Karl Marx
4902. Friedrich Engels
4903. ??
4904. ??
4905. ??
4906. ??
4907. ??
4908. ??
4909. ??
4910. prominent mainstream-Marxist-Leninist theorist or organizer / prominent Marxist theorist or organizer associated with Stalin Thought
4911. Vladimir Lenin -> note: there are Properties for "believed to be within ideology" allowing the separation of "believed to be associated with Trotskyism" from "believed to be associated with Stalin Thought" and the two statements to coexist at once
4912. ??
4913. ??
4914. ??
4915. ??
4916. Ho Chi Minh
4917. Russian Revolution according to Trotskyists / (9k)
4918. Mao Zedong / Mao Tse-tung -> remember. theorists aren't inherently interesting just for being theorists. they're interesting either for being associated with historical events where they represented particular perspectives or having authored specific texts
4919. Enver Hoxha -> yes, he has his own subset ideology, but it still falls under this tradition
4920. ??
4925. ??
4930. ??
4935. ??
4939. ??
4940. prominent Trotskyist theorist or organizer / notable Trotskyist theorist or organizer
4941. Leon Trotsky -> Soviet Union / miscellaneous; Fourth International
4942. Rosa Luxemburg -> Germany
4943. Ted Grant -> United Kingdom (?)
4944. James P. Cannon -> United States; Socialist Workers' Party
4945. ??
4946. ??
4947. ??
4948. ??
4949. Hiroyoshi Hayashi / Hayashi Hiroyoshi -> Japan; (retrieve organization)
4950. notable Trotskyite resistance leader or advocate / notable Zinovievist advocate or leader / notable Trotskyite conspiracy member
4951. Grigori Zinoviev -> he became my arbitrary example of Trotskyite conspiracies versus what Trotskyism claims it is, after a few modern-day Trotskyites called him a hero just for wrecking the Soviet Union
4952. ??
4953. ??
4954. ??
4955. ??
4956. ??
4957. Nikolai Bukharin / ニコライ・ブハーリン -> he quit, but there's not a better place to put him
4958. George Orwell -> by some definitions of Trotskyite, the most famous one ever
4959. Slavoj Žižek -> may sound surprising to call him a "Zinovievist" or Trotskyite, but after much analysis of his rhetorical patterns and motifs he truly belongs here
4960. ??
4965. ??
4970. ??
4975. ??
4980. ??
4981. ??
4982. ??
4983. ??
4984. Joseph Stalin
4985. ??
4986. ??
4987. ??
4988. ??
4989. Anarchism is over
4990. Stalin's Marxism is over / Stalin Thought is over -> had some vanishing chance of being true in 1940, not very believable these days
4991. Trotskyism is over -> why is it that all Trotskyists refuse to believe this while most or all mainstream Marxist-Leninists believe it and about half of all center-Liberals and Existentialists believe it? this should be less controversial than "Bolshevism is over". if Trotskyism isn't materially possible but mainstream Marxism-Leninism is, you'd think that nearly everyone would be unanimous about the first part of that, because advocating for Trotskyism isn't advantageous to either Existentialists or mainstream Marxist-Leninists.
4992. Non-molecular Trotskyism is over -> the most generous interpretation of Trotskyism. probably too generous. but very useful for getting Existentialists to actually think for once
4993. Leninism is over but "Marxism" is not -> I'm half convinced that every time somebody implies this (and isn't from China, Cuba, or Vietnam) that it's literally just a way to sneak in Existentialism and deceive people into believing all the things smaller than Liberalism and capitalism that ultimately reconstruct capitalism. half the time I laugh at this one and half the time I get angry, because it tends to trap people in this loop of insisting that if you don't believe Marxism can be used to purge people of all incorrect beliefs and create a perfect society full of nice people before getting rid of capitalism you're racist, while due to the actual material definition of capitalism, if they believe it it makes them absolutely, absolutely incapable of stopping people from becoming racist, digging them deeper and deeper into this hole they can never get out of.
4994. Party-nations are not specifically Marxist / Marxism is over but party-nations are not / Marxism is over but Leninism is not -> the claim that central party-nations are not over but the attempt to regulate the stochastic sorting of people into corporate countable Cultures basically is. somewhat credible when there are about three countries that can vouch for it. many people like to think you can immediately springboard off this to justifying Existentialism but you actually can't. it almost implies the opposite: that primitive Existentialism is most stable when it's regulated from above and not allowed to become a government in and of itself.
4995. ??
4996. ??
4997. No Marxism is actually over -> MDem's basic working model of Marxisms. if you want to prevent all future Trotskyite conspiracies, you have to talk to Trotskyists as human beings and not immediately scare them off. you have to recognize the existence of different Social-Philosophical Systems around different Marxist models and discuss every model as if it's vaguely possible in order to guide people into forming an agreement for all the different divergent Marxisms and so-called "leftisms" you more commonly find everywhere to live in the same world and not fight each other. this is not a trivial thing given that people unify based on the outcome they believe in rather than whether they are currently oppressed.
4998. Deng Xiaoping Thought is over / (9k)
4999. Liberalism is over -> fun. cathartic. as time goes on, bizarrely not true. why not? that's the question of the century.

5000

Welcome to friendship hell
(Perfectly okay works about "community", and dubious Existentialist theories that resemble them)

5000. Item representing analogy or mathematical microcosm / Item comparing structure or process of thing A to thing B -> does not necessarily have to be a correct analogy, but this category does exist to hunt for correct analogies
5001. comparing anything and everything to friendship / unexpectedly comparing things to friendship / comparing things of larger scales than individual relationships to individual relationships -> note that this is not a bad thing in every case; some MDem entries point out real similarities between individuals and populations which lead to real similarities between large and small relationships. that said, it can create jarring contrasts between stories and real life, or Existentialist theories and real life
5002. comparing city-wide phenomena to individual friendships / comparing town-wide phenomena to friendship
5003. comparing region-wide phenomena to individual friendships
5004. comparing nationwide phenomena to individual friendships
5005. comparing global phenomena to individual friendships
5006. comparing whole social graphs to individual friendships / comparing whole communities to friendship / comparing fanbases to friendship / comparing platform membership to friendship
5007. comparing galactic or cosmic phenomena to individual friendships
5008. comparing institutions to individual friendships / comparing workplaces to friendship / comparing government ministries to friendship
5009. comparing local community centers to individual friendships / comparing forums to friendship / comparing churches to friendship
5010. individual described by common pronouns -> important to define basic categories, but may not be necessary to add except within works where below kinds of characters exist ↓
5011. individual described by nonstandard pronouns / character described by pronouns not in common use outside work -> note that "they", "any pronouns", and "it" (background object) are common usages, not nonstandard language
5012. individual described by neopronouns / individual described by "nonsense" pronouns / individual described by "nounself" pronouns
5013. individual described exclusively by pronouns from another language -> Damara Megido. this is a true example of a character with "nonstandard pronouns"
5014. individual described by alternating pronouns / individual described by cycling pronouns -> thanks Mangle
5015. individual described by pronoun of surrounding physical object / ghost using possessing object's pronoun
5016. fictional individual described with insulting pronouns / fictional individual frequently misgendered in-universe / fictional individual frequently called coarse pronouns in Japanese not necessarily related to gender
5017. individual described by pronoun of characters from other planet / fictional human described with alien pronouns -> thanks Piccolo, thanks Crystal Gems.
5018. ??
5019. pronoun not listed as Lexeme (type pronoun in qualifiers) / pronoun listed in external Lexeme (ex.: ey)
5020. ??
5021. ??
5022. ??
5023. ??
5024. ??
5025. ??
5026. ??
5027. ??
5028. ??
5029. ??
5030. ??
5031. ??
5032. ??
5033. individual described by pronoun usages containing ARG clues -> I have never heard of this but I bet it will happen some day
      wait. this technically already exists. people were left using the pronoun "him" to trace tenuous connections between Gaster and Deltarune. so technically. there is already at least one example out there of pronouns being used as ARG clues, although it's simpler than the silly idea I had in my head of some cryptic letter hiding some kind of cipher key in pronouns.
5034. ??
5035. ??
5036. ??
5037. ??
5038. ??
5039. ??
5040. allegory of the cave -> a metaphor for the gap between noumenon and phenomenon. probably greatly exaggerated. the more time goes on and the more science has been done the smaller the gap between "object" and "shadow" seems to get.
5041. noumenon (Kant)
5042. I think, therefore I am / The writer cannot be the writer's hallucination / The writer cannot be a proposition inaccurate to reality -> classic, famous proposition used by Descartes as a basic axiom. one good argument against it is that by Gödel's incompleteness theorem no computer or logic book can reason about the actual computer or things outside the computer and certainly be correct. there's always a causal separation between computer, brain, or logic book and reality itself in the sense that one can say physics "is" the separation between objects.
5043. I am therefore I am / The physical reality of a person's existence and daily life needs no further confirmation than the observation of continuing physical events and consequences with predictable physical logic connecting one to the other; "present materialism" or "today-today-tomorrow materialism" is as operable as historical materialism if not more / Lived experiences are not required to observe the physical phenomenon of someone suffering, and in fact make two people's confirmations of each other suffering more objective / I know the physical process of how I was born, therefore I was born, and I am / weak anthropic principle (statement that people being born and formed out of material objects must be materially possible in some way for people to observe the world and ask the question of if they exist) / Even if we're in a video game we have to play by the rules of that video game (Matt Dillahunty) / Hyper-Materialist proposition (proposition that material reality does not have to justify itself to "reason" as long it can be verified) -> the physical world can sound "circular", but that's because everything is always interacting with everything else. of course it's circular. you wouldn't be born if material processes weren't circular, recycling the same objects and the same rules to form new objects. it is so stupid people think anything material needs to justify itself to "reason", because quite literally, from everything we know, you wouldn't be reasoning if physically putting you together wasn't possible, and that shaped every way in which you reason.
5044. It's possible to have political positions without it being a team sport (Liberal-republicanism, Liberalism onto Trotskyism) / (9k)
5045. Transgender people think therefore transgender people are -> this is the crux of my problem with current theories on gender identity. this Cartesian construction was overturned for crusty old White men within their own philosophers' groups so it seems strange we should be using it for anyone else.
      "I think, therefore I am" + gender identity = this.
5046. ??
5047. ??
5048. ??
5049. ??
5050. vote -> a single show of support or non-support
5051. denial ball / black ball / black cube -> ball used as veto in anonymous ball vote. sometimes balls are the same color and put on opposite sides of the anonymous box.
5052. approval ball / white ball -> ball used in hopes of collecting a unanimous vote
5053. ballot
5054. ??
5055. Differing ideologies should be resolved with ethics / people having different ideologies should be studied and resolved with ethics / (9k)
5056. Civilization's goal should be to get to the arts and the notion of non-politically depicting abstract moods and emotions as soon as possible / (9k)
5057. A society that squeezes and neglects its people will watch Subjects' pain turn into The Real and destroy it, therefore it's necessary to help everyone accumulate wealth so the whole population remains non-proletarians and they don't turn into the proletariat / (9k)
5058. Science turns The Subject into an object but philosophy doesn't -> I genuinely don't think this is true. I really feel like philosophy does turn Subjects into objects if it's doing its job. what does it mean to turn something into an object? it means studying the pieces or processes that compose it and comprehending it as a physical thing. reductionism in the ontology sense: reducing things into a graph of sign equations, an ontology which is plural and not definitive but may go part of the way to explaining how something works.
5059. Humanist theories squash The Subject under prejudice / Subject theories are bad because they do too much prejudiced Subject-squashing / Humanist obsession with The Subject is bad because it has too many prejudices -> not making this up, really saw this one. possibly the most Existentialist criticism of Existentialism that I've ever seen. why does nobody ever ever ask if theories centered around prejudice are a prejudice? anyway. I think this highlights some kind of major division inside Existentialism. should I divide Existentialism into humanist periods and... prejudice-obsessed periods?? I still don't quite understand. I study and read and study and read and I still never understand what's going on. trying to understand where the hell these modern prejudice philosophies come from feels like Simon researching the ice crown and turning into an idiot and being stuck there forever.
5060. claimed characteristic of Existentialism / claimed characteristic of Existentialist-Structuralist tradition -> I could start compiling a list of these just like the fascism diagnosis lists, only the thing being diagnosed is technically less harmful, and it's only being diagnosed because it can seem nebulous and hard to describe until you observe it really closely and start making lists like this. a while ago I had an entry about "kinds of Existentialism"; I think this is what that is better framed as or called.
5061. Lived Experience is indisputable -> false on a technicality because it can and will be disputed constantly. this is the problem. the problem is that Lived Experience is already getting disputed, which is part of what made people think up the concept in the first place, but if you propose Lived Experience to solve that problem, it will perpetually be unable to prove itself using itself because the problem is that people can't be forced to consider it proof.
5062. Human beings cannot predict history -> strictly untrue. everyone who says this defines history as any arbitrary series of events. people are obligated to predict small/medium scale series of events just to survive.
5063. If it looks deterministic, it's scientism / If philosophy looks too deterministic, it's scientism -> found this one in an overview of schizoanalyst "geophilosophy". [258] this claim was just barely unsaid but could smell it all over the thing. why are people like this? why is determinism so scary to them? as I say, I swear most people don't even know what determinism is. determinism is the mere ability to describe things as differential equations and manifolds, like Deleuze did. he used determinism to explain Hegel. if there isn't determinism you couldn't describe everything with math. I find almost nothing more baffling than the way psychoanalysts (and schizoanalysis) are absolutely obsessed with math almost more than scientists are and then they also get obsessed with the individual and how you supposedly have to resist anything that could threaten to predetermine The Subject. why does nobody see the terrible contradiction between these two things? I swear we should just abolish the term scientism and make a new term of math-ism when you're over-applying math. that would make Marxism challenging but still possible. it would kill psychoanalysis though
      why I have not marked this false: it could be true only if someone is searching beyond simple "Euclidean" determinism to find relativistic determinism. if somebody totally hates "determinism" and then discovers dialectical materialism and subscribes to that, or simply gets really really really into special relativity and the search for the real most-accurate general relativity (which in my mind leads to the same place), there's no problem other than that they were using the term determinism in a misleading way.
5064. It's possible to be anticommunist without being racist / It's possible to be anticommunist without being xenophobic against Third World countries -> implicit statement in like, every anticommunist thing ever. no, it's not.
5065. Prejudice is the most obviously-bad thing there is / Not doing prejudice is the most obvious thing there is / Prejudice is the most obvious sin / Prejudice is the ultimate sin (claim about obviousness or senselessness) -> I have always been confused why people think prejudice and microaggressions are the most obvious thing ever to never have done when the literal reason people do them is because it's not obvious. some people admit this, when they admit that prejudice is due to "ignorance". but ignorance is the lack of information about what is right and wrong, making it not obvious that it is better to not have prejudices. I think you can also go a step further and say that merely labeling something "inexcusable" is in practice the same as labeling it "obvious".
5066. Anarchy isn't about taking things away / "Liberty is the mother of order" (statement that anarchies produce republics rather than republics producing anarchies; Proudhon) [259] / Anarchism is not simply a negative critique [260] -> funny how in practice basically every anarchist you see just talks about smashing things and taking them away and most people never actually see any "anarchist communities". the SPSs are secret and the SPMSs hardly come to pass for a period of longer than 3 years. but go on
      Anarchy isn't about taking things away + meta-Marxism = stationary combination of heterogeneous elements
5067. Unities of opposites never separate / Plural subpopulations are never countable / There can be no totalising unity that contains unities of opposites (totalizing; on Deleuze) / Multiplicities do not have a shared pivot connecting them to the unity (Deleuze) / There are no stable objects, only the metastable results of interacting flows at risk of falling into chaos (on Deleuze) [261] -> no. I get where he's coming from to say that "multiplicities" always start out never fully possible to differentiate. but they can fully differentiate, even to the point they'll never go back. we wouldn't be talking about the implications of a Soviet Union existing versus there not being a Soviet Union, because they'd be the same republics of people either way. there would be no national independence movements if this claim were fully true. there'd still be a British empire, physically, in 2025. we'd all be arguing about how to represent everyone within the British empire without breaking it up, just because we all "know" civilizations never ever break up. god, like. Deleuze. have you ever been a Trotskyist. that's a silly question to pretty much everyone but genuinely, have you ever had to deal with groups of people breaking apart and not going back together? if you actually did you'd know that things really do differentiate. there's almost an entropy arrow for groups of people just like there is for chemistry, where when a group of people breaks apart there are specific "chemistry" changes that make that tearing apart hard to run backwards. this is part of the definition of history, I feel like. the entropy arrow that makes things like a national independence movement or an organization disintegrating hard to reverse and more of a permanent creation of new conditions, new characteristics for the involved entities.
5068. tent of freedom poles (motif) / freedom for everybody with the only limit of equal freedom for others -> this is inherently contradictory. it's all too easy for somebody to be less free purely because someone else is free. anarchists really want to think this result is impossible but it isn't. say there are 30 Protestants, 20 Catholics, 10 Muslims, and 5 anarchists. the 5 anarchists talk to the 20 Catholics and the 10 Muslims. they don't manage to get them to give up religion, but they do manage to convince them to all agree with each other to become anarchists. the 20 Catholics and 10 Muslims all tolerate each other and agree that freedom for Catholics can only include freedom for Muslims. then the anarchists go talk to the 30 Protestants. 10 of the 30 Protestants are fine with anarchism and agree to coexist with the Catholics and Muslims, while 20 Protestants get upset and become convinced that if there are Catholics and Muslims determining things about the society they live in and making them Catholic or Muslim instead of Protestant in character the 20 Protestants are not free. the 20 Protestants try to make the Catholics and the Muslims leave. the other 10 Protestants don't quite know what to do. the 20 try to make them all concede that policies are tyrannical and having any unified policy on whether Catholic or Muslim traditions can be practiced or anyone can be made to tolerate them is unfair, and only a world where nobody can tell Protestants what to do at all is in anarchy. the Protestants insist that only a world where Protestants are free to be a totally freely-standing nation just as at the same time any other is is actually free, and anything else is a violation of the concept of "freedom for everybody limited by equal freedom for others", which is nearly worthy of a war for independence; they will stop short of killing any Protestants that don't concede or shipping them off to Catholicistan if the anarchists will only drop this entire thing. is anyone free at this point? the Catholics, Muslims, and defector Protestants are all going to be bound together by survival and basically formed into a nation-state with hard rules against leaving it because reality forced them to. the Protestant bigots are all bound together around their concept of having to be Protestant-only or you're not free, forced to defend their border so that concept even exists. in a real way, any difference inside countable cultures has the power to create borders and States just because cultures will insist on not being ordered around by each other. and all of this is because the anarchists brought up "the limit of equal freedom for others", but it isn't really possible when the reality of almost all human cultures is to want to realize culture outward and "believe that everybody" should do some particular culture, not just yourself. sometimes this is much less harmful than other times, like when indigenous populations become mystified by industrial populations and "believe that everybody" should go effect degrowth although in reality they don't understand what causes the undesired patterns or how to stop them. but overall this is the same Lacanian bullshit (pronounced redacted) as capitalists getting to determine what is good behavior and what is being a real human and what people aren't free-standing producers enough to be real humans. this bullshit (pronounced redacted) is a component of capitalism.
      I have a deep urge to make this the first F1 Item. maybe I will. I think there should be very stringent criteria for what motifs can become F motifs. they should have to be so utterly logically incoherent it is nearly impossible to understand them at all. like, "God" could be an F motif because it's relatively easy to argue the concept doesn't even make sense. something like "unicorns" or "vampires" isn't an F motif because fantasy books can coherently define what they are. most wrong concepts are still just S motifs, not F motifs, because it's easy to tell the difference between a coherent imaginary world where they do exist and the real world where they don't. only a very select slice of motifs are F motifs, which are referred to in consistent language yet on the inside are utter conceptual spaghetti that barely refers to anything at all. some parts of Lacanianism may get marked F1 and then have the decision reversed when it's discovered they actually make some kind of logical sense.
5069. The molding of the free person is the true equality of all [262] -> it's not, because any capitalist-suck-up Lacanian could say this. also, like, just imagine, you're Stalin's government, and you start believing this. when Trotsky is causing trouble for the people of the Soviet Union you tell him that the reason he doesn't understand mainstream Marxism-Leninism yet is he is not a complete free individual and he needs to be a person better, he's just terrible at being a free-standing person and he ought to go through a ton of training to be human exactly correctly before he is allowed to be human, while other people who are better at being individuals inevitably claim positions of authority and order people around. that's how Lacanians think, that's how capitalists think, that's almost what Lenin said however accidentally. the whole concept of "molding the free person" Leads To Hierarchies, precisely because not all people are equally good at Being Free People.
5070. Humans have free will / Humans have Free Will
5071. Larks have free will / Larks have Free Will -> the claim that songbirds such as larks and sparrows also have the thing called Free Will that humans are said to have.
5072. Ravens have free will / Dolphins have free will -> the claim that non-human animals that have been demonstrated to be highly intelligent possess the thing called Free Will.
5073. The cause-breaking dome has free will / The perfectly round ball sitting on a perfectly round dome that breaks Newtonian causality has free will -> generally accepted not to be true.
5074. A twenty-sided die has free will -> generally accepted not to be true.
5075. A pseudorandom number generator has free will -> generally accepted not to be true.
5076. Twilight Sparkle has free will / Twilight Sparkle has Free Will within the defined fictional universe of My Little Pony, and this is the process by which characters enact friendship lessons -> often accepted to be true but isn't really necessary to accept.
5077. Free will is the capacity to desire freedom / Free will is the resolve to resist un-freedom -> the only definition of Free Will that makes any sense to me as something that could be real. it's a little bit of a weasel definition to replace something that doesn't make sense with something else that does. it doesn't actually save the claim people can choose not to choose to choose something. instead it's just meant to explain why humans perceive a thing called Free Will and what we might actually be looking at when we see that.
      I initially got this definition from studying the relationship between center-Liberalism and Trotskyism, which to me was one of the only places that defining freedom or Free Will would ever truly matter. you can say there are other times like periods of slavery where it would matter, but honestly? I think in that case there are ways you can get out of having to talk about free will and just turn it into a matter of preferable or ethical kinds of interactions of whole populations that have material ways of being achieved whether anyone ever experiences free will or freedom or not — constitution, government, laws, just wars, history, etc. some of those invoke morality but morality doesn't even require free will; it's just making people do things.
5078. Populations have free will
5079. Populations do not have free will -> I am not sure if the core Marxist theorists ever made this claim, but this claim is very helpful for arguing general-sense historical materialism. if you are able to dispel the notion that populations are totally unique individuals, you can then go on to show that populations actually consist of patterns. sidenote: it's so bizarre to me that psychoanalysts are obsessed with unique individuals when quite literally, psychoanalysis and psychohistory don't work if different individual humans don't show the same patterns over and over? psychoanalysis seems like an accidental argument for general-sense historical materialism in and of itself, which simply starts the concept of "historical patterns" at really tiny scales and refuses to look at big scales.
5080. To change The System, you must first learn to love / To become capable of resisting capitalism you must first change yourself / Che Guevara said that revolutionaries must have a love of humanity, therefore everyone has to get rid of all prejudices and inability to love themself or others before there can be a workers' movement / (9k)
5081. Tribal populations are not Western -> I don't really like the word "Western". this set of word definitions is baffling to me. the first thing I think of when anyone says "Western" is whole nation-states in the Eastern Hemisphere, so when people pivot over to it purely meaning other populations in their own country it just feels confusing. it's like, you can have efforts to include subpopulations into the Australia region, but why are they focusing the whole concept of what is "Western" around Australia? are they trying to say Canada is fake and "Westernness" only ever takes place inside Australia? are they accidentally saying they don't care about the existence of any other countries but their own and Australians and Māori should all stand together to oppress Vietnam? the moment they say "Western" it feels as if whatever "Westernness" is they totally haven't gotten rid of the core problem of framing everything as Other to their own industrial population of Australians and have only turned around to pat themselves on the back for supposedly labeling it. to me "Western cultures" had always been this Filament-axis of European countries and North American colonies tied together — a thing that spans multiple continents and ended up needing a special name because it was hard to describe otherwise, unless perhaps you call it "former pieces of the British Empire", covering most of the important "Western" countries though not, say, Spanish or Dutch colonies. (even then it's a little weird Japan is rarely termed part of "Western culture" when it was blatantly allied with the German and Italian empires in WWII and would at times join with the United States against China or Korea. Russia has become Western if you ask me. if it's trying hard to sprout a nazism, and things made inspired by United States Tory beliefs can be shipped right over to Russia, they're both Western.)
      within the United States and I think to some extent in Australia, one of the most common characteristics of "Western culture" now among non-bigots is pivoting over to the imagery of completely different countries and appropriating non-Western cultures. so the word "Western" just isn't applicable and doesn't mean anything any more. that's why I prefer to say "industrial populations" or "First World countries/populations" as opposed to "tribal populations". if a tribal population isn't industrial, that's not an insult. they can live the way they want to live. and if they somehow are industrial at the same time I'd find another word to describe the other populations, I guess. the whole thing of putting together "prejudiced" (as we know, the Only way of describing that people are doing something bad) and "Western" is just weird to me. I feel like it's quite easy to have the first one without the second one, while the second one doesn't give you any information.
      said another way: I think this proposition is technically true for entirely the wrong reasons: "Western" countries are capable of forming one huge axis they're all part of, while tribal populations wouldn't be part of that.
5082. they killed the buffalo, Josh / White people killed the buffalo, so why do you trust them, Josh? -> I try very hard to never say bad things about indigenous people-groups, and to assume that if stupid ideas appear to be connected to indigenous people they're stupid because White people adopted them and garbled them. and most of the time that assumption seems to bear out. but today... I found an actual instance in youtube comments of a Native American clearly not understanding the concept of history. it's real. the thing I didn't want to believe was real is real. so what now? I guess it's critical we teach everyone what history is, and that it's possible for groups of people to have different numbers of centuries stacked on top of them. some centuries full of a lot of senseless division and fighting, some containing progress. here's the problem with Josh. he's the product of like seven to fifteen centuries. where inside all those generations hundreds and hundreds of people all interacting with each other reterministically caused or forcibly changed each other's behavior. at every step in those centuries people were constantly holding each other in toxic relationships just to prevent crimes and wars. you know, in "The System". the purpose of The System is always to head off violence and make sure it doesn't happen today, so whenever you threaten to escape it people get terrified because they don't understand where crimes come from and they simply want to smash all crimes as fast as possible. next thing you know, a bunch of Christians hopelessly beaten into always following social rules just so people are "nice" and "not violent" have to move out of Europe so they don't commit huge violence against other Christians, but have no power to not commit violence against other groups of people because they don't realize Community is the thing that causes violence, not what stops it. at the same time this is happening, all kinds of other developments occur in society like technology and philosophy and scientific models, all on top of the basic conditions: group divisions, inability to control other chunks of people, adaptation to senseless fierce competition over the same things, and superstition about what crimes and peace and nonviolence and society and growth and internationalism and hope are.
      I guess. there are two valid times to say "I'm not racist but". "I'm not racist but anti-racist movements have bad strategies for combating racism", and "I'm not racist but unfortunately any group of people can be stupid".
      they killed the buffalo, Josh + dragonslayer-slayer = sectarianism/Zinovievism taboo
5083. Why did White people choose to live in The System? / Why did White people choose to live in capitalism? / Why did White people choose to live in colonial society? / (9k)
5084. The System / systemic (qualifier attributing some sort of social problem to The System, or alternatively attempting to explain problems by treating Niklas Luhmann societal (sub)systems as the only structure of society; anarchism, anti-racist movements, etc.) / (9k)
5085. We went from tribes to suburbs / Human beings went from tribal populations directly to disconnected suburbs / In the year 400, White people were in tribes, in the year 2020 they were in suburbs, and absolutely nothing happened in between / history denial (motif of people acting like suburbs were suddenly made up yesterday rather than coming from particular cumulative sets of events over generations) / (9k)
5086. exceptions are the exceptions to the exceptions -> the concept that any exception not incorporated into "the system" (which is hypothesized to mean the major Social-Philosophical-Material System) can just as easily be the enemy of other exceptions as their ally
      exceptions are the exceptions to the exceptions + You can't contradict Lived Experience = Lived Experience contradicts Lived Experience.
5087. exceptions test The System / exceptions test the system -> schizoanalyst concept. the concept that excluded things are some kind of irrefutable evidence that The System must break down into a new state where all the exceptions will be accepted and tolerate each other.
      connected to, but not identical with, the concept that all people are connected through different oppressions by being The Subject and suffering.
5088. ??
5089. ??
5090. ??
5091. optimism / determination (adventure narratives)
5092. entropicism / (9k) -> the motif of a philosophy of meaning where individuals are not asked or obligated to look for meaning to their lives [...] reality, history, and the search for happiness in life are generally about outward cause and effect rather than inward choices as they would be within existentialism
5093. Signifier Case / signifier case -> the motif of presenting a concept In Capital Letters to defamiliarize it as a commonly-accepted word within the same language and offset it as a strange ontological construct which needs to be investigated, or as a specialized academic usage within some particular philosophy. this concept may be considered identical to practices like quoting terms or putting them in italics, but is not the same thing as putting a term in title case simply because it is the title of a wiki article.
5094. ??
5095. ??
5096. ??
5097. Nothing is more important than free will / No standard can be more important than free will / Every other ethical value is subordinate to free will -> if we assume Rothenberg and Žižek's texts describe anarchism, then I swear this is what they're saying. no squashing The Subject. don't be afraid to act. so, what? you're going to ignore the entire process of Marxism building up a system for making the smallest number of unethical actions that's possible, all to regain the single ethical value of Freedom? what is it even worth at that point? it's even weirder when Rothenberg is like obsessed with voting blocs and the concept that countries can never be a whole and rejects the suggestion that an oppressive government could turn everybody beneath it democratic (which is exactly what happens), but then this whole anarchist secret operation thing is also okay for some reason. nothing about that makes sense. if you can just reason your way out of creating Bolshevism because it's "inherently" oppressive, why wouldn't you do the same thing with anarchist secret operations, or on the other hand, if you recognize that anarchist secret operations are necessary to create Freedom, why wouldn't you say the same thing for workers' states? why wouldn't you just interpret workers' states through your weird Heideggerian framework and say, ok, I don't believe that any of Marxism is correct but I still have to acknowledge that workers' states are legitimate because those groups of people formed them spontaneously out of necessity. I think anarchism is full of special pleading that anarchism is inherently better just because it's anarchism. and I think in a sense you really can't expect anything else, because this is how all ideologies actually work. anarchists cluster together, Communist allies cluster together, Tories cluster together, as if they were ethnicities or some other demographic, then they protect each other and determine their ideology as a group.
5098. categorical imperative (statement about ethics versus goals) / Act to treat people as ends in themselves, and not as means / Act to treat other people as a parallel to yourself, with their own inner lives, needs, and goals / (9k)
      categorical imperative + ?? = The Subject
5099. Kantianism / (9k)
5100. intersubjectivity -> this should be considered a motif to scan texts for. the label can be changed to something more easily recognizable while keeping the internal definition the same thing.
5101. When The Subject simply is, it compels people to listen
5102. The unpredictability of Subjects will save the world / whatsisname the unlikeable guy (Excessive Subject, Žižek) will stop the problem by stoking empathy -> I only caught this one after three or more times of listening to a Deltarune analysis. on Noelle's blog there is an incident where Susie is about to bite Kris, but then she stops because Kris said something unexpected. the blog post does not even explain what Kris said, underscoring the motif that Kris is an "excessive Subject" even to The Player. outside Deltarune, this same concept is portrayed much worse in The Excessive Subject. Rothenberg and Žižek clumsily try to explain that basically if a person is just really unpredictable people would eventually be forced to have intersubjectivity and learn empathy. honestly? I really do not think so. the problem isn't that reactionaries don't understand things. the problem is that the processes of society are much more physical and "inanimate" than people want to believe, reactionaries understand those processes all too well, and they choose to perpetuate cruel patterns because it's genuinely materially easier than doing otherwise. like, to get them to change you'd have to force them to expend energy and create things when they don't want to. doing nothing is much easier than doing something. people being unpredictable doesn't make Actually Getting Off Your Butt And Doing Things become easy.
5103. watch my taffy dance ("Come along with me") -> the motif of either of the above two propositions being enacted in fiction
5104. Wrong ideas can be corrected if you simply cease thinking -> I've been a little wrong when I said everything in Liberalism is about turning everything into metaphysical quality sliders and claiming that artificial excesses of particular adjectives must be solved with "moderation". there's just a little bit more to it than that. some people seem to believe that when people have wrong ideas or prejudices it's possible to simply stop thinking entirely and become able to take in new information that way. I know from experience over a period of five years this is almost wholly false, and only leads to great confusion. I am being very generous by not marking this F2. but, there could be some subset propositions of it that are technically true.
5105. Distrusting scientists equals stereotyping humans -> the claim that when people don't trust "scientists" they are stereotyping and simply haven't met the good ones, and if they'd only do more people-gambling they'd eventually score, suddenly making the bad aspects of science all irrelevant.
      hate this. facts aren't accurate or inaccurate because people like or don't like people. a reactionary could have a decent point about science being untrustworthy because only a few people can work on it and some people just as smart and dedicated get kicked out and then huge publishers take and own all their papers and industries like pharmaceuticals profit on bleeding everyone else for access to the application of limited knowledge which has been artificially limited further by creating patented variations. meanwhile academics (usually not in physics, to be fair, it's usually in social theories) often have slightly wrong models of things but get very stern when people simply try to question them and ask why they think those are the correct models. "not all scientists" is almost exactly the same situation as "not all men" — a situation where people lack language or ontological models to express what patterns are really happening and point the finger at the broad group of people that the problem thing is happening inside.
5106. Scientific thinking is a pathology / Scientific thinking is a disease symptom created by such conditions as autism and ADHD that make individuals unable to understand intuition and to solve social situations through individuals intuitively unifying onto the nicest and most friendship-like behaviors that become local culture rather than attempting to characterize patterns in societies sociologically / (9k)
      Anti-racism education is an oxymoron + ?? = this
5107. 5107Being born autistic is counter-revolutionary to anarchism because autistic people have a defect in performing Rhizome, but everyone performing Rhizome on the basis of cultures and lived experiences automatically going together in a strictly subjective space is more important than anything else including autistic people / (9k)
5108. autistic people appropriating Liberalism / autistic people spontaneously trying to appropriate "traditional" or "White" disciplines due to not being included in original prejudiced circles and diving into existing body of information as special interest -> this is me in a nutshell. I get way into reading about the history of Marxism or atheist anti-religious philosophy just because it's interesting, and people assume those things are inherently community identities for a specific group of White people and think that if you're interested in something you must be a monster, while in reality I just want to explore the idea of different possible worlds and how to know what's real and imagine all the possible afterlives or lack thereof, and worldbuild 50 possible versions of Trotskyism.
      it's this kind of treatment that has really turned me against the entire concept of "community", and made me flinch whenever I hear that word. people seem to have this concept that there's not actually any such thing as knowledge or art or things that are invented or created, and somehow, there are only countable cultures that magically manifest art or philosophy while fans are socially linked and there, and also some countable cultures are inherently Good all the way through and some are inherently Evil all the way through just because they contain one particular individual (Richard Dawkins, etc). while in practice, if you try to believe that model, countable cultures easily just abuse each other for existing and based on stereotypes about each other, trying to eliminate each other, trying to change each other. I don't want to be part of a Community, not if it means that. I just want the objects the so-called "community" is about, like the books or the programming languages or the creative exercises (fan fiction and theories etc). the single exception is Marxism. I do Marxism in the attempt to be part of a socially-linked group of people, because the entire purpose of it is to understand and create societies, usually in the form of union republics or national populations.
      what's the point of getting into a book or game or whatever if I'm just going to have to hide that I like that thing from other people the moment I like something else and start interacting with people that are part of its "community", where every "community" gets suspicious of you for ever getting too far away from the specific narrow obsession that defines it? the more I see of "communities", fandom or demographic identity, the more I feel like Community itself prevents "communities" from naturally going together in Rhizome and becoming a bigger Community. community itself can be a kind of lesser imperializing force just because it's Community. when people believe anarchism or post-Marxism (which is functionally blue anarchism), they believe this critical-theory concept that individuals being part of society can give them Power, but because that doesn't actually exist at the levels of society they think it does and only at other levels, it becomes this pain point where individuals are just kind of beating everyone up everywhere they go, metaphorically, until Somehow after you've become Goku and grinded up your RPG level by knocking people over that results in you having agency. nobody is actually happy with this. anarchism is highly traumatizing.
5109. Men are safe, including Bryan the misogynist / Not all men are bad, including Bryan the misogynist / Not All Men -> this is what building every theory of negative interactions around attacking "stereotypes" gets you. when people push back on it through the language of "men" it's because they don't have the language to properly describe the highly complicated thing that is actually going on, so their animal instincts (trauma) go back to the last visual image associated with every negative experience to try to avoid environmental danger as an individual. this is natural, not a learned cultural process of "stereotypes". the human brain must be able to accurately predict the source of danger to stop looking for danger everywhere and narrow it down to the limited set of situations where danger actually occurs. this requires nothing less than predicting society, and predicting the likely level of risk implied by every single individual's behavior, knowing their future patterns of behavior to great accuracy. nothing else allows people to be themselves without becoming a false-positive threat to someone. you can't reduce it down to an individual recommendation of "good communication" or "don't be threatening" because that will involve telling a Black person somewhere not to speak in dialect just so somebody doesn't somehow pull "danger" out of that; it will involve squashing entire language-games and countable cultures that don't overlap with another population's set of common and known-nonthreatening signifiers. people really do have to know about the relationships between entire populations and how to predict individuals' behavior based on what population they really actually belong to in practice, or you will get antagonistic interactions whenever people meet each other and a lot of people afraid to even talk to anyone at all because they have no idea where the danger is and all they know is there is a lot more danger than they thought.
5110. language game / language which is not post-language (locally-used version of a language which has not been forcibly standardized and can be basically anything; meta-Marxism) / plural language (alternate version of the same language inside a national language; meta-Marxism) -> a language game is essentially a plural instance of language which is used by some particular group of people toward some particular end. two different language games used by different people do not need to overlap whatsoever even as they use the same words. I have complicated feelings about this concept. on one hand I do think that the way people construct language is relatively arbitrary. on the other hand, I find it strange that, at least the way people use these works — maybe we're getting a bit of a Gramsci situation here where everyone misuses them — people think Wittgenstein was out to eliminate language games and standardize language within the realm of philosophy. but if language games exist, which they probably do, you aren't really going to be able to achieve that. language games suggest that the most basic role of language is something other than communication. so I feel like the best you can realistically do is make sure people use ontology consistently even though the language games that point to ontology are never the same
5111. Terms gain meaning from relationships to other terms / Signifiers gain meaning from their relationship to other signifiers -> Saussure. solid hit, home run. should be part of Marxism. what people don't realize is this is because language comes from physics. physics has relationships between things first and then language has them because it is trying to model and mirror and explain physics — or whatever material process it is trying to explain. networks of objects come first, then language and perception come second. this is Hyper-Materialism.
5112. The only way to learn language is in the doing -> this is a nasty slope. it's one of the many ways philosophers smuggle in Lived Experience and positivism. this is why I refuse to refer to all exercises in ontology as "language" just because dictionaries contain definitions. no. ontology is not a matter of Lived Experience, as humanity has unfortunately learned by building machines that do ontology. a machine that doesn't seriously experience anything can now build an ontology which can be looked at two levels removed from subjective experience.
5112. Human language is rooted in Lived Experiences / "language is rooted in human experience and relationships" -> no. no. human language is rooted in the fact humans belong to social networks. graphs. language has networks and humans have networks and when you are part of a sea of free-floating entities you must physically obtain information about that system while inside it. that is Einstein's theory of relativity. a camera can do relativity just by being physical and being part of the world as it takes a picture. it doesn't have much to do with human "experience". we could all be philosophical zombies and still have language. in certain limited senses, The Subject is a machine and relativity is a piece of the machine.
5113. Logic probes ontology / Logic probes the connected graphs of words inside words inside words that we call language -> stop, Wittgenstein. stop calling ontology language. ...you know, there's a certain irony here. he said the whole purpose of philosophy is to untangle language. but you can't even do that if you think ontology is language and you don't eventually untangle them.
5114. Language cannot be private -> the clam that language must refer to something outside each individual mind in order to be able to communicate. I think this is technically false. this assumes the goal of language is to communicate, rather than purely to describe the ontological relationships between things. I feel like if you go in assuming language is for communicating you could pick up a stack of academic papers and think they aren't really language because most people don't understand any of those words. but if you worked in that field you'd know that what the jargon terms contain is particular ontologies of things connected to each other. it only really takes one isolated mind to come up with that, not even two. the fact another human being can interpret a heap of jargon is almost incidental to its original purpose, a thing that happens in parallel rather than in a neat causal line from jargon to interpretability.
5115. Language can be private -> I really don't think it's impossible for individuals to have a private language referring to only their own thoughts and perceptions. it's certainly inadvisable, but inadvisable things are not impossible. here's why I think this is true. a group of Egyptian priests can all agree on a language, but other people could come back to an inscription hundreds of years later and have no idea what it says. the inscription created by the priests wasn't in reference to anything that was public to the whole world of all humans. it was only public to everyone in the group of priests. which is to say, it was private to all European archaeologists, not public. the hard barrier between ancient cultures and modern-day countable cultures shows that nothing has to be truly shared between minds, all perceptions are potentially localized and individual until the moment that they are communicated in a way that another person really truly understands. this is a different statement than saying that people don't live in or perceive the same reality, which they do. the problem is that all minds are separated by the Last Unicorn effect, where everyone starts from the same world but constructs their own "fantasy" version of the world complete with both realistic models that come very close to how real objects behave and unreal mirages we can call "unicorns". everyone has the same reality, but everyone has their own unicorns. and this difference in unicorns means that some words refer to unicorns other people don't have at the moment, at least until they very closely examine what on earth another person is assuming and successfully reconstruct the missing unicorns.
5116. Every language contains a plurality of languages / Languages are always plural, even when they're singular / language versus post-language proposition -> yeah, this is what bothered me about the overview I listened to of Wittgenstein's theory of language. the overview did not go into the concept that "the way philosophers use language" could represent multiple Englishes rather than one English, multiple versions of German, and so forth. if such a thing is the case, telling people it's important to use the same terms and concepts won't even work, because people will just rebel to defend their right to have their own local languages. when people are all converted to the same "cultural language", such as German, it doesn't mean they all actually speak the same language, because they then just speak different versions of German based on the different ideologies they believe. serious Christians in Germany might have one version of German, nonbelievers might have another. West Germans might have one version of German full of anticommunism, East Germans might have another full of definitions friendly to Bolshevism. in other words, ideologies are the new languages. ideologies are countable cultures; countable cultures have languages; countable cultures rebel when not given self-determination. even if the people in them are Evil. national independence and Freedom don't care if people are Evil, they just thrash around to realize themselves.
5117. Dawkinsian language usage / Matt Dillahunty language usage -> the type of language usage that does not prescribe required meanings for each word but does prescribe underlying ontological distinctions which should be used in defining all words: Dawkins says Einsteinian religiousness is not religion and means precisely that whatever words people use should preserve that distinction, whether the words are "the spiritual" and "religion", "Einsteinian religion" and "religion", etc.
      I would censor this to demote "Dawkins", but that doesn't actually work on normal people because they'll always say the person you claim to be better than Dawkins is just as bad and practically an Arab- and Jew-hater purely for not letting people believe religion. so I've given up on trying to make any statement about religion sound "sensitive", because why even try that if it's the abstract concept that makes people angry? I guess angry concepts just have to have angry words.
5118. Wittgensteinian language usage -> the type of language usage that fails to separate words from ontological constructs (signifier equations) that lie inside language and that large language models trace in a superficial way. this doesn't have a precise definition yet but one thing it could mean is insisting that every term applied to things is really literal instead of a figurative way to refer to something which could practically be the same thing depending on the circumstance — that Einstein can't refer to awe as religion as a way of defanging religion and showing that it was only another name for awe.
5119. ??
5120. Language is just a bunch of math -> sounds ridiculous at first unless you've already come to understand language is a bunch of signifier equations, and then you're like, oh, yeah, it really is just a bunch of things inside of other things that we only assign arbitrary names to, it's not too big of a leap from that to saying it's literally just math.
5121. Language is about intensional set definitions / Language is about intensional set definitions, not intuition -> you can separately claim that intensional set definitions are based on intuition, but I think it's critical to make this separation between studying language and studying intensional non-well-formed set theory so that we show that language is more mechanical and less intrinsically poetic than people think. (replace "mechanical" with "reterministic" if that word sounds too anti-dialectics to you. I tend to use the words mechanical and mechanism very colloquially so that even dialectical things are called machines; I think everyone constantly bringing up Deleuze and Guattari is what helped corrupt me there.) if you show that much, it's easier to tear people away from the concept that everything social is about Lived Experience versus dialectical materialism and repeated historical processes.
5122. Language is actually lambda calculus / Signifier equations can be conceptualized as lambda calculus functions, which means that the meaning of any sentence amounts to one big lambda calculus calculation -> it sounds like a joke until you really think about what it means for a language model to hypothetically truly know what an apple is and what it can do with an apple. an apple is an edible round object that can be cut with a knife. this is a signifier equation saying that three kinds of physics apply to the object arbitrarily called an apple.
5123. Unicorns are abstract math / Unicorns are just unrealistic math / Unicorns, the mirages which appear under the Last Unicorn effect, are simply lambda calculus constructs which make hypotheses about some defined reality and then do not predict that reality; in concept they may predict some other defined reality, even if that reality is fictional
5124. ??
5125. ??
5126. ??
5127. ??
5128. I took the initiative to create internet / I took the initiative in creating the internet [263] / (9k)
5129. let's eat grandpa / the first Undertale ever received / please workers only (sign installed in public place which appears to be an instruction to only obey workers) / Trotsky helped lay the foundations of the Third International galvanizing parties around the world / (RD/9k/Q51,29)
5130. root-word mirage / root word mirage (searchable) / name-element mirage / (9k)
5131. Directional words end in -ward, therefore Squidward is a direction, and so are its original counterparts Edward, Hayward, and Siegward / (9k)
5132. "Hogwarts" is a direction / (9k)
5133. ??
5134. ??
5135. ??
5136. ??
5137. ??
5138. ??
5139. Anti-racism education is an oxymoron / The concepts of "anti-racism" and "education" are in contradiction because the purpose of education is to teach ontologies and methods for testing ontologies but every ontology potentially contains errors relative to the real world and thus any attempt to educate people on anything can potentially be taken as a malicious prejudice if it is not specifically educating people as unique human individuals in how to socially connect and make friends with particular real people that exist and learn particular real people's exact Lived Experiences that exist independent of history books and cannot be taught through any history book or classroom -> the shocking but entirely logical conclusion you reach if you try to believe poststructuralism instead of calling it stupid, and try to believe that poststructuralism is compatible with the general concept of anti-racism. I have to say. I can't hate this when I simply look at how unbelievably coherent it is, but at the same time it's a headache because if it was true, how the hell (pronounced redacted) would you actually fix education besides abolishing education for anything but immediately useful skills, and general Existentialist principles for being nice to people? I can't help but feel like poststructuralism is anti-education. and that hurts my non-neurotypical brain because making snap decisions correctly in a small period of time, like you have to if you're going to apply Existentialist Principles Of Being Nice To Everybody, is one of the things I'm almost totally incapable of doing. I constantly forget every action I did less than 5 minutes ago unless I deliberately think about it many times over the course of several hours. I have no idea where I put my keys unless I can see them on the table and suddenly remember why I put them there. I have to check the empty washing machine "for safety" just to know I didn't leave my clothes in there. (typing that made me panic and check the washing machine.) I function a lot better if I can actually read up on countries or populations as material objects and try to get a genuine understanding of what bigger processes are going on. the notion that everything can be solved by calling out supposedly correct and incorrect behaviors of individuals against individuals, in a world where there are often multiple contradictory pressures on individuals to regard the "right" thing to do as both totally mandatory and totally unacceptable, is alien to me. is anybody going to care about intuitively, empathetically understanding the Lived Experience of my shit (pronounced redacted) brain that can't guess the right decisions for shit (pronounced redacted)? no.
5140. a regular Arab, not an evil one / a regular Russian, not an evil one (in reference to reactionary ideologies in modern Russia) / attempting to teach isolated reactionary populations about anti-essentialism through misguided inclusions of their existing stereotypes in the definition / (9k)
5141. Humans perceive random behavior as malicious / Humans perceive random behavior as inconsiderate
5142. Behaving compassionately requires cultural conditioning / Behaving compassionately requires education on specific material facts about reality -> this is to be contrasted with the notion that just not thinking and expecting absolutely nothing or erasing stereotypes is enough to turn people into good people. no. they really have to go through the phase of learning about and constructing "a regular Arab, not an evil one".
      this has some very serious implications for things like Gramscianism. say that every minority person gets into industry and academia and they all ban outward acts of prejudice. the surrounding population of Unqualified Bigots will never learn anything or become better just by sitting there. every bit of education costs them something. money, time socializing with others instead of being all alone watching Black history videos, etc. and if they aren't in positions of everyday power where they have the ability to earn a lot of money it just becomes more costly to bother learning anything and more cost-effective to stay uneducated. which will leave them in a base prejudiced state they pass down to their children for generations and generations. it's kind of the same problem people complain about with the Soviet Union where supposedly "they didn't educate everyone into French Revolution college students and it was their downfall!". you absolutely do not get rid of that by getting rid of Bolshevism, because the real problem is that education always comes with a cost to the point it flat-out requires a certain greedy hoarding instinct such the most modest, non-greedy people won't get educated. if you doubt this, how easy would it be for you to get an introductory textbook on every college major, store all of them, and read all of them to the point of having a couple pages of notes? you'd quickly realize that education is almost as specialized an activity as running a retail store, not something everybody does — at the very least everyone makes priority decisions on several kinds of education to ignore. and unfortunately, education about the simple existence of other groups of people doing any of the things in any of the other books is one of the easiest things to leave behind.
5143. Smashing signs turns behavior random / Smashing signs leads to random behavior / Poststructuralism is a terrible idea
5144. Does anti-essentialism apply to Trotskyists? / Is it possible to identify "a regular Trotskyist, not an evil one"? / (9k)
5145. Many acts of marketing perform education / Consumerism is inseparable from media representation -> it sometimes makes me nervous when people talk about "consumerism" or "overconsumption" without it being in the context of Marxism and the inability to control the shape that capitalism grows into so businesses don't waste money on things. it's not hard for someone to argue, however spuriously, that buying stacks of Media Representation is an overconsumption process either on the part of corporations or readers or the reviewers who keep saying people should buy it. a lot of art has a partial purpose of making people buy new books at full price instead of used ones in order to make money; in one sense the purpose of a lot of art is to be expensive. at the same time, look at something like Japanese anime and manga. publishers can support a seemingly endless churn of manga, a lot of which are similar to each other, and yet, every one of these that is translated for another country does a little bit to counteract prejudices against the country of Japan. capitalism is a very social process of going from no relationship to building bonds through exchanging goods, and in some senses, it's the process of us being more and more wasteful every day in order to better know each other.
      I'd like to see Trotskyists get a satisfactory model of world economic transition out of that
5146. ??
5147. ??
5148. ??
5149. ??
5150. ??
5151. ??
5152. ??
5153. ??
5154. ??
5155. ??
5156. ??
5157. ??
5158. ??
5159. ??
5160. why do US people say "inside thoughts" in public -> there are multiple causes
5161. privacy is the separation of individuals from society
5162. private is a smaller scale than public
5163. town squares are public spaces
5164. social platforms are public spaces
5165. why are social platforms regarded like houses when they are public spaces?
5166. social platforms are capitalists parceling up the smallest scales of society
5167. social platforms operate on Filamentism -> the very smallest competing unit is two connected people, not one. either one creator and one commenter/viewer, or a team of creators
5168. The easiest way to resolve contradictions is to entirely walk away from them and prevent all the parts from developing -> explains why Liberal-republicanism over time develops fewer and fewer policies, or why people see two major corporations and walk away from them thinking it's a profound statement but practically it's not
5169. The easiest way to obey a constitution is not to have a society
5170. ??
5171. ??
5172. ??
5173. ??
5174. ??
5175. ??
5176. ??
5177. ??
5178. ??
5179. ??
5180. ??
5181. ??
5182. ??
5183. ??
5184. ??
5185. ??
5186. ??
5187. ??
5188. Billy Herrington condoning Japanese war crimes [264] -> an incident which I think reveals a lot about normal human psychology. people want to believe that "society" or "humanity" is separable from populational boundaries, wars, and politics, and that they can simply form a connection to something (yes, in this case edits of a gay porn tape.) and that people who always seem nice are nice, while in reality that isn't necessarily true.
5189. ??
5190. ??
5191. ??
5192. ??
5193. ??
5194. ??
5195. ??
5196. ??
5197. ??
5198. ??
5199. ??
5200. microdistrict / walkable neighborhood / car-free neighborhood
5201. microdistrict (Soviet Union)
5202. ??
5203. mass-produced building
5204. Trotskyists could have created microdistricts -> I have been looking for so long for one possible policy that Trotskyists would not be too stupid / too tiny of a group of somewhat smart people to figure out. I have finally found one example. in the weird in-between period between the death of Stalin and the overall erosion of the CPSU was exactly when the country created cheap mass-produced buildings. it would seem that the cause of this is more that from 1920-1960 there were constant wars and right after this things were calmer than that the anti-Stalinists truly showed up with all the only good ideas. that said, this stuff certainly happened without Stalin, and microdistricts are one of those things where as soon as someone invents them they're almost harder to screw up than to do correctly. in my mind, this means that if Trotsky had not been lying to people, he could have gotten people together to build some microdistricts in Kazakhstan before everybody migrated out of there, and it would have at least been something. if you put up a number of sensibly-structured towns you don't have to go complaining that the bureaucrats took them over and there's no way you can restore the soviets. whatever a soviet is going to look like in your mind you have a better chance if everything is well-structured rather than strung out. right? why is it that Trotsky believed he could change the whole world and yet he seemed to get hopelessly frustrated with changing a single meeting. why is it that it's easy for me to think of ways Trotskyism could have proved it wasn't one big lie but it was so hard for the actual 1930s Trotskyites that think it's their critically-important duty to keep the country going and save the country from Stalin to think of any of this
5205. Microdistricts are a Filamentist deception / Walkable cities are practically speaking a creation by linked circles of small businesses who will continue to have all society's agency and education -> the depressing reality that set in after I saw a mini-documentary about capitalist developers "kindly" building walkable neighborhoods in Arizona. [265] they reacted with surprise that people actually wanted to lease business spaces. they had to build a parking lot at the edge of the thing to support businesses actually getting income from outside. realistically, this is going to be pitched as a real place to live but then the people who draw in commerce from other cities to the parking lots are going to be the people who control the rest of the people living in the town. because where is the income that causes your walkable neighborhood to exist? is everyone going to take a bus to a factory or what? quite honestly, this makes me nervous about the whole concept of microdistricts. do you accidentally bake in reversion to bourgeois control by building those? capitalism fundamentally comes from the chunking up of society into separate islands where particular people are responsible for holding the island together (capitalists, investors, Filaments of First-World banks, etc.). I'm now having a crisis wondering if microdistricts actually sunk the Soviet Union because they accidentally created isolated chunks of people.
5206. Microdistricts have terrible parking -> the more prosaic claim that microdistricts are badly designed to accommodate expansion, such that when anything else is added it results in people driving significant distances to shopping malls. this came with the implication that apartment complexes always need a churning business layer at the bottom. I have no idea if that's really true. it sounds... okay. it's not very different from deliberately placing things inside the microdistrict, and it makes them more "repeatable". the one thing I'm pretty sure of is that without a small-scale class-based model of society there's no properly understanding microdistricts and how to fix them. all of the issues connected to a microdistrict are directly connected to population growth and the active growth of cities out of nothing as well as the conflict between individuals for slots in things. you'd have to have an active model of people being added to a population one by one in various patterns and creating businesses in various patterns to get things right over time and not make mistakes. suburbs are the error of not knowing what comes after the core of a city (which the bourgeoisie always get to make the first move building), while "microdistrict parking disasters" are what you get if you start at the houses and people's right to live there and hit a wall of not knowing the edges of the thing beginning there. there's like this fundamental error in predicting the result of the city as it builds itself into reality where you can't just bring in an expert to make a good city on day one and you genuinely have to fix the predictions of where the city is going each year to plan it correctly.
5207. Soviet lawn nightmare -> so apparently, microdistricts led to huge areas of lawn between buildings that were annoying to keep mowed. that's kind of a funny anecdote subject. I wonder how much anarchists would hate this when they're always going on about lawns and the "colonialism" of lawns. would they think this was just as bad? I have no idea.
5208. housing queue -> one of the consequences of microdistricts or more specifically of building housing on demand. people still have to interact with the availability of slots in a city and see if they actually get in.
5209. ??
5210. Are you building a neighborhood for retired people? -> a question everybody trying to fix capitalism through "urban planning" needs to contemplate. for a lot of existing United States housing developments the answer is "yes". they're built for people to retire into but not for anybody to actually be able to go to work.
5211. ??
5212. ??
5213. ??
5214. ??
5215. ??
5216. ??
5217. ??
5218. ??
5219. ??
5220. collective farm
5221. single large farm with government tractors
5222. collection of small farms
5223. Collective farms brought the Soviet people together -> surprisingly true for a period of about 10 years or so. I think there was a moment it stopped being true, which had happened by 1953-1960, but I don't know what year it would have happened.
5224. Joining small farms did not succeed / Stalin's government joining small farms into a corporate entity did not succeed -> I'm willing to accept that this might be true, but for utterly the wrong reasons. Existentialists really want to think that collective farms fail because Bolshevism is bad and joining things together is bad... but what if collective farms failed because small farms are bad and fundamentally will never be as good as big farms even when you connect them? that's a scary thought, because it means a whole lot of anarchist rhetoric that supposedly "helps" social-democracy has to be thrown out. but something being scary doesn't mean it isn't true.
5225. Amazon is one big "collective farm" / Amazon is an entity joining many separate small entities to the same pitfalls as a collection of small farms -> I can't figure out, under capitalist logic, why collective farms are so "bad" we recreated the same thing on a gigantic scale. my best answer is that this structure is totally undesigned and arose by historical necessity when the structures people actually wanted didn't work.
5226. Private equity is a modern form of collectivization (collectivisation; meta-Marxist claim)
5227. Private equity isn't the problem / Small businesses blame private equity for businesses failing and getting gutted but it's really small businesses' fault -> the trap of small businesses being supposedly innocent is so hard to see through it took me weeks to realize this was a possibility.
5228. ??
5229. ??
5230. ??
5231. ??
5232. ??
5233. ??
5234. ??
5235. ??
5236. ??
5237. ??
5238. ??
5239. ??
5240. ??
5241. ??
5242. ??
5243. ??
5244. ??
5245. ??
5246. ??
5247. ??
5248. ??
5249. ??
5250. ??
5251. ??
5252. ??
5253. ??
5254. ??
5255. ??
5256. ??
5257. ??
5258. ??
5259. ??
5260. ??
5261. ??
5262. ??
5263. ??
5264. ??
5265. ??
5266. ??
5267. ??
5268. ??
5269. ??
5270. ??
5271. ??
5272. ??
5273. ??
5274. ??
5275. ??
5276. ??
5277. ??
5278. ??
5279. ??
5280. adventure (fictional event)
      adventure + Jungian psychoanalysis = adventure narrative / monomyth (description of literary genre claiming to be description of most stories)
5281. kingdom (Adventure Time)
5282. adventure vs daily life / quest of discovery and growth versus daily life / ordinary world versus special world (near-synonym but not precisely the same; Joseph Campbell?, Writer's Journey) -> in AT, weirdly. s8 e27
5283. Adventure Time -> great series. has a bunch of themes of character growth and maturity, between coming of age stories and Simon, Jermaine, etc. makes me think about Existentialism. not really a problem with the show in any way. the show actually makes a number of jokes about how it could try to complicate things with philosophy and then is like, I don't know if this actually means much of anything to be honest, I mean maybe it could but dunno. I think that's very respectable. I wish all the Existentialist writers like Sartre and whoever had that much humility.
5284. Candy Kingdom
5285. Ice Kingdom
5286. Fire Kingdom
5287. Evergreen's wishing crown (Adventure Time) -> hypothetically, I may or may not be coding this in order to compare it to fanmade universes.
5288. Princess Bubblegum
5289. Ice King
5290. Flame Princess
5291. apocalyptic event (Adventure Time) -> there are at least two on the core timeline, not just one.
5292. history (Adventure Time)
5293. Fionna and Cake
5294. Cake the cat
5295. Fionna the human
5296. Jake the dog
5297. Finn the human
5298. Shermy
5299. Beth
5300. GOLB
5301. Simon Petrikov
5302. Betty
5303. ??
5304. ??
5305. ??
5306. ??
5307. ??
5308. ??
5309. ??
5310. Why isn't BMO a crab? (Adventure Time) / "In what way isn't a crab a robot? ... I don't understand why BMO's not a crab" -> finally, we get to the real meat of a philosophy encyclopedia: the totally useless questions that still might somehow teach you something. (Adventure Time season 8 episode 22)
5311. ??
5312. ??
5313. ??
5314. ??
5315. ??
5316. ??
5317. ??
5318. ??
5319. ??
5320. ??
5321. ??
5322. ??
5323. ??
5324. ??
5325. ??
5326. ??
5327. ??
5328. ??
5329. ??
5330. Chronicles of Narnia
5331. wardrobe (Chronicles of Narnia)
5332. Narnia
5333. Everything moral comes from God / God is the source of everything moral / The nature of God informs everything we observe which is moral, which means the nature of everything we observe which is moral is an example of the nature of God -> religious claims are boring until you start logically combining them with other things that overlap onto the same topics, and then they become way too funny. 1) God is the source of everything moral. 2) Trotskyists believe the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy was moral. 3) If you're a Trotskyist, God is the source of Trotskyism. 3b) If you're a Stalin follower God is the source of mainstream Marxism-Leninism. 3c) If you're Ronald Reagan, God is the source of the Cold War and will be the source of Donald Trump. 4) Which thing is actually God?
5334. Aslan
5335. International war is similar to friendships / World War I is similar to friendships -> Wings of Fire
5336. Monotheism is similar to friendships (fiction) -> more or less seen in real-world religion, but that should be a separate item
5337. Escaping reality is similar to friendships / Detaching from reality is similar to friendships / Fantastical adventures in another world are similar to friendships / Escapism is similar to friendships -> see also Deltarune; connects friendship to schizoanalytic Escape
5338. Preventing global empire is similar to friendships / Preventing imperialism is similar to family relationships -> Steven Universe, Wings of Fire. for the longest time I didn't understand this one at all until I realized it was basically a depiction of intersubjectivity theories and the problem was that it was based on theories about real life which were false.
5339. ??
5340. ??
5341. ??
5342. ??
5343. ??
5344. ??
5345. ??
5346. ??
5347. ??
5348. ??
5349. ??
5350. mandate of competence / meritocracy (center-Liberalism; Liberal-republicanism which is not Toryism) / cultural leaders taking the helm of a better culture (Gramscianism)
      microhierarchy + general-sense psychoanalyst = mandate of competence
5351. ??
5352. ??
5353. ??
5354. ??
5355. ??
5356. ??
5357. Progressives deserve the mandate of competence because they "refuse violence" / Progressives are better than reactionaries specifically because they do not practice "violence" -> thanks Giggleland. evil sorcerer who shut down our schools? while the game narrative is said to have been written by a kid in some version of "the real world"? could be a coincidence, but if it isn't, is kind of transparent.
5358. ??
5359. ??
5360. radial conservatism (meta-Marxism) / all-directional conservatism (relativistic; duplexed; meta-Marxism) / sectarianism (refusal to accept a new ideology with a specific connotation of clinging to one's current ideology because among some group of people it's "traditional") / dogmatism (refusal to consider a new ideology or acknowledge an ideology with a specific connotation that ideologies that have technically existed before it or without it are better) / (9k)
5361. ??
5362. ??
5363. ??
5364. ??
5365. ??
5366. ??
5367. ??
5368. ??
5369. ??
5370. Speedrunning is for cheaters / (9k)
5371. ??
5372. Difficulty is the lack of being able to pay for something to be done by someone else (outsourcing; "farming" people; meta-Marxism) / (9k)
5373. Soviet Union as challenge run / (9k)
5374. ??
5375. ??
5376. ??
5377. ??
5378. ??
5379. Jung's model of psychological repression describes part of the inner process of creating dialectical reversals (Jungian repression describes; psychoanalysis) / (9k)
5380. seeing workers' states through psychoanalysis (seeing Bolshevism; Jungians) / (9k)
5381. Outlawing gay marriage is obviously wrong / (9k)
5382. We know gay marriage is a fact because Jungian repression / (9k)
5383. Gay movements are against the proletariat (USSR (pronounced Soviet Union)) / Gay movements are against the stability of the workers' state / (9k)
5384. Freudian repression identifies Marxist errors / Freudian repression can be used to identify Marxist errors / (9k)
5385. The Capitalist Unconscious (Tomšič 2015) [266] -> part of a certain localized underground effort to attempt to explain away all Marxism and Liberalism through molecularized or atomized Lacanianism. I cannot stand this bullcrap (pronounced redacted). I have so much other stuff to read that's actually good in some way and you throw this shit (pronounced redacted) at me. deliberate Existentialism gets more swearwords out of me than almost anything because there are almost no words in human language for how stupid this is, there is basically nothing else to say. anyway. this is not really a conspiracy or anything, it's just a very very stupid trend that has been slowly hatching itself as everything in First World countries resembling Marxism has squashed and degraded into these bizarre attempts to construe everything through themes of "free will" and "prejudice". like, when I say everything I mean everything. I don't mean people saying "racism is more prominent than capitalist abuse, you ought to think about prejudice". I mean "resistance to questioning capitalism is literally a prejudice", "resistance to Menshevism is literally a prejudice against empathy for the poor", and Lacanians in particular trying to conceptualize every case of somebody not taking an action and not supporting a progressive movement as a prejudice, like every single thing wrong in the world ever is just another variety of prejudice. I cannot stand this. things have to be physical at some point. there has to be some physical object we are or process we are doing that we aren't conscious of the workings of, and some other process whose workings we could replicate instead, or else we'll never become conscious we're doing things wrong. if every wrong thing in the world is a prejudice including capitalism and imperialism, then none of us have human rights just because we're The Subject, because anything about our existence and identity and expression could contain prejudices that have to be smashed away, and thus existence doesn't equal freedom, existence equals inherent un-freedom and mutual exclusion between some identities and localized "cultures". Lacanians can't even agree with themselves, because some of them seem to believe in intersubjectivity / the Shenlong effect and some of them believe Subjects are uncontrollable, which would mean that calling things prejudices or using psychoanalysis on them is useless because the separation or joining between people or groups controls everything and history is all about populational structure. which ironically is almost getting back to historical materialism. so, I've come to halfway like the uncontrollable Subject model because if you're not a Lacanian it does seem fixable.
5386. Profit is basically Muten Rōshi (Master Roshi; Lacanian psychoanalysis) / Profit is an act of groping across (pronounced redacted) some form of human psychological boundary -> I gotta admit I don't fully understand Lacanianism, thanks to all the absolute spaghetti every book or talk on it hits you with and makes you decode, but what is this. they make such strange models of things. we're beginning with symbolic castration or Lacanian discipline, where people in incomplete stages of growth form incorrect ideas about being an adult/Father and when people interact with others the incorrect ideas have to be cut off. also known as "desire", also known as "a" (pronounced small-A). then we are throwing in jouissance or climax. the point of that is that to cross people's boundaries you have to do it the right way, and if people try to get there without going the right way, without seeking to know and understand the workings of the person, they get in trouble, and people forcefully teach them the rules of engagement with either that person or society. many kinds of addictions can be taken as crossing boundaries in a different sense, trying to skip to satisfaction without going through the material route that actually produces it. but the Lacanians say that profit is some kind of improper crossing of boundaries or something. whose boundaries? the boundaries of perfectly-shaped "degrowth" growth? the worker's boundaries? the figurative boundary between doing "real" things that are satisfying and becoming obsessed with profit?
5387. Addiction results when we misplace the journey and skip to the end / Addiction results when we skip over discovering the correct path through something and skip to the end / (9k)
5388. The bourgeoisie invented polyamory
5389. If addiction results from skipping over boundaries to get to the end, then historical materialism is the opposite of addiction / (9k)
5390. If repression is the problem, Trotsky only needs to tell Stalin his vision of Bolshevism is terrible -> Rothenberg seemed to be claiming (hey now, I literally recommended the book to someone else and neither of us were able to follow all the way through it, so I'm not just lazy) that repression is causing all our problems and that's why "conversations" can supposedly solve everything. but if you apply the Trotsky model that makes no sense. historically, if all the Trotskyites were perfectly honest everyone would laugh them out of the room because of the perception they don't know anything. best case scenario you've got two totally different would-be countries that want to do things totally differently leading one to marginalize the other because people just want to get on with their lives and don't want the other group of people building and living the wrong way over the top of them. worst case scenario one of the countries is many tiny countries of bourgeoisie and it's a blatant lie. on the other hand sometimes people are blatantly racist and think they have an impossible equation to find the superior ethnicity to produce on a given plot of land. you never know if people are doing that thing, from a different angle, to the Trotskyites.
5391. Stalin vs Trotsky = Jung vs Lacan / Stalin versus Trotsky equals Jung versus Lacan -> this is most likely how psychoanalysts would take all my thought experiments about Stalin and Trotsky: strain everything through psychoanalysis and insist that everybody is only a different kind of psychoanalyst. the dumb thing is that somehow, while inside the United States, this might be a totally appropriate model of what discourse looks like. not one of other countries, but probably of the United States. sometimes it's baffling how it happened. sometimes I realize that capitalism being the only real structure that exists it stands to reason this would have happened. the only thing left to say is: where's the psychoanalysis that is much better than either Jung or Lacan so I don't have to simply throw away both of them?
5392. Freud against Lenin is really Freud against Freud -> I wouldn't have caught this until I saw somebody not against the Soviet Union try to use Freud. it was a bad idea, but it was illuminating. what I realized was that there is one "Jungian" way to use psychoanalysis which ostensibly uses it in service of freedom, and one "Lacanian" way to use psychoanalysis which blatantly uses it in service of creating repression. almost every argument against the Soviet Union has actually been "Jungians" fighting "Lacanians" while claiming Lacanianism is the essence of Leninism. which makes it so very ironic Lacanians try to argue basically that repression is good after they claim Bolshevism is bad. that is totally incoherent; you might as well be Stalin.
5393. Alchemy is a metaphor for the individuation process (Jung) -> well that's a claim. I feel like people have been saying this kind of thing about alchemy since alchemy was first invented, and they've tried to fit it to several different ideologies according to what ideology they believe. I've even had some fun with this myself. is alchemy a metaphor for Marxism? the point of alchemy is to look into the deep workings of the universe and apply them in order to create changes in it. you could say, "natural philosophers had only interpreted the world in various ways"... I think there's a much better case for comparing alchemy to Marxism than for comparing it to religion or whatever mystical system of self-discovery educated people believed back then. but by the time you get to that point it's like, are metaphors like this actually useful or are they just not adding any information in any of the cases? different thought: why do psychoanalysts believe in comparing alchemy to individuation if they adamantly don't believe in comparing chemistry and quantum mechanics to a scientific theory of society. those should be contradictory beliefs. but I think the answer always ties back to the conflict between historical materialism and historical "FreeWillIsm".
5398. Freudian psychoanalysis (early 1900s)
5399. Jungian psychoanalysis (mid 1900s) / analytical psychology (Jung's term) -> so apparently Jung spoke of government as "slavery" in that it was capturing individuals and forcing on them a kind of fake identity. this is the kind of guy that is trying not to be racist (?) but unlike Marx doesn't realize that uniting people into a population which is not based on religion is a critical step to not exterminating other religions. this kind of view of individuals and Freedom as being totally autonomous from a national population is why I think early-existentialism and psychoanalysis are part of the same connected thing.
5400. Lacanian psychoanalysis / Lacanianism
5401. Subject who is supposed to know -> broadly correct but misleading. people assume that experts and celebrities have the answers? yes. nobody is actually an expert? no. groups of people actually have to make decisions that affect the group, which means somebody will always be nominated to explain them. tasks actually require experts to draw up plans of action and mobilize people. people really do depend on other people to supply their needs, they don't just go to experts to feel better than if they were alone as this framework implies.
5402. If it's bad to trust the "Subject who is supposed to know", then "stale rat bread" arguments are bad -> derived Lacanian proposition. Žižek acts like he's as good as Trotsky (as low of a bar as that should be) because he doesn't like capitalists making the wrong decisions. but he also says that people "falsely" trust experts and therapists to have the answers when they don't. do you see the problem with putting those together? I'd think that if you put any value on the "Subject who's supposed to know" concept you wouldn't be able to argue that capitalists can be held responsible right now and you'd have to argue that every individual has an obligation to understand exactly how society works well enough to take it away from capitalists as the only way to ensure that anyone would run corporations responsibly.
5403. ??
5404. ??
5405. ??
5406. ??
5407. ??
5408. ??
5409. ??
5410. People are not constantly open to sex / Human beings are not constantly open to sex -> the first claim in Freudian psychoanalysis. technically true. hard to dispute this one.
5411. People have boundaries / Human beings have boundaries around any particular thing that another person asks them to do and can always reject it -> the ultimate point of Q54,10 is precisely that it proves this.
5412. Children learn boundaries from parents / People learn the concept of boundaries from their parents / oedipus stage (Freudian, Jungian, Lacanian; psychoanalysis) / symbolic castration (connection of personal boundaries to language; psychoanalysis)
5416. the right step in the wrong direction / (9k)
5417. There exist Political Acts / Even though Lacanianism does not believe in the abolition of Liberal-republicanism there still exist "political acts" that can empower the individual -> this confused me to no end the first time I saw it until I started combining it with other propositions from Žižek's interviews and in anarchism and early Trotskyism, and then I finally started to get a vague idea what it really was. so in Rothenberg's book Žizek says these three things: A) Communists and fascists are paranoid dictators. B) History cannot be predicted; theories are dictatorial. C) There exist political acts. I got so confused by the contradiction between B and C given that it is a clear case of "Idealism forbids itself"; why did you write a book then? when I got into the history of poststructuralism, structuralist linguistics, phenomenology, and existentialism, I started to see how it wasn't a contradiction; yeah, there could be political theories without theory if they were solely about The Subject and the notion of Free Will somehow being more important than any theory. I had never even really heard of this before in my life or from any internet blogger or encyclopedia so I scrambled to give it a name and called the overall thing "Existentialism" with a capital E. inside Existentialism, the reasoning is this: acts of Free Will by either one person or many connected people are units of history, and they can theoretically create "democracy", defined as something like the construction of countries out of Free Will and freedom, but these acts of Free Will cannot be predicted by any group of theorists at least as long as they are not explicitly Existentialists and embedded into a particular group of Existentialists aiming for a particular act of Free Will. if Existentialists were smart but still believed in Existentialism, then they wouldn't actually say theories were impossible, they would simply say that nothing except Existentialism can predict Existentialism. they would also say if they were smart that Existentialism isn't impossible to racialize and it could totally form a race-based movement or an LGBT+black&brown movement as long as the thing contains no predictions and revolves around shouting Free Will and freedom as loudly as possible. all this is to say, almost all United States progressivism for the past 10 years or so has been Existentialism. Existentialism is on a basic level nonviolent and against anarchist violence, even when this limits its ability to actually enforce anything on anyone faced with a whole population of socially-linked people that isn't on board with Existentialism and sends in all its cops. Existentialism is like, this weird artifact of the United States tearing into two totally distinct nationality subpopulations of people joined together by but separated by politics in these almost purely culturally-defined ways where you get absolutely forced out of a political milieu as strongly as if you were a different class or a Tory stole your passport, the two populations locked in stalemate in every material way, and yet these two nations of people that utterly hate each other as much as they hate Cubans or Russians are both the bourgeoisie. so those are the basics of Existentialism. but Žižek has his own weird twist on it. he seems to have appropriated the concept in anarchism and the Trotskyite conspiracy that although a movement of Trotskyite conspirators will never be popular, once it sets its sights on an intolerable "stale rat bread" regime, culture, or general experience of living on a population, when it makes the right kind of precision cut into the heart of the problem it cannot actually be stopped. Žižek's Communism is Zinoviev's Communism. he believes that although some things can never be justified in any sense that is meaningful, they will still happen in a particular necessary way when people are pushed enough. which is.... very strange when he doesn't believe in specific-sense historical materialism. he doesn't believe in historical materialism and yet he made a deterministic statement of historical necessity. this is part of why I place Žižek within the awful run-down edges of Trotskyism. he accidentally speaks of historical necessity much like a Trotskyist organization giving a talk about dialectical materialism within early Marxism and claiming to understand it, but he's against Stalin's government and he conceives of revolution as a special activity instead of something that is connected to class analysis and greater patterns in history. a very archaic philosophy. pre-Leninist in every meaningful way and yet he's totally a "Communist".
5418. ??
5419. Property is as natural as not having sex / Because boundaries are natural, the Property boundary around business territories is natural -> the secret fallacy hiding inside most attempts to use psychoanalysis to "fix democracy". they inherently start from this concept of a "golden mean" that because everyone is a human individual the definition of boundaries and Evil conspiratorial acts of malice must be obvious. but if this is true, the best bad outcome that it results in is that Dave the sovereign citizen who hates Black people and wants to chill out in his cabin not following any of the laws of the United States is totally justified. and it only gets worse from there. is building Palestine a natural crime? is separating Ukraine out of Russia a natural crime? if you begin with the concept that the world is fundamentally made of individuals and individuals' reactions to others' behavior, it's quite easy to end up there. related: every event that occurs around an individual while a particular individual is alive is called "Life".
5420. Alphys was India; do me / machine translations turning sexual for no reason / (9k)
5421. red shatter effect / shattering red thing (Deltarune) / (9k)
5422. ??
5423. ??
5424. ??
5425. ??
5426. ??
5427. 5427Inequalities in the amount each individual can donate do not exist / (9k)
5428. 5428Inequalities in the amount each individual can pay in taxes do not exist / (9k)
5429. 5429Inequalities in the number of people each person knows do not exist / (9k)
5430. 5430You only need to affect 150 people to change a whole country [267] / (9k)
5431. ??
5432. ??
5434. ??
5435. ??
5436. ??
5437. ??
5438. ??
5439. the culture / The Culture (written reference to "the culture" of a national population such as the United States, making no attempt to analyze where it comes from and yet making the bold assumption there is only one) / Our Culture (written reference to "the culture" of "our" national population or belonging to a single ostensibly undivided "we") -> the motif of the entire United States population or everyone in some specific region of the United States being an arbitrary series of cultural events in time, or supposedly being a single countable culture when in reality it might not be.
      example: "the culture had changed". how do you know culture is a "The"?
5440. When two people have information, everybody has it / When two people know something, everybody knows it / printing press fallacy / (9k)
5441. Knowledge cannot teleport / Knowledge cannot travel faster than a photon / (9k)
5442. Random individual Bob Stills is critical to all movements / Random individual Bobbie Stills is critically important to movements / (9k)
5443. Ghost of Individualities Future / Ghost of Possibilities Future -> SCP-8000, It's a Wonderful Life, A Christmas Carol.
5444. Trotsky as worker / Trotsky but as worker / timeline where Trotsky is integrated into Soviet Union as worker or non-political Careerist -> I think about this all the time. the concept of a timeline where the most important instances of Trotskyites whining about the Soviet Union didn't exist because they actually took Trotsky and Zinoviev etc seriously and were like, okay, you deserve to live in the Second World, we'll let you be part of this country if you would only stop being so goddamn (pronounced redacted) annoying. here is how the country works. we'll explain it thirty times if you need us to. just don't organize the kulaks. just don't commit spontaneous violence on the central party. we'll explain it fifty times until you get it. there are a million things you can do that aren't harmful, and you could be doing any of them. don't go to Mexico. if you don't know how to build Bolshevism here you won't succeed there — no offense, it's just true.
      and when you look at things from this angle you really start to see what some of the actual issues were as opposed to the sensationalized picture of things each named variation of Marxism remembers. when you boot someone out of a political arena they believe they're good at, maybe falsely believe, and make them try to successfully become useful to society can that be hard on someone? when you think of this as just what the workers go through, for the average Soviet citizen things could be pretty tough. it's bad enough living in the crumbling First World where people are like, go get an education, go through training, and you have no idea whether it will be useful or if you can live anywhere, but if you're in the Third World the stakes can be higher in that the country is suffering if you don't magically figure out how to spend your life the right way to end up in exactly the right position in society that people need and you can do without anyone telling you. so you can see, in a way, why somebody who is on the verge of getting kicked into that would be afraid. with the whole thing of the central party moving people around and making structures hire people it's a little less bad but they can only do so much. existing can be scary. you never know if you're doing it right.
      Black Panther Party and rehabilitation of criminals + 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy = Trotsky as worker
5445. Random individual Bob Stills can puppet four million people / Random individual Bobbie Stills can change the behavior of four million people / (9k)
5446. Calling something "culture" stops it / The best way to call attention to a social problem is to label it "culture" (cancel culture; woke culture; purity culture; hustle culture; rape culture) / (9k)
5447. ??
5448. ??
5449. Can Bob Stills choose who is president? / Can some random individual Bob Stills or Bobbie Stills freely choose as an individual what the result of an entire election will be? / (9k)
5450. instructions unclear -> the motif of some statement being cast down that sounds good and necessary but which has a totally different effect on reality than expected.
5451. ??
5452. ??
5453. Existentialist math errors / (9k)
5454. ??
5455. ??
5456. ??
5457. ??
5458. ??
5459. ??
5460. ??
5465. ??
5469. ??
5470. ??
5471. ??
5472. ??
5473. ??
5474. the four elements lived in harmony / The four elements lived in harmony until the fire nation attacked / (9k)
5475. The four elements were never in harmony / (9k)
5476. ??
5477. ??
5478. ??
5479. 5479Philosophers' stones empower global empire / (9k)
5480. 5480social contract -> I feel like this concept has been generally wrong for a while. it presupposes that republics have always existed, when in reality, social contracts have always been signed directly to nobility or the sheer border between populations that would otherwise try to kill each other, and not to "community" or "culture" or bodies of individuals actually joined together around values, because whenever social contracts would be violated in situations like wars or spontaneous murders society itself is fractured and violated entirely and just ceases to exist. the "contract" is only a side effect of the society already existing, a piece of paper, and as soon as the society breaks apart it's powerless to enforce itself.
5481. Societies are made of values / Societies are made of values such as hard work and perseverance, which can then be exploited by bad actors resulting in the undoing of the society [268] -> this is Idealism. I think the realisitic interpretation is that it was never guaranteed from the beginning that any of these things would lead to a "social fabric" or "social contract" in and of themselves. you never have control over what a boss does. you're closer to having control if you look at the corporation as its own runaway entity that exploits workers itself and just "happens" to be owned by the boss and try to contemplate control of that.
      if you are paying very keen attention to everything I wrote on this page, you might ask, well, but aren't societies made of Social-Philosophical Systems, and don't those contain ideas? and yes, they often are. but the Social-Philosophical Systems succeed on the basis of actually containing predictive material models of a society, not on the basis of containing abstract concepts. even in the case of a simple Social-Graph System which is a tribal population, there is material structure to the tribe whose descriptions are baked into culture that acts as the true social fabric of the tribe.
5482. The Shuteyes -> my favorite World War II era metaphor which is the only anticommunist fable or "wartime fable" I like totally unironically. like basically no other book I have ever seen, this story didn't take an ideological side against Communism, and genuinely stood on the fence. the entire premise is that instead of there being buffer states that nazis and Communists are fighting over, some people get whisked away to a mysterious realm called Alert where nobody is ever allowed to sleep and arbitrary groups of people compete in team sports as The Reds and The Browns. the really genius thing about it is that as a kid I didn't even have any idea what these names were referring to. this book managed to have enough of a backbone that unlike most "dystopian fiction" I never figured out what it was talking about purely by virtue of its themes until after I was a lot older and knew a bunch more history.
5483. world of Alert / the world of Alert -> the motif of a world where people cannot rest because there are constant disruptions from some kind of larger outside civilization which behaves similarly to one of the great powers of World War II or the Cold War. the disruptor can be portrayed very metaphorically and poetically to where it appears to come from inside or doesn't look anything like its inspiration, as long as the story is clearly a metaphor for large civilizations fighting over buffer states. this motif may also be used to code real-world scenarios that closely mirror fictional "worlds of Alert".
5484. What are dystopias trying to teach us?
5485. "It's your responsibility to help these misguided Hiders" (Adventure Time season 8 episode 24 "Hide and Seek") -> in just 11 minutes, this episode has so many accidental things to say about dystopian literature and anticommunist fables. one, anomalous societies are bad because they don't allow arbitrary individuals to split off and form another Culture. there is a notion created here of Culture-monopoly. two, some anomalous societies are formed as a matter of group cohesion to make sure everyone survives. this.... is one of the most accurate things a dystopian narrative has ever said, because it's the only anticommunist accusation that's actually just a true fact said in the wrong tone. yes, it is true that North Korea, early China, the Soviet Union, and kinda most workers' states really, formed to make sure people survived, and captured people into party-nations for that purpose. that's actually true. you usually have to read a bunch of Marxist texts to find that out, because most accounts of Third World countries are so stupid they don't even mention that. three. there is such a strange notion in fiction of populational creationism where populations really are made out of culture and they just culture culture culture every day to produce people, rather than people producing culture. thus, the anomalous society made out of one big blob of culture with a bunch of people skewered on top has to capture people back into culture. it's like a parasite, it's gotta get its hosts back. which leads to.... four. if culture shouldn't be capturing people, then Rhizome has inherent potential for oppression. you can't tell me Rhizome is a model of movements and it models this special movement thing people do for a moment and then stop doing. people are physical things and if Rhizome is actually going to change their minds then there's a form of Rhizome when it's expanding and flipping people over and another resting form when it's done. that resting form is the Social-Philosophical System, the loosely-linked network of people that in their daily lives all support anti-racism or whatever the movement is. that's what has to form for people to actually go vote and get other people to vote. but according to this Adventure Time episode resting Rhizome is bad, because all humans have times where they want to break out of an SPS even if its ideas are correct. this episode seems to think that all populations are Cultures and all populations can be bad anomalous Cultures from somebody's point of view leading them to break out of the population and call it dystopian. we'd better think about that kind of thing when we're trying to ask what creates Tories.
5486. "sit tight like a windowpane, and you'll be back to normal" (Adventure Time s9 e2) -> dystopian setting where there is no particular kind of oppression, everything is simply off and everyone acts like it's normal. this is one of the only kinds of civilizational horror stories I actually like. because it never actually brings in any kind of underlying assertion of the way things should be that you have to tease out to figure out how to interpret it, and which can take a long time to interpret properly. instead it's just like, everyone is much too cool with this and we have absolutely no idea what to do. there is a certain kind of created awe within it which by itself makes it compelling, akin to a good fae story, cosmic horror, etc. Adventure Time s9 e2, The Shuteyes
5487. ??
5488. Wasp swarm -> I'm increasingly convinced this model is accurate enough to reality to code as a Z Item; through more observations of real-world history the precise, predictive definition can be refined later. (also, the need to say this word all the time without a perfectly-convenient template for TTS-friendly writing is getting annoying.) A [L] (pronounced L:) Wasp swarm1:-1:-1 is when any number of capitalists — it could be just one or two — gains control over the population by rounding up a bunch of people of any class who all share a demographic identity, such as White people or White Christians. the people in question don't actually have to be White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, despite that being the etymology. the [L] (pronounced L:) Wasp swarm1:-1:-1 operates on the sheer power of capitalists to control Liberal republics and the whole process of "democracy" just because they are capitalists. this is the proposed material-historical process inside "fascism". fascism is the shovel dream of one capitalist and one countable culture of Tories which is linked together and joined to the capitalist almost purely on the basis of culture. this definition does imply that some [L] (pronounced L:) Wasp swarm1:-1:-1s could be broken just by disconnecting the capitalist, but I would caution against believing that when some of them are bound to be more like the Afrikaner period where all the Afrikaners linked together while all similarly having sufficient Property to have power. taking this too naïvely might be one of the fallacies inside that one Trotskyist video.
5489. Trotskyists in Britain didn't understand anti-racism, therefore Trotskyism will never be realized / (9k)
5490. Wow, I've never heard of Schrödinger's cat! -> this became notable the moment I saw it twice. first on Big Bang Theory, then on a discussion of the TV Tropes page for Echo Chamber. I feel like in both cases it has to be the same thing. there is like, a certain section of people. the Berdlys. that become obsessed with intelligence because they don't know anything, and then they portray the "intelligent" characters they worship as knowing really average things they managed not to know.
5491. Wow, I've never heard of France before! / I've never heard of France (motif) -> a really dumb pattern you see in basically every Pokémon facts video. there is a certain genre of "Pokémon fact" which consists of acting astounded that a Pokémon actually references the history of a real-world country, and going into detail about that history or country-based folklore. this would not even be much of a problem by itself except that the more of these videos stack up the more you start to see the hidden pattern that all of them are subtly implying that it's normal not to know anything whatsoever about other countries. Pokémon is the highest-grossing media franchise! okay, cool, so that means the great majority of all people who live in industrial countries have watched it or played it. did you know Emboar is a reference to Romance of the Three Kingdoms? did you know Serperior is a reference to the manga Rose of Versailles? hmm, so a great number of kids and probably also adults haven't heard of historical fiction from other countries. did you know AZ is a reference to Louis XIV? hmm... that honestly seems like something people should already know about if they speak English or French. (I half thought I remembered him as being in a Shakespeare play but I guess I was thinking of Henry V. funny enough he does appear in As you like it?) did you know about Yggdrasil, the mythical tree that since 1995 every thirteen-year-old with access to Wikipedia knows about? did you know about carnival? did you know about kapu and tapu? did you know that Jynx had to be changed because of accidental similarities to blackface? the more these "fun facts" stack up the more you start to ask questions about which things people actually do and don't know and what this says about us. you start to ask if the purpose of Pokémon games is for game developers to go visit other places and learn about the history or traditions of other "cultures" on expensive tours while the rest of us get to stay uniquely isolated and for the propagation of Pokémon games to actually normalize not knowing about the rest of the world until a capitalist does the whole task inside a self-contained corporation and sells it to you as opposed to knowing things. this may sound crazy at first, but I certainly know that when I was a kid I was baffled to hear the fact Jynx had to be censored because not a single person around me knew anything about racism or the lives of people who make any kind of noise about the existence of racism and it took until after I was 25 for huge protests to break out and it to actually become remotely normal for hearing about racism to actually cause anyone to want to learn anything about what causes racism or how to prevent it. Existentialists really want to believe that just seeing diversity and seeing "other cultures" on-screen causes people to have any kind of empathy for other populations or countries, but it really doesn't. it feels more like what's true is that Media Representation works a bit like carbon credits and people buy Media Representation so they can give other demographics a bit of money and then go back to work and go back to their ignorant families and keep being racist. every product is something that you delegate, and you are not doing. if products can sell people "other cultures".... I think you can see where this is going. products easily become a way to self-contain national culture (or self-contain it within a second country well-off enough for tourism) and push it away from home.
5492. Wow, it's so cool Pokémon includes imperial colonies! -> one of the most egregious subsets of "I've never heard of France". I am very much not making this up: I saw a video where somebody remarked on "how cool it was" that a past region was included in a newer one (I think it was Galar in Paldea) because that area had been a territory of another global empire. they said this with a totally straight face like learning that somewhere had been a British territory was truly interesting, and it was wonderful to have British Empire representation in Pokémon games. to the credit of Pokémon company itself, the actual games were careful about the concept of the Spanish empire and tried to avoid the concept of multi-continent empires and instead place down the notion of explorers inside the regional history of Spain. I... would hate to see how fans think an African region should be constructed. are you going to put Galar all over Africa too? even if Pokémon has a rather metaphysical approach to avoiding world wars, and there's a lot to say about that, it's more remarkable fans don't even go that far.
5493. To be good is to live in harmony with metaphysics / (9k)
5494. People attack metaphysics because they don't see each other as equals / (9k)
5495. To seek greater life is to take life / (9k)
5496. The Divine Truth: Arceus and Our Sins Against It / (9k)
5497. Alchemy failed because it is an offense to metaphysics / Alchemy failed to become a science because it is an offense to the metaphysical order / (9k)
5498. Science without metaphysics is a tool of domination / Scientifically analyzing The Subject is an offense to metaphysics / Studying identity is an offense to metaphysics / Scientifically studying culture is an offense to metaphysics / (9k)
5499. Discoveries come from violating metaphysics / (9k)
5500. Media Representations are the new carbon credits -> this is a bold one but I think it can be argued at least in some cases. the claim that while many people believe Representation in Media is making people less prejudiced, in reality it's unintentionally leading to a kind of segregation as one of two things happens: A) all the people who don't already know the lessons that are supposed to be learned continue to constantly bury themselves in bad media and avoid Media Representation B) people actually buy Media Representation but check out of making anything better in their own lives because minority demographics have already represented themselves and they have nothing to add to that but a shred of money.
5501. Arceism (motif) / (9k)
5502. Community is a historical process / Community is a material-historical process in which individuals form into society but society is totally uncountable and national borders have nothing to do with society / the community delusion (proposition, fallacy, or model; meta-Marxist framing) -> I think this is one of the big propositions that's lurking inside Existentialism. and I think it's totally wrong.
5503. Di-community is a historical process -> the minimum correction that is required to make anarchism and Existentialism make any sense. individuals form into "community" but for every individual that forms into Community one way some other individual simultaneously forms into a separate plural Community somewhere else, which may in fact be a toxic group of people rather than a good one, and which the "good" instances of Community have no control over. or more likely, neither instance of Community is inherently toxic but they can end up meshing so badly and being so incompatible with each other they absolutely hate each other and find each other terrifying and basically Evil based on outward behavior. the very worst instances of abuse come precisely from the fact that individuals have no control over another individual or a relationship.
5504. ??
5505. Di-avarice is a historical process / Avarice as a historical process works as follows: if the people of earth are all being nice and non-greedily forming a peaceful community, Freeza or Vegeta IV will still spontaneously appear from space to wipe them all out and take their planet unless they can fight back -> minimum correction. if you stop avarice in North America, it's gonna come hit you from England or Spain because if you're standing in North America you don't control England and Spain. just like if you stop empire per se in China it's gonna come hit you from the United States because no matter how nice people are in China you don't control the United States.
5506. Avarice is a historical process / Greed is a historical process -> sort of true in that dragon processes are real, but not true in that avarice "processes" are associated with population growth and after the time feudalism goes away basically come from it. if you become committed to this proposition you'll very easily accidentally end up at the proposition that Black people having too many babies is inherently greedy and the way to reduce racism is to have less sex, fewer dates, fewer babies, fewer random instances of theft and crime, and more Lacanian discipline telling everybody how to behave good and study and study and train and train and make money because that will surely result in fewer attacks between populations. that is a known Tory proposition that constantly appears on Fox News, so it's worth thinking about exactly how you ended up spewing real actual right-wing talking points. there's almost a direct line to Fox News from the simple statement that greed is a historical process.
      Avarice is a historical process + All set arrangements of people are called hierarchies = the Peter principle.
5507. anarchist historical materialism (motif) / historical materialism is when nobility and capitalists Freely Choose to manufacture a bunch of poverty and hire soldiers and construct culture to tell everybody it's natural rather than, perhaps, that they can all spontaneously grow a Free Will and socially construct something different -> it took me like a day for this to hit me after seeing it in a video before I woke up the next day and said.... this is anarchism. practically speaking this is anarchism. I have a very specific reason for concluding this: the anarchist proposition that anarchy comes from individuals or small groups of people all choosing to come together into a supportive Community. this motif sounds like the opposite of that definition. I don't think this is a rock-solid argument but it will do for simply giving the Item a name.
      I think I need a special name for this definition of anarchism just so it doesn't get confused with anything else more specific like Bookchinism, Bakuninism, etc. we'll go with.... I'm tempted to pick a name from Pokémon, the anarchist bible. Arceusism? I guess in Latin that declines to "Arceism". I don't know if it's funny or dumb to imagine actually calling people out as Arceists — I'm leaning toward "dumb". well, I've got a name for the Item at least, we'll see if it gets a better name later.
5508. Freud is one of the people who "only interpreted the world in various ways" -> every time I think about Freud, Jung, or Lacan this is exactly how psychoanalysis feels to me. what set me off remembering this is a search result that claimed that "despite attempted refutations of Freud's work its spell remained powerful". [269] if the theory is based on observations instead of detached logic of course it will come across as real. what trips people up is that they don't realize this doesn't guarantee it's useful or possible to apply to further real situations.
      the difference between Freud and Lenin is the difference between a large language model and a physics equation. anticommunism is, more or less, what resulted in the world slowly being taken over by language models
5509. post-psychoanalytic Existentialism -> a philosophy which is aligned with the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition (ideally one which is part of it, but there's always a chance for Items to be misapplied) but has rejected many of the concepts core to psychoanalysis. versus all the fake divisions I've come up with to try to classify and describe Existentialisms, I think this one might actually be real. right now you might genuinely be able to support this one with a bunch of citations, assuming you can first come up with some working definition of Existentialisms that manages to skirt by under people's current understandings and definitions of things.
5510. general-sense psychoanalyst / stable property-having equates to moral decisions and "good character" (being a capitalist, being a White homeowner; meta-Marxism) -> the motif of someone who happens to have the same model of society as psychoanalysts without thinking about it or possibly even knowing at all what psychoanalysis is. a general-sense psychoanalyst believes that crimes are something that exists ontologically and almost cosmically outside of all societies even as they are inevitably invented as categories by particular societies. and also that bad behaviors due to trauma (or botched acculturation into the obvious universal intuitive mandatory culture everybody is supposed to have) are similar; bad behaviors just ontologically exist in the sky rather than being defined by the actual negative reception of behaviors by real people. this is marginally different from natural law in that we are not describing any pattern that is ecological or biological or that could possibly have existed without being logically made up by self-aware entities — although to be fair, if you were to make up a second kind of natural law that says there is a sort of perfectly ur- government which is the most ecologically natural to all human individuals regardless of separate populations and drastically different cultural environments, then it would be the same thing.
5511. Freudian discipline can be maladaptive / Lacanian discipline can be maladaptive -> every abusive parent performs discipline and teaches lessons. every father and every father figure is capable of raising children so badly-adapted they avoid all authority figures and steal things and get into fights, and this is inseparable from the process of discipline itself, not simply "an absence" of it. it's possible to get out of this and tentatively save Lacanianism by claiming that "discipline" can come in the form of love and acceptance rather than the prohibition or cutting-off of incorrect behaviors until potentially people become afraid to do behaviors that would be correct.
5512. Freudian discipline is plural -> the claim that whenever you observe a Lacanian discipline process in the real world it is inseparable from culture which then means that plural cultures carry out plural Lacanian discipline processes, disciplining their children to function within their own countable culture but to be non-functional in other countable cultures. Lacanians typically assume that Lacanian discipline could not be maladaptive because there couldn't be multiple countable cultures. invisible-committee anarchists make this error too. but in the real world it's quite easy to have one population of people disciplining people one way and one population of people disciplining people another way and the big problems with "culture" to come from people disciplined into one culture being released into the other and promptly getting disciplined again for wrong behavior and whenever they interact with either culture and accidentally fail to totally switch over and pretend to be part of it they just get battered and battered and battered endlessly like nothing is correct and nothing is okay.
      let me tell you, if you grew up in the United States, the Trotskyite conspiracy period where you could just not believe in the Trotskyite conspiracy or be their friends and simply side with Stalin sounds like a dream. the world has fallen so far from that. Liberal-republicanism has become such a farce where it's literally like nobody is allowed to have beliefs. nobody can have principles, nobody can have identity, nobody can have culture, if you're Black you have to pretend to be White, if you're White you have to pretend to be Lacanian or anarchist when you meet progressives and pretend to be a Protestant racist transphobe when you meet Tories. you have to pretend to understand Native American culture even if you'd never meet any and they wouldn't really want you talking about it but you can't go talking about an overseas country like Japan or India unless you meet a Tory when now you can talk about Japan and medieval empires but not about the existence of minorities or sometimes women. I couldn't juggle all that. I had to just give up one day and say, I'm going to take everything everyone has "taught" me and reassemble it to where it's actually logical and sound, and then I'm going to believe that. and thus I ended up at meta-Marxism: medieval empires and warring states periods and imperial colonies at the beginning, religious confusion and the Enlightenment in the middle, minorities at the present, Communism and anarchism and pluralities and superpositions in the future. religion in the past, science in the future, and countable cultures and historical processes in the present.
5513. Systems come from experiences growing up [270] / Systems of consistent behavior come from Subject formation -> this is a form of psychohistory. that is what this is, whether it knows it or not. it's using a roughly Lacanian model that it's all about The Subject and early development in an individual and you can reduce all of society down to that. I can't help but feel like psychohistory is terribly reductive. in a world where it is super forbidden to ask why people have identities, psychohistory would probe the whole existence of culture in a mechanical way and ask why people are German. people should know by now that populational identity is a circular thing where being it is having membership in it. a big reason anyone is in religion any more in the United States is they perform the behaviors to have a group of people to be in. the same goes doubly true for Trump fans. they're all just performing those behaviors to form a group, which falls apart and leaves them isolated as soon as they stop; worse, if they fail to perform the set of arbitrary behaviors the Democrats want they'll be thrown out of that and left wholly confused.
5514. The Trotskyite conspiracy was a case of maladaptive discipline -> I think the notion of maladaptive discipline is a blue proposition, but the difference is that psychoanalysis doesn't necessarily acknowledge it, depending, and schizoanalysis always does. this is the claim, based in a corrected version of Lacanian psychoanalysis, that the Trotskyite conspiracy is loosely comparable to a highly abusive parent instilling an all-around set of wrong behaviors instead of compliance with the abuse, through creating fear of authority and society. this isn't my favorite way to analyze societal structures but I do think it can be argued. if you have "the good version of Lacanianism", what you argue is that Marxism is just fine and the good outcome is that Trotsky stays in the Soviet Union or maybe Europe and builds a form of Leninism which does not run against mainstream Marxism-Leninism, and this good outcome is more likely to be achieved if mainstream Marxism-Leninism clearly communicates how to get Trotskyites integrated into the structures of mainstream Marxism-Leninism rather than only constantly accusing them of malice and saying bad things about them whenever they make a mistake. this harsh treatment should have been replaced with not exactly excusing bad approaches and understandings but simply with a more neutral treatment where is recognized that science corrects itself, Marxism is hard, and anyone can make mistakes, although you will probably be demoted in the overall structure if there is someone who makes far fewer mistakes; as bad as the demotion outcome sounds, Bolshevism can make it less painful than it is under capitalism where it also happens all the time. I feel like if you do this you would have eliminated the emergence of Marcuseanism. Marcuseanism really seems like a way to launder resistance to Stalin into something that seems like it would have obviously happened with or without Stalin existing. it's like, if you were only less mean to Trotskyites such that instead of being crushed under the weight of two countries they had a significant support in the Soviet Union as well as their natural inclination to form everywhere else, people would just be one big population of Trotskyists. they wouldn't need to invent a second or third new Marxism, aside from their own internal fractures at least. Trotskyism is plagued by this cognitive dissonance between thinking everyone in the world who isn't a capitalist ally should immediately be unified and the material reality that Trotskyists have a hard time unifying with anything and Stalin is quick to kick their entire Marxism out. this makes me think there would be a lot fewer variants of Marxism if only people had noticed that pattern faster. of course, maybe I'm now just making excuses for people having non-Materialist understandings of the world and all internally believing in general-sense psychoanalysis uniting all human individuals when they shouldn't. I don't know. I did start this proposition by saying I was arguing Lacanianism. I feel like "Trotskyists secretly believe in general-sense psychoanalysis" is a weird place for that to end up but I couldn't give an immediate reason off the top of my head that's not true.
5515. ??
5516. ??
5517. ??
5518. Differences between species are not culture -> the book I was reading kept referring to biological differences between human beings and chimpanzees as animal "culture". I don't think I like that usage because... it sounds a bit racist. a couple centuries ago, there were a lot of people who wanted to draw biological distinctions between North Americans and Africans which accounted for differences in culture; these days every single racist remark hides behind "culture" when it's unclear if in actuality people are still thinking of South Africans in the same phrenology-styled physiological terms. so, I don't think I like that link being drawn again even if the direction is reversed, because it's inadvertently training Tories to think that the concept of countable cultures could be connected to "primitive minds" or "primitive physiology" rather than existing solely on its own layer. monkeys having different behaviors from White people is not culture. that said, I think it's a more up-in-the-air question whether differences between neurotypical people and autistic people can be categorized as culture or not. it's very common for people to go labeling every single difference between populations as culture, and to just say that there exists autistic culture and disabled culture. I feel like, on the surface, this is not harmful in the particular sense that referring to animal ecology as culture is. sometimes this usage is meant to refer to methods of inclusion and retaining people as these subpopulations form communities. I don't think I have any strong thoughts on that right now.
5519. Chimps do not have discipline / Chimpanzees do not perform individualized discipline in the Freudian sense of isolated aristocratic or Artisanal households teaching children mandatory behaviors to also carry to the rest of a population -> every time they tried to discourage a behavior the chimp took it as a fight and sometimes bit people. it's crazy how much confidence they had in their own way.
5220. Poor people are created to make you work [271] -> this is.... kind of correct but a little misleading. you can see the contradiction inside the lecture itself. nobility used money in order to arrange people into a kingdom. into an armored, armed "crab". it's easy to think the key word is "used" and that they're exploiting people and burning everything valuable for their own gain, but the key word is "arrange". in that example money is empowering people to form into societies. in Europe we can bring up how churches weren't entirely malevolent and sometimes they'd take their money and land and do administrative functions; today they run kindergartens. money enables merchants to test out the tiniest experiment in global capitalism before settling back into local small-capitalism because going around the world is hard. but what money is doing there is proving that people can connect one city to another city. the merchants actually succeed on the basis of creating connections. then when they create banks, again the bank is creating the connections between the nobility and the armies or the royal ministries later. with the development of capitalism-proper the local states lose control and the chunks become the businesses, which have to expand to accommodate population growth, but they succeed or fail based on how effectively they link to various other businesses in the world. particular rings of success take slots in society away from people who don't become inherently compatible with strengthening either individual business territories or the arrangement of connections. those are the poor people. so, the reason it's hard to end poverty is all the other individuals are actively working against all the individuals below them. they wouldn't have to be if they could just see the business lattice and realize that everybody has to be fit into it, and if everyone would just get a little smarter about arranging people nobody would have to waste work or arbitrarily take someone else's slot in the structure only to make the world a little worse. at this point they can kick out the capitalists. the issue is, capitalism keeps totally falling apart and leaving people unable to build up the business lattice fast enough to be able to remain united instead of necessarily having to fight each other and the outside "poor people" or Refuse layer.
5221. Wars prolong artificial scarcity / Wars aim to destroy wealth [272] -> true and also not true? it's undialectical but if you duplexed it it would then be true.
5222. ??
5223. ??
5224. physically slaying one's inner child -> Giggleland ep 2, Fatum Betula. I think there's something to be said about the vague analogy between cartoon furries slaying their inner child in Giggleland and the myth of the lion turning against the lamb in Pitch haven / other works like Kimba, Beastars, and Zootopia
5525. wolf slaying lamb as Original Sin / lion slaying lamb as Original Sin / eating animals as forbidden fruit -> alternate version of book of Genesis that crops up frequently in fiction, sometimes quite literally as in Pitch haven mythos, sometimes much more figuratively in things like Zootopia or Kimba. runs narratively parallel to: Buddhist imagery of the existence of individuals being harmful
5526. Zootopia [273] / Zootropolis (UK / AU) -> animated movie about the concept of intelligent animals getting along or not. clearly wasn't originally designed to be a metaphor for humans, but somewhere in the middle of writing got "corrected" to be a bad metaphor for anti-Black racism. I prefer to ignore that when analyzing the work and pretend it's only about the concept of animals trying to live in society. I do this so it becomes easier to compare this movie to things like Kimba the White Lion or Warriors, which clearly were designed on that more literal level, and Beastars, which kind of falls in the middle between the two categories.
5527. heaven is a place on earth -> the motif of a story presenting a superstructural heaven, god-world, or supernatural world that existed at some primordial time, but treating it as if it still very much exists.
5528. Heaven Is a Place on Earth (Belinda Carlisle, 1987) [274]
5529. The garden of Eden is basically a Narnia book / The garden of Eden is a superstructural fantasy world -> the claim that the purpose of the garden of Eden myth is to show the difference between the Social-Philosophical Systems of culture people process the world while embedded in (sociophilosophy, socio-culture), versus the problem of being a material object living in material reality. in one sense all human culture is a fairy tale, whether secular or religious. we always tell ourselves assumptions about reality in order to make living in reality less scary. but those assumptions, such as "in the reality that was supposed to exist, all the animals lived in harmony without any growth or change", can amount to a made-up fantasy book that doesn't do anything to affect or change reality itself. technically, Marx briefly touched on this idea in The German Ideology. in that first part that may have been scrapped (?).
      this turns contentious if you get too far into it because people start asking things like whether Confederate slavery is the reality of what people are doing or whether it's culture. it should be a quick thing to dispel most of those questions: it's culture. it's part of the inner ontology of the Social-Philosophical System of The South, which is made up to reassure people they don't have to fight with The North as long as they mind their own business and buy enough people. it's the notion that whatever set of connected concepts people have come up with, just setting them down and letting them do them will always be fine, that leads to slavery. unfortunately this creates a huge paradox for progressive anthropology because the foundation of the modern study of countable Cultures is that you have to first accept whatever are people's cultural constructs before you do absolutely anything else. but this is not realistically possible because all forms of bigotry are culture in a way that is indistinguishable from "benign" forms of culture. after 200 years Liberal-republicanism grinds to a halt because within its Existentialist origins it is fundamentally about creating Freedom by obligating all countable Cultures to tolerate other countable Cultures, but if you obligate a whole Culture of people to do anything before it internally determines itself, some bigoted Cultures will inevitably feel discriminated against in a very real way and like their freedom has been taken away in a very real way to the point they will become utterly intolerant of democracy and label it tyranny. all republics have a "Trotsky point" where under certain conditions a Culture will try to tear out of them and you'll never be able to get through it intact if you don't truly understand the micro-level structure of society and how Cultures are generated.
5530. God can make animals be anything / If God created the world, He could make animals be anything -> in creationism there's no particular logic for what animals can and can't exist. dragons could exist if only God had made different choices. I'm surprised creationists haven't tried to rationalize fossils as early ideas that never made it out of the garden of Eden instead of trying to act like they just don't exist, or were buried by The Flood. the smartest creationist tries to tell you that ecology and maybe evolution were invented by The Fall, before which they didn't exist. but that doesn't rule out nearly anything you can imagine being possible before The Fall. which means The Fall only actually takes things down a peg.
      isn't there a talking donkey at one point in the bible. yeah, like, there's at least a bit of textual evidence for this, that when God interferes anything is possible and when God fades away things become more realistic
5531. The Fall brings semi-realism / The Fall only forces realism / The Fall only takes things down a peg / The Fall only forces things into science fiction style realism and not strictly into the single possible way that nonbelieving scientists observe things to be -> maybe this is just a derived theological proposition I made up. but it makes everything make vastly more internal sense. it's much better fictional-story lore for the bible to have.
5532. God could make storks bring babies / If God created the world, He could make storks bring babies -> every so often I think about how if you take Genesis literally then everything about biology and ecology would be half arbitrary. Adam has to pick a helper, so logically speaking, if he picked a different one then we would be living in an entirely different world where all family units consist of one man and one horse, or one man and one rhino, or one man and one flamingo, and somehow that would make perfect logical sense, that wouldn't hurt anybody and wouldn't be an abomination because God would have the power to make it make perfect sense. God would have created all the animals so he could just have created animal bodies that did make sense for this different scenario, eerily as intelligent and self-aware as humans or whatever, or more likely, ways of creating more human individuals which don't bring up disturbing questions. here's the thing about Christian lore. nothing starts actually having to make sense until The Fall. so if you set everything up perfectly in place before The Fall, you logically get to keep at least some of it before the "reality" of it sets in, and you'd get the "realistic" version of whatever God declared was true, not the single way things are today. Pitch Haven was really wired because quite honestly, I'm pretty sure that the bible is set up almost exactly such that if God created a world of intelligent vertebrates who are accidentally able to do flesh magic, that is exactly what you'd get and where The Fall would proceed from. of course, none of this applies if you don't take Genesis literally. but where's the fun in that?
      this is also my general theory on how Pokémon works. it's a very sophisticated form of creationism where all the gaps have to be filled in. Pokémon species are created by Arceus and individuals are magically created by their parents, not physically born. that's this proposition, basically.
5533. ??
5534. ??
5535. ??
5536. ??
5537. ??
5538. ??
5539. Pokémon is an afterlife / Pokémon takes place in its universe's afterlife -> joke theory. this mainly stems from the idea that Pokémon is similar to the Garden of Eden and religious theories that it will in some senses be restored at the end of the world. evidence: A) parts of nature stay in perfect balance, unlike in real life B) healing Pokémon is no problem, as if once again, energy is literally not a zero-sum process any more C) everyone is nice and there is hardly any prejudice D) wars became less common over history rather than violence escalating and escalating across modern history as more people are born E) gods are tangible
      the best counterargument to this is that it is stating that all fantasy books are imaginary afterlives. which is subjective in how true it is, but is much easier to believe than this model.
5540. Digimon is the Deltarune of Pokémon / Digimon takes place in a non-magical part of the Pokémon world / Digimon takes place in a non-magical version of the Pokémon world -> definitely not true but a really cool idea. the concept that Digimon are similar to Darkners, just imaginary creatures that people made up because they live in an ordinary town within a mostly-non-magical version of the Pokémon world containing no Pokémon. Digimon are just the darkness in your mind when you're trying to come to terms with high school and the pain of real life, of living in a "fallen" world where things have to eat and sleep and kill each other rather than immediately all getting along.
5541. ??
5542. ??
5543. ??
5544. ??
5545. ??
5546. ??
5547. ??
5548. ??
5549. ??
5550. ??
5551. ??
5552. ??
5553. ??
5554. ??
5555. golden mean [275]
5556. ??
5557. ??
5558. ??
5559. ??
5560. prejudiced animals
5561. Zootopia is a metaphor for gender -> I remember seeing this before the more obvious racism metaphor that was intentionally put in there. I looked at the central plot thread of Judy having to prove herself among the big animals that judge her, and then I saw the line about "biology?!" and I thought about debates people were having about "men in women's restrooms!" clearly Zootopia is not a story about trans people, but at the same time, people do like to throw around the concept of biology as if they have any idea what it is when trying to tell people various bullshit (pronounced redacted) arguments about gender.
5562. Zootopia is a bad racism metaphor / Zootopia is a bad metaphor for racism -> it doesn't take long to notice this. I think the most striking thing is when Nick is actively exploiting all the systems meant to help animals coexist. that's one of the most common talking points by racists
5563. Zootopia is a good class metaphor -> usually it takes a long time to explain the concept that below classes there is a continuous spatial slot hierarchy of individuals competing against individuals for slots to get to be part of a class-structure and be in a class and oppress people and then White people oppress Black people (Detroit people) for not being workers yet or not producing enough because there's actually a continuum from peasant to worker to Careerist to owner and whenever struggle doesn't succeed people proceed up the continuum and become owners or leave the country while either way the population splits apart and wildly scrambles itself such that nobody can trust anybody and every sale or interaction between individuals carries antagonism but capitalists are the only ones that get to have democracy as normal. it's a much shorter explanation to point out animals in nature eat each other and have random violent conflicts over particular things and Zootopia artificially created a government to stop them. anarchists won't like this, because they often like to pretend that animals aren't inherently violent and hazardous as they simply live and expand, but if you stop comprehending animals that way and also comprehend humans as animals everything makes more sense.
5564. ??
5565. Zootopia is doomed because when you remove predators populations boom out of control and begin killing each other [276] -> this is just Malthusianism. if it were true it would apply to humans! so like, even though we don't know everything about the Zootopia world this is false because it's false in real life
5566. Zootopia 2 is a good class metaphor / The Lynxleys are a good representation of the process of forming classes (Zootopia 2) / Lynxley fallacy (statement said in attempt to analyze Zootopia 2) -> from the limited slice of the movie I've been seeing from reviewers, absolutely not. it conceptualizes evil as individual households racking up money numbers before you do. which is a very nazi way of thinking. people everywhere of all ideologies like to believe they aren't about "making people the same", but in practice almost all Liberal-republicans and anarchists get mad when people aren't the same and only Lenin and Mao truly believe that it's okay for some people to get paid more under certain conditions. and yet when you think that way, that problems are due to "Elites" hoarding all the money numbers as individuals and using them to do evil as individuals, it's really easy, almost trivial to lead you down a nazi rabbit hole. a great number of modern conspiracy theories start with "why isn't it obvious to people that Elites are bad and fostering corruption". and then they posit some supernatural or metaphysical evil force that corrupts us, like demons or Reptilians. and a great number of people don't see the problem with religions "period", they'll leave Christianity but they won't question small religions enough to not be open to the idea of demons. and from there it's easy to convince people that some people aren't real people and are actually just monsters. and then you start giving external characteristics that predict someone harboring demons, such as "having a gender studies degree" or "being supportive of people who committed crimes". and then before you know it you're just spreading around veiled racism. only your racism is uniquely "moral" because you didn't start with DNA, you only appealed to niceness and meanness and demons.
      especially now, nazis don't start at "racial ancestry". at the beginning they generally start at "network of wealthy families" and then ask what race they are so normal people can be artificially separated from The Billionaires based on what morality group of people they're socially connected to.
      Zootopia 1 had this a lot closer to the truth. it's chunks of foxes and chunks of rabbits. it doesn't matter who's leading them.
      Nazis are only bad because they're wealthy, greedy elites + Zootopia = Lynxley fallacy.
5567. ??
5568. ??
5569. SCP-8000 - example of: Careerism in fiction; references the 001 proposal with the mallet guy. features signifier: Ghost of Individualities Future
5570. friendship is teamwork
5571. there's no "I" in team -> a proposition everyone has heard, and yet if they heard it out of Stalin or Mao they'd be terrified. even though in practice it wouldn't be any different.
      this + Would this have a worse connotation coming out of Stalin's government? = bad in blue or orange, good in red
5572. you can't spell team without "me" -> occasional comeback.
      this is supposedly a proposition that Marxists believe except that it isn't. and I am still trying to untangle that contradiction. some days I'm more confused by Marxism than I am by anarchism. I'm glad there aren't many of them.
5573. Animal Farm is backhandedly true / Animal Farm was a good metaphor for the wrong reasons
5574. Animal Farm tells Trotsky's story / "Trotsky was expelled from Bolshevik society" is the only accurate historical statement made by Animal Farm, not excluding other tiny "accuracies", but not taking away from all the inaccuracies -> even that one is on thin ice, but I have to grant it because the graphic novel version of the book was all right and through all its omissions kind of accidentally focused on the struggles of the animals more. it's funny how often people misremember the book as being positive toward the farm animals and their struggle to be free, and it seems like a little of that sneaks into every single adaptation. I might have hated this book if I only had the prose. but the more I see people "misinterpret" it and accidentally make it more historically accurate, the more I'm willing to meet it in the middle and use it as a teaching tool about how Trotsky found the Soviet Union terribly disorienting, but he didn't have the answers on how to fix it, but you can sympathize with his suffering if you want to.
5575. corporations as people-farms / all corporations as people farms / all corporate products as people-farm milk or people-farm eggs / soylent green is people (meta-Marxism) -> the motif of casting every case of corporate owners (Tory allies) herding people into microhierarchy to "prevent crimes" or "create order" as an act of farming people like cattle; an act of replacing violent wild packs of animals that snarl at each other for challenging the patriarchs or stick each other with their antlers with a peaceful herd of animals that is exploited and consumed by the farmer, occasionally kicked or stuffed into one cramped building, and all of the animals are human beings.
      corporations as people-farms + Animal Farm = Animal Farm is backhandedly true.
5576. liberal democracy (motif) / democratization of human life through becoming more modern and getting good modern values that cause people within some country to build constitutions and codify long lists of human rights and throw out ideas such as the idea of attempting to rule people as a king, the idea of government acting as an organ for Catholics or Protestants to ban each other's representatives or churches or publications, and the idea of codifying chattel slavery instead of giving everyone the right to have legislators and cast a ballot for president / (9k)
5577. forced free choice / forcing someone to freely choose something / forcing consent -> this + misogyny = Ella Enchanted
5578. If XYZ is freedom, then rape is love / If a forced free choice is freedom, then rape is consent / a forced free choice is not consent (motif) -> generic proposition that a "free" free choice is equivalent to consent and a forced free choice is not consent
5579. Ella Enchanted
5580. non-peacer / all crimes, wars, and conflicts as premeditated attacks by Evil Aggressive Non-Peacers (Signifier Case; meta-Marxism) -> what it says. one of the most core concepts to Toryism, Christianity, Buddhism, Liberal-republicanism, and only really occasionally Stalin's Marxism. if Stalin's Marxism hadn't singled out Trotskyites as Non-Peacers and had actually recognized them as a population developing organic two-way conflicts outside class lines and splitting in two, then it might have succeeded.
5881. Tyranny is better than individuals killing each other / Monarchy is better than the state of nature (sic, in reference to patterns a few levels above "nature"; Hobbes) / ... state of nature (censored title) -> one of the only reasonable things Tories have ever said... back in the time there were nearly no republics and only monarchies. so yeah, arguing that monarchy was better than warring states periods is the only good thing Tory types have ever done for the past 200-300 years.
      significance of this proposition: it might be used to argue that a lot of instances of democulture or "Lacanianism" are actually Toryism and not center-Existentialism.
5882. Monarchism never ended -> the claim that because monarchism was not actually about installing a designated ruler, and was really about unifying multiple populations into one population, Liberal-republicanism did not abolish monarchism, and only elaborated on it.
      this sounds absolutely nuts if you have not been way deep in trying to figure out the real relationship between Communism, anarchism, Liberal-republicanism, and imperialism. but this propositions has its reasons for being. it's things like... who was it, Heidegger I think? I don't remember exactly. claiming that a Communist International couldn't solve countries' problems because they were based on nationalism and "internationalism wasn't creating a better nationalism". that shouldn't matter, because the goal of "internationalism" isn't to do what nationalism already did! but now let's say that was true. if Communist Internationals can only create a better nationalism, then it's logically true that Liberal-republicanism never stopped being monarchism and everything it does can only create a better monarchism. I think George Washington did think like this a little bit. he genuinely thought the United States was just one population instead of multiple populations, split at least along state lines into 50 discrete populations with material antagonisms against each other, maybe split into two politically-defined populations uniting it into a civil war.
      so, this statement is weird. it's not true of material reality but it may be baked into Liberal-republicanism and some anarchisms, as operating assumptions that are true specifically of those ideologies and the social-graph-objects (Social-Philosophical-Material Systems) they create.
5583. microhierarchy / networkism (spatial hierarchy of potentially very small size characterized by leaders that sort people into different separate physical chunks of people; meta-Marxist term) / Community (pronounced Commu-nity) as series of tiny processes of individuals banding together in friendship and then each island of friends competing against each other, nominating leaders to protect their shared territory and shared standards and freedom, and ultimately turning into microscopic "feudal orders" or "kingdoms" that become about oppressing their people just to make sure the people of each island don't fight or kill each other or spontaneously snatch each other's stuff
      [edit:] ah. about a year ago I used to file this under "networkism". microhierarchy and networkism are approximately the same concept. the new term just makes it a little clearer what it actually is.
      microhierarchy + Deng Xiaoping Thought = herd-of-cats effect. microhierarchy + nation-state = kingdom. microhierarchy + natural crime = non-peacer. microhierarchy + republicanization = Molecular Marxism.
5584. "dumbacabra" (Aster/Aubepine)
5585. Preventing revolution is similar to friendships / Stopping Maoism is similar to friendships
5586. Palworld is an act of war [277] -> this is the kind of mush that comes out of you when you believe in natural crimes. you start believing every act of apparent antagonism is outright evil and malicious purely when it isn't obeying some specific imagined concept of what is "being nice".
      the strange thing to me is that this seems to be going on on every side of social issues. nintendo's faction will say Palworld is attacking them by making a game, but whenever anybody wants to stop nintendo from abusing patents, once again the exact same principles come up of all conflicts supposedly being premeditated attacks by Evil Aggressive Non-Peacers rather than the messy back-and-forths over unsolvable questions they actually are. the myth of Non-Peacers is really pernicious because it basically tears society apart into tiny shreds as people segregate just to avoid getting into conflicts and being declared Evil aggressors. I think there's a case to be made that Lacanianism is brown. it's distinct from ancient "Toryisms" (monarchisms, theocracies) by actually being part of the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition and attempting a mathematical small-scale theory of society instead of pure intuition, and yet it's one of the possible minimal first principles to ultimately arrive at brown. the concept that Non-Peacers exist, and imperial territories of kings or nobility somehow solve the purported problem of Non-Peacers. connected to the related concept that a Non-Peacer control squad is more natural than nature and tyrannosaurs eating sauropods perpetuated The Fall rather than being actually the natural state of things that is being forcibly controlled by the artificial but unorganized creation of Society.
      you know what I hate about the concept of non-peacers. if it was true, then workers' states would be okay and necessary. if there was really such a thing as non-peacers then workers' states would be sufficient to get rid of them at a country-behavior level and First-World countries would be required to like them rather than hate them. First World countries would be required to say "we need the CPC, without that China would have to silently invade us on the neocolonial scale and try to own our businesses, but while we have the CPC we can keep Chinese people locked up in factories and urbanization limits, so the CPC is actually pretty good". but humanity is too stupid to even stabilize conservatism by taking that straightforward interpretation of Communism or Dengism as necessary oppression. we're all just a bunch of utterly stupid idiots, and we really prefer to believe that the ideal state of humanity is individuals constantly whacking each other over the head for not being what each individual subjectively believes as perfect until we all whack each other into a single global kingdom mandating itself to be a single giant ethnic group. nothing else is Freedom. that's the only fucking (pronounced redacted) thing this idiotic species can understand.
5587. Tormenting William Afton makes you a non-peacer / Tormenting William Afton only adds more pain to the world, so it isn't worth it -> a uniquely Christian thing to say, in a bad sense. like. hell was invented by Catholic Christians. so if Christians think it's bad for anybody to be in hell then how does anybody ever get any afterlife justice. God isn't allowed to be Evil. but putting people in hell is Evil. so logically the victims of all non-peacer attacks are guilty, because the attackers will never actually be stopped from doing whatever they want.
5588. cyanobacteria exterminating Archaea / Oxygen Holocaust (colloquial term) -> brought up in MDem entries "not-cell", "and-it-was-good"
5589. stopping wars with psychoanalysis -> I do not like how this is similar to real actual psychoanalytic theories. it's like. sometimes I sit back and ask myself, am I imagining this whole Existentialist-Structuralist tradition thing? could it be that Lacanianism isn't actually the same thing as early-existentialism? and then I see this garbage. and I'm like. oh god.... Lacanianism says we cause trouble for each other because we individually have fake ideas about reality that need to be cut off. symbolic castration / discipline. schizoanalysis basically says that democulture is the mechanism that cuts off fake ideas and is the rationale for Liberal republics. postcolonial theories say everything is due to prejudices. Lacanianism is talking about prejudices too. it's saying all our fake ideas about reality and refusals to compromise are prejudices. that's what it's really doing. and I hate it. because it diminishes the reality of beliefs and philosophies as actual matters of identity and experience that people truly live their lives by, kinda treating people as mere instruments in a way, mere instruments of building an empire of people who miraculously guess the correct way to behave for people to get along, and haven't even thought it through to figure it out, who have all just been beaten into place like cattle. all the individuals or countable Cultures or ideologies are the instruments and the Liberal republic experts just own them all, like a capitalist owns a group of workers and makes them behave a certain way for their place of work to exist. if the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition were true then Liberalism would be a scam, and it would be a scam. it's a lot better for everyone in it if it's not true, because then nobody can come label them an evil conspiracy to turn countries into oligarchy. when you think about it, there's a fine line between scams and incorrect theories of society. if people don't know they can be forgiven, but if they do know they're labeled conspirators, con men, or any number of uglier names. (adventure time season 10 episode 13-16)
5590. The furry fandom is a religion / If religion is defined as a cultural identity which controls human behavior through allowing people to be part of a supportive "community" but only allows them to do that in exchange for imposing arbitrary rules around sex or foods such as shellfish, then the furry fandom is a religion / If the furry fandom exists to provide the carrot of uniting people into a socially-linked group of people around specific identities and narratives (fursonas, furry media) in return for providing the stick of aggressively prohibiting them from being zoophiles or doing any number of other harmful acts, the furry fandom is a religion -> jamming proposition. there should be something wrong with this statement, but it's hard for me to say what it would be.
      appears in: MDem 5.1-5.3 scrap "scenario" "zone 621". (furries are 'expelled' into their own afterlife with some kind of implied moral code, though not specifically this one)
5591. Liberalism (pronounced Liberal-republicanism) requires no revolution / Creating Liberal-republicanism didn't require a revolution (Hannah Arendt) -> this is flat out false twice over and yet a lot of people still repeat versions of it. in the United States, there was the "American Revolution". it did have consequences. it did "mess things up for the next 200 years". it eventually birthed Andrew Jackson. in Europe, there was a really clear change between the era where there had to be a bunch of freemasons and alchemist philosophers and the era where there didn't. now people with money just do whatever "helpful" things they want to in the open. but there was a time where they absolutely couldn't do that, and they had to meet in secret so some greater authority wouldn't notice their power and start calling them a threat. there was a time where small owners, Artisan types, and Careerists were oppressed. Galileo. like, I can show why Arendt's proposition is wrong in a sentence one word long. Galileo. and there was an overall revolution that happened in however many steps to create a Europe where that particular thing wasn't an issue. this overall series of steps is a Liberal-republican revolution. in the same sense of the word.
      there is so much thick illusion going on for people to think that isn't true. what is it? is it people trying to act like "the Galileo days" were a bad fake historical period that wasn't a Real period of history, just a fake totalitarian invented fabrication made up by bad evil meanies? do people believe that only a certain class of people that assembles into certain physical structures is actually human and all other possible Bauplans are an outright deviation from humanity. I guess that would explain why they hate Bolshevism so much. but that aside, I don't even understand why this is so scary by itself and what denying that Liberal-republicanism has a revolution actually gets you. like, maybe my brain has been corrupted by Trotsky but I don't see why someone can't believe in one kind of republic that's created by a revolution and hate another kind of republic anyway. Marxists do it all the time so why can't you. why do they lie about this? it's many times stupider than Trotskyism. it makes Trotskyism look smart
5592. ??
5593. ??
5594. ??
5595. ??
5596. ??
5597. ??
5598. ??
5599. ??
5600. Grandpa Ralph who doesn't watch cartoons -> the motif of a person who is out of touch with modern media but not necessarily averse to it, who enthusiastically tries to get into a recent show or game, etc, but doesn't really have any idea what's going on and makes funny claims about it (or more likely questions) based on limited knowledge about other things that from a big picture view are theoretically similar
      Grandpa Ralph who doesn't watch cartoons + ?? = spurious canonicity claim
5601. The Owl House -> a lot of people liked this show and I'm just like... hmm no. it looks like it's a good show? but. gosh, why does it prompt so many video essays about Existentialism that even reference early-existentialism by name. I don't think this show was aimed at me.
5602. If everyone wanted someone to choose them, no one would achieve anything -> nah. this isn't inspiring. when there's capitalism a great many people's life stories are about searching all over to get chosen by someone and how inspirational it is to hear about someone getting chosen. what is going to a university and getting hired for an exclusive "opportunity" as one of the brightest experts if it isn't being a chosen one? our fantasy books reflect our societies and class structures.
      edit: gosh. this is false. this is actually false, because if you duplex it, capitalists are waiting for employees to choose them and employees are waiting for capitalists to choose them. everyone is. it's more like if nobody wanted somebody to pick them out as the chosen one nobody would achieve anything.
5603. People created monarchies because they believe in predetermination -> whoa whoa whoa. this isn't simply the truth, this is an Existentialist statement. many versions of Christianity see the Christian god as a Subject that actually responds to the overall state of earth, so no, even the divine right of kings isn't equal to predetermination. it only equals doing the thing the smartest or most capable person ever to exist would do in people's opinion. you can begin to see where all the anti-science propositions come from: that anyone trying to exert control over anyone else OR trying to claim more expertise than anyone else is preaching predetermination. this is a dangerous proposition, because it's exactly what gets science defunded by reactionaries, and climate change scenarios rejected, and disabled people stuck in their houses when people wouldn't get COVID vaccines. all of that ties directly back to Existentialism and how the notions of choices and freedom are absorbed by reactionaries.
5604. making a choice is the opposite of predetermination -> this one is fairer. it seems probably untrue — you've got relaterminism going on in your head retermining your actions — but is more difficult to decide as clearly true or false.
5605. early-existentialism is the opposite of predetermination -> some people distinctly seem to treat (early-)existentialism as a single proposition rather than a field of philosophers. the funny thing is that everyone explains the contents of the proposition a little differently. thus making the single proposition back into a field of philosophy containing many propositions. in an act of pettiness, I'll label this statement false in the strict binary logic sense, purely because it can be demonstrated to be a category error.
5606. Choices are identical with character development (fiction) / Choices are identical with Subject formation (real-life psychology)
5607. Individuals express themselves through the people around them -> one of the sharpest things I heard in an Existentialist video. you really have to pick this apart and look at it though. at first glance it looks like an acknowledgement of relaterminism: people don't choose everything about themselves, so finding good friends that fill in the gaps in you is important. then you look at it closer and you realize there are much worse interpretations of it. one is that our main character is determining the presence of the other characters and vice versa and they are all choosing to be together. that's a bit disgusting. it allows people to come together and express themselves through their connection and then be prejudiced against other groups of people because being prejudiced is their authentic self. if you think that can't be someone's authentic self at least at one particular moment in time then you have never actually met a reactionary. just like a Goth kid, they will insist that even if it's a phase bigotry is exactly who they are.
5608. The true Big Bad of Deltarune is stereotypes [278] [279] / The true antagonist to Luz is stereotypes -> this is more of a framing statement than a factual statement; it needs other propositions behind it to be able to evaluate it as true or false.
      I feel like this statement really cheapens Deltarune. any other story could be about stereotypes, you know? The Owl House can be about stereotypes; why not. but Deltarune is about something bigger, it's about how the individuals are related to the game world and what individuals are going to do when the game world dies. a Deltarune AU could be the stage for an allegory about the United States smashing other countries to pieces and even if they try to put themselves back together with Communism before they get smashed they can't defy the death of their national population and ethnicity and just have to come to terms with death.
5609. Grimey the neckbeard [280] -> this anecdote is very interesting sociologically because it provides such a counterpoint to the "Susie" narrative that coming together around fiction will allow people to learn about each other and make them better people. in this story, letting Grimey into the tabletop group actually just brought out the worst in him and revealed that he was not meant to be friends with the people he was attempting to roleplay with. it did not help make him more empathetic toward the characters or the players through exposure to them, it just shocked all the other people when they were exposed to him and made them want to get rid of him. this is such an important concept. almost every "progressivism" in the United States tries to assume this will never happen to people, especially that it will never happen unpredictably. Grimey the neckbeard + Friendship is Magic = Mud Briar
5610. Fiction enables fans to learn about each other / fiction allows people to learn about each other and make them better people (sic - don't fix typo unless erasing prototype notes) -> not always false, but a rather Existentialist model of fiction. for a counterpoint, see "Grimey the neckbeard"
5620. ??
5630. ??
5640. ??
5641. ??
5642. Human moralities are a fundamental layer of material reality / (9k)
5643. Anarchism is partly defined by the claim that progress can only be described through the sheer assertion of human moralities as a fundamental layer of material reality -> this seems common to both charcoal anarchism and blue anarchism, as well as to some forms of Western Marxism. and as far as I know, it's absent from Stalin's Marxism. as it ought to be!
      I have never liked this concept. it sounds great if the only thing you ever talk about in the entire world is Palestine. but it doesn't sound great as soon as you actually have to accommodate multiple countries and all the different political factions in those countries, which all have their own strictly conflicting moralities that then all have to be acknowledged as fundamentally important and fundamentally okay. whether you call it "ethics" or try to make it objective doesn't matter, because somebody can do objective ethics in China and somebody can do objective ethics in the United States and their conclusions could strictly conflict such that there's absolutely no intuitive way to be "considerately and sensitively inclusive" of both ethics theorists or both countable cultures at once — there's no answer! it's not only the case that "is models can't directly generate ought models". whenever you even have to comprehend another person or group of people at all you always have to start at an "is" model, unavoidably, always creating that gap of being at an "is" model and unable to create an "ought" model no matter how hard you try to start at "ought" models. people outright use the word "phenomenology" to promote studying people descriptively, and then they don't realize that that in itself is already destroying the ability to have any ought models. one of the only ways out is to realize that ought models don't truly exist and only is models have ever existed. a whole lot of ought models are actually just wrong is models.
      perhaps there is always just a tiny wedge way off in the corner of that first decision that arbitrarily selects what is models are the ones worth using and acting on. I don't think that's a big deal, as long as we can get the corner wedge as small as possible. a human being is a limited instrument when it comes to the problem of movement building, so we work within its limits. we don't have the choice to be ends instead of means at the moment the larger populational scale exists. a population doesn't have a brain. it doesn't have empathy. it can't even make decisions as much as mindlessly physically behave, radially outward, under relativistic determinism. Liberal-republicanism has shown that everyone becomes a means of a major Liberal-republican party as a material object and isn't an end any more. the big problem is that everyone continues to believe that populations can treat individuals as ends and not means, when population-objects aren't capable of that. this leads to a system where the very worst people are automatically and necessarily treated as having valid codes of morality and being ends in themselves, and everyone else is just told to tolerate everything about them and operate together with them like a happy family like nothing happened. that's blue anarchism: making everybody who is a consciousness with a code of morality all Rhizome together even if they're Hitler, and asking Hitler to explain his code of morality so it can be Considerately and Sensitively Respected. that works on Stalin. that works on Trotsky. that works especially well on Mao. that doesn't work on Hitler, and it doesn't work on Trump.
5644. ??
5645. ??
5646. ??
5647. ??
5648. ??
5649. ??
5650. ??
5651. ??
5652. ??
5653. ??
5654. ??
5655. ??
5656. ??
5657. ??
5658. ??
5659. ??
5660. zoroastrianism (motif) -> the general motif of a supreme being that opposes the king of destruction; there may be a bit more to it than that
5661. demiurge as patron deity of physics / demiurge as patron deity of reality (material reality; Materialism; reality as defined by physical interactions) -> this is what I think Deltarune is doing in practice, at least in terms of what its actual "message" to its audience is, and I kind of love it
5662. gnosticism (motif) -> the motif of gnosticism being used as a theme in art, not necessarily in service of religion
5663. The King -> the motif of a great worldwide or international emperor in religion or fiction. equally applies to Aslan or the god of a real-world religion
5664. ??
5665. The Opposers, plural -> the motif of an Opposer which simply consists of a group of opposing individuals without any particular god-level leader. the Dark Forest in Warriors is an example
5666. The Opposer / The Satan (archetype or motif) -> the motif of a great worldwide enemy in religion or fiction. "satan" originally simply meant "the opposer". Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity all have some counterpart to this. The Opposer + ??? = Mx. Satan.
5667. gnosticism in LGBT+ media / LGBT+ and gnosticism (use of mythical imagery by queer creators; not conspiracy theories about the origins of LGBT+ identities) / LGBT+ media and belief in any higher power as scary (as horror; literary analysis) / belief in higher power as horror (LGBT+ fiction) -> not to be confused with conspiracy theories that Gnosticism-proper "created" gay and transgender movements. this is the motif of media which are predominately about "queer experiences" having narratives that the concept of gods is scary (Adastra), or that fictional characters in a metanarrative could only have a demiurge as a god and that's scary (Deltarune), etc.
5668. ??
5669. ??
5670. ??
5671. ??
5672. ??
5673. ??
5674. ??
5675. ??
5676. ??
5677. ??
5678. ??
5679. ??
5680. ??
5681. ??
5682. ??
5683. ??
5684. Starlight Glimmer
5685. City governments are similar to friendships / Village governments resemble friendships
5686. Freedom to be yourself is similar to friendships / Authenticity is similar to friendships -> Authenticity (Existentialism)
5687. ??
5688. anarchist orientalism / (9k)
5689. 5689Having too few skilled theorists comes from poverty / A lack of high-quality political theorists, as found in situations like the Russian Empire, is tied to a lack of development and widely-available education, and thus overall emerges from a general national state of poverty / (9k)
      Having too few skilled theorists is a form of poverty + Wealth gets rid of poverty (sic) = To increase the number of political candidates, force a country to create more wealth
5690. 5690Stalin became mandatory because there wasn't a large enough pool of mainstream Marxist-Leninist experts / (9k)
5691. 5691To increase the number of political candidates, force a country to create more wealth / (9k)
5692. ??
5693. ??
5694. ??
5695. ??
5696. ??
5697. ??
5698. ??
5699. ??
5700. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic
5701. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic episode 1
5921. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic episode 221
5922. "Tempest Shadow"
5923. ??
5924. ??
5925. the prince (meta-Marxism) / the Stalin (archetypical figure) / the Asgore (archetypical figure) / Marxist theorist archetype (meta-Marxist literary analysis) / the prince (as interpreted through meta-Marxism rather than through the descriptive models of feudal orders detailed by Machiavelli; not Machiavellianism) -> the abstract concept of a figure that is tasked with making decisions in order to end a conflict between two groups of living, breathing, chunk-competing Subjects, and is stuck in hardship, removed from privilege, having to figure out history's most difficult problems for everyone and probably being hated for any solution because history is messy and few solutions ever look good. the motif of a figure with a sword of Damocles over them who may be wrongly framed as causing all the problems when they were really just handed an impossible problem to solve and pushed to step up and make personal sacrifices and compromises of various kinds to solve it.
      Undertale is wired if you decide to take it rather literally. Deltarune might be too. if I'm right that Gaster is actually Dess and she/he is actually in there trying their best to halt the Roaring. but even if I didn't guess Deltarune right I don't care, you can still point to the concept in Undertale if you look closely.
5926. Pi can't beat a Pokémon game
5927. The proletariat is privileged / Any proletariat that exists at all is privileged relative to early North Korea / In the grand scheme of history, the proletariat is the most privileged class because it does not have to deal with the hard tasks of fighting other populations of people for national territory, local-state territory, non-imperialized populational territory, town territory, business territory, or household territory (in some cases), and only has to go to work and produce to survive /
      In the grand scheme of history, the proletariat is the most privileged class because it does not have to fight a war of national independence against other nations, a regional war to determine local states, a post-colonial war against global empires, a chunk-competitive cold war of different ethnic populations to claim space to live and work in a town (in some cases), an eternally-ongoing cold war between people-farmers to claim exactly the right corral of workers and exactly the right group of customers for each group to get an income and buy from each other, or a violent struggle between individual households over limited houses and job slots in each enterprise (in some cases) to have a house to live in and to be able to follow laws ->
      this, to me, is one of the only ways to explain why First World countries are so "distracted by ideology" or "distracted by hatred". none of that is accurate. it's the fact that nobody in First World countries wants to acknowledge the actual material processes of history, and everybody wants to believe that because those have mostly completed they never actually existed and the absence of them is what's normal, rather than that everyone in First World countries is privileged for having been able to complete nearly all of those processes (but not every one of them of course, because in conditions of Liberal-republicanism that's impossible). the belief that humanity doesn't materially compete over anything in the sense all Animals do and everybody is already just groups of friends that can magically form bigger groups of friends is one of the most damaging and dangerous beliefs there is. Commu-nity pushes the United States and its allies to brutalize other countries for the simple crime of having history and going through historical processes to develop free-standing territories, which each require experts under unimaginable pressure to navigate them: kings, nobles, Kim Il-Sung, Stalin, Mao. most ironically, the concept of experts under great hardship for other people to have privilege still exists in capitalism. the Undertakers get to go on and on about how hard it is to create a business and for some reason nobody comes and knocks their business over and says "nope, you're not doing it right, we're gonna keep taking it from you and putting in a new owner until you run your business the exact way approved by the United States and Liberal-republicanism". capitalism just has a million tiny Stalins all oppressing people way worse than Stalin ever did.
      First World countries don't get better unless we recognize the concept of "the Stalin", a figure that is tasked with mediating conflicts between groups of living, breathing, eating, space-occupying individuals that would expand over each other or kill each other for open slots. "the Stalin" can take a few different actions in response to this. they can act violently, oppressing one or both of the two groups of conflicting people to ensure some of them are protected from each other. alternatively, they can act carefully to try to make sure as few people get hurt as possible and that the two populations actually have to join together and live in harmony. this basically requires creating Bolshevism so the two populations are part of one thing and nobody uniquely "owns" dictatorial control of either population versus being able to be removed in an emergency. anything else will eventually create more problems and more instances of "the Stalin" who have to solve them — although this can still be fixed with some patience. don't demonize "the Stalins", appreciate their work and make sure all of them unify together and don't fight each other but also get to complete their task.
5928. ??
5929. ??
5930. My Little Pony: Make Your Mark
5931. My Little Pony: Make Your Mark episode 1
5957. My Little Pony: Make Your Mark episode 27
5958. My Little Pony: Tell Your Tale
5959. ??
5960. The Tea Dragon Society (all media)
5961. The Tea Dragon Society
5962. The Tea Dragon Festival
5963. The Tea Dragon Tapestry
5964. The Tea Dragon Society Card Game
5965. Autumn Harvest: A Tea Dragon Society Card Game
5966. Town market (The Tea Dragon Society) / town bazaar
5967. Comic quick-start / Mentor rules sheet
5968. Tea Dragon Society Card Game Rulebook / Glossary rules sheet -> are these different for the two games? if so, consider them editions of the same work
5969. True dragon (The Tea Dragon Society)
5970. Tea Dragon (The Tea Dragon Society)
5971. Jasmine tea dragon
5972. Rooibos tea dragon
5973. Chamomile tea dragon
5974. Ginseng tea dragon
5975. Earl Grey tea dragon
5976. Hibiscus tea dragon
5977. Ginger tea dragon
5978. Peppermint tea dragon
5979. Tea Dragon society (group)
5980. Mentors token
5981. Growth token
5982. Victory point token
5983. Tea Dragon card
5984. The only way to peel people away from Marxist party-nations is to shatter the economic base until people are alienated (1960) -> statement leading up to the first Cuba embargo, before #2 became a reality. this is such a striking statement because it's like.... the ultimate weapon of Existentialist marketism is more marketism. we make your own meaning, and we Kantianize you if your society doesn't fit into our society. predicated on the unfortunately correct assumption that you desperately want to be connected to our capricious and arbitrary society.
      this memo provides such insight into how the First World thinks. there is this hanging assumption that for some reason it's good to Zinovievize countries, and then they just... think a bunch and start getting creative on exactly how to achieve it.
5985. Entertaining (9 in box) - st / 🌼 / use 1 / cost 0
5986. Feeding (9 in box)
5987. Grooming (9 in box)
5988. Twilight Snow - ❄️ / 🍂 0 / ☕ 9 / 🫖 3+?
5989. Sleeping (9 in box)
5990. Tea Dragon deck / character draw-deck area
5991. Nice walnuts don't get cracked / Nice walnuts not getting imminently broken is paradise / Countries are like walnuts: they only taste good when you crack them open / (9k)
5992. Even if Liberalism is perfect taxes buy war / Even if Liberalism worked perfectly taxes would only buy war / If Liberal-republicanism worked perfectly it would still result in millions of tax dollars going to the military and very little going to social programs / Arceus really did a number on Ultra Space, huh? (in reference to Liberal-republican processses coming from one big country of the petty bourgeoisie that is obligated to crush other countries to "free" the rest of the world's petty bourgeoisie) -> imagine, for a moment, that we live in a perfect world — a world, or at the very least a United States and cluster of First World countries, which is perfect for Liberal democracy. everyone understands voting. everyone votes for progressives. the US Republican Party ceases to exist. there are two new center-Liberal parties which are not a proto-fascist hellscape, and they only keep getting better, even if they only keep getting better very, very slowly; they keep getting better but they don't keep getting worse. the next thing that happens is all the biggest capitalists drain out of the United States and go live in Third World countries so they can experience as few regulations as possible. if anyone calls foul they'll say "well if I don't like the United States isn't it my freedom to move somewhere else? what is this, North Korea?". at a certain point, absolutely nothing will be able to keep billionaires from enslaving all the people of Nigeria, and the only thing that will be possible for stopping them is to occupy the Third World countries with soldiers and basically kill the capitalists if they don't stop. at that point you're just doing Existentialist class war, and the only difference is that the class operating it is Artisan and Careerist types against "the big guy", not the proletariat. this is the problem. Liberal "democracy" almost obligates countries to invade other countries and overthrow their governments. and the reason it does that is people are committed to Existentialist class war of the bourgeois Filaments in their country against class enemies of Existentialism, including feudal orders, alternate historical periods, and in general any material object which doesn't obey them, up to and including other countable cultures themselves. the real problem is that workers are in class war only sometimes but Existentialists are in class war always, for decades and decades. Existentialists are in infinite revolution or forever cold war against the whole world, and they always have been. the only bright side here is this pattern rather hilariously explains Trotskyism. if you're a part of the big worldwide machine of Existentialist class war, of course you'll let the United States and every area of Existentialism crush workers' states. I'd only just barely stop short of calling Trotskyism an Existentialism. I think there's a decent case to be made that Zinovievism is an Existentialism though.
5993. A workers' state will surely fail if it doesn't buy specific inventions from other countries / Avoid the forbidden fruit and you will surely die / (9k)
5994. Walnut core inside shell against other shell equals core plundering core / Anti-marginalization efforts from the United States' margins to "help" minorities in China turn into US majority and US minority against absolutely everybody in China / Trotsky and Trotskyites without their own workers' state fight for either the Soviet Union's government or the United States and Mexican governments / (9k)
5995. Empire can survive while it avoids extremes / Imperialism can survive as long as it isn't extreme -> so here's the thing about "socialism". if you define it so modestly that it's any chunk of individuals taking care of other individuals, outright nationalist reactionaries can perform socialism without ever being progressive. it's super duper easy for Tories to do something for each other and then turn it into love-bombing and say you're a traitor if you don't support destroying Palestine, you're a non-person if you don't support shooting Black people to death before they go to prison. mutual aid isn't socialism and it isn't even love. it only really guarantees social cohesion, which is terribly easy to form around the imperative to survive at the expense of other populations. all Tories have to do to be able to do whatever they want is just be a little bit "not extreme" and appear to be nice to all the people immediately around them while being terrible to people somewhere else.
      golden mean + global empire = this
5996. Democracy is the abundance of skilled experts / (9k)
      The United States was more democratic than the Soviet Union + Stalin became mandatory because there wasn't a large enough pool of mainstream Marxist-Leninist experts = Democracy is the abundance of skilled experts
5997. The United States conquers countries by forcing them to Freely Choose things / (9k)
      culturocracy + ??? = this.
5998. walnut shell (analogy) / (9k)
5999. walnut core (analogy) / (9k)

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/6000

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/9000

User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/12000

MDem SSR: 19000 - 20000

This range is reserved for MDem book drafts which prove to be notable in light of each other and explaining previous texts. However, it does not really make sense to give entries in this range permanent identifiers until the book is finished to some satisfactory extent of printing a few for actual "use". The new convention for SSR entries is to simply file the pages to be considered SSR Items under thesis portals in the Template:TTS or Template:TTS namespaces and not to use the Template:TTS namespace until the work is actually finished (although making redirects to the thesis portal using Template:TTS is okay). The entries are now being managed on MDem SSR.

19000. Molecular Democracy
19999. (... MDem SSR entries)

20000

20000. stream of consciousness [281] [282] / free association (Freud; stream of consciousness harnessed as therapy tool) [283] -> this one is blue because Freud used it. it could just as easily be green.
20001. (... [[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/20k|Template:TTS entries]]. first prototype ends here.)

After this point, entries may be created in any order without worrying what number they are; making entries on specific meaningful numbers is encouraged but absolutely not required. To keep track of already taken numbers, you may use Category:Ontology_entries_by_number.

Early versions

Although I tried not to change the formatting of this page much from start to finish, it has gone through a few formatting versions.

• Late into the creation of this page, the page text got too long to properly submit through the form. The pre-division version, notably containing a Lexemes prototype and first example data table, is here.
  • Later into this page's creation, the page limit got to be even more of a problem, and all the often-very-long essay-notes on Items that were almost the point of this page had to be removed. The second pre-division version is here.
• There was a Lexemes (Terms) prototype on this page until it got too unwieldy to remember which ones had been created and easier to simply delete them to keep track. The untouched Lexemes prototype is now here.
  • Lexemes originally had their own numbers until the Term namespace was introduced, at which point they were changed to use the number of whatever Item fits them the most closely.
  • The rules for Lexeme Forms were first tested out at User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/inflections
• There was also a Properties brainstorm, which is now at Philosophical Research:Properties/Numeric.