Philosophical Research:Molecular Democracy/4.4r/2070 dieconomics
we explain Blobonomics, how all of economics up to now has been Blobonomics, how Blobonomics isn't a good thing, and finally how Blobonomics could ultimately be replaced with dieconomics
it's also probably important to cover how the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition and Blobonomics are directly connected yet not the same thing. Blobonomics explains the fundamental structure of an Existentialist society and Existentialism explains the philosophy, politics, and government that supposedly regulate it
primitive Existentialism is the immediate physical description of Blobonomics, supposedly not mediated by ideology — ignoring the blatant fact that Blobonomics _is_ an ideology if you use the Social/Philosophical/Material realization model of ideologies, it's just a very basic society model that only prescribes a few things
the United States sorts itself into a party of racist, xenophobic anticommunists _starting at anticommunism_ because if there were no anticommunism they couldn't form a separate faction of capitalists unaccountable to the other faction of capitalists, and would instead be obligated to become more moderate or progressive to serve the people.
there's a decent argument to be made that it's instead _economics_ that was humanity's greatest mistake
it could be argued that such a thing is salvageable, [*g] but certainly not from out of the way economics did it
[*g] "see the chapter on graph economics"
they haven't been wording the message strongly enough all of economics is a fallacy. economics is a pseudoscience. economics is wrong. economics will never work.
by economics, of course, we mean the study of economics within Liberalism, because that is what most people believe _economics_ to mean. to most people, Marxism is a bunch of trash theories that are _not even economics_. well, fine. in that case, it is time to refute all of economics and never use economics again.
we would have _dieconomics_. while economics was the study of how to manage one "building", dieconomics would be the study of how to manage the ongoing relationships between at least two "buildings".
first of all, we can know because of the realization process - while theoretical physics only describes existing objects that scientists must go to great effort to observe indirectly, ideologies are ideologies _by virtue of_ being realized into real-world Social-Philosophical-Material Systems. there is a stark difference here between a theory which will be realized being viable and physically present in front of everyone's eyes versus non-viable.
second, we can mathematically simulate the results of practicing economics versus practicing dieconomics. although this field is in its infancy, we can take every claim of a possible form of industrial society or historical period, reduce those structures into generalized mathematical behaviors that apply to most formulations of that type of society, and through this we can take a bunch of seemingly abstract ideology or philosophy and demonstrate the actual physical differences between populations practicing each pattern and what results from each particular societal pattern. these new "meta-transitional realist" society simulations are the ultimate goal of meta-Marxism.