Ontology:Q1358
Characteristics in draft[edit]
- pronounced [P] alias (mis) [string]
- socioempire (MDem v5.1-5.2)
- chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy (all-directional competition of individuals against each other to create social graphs and towns at the expense of pushing other people out of society; MDem v4.1-5.2)
- pronounced [P] alias (mis) [string]
- towns, jobs, and families are empire
- gentrification results from small-scale empire
- QID references [Item] 1-1-1
- Q1350 structural racism
- color swatch references [Item]
- molecularized theory
- pronounced S–617 pronounced [S] meta-ontology 1-1-1
- sub-case of [Item]
- --
- case of [Item]
- --
- super-case of [Item]
- --
- appears in work
- --
- duplication hint
-
copy or update fake Item from [[Special:PermanentLink/5551|Q1358]]
Appearances[edit]
- appears in work
- --
Use in thesis portals[edit]
- appears in work
Wavebuilder combinations[edit]
- pronounced [P] pronounced Wavebuilder: forms result [Item]
- Q14?? Afrikaner imperialist framework
- along with [Item]
- existence as empire 1-1-1
- forming from [Item]
- existence as empire 1-1-1
- pronounced [F2] Returning land doesn't work
- Q14?? Afrikaner imperialist framework
Usage notes[edit]
Socioempire is the non-fictional motif of living, breathing individuals accidentally (or in a few cases intentionally) creating empire and marginalization simply by going about their daily activities and attempting to live. This motif has been a very strong theme in MDem drafts, as well as perhaps in some published anti-imperialist works. (These can be listed in the data table when they are added as Items.) The significance of socioempire being possible is that it would upend a lot of conventional wisdom about what classes are and what empire is, both within some portions of Marxist theory and across some entire corpora of non-Marxist theories. If socioempire is real, it means that a significant number of discussions about "colonialism" are getting lost in side tangents and not addressing the real problem that if addressed would stop global empire. If socioempire is not real, there are already significant contradictions created with real-world observations of structural racism which already resemble the concept of socioempire. If socioempire exists then it potentially explains both events inside countries and events across the borders of countries as well as how the two kinds of events are connected. If socioempire does not exist, it leaves troubling questions about whether populational history needs to be strictly split into different demographics and whether it is necessary to engineer racial subpopulations to a better future by rearranging their people simply to put an end to structural racism.
The "existence as empire" motif has vague parallels within Buddhist philosophy, in the sense of individuals coming into conflict ultimately out of their survival needs as individuals which at larger scales could stack up to war. This would appear to be a result of some forms of Buddhism containing rudimentary counterparts of historical materialism. A motif appearing inside religion does not necessarily mark it as correct or incorrect until it is compared with material reality. At the same time, with religions such as Buddhism inherently being based in the framing of changing society by prescribing behaviors for every single individual to do in parallel, this framing of things will generate very particular kinds of "solutions". If socioempire exists, but the only way to change individual behavior is by handing every individual a code of conduct, there is a particular motivation to claim that the only way to stop socioempire is to make every single individual stop wanting anything, right up to physical needs in some cases, whenever those things could conflict with the well-being of others. This way of thinking is in contradiction with the basic assumptions of republics, which tend to begin by stating that although any particular city or town population is always expanding into others, different subpopulations' differing needs or goals can usually be reconciled and still happen; it asks people to effectively prevent any votes from ever happening by pre-emptively not wanting things in perfect time to not upset anyone. If "getting rid of attachments" could truly solve a society's problems, it would also mean there was absolutely no need for democracy. A very similar problem comes up with many secular philosophies including Lacanian psychoanalysis. When Lacanians attempt to apply concepts like "symbolic castration" or "frustrated desires" to reactionary ideologies, what often lies underneath is a sheer competition of rival socially-linked groups of people across a territory to be able to make money, pay for children, and materially reproduce themselves — when what is getting "frustrated" are basic material goals rather than mere ideas, "dialogue" and "compromise" are never going to solve the problem.
Models of civilization, government, or "democracy" which actually aim to study the material growth of populations against each other and explicitly aim to create government to structure the relationship between populations may be better suited to answer the questions posed by this motif.