Ontology:Q30,76

pronounced [S2] Capitalism ends through many rounds of "Absolutely Not" 1-1-1

Characteristics in draft[edit]

item type: S2 (pronounced C) 1-1-1
identifiers: E:proposition No; E:Q30,76
pronounced [P] label [string] (L): pronounced [S2] Capitalism ends through many rounds of "Absolutely Not" 1-1-1
pronounced [P] alias (mis) [string]: Capitalism ends through many rounds of "NO" / United States capitalism ends when we realize every protest is about "NO"; proposition No (hypothetical transition to anarchism)
QID references [Item] 1-1-1: --
sub-case of [Item]: --
case of [Item]: --
super-case of [Item]: --
appears in work: --
prototype notes: 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