From Philosophical Research
-
[S2] (pronounced [S2]) A U.S. revolution is revolution against two countries 1:(-)1:(-)1
Core characteristics[edit]
- [P] (pronounced [P]) label [string] (L)
- [P] (pronounced [P]) alias (en) [string]
- A revolution in the United States is revolution against two separate countries at once
Components[edit]
Use in thesis portals[edit]
Wavebuilder combinations[edit]
- 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 swarm 1:(-)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 begins 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 every single good outcome is colonial. this might be fixable with the brightest Marxists working on it, but that's not the step we're 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 its sector separately. but right now the individual proletariats are very weak and not very functional as industries. the [L] (pronounced [L]) Wasp swarm 1:(-)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.
Usage notes[edit]
