------
[cr. 2024-03-09T21:32:07Z]
does every customer truly stop and think about every option before sliding into the closest business and picking up goods without thinking?
the notion that businesses "compete" is a long-standing misinterpretation
what really happens is disconnected elements attempt to order themselves into a single network such as a trusted business and its recurring customers
in the same sense Liberal political parties do not compete either
all that happens is disconnected voters and candidates attempt to order themselves into a consistent network
when a customer who has been regularly using a particular business switches to a different one, or people switch political parties, what is really happening is a particular consistent order has been building up and then the order runs into problems and breaks, perhaps to one day ultimately disintegrate entirely
this brings startling conclusions with regard to capitalism.
the stochastic motions of individuals can certainly build up particular businesses operating at particular times, but in the end, there is nothing preventing the possibility of _every single business_ in a particular area falling apart and a country ending up completely devoid of businesses.
reasons can be found outside capitalism itself for this not to occur across the entire world, but within capitalism itself, there is nothing to prevent the total disintegration and disappearance of capitalism through its own internal mechanisms.
this is not to suggest that the natural disintegration of capitalism is any kind of "revolution" or has a "revolutionary" character.
the construction of consistent networks leads to the construction of social institutions and facilities, and atop this comes public perceptions of social progress. the disintegration of consistent networks really brings nothing less than the disintegration of progress.
in this sense, the disintegration of capitalism and the disintegration of society itself exist as a single joined process. as capitalism disintegrates, society disintegrates, and vice versa. society itself may be more resilient than capitalism in its ability to re-form given the natural inclination of human beings to form networks, but as long as destructive processes operate against the formation of networks, they will only get so far before they shatter apart into smaller pieces or no network at all.
it is common thinking in Marxism to believe capitalism cannot go "backwards", and that as long as capitalism continues, wealth and production will continue to accumulate at least close to the capitalists. if workers tough it out long enough, there will only be more to take back.
but the overall pattern appears more that capitalism is a transient phenomenon with a beginning, a period of stability, and a possibility to wind itself apart and completely disappear. if this is true, there is always a possibility that an entire apparatus of capitalism taken as a whole will simply destroy itself before getting to the stage that it is inherently suitable for converting into an era of socialism.
------
[cr. 2024-03-14T00:04:27Z]
bourgeoisie and Artisans are a lot like carbon dioxide
we can go around telling everyone about how many problems come from an atmosphere full of carbon dioxide and how much better it would be if we got rid of the extra carbon dioxide
but the real problem is actually that industrial processes are continuously producing carbon dioxide [*ch]
even if we go around equipping every single factory and vehicle we can find with a device for scrubbing carbon dioxide and bury all the carbon underground, we have not solved the original problem of chemical processes producing carbon dioxide from breaking down carbon-based molecules
it is more apt to call the bourgeoisie society's carbon dioxide than you could ever think
by now most bourgeoisie and Artisans are produced as an ultimate result of structures breaking down instead of forming together
if the bourgeoisie are society's carbon dioxide, socialism is society's new-growth forests, and capitalism is the process of continuously burning down forests to produce carbon dioxide — in this particular analogy, mostly because we are insane and believe forests are monopolistic tyranny and the world would be inherently fairer covered in carbon dioxide.
------
[cr. 2025-04-22T06:19:47Z]
> a transient phenomenon ... a possibility to wind itself apart and completely disappear.
entropy: colloquially, a piece of matter's state of "windedness".
entropy is frequently explained in textbook-type materials as the creation of "order" versus the return of "disorder", but the name is actually a much better explanation of what it is.
what is order? what is disorder? how do we know whether particular kinds of microstates represent order or disorder? do we pull out some sort of Jordan Peterson manual and find the dragon? no. physics is the actual definition of order and disorder. the internal physics of different materials separate easy states from difficult states through physical processes or observed physical laws, such as the interaction of gas particles, or the principle of least action.
in one sense, the presence of entropy is the presence of physics. arranging atoms into a fluid through fluid physics results in a certain amount of entropy. arranging the same atoms into a solid or a gas through those physics results in a different amount of entropy. if a block of oxygen is securely stored in a freezer the physics are more "difficult" than storing oxygen at room temperature, so energy goes into the freezer to be able to move kinetic energy away from the oxygen and the coolant fluid.
in the boring technical sense the oxygen in the room has been highly ordered into a block, a rare microstate when the normal physics of oxygen on earth would diffuse uncontained oxygen around the room, producing many other microstates. in the less boring sense, some particular form of physics (a heat-moving machine) fought against the most likely forms of physics and expended energy to change them to less-likely physical behaviors.
organizing a party-nation has its own kind of entropy measure. filtration processes are processes which alter a population's entropy.
uncontained capitalism also has an entropy measure. and it's not pretty. there is probably quite a reasonable mathematical conjecture going something like, every single business of any size always unwinds producing smaller businesses, displaced workers, or simply nothing.
------
"letter" [o. 2024-05-01T21:29:12Z]
... it is fine for causality to be circular if it takes place in a dialectical system where the two directions of causes do not truly happen at the same time and place. if water rains down from the sky and water evaporates from the pond, where does the water cycle start? water can move both down and up ... even if pockets of water collide, they simply adhere into a larger raindrop or steam cloud and change each other, and movement continues. ... the smallest gaps between separate elements can make it possible for things to happen in many directions at once.
... If raindrops were somehow able to move with intention, either toward or away from forming larger drops of water, their "choices" would be mediated by the basic physical environment they existed in. A raindrop could never "choose" to reach another drop of water in a way that was not physically possible, because this choice would not affect reality. ... [*r]
------
[cr. 2025-04-20T22:51:24Z]
after reading a book about climate change treaties [*LEH]
it is stunning how much the representatives attempting to negotiate treaties themselves resemble carbon dioxide.
no matter how much you want them to coordinate, all the representatives and all the people they represent all go diffusing in any and every direction
imagine if carbon dioxide had Free Will. "no, really." [*r]
if every carbon dioxide molecule had Libertarian Free Will, they could all willingly deposit themselves in the ground in exactly the ratio we needed to stop climate change.
of course, then the problem would be figuring out how exactly to get them all to choose to do that. as we have shown, the mere existence of individual will does not itself guarantee that Free Will can be used _to change society_. [*w]
if every carbon dioxide molecule had Free Will, then all of them would be bound by physics, and none of them would be able to will what any of the others did without communication.
so the question is, are you going to try to order them all around and hope they're afraid enough to obey, or are you going to try to believe some culture pheromone theory where as long as you pump out an idea ocean around everybody fast enough that will somehow compel everybody to absorb the culture-pheromone and mechanically change to whatever behavior you want them to have?
------
[cr. 2025-04-20T22:51:24Z]
oh god, the B-side forming here... I can see it now. a fable-style B-side in which carbon dioxide has a government and climate change treaties are actually treaties to get all the carbon dioxide molecules to behave, but they won't.
CO2 molecule 500: we could definitely fix this if all the molecules in the world transitioned to Trotskyism
CO2 molecule 2702: are you crazy? that might conceivably work for human beings, but if we all turned into one structure, we'd be a layer of graphite and the earth would be in an ice age. if we're going to fix this, the only way is through getting individual molecules to make better choices.
CO2 molecule 3016: co-op. we could all transition to co-op.
CO2 molecule 2703: then the earth would be covered in petroleum. have you forgotten that short chains of carbon make liquid hydrocarbons? either we'd kill all the life in the ocean, or humans would burn us up again and we'd be back where we started.
--this is like the weirdest possible Pixar movie.--
------
[cr. 2025-04-20T23:38:21Z]
> culture-pheromone
people become so complacent about the existence of open spaces between social graphs.
you allow the accursed word "marketplace" or the image of one to enter people's heads and they instantly begin to believe it will magically fix everything; I swear the image of an old-style town bazaar is an infohazard.
when people get the image of a "market" in their heads, they start to believe the actually-impossible is possible. they start to believe that because something has been communicated to a few people it has been communicated to literally everyone, and that because something is available to a few people it's available to everyone. [*f2]
there is no understanding of scale, in which people who release something or try to spread word about something actually make contact with the number of people they make contact with,
and sometimes the message stops because all the people who most need to hear something have only a few connections that aren't connected to any of the central news-bearers that end up having to figuratively scramble across the whole country researching and breaking all the events or discoveries to everybody.
------
[*LEH] _Losing earth: A short history_
=> research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Ontology:Q5440 *f2. When two people have information, everybody has it ;
; research.moraleconomy.au/proposition/F2/5440
;
=> 1702191166 *e. v4.3/ entropy and labor ; 1095 entropy
=> 1702201540 *e2. entropy revision main
=> 1740188951 *ch. v4.4r/ reversing the laws of history to identify future structures ; 6951 reverse-nobility
=> 1718568326 *He. v5.1/ classical physics and the strange locality of atoms ; 4001 KillerSun
=> 1733689698 *w. v5.2/ okay, relativity is nice, but do we have free will?? ; 1111 FreeWill
=> 1732845372 *r. v5.1rN/ letter to JMP/ what if raindrops had Free Will? ; v5r/ 0999 A raindrops letter
;
== research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Philosophical_Research:MDem/4.4r/1095_disintegrate
:: cr. 2024-03-09T21:32:07Z
; 1710019927
:: t. disintegrate
:: t. v4-4_1095_disintegrate
; v4.4 scraps/ similarities between climate conferences and carbon dioxide molecules
