User:RD/9k/The existiest will rule (Q29,68)
Main entry[edit]
The existiest will rule
(existential materialism) / When all are existences, the existiest rule / In a society made specifically of existences where all existences are nominally equal, people will exist unequally and brutally fight to be the most existiest, and only the absolute existiest will survive to destroy and take everything from the least existiest / When all people are equally The Subject, in practice they will not Be The Subject equally well and the absolute most Subjectiest will subjugate the others -> it must be noted that this proposition is descriptive and has no prescriptive character.- That which is born and grows is invincible; that which is aging and crumbling suffers defeat (Stalin 1906) [1]
Related[edit]
The existiest will dominate all
(United States) / Government is not the primary thing that limits freedom, nor are upper-class individuals or "hierarchy"; the factor with the greatest power to make ordinary things illegal is chunk competition / The power to create Domination and take Freedom falls to the existiest ->
this is in response to claims that the United States is oppressed by "the army" or "false consciousness". it really isn't that. it's the raw ability of Tories to out-exist others and kill others by existing more. they specifically use their extra pile of existence to strike down threats, whether it's extra capitalist friends forming a Filament or extra money to expand the military and crush protestors or Third World countries or extra money for copyright lawyers to destroy Community and inconvenient competitors, or anything else. although each particular phenomenon has its own features there's also a level on which all of them are just the same thing. Until the day workers' states cover the world, only the existiest chunks of people have any sovereignty or freedom at all, even throughout the process of creating workers' states.
With that said, this is one of the only actual threads for frustrated Trotskyists to pull on to get justice. In the end it's a little screwed up that although the 1930s Trotskyite conspirators essentially wanted to create their own Leninist country they were pushed out of society for not being good enough at creating the 'existiest' civilization as a competent Deng Xiaoping theorist might, and were just about treated as an inferior countable culture in a way that Bolshevism isn't supposed to do. If Trotskyists knew what chunk competition was, they could turn things around and try to show that populations chunk-competing over the top of each other is one of the critical things transition to Bolshevism is supposed to get rid of at some point, and that the correct outcome is localized Trotskyisms and other Marxisms existing in harmony, not killing each other's parties or theorists. Of course, this would require Trotskyists to give up on conspiracies and trying to destroy "Stalinism", and basically to be smarter than they've ever been. Honestly though. If they'd just accept the concept of a meta-Marxist International that Stalin is invited to but where every Marxism groups with itself and stands in solidarity with the others up to certain limits, they could sort of have everything they've wanted. "Stalinists" would apologize for the assassination and lingering fear of Trotskyites getting killed or imprisoned and everything if only the goals of every party would become that. it's that the war between Marxisms isn't over. that's the problem.- The existiest will dominate all -> there's definitely a difference between these two propositions but it's rather slight. Q29,68 says that tent of freedom poles or anarchemistry is impossible because chunk competition is always going and so it will be the only available result of any such ineffective philosophy. Q29,87 says that because chunk competition is one of the most powerful forms of oppression, it has the power to make Existentialists and charcoal anarchists feel oppressed and like they need to hatch a new scheme to create Freedom, often without them realizing how they thought of that, but simultaneously is way too powerful for them to stop with just the Ideas it makes them think of. Q29,68 says Existentialists are toast. Q29,87 says charcoal anarchists are toast.
there is... a subtle contradiction in these two propositions. Existentialists are the ones a little infamous at times for anarchemistry. anarchists are more infamous for Domination. Q29,87 says domination-based theories aren't built for chunk competition. Q29,68 implies but doesn't say that anarchemistry won't work. anarchemistry is more actually built to stop chunk competition. of course, it often doesn't really work. that's why these two seemingly contradictory propositions would be here. basically just anarchists fighting each other over whose fault it is because neither of their theories work.
Wavebuilder combinations (prototype)[edit]
- : forms result [Item]
- The existiest will rule (proposed; MX)1
-1-1 - along with [Item]
- tent of freedom poles (proposed; ES)1
-1-1 - forming from [Item]
- tent of freedom poles (proposed; ES)1
-1-1 - Subjects eat and occupy space (proposed; MX)1
-1-1 - The existiest will rule (proposed; MX)1
-1-1
- The existiest will rule (proposed; MX)1
- : forms result [Item]
- Greedy people are a class (proposed; A)1
-1-1 - along with [Item]
- The existiest will rule (proposed; MX)1
-1-1 - forming from [Item]
- The existiest will rule (proposed; MX)1
-1-1 - golden mean (proposed; ES)1
-1-1 - Greedy people are a class (proposed; A)1
-1-1
- Greedy people are a class (proposed; A)1
- : forms result [Item]
- Zootopia 2 is a good class metaphor (proposed; PT)1
-1-1 - along with [Item]
- Greedy people are a class (proposed; A)1
-1-1 - forming from [Item]
- Greedy people are a class (proposed; A)1
-1-1 - Zootopia 2 (proposed; DFy)1
-1-1 - Zootopia 2 is a good class metaphor (proposed; PT)1
-1-1
- Zootopia 2 is a good class metaphor (proposed; PT)1
- : forms result [Item]