User:RD/9k/Q55,66

Prototype notes

5566. Zootopia 2 is a good class metaphor / The Lynxleys are a good representation of the process of forming classes (Zootopia 2) / Lynxley fallacy (statement said in attempt to analyze Zootopia 2) -> from the limited slice of the movie I've been seeing from reviewers, absolutely not. it conceptualizes evil as individual households racking up money numbers before you do. which is a very nazi way of thinking. people everywhere of all ideologies like to believe they aren't about "making people the same", but in practice almost all Liberal-republicans and anarchists get mad when people aren't the same and only Lenin and Mao truly believe that it's okay for some people to get paid more under certain conditions. and yet when you think that way, that problems are due to "Elites" hoarding all the money numbers as individuals and using them to do evil as individuals, it's really easy, almost trivial to lead you down a nazi rabbit hole. a great number of modern conspiracy theories start with "why isn't it obvious to people that Elites are bad and fostering corruption". and then they posit some supernatural or metaphysical evil force that corrupts us, like demons or Reptilians. and a great number of people don't see the problem with religions "period", they'll leave Christianity but they won't question small religions enough to not be open to the idea of demons. and from there it's easy to convince people that some people aren't real people and are actually just monsters. and then you start giving external characteristics that predict someone harboring demons, such as "having a gender studies degree" or "being supportive of people who committed crimes". and then before you know it you're just spreading around veiled racism. only your racism is uniquely "moral" because you didn't start with DNA, you only appealed to niceness and meanness and demons.
      especially now, nazis don't start at "racial ancestry". at the beginning they generally start at "network of wealthy families" and then ask what race they are so normal people can be artificially separated from The Billionaires based on what morality group of people they're socially connected to.
      Zootopia 1 had this a lot closer to the truth. it's chunks of foxes and chunks of rabbits. it doesn't matter who's leading them.

Lynxley fallacy and incorrect popular concept of "class"

5565. Zootopia is doomed because when you remove predators populations boom out of control and begin killing each other [1] -> ... if this were true it would apply to human ethnic groups! ...
618. Nazis are only bad because they're wealthy, greedy elites
5493. To be good is to live in harmony with metaphysics
618. Greed is an intensity of grabbing -> when I didn't know what Idealism was and how to analyze it or describe it I got so mad at this kind of stuff. it would totally drive me up the wall going "how did you even come up with that??". now it's a lot easier to describe. ...
5555. golden mean [2]
5506. Avarice is a historical process / Greed is a historical process -> sort of true in that dragon processes are real, but not true in that avarice "processes" are associated with population growth and after the time feudalism goes away basically come from it. if you become committed to this proposition you'll very easily accidentally end up at the proposition that Black people having too many babies is inherently greedy and the way to reduce racism is to have less sex, fewer dates, fewer babies, fewer random instances of theft and crime, and more Lacanian discipline telling everybody how to behave good and study and study and train and train and make money because that will surely result in fewer attacks between populations. ... there's almost a direct line to Fox News from the simple statement that greed is a historical process.
5507. anarchist historical materialism (motif) / historical materialism is when nobility and capitalists Freely Choose to manufacture a bunch of poverty and hire soldiers and construct culture to tell everybody it's natural rather than, perhaps, that they can all spontaneously grow a Free Will and socially construct something different
5220. Poor people are created to make you work [3] -> this is.... kind of correct but a little misleading. you can see the contradiction inside the lecture itself. nobility used money in order to arrange people into a kingdom. into an armored, armed "crab". it's easy to think the key word is "used" and that they're exploiting people and burning everything valuable for their own gain, but the key word is "arrange". in that example money is empowering people to form into societies. in Europe we can bring up how churches weren't entirely malevolent and sometimes they'd take their money and land and do administrative functions; today they run kindergartens. ...
618. Your choices created 28 times more empty houses / Ours choices created 28 times more empty houses (hyper-plural phrasing) / We choose [all individuals in the United States choose in parallel] to allow people to be homeless when there are 28 times more empty houses [4] -> no, we don't "choose" that, it just happens.
     ... this is the game now. capitalism is a forever cold war and we only win it when the million caribou actually out-survive the forty wolves. in the brutal imagery of nature, you can imagine that each time a wolf tries to get a caribou it gets stomped, and maybe it dies, so they either learn by instinct to hunt something else or they simply die out physically. what does the metaphor actually mean? I'm not positive on that. I'll say this. Marxism survives when China merely keeps existing and nothing can destroy the most basic first steps of Marxism from the outside. Marxism also potentially survives when a relatively large area of industry emerges which is impossible to break apart, where the people don't forsake building any of it just because somebody gave them an offer to migrate somewhere better, and it fills up with workers. I said once in MDem drafts: once something becomes so big it's a whole population it decides what is legal, the people surrounding it don't determine what's legal or okay. but I also think that doesn't happen unless the inside of that area is genuinely strong and hard to break up. ...

Chunk competition denial and racism denial

3066. Furries don't have to think about race / Furries never have to think about race (furry-fans; furry fandom) / When you read furry media, or create it, there's no need to think about race

Solutions

618. don't say "inequality" / don't say "greed" (in reference to "greed" as cause of "wealth inequality"; meta-Marxism) -> the concept that mentioning "wealth inequality" or "income inequality" blinds people to what the real issues are in terms of transitioning from Liberal-republicanism and periodic shootings and international war and race war into peace, non-suffering, and a workers' state.
     this idea will look absolutely insane if you live in a Third World country ­— for instance I'd guess it would look crazy in India, and thus might count as revisionism if you lived over there. but people outside the United States need to understand that the conditions you need these kinds of ideas in are really unique and strange, and so you need to counter those with almost equally strange ideas. in the United States, people are weirdly obsessed with the French Revolution and the idea that a bunch of people suffering joined together as tent of freedom poles to create Human Rights — that material suffering almost isn't actually material and a bunch of people genuinely stop physically starving thanks to a piece of paper — while at the same time a staggering amount of people want to believe that "no country requires a revolution", such that despite being the birth of Liberalism the French Revolution can be reduced down to a simple act of a bunch of smart people signing a piece of paper. let's take a second to call this what it is: this is the belief that the United States and the world have been made great by European colonizers with a lot of money creating an empire with smarts and money and papers and merely allowing every lesser man to live in it. we don't want to believe that the bedrock of Liberal republics is Toryism with a little moderating constitution on top of it, or that even the founders of the United States by describing "law and order" and "democracy" truly only made Toryism huger and enforcing order by brutalizing criminals and foreigners bigger. with that said. normal people really really don't understand the concept of Toryism existing as a material object the size of the United States. they don't get the concept that national governments and local social structures exist to corral populations into peaceful shapes to prevent wars. Lenin would understand it, because it allowed creating the Soviet Union and getting the Russian Empire region out of war. but most people in the United States and apparently in Australia really don't get this whole concept that war and violence stop when people are arranged good. and in the midst of that, they get actively distracted by the concepts of "wealth" and "inequality", mistaking the most superficial understandings of these concepts for an understanding of class in the historical sense. I feel like at a certain point you just have to pull out the rug and take """class""" away from them. you have to just shout at them, Marxism isn't about class!!! it sounds like a foreign language to an English speaker in India, but it's because you can't get away from the false definition of wealth equalling class. you have to find a different entrance into language, a backdoor, to explain historical materialism to people. you have to get them to discard their totally wrong understandings and start leading them to the truth. and what truth is that? that wealth, "greed", "elites", and even "human rights" have almost nothing to do with "creating democracy" or "stopping fascism". people are arranged into various chunks. the chunks rearrange into different chunks of chunks to create peace and structure the world. there is currently no order to the process of arranging chunks. chunks inevitably grow over each other and fight each other brutally to be the only true chunk or individual that belongs somewhere doing something. people falsely believe that morality exists in nature and there are inherently evil ways for chunks to stochastically attempt to arrange themselves that can be stopped or punished. but it's all false. there is no way for the internal decision-making processes of individual individuals and individual chunks to regulate the brutal process of chunks fighting over open slots to be the only true thing or the one with the privilege of ordering the chunks. the only way to stop that is declare that chunks don't have the right to be independent and start smashing the borders between chunks. it doesn't truly matter that chunks have owners. when you crush the borders between chunks and you really aim to do it permanently you also end up removing the owners of the chunks. the big hang-up is this. if Gramscianism or anarchism were competent as emerging civilizations, they could just join people together, overcome all the owners, and take control of the chunks making them do what they're supposed to. the existence of owners wouldn't be an issue that anybody has to whine about or make videos about, the owners would already be at Gramscians' mercy. so why do Western-Marxists spend so much time whining about "culture" and "elites dividing you"? (ironically.) basically because when everyone is obsessed with the totally nebulous concept of "freedom" nobody has the courage to say, "hmm, I don't think businesses should be independent" and shove a bunch of businesses together into a civilizational body they're not allowed to leave. that's Bolshevism. that's the true way capitalism ends and Bolshevism is created. Bolshevism is the end of divisions between conflicting chunks of people. you don't actually have to talk about workers or owners just to win people over to Bolshevism. the only issue is now you have to deal with the messy terrain of what groups of people should associate into what people-groups in order to form nations, ethnic groups with governments, union republics, or similar political entities capable of acting as workers' states or building blocks of workers' states. that requires specific knowledge of history and current news and is not something you can solve solely with a little math. there. I didn't even talk about Communist parties or people of a particular people-group meeting up as groups of representatives to properly form a barebones democracy. I made it maximally palatable to all the university experts and freelancers and co-op starters and and independent contractor types. so there's no excuse now. it doesn't matter if you're the bourgeoisie. if you don't have the power to end capitalism and create Bolshevism then your theory sucks.
618. MDem is the reframing of revolution as the structure of the many rather than the sins or power of the few / MDem is the definition of "creating democracy" as the process of empowering the many through arranging them into a functional society rather than as the process of "attacking elites"