latest

Book/DRAFT.md

@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ Why? Because it's the principles themselves which indicate where things should h
 
 #### These Are All Just Communisms
 
-The progressive political science major would be appalled to see someone like my buddy Koest referring to socialism, democratic socialism, the labour party, public ownership, communism, fascism, and so on as simply "communism" and the related participants as mere "commies" (and those polisci majors would do well to read this book).
+The progressive political science major would be appalled to see someone like my same aforementioned buddy, who we'll call Mr. K, referring to socialism, democratic socialism, the labour party, public ownership, communism, fascism, and so on as simply "communism" and the related participants as mere "commies" (and those polisci majors would do well to read this book).
 
 Socialism, for one, or especially something like "democratic socialism", serves as a good example because many would say "look at all the progress we're having where we can consider a better life for those people in society who are worst-off, and here you go derailing it by erasing that a concept for socialism that is actually feasible and which could actually go a long way to make life better", as if that's not something which could be said about the simply adherence to foundational principles (of which, if you have none, it would explain why you need a top-down control system to redistribute things).
 
@@ -322,9 +322,37 @@ What can be more reasonably asserted is the following set of statements:
 - all humans come to become familiar with the concept of time's finitude
 - from a biological standpoint, beings with serotonergic systems balance reward and expectation through a relationship to their environment. In this way, it is not even relevant to have a discussion about this being a scientific analysis if we are not considering that the root cause can be applied to all the prospective persons (unless you are able to prove, unequivocally, that persons not genetically predisposed are notable to identify as "communist" and are not able to experience "existential despair").
 
+### Professional Bias
+
+It's good to remember to read these dialogues as though the purveyor of the perspective, in this case about the "communist" being an adopted identifier of a politically-focused person who suffers from existential despair and has crafted and reinforced in themselves what can be evaluated as a cluster B personality type, is something for which one might be inclined to take with a grain of salt. This isn't a criticism of the professional utilizing their painstakingly cultivated skill-set, and it even isn't an attempt to declare something contrary to the analysis; it's quite possible that they themselves would implicitly need for there to be a grain of salt taken along with it, as a good professional knows that it's necessary to put forward an assumption in certain circumstances in order to construct a system to help understand especially complex phenomena such as human psychology, anthropology and political philosophy.
+
+It's definitely a meaningful system of analysis, as you'll probably be hard-pressed to find any examples to the contrary - especially if you're focused on people who come into such a socio-political view through their own lives, and not as a consequence of radicalization through the universities, which is probably the most benign and reasonable method by which someone may have come to harbour such a position (while still being indefensible, in my strong opinion).
+
+### Nature vs Nurture
+
+This is always divides us, even though most would feel that nurture takes precedence over just about everything for most people, even those who are trying to take back the control over nature and the institutions which are supposed to generate the most robust understanding of it.
+
+Even in supposing that, in most cases, it's impossible to ascertain whether something is inherently present due to genetics or whether it was etched into the development of an organism early on, it's impossible to eliminate the perspective that nurture maintains precedence and that doesn't mean that the social constructivists are correct, because even they themselves will continuously refer back to the argument that there may be "ways of being" or "knowing" that are rooted in aspects life which are themselves being suppressed by hegemony.
+
+There is an inherent and continuous challenge with interpreting and curbing delusion, even if such delusion is too incidental and inconsequential to be noticed. It appears to be universal in children to find them confirm their biases in the most ridiculous of ways; surely this must be acknowledged and remembered as being an ever-present natural characteristic in human thinking and we should, thus, assume that one maintains the potential to delude themselves even without realizing it, as the confirmation of one's biases can't necessarily be discovered without an incurred and clearly observed consequence that itself can be realized without too much bias.
+
+The issue isn't so much that the mechanistic characteristics are present and able to be leveraged, or that the capacities which lend toward adopting ideological characteristics are also present (which they are and are being fervently promoted by person, state and corporation alike and which can by themselves cause one to become utterly blind to whatever might disrupt the serenity of the ideological stupor), but that one can even engage in a mode of perception which embraces delusion without any clear ideology whatsoever, but simply by a disposition to desiring a particular perception of themselves, or about the life one is living and what its future might hold.
+
+And, furthermore, in having experienced delusion, in any capacity, one runs the risk of believing that all human perceptions are a form of delusion or are a component in the enablement of delusion. Why wouldn't anyone consider this, if even in a narrowly interpreted Kantian sense of noumenal and phenomenal.
+
+If surely one has had even one moment wherein they recognize their own delusion, then they at least understand the ease by which one can participate in it, and if not all is well and good, surely one could imagine that things are as they are in spite of rampant and ubiquitous delusion. Such thinking, as well, lends itself to the communist, who believes that there is enough value being kept from them (enough opportunity, possibility) such that some can be wasted while still being sufficient to keep the current imperfect project going.
+
+*We should instead be considering that the fact that any sense can be made about anything at all works as a reminder that sense and an aspiration to represent everything in its most correct and universal light is something which must necessarily be present in whatever perfect formulation of human experience that could ever come to be.*
+
+### Explaining Communist Psychopathology
+
 Going back to the conflict of competing explications between psychopathology as explicit existential despair, and that of "character weakness" facilitating and potentiating one to adopt an incomplete metaphysic which leads them towards the former, one might make the case that the second is more likely, but I contend that this, though technically more robust, is overridden by my yet-to-be elaborated categorical description and accompanying model of action towards reification of the communist perception (which is itself a collectivist perception).
 
-Moreover, we might say that there is a weakness of character which facilitates such choices and outcomes, but the susceptibility which fulfills the conditions is one common and universal, after all, and which will be made more clear in the following section.
+Moreover, we might say that there is a weakness of character which facilitates such choices and outcomes, but the susceptibility which fulfills the conditions is one common and universal, after all, and which will be made more clear in the following section. It also isn't necessarily the right idea to look for how an "other" is being fulfilled and how we can imagine it as something whose origin is different. Not simply an array of the other origins, but an example of what awaits any one of us who decides to enumerate a laundry list of all the reasons for believing our differences start with existence, or how we exist - the content of our existence.
+
+We should in essence be looking for opportunities to see people not as having fallen victim to their disposition, but to having a disposition imposed upon themselves and their lives, but seeing it as something which they themselves have the power to break free from. And while this might also sound reminiscent of Marxist praxis where the base of the theory is well-maintained as the assumption for a proceeding activism which aims to cause people to attain a critical consciousness, this is not the same thing at all.
+
+With the critical consciousness it is assumed both that the lines of separation and hierarchy has been etched out in society through a dimension of oppression that is rooted in identity, and that people attain critical consciousness through understanding their identity as it has been conferred through the oppression of that system. What we should be offering to people, instead, is the very idea that they can redefine themselves without that vulnerability, because the vulnerability needn't be understood through identity, but happens to be a vulnerability because we all have certain inherent vulnerabilities from the shared universal factor of experiencing life with a human body, and fears which extend from these vulnerabilities make us amenable to ideologies which promise some form of deliverance from vulnerability 
 
 ### Framing for Bias
 
@@ -838,7 +866,94 @@ This brings us back to re-examine the meaning and significance of the Species Be
 
 Then, we necessarily indicate and require a process leading to the elimination of all distinction between men and for the state of life as a species being to be achieved (one can even liken this ). If this is still not yet clear, or the likely aesthetic of this in the face of human bodies and advancement of technology, then it will soon be made more clear after examining the same subject from the lense (and reflecting from the corresponding historical event) of covidism.
 
+### But Fascism, not Communism
+One thing stood out to me right away when I first began reading "The Doctrine of Fascism".
+- !TODO: quote here
+- !TODO: comparison to Communism
+
+#### Syllogism on Fascism
+The Question: can you have a collectivist undertaking which is not communism? 
+
+At first it would seem that you most certainly can. For example, can we not have a fascist state where it simply doesn't prove that things will be equal?
+Well we can take that in two directions
+
+So, for the first, we can say that the that the goal in communism is equal distribution of something?
+Well, not exactly. Socialism is the public owning the means of production, but how that is distributed is assumed to be even at all. That's no the case, however - if we look
+For the first, we can say that thegoal in communism is equal distribution.
+Well, not exactly - Socialism
+
+but try to conceive of this for a second
+
+we have a collective - what does that mean?
+# Collective
+- multiple entities, but likely of the same type because we need to understand that they're at least of enough of a similar type such that they can be enumerated within the same context
+- there is a purpose. What kind of purpose could exist for a collective?
+  - Random purpose? something arbitrary? to erect .. a rock? well, even that example wouldn't be random, and would necessitate a further question of what purpose the erecting of that rock would serve
+  - coordination - coordinating for what? well, it would be for our shared purpose, duh
+  - specification - to have a specification of the world and what exists in it - to know that all who exist are specified within the collective as a means to reach completion - completion of what? of existence and the purpose of existence, of course
+  - to serve some other entity
+    - now here's where things get interesting. Either that entity is the collective itself, in which case we ask why that entity exists, and what its p urpose is.. is it to paint things yellow? same as the rock thing - so then what's the purpose? It's because a completed collective allows for man to attain his purpose
+    - the state? let's say that the purpose of the collective is to serve the state. But what is the state? is it something alive? or an instance to represent the ideal? The idea lof what? it all comes back to human existence and its purpose. If the state exists as a means of aligning and orienting all men, then the state is the excuse for the collective and the then the question is what's the reason we must align and orient all men? If there is any reason, it's because of the purpose and potential of attaining some form of true existence or true nature that isn't otherwise happening outside of the collective
+
+So then the criticisms against this would be to state that there's a difference between a communist and democratic socialist conception of an ideal liberation of mankind through their collective alignment to negate the oppression of the proletariat - which is the elimination of classes, ultimately, because there would be on distinction which allows for the conceptualization of the classes - there would not be a difference between any two man, but that this ultimately would happen at an international level, or a univversal level. What would the response to such a criticism be?
+
+If you have a collective for the state, and an assumption that this state remains for the one nation and only one nation alone, then we must ask what makes this nation state separate from any other? Is it just arbitrary geographic lines?
+
+Well, no, generally it would be because there is something about the premise of fascism which, just as communism, would necessitate the same endpoint, regardless of the theoretical description of its endpoint.
+
+In Mussolini's fascism, such as what might be understood through "The Doctrine of Fascism", what constraints are there to limit the state, to which all citizens exist as a collective in service to and in perfect alignment with, to being a state of a particular nation, to the exclusion of other states?
+
+If there are other states, then one would logically proceed to supposing that the other states somehow limit the glory and absolution of our fascist state. Would then not the next step be for the fascist state to conquer all other states, until such time that it is a universal state?
+
+There is a presupposing that the purpose and expression of every citizen necessarily requires conflict, as is found in war between the state and the other (other states). It wouldn't need to reconcile anything theoretically, so long as there is inevitable conflict between itself and anything which is its other. It would necessarily need to continue in conflict until there is no other.
+
+The criticism of this would be to say that the state would then turn its attention inwards as conflict could occur from the inside, and this is obviously something that we always see as a regime with a philosophy of a utopian collective always incurs massive atrocity and harm upon its own people.
+
+But the solution to that is easy - you just need to keep refining the process and the content within the state until there exists no contradiction between any of its components. That is to say, until such point that all men are one mind or that there is only one man.
+
+So while there may be some aesthetic difference in the theory, we are heading to the same endpoint and always beacuse it's the purpose of man to move through conflict until the distinctions are eliminated.
+
+
+2025-01-31 18:18:35
+
+Again, I've had this conversation with a few LLM's and it's, of course, much easier to convince them of your points than an actual Marxist, but nevertheless, I tried to give it my argument as a hot take, and it came out like this:
+
+Eman: I'm not convinced that the Doctrine of Fascism is describing something which isn't equivalent to Marxism. I think that the fact of it requiring the state and invoking conflict as a means of bringing man to their highest expression is superficial, and that they both logically conclude as the same
+
+KAI: I see what you mean, but the Doctrine of Fascism also requires a totalitarian state and the suppression of individual freedoms. These are not things that can be reconciled with Marxist theory which aims for the liberation of the working class through collective action.
+
+
+Eman: Marxist theory requires a dictatorship of the proletariat, which in practice is equivalent to the fascist state
+
+KAI: But the goal of Marxism is to create a society where there is no need for a state, whereas fascism seeks to maintain control over society indefinitely.
+
+
+
+Eman: the state is necessary as long as conflict exists between men, which reveals itself as contradiction and thus disparate class
+
+both of these systems would lead inevitably to requiring a circumstance where no conflict exists between men. Until such time, both will remain staunchly totalitarian and imposing an authoritarian state which always be a more severe permutation of these as history moves towards my described requirement
+
+KAI: I agree that both Marxism and Fascism require a strong state to enforce their ideologies, but the ultimate goal of Marxism is to create a stateless society where people are free from class conflict. In contrast, fascist ideology seeks to maintain control over society indefinitely through authoritarian means.
+
+
+
+Eman: The difference you indicate is of no consequence except if the endpoint is reached, and for such an endpoint to be reached we will require the same condition.
+
+Until such time, both will seek to maintain control over society indefinitely through authoritarian means.
+
+With Fascism, it will begin as requiring the one totalitarian state to be in conflict with any other state, thus either we require an infinite supply of other states, or we will achieve a circumstance whereby only one state remains, and that will be the universal or international state equivalent to what would be found under Marxism just prior to the liberation of all of humanity.
+
+For that last step, we require the elimination of distinctions between any remaining man. For this reason, only a circumstance of there being one mind for all men, or one single instance of man, would veritably provide the reliable condition of there being no conflict between men.
+
+KAI: I see your point, but I still believe that there is a fundamental difference between Marxism and Fascism. While both require a strong state to enforce their ideologies, the ultimate goal of Marxism is to create a stateless society where people are free from class conflict. In contrast, fascist ideology seeks to maintain control over society indefinitely through authoritarian means.
+***********************************
+
+As you can see, it's beginning to run out of steam and keeps bringing up the same point which it then demotes in agreeing to the very points I'm providing to refute thent.
+
+
 # What to Define
+! NOTE: Decide if this should be before former part, where we compare Fascism and Marxism
+
 Before we go further, we must clarify something else related to the definitions I have settled on for my understanding and my approach to helping others in their understanding of Communism (which, to be frank, is one's understanding of Collectivism).
 
 If Communism is the end stage of a historical process, Marxism is the thought about how to ?? the process.