Peanut

by neoliberal progressive rugpulling i’m talking about democrats/liberals running on progressive platforms, only to rugpull and basically be a more moderate version of rightwing corporatism.

a good example here in canada is when smaller progressive parties started gaining traction on voter reform to avoid the 2 party extreme of this context as we see in the united states. the liberal party (basically democrats) started running on the same voter reform platform, as well as the ‘responsible’ vote for ensuring that conservatives aren’t in charge, in our near two-party system.

after winning they said “oh that’s what voter reform means? oh we didn’t mean that at all lol bye.”

also like how carney got an easy win by not being an openly psychotic fascist, but is still pushing hyper conservative and pro-corporate political changes.

so it’s the same kind of ‘corruption’ of collective effort, in a different ecosystem.

we need ways to recognize and respond to this type of exploitation of shared environments and efforts, which is made difficult due to high populations with low reading-comprehension or ability to make sense of complex or contradictory environments.

people need to recognize when the body they are using to achieve a collective goal is being usurped or changed for usually antithetical reasons, and animal farm is all about the different ways this can happen.

the casual silencing of dissent, or obscuring/changing of wording or rules, or outright lies. again, the point of animal farm is that the system can be gutted or changed in essence, into the same oligarch serving capitalist system, despite being the ‘revolutionaries’ that escaped from their capitalist overlords.

you could even make the parallel to MAGA, since half of MAGA seems to think their movement is going to do [socialist policy,] just with the depth of obscuration needed to fool flat-earthers. so they will sign up for a direct crypto rug-pull i guess. no veils needed.

yeah, a lot of it is just that humans are dumb and can’t fucking communicate, or comprehend text past a socialized misrepresentation which most people just accept is the context i guess.

nobody else in this thread seems to comprehend how that doesn’t mean ‘communism bad.’ i wouldn’t really know, because the dogpiling comes mostly with “BAD BOOK, NO READ,” rather than any actual reasoning.

not every heuristic or example will always be useful in every situation, but i find animal farm and 1984 do a good job conveying certain tools or framings that are extremely relevant to current corruption and political happenings. whether it’s character assassination like hasan or other progressives, or direct assassinations like MLK. misrepresentations of people or their motives, which you see with basically every group that defends themselves from imperialist aggression, or even mild dissidents being framed as ‘terrorists.’ many academics and anarchists are bringing up polysemy and exploitations of context/system framing and other things, but shitty vague groupings like liberal/progressive/left make it hard to draw the clear boundaries of where systems start being treated like exploitable environment, which is the more general shape of the problem. we can actually model this stuff with modern academic framing, but the heritage foundation and types are actively in the government trying to burn and scorn as much progressive academia as possible.

again, you’re appreciated for actually interacting with my words, even if i still haven’t convinced you. thank you.

never said you were screaming, i was suggesting that as the alternative form of communication people choose outside of scientifically figuring out how to communicate across different systems.

i agree that associating the left as specifically authoritarian is bad and wrong, and i heavily disagree with that interpretation of animal farm. again, the ending of the book is that they became capitalists, not leftists. but i do think authoritarianism is bad, and associating it with the left is bad, even when leftists (tankies) do it.

and the atheism/feminism war was online and general media. it bled into a bunch of things like ‘gamergate,’ but the SJW framing was really big in the media, amongst other things. there were a lot of groups that were organizing against groups like the heritage foundation, which got discouraged or derailed by the culture war crap. lots of weird stuff, but just one of the more recent examples. you can use similar tools for other recent things like the anti-hasan campaigns painting him as a dog-abusing terrorism lover, or media campaigns against BLM/ANTIFA a while back.

anywhere you try to find progressive efforts, you see weird shit on fire for no reasonable reason, other than progressive groups still haven’t found a way to successfully communicate and cooperate, and probably a lot of intentional fire-starting from the assholes with money that the groups are generally aligned against, such as the heritage foundation, or their global counterparts.

also just a note, when i talk about ‘heterarchical systems’ i’m basically talking about anarchism.

we need to grow a whole new culture out of the corpse of a political system most of us or currently trapped inside of.

and you’re lucky if you’ve found the one anarchist/progressive space that works for you, but try to grow that effort into one that can affect the existing systems, and you’ll suddenly find your group is either a terrorist organization, or that the group hates women, and now you have to prove to a bunch of angry public reaction to any association with that woman hating group. it is constant for anyone actually being noticed as a danger to the status quo.

i’m usually trying to talk about anarchistic efforts that affect more than one small community, as individualized and isolated communities aren’t gonna do much the moment the big imperial body notices the potential for actual social change happening.

thank you though for an honest response to my words. posting in online spaces has only gotten more stifling over the years. just wish local efforts could connect to larger efforts, since we need multiple groups cooperating in solidarity, not isolated individualism.

they are teaching that stalin is evil because he is rightwing?

is anyone here actually reading the words that i’m typing before responding?

are you even human? did you comprehend any of the words being said?

i just enjoy the use of animal farm/1984 as little heuristic environments to convey simple ways that collective efforts are derailed, with a great simple short set of events that show how a movement can be slowly converted into something antithetical to the original collective effort.

a problem that still hasn’t been solved, despite any elaboration that could be had on the specific happenings in the USSR.

i care about the heuristics because they do map really well to other and current happenings, in ways that are useful for framing to people things such as the decades of neoliberal progressive rugpulling, or how the heritage foundation and types have been slowly reshaping the environment to benefit them, in a recursive corruption of existing systems.

it’s definitely more complicated than shown in animal-farm, but people already react as if this is the deep-end, and trying to copy and paste a textbook on USSR specifics would also have me back explaining the difference between patterns and substrate, which honestly shouldn’t be the case with animal farm, but it seems even (american?) leftists seem to have read it as ‘commuism bad.’

i think it’s a really good tool for framing the different opportunistic tools that derail progressive efforts, even to this day.

divide-and-conquer is sure as hell working really well lately. do you remember the atheism feminism war not too long ago? or the gender war? or more race-wars than you can shake a stick at?

there’s a reason why right-wing authoritarians and their neoliberal counterparts are currently dominating. animal farm is a really good simplified example showing how and why such a thing can happen, even when there’s a lot of support for progressive efforts.

you could show tools like the motte-and-bailey creeping of the overton window in both animal farm, and real life examples of leftist efforts being damaged or derailed.

authoritarianism is by definition counter to progressive efforts, and heterarchical systems need to recognize this to scale and survive with any success verses other exploitative systems. there’s no reason to ignore this message, even if it comes from a satire of the USSR.

also modern science is a good resource on how to accomplish this stuff. like building a big-stick resistant social immune system that doesn’t fuck us all to death. or we can just keep yelling and screaming at each other, especially the people framing the necessary science around progressive efforts.

you even see a lot of tools such a slander being used against people like hasan or other progressives right now. animal farm has a lot of good examples of character assassination. great resource for people with basic reading comprehension.

what government history book is teaching how right-wing style movements or oligarchical power are used derail socialist efforts? which history books are you suggesting be salient?

“Do you actually think nazis were on the left?”

if i thought that, i wouldn’t have said that they came after the left.

everyone thinks i’m anti-left because of the weird american interpretation that animal farm = ‘communism bad,’ and not that collective efforts can be derailed by failures of communication or education.

the failure of progressive efforts is that most progressive groups can be turned on each other because they can’t communicate or separate patterns from substrate.

‘divide and conquer’ is really successful, whether in animal farm or in basically every historical example of oppression.

again the ‘first they came for’ poem i alluded to with “Why the ‘national socialists’ came for the communists and socialists first.”

what this means is that the name ‘national socialist’ was obviously completely removed from the concept.

again, like the pigs in animal farm becoming removed from the concept of animals by the end of the book. why the book is an apt reference to actual systems, although more specifically around the unfortunate failures of early russian efforts.

again, the oversimplified american interpretation of ‘communism bad’ mostly comes from a thorough lack of reading comprehension, and memetic/socialized reification of that misinterpretation.

so again, stating that i was not calling the nazis progressives when suggesting that their name was being misused through blatant oppression of socialists.

you don’t think that socialist efforts get de-railed or coopted by opportunistic oligarchs or figureheads?

‘heterarchical systems need more advanced structure building to survive’ =/= ‘socialism bad.’

everyone is angrily lashing at their own misinterpretation of animal farm as a critique of animal farm.

like people who can’t comprehend building solidarity over stupid media driven culture war bullshit. yelling angrily at other progressives for being a different shape, or defending actual intentional derailing of efforts are weirdly not the solutions to the famous fallibility of progressive efforts, which you should care about if you actually care about progressive efforts.

didn’t say “this is why communism can never work” i was saying how collective efforts get coopted. the entire point of animal farm is that the pigs end up like the human ‘capitalists’ they were supposed to replace, by changing the rules and languages opportunistically, against the wishes or best interest of the people. this isn’t an argument against communism or collective efforts as a whole calm down.

If only the real world was a straight line, and there were nothing such as authoritarian coopting of collective efforts, resembling right wing fascist authoritarian, wearing the corpse of an attempted social movement.

Why animal farm exists

Why the ‘national socialists’ came for the communists and socialists first.

You’re representing a high dimensional ecosystem with oversimplified boundings being flattened into a linear scale, and the ‘horseshoe’ is moreso adapting the simple heuristic to better represent the more complicated reality.

Sometimes the meaning of words is opportunistically changed, or the people directing a group change, and we actually have to comprehend and adapt to that.

A better representation of the political system is like a body where a bunch of organs seem to think cancer might be the best shape to be. Cancer as in ‘defining wider boundings of surrounding systems as exploitable environment’ usually ignoring how the surrounding body is literally necessary for sustaining life for the cancer itself. This is also where we would talk about things like instrumental convergence in natural/human systems.

So the linear line doesn’t really explain the constant rugged individualism usurping spaces in our complex high dimensional social reality. Ergo horseshoe heuristic.

This conversation is broader than most treat it.

The rugpulling bait and switch of the democratic party is something that needs to be recognized. There is also the corporate apologetics, and I do think directly supporting a genocide is also a deal breaker.

But also, divide and conquer is a thing.

Remember how atheists suddenly started hating women? Or is it that atheists suddenly had to stop protesting the heritage foundation, and had to pivot defensively when trying to get circumcision banned in the states suddenly meant they obviously hate women for daring to suggest male circumcision is also bad when female circumcision is much much worse. This type of interaction reverberates until feminist academia is fully contorted into a tool for opportunists to shape like a bludgeon, and atheist spaces empty of progressive who can’t deal with the emotional upset of being compared to Incels and Conservatives, and feminist academics are forced to prove they aren’t all the opportunistic SJWs that misinterpret their own tools to make intersectionality an oversimplified version of "define everybody exclusively by their surface features, and self segregate to not associate with their evil ‘surface feature attained at birth.’

Also now the heritage foundation is directly in power with a bunch of other opportunistic fascists, progressives all hate each other, and none of this means we shouldn’t be careful of opportunists derailing collective efforts in support of incompatible abuses of human rights.

Doesn’t mean we can’t work with the neoliberal counter parties in fighting the blatant fascists, but we definitely need to recognize the shape of the battlefield as we shape our collective response, and how our collective response is reshaped by those with the power to do so. And also solidarity is important for any group that doesn’t feel safe or represented in the current society. Usually such people are not your enemy, even if your social group is convinced that suddenly progressives need to start discouraging and being aggressive to people who actively want to be allies, because they have other needs, preferences, or surface features that don’t actually define their entire being. Even if they look like the majority surface features of the “bad groups.”

I don’t doubt these conflicts are instigated by weird media pushes, which lately I relate to the hasan dog controversy, or the Hilary emails (recognizing this doesn’t mean I like Hilary,) or media framing around antifa/BLM pushes.

There’s a bunch of stuff about larger groups, and subpopulatons that can be exploited for divide and conquer, or strawmanning the whole group by enabling the least thoughtful, and most aggressive, which can be blown up by the media so that the whole group is defined by it.

Although often the group fully accepts their role of being the very strawman, because in group solidarity becomes everything, and solidarity with other movements is evil for showing how targeted violence towards other progressive groups is not actually the best progressive effort. Etc.

I’m even more fun at parties.

I think we have a little more freedom around where we label colours, as all existing colours are just an active bounding relative to our usually-semi-aligned receptors. Someone who can’t see blue could call something blue because others see it as blue, but it’s technically still accurate to bound and define strictly from their style of receptors, we just appreciate cohesion in our heuristics due to the nature of our social way of being.

Perceiving something temporarily as a different colour due to the changing environment also altering our internal representation does not make it inaccurate to temporarily alter which made up words appropriately describe the made up boundings around an assumed relationship our internal model representation of wavelengths share with each other, regardless of whether surface contact changing the reflected wavelengths, or a doppler shift giving a temporary relative change in experience or classification.

Also see: why language is more suggestions than law, due to the valid growth of language happening simultaneously in myriad eco-niches with different salience or needs which may alter the ‘proper’ way of communication specifically within that eco-niche, or in relative shape to other locales. Especially when dealing with preference or style over function, but even bias for ‘function’ can have a proper local-niche optimization over ‘improper’ models despite ‘proper’ local models having functional conflict with broader models. meaning we need better ways to align while diversifying without enforcing the most large and salient local collective preference as law.

Also a lot of our experience is relative or confabulatory in ways that we should recognize before rejecting other localization of experience. recognizing how we handle language at multiple simultaneous scales crafted around-and-for myriad locally/generally salient settings. Unfortunately this becomes difficult to communicate when a politician tells all the people seeing red flowers that the person in a different context seeing the blue flower is just ‘wrong,’ while the rest are ‘correct,’ even though the same people with the same logic would argue differently if positions were reversed. This silly hypothetical is the same kind of issue as conveyed around ‘the double empathy problem’ as a broader systems mechanic, for different boundings on building logic vs model growth purely through passive socialized affirmation, or the same vulnerability to sycophantic delusion you see with “AI” psychosis, but due to a sycophantic group rather than an LLM.

Reality is just weird and dumb, and our existing systems kind of a gauge around what is actively useful as we grow ourselves into new shapes going forward. We definitely need to be wary of socializing strict binaries around local relative confabulatory structures or preferences. Ergo: the rose can be blue, even if that’s not permanently useful outside of a strict communication around a personal position and experience. We can recognize the paradox from observer states with both confabulated classifications simultaneously, with both being true and neither being wrong, dependent on the acceptance of both states as valid experiences.