Xenopoiesis: A Plan to Weird the World
- Thread starter TheInnerMoon
- Start date
- Original Sci-Fi
Jane DeKamp Answers, Part One
New
TheInnerMoon
Anarchist, Author, All-Around Philosopher
- Pronouns
- They/Them
First off, I got a question through unofficial channels, so let me get to that first:
Depends on what you mean by either term! I've been told that a lot of you are operating in an early 21st century context, so let me try and compensate for that.
Anyway, if you're talking about the formal procedures of government, like people going to the polls, then civic participation rates are significantly higher than they were for most of the 20th and 21st century. Part of this comes down to the peculiar structure of the modern Network-Party, and its deep basis in civil society, and part of it is owed to the existential questions of what America will become under either the Abolitionist or Reconstructionist camp.
On the other hand, if you judge 'formal government' by whether people obey their local authorities, then American society is considerably more 'informal' than it was a hundred years ago. The end of law enforcement has everything to do with that, since social peace is now guaranteed by popular, political entities rather than professional, unilateral ones. The same goes for the provision of various social services, which other than the most central and necessary ones (Medicare and judge/jury duty being two key examples) are mostly devolved to the aforementioned Network-Parties.
Okay, that was a very long answer, but I realize that y'all don't get a lot of the basics. I can already tell what a lot of the follow-up questions will be. Oy vey...
Edit: Oh, like, when did Spanish become an official language of the US? A decade or so before the Dual Revolution. I forget the year.
2. Boy, I'm not entirely sure which parts of our infrastructure are that old. Between the war, the rev, and the other war, almost everything got blown to smithereens at one time or another. I care more about the people than the buildings. As per their name, the Reconstructionists like to restore some of those structures and act as if nothing happened (the Roosevelt Dam on the Colorado being a notorious example), but that doesn't exactly make them authentic.
3. Heh, which capital? Monumental Manhattan is the capital of the world, pretty much, but as a city it's little more than a big stage for whoever wants to petition the bureaucrats. Washington is a museum, a crypto-escapist one if you ask me. Some reconstructionists treat it as their temple. As for Denver, it's hella boring, and almost everyone thinks so. You can really feel the folly of the Last Gasp there, it's creepy. Only go there if you can't call in remotely, or if you want to go on a mountain holiday afterwards.
Depends on what you mean by either term! I've been told that a lot of you are operating in an early 21st century context, so let me try and compensate for that.
Anyway, if you're talking about the formal procedures of government, like people going to the polls, then civic participation rates are significantly higher than they were for most of the 20th and 21st century. Part of this comes down to the peculiar structure of the modern Network-Party, and its deep basis in civil society, and part of it is owed to the existential questions of what America will become under either the Abolitionist or Reconstructionist camp.
On the other hand, if you judge 'formal government' by whether people obey their local authorities, then American society is considerably more 'informal' than it was a hundred years ago. The end of law enforcement has everything to do with that, since social peace is now guaranteed by popular, political entities rather than professional, unilateral ones. The same goes for the provision of various social services, which other than the most central and necessary ones (Medicare and judge/jury duty being two key examples) are mostly devolved to the aforementioned Network-Parties.
Okay, that was a very long answer, but I realize that y'all don't get a lot of the basics. I can already tell what a lot of the follow-up questions will be. Oy vey...
1. Not sure what you mean by this, it's just the name of the country? Maybe you're confused because it's in Spanish? I can say 'United States', I guess.
Edit: Oh, like, when did Spanish become an official language of the US? A decade or so before the Dual Revolution. I forget the year.
2. Boy, I'm not entirely sure which parts of our infrastructure are that old. Between the war, the rev, and the other war, almost everything got blown to smithereens at one time or another. I care more about the people than the buildings. As per their name, the Reconstructionists like to restore some of those structures and act as if nothing happened (the Roosevelt Dam on the Colorado being a notorious example), but that doesn't exactly make them authentic.
3. Heh, which capital? Monumental Manhattan is the capital of the world, pretty much, but as a city it's little more than a big stage for whoever wants to petition the bureaucrats. Washington is a museum, a crypto-escapist one if you ask me. Some reconstructionists treat it as their temple. As for Denver, it's hella boring, and almost everyone thinks so. You can really feel the folly of the Last Gasp there, it's creepy. Only go there if you can't call in remotely, or if you want to go on a mountain holiday afterwards.
IamtooSleepy
I came here to be an ant
Hi Mx.Dekamp!
1. How bad would you say the US politics is polarised? Over here, it seem everyone agree that one side is a horrible, idiot dictator that going to kill us all, while the other is, well, not as bad as that, they just disagree on which side is which. It seem that you are somewhat disagree with the "reconstructionists," but I hope at least you would at least try not to kill each other?
2. What would you say is the issues of the days? Well, beside the Negation crisis, that is.
3. Are there anyone who oppose how much the "network parties" become responsible for what was once major functions of state? Either by reasserting state power or creating alternative form of organizations?
3.5 Actually, what are the network parties anyway?
4. Over here, we have fun an interesting method for forcasting election result, such as, number of pie sale, what adorable animals eat, or astrology. What sort of fun ways people in the 22nd century have for "predicting" election?
1. How bad would you say the US politics is polarised? Over here, it seem everyone agree that one side is a horrible, idiot dictator that going to kill us all, while the other is, well, not as bad as that, they just disagree on which side is which. It seem that you are somewhat disagree with the "reconstructionists," but I hope at least you would at least try not to kill each other?
2. What would you say is the issues of the days? Well, beside the Negation crisis, that is.
3. Are there anyone who oppose how much the "network parties" become responsible for what was once major functions of state? Either by reasserting state power or creating alternative form of organizations?
3.5 Actually, what are the network parties anyway?
4. Over here, we have fun an interesting method for forcasting election result, such as, number of pie sale, what adorable animals eat, or astrology. What sort of fun ways people in the 22nd century have for "predicting" election?
- Location
- Australia
- Pronouns
- He/They
- I can take a guess based on context, but could you define 'Abolitionist' and 'Reconstructionist' for us?
- Could you also explain what the Dual Revolution was?
- How's the Pacific Northwest looking? Ecology not too destroyed? Any 'Cascadian' weirdos still crawling around?
- Actually, how's the ecology of the Gulf of Mexico looking? Lotta biodiversity there that tends to go unthought of.
- How're the Mormons doing?
Jane DeKamp Answers, Part Two
New
TheInnerMoon
Anarchist, Author, All-Around Philosopher
- Pronouns
- They/Them
Sorry for the delay; I was looking up some info on the Terminal Twenties, to see if I could bridge some of the context drift. Turns out a lot can happen in a hundred years!
2. "Beside the Negation Crisis" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It's like asking someone from 2020 what was going on "besides covid". But yes, there are always the issues of the day. The 'great game' of US politics is of course the opposition between Reconstruction and Abolition, which you really ought to know the basics of by now. But it plays out in different ways. Like, the present indigenization initiatives? There's people on both sides of the aisle advocating for that, either as the revival of a national métis/mestizo culture, or as an expression of the free association of peoples. Then there's something like the proposal to do away with Denver and move the capital into the infraverse. Pragmatists of all stripes favor it, but then there are Reconstructionists arguing the city now has some national historical value, and Abolitionists saying it still serves its original function as a neutral meeting place. It's a real paradox, if you can't tell, and the network parties don't always fall the way you'd expect them to.
3. Of course some people are annoyed by it, but it's what you know, you know? I think it helps that the basics of social reproduction are still stateside. Energy, healthcare, communication, all that. Even then, there's a big difference between pulling your food from some dispenser, and enjoying a good meal with your comrades. It's the network parties that make our collection of souls into a real society. I imagine you folks would be horrified to know that we effectively have 'school choice' now. What used to be a far right dogwhistle is now a fundamental aspect of our education system. Still, it's not as if we live in totally separate worlds. But that's due ti the network structure. Speaking of…
3.5 So the network parties are really just these large coalitions of vaguely aligned social political entities. They're big tents filled with mass parties, union locals, religious association, educational federations, and so on. As with many things, they're both more and less formal than the US party system you might be familiar with. The individual members have more freedom of movement, but they also get to have more influence on what the center decides. Between the two, the Reconstructionists are definitely more centralist in orientation, their center claiming to be in continuity with the original "All-American Revolutionary Committee". The abolitionists really only coalesced in opposition to reconstruction, since their line would be unquestioned otherwise. The "Council of Un-American Activities" started out as a bit of a joke, but by now, their Congressional caucus is arguably more disciplined than that of the Reconstructionists, who still quibble over what a truer, gentler America would be like.
4. This may sound weird to you, but I think most of us would see such superstitions as being kind of distasteful? Like, our representative bodies are meant to express the will of the people, and given that voting is just another part of people's associational way of life, the results are usually clear well in advance. At most, some campaign group or cooperative council will shift to the other camp last minute, and even that doesn't happen in secret. It really helps that we've abolished the presidency, and most other kinds of winner-takes-all executive elections. I can't imagine the social tensions if one person got to be dictator-in-chief for four years!
1. Political polarization, what a classic term! In a way, we just don't think about 'unity' as something normative. Organizations exist to represent different interests, and while the political process is meant to reconcile those, disagreements are insurmountable so long as there is not a level playing field between all parties. To our political theorists, this is the difference between agonism and antagonism, or between polarization and dialectics. In practice, it means that I can swear at the Reconstructionists, call them crypto-escapists and all sorts of nasty things, but still regard them as my political equals. It's the essentialists who are the real threat, since they would foreclose the destiny of all Humanity. With them, no accord is feasible.
2. "Beside the Negation Crisis" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It's like asking someone from 2020 what was going on "besides covid". But yes, there are always the issues of the day. The 'great game' of US politics is of course the opposition between Reconstruction and Abolition, which you really ought to know the basics of by now. But it plays out in different ways. Like, the present indigenization initiatives? There's people on both sides of the aisle advocating for that, either as the revival of a national métis/mestizo culture, or as an expression of the free association of peoples. Then there's something like the proposal to do away with Denver and move the capital into the infraverse. Pragmatists of all stripes favor it, but then there are Reconstructionists arguing the city now has some national historical value, and Abolitionists saying it still serves its original function as a neutral meeting place. It's a real paradox, if you can't tell, and the network parties don't always fall the way you'd expect them to.
3. Of course some people are annoyed by it, but it's what you know, you know? I think it helps that the basics of social reproduction are still stateside. Energy, healthcare, communication, all that. Even then, there's a big difference between pulling your food from some dispenser, and enjoying a good meal with your comrades. It's the network parties that make our collection of souls into a real society. I imagine you folks would be horrified to know that we effectively have 'school choice' now. What used to be a far right dogwhistle is now a fundamental aspect of our education system. Still, it's not as if we live in totally separate worlds. But that's due ti the network structure. Speaking of…
3.5 So the network parties are really just these large coalitions of vaguely aligned social political entities. They're big tents filled with mass parties, union locals, religious association, educational federations, and so on. As with many things, they're both more and less formal than the US party system you might be familiar with. The individual members have more freedom of movement, but they also get to have more influence on what the center decides. Between the two, the Reconstructionists are definitely more centralist in orientation, their center claiming to be in continuity with the original "All-American Revolutionary Committee". The abolitionists really only coalesced in opposition to reconstruction, since their line would be unquestioned otherwise. The "Council of Un-American Activities" started out as a bit of a joke, but by now, their Congressional caucus is arguably more disciplined than that of the Reconstructionists, who still quibble over what a truer, gentler America would be like.
4. This may sound weird to you, but I think most of us would see such superstitions as being kind of distasteful? Like, our representative bodies are meant to express the will of the people, and given that voting is just another part of people's associational way of life, the results are usually clear well in advance. At most, some campaign group or cooperative council will shift to the other camp last minute, and even that doesn't happen in secret. It really helps that we've abolished the presidency, and most other kinds of winner-takes-all executive elections. I can't imagine the social tensions if one person got to be dictator-in-chief for four years!
That ain't a bad idea. I'd argue that there occasions where executive power and the kind of rapid action only an executive officer could take are necessary but that's it.
For an actual question: how do you feel about multi-party systems? As in, more than two specifically. Because the two party system is honestly a dumpster fire.
Jane DeKamp Answers, Part Three
New
TheInnerMoon
Anarchist, Author, All-Around Philosopher
- Pronouns
- They/Them
1. Ugh, I knew I was going to have to clarify. I know y'all appreciate a meme, so here's the stereotypical version:
Reconstructionist: "smh I wish John Brown was real" "the Founding Fathers stole all of their best material from Indigenous people (and that's good?)" "if America didn't exist, we would have to invent her" "I had a simulation of Frank LLoyd Wright redesign my apartment"
Abolitionist: "burn down the Amerikkkan plantation" "as long as there is a single soul in prison, I am not free" "we begin bombing in five minutes" "I would personally sand down Mount Rushmore if I had the time"
2. So the Dual Revolution is basically the October 1917 of the 21st century. (Some PALA patriots will claim that honor too, but they vastly overestimate their pre-war radicalism.) It formed the crescendo of the Third World War, where both the Chinese and American people got so sick and tired of fighting that they quit the war entirely. Revolutionaries on both sides made sure that neither state could take advantage of the other's weakness, and American troops would ultimately halt the total victory of essentialist forces in Eurasia. Sino-American sisterhood has been unbroken ever since. In Reconstructionist retellings, it's almost a fairytale.
3. Those 'Cascadian weirdos' wouldn't like you calling them that! The region has definitely tried to stake out its own identity, though the most fervent abolitionists think that even this smacks of crypto-Americanism. Canadian refugees make up a large part of the local population; the Pacific Northwest is a hotspot for refugees in general, especially after the Scouring of California. The ecology's about what you'd expect. Did I mention it's bad everywhere?
4. Ah, I can let a piece of fiction from your own context do most of the heavy lifting here. Just play Norco, and you'll get what the situation is like in the Gulf. Prescient bit of storytelling, that.
5. The Mormons! They can't seem to figure out whether they'll go 'Full Deseret' under abolitionism, or market themselves as an All-American Religion. And given all the skeletons in their closet, the Negation has been hitting them hard. Not sure how they'll come out of that. Also, in case you were wondering, they did go back to sanctioning polyamory. That's pretty much the norm now anyways.
Multi-party systems are fine, I suppose? I get how it must have sucked back in your time, but that had more to do with the nature of those parties than there being two of them. That we've gone back to a two-party system is just an accident of history. If the Reconstructionists had there way, there'd only be one party, like the Chinese. Meanwhile, us abolitionists would ultimately do away with party politics altogether, like in PALA. Only the EAF has something resembling a multiparty system, and that just makes them look antiquated to the rest of us. To say nothing of essentialist politics, brr.