Editing Ontology:Q49,93

{{ArticleTitle|[S2] Leninism is over but "Marxism" is not - W, DX - Q49,93 |NoContents=y}}
<includeonly><onlyinclude><dfn class="{{{class|field_gramsci}}} manual" data-dimension="S2" data-qid="49,93" data-field="" data-series="" data-work="" data-chapter="" data-tale="" data-object="" data-note="" data-lexeme="">{{IS2/W}}{{#if: {{{1|}}} | [[Ontology:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] | [[E:Q49,93|Leninism is over but "Marxism" is not]] }}{{WaveScore|sum=1|quilt=1|ply=1|enddfn=1}}</onlyinclude></includeonly><!--
-->{{HueNumberPreview|E=Q49,93}}<!-- duplication hint:  copy or update fake Item from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN|Q49,93]] -->

== Core characteristics ==

<dl class="wikitable hue">
{{HueClaim |P=item type| {{Template:S2}} }}
{{HueRoster|EP=PPPA/L|lang=en| {{E:Q49,93}} | (DX swatch) Bolshevism is over but Marxism is not }}
{{HueClaim |EP=PPPA|lang=en| -- }}
{{HueRoster|EP=P42| -- }}  <!-- en: QID references -->
{{HueRoster|EP=P34| {{E:Q4108}} | {{E:Q4107}} }}  <!-- en: field  Western Marxism  Deng Xiaoping Thought -->
{{HueRoster|EP=P3| -- }}  <!-- en: sub-case of -->
{{HueRoster|EP=P4| -- }}  <!-- en: case of -->
{{HueRoster|EP=P5| Party-nations are not actually Marxist }}  <!-- en: super-case of -->
{{HueRoster|EP=P14| -- }}  <!-- en: appears in work -->
{{HueRoster|EP=P6| -- }}  <!-- en: consists of components -->
</dl>

== Wavebuilder combinations ==

<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three">
{{WaveBuildNone| -- | -- | -- }}  <!-- en: Along With, Produces  ??  ?? -->
</dl>

=== Characterizations ===

<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three">
{{WaveRoute| -- | -- | -- }}  <!-- en: From  ??  ?? -->
</dl>

== [[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand|Prototype]] notes ==

<ol class="hue clean data_urbanfantasy">
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="4993" data-dimension="S2">Leninism is over but "Marxism" is not  ->  I'm half convinced that every time somebody implies this (and isn't from China, Cuba, or Vietnam) that it's literally just a way to sneak in Existentialism and deceive people into believing all the things smaller than Liberalism and capitalism that ultimately reconstruct capitalism. half the time I laugh at this one and half the time I get angry, because it tends to trap people in this loop of insisting that if you don't believe Marxism can be used to purge people of all incorrect beliefs and create a perfect society full of nice people <em>before</em> getting rid of capitalism you're racist, while due to the actual material definition of capitalism, if they believe it it makes them absolutely, absolutely incapable of stopping people from becoming racist, digging them deeper and deeper into this hole they can never get out of.

</li><li class="field_geo" value="4994" data-dimension="S2">Marxism is over but party-nations are not ...  ->  the claim that central party-nations are not over but the attempt to regulate the stochastic sorting of people into corporate countable Cultures basically is. somewhat credible when there are about three countries that can vouch for it. many people like to think you can immediately springboard off this to justifying Existentialism but you actually can't. it almost implies the opposite: that primitive Existentialism is most stable when it's regulated from above and not allowed to become a government in and of itself.
</li></ol>

== Usage notes ==

This is the claim that early Marxism, as laid out by Marx and Engels, still has some amount of accuracy or relevance to reality although {{em|Leninism}} as laid out by Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, or Trotsky is claimed not to hold such accuracy or relevance. People may have varying reasons for claiming that Leninism has been rejected, and these would all be distinct propositions. This is simply the overall claim that some collection of central components of Leninism is not true.

One major category of philosophies which will claim this is simply plain old anticommunism. People will get scared by the concept of dividing a population in two or creating a workers' state, and try to insist that Marxism actually means something totally different from creating a Soviet Union. Whether this is true or false on a literal level is complicated. The past century has shown us that a proper use of historical materialism likely does not have just a single outcome, and appears to have many different outcomes correlated with the presence of different [[E:country characteristics|country characteristics]] and more specifically the class composition of a country. In this sense there would certainly appear to be multiple possible Marxisms, only one of them being the historical Soviet Union. With that said, the intention of invoking multiple Marxisms within ideologies such as Lacanianism and the "Fisherist" wing of Western Marxism is not usually to open up [[E:meta-Marxism|a boundless terrain of possibility]]; the purpose is usually just to crudely rule out Bolshevism for the sake of doing that. It must be repeated that this is a non-Marxist position. No matter what exact set of details Marxism is to contain, Marxism {{em|never}} means ruling out workers' states which are already viable and calling them [[E:|fake periods of history]]. The core objective of Marxism is for all the world's Marxisms [[E:Communist International|to coexist]]. Any Marxism which does not at least try to do this is a potential candidate for [[E:undialectical idealism, historical existentialism, & class non-analysis|a history-denying philosophy, or a non-Materialist philosophy]]. Unfortunately even a failed Marxism cannot simply be labeled "not a Marxism". A great number of theorists who [[E:Trotsky is your new hero|ally themselves with Marxism]] are likely to fail to do it correctly. Even Lenin made errors at first; if every bad Marxist was preemptively labeled not a Marxist, there wouldn't be any Marxists.

The other major case of a philosophy claiming Marxism-Leninism is over is Deng Xiaoping Thought. The way the claim manifests in this philosophy is very different from the way it manifests in philosophies like Lacanianism or center-Liberalism. Deng Xiaoping Thought does not present the Material system of Bolshevism as categorically bad, as much as an unfinished goal to aspire to. At the same time, it has casually put said goal aside for the practical purposes of defending the borders of China, Cuba, or Vietnam through [[E:Deng Xiaoping process|constructing a viable economy and building tight connections between all the people inside the country]].


[[Category:Anticommunist propositions ontology]]