View source for Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q22,13

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Yaroshenkoism|User=RD|E=Q22,13|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

{{li|start=y|I=S1/DX|Q=22,13|Q2=2213|h4 = Yaroshenkoism }} / pseudo-Marxist model that relations of production (class territories or industrial structures) are contained inside productive forces instead of productive forces that include physical businesses and chunks of workers being contained inside relations of production in a contradictory relationship (1952) / {{nickel|RedSpectre/AgainstDengism}}  ->  "late Dengism should be called Yaroshenkoism". [https://github.com/Red-Spectre/Info/blob/main/Against%20Dengism.md] [http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/EPS52.pdf] [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch13.htm] oh man I love this. brutal, but I never had a name for this specific aspect of things before. so, unbelievably, I think Yaroshenko is going to start showing up in "Ideology codes" sections as one of the subdivisions of the "DX" code.<br/>
I think I can already vaguely start to see what his error is, because if everything was productive forces how would you know what structures they should be arranged into and which ones they shouldn't? Yaroshenko's model seems really mushy and hard to work with. even if it were somehow okay for economics you would never know if a dictatorship of the proletariat was achieved or not. and that isn't acceptable because even if you want to do "[[E:red anarchology (meta-Marxism)|red anarchology]]", the minimum for that to be valid is you should be able to tell when countable areas of capitalism are over.

{{li|I=S1/DX|Q=22,13|Q2=2213}}Yaroshenkoism / treating all bourgeoisie and granting nodes as workers (Yaroshenko)  ->  so. if the class territories are not a cage around the productive forces, I think that basically implies that the bourgeoisie are workers, doesn't it? part of the reason you have to separate out the relations of production from the productive forces is to make it easier for the connected crimson Social-Philosophical System of workers to break out and create a dictatorship of the proletariat early on. while if you try to say they're the same thing you get some kind of confusing Gramscian account that the bourgeoisie can totally help a proletarian revolution develop and create a workers' state. by the time Yaroshenkoism gets to China it really does feel like what they've done is say the bourgeoisie can liberate China because the bourgeoisie are Basically workers as long as the corporation contains a bunch of workers. although they aren't.

{{li|I=S1/DX|Q=22,13|Q2=2213}}Yaroshenkoism / universal organizing science (Bogdanov, Yaroshenko) / technique of social organization (Bukharin, Yaroshenko)

{{li|I=S1/DX|Q=22,13|Q2=2213}}Yaroshenko  ->  I need to note that this man sent letters to everybody in the Politburo defending revisionist 'Marxism' a total of three times. after the first time the Politburo seems to have made a bad joke about arresting him. but after he had been demoted to work in Siberia came the second and third time, and the third one actually got him arrested. [https://www.reddit.com/r/SovietHistory/comments/av4yjz/discussion_yaroshenko_the_man_who_spammed/] Yaroshenko is impressive in all the wrong ways. this is the funniest thing I've learned about all week

</li></ol>
== Motifs and claims ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=F2/DX|Q=618|Q2=618}}All relations of production do is limit the development of the productive forces (Yaroshenko)

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618|Q2=618}}Bourgeois political economy and socialist political economy are completely different disciplines because of how (supposedly) workers have turned relations of production into productive forces  ->  this is {{em|totally}} the kind of thing that creates Deng Xiaoping Thought if you try to do it too early

{{li|I=F2/DX|Q=618|Q2=618}}Soviet-Union production relations are intelligently designed (Yaroshenko 1952) / Inside a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat, the workers have full control of the relations of production (Yaroshenko)  ->  that is clearly not true just because of uneven development. the NEP is one example of this, they had to have a phase of constructing free-floating corporations because there were no larger structures and the workers had no way to control those structures as processes.

</li></ol>

== Statements against ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}Yaroshenkoism is not even anarchology because it does not acknowledge material elements of the economy such as commodities, forms of "property" or non-individually-owned structure, and the matter of [[E:to each according to his work|workers increasingly producing and regions trading workers]]; understanding the development of these material elements is what allows a region of workers to control transition between different sets of structures or so-called "productive forces", not whatever Yaroshenko thinks gives that control

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML onto DX, MX onto DX|Q=618|Q2=618}}Never "strawberry" production relations / Marxisms must not "strawberry" production relations / If strawberry Marxisms present models of parts of society and those particular models are to be called "Marxism" at all, one thing they must not do is try to "un-crimson" and "strawberry" the basic concepts of what productive forces and relations of production are; at the moments a strawberry ideology understands this correctly it is doing Marxism, while at the moments it tries to "strawberry" relations of production it is not doing Marxism

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=21,04|Q2=2104}}Men enter into definite relations not of their choosing / Each time human beings are involved in productive forces, there are sets of relations of production that correlate to them, limited in their possibilities by the form of the productive forces themselves and basically the limitations of that historical period; the relations of production are created according to the material rules of physical processes and not primarily created by individual people's spontaneous choices of what structures they will create and how to design the social structure of Belgium- or Maryland-sized areas (Marx) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q21,04|9k]])

{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=ML, MX, ML onto DX|Q=618|Q2=618}}Production relations are graph links / Relations of production are a form of social graph connection / Relations of production include connections between workers, connections from workers to owners or specific business territories, and connections between separate enterprises  ->  seems almost tautologically obvious until you have to analyze Yaroshenko, at which point it becomes unusually interesting. you're basically left having to tell him that there's a material difference between free-floating capitalist business territories having this shifting post-structuralist set of relationships between them that are one kind of relation of production and then within socialism there will be many other different kinds of connections but it's knowing the abilities of each of those connections and not just putting a Marxist party over the country that makes workers able to change to better relations of production. Stalin was very violet in this text, surprisingly. he's usually not very violet but he will go to the violet scale when small-scale phenomena materially count. maybe there {{em|was}} a small possibility of the Soviet Union fully quantizing Marxism if Khruschev didn't take over.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618|Q2=618}}Productive forces are connections between human beings and the surrounding material world where humans obtain what they need

{{li|I=S2/ML|tradition=ML onto DX|Q=618|Q2=618}}At the moment new relations of production are put in place to remedy the problems of old ones they aid productive forces rather than hindering them (Stalin) / The point of [[E:red anarchology (meta-Marxism)|anarchology]] within the economic aspects of the socioeconomy is to actually identify or quantify impediments to productive forces and free productive forces from them  ->  right. Yaroshenko doesn't seem to explain why the relations of production even changed, if they're supposedly only going to obstruct things again.

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618|Q2=618}}Abundance will not be reached without the right small-scale relations of production that keep the development of productive forces moving

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618|Q2=618}}During transition to upper-phase communism the post-structuralist character of markets will be abolished and a different form of product exchange will be created where people contribute products to an overall mono-structure and get the products they need without really worrying much about the detailed logistics of exactly how much everyone produced and exactly what products have to go to exactly what town and exactly what store; this is implied to be a very coarse description of all the small-scale changes that happened in the historical transition from state capitalism to upper-phase communism to allow people to build and operate the one or 14 mono-structures efficiently enough that the actions of individuals and isolated chunks are no longer handed such "heavy-lifting" tasks to solve daily problems

{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618|Q2=618}}In 1952 the Soviet Union was just beyond the horizon of commodities [https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv1n1/marksoc.htm]  ->  this is a very important observation because it seems there were a lot of fatal missteps in what was and wasn't creating commodities. Stalin was exactly tuned in as far as the concept that socialist transition was actually about making smaller structures into larger structures and a lot of other people in the central party just {{em|weren't}}. disregard the 'profitability' of the smaller structures and maybe focus on the increasing productivity of much larger ones, is the impression I'm getting. very typical to the patterns of how good the Soviet Union's theorists were in basically every era, but tragic, because oh my god out of Stalin you got the most lucid description of the basics of what exiting Bolshevism to post-Bolshevism {{em|is}}, it was right there, and then somehow nobody did it. I feel like there had to be external factors in play here because otherwise this development doesn't make any sense. Stalin was even catching the people introducing commodities and kicking them out of the party while he was there?? they had the examples, they should have had at least some idea what was going on and what the good and bad patterns were even without him.

{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}Yaroshenko, we see through your {{censor|shit|tts=[schemes]}}  ->  I said this out loud in response to yet another example of conflating non-proletarians with workers and then was like... no, actually use this, I have to make this one a hidden sense label on something, this would make wonderful Wavebuilder combinations.<br/>
the main deal with the censor bar is basically that I put the censor bars in place to make the more serious entries appealing to older people (the entries that ironically probably won't contain any), but I don't want a bunch of ugly censor bars all over every Item label.<br/>
you can have a sense label with swears in it if A) the quote is well-known or very significant B) it isn't shown on the Ontology page and is buried in the aliases page C) you manage to pull off meta humor about an SCP with a redacted number. I can't forget that one

</li></ol>

== Militant Yaroshenkoism? ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|I=S2/DX|tradition=MX onto DX|Q=618}}Yaroshenkoism is a postcolonial theory / Yaroshenkoism is a Materialist postcolonial theory which promotes national liberation starting at very small scales of society at which individuals and small groups can potentially resist global empire or global capitalism and make a difference on international scales / Yaroshenkoism is a [[E:pseudo Molecular Marxism (meta-Marxism)|pseudo-MDem]], but one which belongs in the top tier of pseudo-MDems in that it can create national borders from the inside and actually possesses a certain kind of revolutionary potential; Yaroshenkoism is a variety of molecular {{em|bourgeois democracy}} capable of molecularized bourgeois revolutions  ->  Yaroshenko's final chance to be relevant. one of the only reasons {{em|a sane person}} would argue that a strawberry "dictatorship-of-the-whatever" allows workers to control all structural elements including the bourgeoisie as 'productive forces' is to argue a Gramscian line that the connections between whole corporations and whole subpopulations or countries are absolutely critical to maintaining national independence and allowing any of the people-groups of the world any chance to break free of the single gigantic global-capital object that otherwise outnumbers them. like without Yaroshenkoism the United States can just mobilize all the world's countries to blockade Cuba and shut off all its energy, and there's very little anyone can do about it except maybe drop their day jobs and put all their energy into sanctioning their connection to the United States economy and illegally ferrying oil to Cuba. at which point they'd basically be doing active, militant Yaroshenkoism. Existentialism's major strategy is outright pulling people away from nationalities and ethnic groups through 'carrots' or through psychological torture and then using them as weapons to destroy their own ethnic group. so one of the only conceivable ways to counteract that is doing it backwards and pulling people away to serve the Third World or Second World until the {{em|First World}} starts hurting and has to capitulate. there's a small chance Yaroshenko's philosophy is actually a stroke of dark genius and he may effectively have {{em|saved}}} China, Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea. that's the flipside of all this!

{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}United States strengthening South Koreans to destroy North Korea  ->  ... it's like there is only one way to win and that way is to absolutely out-live and out-exist and out-Existentialize Existentialism until proletarian civilization has covered the earth as much as Existentialism does right now and Existentialists just don't {{censor|fucking}} exist any more. if we hypothetically imagine Richard Wolff's co-op theory was right then the co-ops would have to trade with Cuba or North Korea etc and refuse to stock all the most reactionary businesses in the United States at a level equivalent to the incoming goods, basically Boston-Tea-Party the khaki businesses' income. the structure of which businesses are connected globally is almost as critical as trying to have a country exclusively full of workers. like, that horizontal production relation of what city buys what city's goods and causes the productive forces to build up is the real thing that defines country borders now and whether a country survives. the bourgeoisie got their power by actually selling goods and now they maintain their power by abruptly pulling goods and jobs and an area's entire socioeconomy. the only way to defeat embargoes and perhaps the very concept of sanctions might just be radically ferrying goods to other countries as if the embargo doesn't exist in spite of what they do to you

</li></ol>

== Related ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">

{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Small things organizing into bigger things is basically always the same thing (Bogdanov; tektology) [https://monoskop.org/images/e/e9/Bogdanov_Alexander_Tektology_Book_1.pdf]  ->  hmm. this is... not as bad as I'd expected it to be. chapter 1 deals with the concept of bisimilarity and how analogies come from actual similarities between arrangements of parts. the one thing I notice right away is there isn't much space dedicated to the concept of systems turning over and evolving reterministically as all their pieces interact at once, so it might not understand dialectical materialism? I am not sure.<br/>
my second thought while reading: "oh {{censor|god}} stop saying the phrases 'systems thinking' and 'systemic'."

</li></ol>

== Wavebuilder combinations ==
<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three">
{{WaveBuild| {{E:Q618/DX|Yaroshenkoism is a postcolonial theory}} | {{E:Q41,07}} | {{E:Q618/DX|Dengism is a postcolonial theory}} }}  <!-- en: Along With, Produces  ...  Deng Xiaoping Thought ... -->
</dl>

== Ideologies or fields ==
<!--
<ol class="hue clean compound">
{{HueDomain|Q41,03}}
</ol>
-->

* DX / Deng Xiaoping Thought
* DX / Yaroshenkoism
* ML / mainstream Marxism-Leninism
* ML / dialectical materialism
* MX / meta-Marxism
* ML onto DX
* MX onto DX

<!--== Full title for bookmarks (optional) ==
<pre></pre>

-->
[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]] [[Category:Yaroshenkoism ontology]]  <!-- page ends here.  TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming
redirects:   [[User:RD/9k/Q2213]] [[User:RD/9k/Q22,13]]
duplication hint:   copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNNN|9k/Q22,13]] -->