Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q4208 - Revision history

Reversedragon: numbers

2026-10-17T09:26:07Z

numbers

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:26, 17 October 2026
Line 23:		Line 23:
	<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">		<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX/IV\|tradition=IV oer MX\|Q=~~618~~\|Q2=~~618~~}}Meta-Marxism doesn't reach classes / Meta-Marxism is improperly classless / Meta-Marxism ([[EC:9k/RD/Q92\|violet Materialism]]; violet Marxism) is not capable of calculating the results of class conflicts if it is a different vantage point from Trotskyism		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX/IV\|tradition=IV oer MX\|Q=45,01\|Q2=4501}}Meta-Marxism doesn't reach classes / Meta-Marxism is improperly classless / Meta-Marxism ([[EC:9k/RD/Q92\|violet Materialism]]; violet Marxism) is not capable of calculating the results of class conflicts if it is a different vantage point from Trotskyism / {{9k\|RD\|Q4500}}

	{{li\|I=S2/IV\|tradition=\|Q=~~618~~\|Q2=~~618~~}}Meta-Marxism doesn't reach classes -> in some ways, there is already an argument for this. I set down a "meta-Marxist analysis" that is questionable. I come back and mark it as an error. I decide that in order to mark it as an error I will mark it as the error of a specific tendency (Dengism), because that is the [[E:apparent form of Marxism\|apparent form of Marxism]] I had tentatively decided to defend. so, the question comes up: is the violet swatch just an excuse to wildly oscillate between different kinds of errors that are all aligned with some particular internal structure with a class character? I definitely did not beat the accusation on this page.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/IV\|tradition=\|Q=45,01\|Q2=4501}}Meta-Marxism doesn't reach classes -> in some ways, there is already an argument for this. I set down a "meta-Marxist analysis" that is questionable. I come back and mark it as an error. I decide that in order to mark it as an error I will mark it as the error of a specific tendency (Dengism), because that is the [[E:apparent form of Marxism\|apparent form of Marxism]] I had tentatively decided to defend. so, the question comes up: is the violet swatch just an excuse to wildly oscillate between different kinds of errors that are all aligned with some particular internal structure with a class character? I definitely did not beat the accusation on this page.<br/>
	I want to entertain the path of just going full orange on this wiki and only keeping the violet swatch in limited cases as a pure formality — for general-sense Materialism, etc. but I have a horrible problem: I can't prove that I wouldn't just be choosing it out of opportunism and a lack of commitment. so, ironically, I have to keep my alignment to meta-Marxism and the concept of meta-Marxist theory until the day I can prove I'm a {{caps\|Real}} Trotskyist. and I genuinely don't know if I can ever make it there. putting aside the wrong entries that are jokes, it seems like I never stop making stupid mistakes.		I want to entertain the path of just going full orange on this wiki and only keeping the violet swatch in limited cases as a pure formality — for general-sense Materialism, etc. but I have a horrible problem: I can't prove that I wouldn't just be choosing it out of opportunism and a lack of commitment. so, ironically, I have to keep my alignment to meta-Marxism and the concept of meta-Marxist theory until the day I can prove I'm a {{caps\|Real}} Trotskyist. and I genuinely don't know if I can ever make it there. putting aside the wrong entries that are jokes, it seems like I never stop making stupid mistakes.

Reversedragon: Trotskyists don't understand global empire / Meta-Marxism doesn't reach classes

2026-09-15T02:12:51Z

Trotskyists don't understand global empire / Meta-Marxism doesn't reach classes

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 {{li|I=S2/MX/MX|Q=28,79|Q2=2879}}R.D. has not done meta-Marxism correctly / ({{9k|RD/Q28,98}})  ->  holy hell. [[E:Meta-Marxism is not capable of calculating the results of class conflicts if it is a different vantage point from Trotskyism|if there is any such thing as a meta-Marxist error in the first place]] then that was one of them.
 </li></ol>
@@ Line 17: / Line 24: @@
 {{li|start=y|I=S2/MX/IV|tradition=IV oer MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}Meta-Marxism doesn't reach classes / Meta-Marxism is improperly classless / Meta-Marxism ([[EC:9k/RD/Q92|violet Materialism]]; violet Marxism) is not capable of calculating the results of class conflicts if it is a different vantage point from Trotskyism
 </li></ol>
@@ Line 28: / Line 38: @@
 </li></ol>
 == Errors ==
 <references group="error">
@@ Line 53: / Line 50: @@
 <ref name="e">"You genuinely need some kind of meta-ontology to understand China": maybe, because China doesn't claim to obey proletarian-materialist rules. "Unify with it against non-Marxisms": there is no need to do this because we aren't living in 1930.<br/>
 Trotskyists will fight you on this one. They do not like the concept that you need [[E:Q92|a special meta-ontology]] weaving itself through all Marxist tendencies but claiming to be separate from them just to understand highly dubious Socialisms that are probably not Marxist. They will immediately get suspicious that any attempt at meta-Marxism is just restoring the glue between bourgeois leaderships. And, here? That would be a totally fair criticism to throw at this page.</ref>
 </references>
 [[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]  <!-- page ends here.  TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming
 redirects or titles:   [[Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q4208]]
 duplication hint:   copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN|Q42,08]] -->

Reversedragon: mark Dengism

2026-09-13T07:48:19Z

mark Dengism

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:48, 13 September 2026
Line 2:		Line 2:
	== Main entry ==		== Main entry ==
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"><!-- inactive: {{int:hue-ixn-classname-DFy}} -->		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"><!-- inactive: {{int:hue-ixn-classname-DFy}} -->
	~~<!-- {{li\|start=y\|I=S1/IV\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}??-->~~

	</li~~><li class~~=~~"field_ML" data-~~tradition="ML, IV~~" data-qid~~="42,08~~" value~~="4208~~" data-dimension="S2">I'm a Leninist but China needs to be Zinovievized /~~ I'm a Marxist-Leninist but China needs to be Zinovievized / I'm not anticommunist, but... (Zinovievizing China) -> this feels like one of the biggest blunders of modern Marxism besides people around the world thinking Trotskyism is more valid than any of the Marxisms that have actually worked. like, no, you've lost the plot. one of the major reasons for Marxism is to understand how countries have developed in order to understand how countries can stop fighting each other, and this does neither of those things. you genuinely need some kind of meta-ontology to understand China, which actually deals with the prospect of a totally different Marxism existing and the "correct" Marxism having to exist alongside it, broadly predict what it will do, and take appropriate kinds of actions to unify with it against non-Marxisms.		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=ML, IV\|Q=42,08\|Q2=4208}}I'm a Marxist-Leninist but China needs to be Zinovievized / I'm not anticommunist, but... (Zinovievizing China)

			{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=42,08\|Q2=4208}}I'm a Leninist but China needs to be Zinovievized

			{{li\|I=S2/MX/DX\|tradition=MX\|Q=42,08\|Q2=4208}}I'm a Marxist-Leninist but China needs to be Zinovievized -> <s>this feels like one of the biggest blunders of modern Marxism besides people around the world thinking Trotskyism is more valid</s><ref group="error" name="a"/><s> than any of the Marxisms that have actually worked</s><ref group="error" name="b"/><s>. like, no, you've lost the plot.</s> one of the major reasons for Marxism is to understand how countries have developed <s>in order to understand how countries can stop fighting each other</s><ref group="error" name="c"/><s>, and this does neither of those things</s><ref group="error" name="d"/>. you genuinely need some kind of meta-ontology to understand China, <s>which actually deals with the prospect of a totally different Marxism existing and the "correct" Marxism having to exist alongside it, broadly predict what it will do, and take appropriate kinds of actions to unify with it</s><ref group="error" name="e"/><s> against non-Marxisms.</s>

			{{li\|I=S2/MX/MX\|Q=28,79\|Q2=2879}}R.D. has not done meta-Marxism correctly / ({{9k\|RD/Q28,98}}) -> holy hell. [[E:Meta-Marxism is not capable of calculating the results of class conflicts if it is a different vantage point from Trotskyism\|if there is any such thing as a meta-Marxist error in the first place]] then that was one of them.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== Related ==		== Related ==
	~~<!--~~
	<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">		<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">
	</li></ol~~> --~~>
			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX/IV\|tradition=IV oer MX\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Meta-Marxism doesn't reach classes / Meta-Marxism is improperly classless / Meta-Marxism ([[EC:9k/RD/Q92\|violet Materialism]]; violet Marxism) is not capable of calculating the results of class conflicts if it is a different vantage point from Trotskyism

			</li></ol>

	== Ideologies or fields ==		== Ideologies or fields ==
Line 19:		Line 25:
	\|I=Z1/ML\|Q=41,03\|Q2=4103}}{{TTS\|ML\|M-L}} / modern Stalinism (2020s)		\|I=Z1/ML\|Q=41,03\|Q2=4103}}{{TTS\|ML\|M-L}} / modern Stalinism (2020s)
	{{li\|I=Z1/IV\|Q=41,04\|Q2=4104}}{{TTS\|IV\|Fourth}} / Trotskyism		{{li\|I=Z1/IV\|Q=41,04\|Q2=4104}}{{TTS\|IV\|Fourth}} / Trotskyism
			{{li\|I=Z1/DX\|Q=41,08\|Q2=4108}}{{TTS\|DX\|D.X.}} / Deng Xiaoping Thought
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Line 35:		Line 42:
	-->		-->
	== Errors ==		== Errors ==
	~~<!--~~
	<references group="error">		<references group="error">
	<ref name="a"></ref>		<ref name="a">"Trotskyism is more valid": it is, for the important reason that it is able to model and critique other philosophical tendencies. I really used to believe that it was necessary to create meta-Marxism just to do that, but it isn't.</ref>
	</~~references~~>-->
			<ref name="b">It's arguable these "[[E:apparent form of Marxism\|Marxisms]]" have {{em\|not}} "actually worked" to any extent that is meaningful.</ref>

			<ref name="c">"Marxism is so countries can stop fighting each other": yes but no. Note the strange grouping of workers and owners in China into a "country".</ref>

			<ref name="d">"This does neither of those things": Dengist error. This statement assumes that all Marxist tendencies are supposed to coexist with Dengism unless they are Trotskyism and cannot be predicted to, discarding everything that doesn't as "not understanding country development". Then it tries to say that Dengism actually achieves peace on the basis of a strawberry Materialism that treats whole corporations with owners as productive forces inside a production relation (the border of China?).</ref>

			<ref name="e">"You genuinely need some kind of meta-ontology to understand China": maybe, because China doesn't claim to obey proletarian-materialist rules. "Unify with it against non-Marxisms": there is no need to do this because we aren't living in 1930.<br/>
			Trotskyists will fight you on this one. They do not like the concept that you need [[E:Q92\|a special meta-ontology]] weaving itself through all Marxist tendencies but claiming to be separate from them just to understand highly dubious Socialisms that are probably not Marxist. They will immediately get suspicious that any attempt at meta-Marxism is just restoring the glue between bourgeois leaderships. And, here? That would be a totally fair criticism to throw at this page.</ref>

			</references>

Reversedragon: copy markup from FreeBogdanSyrotiuk

2026-09-13T07:01:47Z

copy markup from FreeBogdanSyrotiuk

New page

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=China needs to be Zinovievized|E=Q42,08|User=RD|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">


</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML, IV" data-qid="42,08" value="4208" data-dimension="S2">I'm a Leninist but China needs to be Zinovievized / I'm a Marxist-Leninist but China needs to be Zinovievized / I'm not anticommunist, but... (Zinovievizing China) -> this feels like one of the biggest blunders of modern Marxism besides people around the world thinking Trotskyism is more valid than any of the Marxisms that have actually worked. like, no, you've lost the plot. one of the major reasons for Marxism is to understand how countries have developed in order to understand how countries can stop fighting each other, and this does neither of those things. you genuinely need some kind of meta-ontology to understand China, which actually deals with the prospect of a totally different Marxism existing and the "correct" Marxism having to exist alongside it, broadly predict what it will do, and take appropriate kinds of actions to unify with it against non-Marxisms.

</li></ol>

== Related ==


== Ideologies or fields ==
<ol class="hue clean terse {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">
{{li|start=y
|I=Z1/ML|Q=41,03|Q2=4103}}{{TTS|ML|M-L}} / modern Stalinism (2020s)
{{li|I=Z1/IV|Q=41,04|Q2=4104}}{{TTS|IV|Fourth}} / Trotskyism
</li></ol>

== Wavebuilder combinations ==
<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three">

{{WaveBuild| {{E:Q618/ML|??}} | -- | -- }} 

</dl>

== Subpages or related scraps ==

== Errors ==


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]