Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q92 - Revision history

Reversedragon: bot's test

2026-09-11T04:37:43Z

bot's test

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:37, 11 September 2026
Line 116:		Line 116:
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== ~~Ideology codes~~ ==		== {{int:hue-prototype-trads-or-fields/en}} ==<!-- en: Ideologies or fields -->
			<ol class="hue clean terse">
	* MX / meta-Marxism		{{li\|start=y
	* W / Western Marxism		\|I=S1/MX\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}{{TTS\|MX\|M.X.}} / meta-Marxism
	* UM / unknown Marxism		{{li\|I=S1/W \|Q=618\|Q2=618}}{{TTS\|W\|West}} / Western Marxism
			{{li\|I=S1/W \|Q=618\|Q2=618}}{{TTS\|UM\|U.M.}} / unknown Marxism
			</li></ol>

	== Subpages or related scraps ==		== Subpages or related scraps ==
	* [[Special:PermanentLink/45936\|violet-for-bot]] - summary of violet Marxism {{em\|I wrote}} based on excerpts.		* [[Special:PermanentLink/45936\|violet-for-bot]] - summary of violet Marxism {{em\|I wrote}} based on excerpts.
	** [[Special:PermanentLink/45931\|(excerpts)]] - collection of prompts I put into the WSWS bot. no generated text; literally the prompts.		** [[Special:PermanentLink/45931\|(excerpts)]] - collection of prompts I put into the WSWS bot. no generated text; literally the prompts.
			* [[EC:9k/RD/Q92/BotForViolet\|BotForViolet]] - prompt where I tested the bot after writing "violet-for-bot".

Reversedragon: subpages

2026-09-10T22:51:06Z

subpages

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:51, 10 September 2026
Line 123:		Line 123:

	== Subpages or related scraps ==		== Subpages or related scraps ==
	* [[EC:9k/~~RD/Q92/violet-for-bot~~\|violet-for-bot]] - summary of violet Marxism~~, including~~ prompts I put into the WSWS bot. no generated text; literally the prompts.		* [[Special:PermanentLink/45936\|violet-for-bot]] - summary of violet Marxism {{em\|I wrote}} based on excerpts.
			** [[Special:PermanentLink/45931\|(excerpts)]] - collection of prompts I put into the WSWS bot. no generated text; literally the prompts.

Reversedragon: subpages

2026-09-10T13:31:49Z

subpages

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:31, 10 September 2026
Line 121:		Line 121:
	* W / Western Marxism		* W / Western Marxism
	* UM / unknown Marxism		* UM / unknown Marxism

			== Subpages or related scraps ==
			* [[EC:9k/RD/Q92/violet-for-bot\|violet-for-bot]] - summary of violet Marxism, including prompts I put into the WSWS bot. no generated text; literally the prompts.


	[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]] <!-- page ends here. TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming		[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]] <!-- page ends here. TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming
	redirects: (none)		redirects: (none)
	duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/~~NNNN~~\|~~9k/~~Q92]] -->		duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNNN\|Q92]] -->

Reversedragon: interobjectivity

2026-07-26T01:13:13Z

interobjectivity

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:13, 26 July 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=Z1/MX\|Q=92}}[[E:Q92\|meta-Marxism]] (Materialist analysis of contradicting or competing Leninisms, their component parts at various large and tiny scales, and their iterative development as interacting factions or countries; [[U:Reversedragon\|R. Bergfalk]], [[U:Reversedragon\|R.D.]]) / [[E:Q92/WA\|violet Marxism]]		{{li\|start=y\|I=Z1/MX\|Q=92}}[[E:Q92\|meta-Marxism]] (Materialist analysis of contradicting or competing Leninisms, their component parts at various large and tiny scales, and their iterative development as interacting factions or countries; [[U:Reversedragon\|R. Bergfalk]], [[U:Reversedragon\|R.D.]]) / [[E:Q92/WA\|violet Marxism]] <!-- / ({{9k\|RD/Q92}}) -->

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 35:		Line 35:

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto AS, MX onto ML\|Q=618}}Marxism is not the first time ideologies have been dialectical, but it does embody the moment the Hegelian dialectic became truly crammed inside one ideology ([[E:sociophilosophy (meta-Marxism)\|sociophilosophy]], faction, class assemblage) instead of multiple separate interacting ideologies with no control over each other / In its own time, Hegelianism "were not singular", but the day Marxism emerged was the day plural Hegelianisms were squashed together and made violet		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto AS, MX onto ML\|Q=618}}Marxism is not the first time ideologies have been dialectical, but it does embody the moment the Hegelian dialectic became truly crammed inside one ideology ([[E:sociophilosophy (meta-Marxism)\|sociophilosophy]], faction, class assemblage) instead of multiple separate interacting ideologies with no control over each other / In its own time, Hegelianism "were not singular", but the day Marxism emerged was the day plural Hegelianisms were squashed together and made violet

			{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=\|Q=47,92\|Q2=4792}}interobjectivity / violet interlock (meta-Marxism) / human beings have needs that emerge from within them, and the key to understanding them is not "[[E:rationality (Kant)\|rationality]]" or "[[E:Shenlong effect (meta-Marxism)\|reasonableness]]", it is simply a more perfect predictive understanding of those needs; understanding each other's needs is not inter-"subjectivity", it's inter-{{em\|objectivity}} -> there we go, one of the central pillars of meta-Marxism has a proper Roman {{censor\|goddamn}} dictionary word instead of just a bunch of phrases I threw together

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

Reversedragon: time slice analysis

2026-05-28T09:44:01Z

time slice analysis

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:44, 28 May 2026
Line 73:		Line 73:
	... the position of each die and the side it's currently on changes in response to the current position, velocity, and rotation of the other die about to hit it. for any given state vector of each rolled die, die-vector "x" and die-vector "y", <code>f(x,y) = z</code>. that's it. two objects, the dice or state vectors, are separate, and then you put them together, and you calculate what happens. ... it's all about countably separate objects being able to interact because they are separate. you don't even really have to make reference to the content within the interacting objects. it's there, it interacts by default, but in some cases it doesn't produce anything new or interesting. ...<br/>		... the position of each die and the side it's currently on changes in response to the current position, velocity, and rotation of the other die about to hit it. for any given state vector of each rolled die, die-vector "x" and die-vector "y", <code>f(x,y) = z</code>. that's it. two objects, the dice or state vectors, are separate, and then you put them together, and you calculate what happens. ... it's all about countably separate objects being able to interact because they are separate. you don't even really have to make reference to the content within the interacting objects. it's there, it interacts by default, but in some cases it doesn't produce anything new or interesting. ...<br/>
	the [[E:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition\|Existentialist-Structuralist tradition]] — where causation is described by structuralist linguistics, a.k.a. the existence of two opposed words that "mean" different evolving things, and causality inside causation is described by [[E:Q42\|existentialism]].		the [[E:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition\|Existentialist-Structuralist tradition]] — where causation is described by structuralist linguistics, a.k.a. the existence of two opposed words that "mean" different evolving things, and causality inside causation is described by [[E:Q42\|existentialism]].

			{{li\|I=S1/MX\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}time slice analysis / slice analysis (meta-Marxism) -> a method of presenting historical events as "animations" consisting of various "frames" with material contradictions inside, in order to work downward to what exactly the contradictions are doing between the outward start and end of the event.<br/>
			slice analysis does not require or recommend that a particular process being "sliced up" be conceptually isolated from other nearby processes, and only asks that the slices of each event be used to present the interaction of the two events. it is aimed at people who don't yet understand Marxism or are new to it, but not in a way that prohibits Marxism.

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

Reversedragon: multicapitalism

2026-05-27T04:55:07Z

multicapitalism

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:55, 27 May 2026
Line 85:		Line 85:
	this is the claim that class relations are similarly monistic, in that everything {{em\|inside}} a class territory appears to be indistinguishable from everything else inside until you look at a bigger scale and actually see the wadded-up class territories as the only real point of distinction separating off the homogeneous soup inside. if class monism were not the case, it would be easy to look inside a class territory and distinguish proletarians from non-proletarians once you were educated enough about the world in general, whether you had the correct words Marxists use for things or not. but in the First World there seems to be a terrible problem where skilled workers that are blatantly not proletarians are convinced they are, and unskilled workers look at them and can't tell the difference either. co-ops are convinced they're workers despite creating new business territories, and workers regularly lump tiny businesses, tradespeople, several-year degrees like teachers and doctors, employees, and managers together as "Jobs" as if that is a single thing. this claim hypothesizes that this isn't just a bourgeois distortion (even though a few upper-class people may indeed be trying to hide what's actually going on) but that in the end it actually reflects material reality, and is [[E:shovel dream (meta-Marxism)\|the description]] of a world where class is first of all defined by individuals competing with each other across a spatial slot hierarchy and is not first of all defined by differentiation into dissimilar roles within structures. First World capitalism, especially in the United States, really is a nightmare world where everyone physically functions like the bourgeoisie even though some "bourgeoisie" are employed in structures and some formally own structures. this behavior seems to mirror earlier historical periods in Europe where Artisan types functioned within small workshops or guilds or royal courts before the advent of large business territories, and seems to reflect a form of "capitalism" {{em\|that has not properly differentiated and become capitalism yet}}. it is possible — and implied in this proposition — that various versions of this same process are simply the inner structure of any typical instance of capitalism as it is first forming and developing, period. that more or less, the petty bourgeoisie generate capitalism, and it regenerates them, the petty bourgeoisie the larva and the cluster of petty bourgeoisie only distinguished by business territories the queen ant. it may be that capitalism loathes forming consistent businesses at all much less state businesses, and big businesses have actually almost ceased to be capitalism. or it may not, and it may be most appropriate to call China's mode of production capitalism and give this monistic system a different name, such as "Careerism".<br/>		this is the claim that class relations are similarly monistic, in that everything {{em\|inside}} a class territory appears to be indistinguishable from everything else inside until you look at a bigger scale and actually see the wadded-up class territories as the only real point of distinction separating off the homogeneous soup inside. if class monism were not the case, it would be easy to look inside a class territory and distinguish proletarians from non-proletarians once you were educated enough about the world in general, whether you had the correct words Marxists use for things or not. but in the First World there seems to be a terrible problem where skilled workers that are blatantly not proletarians are convinced they are, and unskilled workers look at them and can't tell the difference either. co-ops are convinced they're workers despite creating new business territories, and workers regularly lump tiny businesses, tradespeople, several-year degrees like teachers and doctors, employees, and managers together as "Jobs" as if that is a single thing. this claim hypothesizes that this isn't just a bourgeois distortion (even though a few upper-class people may indeed be trying to hide what's actually going on) but that in the end it actually reflects material reality, and is [[E:shovel dream (meta-Marxism)\|the description]] of a world where class is first of all defined by individuals competing with each other across a spatial slot hierarchy and is not first of all defined by differentiation into dissimilar roles within structures. First World capitalism, especially in the United States, really is a nightmare world where everyone physically functions like the bourgeoisie even though some "bourgeoisie" are employed in structures and some formally own structures. this behavior seems to mirror earlier historical periods in Europe where Artisan types functioned within small workshops or guilds or royal courts before the advent of large business territories, and seems to reflect a form of "capitalism" {{em\|that has not properly differentiated and become capitalism yet}}. it is possible — and implied in this proposition — that various versions of this same process are simply the inner structure of any typical instance of capitalism as it is first forming and developing, period. that more or less, the petty bourgeoisie generate capitalism, and it regenerates them, the petty bourgeoisie the larva and the cluster of petty bourgeoisie only distinguished by business territories the queen ant. it may be that capitalism loathes forming consistent businesses at all much less state businesses, and big businesses have actually almost ceased to be capitalism. or it may not, and it may be most appropriate to call China's mode of production capitalism and give this monistic system a different name, such as "Careerism".<br/>
	if you look at the other page you might notice that what I said is a little contradictory with this. this is mainly because I was attaching different words to different definitions (mostly "state business"), not because the models were different.		if you look at the other page you might notice that what I said is a little contradictory with this. this is mainly because I was attaching different words to different definitions (mostly "state business"), not because the models were different.

			{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=MX onto LR\|Q=20,99\|Q2=2099\|h4 = [[E:multiple capitalisms in one country\|multiple capitalisms in one country]] }} / [[E:multicapitalism\|multicapitalism]] (meta-Marxism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q20,99}}) -> the concept that it is possible for a given country to consist of two or more totally separate populations of capitalists, which only appear to be one population because the borders are fuzzily defined and corporations leak from one side to the other. multicapitalism is suggested as the mechanism for how center-Liberals and Tories can become so divided to the death against each other when all the bourgeoisie should "theoretically" be on the same side. if multicapitalism is real, China would not have multicapitalism (it would have "mono-capitalism") but the United States would. one of the few concrete things the CPC would have accomplished in terms of building Bolshevism or transition out of capitalism is not allowing multicapitalism to develop.

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

Reversedragon: Top-level swatches tesselate

2026-05-27T03:06:37Z

Top-level swatches tesselate

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:06, 27 May 2026
Line 38:		Line 38:
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	=== Ideologies and economies ~~/ historical periods =~~==		== Ideologies and economies ==
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse">

Line 48:		Line 48:
	{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=ML, MX\|Q=21,34\|Q2=2134}}existential materialism, large-scale (generic) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,04}}) -> ... exmat starts at "the fun stuff" of bashing Free Will and showing that individual will operates back and forth in all directions within the structure of groups, this thing that either comes from individuals' physical needs and their emergent emotions and personalities on top of those, or emerges from interactions {{em\|between}} people where neither individual really controls it and yet it at the larger scale it happens. then it progresses up to "the hard stuff" of showing how the needs of individuals and their current physical arrangements work together to produce seemingly complicated sociophilosophies like Liberal-republicanism, mainstream Marxism-Leninism, a hypothetical Trotskyism, a specific anarchism, nested tribal populations, and so forth.<br/>		{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=ML, MX\|Q=21,34\|Q2=2134}}existential materialism, large-scale (generic) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,04}}) -> ... exmat starts at "the fun stuff" of bashing Free Will and showing that individual will operates back and forth in all directions within the structure of groups, this thing that either comes from individuals' physical needs and their emergent emotions and personalities on top of those, or emerges from interactions {{em\|between}} people where neither individual really controls it and yet it at the larger scale it happens. then it progresses up to "the hard stuff" of showing how the needs of individuals and their current physical arrangements work together to produce seemingly complicated sociophilosophies like Liberal-republicanism, mainstream Marxism-Leninism, a hypothetical Trotskyism, a specific anarchism, nested tribal populations, and so forth.<br/>
	to Marx and Engels this is kind of just 'the rejection of Ideals creating material shapes'. ... exmat isn't necessarily new, when you look at Marx and Lenin doing slightly muddy versions of the same thing that nonetheless manage to laser-focus onto some basic conclusion of what causes bring what effects. ...		to Marx and Engels this is kind of just 'the rejection of Ideals creating material shapes'. ... exmat isn't necessarily new, when you look at Marx and Lenin doing slightly muddy versions of the same thing that nonetheless manage to laser-focus onto some basic conclusion of what causes bring what effects. ...

			{{li\|I=S2/ML/MX\|Q=618}}Top-level swatches tesselate / The social structures that define a top-level swatch repeat in an all-encompassing way across a continent or the world to the point those living in the social form of that particular top-level swatch could hardly imagine anything else / Each truly unique Social-Philosophical System contains many contradictory parts, opposed in their interaction yet mirrored and repeated, which alone each have trouble getting rid of the entire thing to create an entire new contradictory system at the top level / top-level Social-Philosophical System (motif; meta-Marxism) [https://firebrand.red/2024/03/neither-dogmatism-nor-eclecticism-but-marxist-dialectics/] -> this is a good definition because it neatly describes groups of kingdoms, individual republics containing bourgeois parties, and maybe even an era of socialism although how is not quite clear.<br/>
			very helpful in terms of formalizing color swatch analysis and what it's supposed to do and how it works. it establishes that brown (monarchy) and blue (Liberal-republicanism) are top-level swatches, while blue anarchism and even charcoal anarchism are doubtful because they never have the capacity to cover a continent to the exclusion of Liberal-republicanism, although charcoal to specifically represent the tribal societies of hundreds of years ago could be a top-level swatch because there was a time where all of North America could be covered in tribes.<br/>
			as for a top-level socialism swatch... that's rather unclear. Trotskyism is honestly closer to being a top-level swatch than most people realize, because it truly has a unique way of operating which allows the whole world to be covered to some extent with Trotskyist organizations, which all attempt to work together but exclude everything that isn't themselves. likewise, Deng Xiaoping Thought could easily cover 50 countries if the historical conditions we lived in were just slightly different. it's like a hard shell with capitalism inside, and yet it's still a unique historical period that doesn't quite do what Liberal-republicanism does; it doesn't necessarily extend its contents over the inner contents of other countries. so honestly, I think the blue swatch is multicapitalist society and the strawberry swatch is mono-capitalist society. monocapitalism can form when you're in a frenzy to resist multicapitalism trying to flood into you. so there is a decent case that the most realistic conditions for Trotskyism to {{em\|actually realize}} today would be inside a cluster of allied Deng Xiaoping states. the First World would be the last to go, and wouldn't budge whatsoever until you get rid of multicapitalism and pluralities of political parties, while Deng Xiaoping states would be an intermediate step that would put you closer to getting to Bolshevism, and Deng Xiaoping states under siege and at threat of neocolonialism are the only capitalist countries under enough pressure to transition to socialism. which means North Korea might have a bright future ahead but Russia, however ironically given how big it is and its past history, is not looking good because its active imperialist behavior hints at an underlying multicapitalism.<br/>
			I started out thinking the crimson swatch was the top-level socialism swatch but history has not substantiated that. these days it's just Deng Xiaoping Thought everywhere. I don't actually know what the crimson swatch {{em\|is}} any more and what might have created it. I can define the strawberry swatch quite clearly in its two different but related uses of "class collaboration" (containing corporations) and "strongly bordered capitalism" (containing corporations). but quite honestly I no longer understand what leads to the red swatch. maybe what I call the red swatch is ultimately defined by peasant movements that transition a society to monocapitalism while in a world with no peasants it ceases to exist. or maybe it's defined by the strawberry small-producer swatch plus the violet swatch. I am actually starting to think that "Stalinism" is a mirage instead of a mode of production, not because Stalin was [[E:Stalinism (corruption)\|corrupt]] or anything but simply because of the strange unrepeatable nature of the Soviet Union compared with the other workers' states or "people's states" that have formed and how nothing seems to add up.

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

Reversedragon: Productive forces birth sociophilosophies

2026-05-12T08:41:30Z

Productive forces birth sociophilosophies

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:41, 12 May 2026
Line 18:		Line 18:

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618\|h4 = Ideology is Idealism unexamined }} / Ideology — a distorted model of reality usually for the benefit of a particular class — comes out of conceptual models of the world ("concept-material", ontologies) specifically when considered in isolation from the world, according to processes not obvious to the people creating ideology (Engels) / ({{9k\|RD/Q618-ThesesOnFeuerbach}}) -><br/>		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618\|h4 = Ideology is Idealism unexamined }} / Ideology — a distorted model of reality usually for the benefit of a particular class — comes out of conceptual models of the world ("concept-material", ontologies) specifically when considered in isolation from the world, according to processes not obvious to the people creating ideology (Engels) / ({{9k\|RD/Q618-ThesesOnFeuerbach}}) -><br/>
	it should be noted that Marx and Engels have a specific definition of ideology while the way I use "ideology" is slightly different~~, but I have no problems with their concept they call ideology in the sense that it describes capitalism or beliefs in medieval times~~. to me, an ideology is {{em\|any}} ontology, and could conceivably be a correct one, but whether it's correct isn't obvious to people of other ideologies, who will see the correct ontology as ideology exactly in the sense Engels says. to me, this definition is easier to apply in a real world where you might have a group of bourgeoisie and a group of proletarians, or some other messier but distinguishable division of demographics, and the populations will have to interact and maybe even work together at times, but due to the different material content of the populations they will find it hard to see each other's observations or findings as real. how do you apply Engels' definition to a Deng Xiaoping state, where all the bourgeoisie and proletarians have to work together against the outside the whole time even though they will eventually have to separate? the only sensible way, to me, is to label one population crimson and one population blue or strawberry and model them both according to their own class composition and chosen ideology so that you put them both in the right place but they don't have to get confused about who's doing what. it might be easier said than done to get that class consciousness actually into the populations, but at the very least you can use the model to advise workers on what concrete things they should do to avoid the influence of the blue/strawberry populations and reclaim power.		it should be noted that Marx and Engels have a specific definition of ideology while the way I use "ideology" is slightly different. ... to me, an ideology is {{em\|any}} ontology, and could conceivably be a correct one, but whether it's correct isn't obvious to people of other ideologies, who will see the correct ontology as ideology exactly in the sense Engels says. to me, this definition is easier to apply in a real world where you might have a group of bourgeoisie and a group of proletarians, or some other messier but distinguishable division of demographics, and the populations will have to interact and maybe even work together at times, but due to the different material content of the populations they will find it hard to see each other's observations or findings as real. how do you apply Engels' definition to a Deng Xiaoping state, where all the bourgeoisie and proletarians have to work together against the outside the whole time even though they will eventually have to separate? the only sensible way, to me, is to label one population crimson and one population blue or strawberry and model them both according to their own class composition and chosen ideology so that you put them both in the right place but they don't have to get confused about who's doing what. it might be easier said than done to get that class consciousness actually into the populations, but at the very least you can use the model to advise workers on what concrete things they should do to avoid the influence of the blue/strawberry populations and reclaim power.

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/MX\|Q=21,09\|Q2=2109\|h4= [[E:Q2109\|shovel (meta-Marxism)]] }} / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,10}}) -> a metaphorical shovel is specifically a kind of object with a particular size and shape which if it were capable of taking a picture of the world and writing a description of it without deep deliberation over the meaning of what it saw would have its intuitive, unfiltered perceptions skewed a certain way by virtue of its shape, size, and composition. a literal shovel is smaller than a car or city block. a literal shovel cannot see anything materially speaking, but a camera can inasmuch as it can take a picture. ... from the vantage point of science, the form the shovel dream inside the book takes is {{i\|ontology}}: the creation of a graph of points connected by arrows where the definition of any of the points is largely defined by their relationship to other points. some people get lost in the fact that the book's shovel dream is recorded in "language", and unnecessarily start trying to assign all the qualities of ontology {{em\|to language}}. this doesn't really make a lot of sense when large language models can reduce any language down to a mathematical graph devoid of words or phrases where, for instance, it might not be easy to tell English from Japanese at a glance. ... ontology can also shape itself to become abstract art which does not actually refer to the real world even through metaphor, but which is simply a constructed world of its own that people can perceive through a writer's fabricated shovel dream. ...		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/MX\|Q=21,09\|Q2=2109\|h4= [[E:Q2109\|shovel (meta-Marxism)]] }} / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,10}}) -> a metaphorical shovel is specifically a kind of object with a particular size and shape which if it were capable of taking a picture of the world and writing a description of it without deep deliberation over the meaning of what it saw would have its intuitive, unfiltered perceptions skewed a certain way by virtue of its shape, size, and composition. a literal shovel is smaller than a car or city block. a literal shovel cannot see anything materially speaking, but a camera can inasmuch as it can take a picture. ... from the vantage point of science, the form the shovel dream inside the book takes is {{i\|ontology}}: the creation of a graph of points connected by arrows where the definition of any of the points is largely defined by their relationship to other points. some people get lost in the fact that the book's shovel dream is recorded in "language", and unnecessarily start trying to assign all the qualities of ontology {{em\|to language}}. this doesn't really make a lot of sense when large language models can reduce any language down to a mathematical graph devoid of words or phrases where, for instance, it might not be easy to tell English from Japanese at a glance. ... ontology can also shape itself to become abstract art which does not actually refer to the real world even through metaphor, but which is simply a constructed world of its own that people can perceive through a writer's fabricated shovel dream. ...
Line 29:		Line 29:
	that said. I think it's fair to say that all Marxisms have a tint. whether they are realizable Leninisms {{em\|per se}} or just confused clouds of philosophy like a lot of Western-Marxism is they are always countable and they always contain ideology inasmuch as they must contain a few prescriptive statements applicable to specific periods of history. that means that any time anyone tries to create a violet Marxist movement on the ground it will always be countable. there will always be a risk of rifts in meta-Marxism just like there are rifts between different Leninisms if you aren't careful. there is a particular way you fix that. you just have to get multiple theorists or instances of violet Marxism criticizing each other. it almost sounds too simple to possibly work, but really, the secret to making violet Marxism consistent and singular is just to know that any particular instance of it will never magically guess what other instances are doing in isolation and it will always have to interact with them to be able to work through errors or discrepancies. if you don't get every violet theorist in one place, fine, you just have to get enough different perspectives that they start taking real differences and unifying them all into a single model of differing plural movement-objects evolving in parallel or in interaction, then you hope that whoever didn't make it sees the new developments and it's enough to correct everybody else. the key to violet Marxism is it always assumes it's studying how to fit the material elements of plural ideologies together. so it won't really matter if violet theorists show up from countries in wildly different stages, or the violet theorists meet but they only figure out an issue for a particular point in time and then they have to do it again. violet theorists would basically assume there are plural violet Marxisms that are slowly de-synchronizing and need to come back and synchronize periodically, while the notion that there's only one meta-Marxism is something of an approximation to keep everybody sane and keep introductory explanations of the difference between meta-Marxism and named Leninisms relatively short. the simple explanation is the Leninisms diverge, and because they always have to analyze from inside themselves they potentially make errors on the global meta-Marxism that describes all Leninisms. the reality is the violet Marxism that analyzes the Leninisms is probably a bit plural too, it just tries much harder to bridge the plurality so it's more something that [[E:constructive process (meta-Marxism)\|constructs or superimposes on itself]] than tears itself apart and whatever point in it you start from you can end up anywhere else. like, "[[E:intersectionality\|intersectionality]]" and "[[E:Rhizome (schizoanalysis)\|Rhizome]]" would have nothing on this, every problem of intersectionality from small scales up to the global scale would more or less melt away by the time you're done.		that said. I think it's fair to say that all Marxisms have a tint. whether they are realizable Leninisms {{em\|per se}} or just confused clouds of philosophy like a lot of Western-Marxism is they are always countable and they always contain ideology inasmuch as they must contain a few prescriptive statements applicable to specific periods of history. that means that any time anyone tries to create a violet Marxist movement on the ground it will always be countable. there will always be a risk of rifts in meta-Marxism just like there are rifts between different Leninisms if you aren't careful. there is a particular way you fix that. you just have to get multiple theorists or instances of violet Marxism criticizing each other. it almost sounds too simple to possibly work, but really, the secret to making violet Marxism consistent and singular is just to know that any particular instance of it will never magically guess what other instances are doing in isolation and it will always have to interact with them to be able to work through errors or discrepancies. if you don't get every violet theorist in one place, fine, you just have to get enough different perspectives that they start taking real differences and unifying them all into a single model of differing plural movement-objects evolving in parallel or in interaction, then you hope that whoever didn't make it sees the new developments and it's enough to correct everybody else. the key to violet Marxism is it always assumes it's studying how to fit the material elements of plural ideologies together. so it won't really matter if violet theorists show up from countries in wildly different stages, or the violet theorists meet but they only figure out an issue for a particular point in time and then they have to do it again. violet theorists would basically assume there are plural violet Marxisms that are slowly de-synchronizing and need to come back and synchronize periodically, while the notion that there's only one meta-Marxism is something of an approximation to keep everybody sane and keep introductory explanations of the difference between meta-Marxism and named Leninisms relatively short. the simple explanation is the Leninisms diverge, and because they always have to analyze from inside themselves they potentially make errors on the global meta-Marxism that describes all Leninisms. the reality is the violet Marxism that analyzes the Leninisms is probably a bit plural too, it just tries much harder to bridge the plurality so it's more something that [[E:constructive process (meta-Marxism)\|constructs or superimposes on itself]] than tears itself apart and whatever point in it you start from you can end up anywhere else. like, "[[E:intersectionality\|intersectionality]]" and "[[E:Rhizome (schizoanalysis)\|Rhizome]]" would have nothing on this, every problem of intersectionality from small scales up to the global scale would more or less melt away by the time you're done.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=HAS, ML, MX\|Q=618}}It is unavoidable for philosophy to have a short-term goal / Philosophy needing a goal in order to exist has nothing to do with whether the material processes of history "intend" to reach a goal / ({{9k\|RD/Q618-KarlPopper}}) -> I think ~~it's important to remember: philosophy having a goal {{em\|because it's philosophy and must have a goal by its nature}} isn't to say {{em\|history~~ has ~~a goal}}. I think that's~~ tripped up some people when interpreting Marx. they see that Marx is writing philosophy and laying out goals because philosophy requires goals, and they falsely think that presenting a goal is actually part of Marx's scientific model of history when at most it's part of Marx's vision of current politics, which requires philosophy, which requires goals.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=HAS, ML, MX\|Q=618}}It is unavoidable for philosophy to have a short-term goal / Philosophy needing a goal in order to exist has nothing to do with whether the material processes of history "intend" to reach a goal / ({{9k\|RD/Q618-KarlPopper}}) -> ... I think this has tripped up some people when interpreting Marx.<br/>
	~~it's possible to present Marxism without accidentally implying that history has or "desires" a goal yet with everything otherwise exactly the same~~. ~~I call it meta-Marxism~~. in meta-Marxism you step outside Marx or Stalin or Mao's movement and you detail what that group of people is doing purely descriptively rather than describing the movement's current objectives as an ethical imperative that somehow cosmically needs to happen more than another group of people's objectives. the funny thing is that if you're smart and you understand historical facts this doesn't take away from any of the claims made by Marxism whatsoever; the more you analyze Marxist movements in the third person {{em\|the more various Marxisms hold up}}. when you zoom out on Marxism and "remove teleology" all it does is make it easier to objectively analyze mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism and Deng Xiaoping Thought in parallel to each other without anybody getting caught up in the vortex of Trotskyist rhetoric (for example) and feeling like they are cosmically obligated to take the side of Trotskyism over Maoism. which makes things much clearer and less muddy and debatable than they'd be otherwise. taking away so-called "teleology" does wonders for Marxism, actually.~~<br/>~~		... in meta-Marxism you step outside Marx or Stalin or Mao's movement and you detail what that group of people is doing purely descriptively rather than describing the movement's current objectives as an ethical imperative that somehow cosmically needs to happen more than another group of people's objectives. the funny thing is that if you're smart and you understand historical facts this doesn't take away from any of the claims made by Marxism whatsoever; the more you analyze Marxist movements in the third person {{em\|the more various Marxisms hold up}}. when you zoom out on Marxism and "remove teleology" all it does is make it easier to objectively analyze mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism and Deng Xiaoping Thought in parallel to each other without anybody getting caught up in the vortex of Trotskyist rhetoric (for example) and feeling like they are cosmically obligated to take the side of Trotskyism over Maoism. which makes things much clearer and less muddy and debatable than they'd be otherwise. taking away so-called "teleology" does wonders for Marxism, actually. ...
	meta-Marxism: I don't believe Marxism has teleology in it but for some reason [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-KarlPopper\|Karl Popper]] did so I'm going to jump a few steps ahead of him and tear out all the remaining "teleology" from Marxism so he has nothing to complain about.

	{{li\|I=S2/HAS/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}If one population's moral priorities are taken as standard, other populations' can end up looking irrational, underdeveloped, or morally confused because they have been strained through a non-neutral lens rather than [[E:Study populations within their own history\|first looking at the internal history and elements of each culture individually]] (ethics) -> you know what? this comes at the topic with different priorities than me but I want to mark it violet.		{{li\|I=S2/HAS/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}If one population's moral priorities are taken as standard, other populations' can end up looking irrational, underdeveloped, or morally confused because they have been strained through a non-neutral lens rather than [[E:Study populations within their own history\|first looking at the internal history and elements of each culture individually]] (ethics) -> you know what? this comes at the topic with different priorities than me but I want to mark it violet.
Line 39:		Line 38:
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== Violet Marxism and wavemachine logic (~~dialectics~~) ==		=== Ideologies and economies / historical periods ===
			<ol class="hue clean terse">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,45\|Q2=2845\|h4 = Productive forces birth sociophilosophies }} (Marx 1859, Stalin 1951) / Every stage of productive forces bundles itself [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-EconomicProblemsStalin\|into particular relations of production]], which form into a particular sociophilosophy (specific strain of political philosophy plus overall government shape, ultimately originating out of the population's most common productive forces and production structures existing as evolving relationships; class government, state created by particular class) ... ; this particular phenomenon of discrete kinds of socioeconomies [countable 'civil societies'] contained in ... discrete factions or republics and containing specific forms of politics, economics, and philosophy may be referred to as Social-Philosophical Systems (SPSs, sociophilosophies, ideologies) and content within them producing highly similar socioeconomies across different countries or regions may be represented by a two-letter symbol or a particular color swatch that separates it from dissimilar sociophilosophies which, for instance, are clearly filled with different classes, or have very different structural groupings on a small scale [which typically try to obscure class separations] ... etc / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,04}})

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=28,45\|Q2=2845}}Productive forces birth sociophilosophies / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,04}}) -> this is Marx's version of what I call Social-Philosophical Systems. the only major difference between the way I do it and the way he did it is I start by picking out groups of people that have linked together, confirm that they all have the same coherent shared ideology, and then ask where that recurring ideology came from structurally, while Marx jumps to "the good part" and says, sociophilosophies are really just a bunch of evolving production structures chained together and you can distinguish the whole thing by its inner physical structure because the government and philosophy that come out of it are somewhat predictable. there's no opposition between Marx's model and the meta-Marxist model of "sociophilosophies"/"socioeconomies", the meta-Marxist model just tries to be more accommodating of the way everyone observing reality sees things from the outside (ideological statements, news events, seemingly-abstract factions and movements) before seeing them from the inside (production structures). which is to say, if you do see a logical contradiction between meta-Marxist characterizations of what a Social-Philosophical System is and Marx, assume Marx is more likely to be right.<br/>
			... if you knew a society had one set of internal structures you'd expect it to produce [[E:Q73\|blue ideology]], if it had another you'd expect [[E:Gramscianism and Deng Xiaoping Thought are related\|strawberry ideology]], if it had another which is still somewhat unknown you'd expect [[E:The Russian Revolution created the Material System of Bolshevism\|crimson ideology]]. ...

			{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=ML, MX\|Q=21,34\|Q2=2134}}existential materialism, large-scale (generic) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,04}}) -> ... exmat starts at "the fun stuff" of bashing Free Will and showing that individual will operates back and forth in all directions within the structure of groups, this thing that either comes from individuals' physical needs and their emergent emotions and personalities on top of those, or emerges from interactions {{em\|between}} people where neither individual really controls it and yet it at the larger scale it happens. then it progresses up to "the hard stuff" of showing how the needs of individuals and their current physical arrangements work together to produce seemingly complicated sociophilosophies like Liberal-republicanism, mainstream Marxism-Leninism, a hypothetical Trotskyism, a specific anarchism, nested tribal populations, and so forth.<br/>
			to Marx and Engels this is kind of just 'the rejection of Ideals creating material shapes'. ... exmat isn't necessarily new, when you look at Marx and Lenin doing slightly muddy versions of the same thing that nonetheless manage to laser-focus onto some basic conclusion of what causes bring what effects. ...

			</li></ol>

			== Violet Marxism and wavemachine logic ("math dialogues") ==
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

Reversedragon: The working class is not merely one constituency among many in the struggle against capitalism (North)

2026-05-12T07:04:58Z

The working class is not merely one constituency among many in the struggle against capitalism (North)

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 this is the claim that class relations are similarly monistic, in that everything {{em|inside}} a class territory appears to be indistinguishable from everything else inside until you look at a bigger scale and actually see the wadded-up class territories as the only real point of distinction separating off the homogeneous soup inside. if class monism were not the case, it would be easy to look inside a class territory and distinguish proletarians from non-proletarians once you were educated enough about the world in general, whether you had the correct words Marxists use for things or not. but in the First World there seems to be a terrible problem where skilled workers that are blatantly not proletarians are convinced they are, and unskilled workers look at them and can't tell the difference either. co-ops are convinced they're workers despite creating new business territories, and workers regularly lump tiny businesses, tradespeople, several-year degrees like teachers and doctors, employees, and managers together as "Jobs" as if that is a single thing. this claim hypothesizes that this isn't just a bourgeois distortion (even though a few upper-class people may indeed be trying to hide what's actually going on) but that in the end it actually reflects material reality, and is [[E:shovel dream (meta-Marxism)|the description]] of a world where class is first of all defined by individuals competing with each other across a spatial slot hierarchy and is not first of all defined by differentiation into dissimilar roles within structures. First World capitalism, especially in the United States, really is a nightmare world where everyone physically functions like the bourgeoisie even though some "bourgeoisie" are employed in structures and some formally own structures. this behavior seems to mirror earlier historical periods in Europe where Artisan types functioned within small workshops or guilds or royal courts before the advent of large business territories, and seems to reflect a form of "capitalism" {{em|that has not properly differentiated and become capitalism yet}}. it is possible — and implied in this proposition — that various versions of this same process are simply the inner structure of any typical instance of capitalism as it is first forming and developing, period. that more or less, the petty bourgeoisie generate capitalism, and it regenerates them, the petty bourgeoisie the larva and the cluster of petty bourgeoisie only distinguished by business territories the queen ant. it may be that capitalism loathes forming consistent businesses at all much less state businesses, and big businesses have actually almost ceased to be capitalism. or it may not, and it may be most appropriate to call China's mode of production capitalism and give this monistic system a different name, such as "Careerism".<br/>
 if you look at the other page you might notice that what I said is a little contradictory with this. this is mainly because I was attaching different words to different definitions (mostly "state business"), not because the models were different.
 </li></ol>

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q92 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q92: Moving 9k pages to Ontology talk for search purposes

2026-05-06T09:25:18Z

Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q92 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q92: Moving 9k pages to Ontology talk for search purposes

← Older revision	Revision as of 09:25, 6 May 2026
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:41, 12 May 2026
Line 18:		Line 18:

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618\|h4 = Ideology is Idealism unexamined }} / Ideology — a distorted model of reality usually for the benefit of a particular class — comes out of conceptual models of the world ("concept-material", ontologies) specifically when considered in isolation from the world, according to processes not obvious to the people creating ideology (Engels) / ({{9k\|RD/Q618-ThesesOnFeuerbach}}) -><br/>		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618\|h4 = Ideology is Idealism unexamined }} / Ideology — a distorted model of reality usually for the benefit of a particular class — comes out of conceptual models of the world ("concept-material", ontologies) specifically when considered in isolation from the world, according to processes not obvious to the people creating ideology (Engels) / ({{9k\|RD/Q618-ThesesOnFeuerbach}}) -><br/>
	it should be noted that Marx and Engels have a specific definition of ideology while the way I use "ideology" is slightly different~~, but I have no problems with their concept they call ideology in the sense that it describes capitalism or beliefs in medieval times~~. to me, an ideology is {{em\|any}} ontology, and could conceivably be a correct one, but whether it's correct isn't obvious to people of other ideologies, who will see the correct ontology as ideology exactly in the sense Engels says. to me, this definition is easier to apply in a real world where you might have a group of bourgeoisie and a group of proletarians, or some other messier but distinguishable division of demographics, and the populations will have to interact and maybe even work together at times, but due to the different material content of the populations they will find it hard to see each other's observations or findings as real. how do you apply Engels' definition to a Deng Xiaoping state, where all the bourgeoisie and proletarians have to work together against the outside the whole time even though they will eventually have to separate? the only sensible way, to me, is to label one population crimson and one population blue or strawberry and model them both according to their own class composition and chosen ideology so that you put them both in the right place but they don't have to get confused about who's doing what. it might be easier said than done to get that class consciousness actually into the populations, but at the very least you can use the model to advise workers on what concrete things they should do to avoid the influence of the blue/strawberry populations and reclaim power.		it should be noted that Marx and Engels have a specific definition of ideology while the way I use "ideology" is slightly different. ... to me, an ideology is {{em\|any}} ontology, and could conceivably be a correct one, but whether it's correct isn't obvious to people of other ideologies, who will see the correct ontology as ideology exactly in the sense Engels says. to me, this definition is easier to apply in a real world where you might have a group of bourgeoisie and a group of proletarians, or some other messier but distinguishable division of demographics, and the populations will have to interact and maybe even work together at times, but due to the different material content of the populations they will find it hard to see each other's observations or findings as real. how do you apply Engels' definition to a Deng Xiaoping state, where all the bourgeoisie and proletarians have to work together against the outside the whole time even though they will eventually have to separate? the only sensible way, to me, is to label one population crimson and one population blue or strawberry and model them both according to their own class composition and chosen ideology so that you put them both in the right place but they don't have to get confused about who's doing what. it might be easier said than done to get that class consciousness actually into the populations, but at the very least you can use the model to advise workers on what concrete things they should do to avoid the influence of the blue/strawberry populations and reclaim power.

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/MX\|Q=21,09\|Q2=2109\|h4= [[E:Q2109\|shovel (meta-Marxism)]] }} / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,10}}) -> a metaphorical shovel is specifically a kind of object with a particular size and shape which if it were capable of taking a picture of the world and writing a description of it without deep deliberation over the meaning of what it saw would have its intuitive, unfiltered perceptions skewed a certain way by virtue of its shape, size, and composition. a literal shovel is smaller than a car or city block. a literal shovel cannot see anything materially speaking, but a camera can inasmuch as it can take a picture. ... from the vantage point of science, the form the shovel dream inside the book takes is {{i\|ontology}}: the creation of a graph of points connected by arrows where the definition of any of the points is largely defined by their relationship to other points. some people get lost in the fact that the book's shovel dream is recorded in "language", and unnecessarily start trying to assign all the qualities of ontology {{em\|to language}}. this doesn't really make a lot of sense when large language models can reduce any language down to a mathematical graph devoid of words or phrases where, for instance, it might not be easy to tell English from Japanese at a glance. ... ontology can also shape itself to become abstract art which does not actually refer to the real world even through metaphor, but which is simply a constructed world of its own that people can perceive through a writer's fabricated shovel dream. ...		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/MX\|Q=21,09\|Q2=2109\|h4= [[E:Q2109\|shovel (meta-Marxism)]] }} / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,10}}) -> a metaphorical shovel is specifically a kind of object with a particular size and shape which if it were capable of taking a picture of the world and writing a description of it without deep deliberation over the meaning of what it saw would have its intuitive, unfiltered perceptions skewed a certain way by virtue of its shape, size, and composition. a literal shovel is smaller than a car or city block. a literal shovel cannot see anything materially speaking, but a camera can inasmuch as it can take a picture. ... from the vantage point of science, the form the shovel dream inside the book takes is {{i\|ontology}}: the creation of a graph of points connected by arrows where the definition of any of the points is largely defined by their relationship to other points. some people get lost in the fact that the book's shovel dream is recorded in "language", and unnecessarily start trying to assign all the qualities of ontology {{em\|to language}}. this doesn't really make a lot of sense when large language models can reduce any language down to a mathematical graph devoid of words or phrases where, for instance, it might not be easy to tell English from Japanese at a glance. ... ontology can also shape itself to become abstract art which does not actually refer to the real world even through metaphor, but which is simply a constructed world of its own that people can perceive through a writer's fabricated shovel dream. ...
Line 29:		Line 29:
	that said. I think it's fair to say that all Marxisms have a tint. whether they are realizable Leninisms {{em\|per se}} or just confused clouds of philosophy like a lot of Western-Marxism is they are always countable and they always contain ideology inasmuch as they must contain a few prescriptive statements applicable to specific periods of history. that means that any time anyone tries to create a violet Marxist movement on the ground it will always be countable. there will always be a risk of rifts in meta-Marxism just like there are rifts between different Leninisms if you aren't careful. there is a particular way you fix that. you just have to get multiple theorists or instances of violet Marxism criticizing each other. it almost sounds too simple to possibly work, but really, the secret to making violet Marxism consistent and singular is just to know that any particular instance of it will never magically guess what other instances are doing in isolation and it will always have to interact with them to be able to work through errors or discrepancies. if you don't get every violet theorist in one place, fine, you just have to get enough different perspectives that they start taking real differences and unifying them all into a single model of differing plural movement-objects evolving in parallel or in interaction, then you hope that whoever didn't make it sees the new developments and it's enough to correct everybody else. the key to violet Marxism is it always assumes it's studying how to fit the material elements of plural ideologies together. so it won't really matter if violet theorists show up from countries in wildly different stages, or the violet theorists meet but they only figure out an issue for a particular point in time and then they have to do it again. violet theorists would basically assume there are plural violet Marxisms that are slowly de-synchronizing and need to come back and synchronize periodically, while the notion that there's only one meta-Marxism is something of an approximation to keep everybody sane and keep introductory explanations of the difference between meta-Marxism and named Leninisms relatively short. the simple explanation is the Leninisms diverge, and because they always have to analyze from inside themselves they potentially make errors on the global meta-Marxism that describes all Leninisms. the reality is the violet Marxism that analyzes the Leninisms is probably a bit plural too, it just tries much harder to bridge the plurality so it's more something that [[E:constructive process (meta-Marxism)\|constructs or superimposes on itself]] than tears itself apart and whatever point in it you start from you can end up anywhere else. like, "[[E:intersectionality\|intersectionality]]" and "[[E:Rhizome (schizoanalysis)\|Rhizome]]" would have nothing on this, every problem of intersectionality from small scales up to the global scale would more or less melt away by the time you're done.		that said. I think it's fair to say that all Marxisms have a tint. whether they are realizable Leninisms {{em\|per se}} or just confused clouds of philosophy like a lot of Western-Marxism is they are always countable and they always contain ideology inasmuch as they must contain a few prescriptive statements applicable to specific periods of history. that means that any time anyone tries to create a violet Marxist movement on the ground it will always be countable. there will always be a risk of rifts in meta-Marxism just like there are rifts between different Leninisms if you aren't careful. there is a particular way you fix that. you just have to get multiple theorists or instances of violet Marxism criticizing each other. it almost sounds too simple to possibly work, but really, the secret to making violet Marxism consistent and singular is just to know that any particular instance of it will never magically guess what other instances are doing in isolation and it will always have to interact with them to be able to work through errors or discrepancies. if you don't get every violet theorist in one place, fine, you just have to get enough different perspectives that they start taking real differences and unifying them all into a single model of differing plural movement-objects evolving in parallel or in interaction, then you hope that whoever didn't make it sees the new developments and it's enough to correct everybody else. the key to violet Marxism is it always assumes it's studying how to fit the material elements of plural ideologies together. so it won't really matter if violet theorists show up from countries in wildly different stages, or the violet theorists meet but they only figure out an issue for a particular point in time and then they have to do it again. violet theorists would basically assume there are plural violet Marxisms that are slowly de-synchronizing and need to come back and synchronize periodically, while the notion that there's only one meta-Marxism is something of an approximation to keep everybody sane and keep introductory explanations of the difference between meta-Marxism and named Leninisms relatively short. the simple explanation is the Leninisms diverge, and because they always have to analyze from inside themselves they potentially make errors on the global meta-Marxism that describes all Leninisms. the reality is the violet Marxism that analyzes the Leninisms is probably a bit plural too, it just tries much harder to bridge the plurality so it's more something that [[E:constructive process (meta-Marxism)\|constructs or superimposes on itself]] than tears itself apart and whatever point in it you start from you can end up anywhere else. like, "[[E:intersectionality\|intersectionality]]" and "[[E:Rhizome (schizoanalysis)\|Rhizome]]" would have nothing on this, every problem of intersectionality from small scales up to the global scale would more or less melt away by the time you're done.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=HAS, ML, MX\|Q=618}}It is unavoidable for philosophy to have a short-term goal / Philosophy needing a goal in order to exist has nothing to do with whether the material processes of history "intend" to reach a goal / ({{9k\|RD/Q618-KarlPopper}}) -> I think ~~it's important to remember: philosophy having a goal {{em\|because it's philosophy and must have a goal by its nature}} isn't to say {{em\|history~~ has ~~a goal}}. I think that's~~ tripped up some people when interpreting Marx. they see that Marx is writing philosophy and laying out goals because philosophy requires goals, and they falsely think that presenting a goal is actually part of Marx's scientific model of history when at most it's part of Marx's vision of current politics, which requires philosophy, which requires goals.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=HAS, ML, MX\|Q=618}}It is unavoidable for philosophy to have a short-term goal / Philosophy needing a goal in order to exist has nothing to do with whether the material processes of history "intend" to reach a goal / ({{9k\|RD/Q618-KarlPopper}}) -> ... I think this has tripped up some people when interpreting Marx.<br/>
	~~it's possible to present Marxism without accidentally implying that history has or "desires" a goal yet with everything otherwise exactly the same~~. ~~I call it meta-Marxism~~. in meta-Marxism you step outside Marx or Stalin or Mao's movement and you detail what that group of people is doing purely descriptively rather than describing the movement's current objectives as an ethical imperative that somehow cosmically needs to happen more than another group of people's objectives. the funny thing is that if you're smart and you understand historical facts this doesn't take away from any of the claims made by Marxism whatsoever; the more you analyze Marxist movements in the third person {{em\|the more various Marxisms hold up}}. when you zoom out on Marxism and "remove teleology" all it does is make it easier to objectively analyze mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism and Deng Xiaoping Thought in parallel to each other without anybody getting caught up in the vortex of Trotskyist rhetoric (for example) and feeling like they are cosmically obligated to take the side of Trotskyism over Maoism. which makes things much clearer and less muddy and debatable than they'd be otherwise. taking away so-called "teleology" does wonders for Marxism, actually.~~<br/>~~		... in meta-Marxism you step outside Marx or Stalin or Mao's movement and you detail what that group of people is doing purely descriptively rather than describing the movement's current objectives as an ethical imperative that somehow cosmically needs to happen more than another group of people's objectives. the funny thing is that if you're smart and you understand historical facts this doesn't take away from any of the claims made by Marxism whatsoever; the more you analyze Marxist movements in the third person {{em\|the more various Marxisms hold up}}. when you zoom out on Marxism and "remove teleology" all it does is make it easier to objectively analyze mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism and Deng Xiaoping Thought in parallel to each other without anybody getting caught up in the vortex of Trotskyist rhetoric (for example) and feeling like they are cosmically obligated to take the side of Trotskyism over Maoism. which makes things much clearer and less muddy and debatable than they'd be otherwise. taking away so-called "teleology" does wonders for Marxism, actually. ...
	meta-Marxism: I don't believe Marxism has teleology in it but for some reason [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-KarlPopper\|Karl Popper]] did so I'm going to jump a few steps ahead of him and tear out all the remaining "teleology" from Marxism so he has nothing to complain about.

	{{li\|I=S2/HAS/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}If one population's moral priorities are taken as standard, other populations' can end up looking irrational, underdeveloped, or morally confused because they have been strained through a non-neutral lens rather than [[E:Study populations within their own history\|first looking at the internal history and elements of each culture individually]] (ethics) -> you know what? this comes at the topic with different priorities than me but I want to mark it violet.		{{li\|I=S2/HAS/MX\|tradition=\|Q=618}}If one population's moral priorities are taken as standard, other populations' can end up looking irrational, underdeveloped, or morally confused because they have been strained through a non-neutral lens rather than [[E:Study populations within their own history\|first looking at the internal history and elements of each culture individually]] (ethics) -> you know what? this comes at the topic with different priorities than me but I want to mark it violet.
Line 39:		Line 38:
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== Violet Marxism and wavemachine logic (~~dialectics~~) ==		=== Ideologies and economies / historical periods ===
			<ol class="hue clean terse">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,45\|Q2=2845\|h4 = Productive forces birth sociophilosophies }} (Marx 1859, Stalin 1951) / Every stage of productive forces bundles itself [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-EconomicProblemsStalin\|into particular relations of production]], which form into a particular sociophilosophy (specific strain of political philosophy plus overall government shape, ultimately originating out of the population's most common productive forces and production structures existing as evolving relationships; class government, state created by particular class) ... ; this particular phenomenon of discrete kinds of socioeconomies [countable 'civil societies'] contained in ... discrete factions or republics and containing specific forms of politics, economics, and philosophy may be referred to as Social-Philosophical Systems (SPSs, sociophilosophies, ideologies) and content within them producing highly similar socioeconomies across different countries or regions may be represented by a two-letter symbol or a particular color swatch that separates it from dissimilar sociophilosophies which, for instance, are clearly filled with different classes, or have very different structural groupings on a small scale [which typically try to obscure class separations] ... etc / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,04}})

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=28,45\|Q2=2845}}Productive forces birth sociophilosophies / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,04}}) -> this is Marx's version of what I call Social-Philosophical Systems. the only major difference between the way I do it and the way he did it is I start by picking out groups of people that have linked together, confirm that they all have the same coherent shared ideology, and then ask where that recurring ideology came from structurally, while Marx jumps to "the good part" and says, sociophilosophies are really just a bunch of evolving production structures chained together and you can distinguish the whole thing by its inner physical structure because the government and philosophy that come out of it are somewhat predictable. there's no opposition between Marx's model and the meta-Marxist model of "sociophilosophies"/"socioeconomies", the meta-Marxist model just tries to be more accommodating of the way everyone observing reality sees things from the outside (ideological statements, news events, seemingly-abstract factions and movements) before seeing them from the inside (production structures). which is to say, if you do see a logical contradiction between meta-Marxist characterizations of what a Social-Philosophical System is and Marx, assume Marx is more likely to be right.<br/>
			... if you knew a society had one set of internal structures you'd expect it to produce [[E:Q73\|blue ideology]], if it had another you'd expect [[E:Gramscianism and Deng Xiaoping Thought are related\|strawberry ideology]], if it had another which is still somewhat unknown you'd expect [[E:The Russian Revolution created the Material System of Bolshevism\|crimson ideology]]. ...

			{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=ML, MX\|Q=21,34\|Q2=2134}}existential materialism, large-scale (generic) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,04}}) -> ... exmat starts at "the fun stuff" of bashing Free Will and showing that individual will operates back and forth in all directions within the structure of groups, this thing that either comes from individuals' physical needs and their emergent emotions and personalities on top of those, or emerges from interactions {{em\|between}} people where neither individual really controls it and yet it at the larger scale it happens. then it progresses up to "the hard stuff" of showing how the needs of individuals and their current physical arrangements work together to produce seemingly complicated sociophilosophies like Liberal-republicanism, mainstream Marxism-Leninism, a hypothetical Trotskyism, a specific anarchism, nested tribal populations, and so forth.<br/>
			to Marx and Engels this is kind of just 'the rejection of Ideals creating material shapes'. ... exmat isn't necessarily new, when you look at Marx and Lenin doing slightly muddy versions of the same thing that nonetheless manage to laser-focus onto some basic conclusion of what causes bring what effects. ...

			</li></ol>

			== Violet Marxism and wavemachine logic ("math dialogues") ==
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">