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

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)

Reversedragon: Class is a single substrate / All life is semiotic (Eduardo Kohn)

2026-05-06T09:21:22Z

Class is a single substrate / All life is semiotic (Eduardo Kohn)

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 {{li|I=S1/MX|Q=618}}'pataphysical reduction / 'pata-reducing (by analogy to beta-reducing)  ->  the motif of taking something expressed wholly in abstract Ideals and reducing it down to material models based on the way Ideals already interact with each other, or explaining something material to someone starting at the level of abstract Ideals. the term "reduction" is used in the sense of evaluating a function call down to a computation, as is done in lambda calculus; it is not used in the sense of the popular misconception about science that scientists want to eliminate sideways relationships from models. they don't, if you've ever heard of [[EC:9k/RD/Q66|special relativity]].<br/>
 this is the real power of wave-machine logic like the logic system used on this wiki; it can start at totally phenomenological models and dig down to find material models.
 </li></ol>

Reversedragon: shovel dream

2026-05-06T08:23:49Z

shovel dream

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:23, 6 May 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=meta-Marxism\|User=RD\|E=Q92\|Contents=y}}		{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=meta-Marxism\|User=RD\|E=Q92\|Contents=y}}
	== Main entries ==		== Main entries ==
	~~<noinclude>~~{{HueCSS}}~~</noinclude>~~<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]]

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 11:		Line 11:

	{{li\|start=y\|I=F2/W\|tradition=UM onto MX\|Q=618}}Marxism is merely Leninism / Marxist theory cannot be a coherent and consistent science informing political struggles from without (Western Marxism; Althusser?) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}}) -> not with that attitude it can't.<br/>		{{li\|start=y\|I=F2/W\|tradition=UM onto MX\|Q=618}}Marxism is merely Leninism / Marxist theory cannot be a coherent and consistent science informing political struggles from without (Western Marxism; Althusser?) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}}) -> not with that attitude it can't.<br/>
	... there's always another country looking at any particular country and criticizing it, which would never be able to tell if another country's actions were correct or incorrect if this was true. like, the mere fact people actually can understand historical events from Third-World perspectives and Soviet history keeps creating Communists on other continents should hint to you this is false. this is nonsense. this is anti-internationalist nonsense.		... [[EC:9k/RD/Q66 relativity\|there's always another country]] looking at any particular country and criticizing it, which would never be able to tell if another country's actions were correct or incorrect if this was true. like, the mere fact people actually can understand historical events from Third-World perspectives and Soviet history keeps creating Communists on other continents should hint to you this is false. this is nonsense. this is anti-internationalist nonsense.

	{{li\|I=S2/W\|tradition=W, MX\|Q=618}}Marx's writings contain ideology because they are political (Althusser; Western-Marxism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}})		{{li\|I=S2/W\|tradition=W, MX\|Q=618}}Marx's writings contain ideology because they are political (Althusser; Western-Marxism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}})
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. 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, 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.

			{{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\|I=S1/MX\|Q=21,10\|Q2=2110\|h4= [[E:ShovelDream\|shovel dream]] }} / object or formation ideology / ideology or consciousness associated with a specific repeatable kind of population which is countable and separable and has a particular kind of internal structure / ideology or consciousness associated with a particular kind of materially-definable Social-Philosophical System / embodied cognition (model of objects that perform cognition doing it through studying the relationship of their physical object toward the world, here also applied to groups of people instead of just individuals) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,10}}) -> [[E:Hyper-Materialism (meta-Marxism)\|Hyper-Materialist]] concept. the motif of a particular kind of object having a particular kind of model of the world and ideology {{em\|because}} it is a particular kind of object. almost always the object is a countable, separable population of people, but it's funny to figuratively refer to other kinds of objects to get across a concept that somehow absolutely nobody seems to understand. Hyper-Materialism is when all similar shovels have a similar shovel dream, and all similar rakes have a similar rake dream. a collection of rakes may have its own unique collection-of-rakes dream, but in principle it can be calculated by modeling the interaction of the individual rake dreams. individual people, not being shovels or rakes, can change their shovel dream at will, but changing the shovel dream of one individual may not have much effect on a large group. Marcuse thinks it's as simple as changing all the individuals one by one but that doesn't necessarily go fast enough. you have to understand the existing layout of various kinds of material objects producing shovel dreams and think about what changes in the layout of shovels could produce the right ones faster. the terrible thing is there are no shortcuts here. you can't just go "here are the bourgeoisie, here are the proletariat, they only need to become aware of the possibly-wrong model in this text". with the United States objectively not having the class structure described in Leninist texts, organizers really do need to understand the basic concept of shovel dreams and how to identify them and categorize them in the field.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618\|h4 = Violet Marxism contains ideology }} / Even violet Marxism cannot purge itself of ideology / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}}) -> I think [Althusser's] article has been basically correct in saying that Marxism is inseparable from ideology and basically inseparable from being situated in a particular place in the material world as it learns ...<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618\|h4 = Violet Marxism contains ideology }} / Even violet Marxism cannot purge itself of ideology / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}}) -> I think [Althusser's] article has been basically correct in saying that Marxism is inseparable from ideology and basically inseparable from being situated in a particular place in the material world as it learns ...<br/>

Reversedragon: 'pataphysical reduction

2026-05-06T06:04:06Z

'pataphysical reduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:04, 6 May 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:

	== Violet Marxism and ideologies ==		== Violet Marxism and ideologies ==
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean terse">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=F2/W\|tradition=UM onto MX\|Q=618}}Marxism is merely Leninism / Marxist theory cannot be a coherent and consistent science informing political struggles from without (Western Marxism; Althusser?) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}}) -> not with that attitude it can't.<br/>		{{li\|start=y\|I=F2/W\|tradition=UM onto MX\|Q=618}}Marxism is merely Leninism / Marxist theory cannot be a coherent and consistent science informing political struggles from without (Western Marxism; Althusser?) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}}) -> not with that attitude it can't.<br/>
Line 17:		Line 17:
	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=W, MX\|Q=618}}Marx's writings contain ideology when they are political / Trotsky's writings contain ideology when they are politically charged / Deng Xiaoping's statements contain ideology when they are politically charged / All sociophilosophies are ideologies, but some of them are materially accurate (generic; violet Marxism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}})		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=W, MX\|Q=618}}Marx's writings contain ideology when they are political / Trotsky's writings contain ideology when they are politically charged / Deng Xiaoping's statements contain ideology when they are politically charged / All sociophilosophies are ideologies, but some of them are materially accurate (generic; violet Marxism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}})

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Violet Marxism contains ideology / Even violet Marxism cannot purge itself of ideology / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}}) -> I think [Althusser's] article has been basically correct in saying that Marxism is inseparable from ideology and basically inseparable from being situated in a particular place in the material world as it learns ...<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. 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\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618\|h4 = Violet Marxism contains ideology }} / Even violet Marxism cannot purge itself of ideology / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}}) -> I think [Althusser's] article has been basically correct in saying that Marxism is inseparable from ideology and basically inseparable from being situated in a particular place in the material world as it learns ...<br/>
	this is probably one of the reasons why I was weirdly keen on describing violet Marxism as an actual hypothetical Leninism early on. I knew that was a silly thing to even say when like, I wasn't {{em\|building}} a violet Leninism so I took a risk of describing Leninisms in the abstract being an insult to Leninisms that had actually realized themselves. but I think part of the logic of that was I was basically trying to get across the point that ... {{em\|if}} a hypothetical violet Leninism existed {{em\|then}} the thing figuring itself out would go a lot faster than trying to make abstract guesses about it beforehand would. I wasn't actually trying to skip steps, I was just trying very hard to make a point about Materialism and what Materialism is by showing that philosophy doesn't have to be clouds of Ideals and it can instead be simulations of material objects; I was meaning to communicate, hey, what if instead of starting with "[[E:anarchism\|it would be good if people embraced Morality and rejected Greed]]" we started with "this is the overall structure of a new society and this is how people get into position to realize it". hence a lot of talk about "what a [[E:Q19,92\|Molecular Marxism]] (violet Leninism) looks like".<br/>		this is probably one of the reasons why I was weirdly keen on describing violet Marxism as an actual hypothetical Leninism early on. I knew that was a silly thing to even say when like, I wasn't {{em\|building}} a violet Leninism so I took a risk of describing Leninisms in the abstract being an insult to Leninisms that had actually realized themselves. but I think part of the logic of that was I was basically trying to get across the point that ... {{em\|if}} a hypothetical violet Leninism existed {{em\|then}} the thing figuring itself out would go a lot faster than trying to make abstract guesses about it beforehand would. I wasn't actually trying to skip steps, I was just trying very hard to make a point about Materialism and what Materialism is by showing that philosophy doesn't have to be clouds of Ideals and it can instead be simulations of material objects; I was meaning to communicate, hey, what if instead of starting with "[[E:anarchism\|it would be good if people embraced Morality and rejected Greed]]" we started with "this is the overall structure of a new society and this is how people get into position to realize it". hence a lot of talk about "what a [[E:Q19,92\|Molecular Marxism]] (violet Leninism) looks like".<br/>
	after a while I decided the better way to do things was to move from arbitrarily describing new hypothetical Leninisms to focusing on {{em\|old}} hypothetical Leninisms, because that got the same point across, but given there were more known facts about them, would do it more clearly. you can't really insult a movement that actually happened by making it itself hypothetical and getting to see it run in a wider range of conditions; that's just contributing useful criticism if you do it well. thus "Molecular Marxism" evolved into "meta-Marxism" and generalized itself from being 'a Leninism that would be more flexible' to 'a Marxism with utterly variable content that's actually for structurally analyzing various countable variations of Marxism-Leninism'.<br/>		after a while I decided the better way to do things was to move from arbitrarily describing new hypothetical Leninisms to focusing on {{em\|old}} hypothetical Leninisms, because that got the same point across, but given there were more known facts about them, would do it more clearly. you can't really insult a movement that actually happened by making it itself hypothetical and getting to see it run in a wider range of conditions; that's just contributing useful criticism if you do it well. thus "Molecular Marxism" evolved into "meta-Marxism" and generalized itself from being 'a Leninism that would be more flexible' to 'a Marxism with utterly variable content that's actually for structurally analyzing various countable variations of Marxism-Leninism'.<br/>
Line 23:		Line 26:

	{{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 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/>
	it's possible to present Marxism without accidentally implying that history has a goal ~~but~~ 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/>		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/>
	meta-Marxism: I don't believe Marxism has teleology in it but for some reason 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.		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/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></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 31:		Line 38:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/A\|Q=618}}general-sense Idealist dialectic -> a general-sense Idealist dialectic is a process or operator by which two things in conceptual contradiction interact.<br/>		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/A\|Q=618}}general-sense Idealist dialectic -> a general-sense Idealist dialectic is a process or operator by which two things in conceptual contradiction interact.<br/>
	Rhizome and 'molecular Idealism' vaguely fall into either the category of this or the vicinity of this.		Rhizome and 'molecular Idealism' vaguely fall into either the category of this or the vicinity of this.

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618}}general-sense materialist dialectic / naïve dialectical materialism (generic) -> a general-sense materialist dialectic is a process or operator by which two things in material contradiction interact.		{{li\|I=S1/ML\|Q=618}}general-sense materialist dialectic / naïve dialectical materialism (generic) -> a general-sense materialist dialectic is a process or operator by which two things in material contradiction interact.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Ideology is Idealism unexamined / Ideology is any {{a\|shovel dream\|E=shovel dream (meta-Marxism)}} unexamined (counter-claim) / ({{9k\|RD/Q618-ThesesOnFeuerbach}}) -> part of the reason I choose to frame things this way is that in the past year I've noticed something fundamental about all philosophy, logic, and language. absolutely all logic and all language starts out Idealist, and it's only {{em\|out of}} Idealism that you get Materialism, through the bridge of [[E:Enlightenment reason is basically 'pataphysics\|'pataphysics]] in the middle; the two aren't separate.<br/>
			you really have to understand this in order to build up a convincing case for naïve dialectical materialism, which is just about the only dialectical materialism anarchists will ever want to understand. if you can get anarchists to realize that the interaction of any two objects isn't based on abstract concepts but is based in the objects interacting and changing each other, through [[E:'pataphysical reduction\|'pata-reducing]] Idealist models of how things are already said to interact, you have a chance to get anarchists to realize that the universe doesn't revolve around what they want and even Idealism is only a descriptive model of how other objects bump into each other without their interference. anarchists are {{em\|so}} bad about not understanding the sheer concept that a cue ball can hit a pool ball without the universe factoring in their internal will and desires that you really have to stop and account for it before you'll get any further. it's not even religion that did this to people, contrary to [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-ThesesOnFeuerbach\|what Feuerbach proposed]], people are just predisposed to attributing a [[E:Shenlong effect (meta-Marxism)\|Shenlong effect]] to the universe and [[E:Sociality distorts human beings' view of material reality\|improperly imbuing it with morality]] regardless of their level of supernatural belief.

			{{li\|I=S1/MX\|Q=618}}'pataphysical reduction / 'pata-reducing (by analogy to beta-reducing) -> the motif of taking something expressed wholly in abstract Ideals and reducing it down to material models based on the way Ideals already interact with each other, or explaining something material to someone starting at the level of abstract Ideals. the term "reduction" is used in the sense of evaluating a function call down to a computation, as is done in lambda calculus; it is not used in the sense of the popular misconception about science that scientists want to eliminate sideways relationships from models. they don't, if you've ever heard of [[EC:9k/RD/Q66\|special relativity]].<br/>
			this is the real power of wave-machine logic like the logic system used on this wiki; it can start at totally phenomenological models and dig down to find material models.

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

Reversedragon: general-sense materialist dialectic

2026-05-06T05:06:09Z

general-sense materialist dialectic

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:06, 6 May 2026
Line 28:		Line 28:
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== Violet Marxism and ~~re-constructing all forms of "dialectic"~~ ==		== Violet Marxism and wavemachine logic (dialectics) ==
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/A\|Q=618}}general-sense Idealist dialectic -> a general-sense Idealist dialectic is a process or operator by which two things in conceptual contradiction interact.<br/>
			Rhizome and 'molecular Idealism' vaguely fall into either the category of this or the vicinity of this.

			{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618}}general-sense materialist dialectic / naïve dialectical materialism (generic) -> a general-sense materialist dialectic is a process or operator by which two things in material contradiction interact.

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

Reversedragon: Marxism is merely Leninism / Violet Marxism contains ideology

2026-05-06T05:02:43Z

Marxism is merely Leninism / Violet Marxism contains ideology

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:02, 6 May 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><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)]] / [[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]]

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

	== Violet Marxism ==		== Violet Marxism and ideologies ==
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/W\|tradition=W, MX\|Q=618}}Marx's writings contain ideology because they are political (Althusser; Western-Marxism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}})		{{li\|start=y\|I=F2/W\|tradition=UM onto MX\|Q=618}}Marxism is merely Leninism / Marxist theory cannot be a coherent and consistent science informing political struggles from without (Western Marxism; Althusser?) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}}) -> not with that attitude it can't.<br/>
			... there's always another country looking at any particular country and criticizing it, which would never be able to tell if another country's actions were correct or incorrect if this was true. like, the mere fact people actually can understand historical events from Third-World perspectives and Soviet history keeps creating Communists on other continents should hint to you this is false. this is nonsense. this is anti-internationalist nonsense.

			{{li\|I=S2/W\|tradition=W, MX\|Q=618}}Marx's writings contain ideology because they are political (Althusser; Western-Marxism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}})

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=W, MX\|Q=618}}Marx's writings contain ideology when they are political / Trotsky's writings contain ideology when they are politically charged / Deng Xiaoping's statements contain ideology when they are politically charged / All sociophilosophies are ideologies, but some of them are materially accurate (generic; violet Marxism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}})		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=W, MX\|Q=618}}Marx's writings contain ideology when they are political / Trotsky's writings contain ideology when they are politically charged / Deng Xiaoping's statements contain ideology when they are politically charged / All sociophilosophies are ideologies, but some of them are materially accurate (generic; violet Marxism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}})

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Violet Marxism contains ideology / Even violet Marxism cannot purge itself of ideology / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}}) -> I think [Althusser's] article has been basically correct in saying that Marxism is inseparable from ideology and basically inseparable from being situated in a particular place in the material world as it learns ...<br/>
			this is probably one of the reasons why I was weirdly keen on describing violet Marxism as an actual hypothetical Leninism early on. I knew that was a silly thing to even say when like, I wasn't {{em\|building}} a violet Leninism so I took a risk of describing Leninisms in the abstract being an insult to Leninisms that had actually realized themselves. but I think part of the logic of that was I was basically trying to get across the point that ... {{em\|if}} a hypothetical violet Leninism existed {{em\|then}} the thing figuring itself out would go a lot faster than trying to make abstract guesses about it beforehand would. I wasn't actually trying to skip steps, I was just trying very hard to make a point about Materialism and what Materialism is by showing that philosophy doesn't have to be clouds of Ideals and it can instead be simulations of material objects; I was meaning to communicate, hey, what if instead of starting with "[[E:anarchism\|it would be good if people embraced Morality and rejected Greed]]" we started with "this is the overall structure of a new society and this is how people get into position to realize it". hence a lot of talk about "what a [[E:Q19,92\|Molecular Marxism]] (violet Leninism) looks like".<br/>
			after a while I decided the better way to do things was to move from arbitrarily describing new hypothetical Leninisms to focusing on {{em\|old}} hypothetical Leninisms, because that got the same point across, but given there were more known facts about them, would do it more clearly. you can't really insult a movement that actually happened by making it itself hypothetical and getting to see it run in a wider range of conditions; that's just contributing useful criticism if you do it well. thus "Molecular Marxism" evolved into "meta-Marxism" and generalized itself from being 'a Leninism that would be more flexible' to 'a Marxism with utterly variable content that's actually for structurally analyzing various countable variations of Marxism-Leninism'.<br/>
			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 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/>
Line 18:		Line 26:
	meta-Marxism: I don't believe Marxism has teleology in it but for some reason 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.		meta-Marxism: I don't believe Marxism has teleology in it but for some reason 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></ol>

			== Violet Marxism and re-constructing all forms of "dialectic" ==
			<ol class="hue clean">
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: Marx's writings contain ideology when they are political

2026-05-06T04:32:52Z

Marx's writings contain ideology when they are political

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:32, 6 May 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><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; R. Bergfalk) / [[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)]] / [[E:Q92/WA\|violet Marxism]]

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

	== ~~Prior usages~~ of "meta-Marxism" ==		== Violet Marxism ==
			<ol class="hue clean">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/W\|tradition=W, MX\|Q=618}}Marx's writings contain ideology because they are political (Althusser; Western-Marxism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}})

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=W, MX\|Q=618}}Marx's writings contain ideology when they are political / Trotsky's writings contain ideology when they are politically charged / Deng Xiaoping's statements contain ideology when they are politically charged / All sociophilosophies are ideologies, but some of them are materially accurate (generic; violet Marxism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}})

			{{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/>
			it's possible to present Marxism without accidentally implying that history has a goal but 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/>
			meta-Marxism: I don't believe Marxism has teleology in it but for some reason 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></ol>

			== Prior usages of "meta-Marxism" before violet Marxism ==
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/PT\|tradition=PT onto HM\|Q=618}}unpacking the meta-Marxism of the woke narrative {{YouTube\|ex-bUC1wXyg}} -> oh my god you're telling me that critical theory secretly knows everything about modeling the historical development of different Marxisms?? and it knows exactly how to get China and Cuba to cooperate so they can both get back to Bolshevism?? I had no idea<br/>		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/PT\|tradition=PT onto HM\|Q=618}}unpacking the meta-Marxism of the woke narrative {{YouTube\|ex-bUC1wXyg}} -> {{i\|oh my god you're telling me that critical theory secretly knows everything about modeling the historical development of different Marxisms?? and it knows exactly how to get China and Cuba to cooperate so they can both get back to Bolshevism?? I had no idea}}<br/>
	found this when I tried to use Google to search YouTube for "meta-Marxism". it was the only result.		found this when I tried to use Google to search YouTube for "meta-Marxism". it was the only result.

Reversedragon: violet Marxism

2026-03-03T08:39:04Z

violet Marxism

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:39, 3 March 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=Z1/MX\|Q=92}}[[~~Ontology~~:Q92\|meta-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; R. Bergfalk) / [[E:Q92/WA\|violet Marxism]]

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

Reversedragon: move article motifs to User:RD/9k/Q21,29

2026-03-03T08:35:43Z

move article motifs to User:RD/9k/Q21,29

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 found this when I tried to use Google to search YouTube for "meta-Marxism". it was the only result.
-{{li|I=Z1/W|tradition=UM / unknown|Q=21,29|Q2=2129}}{{article|Rethinking Althusser's Meta-Marxism}} (Andreas Beck Holm 2024) [https://decalagesjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/decalagesvol2iss1_07.pdf]  ->  so, "meta-Marxism" has rarely been used for describing Western-Marxism for some reason. rest assured, this is {{em|not}} at all what "meta-Marxism" is referring to on any other page on this site. here meta-Marxism is a particular thing called violet Marxism. if we became successful at what we were doing here you would search meta-Marxism and there would be 100 results about violet Marxism and 5 results about Western-Marxism.<br/>
+{{li|I=Z1/W|tradition=UM / unknown|Q=21,29|Q2=2129}}{{article|Rethinking Althusser's Meta-Marxism}} (Andreas Beck Holm 2024) [https://decalagesjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/decalagesvol2iss1_07.pdf] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q21,29|9k]])  ->  so, "meta-Marxism" has rarely been used for describing Western-Marxism for some reason. rest assured, this is {{em|not}} at all what "meta-Marxism" is referring to on any other page on this site. ...
 </li></ol>
@@ Line 40: / Line 22: @@
 * MX / meta-Marxism
 * W / Western Marxism
 * UM / unknown Marxism

Reversedragon: numbers

2026-03-03T07:58:31Z

numbers

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:58, 3 March 2026
Line 2:		Line 2:
	== Main entries ==		== Main entries ==
	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">
	~~<!-- {{li\|start=y\|I=Z1/ML\|dimension=Z\|tradition=ML\|Q=19,22\|Q2=1922\| h4 = ... }} -->~~

	</li~~><li value~~=~~"92" data-dimension~~=~~"Z" class~~=~~"field_mdem">~~[[Ontology:Q92\|meta-Marxism]]		{{li\|start=y\|I=Z1/MX\|Q=92}}[[Ontology:Q92\|meta-Marxism]]

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 12:		Line 11:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|I=S1/PT\|tradition=PT onto HM\|Q=618}}unpacking the meta-Marxism of the woke narrative {{YouTube\|ex-bUC1wXyg}} -> oh my god you're telling me that critical theory secretly knows everything about modeling the historical development of different Marxisms?? and it knows exactly how to get China and Cuba to cooperate so they can both get back to Bolshevism?? I had no idea<br/>		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/PT\|tradition=PT onto HM\|Q=618}}unpacking the meta-Marxism of the woke narrative {{YouTube\|ex-bUC1wXyg}} -> oh my god you're telling me that critical theory secretly knows everything about modeling the historical development of different Marxisms?? and it knows exactly how to get China and Cuba to cooperate so they can both get back to Bolshevism?? I had no idea<br/>
	found this when I tried to use Google to search YouTube for "meta-Marxism". it was the only result.		found this when I tried to use Google to search YouTube for "meta-Marxism". it was the only result.

	{{li\|I=Z1/W\|tradition=UM / unknown\|Q=~~618~~}}{{article\|Rethinking Althusser's Meta-Marxism}} (Andreas Beck Holm 2024) [https://decalagesjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/decalagesvol2iss1_07.pdf] -> so, "meta-Marxism" has rarely been used for describing Western-Marxism for some reason. rest assured, this is {{em\|not}} at all what "meta-Marxism" is referring to on any other page on this site. here meta-Marxism is a particular thing called violet Marxism. if we became successful at what we were doing here you would search meta-Marxism and there would be 100 results about violet Marxism and 5 results about Western-Marxism.<br/>		{{li\|I=Z1/W\|tradition=UM / unknown\|Q=21,29\|Q2=2129}}{{article\|Rethinking Althusser's Meta-Marxism}} (Andreas Beck Holm 2024) [https://decalagesjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/decalagesvol2iss1_07.pdf] -> so, "meta-Marxism" has rarely been used for describing Western-Marxism for some reason. rest assured, this is {{em\|not}} at all what "meta-Marxism" is referring to on any other page on this site. here meta-Marxism is a particular thing called violet Marxism. if we became successful at what we were doing here you would search meta-Marxism and there would be 100 results about violet Marxism and 5 results about Western-Marxism.<br/>
	but, I'm interested to see exactly what the word is supposed to mean in Althusser's context and like how arrogant he is to think that Mark Fisher's tools can actually step outside Marxism or what exactly is going on here.		but, I'm interested to see exactly what the word is supposed to mean in Althusser's context and like how arrogant he is to think that Mark Fisher's tools can actually step outside Marxism or what exactly is going on here.

Line 22:		Line 21:
	{{li\|I=S1/W\|tradition=UM onto W\|Q=618}}Althusser set out to transform Marxism from an ideology into a science -> but I'm pretty sure he did it a different way than I did for some reason.		{{li\|I=S1/W\|tradition=UM onto W\|Q=618}}Althusser set out to transform Marxism from an ideology into a science -> but I'm pretty sure he did it a different way than I did for some reason.

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=ML, MX\|Q=618}}Ideology does not make us see the world as it is, but connects people to society; this is to imply that Marxist science can break out of "the lived relationship of man to the world" ({{i\|lang=fr\|le rapport vécu des hommes à leur monde}}; break out of shovel dreams; early Marxism) -> we're violet so far, but I think that's only because Marx said this.		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=ML, MX\|Q=618}}Ideology does not make us see the world as it is, but connects people to society; this is to imply that Marxist science can break out of "the lived relationship of man to the world" ({{i\|lang=fr\|le rapport vécu des hommes à leur monde}}; break out of shovel dreams; early Marxism) -> we're violet so far, but I think that's only because Marx said this. he knew what he was talking about.

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618}}Marx stopped talking about alienation the moment he started talking about the structure of capitalism -> that's a rather damning find. really doesn't make Mark Fisher look good, [[E:stale rat bread\|or Žižek]] with his apparent orange anarchism		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618}}Marx stopped talking about alienation the moment he started talking about the structure of capitalism -> that's a rather damning find. really doesn't make Mark Fisher look good, [[E:stale rat bread\|or Žižek]] with his apparent orange anarchism

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|dimension=F2\|Q=618}}Marxism already is meta-Leninism / Marxism is not an ideology with a dialectic between Marxist ideology and Marxist science / Marxism is not defined by practical Communist struggle, but by the theory that studies how to keep it from disintegrating -> see, when I first found out about Marxism this is what I believed. then I learned that Trotskyism existed, and read in depth about why people believed it and clung to it, and I was like. huh. I guess what people always assumed about Marxism-Leninism itself being a science just isn't correct, given that individual parties and rival Marxist factions inevitably contain their own party programs which are ideology. at a certain point Leninism stood up and took the place of Marxism, and it undermined anyone doing Marxism as a science that would be able to see outside all ideologies including potential Marxist errors solely to material processes governing movements, transitions, and so forth. so we really have to start over and separate meta-Marxism (violet Marxism) from Leninism ([[E:mainstream Marxism-Leninism\|crimson Marxism]], [[E:Trotskyism\|orange Marxism]], [[E:BlackPantherism\|mauve Marxism]] if that's its own thing) so we can examine the material processes of country development inside each Leninism/Bolshevism.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|dimension=F2\|Q=618}}Marxism already is meta-Leninism / Marxism is not an "ideology" with a dialectic between Marxist ideology and Marxist science / Marxism (all Marxist or Leninist theory) is not defined by practical Communist struggle, but by the theory that studies how to keep it from disintegrating -> see, when I first found out about Marxism this is what I believed. then I learned that Trotskyism existed, and read in depth about why people believed it and clung to it, and I was like. huh. I guess what people always assumed about Marxism-Leninism itself being a science just isn't correct, given that individual parties and rival Marxist factions inevitably contain their own party programs which are ideology. at a certain point Leninism stood up and took the place of Marxism, and it undermined anyone doing Marxism as a science that would be able to see outside all ideologies including potential Marxist errors solely to material processes governing movements, transitions, and so forth. so we really have to start over and separate meta-Marxism (violet Marxism) from Leninism ([[E:mainstream Marxism-Leninism\|crimson Marxism]], [[E:Trotskyism\|orange Marxism]], [[E:BlackPantherism\|mauve Marxism]] if that's its own thing) so we can examine the material processes of country development inside each Leninism/Bolshevism.<br/>
	as for Althusser.... I think what he's trying to do is fold Marxism inside Leninism?? he's saying that Marxism is the simulation of real movements acting on the ground ("practical theory"), but that would be Leninism. then he says that analysis and party programs are separate things ("science versus ideology and philosophy") so that Marxist theory can take the simulated Leninism and correct the real Leninism. but he says a couple of things that make me think he doesn't separate Marxism and Leninism. which logically should make any party he's part of vulnerable to sectarian fracturing, because thinking that simulations of Leninism can go back and correct Leninism without the Leninism on the ground just one day saying "yeah, no, I'm going to go get my own separate simulations, bye" is what Trotskyism does, and it keeps pointlessly attacking other Marxisms and splitting.		as for Althusser.... I think what he's trying to do is fold Marxism inside Leninism?? he's saying that Marxism is the simulation of real movements acting on the ground ("practical theory"), but that would be Leninism. then he says that analysis and party programs are separate things ("science versus ideology and philosophy") so that Marxist theory can take the simulated Leninism and correct the real Leninism. but he says a couple of things that make me think he doesn't separate Marxism and Leninism. which logically should make any party he's part of vulnerable to sectarian fracturing, because thinking that simulations of Leninism can go back and correct Leninism without the Leninism on the ground just one day saying "yeah, no, I'm going to go get my own separate simulations, bye" is what Trotskyism does, and it keeps pointlessly attacking other Marxisms and splitting.

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618}}Leninist model (theoretical model of Marxist-Leninist movement; meta-Marxism) / simulated Leninism (meta-Marxism) / simulation of named Marxism (meta-Marxism) / practical theory (Althusser; Western-Marxism) / class struggle in theory (Althusser) -> this is a very important concept for both violet Marxism and crimson Marxism (where it basically is what crimson Marxism {{em\|does}}) but I feel like Althusser puts it in the wrong place in the model		{{li\|I=S1/ML\|dimension=S0\|Q=618}}Leninist model (theoretical model of Marxist-Leninist movement; meta-Marxism) / simulated Leninism (meta-Marxism) / simulation of named Marxism (meta-Marxism) / practical theory (Althusser; Western-Marxism) / class struggle in theory (Althusser) -> this is a very important concept for both violet Marxism and crimson Marxism (where it basically is what crimson Marxism {{em\|does}}) but I feel like Althusser puts it in the wrong place in the model

	{{li\|I=S2/W\|Q=618}}Ideology is what we do rather than what we think (Althusser) -> yes and no. it has to be somewhat purposeful, at least on the level of someone deciding they have to align with Tories and support their nation so they stand with capital. in that case Toryism forms a kind of material object composed of everything people are doing, or to put it more clearly, the way individuals graph together into a larger object. but many things people do don't successfully form larger objects, and thus in violet Marxism they don't really qualify as ideologies (sociophilosophies).		{{li\|I=S2/W\|Q=618}}Ideology is what we do rather than what we think (Althusser) -> yes and no. it has to be somewhat purposeful, at least on the level of someone deciding they have to align with Tories and support their nation so they stand with capital. in that case Toryism forms a kind of material object composed of everything people are doing, or to put it more clearly, the way individuals graph together into a larger object. but many things people do don't successfully form larger objects, and thus in violet Marxism they don't really qualify as ideologies (sociophilosophies).

	{{li\|I=S2/W\|tradition=UM\|Q=618}}To separate Marxist science from ideology ~~(?)~~ is to break the dialectical character of Marxism -> I would really contest this, again because of the existence of Trotskyism and Deng Xiaoping states. each of those parties is learning from immediate practice, but as it does that it isn't really doing so on a greater terrain of all Leninisms being part of one Marxism, it's more like there are plural Leninisms that operate separately and in contradiction and hardly work together or properly learn from each other at each moment they learn something. (I usually say the phrase "plural Marxisms" or "countable Marxisms" but every time I say that what I really mean is there are plural {{em\|Leninisms}} that are theories of local movements or workers' states, and ideally just one violet {{em\|Marxism}} that is the "Marxist science" that studies all of them.) Leninisms have become weirdly mechanical and un-dialectical themselves so it's like, to allow for a Marxist science that actually goes back and forth you have to separate Marxism out for that purpose and let Leninisms be Leninisms. exactly as Althusser seems to have chickened out of when people were upset he wasn't optimizing his definitions of Marxism for fully participating in specific Leninisms. honestly, bringing up the case of two countries bashing each other and each thinking the other is wrong would put a stop to this. it would make it really evident that Leninism A and Leninism B criticizing each other don't necessarily have Marxist science embedded into them from within their own perspective, and it's really only the combined system of the two Leninisms together in some kind of Communist International or dialogue of some sort that can create a Marxist science which is capable of analyzing both Leninisms without "breaking" the dialectical connection from it to both of them. but the creation of this 'Communist International' creates a new entity beyond the two smaller entities, so the "practical theory" of the Communist International has to be a new distinct thing from the practical theory of the two Leninisms even though if it's functioning well it's connected to them. the separation {{em\|in scale}} creates the separation between Marxist science (violet Marxism) and Leninism. it's like. is the central government of the Soviet Union directly part of the regional republican governments? it is but it isn't. in the best scenario there is a dialectical connection between them but they aren't the same thing. I guess then, violet Marxism is something of a "federal" philosophy; it's like the federal philosophy of a whole region or the world, like Liberal-republicanism is the federal philosophy of the United States but small chunks of the United States run on [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition\|Existentialism]] and the blobs of capitalism that contain it. you could use violet Marxism to write the constitution of the Eurasian continent or something, and it would contain requirements for the component Leninisms.		{{li\|I=S2/W\|tradition=UM\|Q=618}}To separate Marxist science from "Marxist ideology" is to break the dialectical character of Marxism -> I would really contest this, again because of the existence of Trotskyism and Deng Xiaoping states. each of those parties is learning from immediate practice, but as it does that it isn't really doing so on a greater terrain of all Leninisms being part of one Marxism, it's more like there are plural Leninisms that operate separately and in contradiction and hardly work together or properly learn from each other at each moment they learn something. (I usually say the phrase "plural Marxisms" or "countable Marxisms" but every time I say that what I really mean is there are plural {{em\|Leninisms}} that are theories of local movements or workers' states, and ideally just one violet {{em\|Marxism}} that is the "Marxist science" that studies all of them.) Leninisms have become weirdly mechanical and un-dialectical themselves so it's like, to allow for a Marxist science that actually goes back and forth you have to separate Marxism out for that purpose and let Leninisms be Leninisms. exactly as Althusser seems to have chickened out of when people were upset he wasn't optimizing his definitions of Marxism for fully participating in specific Leninisms. honestly, bringing up the case of two countries bashing each other and each thinking the other is wrong would put a stop to this. it would make it really evident that Leninism A and Leninism B criticizing each other don't necessarily have Marxist science embedded into them from within their own perspective, and it's really only the combined system of the two Leninisms together in some kind of Communist International or dialogue of some sort that can create a Marxist science which is capable of analyzing both Leninisms without "breaking" the dialectical connection from it to both of them. but the creation of this 'Communist International' creates a new entity beyond the two smaller entities, so the "practical theory" of the Communist International has to be a new distinct thing from the practical theory of the two Leninisms even though if it's functioning well it's connected to them. the separation {{em\|in scale}} creates the separation between Marxist science (violet Marxism) and Leninism. it's like. is the central government of the Soviet Union directly part of the regional republican governments? it is but it isn't. in the best scenario there is a dialectical connection between them but they aren't the same thing. I guess then, violet Marxism is something of a "federal" philosophy; it's like the federal philosophy of a whole region or the world, like Liberal-republicanism is the federal philosophy of the United States but small chunks of the United States run on [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition\|Existentialism]] and the blobs of capitalism that contain it. you could use violet Marxism to write the constitution of the Eurasian continent or something, and it would contain requirements for the component Leninisms.

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:23, 6 May 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=meta-Marxism\|User=RD\|E=Q92\|Contents=y}}		{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=meta-Marxism\|User=RD\|E=Q92\|Contents=y}}
	== Main entries ==		== Main entries ==
	~~<noinclude>~~{{HueCSS}}~~</noinclude>~~<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]]

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 11:		Line 11:

	{{li\|start=y\|I=F2/W\|tradition=UM onto MX\|Q=618}}Marxism is merely Leninism / Marxist theory cannot be a coherent and consistent science informing political struggles from without (Western Marxism; Althusser?) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}}) -> not with that attitude it can't.<br/>		{{li\|start=y\|I=F2/W\|tradition=UM onto MX\|Q=618}}Marxism is merely Leninism / Marxist theory cannot be a coherent and consistent science informing political struggles from without (Western Marxism; Althusser?) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}}) -> not with that attitude it can't.<br/>
	... there's always another country looking at any particular country and criticizing it, which would never be able to tell if another country's actions were correct or incorrect if this was true. like, the mere fact people actually can understand historical events from Third-World perspectives and Soviet history keeps creating Communists on other continents should hint to you this is false. this is nonsense. this is anti-internationalist nonsense.		... [[EC:9k/RD/Q66 relativity\|there's always another country]] looking at any particular country and criticizing it, which would never be able to tell if another country's actions were correct or incorrect if this was true. like, the mere fact people actually can understand historical events from Third-World perspectives and Soviet history keeps creating Communists on other continents should hint to you this is false. this is nonsense. this is anti-internationalist nonsense.

	{{li\|I=S2/W\|tradition=W, MX\|Q=618}}Marx's writings contain ideology because they are political (Althusser; Western-Marxism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}})		{{li\|I=S2/W\|tradition=W, MX\|Q=618}}Marx's writings contain ideology because they are political (Althusser; Western-Marxism) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}})
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. 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, 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.

			{{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\|I=S1/MX\|Q=21,10\|Q2=2110\|h4= [[E:ShovelDream\|shovel dream]] }} / object or formation ideology / ideology or consciousness associated with a specific repeatable kind of population which is countable and separable and has a particular kind of internal structure / ideology or consciousness associated with a particular kind of materially-definable Social-Philosophical System / embodied cognition (model of objects that perform cognition doing it through studying the relationship of their physical object toward the world, here also applied to groups of people instead of just individuals) / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,10}}) -> [[E:Hyper-Materialism (meta-Marxism)\|Hyper-Materialist]] concept. the motif of a particular kind of object having a particular kind of model of the world and ideology {{em\|because}} it is a particular kind of object. almost always the object is a countable, separable population of people, but it's funny to figuratively refer to other kinds of objects to get across a concept that somehow absolutely nobody seems to understand. Hyper-Materialism is when all similar shovels have a similar shovel dream, and all similar rakes have a similar rake dream. a collection of rakes may have its own unique collection-of-rakes dream, but in principle it can be calculated by modeling the interaction of the individual rake dreams. individual people, not being shovels or rakes, can change their shovel dream at will, but changing the shovel dream of one individual may not have much effect on a large group. Marcuse thinks it's as simple as changing all the individuals one by one but that doesn't necessarily go fast enough. you have to understand the existing layout of various kinds of material objects producing shovel dreams and think about what changes in the layout of shovels could produce the right ones faster. the terrible thing is there are no shortcuts here. you can't just go "here are the bourgeoisie, here are the proletariat, they only need to become aware of the possibly-wrong model in this text". with the United States objectively not having the class structure described in Leninist texts, organizers really do need to understand the basic concept of shovel dreams and how to identify them and categorize them in the field.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618\|h4 = Violet Marxism contains ideology }} / Even violet Marxism cannot purge itself of ideology / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}}) -> I think [Althusser's] article has been basically correct in saying that Marxism is inseparable from ideology and basically inseparable from being situated in a particular place in the material world as it learns ...<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618\|h4 = Violet Marxism contains ideology }} / Even violet Marxism cannot purge itself of ideology / ({{9k\|RD/Q21,29}}) -> I think [Althusser's] article has been basically correct in saying that Marxism is inseparable from ideology and basically inseparable from being situated in a particular place in the material world as it learns ...<br/>