Research:MDem/5.2r/0999 findings - Revision history

Reversedragon: references

2026-03-19T09:27:42Z

references

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:27, 19 March 2026
Line 103:		Line 103:
	<pre>------		<pre>------

	[*SR] 'Lenin ~~says something very tellng~~ in ~~_State~~ and ~~Revolution_~~, ~~echoed by Mao~~, ~~which is~~ that ~~when~~ an ~~era~~ of ~~socialism~~ is ~~created~~ they ~~think~~ that ~~means that individuals will still be partly in competition in a way'~~ ~~- check Lenin, retrieve Mao~~		[u2] In "The trade unions and Trotsky's mistakes", Lenin describes how the overall mass of workers in unions, the advanced workers or proletarian vanguard, and the organs of proletarian dictatorship that form the republic all connect together into one physical object that he describes as "an arrangement of cogwheels and transmission belts". This is exactly what I mean when I say members of a class are connected into specific larger objects: Lenin oversaw the process of sections of people already arranged into unions connecting into various constructive processes like the council of trade unions, the congress of soviets, and so forth that transform many smaller units into functioning together as a republic. The reason that particular classes are able to secure an area and form a "dictatorship" (a republic of a particular mutually-exclusive type) is specifically that they are able to form together into a shared structure that is sturdy enough it scatters everyone else before they can form into other large-scale structures instead. [U]

	[*LV] ~~retrieve Trotsky ministries incident~~		[u3] "the [bourgeois] exploiters are unable to suppress the people without a highly complex machine for performing this task" [SRA 468]

	[*~~DFR~~] ~~Democracy~~ for ~~Realists~~ - ~~retrieve~~		[sra2] Marx points out that the existence of public facilities prevents Lassalleans from appropriating the full product of their own labor: "from the whole of the social labor of society there must be deducted ... a fund for the expansion of production, ... for schools, hospitals, old people’s homes, and so on." [SRA 469-470]

	[*lo] ~~retrieve luna~~ oi video		[sra3] "[Marx:] With an equal performance of labour ... one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on." "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labour" [SRA 471-472]

			[srb3] "We should point out that before the abolition of capitalism, absolute equalitarianism is a mere illusion of peasants and small proprietors, and that even under socialism there can be no absolute equality, for material things will then be distributed on the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his work' as well as on that of meeting the needs of the work" [SRB]

			[u4] I couldn't find the exact quote I remembered, but "Trade Unions ..." does definitely talk about Trotsky being unsatisfied with what the unions chose. "Comrade Trotsky's "theses" are politically harmful. The sum and substance of his policy is bureaucratic harassment of the trade unions" (Lenin) [U]

			[*U] "The trade unions, the present situation, and Trotsky's mistakes" (Lenin 1920). In _Lenin Collected Works_, vol. 32. <marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm>

			[*SRA] "The economic basis of the withering away of the State" (Lenin 1917/1974). _The State and Revolution_, in _Lenin Collected Works_, vol. 25, pp 468-472. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Marxists Internet Archive. <marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm> <.../works/cw/pdf/lenin-cw-vol-25.pdf>

			[*SRB] "On correcting mistaken ideas in the party" (Mao 1929). In _Selected works of Mao Tse-tung_. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press. Marxists Internet Archive. <marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_5.htm#s4>

			[*LO] "Is Vietnam socialist?". @Lunaoi. (5 April 2020 / retr. 18 Mar 2026). _Luna oi!_. time 27:27-36:00. [video]. <youtube.com/watch?v=mMubOw5H-yo>

			[*DFR] _Democracy for Realists_. Achen, C.H., & Bartels, L.M. (2016). pp. 237-238. Princeton University Press. <isbnsearch.org/isbn/978-0-691-16944-6> <wikidata.org/wiki/Q126409964>

	:: cr. 2026-03-16T14:56:05H		:: cr. 2026-03-16T14:56:05H
	:: t. v5-2_0999_findings</pre>		:: t. v5-2_0999_findings</pre>

			== References ==

	<!--		<!--

Reversedragon: honesty

2026-03-19T02:00:05Z

honesty

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:00, 19 March 2026
Line 38:		Line 38:
	*** A second kind of "further transition" is things we currently consider identity politics. In Marx's time, the idea of there being a gay movement or a transgender movement would have seemed a bit unheard-of and futuristic, so he probably would have considered that a further transition that was more likely to happen as society became better and better developed and less likely to happen when a nation was first becoming independent or a country was first entering Bolshevism. In the Soviet Union, there were varying opinions on homosexuality across the republics but officially the central party did not want to acknowledge the possibility a gay rights movement could happen purely for its own sake independent of anything happening in the rest of the society, because it tended to assume that movements that cropped up which weren't explicitly aligned with the overall country and the central party were reactionary movements and movements which were explicitly aligned with the country and the party were generated by the working classes. However, the reality of actual gay and transgender movements has been messier than that; real-world LGBT+ people have behaved more like tiny nationalities that can easily get angry at other nationalities for treating them poorly and act to divide and fracture a country simply to materially protect their own existence, without any ill intent 'to destroy the (Russian) proletariat because they are the (Gay-National) bourgeoisie'. This has led to a lot of nonsensical backlash against Marxism because it is "reducing" social conflicts to class when somehow "there are other issues". This is wrong. The history of classes is actually the history of competing populational chunks, and all large and small nationalities are just more chunks. What these analyses are actually demanding is for Marxism to have a serious theory of the entire development of nationalities and internal identity-subpopulations and when national populations or subpopulations form and when these things should be joined to other things or be separate; up to now a lot of Marxism has just stopped at "nations should be independent when they want to be" without really exploring that. In a better world with a more developed Marxism, a country would be able to acknowledge a movement for gay rights as a further transition, understanding the way the process really happens in material reality rather than trying to bend it into the shape of the most important transitions that are going on in the country at that time.		*** A second kind of "further transition" is things we currently consider identity politics. In Marx's time, the idea of there being a gay movement or a transgender movement would have seemed a bit unheard-of and futuristic, so he probably would have considered that a further transition that was more likely to happen as society became better and better developed and less likely to happen when a nation was first becoming independent or a country was first entering Bolshevism. In the Soviet Union, there were varying opinions on homosexuality across the republics but officially the central party did not want to acknowledge the possibility a gay rights movement could happen purely for its own sake independent of anything happening in the rest of the society, because it tended to assume that movements that cropped up which weren't explicitly aligned with the overall country and the central party were reactionary movements and movements which were explicitly aligned with the country and the party were generated by the working classes. However, the reality of actual gay and transgender movements has been messier than that; real-world LGBT+ people have behaved more like tiny nationalities that can easily get angry at other nationalities for treating them poorly and act to divide and fracture a country simply to materially protect their own existence, without any ill intent 'to destroy the (Russian) proletariat because they are the (Gay-National) bourgeoisie'. This has led to a lot of nonsensical backlash against Marxism because it is "reducing" social conflicts to class when somehow "there are other issues". This is wrong. The history of classes is actually the history of competing populational chunks, and all large and small nationalities are just more chunks. What these analyses are actually demanding is for Marxism to have a serious theory of the entire development of nationalities and internal identity-subpopulations and when national populations or subpopulations form and when these things should be joined to other things or be separate; up to now a lot of Marxism has just stopped at "nations should be independent when they want to be" without really exploring that. In a better world with a more developed Marxism, a country would be able to acknowledge a movement for gay rights as a further transition, understanding the way the process really happens in material reality rather than trying to bend it into the shape of the most important transitions that are going on in the country at that time.
	*** The strangest thing to realize about further transitions is that the United States always seems to try to rush way to the end of the timeline and pick out the "furthest" transitions it possibly can while for as long as possible ignoring capitalism. It's like it's trying to save even pre-Bolshevism for last and do the entire thing backwards.<!--		*** The strangest thing to realize about further transitions is that the United States always seems to try to rush way to the end of the timeline and pick out the "furthest" transitions it possibly can while for as long as possible ignoring capitalism. It's like it's trying to save even pre-Bolshevism for last and do the entire thing backwards.<!--
			-->
			* Violet Marxism is very {{em\|honest}}. It always asks where every single theory, simulation, or model came from in terms of the historical period and social environment it was created in and what physical objects of arranged people led to it being created, including its own models or methods. Within the starting pile of propositions on my wiki for non-linear and non-binary proposition-based logic and creating working models of various sociophilosophies, one of the propositions I put in was something like "meta-Marxist color-swatch analysis emerged from the problem of different clusters of big or small bourgeoisie fracturing countries" / "meta-Marxism is almost synonymous with exposing purported Marxisms or progressive movements as a cluster of bourgeoisie". A sad truth, but useful to remember in terms of figuring out the gap between hypothetically getting to a workers' state and where we are now. Then there are even more negative entries like "The Lattice model [see other sections] doesn't describe the United States". I don't fear claims like "meta-Marxism is a philosophy of a few academics". Maybe that's true at one moment, but the same thing happened with Marxism-Leninism. What really matters is if the models can be handed over to a country-sized graph of various groups of workers or at least "the people" and become effective on the basis of people applying their first-hand observations about local areas to create solid, unified organizations.<!--
	-->		-->
	* The broadest and perhaps most popular philosophical tradition in the United States currently has no name. I have tentatively been calling it the "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" (or "capital-E" Existentialism for short) based on a pile of recurring keywords and connected themes I kept finding in what I now call Existentialist texts that all seemed to point to a shared underlying model of society. This tradition is the philosophy generated out of {{em\|capitalism itself}} as it exists below and apart from Liberal-republicanism but while it is not speaking about capital and "economics" and pretends to be talking about topics such as the humanities and social sciences.		* The broadest and perhaps most popular philosophical tradition in the United States currently has no name. I have tentatively been calling it the "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition" (or "capital-E" Existentialism for short) based on a pile of recurring keywords and connected themes I kept finding in what I now call Existentialist texts that all seemed to point to a shared underlying model of society. This tradition is the philosophy generated out of {{em\|capitalism itself}} as it exists below and apart from Liberal-republicanism but while it is not speaking about capital and "economics" and pretends to be talking about topics such as the humanities and social sciences.

Reversedragon: Lattice model

2026-03-18T20:23:37Z

Lattice model

Reversedragon: formatting / citation reminders

2026-03-18T19:09:27Z

formatting / citation reminders

Show changes

Reversedragon: convert to wikitext

2026-03-18T18:27:40Z

convert to wikitext

Show changes

Reversedragon: Existentialism / anarchism / existential materialism

2026-03-18T10:49:15Z

Existentialism / anarchism / existential materialism

Show changes

Reversedragon: further transitions

2026-03-18T06:55:58Z

further transitions

Show changes

Reversedragon: Deng Xiaoping Thought / proofread

2026-03-18T04:46:49Z

Deng Xiaoping Thought / proofread

Show changes

Reversedragon: Deltarune

2026-03-17T05:20:48Z

Deltarune

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:20, 17 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<pre>## Potential findings of violet Marxism / meta-Marxism		<pre>
			## Potential findings of violet Marxism / meta-Marxism

	* With very few exceptions, nearly everything that Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin say about classes and class struggle is fine as it is. (As long as you make sure to take the final things that Lenin said on each issue and not the first things he said. Trotskyists haven't learned this lesson.)		* With very few exceptions, nearly everything that Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin say about classes and class struggle is fine as it is. (As long as you make sure to take the final things that Lenin said on each issue and not the first things he said. Trotskyists haven't learned this lesson.)
Line 85:		Line 86:


	* existential materialism

	* Einstein's theory of special relativity is useful for understanding almost everything which ever mentions history or time. It would be a surefire way to break people out of mechanical-materialist thinking if they actually understood or cared what it meant.		* Einstein's theory of special relativity is useful for understanding almost everything which ever mentions history or time. It would be a surefire way to break people out of mechanical-materialist thinking if they actually understood or cared what it meant.
Line 98:		Line 98:

	* Dialectical materialism is characterized by the framing that time is not individuals putting in a single dependent variable of their own choices or actions and watching the whole world change around them, but instead, time is the interactiona of several material pieces and their outward shapes or current physical condition. Free will is irrelevant not because it does or doesn't exist, but because the inner thoughts of any particular material object are almost wholly irrelevant when talking about the way time forms from the actual results of a particular object's external behavior when interacted with another object. Dialectical materialism is the description of reality as a series of slices of time in which many things run into each other all at once and generally none of them goes first, but every time a bunch of things run into each other they all change and then the cycle starts over again.		* Dialectical materialism is characterized by the framing that time is not individuals putting in a single dependent variable of their own choices or actions and watching the whole world change around them, but instead, time is the interactiona of several material pieces and their outward shapes or current physical condition. Free will is irrelevant not because it does or doesn't exist, but because the inner thoughts of any particular material object are almost wholly irrelevant when talking about the way time forms from the actual results of a particular object's external behavior when interacted with another object. Dialectical materialism is the description of reality as a series of slices of time in which many things run into each other all at once and generally none of them goes first, but every time a bunch of things run into each other they all change and then the cycle starts over again.

			* existential materialism

			* So. One of my favorite console-style games is _Deltarune_. I promise this is relevant. Deltarune is broadly a game about video game characters realizing they are in a fabricated world ruled by a prophecy — a linear train of events that are going to happen, including one that is very bad. In Deltarune chapter 4, a character called Gerson who is a historian (!) suggests that in the end all the heroes need to do to overcome "the final tragedy" is to have enough hope. Of course, the thing he doesn't address is that one of the major themes of the game so far is the conflict between the characters in the game world and the player, who is framed as a kind of all-powerful entity that has the potential to bring the characters a lot of pain and is frightening enough they will have to "banish the Angel's heaven". Gerson has given the heroes terrible advice because no matter how much they "reject narratives", with just that much they can't simply will away the all-powerful entity and its ability to attack the people that are important to them. The player is still there; the external force can still make decisions and attack them. This is about where we are in the United States right now, or were from 2015 when the game started development up to now when it's half released. All our movements for anything seem to be based on wishful thinking and _hoping_ that material forces with the power to destroy us will go away.




	* Settler-colonialism is a real phenomenon and a genuine problem but is really badly named. The original problem underlying all discussions of colonialism — stick with me here, this paragraph isn't going where you think it's going despite what it will sound like at first — is that human beings are not static things and are always in contradiction, always eating and occupying space. There is a very naïve view of the world that circulates within blue anarchism that basically human populations do not actually reproduce and multiply or experience history at unequal rates and whenever something like gentrification or Wal-Mart buying out a section of stores happens it must be because some specific individual deliberately decided to depart from cosmic fairness and be unfair. All of human society, fair and unfair, sits on top of a process of chunk competition where every individual exists and multiplies in mutual exclusion to every other individual. Sometimes this process is approximately benign, like when thousands of people apply for a job and only one gets it so the other thousand have to go compete for another job. Sometimes this process becomes malignant, like when there is a population of early United States colonists and a tribal population. Neither population is static; they are always changing at every moment. Both populations reproduce, make use of land, have philosophies, and practice them to realize a particular populational structure. But one of the major differences is the United States colony reproduces rather aggressively. Plot of land, house of colonists, offspring, second plot of land, new house of colonists, offspring. Why exactly the population dynamics work like that would be a very long discussion into existential materialism and historical materialism and existing Marxist-Leninist theory on modes of production. But anyway, all the colonists expand out to fill large areas of land as they turn over new generations and expand to fill even more land as they want to build industries like mines. The process of a population reproducing itself and the process of a population realizing its preferred sociophilosophy and internal structure are tightly connected; realizing agrarian society or realizing slavery or realizing capitalism happen during populational reproduction as much as they happen at any other time. What this ultimately means is that when the population as a whole crosses over into attacking the tribal population to take additional land, no particular individual necessarily made that decision and caused the rest of the population to do it. All the individuals took actions that added up into that event but they took them individually and separately. So, what is the actual significance of all that? _The basic expansion of a population over another population is something that can only be controlled if people understand the reproduction and historical development of the population and exactly how that otherwise uncontained process can be altered and controlled._ United States people famously have no understanding of historical materialism, and these days keep acting like there is such a thing as "historical existentialism" where tomorrow is whatever an isolated individual spontaneously decides it is. They also are increasingly averse to the entire concept of government. The more Existentialist books get written the more it feels like everyone is trying really hard to call any method of society being unified or under any kind of unified plan "totalitarianism". So, the defeat of the Soviet Union and all Marxisms that don't collapse into Deng Xiaoping Thought is part of the problem that stands between empire and defeating "settler-colonialism" whatever it is going to be called. Israel's unnecessary aggression and destruction of Palestinian settlements is real but almost everyone in North America who is currently trying to stop it is woefully unprepared to actually understand the causal mechanisms of imperialism and exactly how imperialism exponentially multiplies and connects itself faster than anything that is not imperialism and easily becomes too powerful to stop. Every Existentialist always arrives several steps too late and attacks the symptoms rather than cutting off the actual root processes.		* Settler-colonialism is a real phenomenon and a genuine problem but is really badly named. The original problem underlying all discussions of colonialism — stick with me here, this paragraph isn't going where you think it's going despite what it will sound like at first — is that human beings are not static things and are always in contradiction, always eating and occupying space. There is a very naïve view of the world that circulates within blue anarchism that basically human populations do not actually reproduce and multiply or experience history at unequal rates and whenever something like gentrification or Wal-Mart buying out a section of stores happens it must be because some specific individual deliberately decided to depart from cosmic fairness and be unfair. All of human society, fair and unfair, sits on top of a process of chunk competition where every individual exists and multiplies in mutual exclusion to every other individual. Sometimes this process is approximately benign, like when thousands of people apply for a job and only one gets it so the other thousand have to go compete for another job. Sometimes this process becomes malignant, like when there is a population of early United States colonists and a tribal population. Neither population is static; they are always changing at every moment. Both populations reproduce, make use of land, have philosophies, and practice them to realize a particular populational structure. But one of the major differences is the United States colony reproduces rather aggressively. Plot of land, house of colonists, offspring, second plot of land, new house of colonists, offspring. Why exactly the population dynamics work like that would be a very long discussion into existential materialism and historical materialism and existing Marxist-Leninist theory on modes of production. But anyway, all the colonists expand out to fill large areas of land as they turn over new generations and expand to fill even more land as they want to build industries like mines. The process of a population reproducing itself and the process of a population realizing its preferred sociophilosophy and internal structure are tightly connected; realizing agrarian society or realizing slavery or realizing capitalism happen during populational reproduction as much as they happen at any other time. What this ultimately means is that when the population as a whole crosses over into attacking the tribal population to take additional land, no particular individual necessarily made that decision and caused the rest of the population to do it. All the individuals took actions that added up into that event but they took them individually and separately. So, what is the actual significance of all that? _The basic expansion of a population over another population is something that can only be controlled if people understand the reproduction and historical development of the population and exactly how that otherwise uncontained process can be altered and controlled._ United States people famously have no understanding of historical materialism, and these days keep acting like there is such a thing as "historical existentialism" where tomorrow is whatever an isolated individual spontaneously decides it is. They also are increasingly averse to the entire concept of government. The more Existentialist books get written the more it feels like everyone is trying really hard to call any method of society being unified or under any kind of unified plan "totalitarianism". So, the defeat of the Soviet Union and all Marxisms that don't collapse into Deng Xiaoping Thought is part of the problem that stands between empire and defeating "settler-colonialism" whatever it is going to be called. Israel's unnecessary aggression and destruction of Palestinian settlements is real but almost everyone in North America who is currently trying to stop it is woefully unprepared to actually understand the causal mechanisms of imperialism and exactly how imperialism exponentially multiplies and connects itself faster than anything that is not imperialism and easily becomes too powerful to stop. Every Existentialist always arrives several steps too late and attacks the symptoms rather than cutting off the actual root processes.

Reversedragon: archive draft as is; created 2026-03-16T14:56:05H; copy formatting from penguin-banana

2026-03-17T04:41:27Z

archive draft as is; created 2026-03-16T14:56:05H; copy formatting from penguin-banana

Show changes