User:RD/9k/Q26,92 - Revision history

Reversedragon: Bad books are instructive

2026-04-27T03:03:03Z

Bad books are instructive

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:03, 27 April 2026
Line 26:		Line 26:
	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/IV\|tradition=ML, IV, MX\|Q=42,92\|Q2=4292\|rem=42,84\|h4= What is analyzed is accounted for }} / To take documents "into consideration" does not mean to take them at their face value. Marx has said that it is impossible to judge either parties or peoples by what they say about themselves. [...] If, for example, we began to take as pure gold the innumerable proclamations of [... Kronstadt] we would have to recognize these gentlemen as fervent friends of socialism. But in reality they are its perfidious enemies (Trotsky 1938) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm] -> oh god Trotsky's most ironic quote. fervent perfidious enemies..... I don't know how to tell you this....		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/IV\|tradition=ML, IV, MX\|Q=42,92\|Q2=4292\|rem=42,84\|h4= What is analyzed is accounted for }} / To take documents "into consideration" does not mean to take them at their face value. Marx has said that it is impossible to judge either parties or peoples by what they say about themselves. [...] If, for example, we began to take as pure gold the innumerable proclamations of [... Kronstadt] we would have to recognize these gentlemen as fervent friends of socialism. But in reality they are its perfidious enemies (Trotsky 1938) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm] -> oh god Trotsky's most ironic quote. fervent perfidious enemies..... I don't know how to tell you this....

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=42,92\|Q2=4292}}What is analyzed is accounted for ~~/ Taking documents, remarks, anecdotes, or memoir material into account means Materialist analysis of what produced them~~ / explaining these theoretical phrases from the actual existing relations (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm]		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=42,92\|Q2=4292}}What is analyzed is accounted for / explaining these theoretical phrases from the actual existing relations (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm]

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=ML, MX\|Q=42,93\|Q2=4293\|h4 = Show why a wrong idea arises }} / It isn't enough to show an idea is wrong, you must show why a wrong idea arises (Marx) / It's worth showing why anarchism is wrong (Stalin) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm] -> claimed to appear in {{book\|Capital}}. case of: Marx going meta.<br />		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=ML, MX\|Q=42,93\|Q2=4293\|h4 = Show why a wrong idea arises }} / It isn't enough to show an idea is wrong, you must show why a wrong idea arises (Marx) / It's worth showing why anarchism is wrong (Stalin) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm] -> claimed to appear in {{book\|Capital}}. case of: Marx going meta.<br />
	yeah, that's the idea. that's why I came up with the concept of showing the material basis and class basis for a bunch of specific named ideologies, including the differences between different Marxisms. you'll never know which one is wrong, particularly for which country at which time, unless you know what [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism\|shovel (meta-Marxism)]] the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] came from.		yeah, that's the idea. that's why I came up with the concept of showing the material basis and class basis for a bunch of specific named ideologies, including the differences between different Marxisms. you'll never know which one is wrong, particularly for which country at which time, unless you know what [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism\|shovel (meta-Marxism)]] the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] came from.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=42,92\|Q2=4292}}What is analyzed is accounted for / Taking documents, remarks, anecdotes, or memoir material into account means Materialist analysis of what produced them

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=42,93\|Q2=4293}}Show why a wrong idea arises		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=42,93\|Q2=4293}}Show why a wrong idea arises

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=29,80\|Q2=2980}}Bad books are instructive / There is a lot to learn from bad books as long as you have a sufficient foundation in what's correct / ([[User:RD/9k/Q29,80\|9k]])

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

Reversedragon: move "socio-politico-economy" to Q21,04 "definite relations"

2026-04-11T00:22:31Z

move "socio-politico-economy" to Q21,04 "definite relations"

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:22, 11 April 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=MX onto ML, ML onto ML, ML\|Q=26,92\|Q2=2692\|submitter=Vidak\|h4 = Marx going meta }} [https://vidak.substack.com/p/marx-naturalism-anachronism-and-the] / meta-critiquing Hegel / meta-ontology in Marx (meta-Marxist term) / post-ification in Marx (meta-Marxist term; outdated) -> the motif of Marx or Engels stepping outside a philosophy to look at the material substrate behind a philosophy or what it is really intending to talk about. any well-known Marxist theorist counts, but the significance of this motif is to help trace the origins of meta-Marxism and the first moments it seems to have appeared.		{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=MX onto ML, ML onto ML, ML\|Q=26,92\|Q2=2692\|submitter=Vidak\|h4 = Marx going meta }} [https://vidak.substack.com/p/marx-naturalism-anachronism-and-the] / Engels going meta; Lenin going meta; Stalin going meta; Hoxha going meta; Mao going meta / meta-critiquing Hegel / meta-ontology in Marx (meta-Marxist term) / post-ification in Marx (meta-Marxist term; outdated) -> the motif of Marx or Engels stepping outside a philosophy to look at the material substrate behind a philosophy or what it is really intending to talk about. any well-known Marxist theorist counts, but the significance of this motif is to help trace the origins of meta-Marxism and the first moments it seems to have appeared.<br/>
			this should most of all apply to situations where a Marxist theorist is describing the material origins of a particular form of Marxism ([[E:mainstream Marxism-Leninism\|actual]] or [[E:pale pink quasi-socialism (Lenin)\|purported]]) versus another form of Marxism. Marx describing 'proletarian consciousness' or 'the origins of the proletariat having an accurate model of creating a workers' state while other parties are detached from material reality' could count in the right context. Marx and Lenin didn't speak of plural Marxisms, so what you'd look for is them describing the general concept of sociophilosophies (see below) and exactly when sociophilosophies are separate from each other.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 10:		Line 11:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|I=S1/ML~~\|tradition=ML, MX~~\|Q=21,34\|Q2=2134}}socio-politico-economy (early Marxism) -> the ongoing connection from production or economy to social structures and then to political structures with an indivisibility of the three layers from each other. [https://vidak.substack.com/p/marx-materialism-and-the-german-ideology] this can be read as either a crimson concept or a violet concept; this is one of the times that there's no real distinction between crimson and violet.<br/>		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,45\|Q2=2845\|h4 = Productive forces birth sociophilosophies }} (Marx 1859, Stalin 1951) / Every stage of productive forces bundles itself into particular relations of production, which when replicated across a country form into a particular sociophilosophy / ([[EC:RD/9k/Q21,04\|9k]])
	to me, this is 'existential materialism put to use'. exmat starts at "the fun stuff" of bashing Free Will and showing that individual will operates back and forth in all directions within the structure of groups, this thing that either comes from individuals' physical needs and their emergent emotions and personalities on top of those, or emerges from interactions {{em\|~~between~~}} people where neither individual really controls it and yet it at the larger scale it happens. then it progresses up to "the hard stuff" of showing how the needs of individuals and their current physical arrangements work together to produce seemingly complicated sociophilosophies like Liberal-republicanism, mainstream Marxism-Leninism, a hypothetical Trotskyism, a specific anarchism, nested tribal populations, and so forth.<br/>
	~~to Marx and Engels this is kind of just 'the rejection of Ideals creating material shapes'~~ (~~as long as the ideals contain either abstraction or prescription and aren't literally just descriptions of material shapes).~~ Marx is in one sense trying to center the "socioeconomy" as the place where history really happens through the sheer interactions of individuals to form a society being the "actual cause" of specific historical periods, and not the words or actions of governments. when you look at things that way it's much easier to see how capital has power and how when capital is an important part of a society it becomes able to wield governments and armies in and of itself. in one sense all societies are anarchic, in the sense that socioeconomic structures are what truly runs and decides everything. exmat isn't necessarily new, when you look at Marx and Lenin doing slightly muddy versions of ~~the same thing that nonetheless manage to laser-focus onto some basic conclusion of what causes bring what effects.<br/>~~
	and in that sense something like Deng Xiaoping Thought at first seems really concerning because, how do you know all the free-floating businesses aren't going to take control of the thing? but of course, there are other considerations at the same time. the notion that all societies are technically anarchic means that China having any kind of socioeconomy that is going strong has an important role in creating a border around China and a sovereign government; governments don't drop out of the air. as well, the central party-nation is a socioeconomic structure in its own way. it has or previously had the capacity to move people between regions or try to get them to stay in a certain region, and it has the capacity to address living standards and get people out of peasant-level living. the interaction between the people and the central party and especially everyone {{em\|trusting}} the central party to carry out tasks is a socioeconomic phenomenon. one of the only things saving China from a color revolution is basically that it contains a socioeconomic phenomenon which ~~is so big and extended~~ across ~~the~~ country ~~it's hard for the capitalists to break it up. (it doesn't help that the capitalists aren't neatly united~~ into two parties, there are about eight parties with comically similar names outside the central party and as far as I know none of them are as "important" as the U.S. Republican or Democratic parties.) the layer of capitalists and the central party are sort of going along on separate levels accomplishing different goals. which loosely suggests that they might not actually be getting in each other's way. (and in a weird way, doing almost exactly the opposite of which job you'd think each one of them would be doing. the capitalist layer creates the nation-state, the central party provides for the people?? it neatly matches up with Marxist predictions, I mean, when do capitalists actually care, but it's still weird to look at.) it's unclear how either layer is supposed to get out of Deng Xiaoping Thought and lead the country [[E:~~There is no era of socialism or era of communism as described in Lenin~~, ~~only named sociophilosophies (hypothesis)~~\|~~into the next stage~~]]. the material development of social structures in China and Vietnam is weird and you pretty much need meta-Marxist Bauplan analysis to understand it. which just makes things harder given that meta-Marxism / existential materialism isn't even complete

	{{li\|I=S1/ML\|tradition=ML, MX\|Q=21,34\|Q2=2134}}socio-politico-economy (early Marxism) / civil society as unbreakable sociopolitical and socioeconomic connection -> ~~oh yeah,~~ the ~~word~~ Marx ~~says here~~ is ~~"civil society", while I say~~ "socioeconomy"~~. there's very little difference between those two.~~ the ~~only real substantial difference I can think~~ of ~~is that socioeconomies could theoretically be plural. there could be two socioeconomies stuffed underneath one formal government which each have different ideological~~ "~~swatch colors~~" ~~and perhaps internal structures that generate those~~, ~~while "civil society" implies there's only one 'socioeconomy' that maybe contains multiple ideologies in an inseparable multiplicity. I fundamentally think we have to take that~~ and ~~separate it into multiple countable objects to get everyone out~~ of ~~the thinking that classes don't exist~~ and ~~material contradictions don't exist and societies are made of [[E:Hegelian dialectic (Fukuyama)\|Ideas~~ that ~~successfully pile on~~ because ~~they're 'not extreme']] and all that {{censor\|crap}}.~~ how do you know ~~what~~'~~s not extreme~~? ~~if there was~~ a ~~group~~ of ~~Maoists who thought that~~ things ~~were in the middle when they were following~~ a ~~materially-accurate Maoist line, then who would you be to say~~ that ~~left~~ and ~~right errors from Maoism weren~~'~~t what was extreme and correctly realizing Maoism wasn't what was in~~ the ~~middle? a lot~~ of ~~attempts~~ to ~~use Hegel without Materialism~~ just ~~feel like totally ungrounded spaghetti.~~		{{li\|I=S1/ML\|tradition=ML, MX\|Q=21,34\|Q2=2134\|h4 = socio-politico-economy }} (early Marxism) / civil society as unbreakable sociopolitical and socioeconomic connection / ([[EC:RD/9k/Q21,04\|9k]]) -> the ongoing connection from production or economy to social structures and then to political structures with an indivisibility of the three layers from each other. ... Marx is in one sense trying to center the "socioeconomy" as the place where history really happens through the sheer interactions of individuals to form a society being the "actual cause" of specific historical periods, and not the words or actions of governments. ...<br/>
			and in that sense something like Deng Xiaoping Thought at first seems really concerning because, how do you know all the free-floating businesses aren't going to take control of the thing? but ... the central party-nation is a socioeconomic structure in its own way. ... one of the only things saving China from a color revolution is basically that it contains a socioeconomic phenomenon which is so big and extended across the country it's hard for the capitalists to break it up. ... the material development of social structures in China and Vietnam is weird and you pretty much need meta-Marxist Bauplan analysis to understand it. which just makes things harder given that meta-Marxism / existential materialism isn't even complete

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,45\|Q2=~~2845~~\|h4 = Productive forces birth sociophilosophies }} (Marx 1859, Stalin 1951) / Every stage of productive forces bundles itself into particular relations of production, which when replicated across a country form into a particular sociophilosophy / ([[EC:RD/9k/Q21,04\|9k]])		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,46\|Q2=2846\|h4 = Apply Marx to country characteristics }} / country characteristics (Lenin) / Marx's theory does not plan for specific country characteristics, but can be applied to them / Marx's theory provides only [[E:Marx going meta (early Marxism onto meta-Marxism)\|general guiding principles]], which are applied in England differently than in France, in France differently than in Germany, and in Germany differently than in Russia (Lenin) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/articles/arg2op.htm]<br/>

	~~{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,46\|Q2=2846}}~~Apply Marx to country characteristics / country characteristics (Lenin) / Marx's theory does not plan for specific country characteristics, but can be applied to them / Marx's theory provides only [[E:Marx going meta (early Marxism onto meta-Marxism)\|general guiding principles]], which are applied in England differently than in France, in France differently than in Germany, and in Germany differently than in Russia (Lenin) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/articles/arg2op.htm]<br/>
	Apply Marx to country characteristics + Mark Fisher = revisionism as "country characteristics".		Apply Marx to country characteristics + Mark Fisher = revisionism as "country characteristics".

Line 27:		Line 24:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/IV\|tradition=ML, IV, MX\|Q=42,92\|Q2=4292\|rem=42,84}}What is analyzed is accounted for / To take documents "into consideration" does not mean to take them at their face value. Marx has said that it is impossible to judge either parties or peoples by what they say about themselves. [...] If, for example, we began to take as pure gold the innumerable proclamations of [... Kronstadt] we would have to recognize these gentlemen as fervent friends of socialism. But in reality they are its perfidious enemies (Trotsky 1938) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm] -> oh god Trotsky's most ironic quote. fervent perfidious enemies..... I don't know how to tell you this....		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/IV\|tradition=ML, IV, MX\|Q=42,92\|Q2=4292\|rem=42,84\|h4= What is analyzed is accounted for }} / To take documents "into consideration" does not mean to take them at their face value. Marx has said that it is impossible to judge either parties or peoples by what they say about themselves. [...] If, for example, we began to take as pure gold the innumerable proclamations of [... Kronstadt] we would have to recognize these gentlemen as fervent friends of socialism. But in reality they are its perfidious enemies (Trotsky 1938) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm] -> oh god Trotsky's most ironic quote. fervent perfidious enemies..... I don't know how to tell you this....

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=42,92\|Q2=4292}}What is analyzed is accounted for / Taking documents, remarks, anecdotes, or memoir material into account means Materialist analysis of what produced them / explaining these theoretical phrases from the actual existing relations (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm]		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=42,92\|Q2=4292}}What is analyzed is accounted for / Taking documents, remarks, anecdotes, or memoir material into account means Materialist analysis of what produced them / explaining these theoretical phrases from the actual existing relations (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm]

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=ML, MX\|Q=42,93\|Q2=4293}}Show why a wrong idea arises / It isn't enough to show an idea is wrong, you must show why a wrong idea arises (Marx) / It's worth showing why anarchism is wrong (Stalin) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm] -> claimed to appear in {{book\|Capital}}. case of: Marx going meta.<br />		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=ML, MX\|Q=42,93\|Q2=4293\|h4 = Show why a wrong idea arises }} / It isn't enough to show an idea is wrong, you must show why a wrong idea arises (Marx) / It's worth showing why anarchism is wrong (Stalin) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm] -> claimed to appear in {{book\|Capital}}. case of: Marx going meta.<br />
	yeah, that's the idea. that's why I came up with the concept of showing the material basis and class basis for a bunch of specific named ideologies, including the differences between different Marxisms. you'll never know which one is wrong, particularly for which country at which time, unless you know what [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism\|shovel (meta-Marxism)]] the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] came from.		yeah, that's the idea. that's why I came up with the concept of showing the material basis and class basis for a bunch of specific named ideologies, including the differences between different Marxisms. you'll never know which one is wrong, particularly for which country at which time, unless you know what [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism\|shovel (meta-Marxism)]] the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] came from.

Reversedragon: swatch colors; "civil society"

2026-04-10T23:37:27Z

swatch colors; "civil society"

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:37, 10 April 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=MX onto ML, ML onto ML, ML\|Q=26,92\|Q2=2692\|submitter=Vidak\|h4 = Marx going meta }} [https://vidak.substack.com/p/marx-naturalism-anachronism-and-the] / meta-critiquing Hegel / meta-ontology in Marx (meta-Marxist term) / post-ification in Marx (meta-Marxist term) -> the motif of Marx or Engels stepping outside a philosophy to look at the material substrate behind a philosophy or what it is really intending to talk about. any well-known Marxist theorist counts, but the significance of this motif is to help trace the origins of meta-Marxism and the first moments it seems to have appeared.		{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=MX onto ML, ML onto ML, ML\|Q=26,92\|Q2=2692\|submitter=Vidak\|h4 = Marx going meta }} [https://vidak.substack.com/p/marx-naturalism-anachronism-and-the] / meta-critiquing Hegel / meta-ontology in Marx (meta-Marxist term) / post-ification in Marx (meta-Marxist term; outdated) -> the motif of Marx or Engels stepping outside a philosophy to look at the material substrate behind a philosophy or what it is really intending to talk about. any well-known Marxist theorist counts, but the significance of this motif is to help trace the origins of meta-Marxism and the first moments it seems to have appeared.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 14:		Line 14:
	to Marx and Engels this is kind of just 'the rejection of Ideals creating material shapes' (as long as the ideals contain either abstraction or prescription and aren't literally just descriptions of material shapes). Marx is in one sense trying to center the "socioeconomy" as the place where history really happens through the sheer interactions of individuals to form a society being the "actual cause" of specific historical periods, and not the words or actions of governments. when you look at things that way it's much easier to see how capital has power and how when capital is an important part of a society it becomes able to wield governments and armies in and of itself. in one sense all societies are anarchic, in the sense that socioeconomic structures are what truly runs and decides everything. exmat isn't necessarily new, when you look at Marx and Lenin doing slightly muddy versions of the same thing that nonetheless manage to laser-focus onto some basic conclusion of what causes bring what effects.<br/>		to Marx and Engels this is kind of just 'the rejection of Ideals creating material shapes' (as long as the ideals contain either abstraction or prescription and aren't literally just descriptions of material shapes). Marx is in one sense trying to center the "socioeconomy" as the place where history really happens through the sheer interactions of individuals to form a society being the "actual cause" of specific historical periods, and not the words or actions of governments. when you look at things that way it's much easier to see how capital has power and how when capital is an important part of a society it becomes able to wield governments and armies in and of itself. in one sense all societies are anarchic, in the sense that socioeconomic structures are what truly runs and decides everything. exmat isn't necessarily new, when you look at Marx and Lenin doing slightly muddy versions of the same thing that nonetheless manage to laser-focus onto some basic conclusion of what causes bring what effects.<br/>
	and in that sense something like Deng Xiaoping Thought at first seems really concerning because, how do you know all the free-floating businesses aren't going to take control of the thing? but of course, there are other considerations at the same time. the notion that all societies are technically anarchic means that China having any kind of socioeconomy that is going strong has an important role in creating a border around China and a sovereign government; governments don't drop out of the air. as well, the central party-nation is a socioeconomic structure in its own way. it has or previously had the capacity to move people between regions or try to get them to stay in a certain region, and it has the capacity to address living standards and get people out of peasant-level living. the interaction between the people and the central party and especially everyone {{em\|trusting}} the central party to carry out tasks is a socioeconomic phenomenon. one of the only things saving China from a color revolution is basically that it contains a socioeconomic phenomenon which is so big and extended across the country it's hard for the capitalists to break it up. (it doesn't help that the capitalists aren't neatly united into two parties, there are about eight parties with comically similar names outside the central party and as far as I know none of them are as "important" as the U.S. Republican or Democratic parties.) the layer of capitalists and the central party are sort of going along on separate levels accomplishing different goals. which loosely suggests that they might not actually be getting in each other's way. (and in a weird way, doing almost exactly the opposite of which job you'd think each one of them would be doing. the capitalist layer creates the nation-state, the central party provides for the people?? it neatly matches up with Marxist predictions, I mean, when do capitalists actually care, but it's still weird to look at.) it's unclear how either layer is supposed to get out of Deng Xiaoping Thought and lead the country [[E:There is no era of socialism or era of communism as described in Lenin, only named sociophilosophies (hypothesis)\|into the next stage]]. the material development of social structures in China and Vietnam is weird and you pretty much need meta-Marxist Bauplan analysis to understand it. which just makes things harder given that meta-Marxism / existential materialism isn't even complete		and in that sense something like Deng Xiaoping Thought at first seems really concerning because, how do you know all the free-floating businesses aren't going to take control of the thing? but of course, there are other considerations at the same time. the notion that all societies are technically anarchic means that China having any kind of socioeconomy that is going strong has an important role in creating a border around China and a sovereign government; governments don't drop out of the air. as well, the central party-nation is a socioeconomic structure in its own way. it has or previously had the capacity to move people between regions or try to get them to stay in a certain region, and it has the capacity to address living standards and get people out of peasant-level living. the interaction between the people and the central party and especially everyone {{em\|trusting}} the central party to carry out tasks is a socioeconomic phenomenon. one of the only things saving China from a color revolution is basically that it contains a socioeconomic phenomenon which is so big and extended across the country it's hard for the capitalists to break it up. (it doesn't help that the capitalists aren't neatly united into two parties, there are about eight parties with comically similar names outside the central party and as far as I know none of them are as "important" as the U.S. Republican or Democratic parties.) the layer of capitalists and the central party are sort of going along on separate levels accomplishing different goals. which loosely suggests that they might not actually be getting in each other's way. (and in a weird way, doing almost exactly the opposite of which job you'd think each one of them would be doing. the capitalist layer creates the nation-state, the central party provides for the people?? it neatly matches up with Marxist predictions, I mean, when do capitalists actually care, but it's still weird to look at.) it's unclear how either layer is supposed to get out of Deng Xiaoping Thought and lead the country [[E:There is no era of socialism or era of communism as described in Lenin, only named sociophilosophies (hypothesis)\|into the next stage]]. the material development of social structures in China and Vietnam is weird and you pretty much need meta-Marxist Bauplan analysis to understand it. which just makes things harder given that meta-Marxism / existential materialism isn't even complete

			{{li\|I=S1/ML\|tradition=ML, MX\|Q=21,34\|Q2=2134}}socio-politico-economy (early Marxism) / civil society as unbreakable sociopolitical and socioeconomic connection -> oh yeah, the word Marx says here is "civil society", while I say "socioeconomy". there's very little difference between those two. the only real substantial difference I can think of is that socioeconomies could theoretically be plural. there could be two socioeconomies stuffed underneath one formal government which each have different ideological "swatch colors" and perhaps internal structures that generate those, while "civil society" implies there's only one 'socioeconomy' that maybe contains multiple ideologies in an inseparable multiplicity. I fundamentally think we have to take that and separate it into multiple countable objects to get everyone out of the thinking that classes don't exist and material contradictions don't exist and societies are made of [[E:Hegelian dialectic (Fukuyama)\|Ideas that successfully pile on because they're 'not extreme']] and all that {{censor\|crap}}. how do you know what's not extreme? if there was a group of Maoists who thought that things were in the middle when they were following a materially-accurate Maoist line, then who would you be to say that left and right errors from Maoism weren't what was extreme and correctly realizing Maoism wasn't what was in the middle? a lot of attempts to use Hegel without Materialism just feel like totally ungrounded spaghetti.

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,45\|Q2=2845\|h4 = Productive forces birth sociophilosophies }} (Marx 1859, Stalin 1951) / Every stage of productive forces bundles itself into particular relations of production, which when replicated across a country form into a particular sociophilosophy / ([[EC:RD/9k/Q21,04\|9k]])		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,45\|Q2=2845\|h4 = Productive forces birth sociophilosophies }} (Marx 1859, Stalin 1951) / Every stage of productive forces bundles itself into particular relations of production, which when replicated across a country form into a particular sociophilosophy / ([[EC:RD/9k/Q21,04\|9k]])
Line 25:		Line 27:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/IV\|tradition=ML, IV, MX\|Q=42,92\|Q2=4292\|rem=42,84}}What is analyzed is accounted for ~~/ Taking documents, remarks, anecdotes, or memoir material into account means Materialist analysis of what produced them~~ / To take documents "into consideration" does not mean to take them at their face value. Marx has said that it is impossible to judge either parties or peoples by what they say about themselves. [...] If, for example, we began to take as pure gold the innumerable proclamations of [... Kronstadt] we would have to recognize these gentlemen as fervent friends of socialism. But in reality they are its perfidious enemies (Trotsky 1938) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm] -> oh god Trotsky's most ironic quote. fervent perfidious enemies..... I don't know how to tell you this....		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/IV\|tradition=ML, IV, MX\|Q=42,92\|Q2=4292\|rem=42,84}}What is analyzed is accounted for / To take documents "into consideration" does not mean to take them at their face value. Marx has said that it is impossible to judge either parties or peoples by what they say about themselves. [...] If, for example, we began to take as pure gold the innumerable proclamations of [... Kronstadt] we would have to recognize these gentlemen as fervent friends of socialism. But in reality they are its perfidious enemies (Trotsky 1938) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm] -> oh god Trotsky's most ironic quote. fervent perfidious enemies..... I don't know how to tell you this....

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=42,92\|Q2=4292}}What is analyzed is accounted for / Taking documents, remarks, anecdotes, or memoir material into account means Materialist analysis of what produced them / explaining these theoretical phrases from the actual existing relations (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm]

			{{li\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=ML, MX\|Q=42,93\|Q2=4293}}Show why a wrong idea arises / It isn't enough to show an idea is wrong, you must show why a wrong idea arises (Marx) / It's worth showing why anarchism is wrong (Stalin) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm] -> claimed to appear in {{book\|Capital}}. case of: Marx going meta.<br />
			yeah, that's the idea. that's why I came up with the concept of showing the material basis and class basis for a bunch of specific named ideologies, including the differences between different Marxisms. you'll never know which one is wrong, particularly for which country at which time, unless you know what [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism\|shovel (meta-Marxism)]] the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] came from.

	{{li\|I=S2/~~ML\|tradition=ML,~~ MX\|Q=42,93\|Q2=4293}}~~It isn't enough to show an idea is wrong, you must show~~ why a wrong idea arises (Marx) / It's worth showing why anarchism is wrong (Stalin) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm] -> claimed to appear in {{book\|Capital}}. case of: Marx going meta.<br />		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=42,93\|Q2=4293}}Show why a wrong idea arises
	yeah, that's the idea. that's why I came up with the concept of showing the material basis and class basis for a bunch of specific named ideologies, including the differences between different Marxisms. you'll never know which one is wrong, particularly for which country at which time, unless you know what [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism\|shovel (meta-Marxism]] the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] came from.

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

	== Ideologies, frameworks, or fields ==		== Ideologies, frameworks, or fields ==

	<ol class="hue clean compound">		<ol class="hue clean compound">
	{{HueNumber\|Q83\|ML / dialectical materialism}}		{{HueNumber\|Q83\|ML / dialectical materialism}}
			{{HueNumber\|Q41,03}}
			{{HueDomain\|Q92}}
	</ol>		</ol>

			<!--
	* ML / dialectical materialism		* ML / dialectical materialism
	* ML / early Marxism		* ML / early Marxism
Line 43:		Line 51:
	* IV / early Trotskyism		* IV / early Trotskyism
	* MX / meta-Marxism		* MX / meta-Marxism
			* MX onto ML / meta-Marxism onto Marxism
			* ML onto ML / Marxism onto Marxism
			-->
			* ML / early Marxism
			* IV / early Trotskyism
	* MX onto ML / meta-Marxism onto Marxism		* MX onto ML / meta-Marxism onto Marxism
	* ML onto ML / Marxism onto Marxism		* ML onto ML / Marxism onto Marxism

Reversedragon: It isn't enough to show an idea is wrong, you must show why a wrong idea arises (Marx)

2026-04-03T06:32:05Z

It isn't enough to show an idea is wrong, you must show why a wrong idea arises (Marx)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:32, 3 April 2026
Line 6:		Line 6:

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

	== Cases ==		== Cases ==
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">
Line 20:		Line 21:

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
	== ~~Related~~ ==~~<!--~~
			== Critiquing other ideologies ==
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	</li></ol>-->		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/IV\|tradition=ML, IV, MX\|Q=42,92\|Q2=4292\|rem=42,84}}What is analyzed is accounted for / Taking documents, remarks, anecdotes, or memoir material into account means Materialist analysis of what produced them / To take documents "into consideration" does not mean to take them at their face value. Marx has said that it is impossible to judge either parties or peoples by what they say about themselves. [...] If, for example, we began to take as pure gold the innumerable proclamations of [... Kronstadt] we would have to recognize these gentlemen as fervent friends of socialism. But in reality they are its perfidious enemies (Trotsky 1938) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm] -> oh god Trotsky's most ironic quote. fervent perfidious enemies..... I don't know how to tell you this....

			{{li\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=ML, MX\|Q=42,93\|Q2=4293}}It isn't enough to show an idea is wrong, you must show why a wrong idea arises (Marx) / It's worth showing why anarchism is wrong (Stalin) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm] -> claimed to appear in {{book\|Capital}}. case of: Marx going meta.<br />
			yeah, that's the idea. that's why I came up with the concept of showing the material basis and class basis for a bunch of specific named ideologies, including the differences between different Marxisms. you'll never know which one is wrong, particularly for which country at which time, unless you know what [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism\|shovel (meta-Marxism]] the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] came from.

			</li></ol>

	== ~~Ideology codes~~ ==		== Ideologies, frameworks, or fields ==

	<ol class="hue clean compound">		<ol class="hue clean compound">
Line 34:		Line 41:
	* ML / early Marxism		* ML / early Marxism
	* ML / mainstream Marxism-Leninism		* ML / mainstream Marxism-Leninism
			* IV / early Trotskyism
	* MX / meta-Marxism		* MX / meta-Marxism
	* MX onto ML / meta-Marxism onto Marxism		* MX onto ML / meta-Marxism onto Marxism

Reversedragon: Apply Marx to country characteristics

2026-04-03T06:13:40Z

Apply Marx to country characteristics

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:13, 3 April 2026
Line 15:		Line 15:

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,45\|Q2=2845\|h4 = Productive forces birth sociophilosophies }} (Marx 1859, Stalin 1951) / Every stage of productive forces bundles itself into particular relations of production, which when replicated across a country form into a particular sociophilosophy / ([[EC:RD/9k/Q21,04\|9k]])		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,45\|Q2=2845\|h4 = Productive forces birth sociophilosophies }} (Marx 1859, Stalin 1951) / Every stage of productive forces bundles itself into particular relations of production, which when replicated across a country form into a particular sociophilosophy / ([[EC:RD/9k/Q21,04\|9k]])

			{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,46\|Q2=2846}}Apply Marx to country characteristics / country characteristics (Lenin) / Marx's theory does not plan for specific country characteristics, but can be applied to them / Marx's theory provides only [[E:Marx going meta (early Marxism onto meta-Marxism)\|general guiding principles]], which are applied in England differently than in France, in France differently than in Germany, and in Germany differently than in Russia (Lenin) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/articles/arg2op.htm]<br/>
			Apply Marx to country characteristics + Mark Fisher = revisionism as "country characteristics".

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

Reversedragon: Productive forces birth sociophilosophies

2026-04-03T06:11:54Z

Productive forces birth sociophilosophies

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:11, 3 April 2026
Line 12:		Line 12:
	to me, this is 'existential materialism put to use'. exmat starts at "the fun stuff" of bashing Free Will and showing that individual will operates back and forth in all directions within the structure of groups, this thing that either comes from individuals' physical needs and their emergent emotions and personalities on top of those, or emerges from interactions {{em\|between}} people where neither individual really controls it and yet it at the larger scale it happens. then it progresses up to "the hard stuff" of showing how the needs of individuals and their current physical arrangements work together to produce seemingly complicated sociophilosophies like Liberal-republicanism, mainstream Marxism-Leninism, a hypothetical Trotskyism, a specific anarchism, nested tribal populations, and so forth.<br/>		to me, this is 'existential materialism put to use'. exmat starts at "the fun stuff" of bashing Free Will and showing that individual will operates back and forth in all directions within the structure of groups, this thing that either comes from individuals' physical needs and their emergent emotions and personalities on top of those, or emerges from interactions {{em\|between}} people where neither individual really controls it and yet it at the larger scale it happens. then it progresses up to "the hard stuff" of showing how the needs of individuals and their current physical arrangements work together to produce seemingly complicated sociophilosophies like Liberal-republicanism, mainstream Marxism-Leninism, a hypothetical Trotskyism, a specific anarchism, nested tribal populations, and so forth.<br/>
	to Marx and Engels this is kind of just 'the rejection of Ideals creating material shapes' (as long as the ideals contain either abstraction or prescription and aren't literally just descriptions of material shapes). Marx is in one sense trying to center the "socioeconomy" as the place where history really happens through the sheer interactions of individuals to form a society being the "actual cause" of specific historical periods, and not the words or actions of governments. when you look at things that way it's much easier to see how capital has power and how when capital is an important part of a society it becomes able to wield governments and armies in and of itself. in one sense all societies are anarchic, in the sense that socioeconomic structures are what truly runs and decides everything. exmat isn't necessarily new, when you look at Marx and Lenin doing slightly muddy versions of the same thing that nonetheless manage to laser-focus onto some basic conclusion of what causes bring what effects.<br/>		to Marx and Engels this is kind of just 'the rejection of Ideals creating material shapes' (as long as the ideals contain either abstraction or prescription and aren't literally just descriptions of material shapes). Marx is in one sense trying to center the "socioeconomy" as the place where history really happens through the sheer interactions of individuals to form a society being the "actual cause" of specific historical periods, and not the words or actions of governments. when you look at things that way it's much easier to see how capital has power and how when capital is an important part of a society it becomes able to wield governments and armies in and of itself. in one sense all societies are anarchic, in the sense that socioeconomic structures are what truly runs and decides everything. exmat isn't necessarily new, when you look at Marx and Lenin doing slightly muddy versions of the same thing that nonetheless manage to laser-focus onto some basic conclusion of what causes bring what effects.<br/>
	and in that sense something like Deng Xiaoping Thought at first seems really concerning because, how do you know all the free-floating businesses aren't going to take control of the thing? but of course, there are other considerations at the same time. the notion that all societies are technically anarchic means that China having any kind of socioeconomy that is going strong has an important role in creating a border around China and a sovereign government; governments don't drop out of the air. as well, the central party-nation is a socioeconomic structure in its own way. it has or previously had the capacity to move people between regions or try to get them to stay in a certain region, and it has the capacity to address living standards and get people out of peasant-level living. the interaction between the people and the central party and especially everyone {{em\|trusting}} the central party to carry out tasks is a socioeconomic phenomenon. one of the only things saving China from a color revolution is basically that it contains a socioeconomic phenomenon which is so big and extended across the country it's hard for the capitalists to break it up. (it doesn't help that the capitalists aren't neatly united into two parties, there are about eight parties with comically similar names outside the central party and as far as I know none of them are as "important" as the U.S. Republican or Democratic parties.) the layer of capitalists and the central party are sort of going along on separate levels accomplishing different goals. which loosely suggests that they might not actually be getting in each other's way. (and in a weird way, doing almost exactly the opposite of which job you'd think each one of them would be doing. the capitalist layer creates the nation-state, the central party provides for the people?? it neatly matches up with Marxist predictions, I mean, when do capitalists actually care, but it's still weird to look at.) it's unclear how either layer is supposed to get out of Deng Xiaoping Thought and lead the country [[E:There is no era of socialism or era of communism as described in Lenin, only named sociophilosophies (hypothesis)\|into the next stage]]. the material development of social structures in China and Vietnam is weird and you pretty much need meta-Marxist Bauplan analysis to understand it. which just makes things harder given that meta-Marxism / existential materialism isn't even complete~~<br~~/>		and in that sense something like Deng Xiaoping Thought at first seems really concerning because, how do you know all the free-floating businesses aren't going to take control of the thing? but of course, there are other considerations at the same time. the notion that all societies are technically anarchic means that China having any kind of socioeconomy that is going strong has an important role in creating a border around China and a sovereign government; governments don't drop out of the air. as well, the central party-nation is a socioeconomic structure in its own way. it has or previously had the capacity to move people between regions or try to get them to stay in a certain region, and it has the capacity to address living standards and get people out of peasant-level living. the interaction between the people and the central party and especially everyone {{em\|trusting}} the central party to carry out tasks is a socioeconomic phenomenon. one of the only things saving China from a color revolution is basically that it contains a socioeconomic phenomenon which is so big and extended across the country it's hard for the capitalists to break it up. (it doesn't help that the capitalists aren't neatly united into two parties, there are about eight parties with comically similar names outside the central party and as far as I know none of them are as "important" as the U.S. Republican or Democratic parties.) the layer of capitalists and the central party are sort of going along on separate levels accomplishing different goals. which loosely suggests that they might not actually be getting in each other's way. (and in a weird way, doing almost exactly the opposite of which job you'd think each one of them would be doing. the capitalist layer creates the nation-state, the central party provides for the people?? it neatly matches up with Marxist predictions, I mean, when do capitalists actually care, but it's still weird to look at.) it's unclear how either layer is supposed to get out of Deng Xiaoping Thought and lead the country [[E:There is no era of socialism or era of communism as described in Lenin, only named sociophilosophies (hypothesis)\|into the next stage]]. the material development of social structures in China and Vietnam is weird and you pretty much need meta-Marxist Bauplan analysis to understand it. which just makes things harder given that meta-Marxism / existential materialism isn't even complete
	~~case~~ of: ~~Marx going meta.~~
			{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=28,45\|Q2=2845\|h4 = Productive forces birth sociophilosophies }} (Marx 1859, Stalin 1951) / Every stage of productive forces bundles itself into particular relations of production, which when replicated across a country form into a particular sociophilosophy / ([[EC:RD/9k/Q21,04\|9k]])

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

Reversedragon: socio-politico-economy (early Marxism)

2026-03-13T03:09:39Z

socio-politico-economy (early Marxism)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:09, 13 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=Marx going meta\|User=RD\|E=Q26,92\|Contents=y}}		{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=Marx going meta\|User=RD\|E=Q26,92\|Contents=y}}
	== Main entry ==		== Main entry ==
	~~<noinclude>~~{{HueCSS}}~~</noinclude>~~<ol class="hue clean">		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

	</~~li><li class~~=~~"field_mdem" data-qid~~="26,92~~" value~~="2692~~" data-dimension~~=~~"S" data-submitter~~=~~"vidak">~~Marx going meta [https://vidak.substack.com/p/marx-naturalism-anachronism-and-the] / meta-critiquing Hegel / meta-ontology in Marx (meta-Marxist term) / post-ification in Marx (meta-Marxist term) -> the motif of Marx or Engels stepping outside a philosophy to look at the material substrate behind a philosophy or what it is really intending to talk about. any well-known Marxist theorist counts, but the significance of this motif is to help trace the origins of meta-Marxism and the first moments it seems to have appeared.		{{li\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=MX onto ML, ML onto ML, ML\|Q=26,92\|Q2=2692\|submitter=Vidak\|h4 = Marx going meta }} [https://vidak.substack.com/p/marx-naturalism-anachronism-and-the] / meta-critiquing Hegel / meta-ontology in Marx (meta-Marxist term) / post-ification in Marx (meta-Marxist term) -> the motif of Marx or Engels stepping outside a philosophy to look at the material substrate behind a philosophy or what it is really intending to talk about. any well-known Marxist theorist counts, but the significance of this motif is to help trace the origins of meta-Marxism and the first moments it seems to have appeared.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
			== Cases ==
	== Cases ==~~<!--~~

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

	</li></ol>-->		{{li\|I=S1/ML\|tradition=ML, MX\|Q=21,34\|Q2=2134}}socio-politico-economy (early Marxism) -> the ongoing connection from production or economy to social structures and then to political structures with an indivisibility of the three layers from each other. [https://vidak.substack.com/p/marx-materialism-and-the-german-ideology] this can be read as either a crimson concept or a violet concept; this is one of the times that there's no real distinction between crimson and violet.<br/>
			to me, this is 'existential materialism put to use'. exmat starts at "the fun stuff" of bashing Free Will and showing that individual will operates back and forth in all directions within the structure of groups, this thing that either comes from individuals' physical needs and their emergent emotions and personalities on top of those, or emerges from interactions {{em\|between}} people where neither individual really controls it and yet it at the larger scale it happens. then it progresses up to "the hard stuff" of showing how the needs of individuals and their current physical arrangements work together to produce seemingly complicated sociophilosophies like Liberal-republicanism, mainstream Marxism-Leninism, a hypothetical Trotskyism, a specific anarchism, nested tribal populations, and so forth.<br/>
			to Marx and Engels this is kind of just 'the rejection of Ideals creating material shapes' (as long as the ideals contain either abstraction or prescription and aren't literally just descriptions of material shapes). Marx is in one sense trying to center the "socioeconomy" as the place where history really happens through the sheer interactions of individuals to form a society being the "actual cause" of specific historical periods, and not the words or actions of governments. when you look at things that way it's much easier to see how capital has power and how when capital is an important part of a society it becomes able to wield governments and armies in and of itself. in one sense all societies are anarchic, in the sense that socioeconomic structures are what truly runs and decides everything. exmat isn't necessarily new, when you look at Marx and Lenin doing slightly muddy versions of the same thing that nonetheless manage to laser-focus onto some basic conclusion of what causes bring what effects.<br/>
			and in that sense something like Deng Xiaoping Thought at first seems really concerning because, how do you know all the free-floating businesses aren't going to take control of the thing? but of course, there are other considerations at the same time. the notion that all societies are technically anarchic means that China having any kind of socioeconomy that is going strong has an important role in creating a border around China and a sovereign government; governments don't drop out of the air. as well, the central party-nation is a socioeconomic structure in its own way. it has or previously had the capacity to move people between regions or try to get them to stay in a certain region, and it has the capacity to address living standards and get people out of peasant-level living. the interaction between the people and the central party and especially everyone {{em\|trusting}} the central party to carry out tasks is a socioeconomic phenomenon. one of the only things saving China from a color revolution is basically that it contains a socioeconomic phenomenon which is so big and extended across the country it's hard for the capitalists to break it up. (it doesn't help that the capitalists aren't neatly united into two parties, there are about eight parties with comically similar names outside the central party and as far as I know none of them are as "important" as the U.S. Republican or Democratic parties.) the layer of capitalists and the central party are sort of going along on separate levels accomplishing different goals. which loosely suggests that they might not actually be getting in each other's way. (and in a weird way, doing almost exactly the opposite of which job you'd think each one of them would be doing. the capitalist layer creates the nation-state, the central party provides for the people?? it neatly matches up with Marxist predictions, I mean, when do capitalists actually care, but it's still weird to look at.) it's unclear how either layer is supposed to get out of Deng Xiaoping Thought and lead the country [[E:There is no era of socialism or era of communism as described in Lenin, only named sociophilosophies (hypothesis)\|into the next stage]]. the material development of social structures in China and Vietnam is weird and you pretty much need meta-Marxist Bauplan analysis to understand it. which just makes things harder given that meta-Marxism / existential materialism isn't even complete<br/>
			case of: Marx going meta.

			</li></ol>
	== Related ==<!--		== Related ==<!--

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

Line 25:		Line 27:
	</ol>		</ol>

			* ML / dialectical materialism
	* ML / early Marxism		* ML / early Marxism
	* ML / mainstream Marxism-Leninism		* ML / mainstream Marxism-Leninism
			* MX / meta-Marxism
			* MX onto ML / meta-Marxism onto Marxism
			* ML onto ML / Marxism onto Marxism

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q2692 to User:RD/9k/Q26,92: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

2026-03-13T02:56:50Z

Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q2692 to User:RD/9k/Q26,92: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

← Older revision	Revision as of 02:56, 13 March 2026
(No difference)

Reversedragon: copy markup from 9k/Q19,10

2026-03-13T02:56:34Z

copy markup from 9k/Q19,10

New page

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Marx going meta|User=RD|E=Q26,92|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="26,92" value="2692" data-dimension="S" data-submitter="vidak">Marx going meta [https://vidak.substack.com/p/marx-naturalism-anachronism-and-the] / meta-critiquing Hegel / meta-ontology in Marx (meta-Marxist term) / post-ification in Marx (meta-Marxist term) -> the motif of Marx or Engels stepping outside a philosophy to look at the material substrate behind a philosophy or what it is really intending to talk about. any well-known Marxist theorist counts, but the significance of this motif is to help trace the origins of meta-Marxism and the first moments it seems to have appeared.

</li></ol>

== Cases ==

== Related ==

== Ideology codes ==

<ol class="hue clean compound">
{{HueNumber|Q83|ML / dialectical materialism}}
</ol>

* ML / early Marxism
* ML / mainstream Marxism-Leninism

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:03, 27 April 2026
Line 26:		Line 26:
	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/IV\|tradition=ML, IV, MX\|Q=42,92\|Q2=4292\|rem=42,84\|h4= What is analyzed is accounted for }} / To take documents "into consideration" does not mean to take them at their face value. Marx has said that it is impossible to judge either parties or peoples by what they say about themselves. [...] If, for example, we began to take as pure gold the innumerable proclamations of [... Kronstadt] we would have to recognize these gentlemen as fervent friends of socialism. But in reality they are its perfidious enemies (Trotsky 1938) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm] -> oh god Trotsky's most ironic quote. fervent perfidious enemies..... I don't know how to tell you this....		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/IV\|tradition=ML, IV, MX\|Q=42,92\|Q2=4292\|rem=42,84\|h4= What is analyzed is accounted for }} / To take documents "into consideration" does not mean to take them at their face value. Marx has said that it is impossible to judge either parties or peoples by what they say about themselves. [...] If, for example, we began to take as pure gold the innumerable proclamations of [... Kronstadt] we would have to recognize these gentlemen as fervent friends of socialism. But in reality they are its perfidious enemies (Trotsky 1938) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm] -> oh god Trotsky's most ironic quote. fervent perfidious enemies..... I don't know how to tell you this....

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=42,92\|Q2=4292}}What is analyzed is accounted for ~~/ Taking documents, remarks, anecdotes, or memoir material into account means Materialist analysis of what produced them~~ / explaining these theoretical phrases from the actual existing relations (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm]		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=42,92\|Q2=4292}}What is analyzed is accounted for / explaining these theoretical phrases from the actual existing relations (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm]

	{{li\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=ML, MX\|Q=42,93\|Q2=4293\|h4 = Show why a wrong idea arises }} / It isn't enough to show an idea is wrong, you must show why a wrong idea arises (Marx) / It's worth showing why anarchism is wrong (Stalin) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm] -> claimed to appear in {{book\|Capital}}. case of: Marx going meta.<br />		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|tradition=ML, MX\|Q=42,93\|Q2=4293\|h4 = Show why a wrong idea arises }} / It isn't enough to show an idea is wrong, you must show why a wrong idea arises (Marx) / It's worth showing why anarchism is wrong (Stalin) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm] -> claimed to appear in {{book\|Capital}}. case of: Marx going meta.<br />
	yeah, that's the idea. that's why I came up with the concept of showing the material basis and class basis for a bunch of specific named ideologies, including the differences between different Marxisms. you'll never know which one is wrong, particularly for which country at which time, unless you know what [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism\|shovel (meta-Marxism)]] the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] came from.		yeah, that's the idea. that's why I came up with the concept of showing the material basis and class basis for a bunch of specific named ideologies, including the differences between different Marxisms. you'll never know which one is wrong, particularly for which country at which time, unless you know what [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism\|shovel (meta-Marxism)]] the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] came from.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=42,92\|Q2=4292}}What is analyzed is accounted for / Taking documents, remarks, anecdotes, or memoir material into account means Materialist analysis of what produced them

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=42,93\|Q2=4293}}Show why a wrong idea arises		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=42,93\|Q2=4293}}Show why a wrong idea arises

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=29,80\|Q2=2980}}Bad books are instructive / There is a lot to learn from bad books as long as you have a sufficient foundation in what's correct / ([[User:RD/9k/Q29,80\|9k]])

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