User:RD/9k/Q28,83 - Revision history

Reversedragon: make the link clearer

2026-03-28T03:03:43Z

make the link clearer

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:03, 28 March 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

	<li ~~class~~=~~"field_nations" data-qid~~="28,83~~" value~~="2883~~" data-dimension="F2">~~Wealth gets rid of poverty / to each according to his work (Toryism) -> no. the limited nature of wealth creates wealth, so wealth doesn't even exist unless somebody doesn't have it. small capitalism relies on the lack of things for anybody to keep creating things. if creating wealth got rid of poverty we'd just all create a bit of stuff and then all capitalism everywhere would stop and we'd have an era of communism. it would definitely make things a lot easier for {{em\|me}} but it's not how it works. it's more accurate to say creating wealth brings one person closer to life and a lot of people closer to death. say you live in 1930. every time Stalin's government sets a quota on a factory and the factory makes something, but somebody else is suffering and can hardly have it, there is wealth. that's how wealth works, and that's what it is. it isn't "hard work". it isn't stocks going up. it isn't one big stack of freedom you get after you have a lot of freedom and use it right. it isn't one big stack of race you earn after you get up and go to race all day — as much as that's oddly closer to true than a lot of Tory definitions. wealth is what brings temporary acceptance from others because you have out-survived them at something despite what prejudices they may have about you, but an acceptance which isn't permanent and could go away tomorrow the moment you aren't better than somebody else.<br />		{{li\|start=y\|I=F2/PT\|Q=28,83\|Q2=2883}}Wealth gets rid of poverty / to each according to his work (Toryism) -> no. the limited nature of wealth creates wealth, so wealth doesn't even exist unless somebody doesn't have it. small capitalism relies on the lack of things for anybody to keep creating things. if creating wealth got rid of poverty we'd just all create a bit of stuff [[E:Kropotkinism\|and then all capitalism everywhere would stop]] and we'd have an era of communism. it would definitely make things a lot easier for {{em\|me}} but it's not how it works. it's more accurate to say creating wealth brings one person closer to life and a lot of people closer to death. say you live in 1930. every time Stalin's government sets a quota on a factory and the factory makes something, but somebody else is suffering and can hardly have it, there is wealth. that's how wealth works, and that's what it is. it isn't "hard work". it isn't stocks going up. it isn't one big stack of freedom you get after you have a lot of freedom and use it right. it isn't one big stack of race you earn after you get up and go to race all day — as much as that's oddly closer to true than a lot of Tory definitions. wealth is what brings temporary acceptance from others because you have out-survived them at something despite what prejudices they may have about you, but an acceptance which isn't permanent and could go away tomorrow the moment you aren't better than somebody else.<br />
	I guess this goes on the surprisingly-long list of "[[User:RD/9k/Q28,84\|Tory statements that could have come out of Stalin]] and horrified all Tories far more than when they said it themselves even though it means the same thing".		I guess this goes on the surprisingly-long list of "[[User:RD/9k/Q28,84\|Tory statements that could have come out of Stalin]] and horrified all Tories far more than when they said it themselves even though it means the same thing".

Line 9:		Line 9:

	== Allied statements ==		== Allied statements ==

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

	<li ~~class~~=~~"field_anarchy" data-qid~~="618~~" value~~="618~~" data-dimension="S2">~~To get to abundance people just have to make a bunch of stuff -> Peter Kropotkin and the small to medium-size product warehouses.<br/>		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/A\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Abundance is a village producing a lot / To get to abundance people just have to make a bunch of stuff -> Peter Kropotkin and the small to medium-size product warehouses.<br/>
	I think this is a subtly different proposition from the Tory one because it actually invokes labor, while like, the Tories are not even thinking, they just think you can have money and order workers around and you get more money.<br/>		I think this is a subtly different proposition from the Tory one because it actually invokes labor, while like, the Tories are not even thinking, they just think you can have money and order workers around and you get more money.<br/>
	that's some kind of difference between finance capitalists and small producers or something; this Socialist-Revolutionary kind of thinking where any tiny producer equals a worker if there is no dominating force in the same structure. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/nov/01.htm] Kropotkin was probably influenced a little bit by the peasant economy and tiny producers actually present in Russia. it's weird how there is so little difference between the narodniks, SRs, and anarchism at some moments. the similarities in these ideologies alone feel like a small straw of evidence for the way Lenin and Stalin would tend to say there's little difference between all small producers and one of the only differences is whether historically they've built larger business territories and turned somebody into a modern capitalist yet. it's funny how there are almost just two ideologies, crimson ideology that leads to workers and larger business territories consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat, and strawberry ideology that mistakenly thinks classes that came before workers or popped up sideways to workers and are smaller than capitalist territories are workers and subsequently tears apart the dictatorship of the proletariat and allows capitalism. there is such a {{em\|continuum in content}} from SRs to Kropotkin to [[User:RD/9k/Q22,13\|Yaroshenko]] to Deng Xiaoping Thought, the only major difference is the structures improperly conflated with workers keep getting bigger. one day it's undeveloped peasant villages, one day China is one big 'relation of production' and all the corporations are its 'productive forces'. even when strawberry ideology isn't [[E:Fisherism (meta-Marxism onto Western Marxism)\|stupid and non-Materialist]] and actually has some Materialist thinking and productive forces in it it's weirdly dangerous. China's strawberry 'single production relation' is like, small producers in charge slowly collecting big producers to secure small capitalist interests, a [[Ontology:Q54,88\|{{caps\|Wasp}} Swarm]] in very slow motion instead of going fast.		that's some kind of difference between finance capitalists and small producers or something; this Socialist-Revolutionary kind of thinking where any tiny producer equals a worker if there is no dominating force in the same structure. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/nov/01.htm] Kropotkin was probably influenced a little bit by the peasant economy and tiny producers actually present in Russia. it's weird how there is so little difference between the narodniks, SRs, and anarchism at some moments. the similarities in these ideologies alone feel like a small straw of evidence for the way Lenin and Stalin would tend to say there's little difference between all small producers and one of the only differences is whether historically they've built larger business territories and turned somebody into a modern capitalist yet. it's funny how there are almost just two ideologies, crimson ideology that leads to workers and larger business territories consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat, and strawberry ideology that mistakenly thinks classes that came before workers or popped up sideways to workers and are smaller than capitalist territories are workers and subsequently tears apart the dictatorship of the proletariat and allows capitalism. there is such a {{em\|continuum in content}} from SRs to Kropotkin to [[User:RD/9k/Q22,13\|Yaroshenko]] to Deng Xiaoping Thought, the only major difference is the structures improperly conflated with workers keep getting bigger. one day it's undeveloped peasant villages, one day China is one big 'relation of production' and all the corporations are its 'productive forces'. even when strawberry ideology isn't [[E:Fisherism (meta-Marxism onto Western Marxism)\|stupid and non-Materialist]] and actually has some Materialist thinking and productive forces in it it's weirdly dangerous. China's strawberry 'single production relation' is like, small producers in charge slowly collecting big producers to secure small capitalist interests, a [[Ontology:Q54,88\|{{caps\|Wasp}} Swarm]] in very slow motion instead of going fast.
Line 19:		Line 18:

	== Rival statements ==		== Rival statements ==

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

	<li ~~class~~=~~"field_ML" data-qid~~="28,85~~" value~~="2885~~" data-dimension="S">~~to each according to his work (Lenin) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,85\|9k]])		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/ML\|Q=28,85\|Q2=2885}}to each according to his work (Lenin) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,85\|9k]])

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

Reversedragon: To get to abundance people just have to make a bunch of stuff (Kropotkin)

2026-03-28T02:57:40Z

To get to abundance people just have to make a bunch of stuff (Kropotkin)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:57, 28 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~<!--~~ == ~~Ontology entry ==~~		{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=Wealth gets rid of poverty\|User=RD\|E=Q28,83}}
	~~{{HueNumberPreview~~\|E=Q28,83}}		== Proposition ==
			{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

	-->== ~~Proposition~~ ==		<li class="field_nations" data-qid="28,83" value="2883" data-dimension="F2">Wealth gets rid of poverty / to each according to his work (Toryism) -> no. the limited nature of wealth creates wealth, so wealth doesn't even exist unless somebody doesn't have it. small capitalism relies on the lack of things for anybody to keep creating things. if creating wealth got rid of poverty we'd just all create a bit of stuff and then all capitalism everywhere would stop and we'd have an era of communism. it would definitely make things a lot easier for {{em\|me}} but it's not how it works. it's more accurate to say creating wealth brings one person closer to life and a lot of people closer to death. say you live in 1930. every time Stalin's government sets a quota on a factory and the factory makes something, but somebody else is suffering and can hardly have it, there is wealth. that's how wealth works, and that's what it is. it isn't "hard work". it isn't stocks going up. it isn't one big stack of freedom you get after you have a lot of freedom and use it right. it isn't one big stack of race you earn after you get up and go to race all day — as much as that's oddly closer to true than a lot of Tory definitions. wealth is what brings temporary acceptance from others because you have out-survived them at something despite what prejudices they may have about you, but an acceptance which isn't permanent and could go away tomorrow the moment you aren't better than somebody else.<br />
			I guess this goes on the surprisingly-long list of "[[User:RD/9k/Q28,84\|Tory statements that could have come out of Stalin]] and horrified all Tories far more than when they said it themselves even though it means the same thing".

			</li></ol>

			== Allied statements ==

	~~<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude>~~<ol ~~start="900"~~ class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	<li class="~~field_nations~~" data-qid="~~28,83~~" value="~~2883~~" data-dimension="F2">~~Wealth gets rid of poverty /~~ to ~~each according~~ to ~~his work (Toryism)~~ -> no. the ~~limited nature of wealth creates wealth~~, ~~so wealth doesn't~~ even ~~exist unless somebody doesn't~~ have ~~it. small capitalism relies on the lack of things for anybody to keep creating things. if creating wealth got rid of poverty we'd just all create a bit of stuff~~ and ~~then all capitalism everywhere would stop~~ and ~~we'd have an era of communism~~. ~~it would definitely make things a lot easier for <em>me~~</em> ~~but it~~'s ~~not how it~~ works. it's ~~more accurate to say creating wealth brings one person closer to life~~ and a ~~lot~~ of ~~people closer~~ to ~~death.~~ say ~~you live in 1930. every time Stalin~~'s ~~government sets a quota on a factory~~ and the ~~factory makes something, but somebody else~~ is ~~suffering~~ and ~~can hardly have~~ it~~, there is wealth. that~~'s how ~~wealth works~~, and that~~'s what it is. it isn't "hard work". it isn't stocks going~~ up. ~~it isn't one big stack of freedom you get after you have~~ a ~~lot of freedom and use it right~~. it ~~isn~~'t one big ~~stack~~ of ~~race you earn after you get up~~ and ~~go to race~~ all ~~day — as much as that~~'~~s oddly closer to true than a lot of Tory definitions~~. ~~wealth is what brings temporary acceptance from others because you have out-survived them at something despite what prejudices they may have about you, but an acceptance which~~ isn't ~~permanent~~ and ~~could go away tomorrow the moment you aren~~'~~t better than somebody else~~.~~<br />~~		<li class="field_anarchy" data-qid="618" value="618" data-dimension="S2">To get to abundance people just have to make a bunch of stuff -> Peter Kropotkin and the small to medium-size product warehouses.<br/>
	~~I guess this goes on the surprisingly-long list of "~~[[~~User~~:~~RD/9k/Q28~~,84\|~~Tory statements that could have come out of Stalin~~]] ~~and horrified all Tories far more than when they said it themselves even though it means the same thing"~~.		I think this is a subtly different proposition from the Tory one because it actually invokes labor, while like, the Tories are not even thinking, they just think you can have money and order workers around and you get more money.<br/>
			that's some kind of difference between finance capitalists and small producers or something; this Socialist-Revolutionary kind of thinking where any tiny producer equals a worker if there is no dominating force in the same structure. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/nov/01.htm] Kropotkin was probably influenced a little bit by the peasant economy and tiny producers actually present in Russia. it's weird how there is so little difference between the narodniks, SRs, and anarchism at some moments. the similarities in these ideologies alone feel like a small straw of evidence for the way Lenin and Stalin would tend to say there's little difference between all small producers and one of the only differences is whether historically they've built larger business territories and turned somebody into a modern capitalist yet. it's funny how there are almost just two ideologies, crimson ideology that leads to workers and larger business territories consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat, and strawberry ideology that mistakenly thinks classes that came before workers or popped up sideways to workers and are smaller than capitalist territories are workers and subsequently tears apart the dictatorship of the proletariat and allows capitalism. there is such a {{em\|continuum in content}} from SRs to Kropotkin to [[User:RD/9k/Q22,13\|Yaroshenko]] to Deng Xiaoping Thought, the only major difference is the structures improperly conflated with workers keep getting bigger. one day it's undeveloped peasant villages, one day China is one big 'relation of production' and all the corporations are its 'productive forces'. even when strawberry ideology isn't [[E:Fisherism (meta-Marxism onto Western Marxism)\|stupid and non-Materialist]] and actually has some Materialist thinking and productive forces in it it's weirdly dangerous. China's strawberry 'single production relation' is like, small producers in charge slowly collecting big producers to secure small capitalist interests, a [[Ontology:Q54,88\|{{caps\|Wasp}} Swarm]] in very slow motion instead of going fast.

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

	== Rival statements ==		== Rival statements ==
Line 21:		Line 28:
	== Ideology codes ==		== Ideology codes ==

	* ~~(none)~~		* PT / Toryism
			* A / anarchism
			* A / Kropotkinism
			* ?? / Socialist-Revolutionaries
			* DX / Yaroshenkoism
			* ML / mainstream Marxism-Leninism

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

	[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]] ~~{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=Wealth gets rid of poverty\|User=RD\|E=Q28,83}}~~ <!-- page ends here. TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming		[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]] <!-- page ends here. TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming
	redirects: [[User:RD/9k/Q2883]]		redirects: [[User:RD/9k/Q2883]] [[User:RD/9k/Q28,83]]
	duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|9k/Q28,83]] -->		duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|9k/Q28,83]] -->

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q2883 to User:RD/9k/Q28,83: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

2026-01-19T04:20:26Z

Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q2883 to User:RD/9k/Q28,83: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

← Older revision	Revision as of 04:20, 19 January 2026
(No difference)

Reversedragon: copy markup from 9k/Q28,83

2026-01-19T04:19:47Z

copy markup from 9k/Q28,83

New page

== Proposition ==

<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol start="900" class="hue clean">

<li class="field_nations" data-qid="28,83" value="2883" data-dimension="F2">Wealth gets rid of poverty / to each according to his work (Toryism) -> no. the limited nature of wealth creates wealth, so wealth doesn't even exist unless somebody doesn't have it. small capitalism relies on the lack of things for anybody to keep creating things. if creating wealth got rid of poverty we'd just all create a bit of stuff and then all capitalism everywhere would stop and we'd have an era of communism. it would definitely make things a lot easier for <em>me</em> but it's not how it works. it's more accurate to say creating wealth brings one person closer to life and a lot of people closer to death. say you live in 1930. every time Stalin's government sets a quota on a factory and the factory makes something, but somebody else is suffering and can hardly have it, there is wealth. that's how wealth works, and that's what it is. it isn't "hard work". it isn't stocks going up. it isn't one big stack of freedom you get after you have a lot of freedom and use it right. it isn't one big stack of race you earn after you get up and go to race all day — as much as that's oddly closer to true than a lot of Tory definitions. wealth is what brings temporary acceptance from others because you have out-survived them at something despite what prejudices they may have about you, but an acceptance which isn't permanent and could go away tomorrow the moment you aren't better than somebody else.<br />
I guess this goes on the surprisingly-long list of "[[User:RD/9k/Q28,84|Tory statements that could have come out of Stalin]] and horrified all Tories far more than when they said it themselves even though it means the same thing".

</ol>

== Rival statements ==

<ol class="hue clean">

<li class="field_ML" data-qid="28,85" value="2885" data-dimension="S">to each according to his work (Lenin) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,85|9k]])

</li></ol>

== Ideology codes ==

* (none)

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

[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]] {{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Wealth gets rid of poverty|User=RD|E=Q28,83}}