Jump to content

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q19,19: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From LithoGraphica
← Older editNewer edit →
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
14,281 edits
To achieve accounting for everyone's consumption, people can be put into consumer cooperatives
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
14,281 edits
A soviet republic can apply all the best parts of the Taylor system without orienting it toward exploitation
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 22: Line 22:


{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}To achieve accounting for everyone's consumption, people can be put into consumer cooperatives; the richest can hand over a budget on their own
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}To achieve accounting for everyone's consumption, people can be put into consumer cooperatives; the richest can hand over a budget on their own
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}Putting a whole village or town (?) into a consumer cooperative, free of charge, would be a more favorable policy for the proletariat than allowing arbitrary owner cooperatives to exist and charge an entrance fee; this is to imply that it is an acceptable compromise when the cooperatives already exist and are willing to negotiate
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}A soviet republic can apply all the best parts of the Taylor system without orienting it toward exploitation  ->  he said a lot of words about the Taylor system. may as well note it down.


</li></ol>
</li></ol>
Line 29: Line 33:


{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX/W|Q=618}}Recruiting bourgeois specialists during proletarian revolution is valuable because they will likely be put to use in building up the new economy  ->  these events have some really interesting 'subtext' for how they apply to Gramscianism.
{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX/W|Q=618}}Recruiting bourgeois specialists during proletarian revolution is valuable because they will likely be put to use in building up the new economy  ->  these events have some really interesting 'subtext' for how they apply to Gramscianism.
{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=618}}consumer co-op as county / consumer co-op as fundamental unit of society  ->  this somehow never occurred to me and now that I finally noticed it I can see why for the longest time I was so confused. I was like, but don't workers always claim something, isn't there always something on the other end with the worker as the granting node and then the receiving node by which they both expand together, how do you stabilize chunks of workers when they're always chunk-competing. but Lenin had the answer. it's true that it's hard to separate out workers from the forces that lay them down where they are, but it's not true that those forces inevitably become the bourgeoisie. instead, the dialectical relationship between workers and founders and retailers is replaced with a back-and-forth relationship between workers and these consumer co-ops. god nothing made sense until I had that. now everything makes sense, or close.<br/>
god yeah, we have grounds to accuse anybody who conflates circles of businesses with "community" of having [[E:the colonizer attitude (anarchism)|The Colonizer Attitude]]. anarchists would be so angry, but explain to me why it's wrong. the process of individuals stating they can go found a ring of businesses and a town wherever they want to without the input of a consumer co-op is basically the heart of 1700s colonialism. so like, blue and strawberry anarchists are colonizers, change my mind.


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

Revision as of 00:17, 25 April 2026

Main entry

  1. The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government (Lenin 1918) [1]

Motifs or claims

  1. When a soviet socialist republic is sandwiched between competing empires, it's time to rebuild (Lenin 1918)
  2. The fight against the kulaks ends in creating the Bolshevik mono-structure ("raising the productivity of labor on the national scale", creating nation-wide "accounting"; Lenin 1918)
  3. Call using bourgeoisie a retreat / To conceal from the people the fact that recruiting bourgeois experts ("Careerists") with high salaries is a retreat from the standards of proletarian movements would be sinking to the level of bourgeois politicians and deceiving the people (Lenin 1918) -> wow, Lenin stirred up some absolute dirt on Deng Xiaoping Thought. I feel like Deng Xiaoping states conceal the significance of this kind of thing all the time. you'd think they'd be willing to say the word "retreat" rather than go on about the "socialist market economy" if they knew what they were talking about.
  4. Without proper development of the Bolshevik mono-structure which all goods pass through and which records and controls their distribution ("comprehensive state accounting and control of the production and distribution of goods"), the freedom of the working people cannot be maintained, and capitalism will be restored -> this seems like a really critical point. because it seems like it's saying that a country like China, Cuba, North Korea, or Vietnam having half the society be private businesses is a serious problem that halts socialist transition. or by some definitions is it; the mono-structure comes up in relation to the second transition to upper-phase communism too, in things like ultimately making it possible to get rid of money.
  5. Anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism are bourgeois trends, inasmuch as they resist state control and uphold private property and separate free-floating businesses as a fundamental right; in being irreconcilably opposed to forming a nation-wide Bolshevik mono-structure, they are irreconcilably opposed to socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat -> I am so glad when Marxist theorists say things like this because oh man anarchists are so annoying. they will come up with all these unreal distortions of property or dividing society being "fundamental human rights" and how separating people into tiny societies of one supposedly makes everybody respect each other and everybody is the same and classes cannot exist. none of it makes any sense and I cannot stand it. pretty much everything Lenin says makes vastly more coherent sense
    I think when the world is so screwed now you fundamentally have to find ways of referring to what Lenin calls "state control" without referring to a "state". we really live in an age of anarchism now, not an age of countries which just escaped feudalism, and there is this widespread misconception that ever thinking of people as being inside a state instead of only belonging to themselves and being free to pick on any other country or ethnic group is somehow "colonialism" or something. this is why I tend toward phrases like "Bolshevik mono-structure". if you can totally separate the things the state does from talking about a formal government and fool people into thinking they did it all "themselves" as free-floating individuals then maybe we still have a chance
  6. To achieve accounting for everyone's consumption, people can be put into consumer cooperatives; the richest can hand over a budget on their own
  7. Putting a whole village or town (?) into a consumer cooperative, free of charge, would be a more favorable policy for the proletariat than allowing arbitrary owner cooperatives to exist and charge an entrance fee; this is to imply that it is an acceptable compromise when the cooperatives already exist and are willing to negotiate
  8. A soviet republic can apply all the best parts of the Taylor system without orienting it toward exploitation -> he said a lot of words about the Taylor system. may as well note it down.

Subjective themes

  1. Recruiting bourgeois specialists during proletarian revolution is valuable because they will likely be put to use in building up the new economy -> these events have some really interesting 'subtext' for how they apply to Gramscianism.
  2. consumer co-op as county / consumer co-op as fundamental unit of society -> this somehow never occurred to me and now that I finally noticed it I can see why for the longest time I was so confused. I was like, but don't workers always claim something, isn't there always something on the other end with the worker as the granting node and then the receiving node by which they both expand together, how do you stabilize chunks of workers when they're always chunk-competing. but Lenin had the answer. it's true that it's hard to separate out workers from the forces that lay them down where they are, but it's not true that those forces inevitably become the bourgeoisie. instead, the dialectical relationship between workers and founders and retailers is replaced with a back-and-forth relationship between workers and these consumer co-ops. god nothing made sense until I had that. now everything makes sense, or close.
    god yeah, we have grounds to accuse anybody who conflates circles of businesses with "community" of having The Colonizer Attitude. anarchists would be so angry, but explain to me why it's wrong. the process of individuals stating they can go found a ring of businesses and a town wherever they want to without the input of a consumer co-op is basically the heart of 1700s colonialism. so like, blue and strawberry anarchists are colonizers, change my mind.

Related

Ideology codes

  1. pronounced 83. (S)pronounced (ML) (S): pronounced ML ⧼hue-ins-domain-spacer/⧽ML / dialectical materialism1-1-1
  2. pronounced 49,11. (Z)pronounced ⧼hue-philosophy-tts-/⧽ pronounced ⧼hue-philosophy-tts-/⧽ ⧼hue-ins-domain-spacer/⧽ML / Vladimir Leninpronounced ⧼hue-philosophy-tts-/⧽1-1-1
  • DX / Deng Xiaoping Thought
  • ML onto DX
Retrieved from "https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q19,19&oldid=42490"