Jump to content

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q43,50: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From LithoGraphica
Newer edit →
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
16,829 edits
copy markup from Q43,50
 
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
16,829 edits
a more democratic distribution of property
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:


{{li|start=y|I=S2/IV|Q=43,50|Q2=4350|h4-rem=}}Trotskyism and postmodernism  ->  the ICFI has a lot to say about this... and so do I. this is going to be a long page.
{{li|start=y|I=S2/IV|Q=43,50|Q2=4350|h4-rem=}}Trotskyism and postmodernism  ->  the ICFI has a lot to say about this... and so do I. this is going to be a long page.
</li></ol>
== Soviet Union is over ==
<ol class="hue clean">
{{li|start=y|I=S2/LR|Q=43,50|Q2=4350|h4-rem=}}If the Soviet bureaucracy has destroyed state capitalism, then ordinary capitalism will get rid of the bureaucracy [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/fi-18-1/21.html]  ->  ...this is Menshevism, isn't it? it's in a different form than you usually see it. but it's this weird confidence in Liberal-republicanism to transform society in any way somebody wants. aggressive Menshevism.
{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618|Q2=618|h4-rem=}}a more democratic distribution of property [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/fi-18-1/21.html]  ->  no. that is a totally wrong use of the word "democracy" and is not how anything works. even Yanis Varoufakis knows this isn't how anything works, because he admits that distribution of property is totally arbitrary and isn't even "fair".
{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618|Q2=618|h4-rem=}}we were so full of hope; how long ago that already seems [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/fi-18-1/21.html]
{{li|I=F2/LR|Q=618|Q2=618|h4-rem=}}Trotsky was {{caps|Not}} a communist [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/fi-18-1/21.html]  ->  god I thought I was joking when I summarized people's views as this. seems like there really were articles people wrote that sounded very close to this.
</li></ol>
== Marxism is over ==
<ol class="hue clean">
{{li|start=y|I=S2/LR|Q=49,93|Q2=4993|h4-rem=}}[[E:Q49,93|Leninism is over but "Marxism" is not]]  ->  I'm half convinced that every time somebody implies this (and isn't from China, Cuba, or Vietnam) that it's literally just a way to sneak in Existentialism and deceive people into believing all the things smaller than Liberalism and capitalism that ultimately reconstruct capitalism. half the time I laugh at this one and half the time I get angry, because it tends to trap people in this loop of insisting that if you don't believe Marxism can be used to purge people of all incorrect beliefs and create a perfect society full of nice people {{em|before}} getting rid of capitalism you're racist, while due to the actual [[E:structural racism|material definition]] of capitalism, if they believe it it makes them absolutely, absolutely incapable of stopping people from becoming racist, digging them deeper and deeper into this hole they can never get out of.
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618|Q2=618|h4-rem=}}Unpredictable equals undetermined / A proper economic theory must respect the idea that the rules of the undetermined are themselves undetermined (Yanis Varoufakis) / Scientific knowledge of the workings of the capitalist economy and the development of a practice based on that knowledge are impossible (WSWS onto Varoufakis) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/28/varo-f28.html] / ({{9k|RD/Q1980}})  ->  ... on the bright side, if this is true, a proper theory of economics has to just accept that Communist revolution happened in another country purely because you couldn't control it. most of what happens in a Communist revolution isn't engineered by Stalin or Mao, so it's undetermined, right? and that means you can't place rules on whether it will happen or not. I bet you love that outcome.
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618|Q2=618|h4-rem=}}Marx did not regulate other Marxists / Marx showed no concern that his disciples, people with a better grasp of these powerful ideas than the average worker, might use the power bestowed upon them via Marx's own ideas (sic; methods, frameworks, models) in order to abuse other comrades, to build their own power base to gain positions of influence (Yanis Varoufakis) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/28/varo-f28.html]  -><br/>
okay, sure. but let's put this into perspective. are you saying Stalin "abused other comrades", that "Trotsky abused other comrades", both, or neither? there's a huge difference between all of those. if this statement is true how do you know {{em|you}} aren't knowingly abusing other comrades?! you know about Marx's "ideas" but you're blatantly misusing them. so there's a decent argument that that in and of itself is abusing workers
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618|Q2=618|h4-rem=}}Menshevism can eliminate the surplus-value gap by getting rid of the difference between labor and the amount paid for labor / If workers and employers ever succeed in commodifying labour fully (sic; labor commodity, labor as it exists before wages; paying for labor fully), then capitalism will perish (Yanis Varoufakis) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/28/varo-f28.html]  ->  wow! that's a tall claim. probably not true, given how capitalists always have control over how many compromises they make. throw this claim at Stalin's party and you're many times closer to being right
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618|Q2=618|h4-rem=}}Yanis Varoufakis is a Menshevik [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/28/varo-f28.html] / Yanis Varoufakis believes the blue-Gramscian model, which is more or less equivalent to Menshevism, and does not require him to abandon anticommunism
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618|Q2=618|h4-rem=}}Varoufakis is counter-revolutionary / Yanis Varoufakis is against proletarian revolution [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/28/varo-f28.html]  ->  it's kind of funny that I don't even need to quote anyone else and I can just quote him verbatim if I found the right quote
</li></ol>
== Marxism is over ==
<ol class="hue clean">
{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618|h4-rem=}}Postmodernism is the shovel dream of capitalist competition [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/28/varo-f28.html]  ->  I bet I've already recorded this one, but hey, it's important
{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=18,87|Q2=1887|h4= The Confederacy contained class rule }} / There was an initial class rule inside the Confederate States of America / ({{9k|RD/Q1920}})  ->  in the North / the "Union" there is an initial class rule of capitalists, which isn't complete but is forming. in the South / Confederacy there is an initial class rule of plantation owners. ... the initial class rule inside each of them is basically the same thing. ... when the U.S. Civil War happens, if the North takes over, the status of the United States as filled with initial class rule doesn't go away. it changes from one kind of initial class rule into another kind of initial class rule, but in a way, it's still there. ... I have overcomplicated this at times. ...
{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=618|Q2=618|h4-rem=}}Postmodernism is the status of Liberal-republicans not having a coherent narrative of Communist parties as much as it is the other way around, or more so  ->  this came up while writing "[[Research:MDem/5.4r/0999 north-letter|north-letter]]". I think it's very relevant here.<br/>
is this violet? it strikes me as something I'd say only after I figured out that I didn't have a coherent 'narrative' of Trotskyism myself. I think this one is orange.
{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=618|Q2=618|h4-rem=}}Postmodernism is nothing more than a crisis of revolutionary leadership
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618|h4-rem=}}Media representation unravels postmodernism / Media Representation for minority demographics is mutually exclusive with postmodernism  ->  I'll say it again. you cannot both believe that a narrative story can teach people not to be prejudiced against Black people or trans people or Black trans women, and that nobody can enforce narratives onto people. read that again. postmodernism is 100% a license to be racist. quite literally. no exaggeration. and Media Representation is not. only one of those can win.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618|h4-rem=}}No peace without narratives / There is no peace without narratives / There is no pacifism without narratives  ->  a claim that postmodernism is fundamentally violent and genocidal and it cannot be otherwise.<br/>
Nature is unkind + Unpredictable equals undetermined = No peace without narratives.
{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618|Q2=618|h4-rem=}}The revolutionary party can lead the proletariat out of crises of capitalism and spontaneous action to the overthrow of capitalism [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/28/varo-f28.html]
{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=618|Q2=618|h4-rem=}}Regenerating the soviets is only possible based on the nationalized property relations created at the beginning of socialism (Trotsky) [https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/fi-18-1/21.html]  ->  okay. I was so confused about this because I halfway thought he was saying you had to create soviets to create the nationalized property relations in the first place, and so I was confused where the soviets were coming from, but this makes a lot more sense. taking out bourgeois class rule is hard because everything is connected but when it goes you have the state businesses and the soviets.
</li></ol>
== Working class is international ==
<ol class="hue clean">
{{li|start=y|I=S2/IV|Q=618|Q2=618|h4-rem=}}The proletariat can only exist world historically / The proletariat can thus only exist world historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a 'world-historical' existence (Marx, The German Ideology) / Marx believed in international permanent revolution (sense) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/28/varo-f28.html] <!-- [German Ideology, pp.46, 48] -->  ->  what does this mean?<br/>
now, on one hand, when it comes to Lenin and Stalin and Trotsky it always helps to take what they say really literally using the concrete conditions of the Soviet Union as your guide to what is literal. but... I'm not sure if this is being taken literally in the right way or not.


</li></ol>
</li></ol>
Line 22: Line 84:
{{li|start=y
{{li|start=y
     |I=Z1/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|LR|L-R}} / Liberal-republicanism
     |I=Z1/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|LR|L-R}} / Liberal-republicanism
{{li|I=S1/YR|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|YR|Ya-Rho}} / Idealist economics
</li></ol>
</li></ol>


Revision as of 12:11, 13 August 2026

Main entry

  1. Trotskyism and postmodernism -> the ICFI has a lot to say about this... and so do I. this is going to be a long page.

Soviet Union is over

  1. If the Soviet bureaucracy has destroyed state capitalism, then ordinary capitalism will get rid of the bureaucracy [1] -> ...this is Menshevism, isn't it? it's in a different form than you usually see it. but it's this weird confidence in Liberal-republicanism to transform society in any way somebody wants. aggressive Menshevism.
  2. a more democratic distribution of property [2] -> no. that is a totally wrong use of the word "democracy" and is not how anything works. even Yanis Varoufakis knows this isn't how anything works, because he admits that distribution of property is totally arbitrary and isn't even "fair".
  3. we were so full of hope; how long ago that already seems [3]
  4. Trotsky was Not a communist [4] -> god I thought I was joking when I summarized people's views as this. seems like there really were articles people wrote that sounded very close to this.

Marxism is over

  1. Leninism is over but "Marxism" is not -> I'm half convinced that every time somebody implies this (and isn't from China, Cuba, or Vietnam) that it's literally just a way to sneak in Existentialism and deceive people into believing all the things smaller than Liberalism and capitalism that ultimately reconstruct capitalism. half the time I laugh at this one and half the time I get angry, because it tends to trap people in this loop of insisting that if you don't believe Marxism can be used to purge people of all incorrect beliefs and create a perfect society full of nice people before getting rid of capitalism you're racist, while due to the actual material definition of capitalism, if they believe it it makes them absolutely, absolutely incapable of stopping people from becoming racist, digging them deeper and deeper into this hole they can never get out of.
  2. Unpredictable equals undetermined / A proper economic theory must respect the idea that the rules of the undetermined are themselves undetermined (Yanis Varoufakis) / Scientific knowledge of the workings of the capitalist economy and the development of a practice based on that knowledge are impossible (WSWS onto Varoufakis) [5] / (9k) -> ... on the bright side, if this is true, a proper theory of economics has to just accept that Communist revolution happened in another country purely because you couldn't control it. most of what happens in a Communist revolution isn't engineered by Stalin or Mao, so it's undetermined, right? and that means you can't place rules on whether it will happen or not. I bet you love that outcome.
  3. Marx did not regulate other Marxists / Marx showed no concern that his disciples, people with a better grasp of these powerful ideas than the average worker, might use the power bestowed upon them via Marx's own ideas (sic; methods, frameworks, models) in order to abuse other comrades, to build their own power base to gain positions of influence (Yanis Varoufakis) [6] ->
    okay, sure. but let's put this into perspective. are you saying Stalin "abused other comrades", that "Trotsky abused other comrades", both, or neither? there's a huge difference between all of those. if this statement is true how do you know you aren't knowingly abusing other comrades?! you know about Marx's "ideas" but you're blatantly misusing them. so there's a decent argument that that in and of itself is abusing workers
  4. Menshevism can eliminate the surplus-value gap by getting rid of the difference between labor and the amount paid for labor / If workers and employers ever succeed in commodifying labour fully (sic; labor commodity, labor as it exists before wages; paying for labor fully), then capitalism will perish (Yanis Varoufakis) [7] -> wow! that's a tall claim. probably not true, given how capitalists always have control over how many compromises they make. throw this claim at Stalin's party and you're many times closer to being right
  5. Yanis Varoufakis is a Menshevik [8] / Yanis Varoufakis believes the blue-Gramscian model, which is more or less equivalent to Menshevism, and does not require him to abandon anticommunism
  6. Varoufakis is counter-revolutionary / Yanis Varoufakis is against proletarian revolution [9] -> it's kind of funny that I don't even need to quote anyone else and I can just quote him verbatim if I found the right quote

Marxism is over

  1. Postmodernism is the shovel dream of capitalist competition [10] -> I bet I've already recorded this one, but hey, it's important

  2. The Confederacy contained class rule

    / There was an initial class rule inside the Confederate States of America / (9k) -> in the North / the "Union" there is an initial class rule of capitalists, which isn't complete but is forming. in the South / Confederacy there is an initial class rule of plantation owners. ... the initial class rule inside each of them is basically the same thing. ... when the U.S. Civil War happens, if the North takes over, the status of the United States as filled with initial class rule doesn't go away. it changes from one kind of initial class rule into another kind of initial class rule, but in a way, it's still there. ... I have overcomplicated this at times. ...
  3. Postmodernism is the status of Liberal-republicans not having a coherent narrative of Communist parties as much as it is the other way around, or more so -> this came up while writing "north-letter". I think it's very relevant here.
    is this violet? it strikes me as something I'd say only after I figured out that I didn't have a coherent 'narrative' of Trotskyism myself. I think this one is orange.
  4. Postmodernism is nothing more than a crisis of revolutionary leadership
  5. Media representation unravels postmodernism / Media Representation for minority demographics is mutually exclusive with postmodernism -> I'll say it again. you cannot both believe that a narrative story can teach people not to be prejudiced against Black people or trans people or Black trans women, and that nobody can enforce narratives onto people. read that again. postmodernism is 100% a license to be racist. quite literally. no exaggeration. and Media Representation is not. only one of those can win.
  6. No peace without narratives / There is no peace without narratives / There is no pacifism without narratives -> a claim that postmodernism is fundamentally violent and genocidal and it cannot be otherwise.
    Nature is unkind + Unpredictable equals undetermined = No peace without narratives.
  7. The revolutionary party can lead the proletariat out of crises of capitalism and spontaneous action to the overthrow of capitalism [11]
  8. Regenerating the soviets is only possible based on the nationalized property relations created at the beginning of socialism (Trotsky) [12] -> okay. I was so confused about this because I halfway thought he was saying you had to create soviets to create the nationalized property relations in the first place, and so I was confused where the soviets were coming from, but this makes a lot more sense. taking out bourgeois class rule is hard because everything is connected but when it goes you have the state businesses and the soviets.

Working class is international

  1. The proletariat can only exist world historically / The proletariat can thus only exist world historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a 'world-historical' existence (Marx, The German Ideology) / Marx believed in international permanent revolution (sense) [13] -> what does this mean?
    now, on one hand, when it comes to Lenin and Stalin and Trotsky it always helps to take what they say really literally using the concrete conditions of the Soviet Union as your guide to what is literal. but... I'm not sure if this is being taken literally in the right way or not.

Related

Ideologies or fields

  1. pronounced L-R / Liberal-republicanism
  2. pronounced Ya-Rho / Idealist economics
Retrieved from "https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q43,50&oldid=45083"