User:RD/9k/Q26,92

Main entry

2692. 2692

      Marx going meta

      [1] / 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.

Cases

2134. 2134socio-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. [2] 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.
      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 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.
      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.
      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 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 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.

Ideology codes

1. S–83 (pronounced 83. (S))[ML] [S] (pronounced (ML) (S):) (83)ML / dialectical materialism1:-1:-1

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