User:RD/9k/Q28,85: Difference between revisions
m uneven opinions about reform period |
m Bolshevism isn't actually transition out of capitalism, but transition out of agorism |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
== Appearances == | == Appearances == | ||
<ol class="hue clean"> | <ol class="hue clean"> | ||
| Line 19: | Line 18: | ||
== Related statements == | == Related statements == | ||
<ol class="hue clean"> | <ol class="hue clean"> | ||
{{li|start=y|I=S2/DX|Q=618|Q2=618}}When China chopped up the country into corporations leading to uneven results, it naturally resulted in uneven opinions about the reform period {{YouTube|UZQPtmlPR80}} {{YouTube|vGFUAB3-GRY}} | {{li|start=y|I=S2/DX|Q=618|Q2=618}}When China chopped up the country into corporations leading to uneven results, it naturally resulted in uneven opinions about the reform period {{YouTube|UZQPtmlPR80}} {{YouTube|vGFUAB3-GRY}} | ||
{{li|I=S1/MX/Ag|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= paymentism }} (meta-Marxism) -> I need a name for the concept that people piling up a stack of economic value as individuals and paying somebody inherently stimulates everyone to grow the economy and be in harmony, as in Liberal capitalism, Bolshevism, and Deng Xiaoping Thought, as well as any number of agorisms that lead to Liberal-republicanism. specifically referring to This Thing as its own process that can be isolated and described and in the beginning operates like a metallic rule that can start with just a few people. specifically referring to a thing which is {{em|inside}} agorisms and {{em|inside}} capitalism, I have no idea what this thing is normally called, so a made-up word will have to do.<br/> | |||
hyperstructure (blockchain) + commodity production = paymentism. | |||
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}Everyone doing [[E:paymentism|what they want others to do]] unto them can lead to great disparities in wealth and income and ultimately lead to [[E:The existiest will rule|a few experts on existence and society-building dominating society]] and the destruction of Liberal-republicanism as every legal fiction of equality that originally created it is in practice destroyed and on the basis of what actually happened instead Liberal democracy simply cannot be rebuilt | |||
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Bolshevism isn't actually transition out of capitalism, but transition out of agorism / ({{9k|EC:9k/RD/Q618-SquareOfNonAggressiveActivities}}) | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
== Rival statements == | == Rival statements == | ||
<ol class="hue clean"> | <ol class="hue clean"> | ||
{{li|start=y|I=F2/PT|Q=28,83|Q2=2883}}Wealth gets rid of poverty / to each according to his work (Toryism) | {{li|start=y|I=F2/PT|Q=28,83|Q2=2883}}Wealth gets rid of poverty / to each according to his work (Toryism) | ||
{{li|I=S2/DX/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}The United States handing people in Africa water purifiers and trying to compel them to spontaneously create enough marketable products to repay the value is socialist transition ({{TTS|LR|Liberal-republicanism}} onto {{TTS|ML|Lenin}}) -> this statement is stupid on its face, but if you believed that socialist transition began {{em|specifically}} at people producing enough to pay for their existence if prices were low and not exorbitant, it would become hard to argue against this. to be fair, I am not sure if anybody actually believes that. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
Latest revision as of 02:15, 19 June 2026
Motif
- to each according to his work -> this always stuck out at me as odd because of the way it's exactly how markets work. I don't have any moral issues with it, but I find it theoretically confusing.
- in Bolshevism there is no absolute equality / absolute equalitarianism is the product of a small peasant economy; (in Bolshevism) there can be no absolute equality (Mao) [1]
Appearances
- The State and Revolution (Lenin 1918/1920) / (9k) -> motif appears in chapter 5. [2]
- On correcting mistaken ideas in the party (Mao 1929) [3]
Related statements
- When China chopped up the country into corporations leading to uneven results, it naturally resulted in uneven opinions about the reform period [4] [5]
paymentism
(meta-Marxism) -> I need a name for the concept that people piling up a stack of economic value as individuals and paying somebody inherently stimulates everyone to grow the economy and be in harmony, as in Liberal capitalism, Bolshevism, and Deng Xiaoping Thought, as well as any number of agorisms that lead to Liberal-republicanism. specifically referring to This Thing as its own process that can be isolated and described and in the beginning operates like a metallic rule that can start with just a few people. specifically referring to a thing which is inside agorisms and inside capitalism, I have no idea what this thing is normally called, so a made-up word will have to do.
hyperstructure (blockchain) + commodity production = paymentism.
- Everyone doing what they want others to do unto them can lead to great disparities in wealth and income and ultimately lead to a few experts on existence and society-building dominating society and the destruction of Liberal-republicanism as every legal fiction of equality that originally created it is in practice destroyed and on the basis of what actually happened instead Liberal democracy simply cannot be rebuilt
- Bolshevism isn't actually transition out of capitalism, but transition out of agorism / (9k)
Rival statements
- Wealth gets rid of poverty / to each according to his work (Toryism)
- The United States handing people in Africa water purifiers and trying to compel them to spontaneously create enough marketable products to repay the value is socialist transition ( onto ) -> this statement is stupid on its face, but if you believed that socialist transition began specifically at people producing enough to pay for their existence if prices were low and not exorbitant, it would become hard to argue against this. to be fair, I am not sure if anybody actually believes that.
Ideology codes
- (none)