User:RD/9k/Q22,13: Difference between revisions
copy markup from 9k/Q41,91 |
treating all bourgeoisie and granting nodes as workers (Yaroshenko) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean"> | {{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean"> | ||
{{li|start=y|I=S1/DX|Q=22,13|Q2=2213|h4 = Yaroshenkoism }} / pseudo-Marxist model that relations of production (class territories or industrial structures) are contained inside productive forces -> "late Dengism should be called Yaroshenkoism". oh man I love this. brutal, but I never had a name for this specific aspect of things before. so, unbelievably, I think Yaroshenko is going to start showing up in "Ideology codes" sections as one of the subdivisions of the "DX" code.<br/> | {{li|start=y|I=S1/DX|Q=22,13|Q2=2213|h4 = Yaroshenkoism }} / pseudo-Marxist model that relations of production (class territories or industrial structures) are contained inside productive forces instead of productive forces that include physical businesses and chunks of workers being contained inside relations of production in a contradictory relationship (1952) -> "late Dengism should be called Yaroshenkoism". [https://github.com/Red-Spectre/Info/blob/main/Against%20Dengism.md] [http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/EPS52.pdf] oh man I love this. brutal, but I never had a name for this specific aspect of things before. so, unbelievably, I think Yaroshenko is going to start showing up in "Ideology codes" sections as one of the subdivisions of the "DX" code.<br/> | ||
I think I can already vaguely start to see what his error is, because if everything was productive forces how would you know what structures they should be arranged into and which ones they shouldn't? Yaroshenko's model seems really mushy and hard to work with. even if it were somehow okay for economics you would never know if a dictatorship of the proletariat was achieved or not. and that isn't acceptable because even if you want to do "red anarchology", the minimum for that to be valid is you should be able to tell when countable areas of capitalism are over. | I think I can already vaguely start to see what his error is, because if everything was productive forces how would you know what structures they should be arranged into and which ones they shouldn't? Yaroshenko's model seems really mushy and hard to work with. even if it were somehow okay for economics you would never know if a dictatorship of the proletariat was achieved or not. and that isn't acceptable because even if you want to do "[[E:red anarchology (meta-Marxism)|red anarchology]]", the minimum for that to be valid is you should be able to tell when countable areas of capitalism are over. | ||
{{li|I=S1/DX|Q=22,13|Q2=2213}}Yaroshenkoism / treating all bourgeoisie and granting nodes as workers (Yaroshenko) -> so. if the class territories are not a cage around the productive forces, I think that basically implies that the bourgeoisie are workers, doesn't it? part of the reason you have to separate out the relations of production from the productive forces is to make it easier for the connected crimson Social-Philosophical System of workers to break out and create a dictatorship of the proletariat early on. while if you try to say they're the same thing you get some kind of confusing Gramscian account that the bourgeoisie can totally help a proletarian revolution develop and create a workers' state. by the time Yaroshenkoism gets to China it really does feel like what they've done is say the bourgeoisie can liberate China because the bourgeoisie are Basically workers as long as the corporation contains a bunch of workers. although they aren't. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
Revision as of 01:41, 21 March 2026
Main entry
Yaroshenkoism
/ pseudo-Marxist model that relations of production (class territories or industrial structures) are contained inside productive forces instead of productive forces that include physical businesses and chunks of workers being contained inside relations of production in a contradictory relationship (1952) -> "late Dengism should be called Yaroshenkoism". [1] [2] oh man I love this. brutal, but I never had a name for this specific aspect of things before. so, unbelievably, I think Yaroshenko is going to start showing up in "Ideology codes" sections as one of the subdivisions of the "DX" code.
I think I can already vaguely start to see what his error is, because if everything was productive forces how would you know what structures they should be arranged into and which ones they shouldn't? Yaroshenko's model seems really mushy and hard to work with. even if it were somehow okay for economics you would never know if a dictatorship of the proletariat was achieved or not. and that isn't acceptable because even if you want to do "red anarchology", the minimum for that to be valid is you should be able to tell when countable areas of capitalism are over.
- Yaroshenkoism / treating all bourgeoisie and granting nodes as workers (Yaroshenko) -> so. if the class territories are not a cage around the productive forces, I think that basically implies that the bourgeoisie are workers, doesn't it? part of the reason you have to separate out the relations of production from the productive forces is to make it easier for the connected crimson Social-Philosophical System of workers to break out and create a dictatorship of the proletariat early on. while if you try to say they're the same thing you get some kind of confusing Gramscian account that the bourgeoisie can totally help a proletarian revolution develop and create a workers' state. by the time Yaroshenkoism gets to China it really does feel like what they've done is say the bourgeoisie can liberate China because the bourgeoisie are Basically workers as long as the corporation contains a bunch of workers. although they aren't.
Related
Ideologies or fields
- DX / Yaroshenkoism
- DX / Deng Xiaoping Thought