Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q41,17: Difference between revisions
copy markup from Q42,17 |
m Marx was actually a meta-Marxist / Marxism already is meta-Leninism |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"><!-- inactive: {{int:hue-ixn-classname-DFy}} --> | {{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"><!-- inactive: {{int:hue-ixn-classname-DFy}} --> | ||
{{li|start=y|I=F2/ML|Q=41,17|Q2=4117}}Marxism already is meta-Leninism / ({{9k|RD/Q19,10}}) -> | {{li|start=y|I=F2/ML|tradition=ML|Q=41,17|Q2=4117}}Marxism already is meta-Leninism / Dialectical materialism is not only a theory of Stalinism (era of socialism, sense Stalin; socialist transition, Stalin; Material System of Bolshevism, Stalin; crimson socialism; [[EC:9k/RD/Q90 apparent form of Marxism|apparent era of socialism]]) / ({{9k|RD/Q19,10}}) -><br/> | ||
Stalin says dialectical materialism 'is not only the theory of socialism'. by socialism he almost certainly means [[E:Material System of Bolshevism (meta-Marxism)|the realization of Bolshevism]], because that's what they did post-1910, and he brings up the dictatorship-of-the-proletariat multiple times, suggesting this is the only real way forward. but you can already see the contradiction here. he says dialectical materialism isn't only a theory of how to realize Bolshevism, but he dismantles any possibility of realizing anarchism ([[EC:9k/RD/Q19,10|at length]], granted. not saying he did a bad job) and gives what sounds like a dismissal of Deng Xiaoping Thought being socialism, as well as strongly implying that {{em|if you aren't realizing Bolshevism}} you aren't a revolutionary. doesn't that mean dialectical materialism {{em|is}} only the theory of socialism? he seems to be saying that you're only allowed to realize mainstream Marxism-Leninism or you're a risk to the Soviet Union, possibly but not certainly an enemy.<br/> | |||
I'm not really trying to defend early Trotskyism here because in practice they did nothing but crush socialism, but as for anarchism and [[E:Deng Xiaoping Thought|Deng Xiaoping Thought]], those are basically the only progressive movements still alive today. one of them trying to act like reformism is the best thing since sliced bread and everything gets better as long as everybody does it, one of them becoming the only form of workers' state that survives for a whole century and the only real way to have a Second World that chains multiple countries together like you really need if you want to defend an era of socialism. the power of First World countries to all chain together and crush a specific country was greatly underestimated, and these [[E:Deng Xiaoping Thought|strawberry]] compromises basically became mandatory just to try to buy enough time to chain countries together without getting pulverized first. it's like.... they thought the proletariat exists but in reality you have to successfully join populations together {{em|as nationalities}} before you have a proletariat and don't have to rely on hiding a herd of cats behind the bourgeoisie. or something.<br/> | I'm not really trying to defend early Trotskyism here because in practice they did nothing but crush socialism, but as for anarchism and [[E:Deng Xiaoping Thought|Deng Xiaoping Thought]], those are basically the only progressive movements still alive today. one of them trying to act like reformism is the best thing since sliced bread and everything gets better as long as everybody does it, one of them becoming the only form of workers' state that survives for a whole century and the only real way to have a Second World that chains multiple countries together like you really need if you want to defend an era of socialism. the power of First World countries to all chain together and crush a specific country was greatly underestimated, and these [[E:Deng Xiaoping Thought|strawberry]] compromises basically became mandatory just to try to buy enough time to chain countries together without getting pulverized first. it's like.... they thought the proletariat exists but in reality you have to successfully join populations together {{em|as nationalities}} before you have a proletariat and don't have to rely on hiding a herd of cats behind the bourgeoisie. or something.<br/> | ||
it's false when Marx says it because he couldn't predict Trotskyism and it's false when Stalin says it because he couldn't predict Deng Xiaoping Thought. but both of these Marxisms exist and attempt to organize workers or integrated Third World populations. you need [[E:meta-Marxism|violet Marxism]] to properly understand that multiple countable instances of Marxism with different inner workings exist and they develop in different ways but you still need them to work together because them getting divided from each other while groups of Liberal-republican countries or mountains of capital can still unite is fatal. | it's false when Marx says it because he couldn't predict Trotskyism and it's false when Stalin says it because he couldn't predict Deng Xiaoping Thought. but both of these Marxisms exist and attempt to organize workers or integrated Third World populations. you need [[E:meta-Marxism|violet Marxism]] to properly understand that multiple countable instances of Marxism with different inner workings exist and they develop in different ways but you still need them to work together because them getting divided from each other while groups of Liberal-republican countries or mountains of capital can still unite is fatal. | ||
{{li|I=F2/ML|tradition=W|Q=41,17|Q2=4117}}Marxism already is meta-Leninism / Marxism is not an "ideology" with a dialectic between Marxist ideology and Marxist science / Marxism (all Marxist or Leninist theory) is not defined by practical Communist struggle, but by the theory that studies how to keep it from disintegrating / ({{9k|RD/Q21,29}}) -><br/> | |||
see, when I first found out about Marxism this is what I believed. then I learned that Trotskyism existed, and read in depth about why people believed it and clung to it, and I was like. huh. I guess what people always assumed about Marxism-Leninism itself being a science just isn't correct, given that individual parties and rival Marxist factions inevitably contain their own party programs which are ideology. at a certain point Leninism stood up and took the place of Marxism, and it undermined anyone doing Marxism as a science that would be able to see outside all ideologies including potential Marxist errors solely to material processes governing movements, transitions, and so forth. so we really have to start over and separate meta-Marxism (violet Marxism) from Leninism ([[E:mainstream Marxism-Leninism|crimson Marxism]], [[E:Trotskyism|orange Marxism]], [[E:BlackPantherism|mauve Marxism]] if that's its own thing) so we can examine the material processes of country development inside each Leninism/Bolshevism.<br/> | |||
as for Althusser.... I think what he's trying to do is fold Marxism inside Leninism?? he's saying that Marxism is the simulation of real movements acting on the ground ("practical theory"), but that would be Leninism. then he says that analysis and party programs are separate things ("science versus ideology and philosophy") so that Marxist theory can take the simulated Leninism and correct the real Leninism. but he says a couple of things that make me think he doesn't separate Marxism and Leninism. which logically should make any party he's part of vulnerable to sectarian fracturing, because thinking that simulations of Leninism can go back and correct Leninism without the Leninism on the ground just one day saying "yeah, no, I'm going to go get my own separate simulations, bye" is what Trotskyism does, and it keeps pointlessly attacking other Marxisms and splitting. | |||
{{li|I=F2/W|tradition=MX, W onto ML|Q=618}}Marx was actually a meta-Marxist / Marx believed in meta-Marxism, not in Marxism or Leninism / Engels was actually a meta-Marxist / ({{9k|RD/Q21,29}}) -> I floated this one once not necessarily standing by it; Althusser also effectively said it. I'm pinning the blame on Althusser because he actually believed it somewhat seriously despite not having a very good formulation of what meta-Marxism is. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
| Line 12: | Line 19: | ||
<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"> | <ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"> | ||
{{li|start=y|I= | {{li|start=y|I=Z1/ML|Q=19,10|Q2=1910|rem=20k words}}{{book|Anarchism or Socialism?}} (Stalin 1906) / ({{9k|RD/Q19,10}}) -> book in which Stalin attempts to explain dialectical materialism. | ||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
== Ideologies or fields == | == Ideologies or fields == | ||
<ol class="hue clean terse {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"> | <ol class="hue clean terse {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"> | ||
{{li|start=y | {{li|start=y | ||
|I=Z1/IV |Q=41,04|Q2=4104}}{{TTS|IV|Fourth}} / Trotskyism | |I=S1/STM|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|STM|Stem}} / natural philosophy | ||
</li></ol | {{li|I=S1/MN |Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|MN|M.N.}} / natural philosophy of societies | ||
{{li|I=S1/ML |Q=44,43|Q2=4443}}{{TTS|ML|M-L}} / Stalinism as meta-Marxism | |||
{{li|I=Z1/IV |Q=41,04|Q2=4104}}{{TTS|IV|Fourth}} / Trotskyism | |||
{{li|I=Z1/W |Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|W|West}} / Althusser | |||
</li></ol> | |||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
== Wavebuilder combinations == | == Wavebuilder combinations == | ||
| Line 29: | Line 39: | ||
</dl> --> | </dl> --> | ||
== Errors == | |||
<!-- | |||
<references group="error"> | |||
<ref name="a"></ref> | |||
</references> | |||
== External links == | |||
<references> | |||
<ref name="a">No!</ref> | |||
</references> | |||
--> | |||
== Subpages or related scraps == | == Subpages or related scraps == | ||
Revision as of 01:36, 29 August 2026
Main entry
- Marxism already is meta-Leninism / Dialectical materialism is not only a theory of Stalinism (era of socialism, sense Stalin; socialist transition, Stalin; Material System of Bolshevism, Stalin; crimson socialism; apparent era of socialism) / (9k) ->
Stalin says dialectical materialism 'is not only the theory of socialism'. by socialism he almost certainly means the realization of Bolshevism, because that's what they did post-1910, and he brings up the dictatorship-of-the-proletariat multiple times, suggesting this is the only real way forward. but you can already see the contradiction here. he says dialectical materialism isn't only a theory of how to realize Bolshevism, but he dismantles any possibility of realizing anarchism (at length, granted. not saying he did a bad job) and gives what sounds like a dismissal of Deng Xiaoping Thought being socialism, as well as strongly implying that if you aren't realizing Bolshevism you aren't a revolutionary. doesn't that mean dialectical materialism is only the theory of socialism? he seems to be saying that you're only allowed to realize mainstream Marxism-Leninism or you're a risk to the Soviet Union, possibly but not certainly an enemy.
I'm not really trying to defend early Trotskyism here because in practice they did nothing but crush socialism, but as for anarchism and Deng Xiaoping Thought, those are basically the only progressive movements still alive today. one of them trying to act like reformism is the best thing since sliced bread and everything gets better as long as everybody does it, one of them becoming the only form of workers' state that survives for a whole century and the only real way to have a Second World that chains multiple countries together like you really need if you want to defend an era of socialism. the power of First World countries to all chain together and crush a specific country was greatly underestimated, and these strawberry compromises basically became mandatory just to try to buy enough time to chain countries together without getting pulverized first. it's like.... they thought the proletariat exists but in reality you have to successfully join populations together as nationalities before you have a proletariat and don't have to rely on hiding a herd of cats behind the bourgeoisie. or something.
it's false when Marx says it because he couldn't predict Trotskyism and it's false when Stalin says it because he couldn't predict Deng Xiaoping Thought. but both of these Marxisms exist and attempt to organize workers or integrated Third World populations. you need violet Marxism to properly understand that multiple countable instances of Marxism with different inner workings exist and they develop in different ways but you still need them to work together because them getting divided from each other while groups of Liberal-republican countries or mountains of capital can still unite is fatal. - Marxism already is meta-Leninism / Marxism is not an "ideology" with a dialectic between Marxist ideology and Marxist science / Marxism (all Marxist or Leninist theory) is not defined by practical Communist struggle, but by the theory that studies how to keep it from disintegrating / (9k) ->
see, when I first found out about Marxism this is what I believed. then I learned that Trotskyism existed, and read in depth about why people believed it and clung to it, and I was like. huh. I guess what people always assumed about Marxism-Leninism itself being a science just isn't correct, given that individual parties and rival Marxist factions inevitably contain their own party programs which are ideology. at a certain point Leninism stood up and took the place of Marxism, and it undermined anyone doing Marxism as a science that would be able to see outside all ideologies including potential Marxist errors solely to material processes governing movements, transitions, and so forth. so we really have to start over and separate meta-Marxism (violet Marxism) from Leninism (crimson Marxism, orange Marxism, mauve Marxism if that's its own thing) so we can examine the material processes of country development inside each Leninism/Bolshevism.
as for Althusser.... I think what he's trying to do is fold Marxism inside Leninism?? he's saying that Marxism is the simulation of real movements acting on the ground ("practical theory"), but that would be Leninism. then he says that analysis and party programs are separate things ("science versus ideology and philosophy") so that Marxist theory can take the simulated Leninism and correct the real Leninism. but he says a couple of things that make me think he doesn't separate Marxism and Leninism. which logically should make any party he's part of vulnerable to sectarian fracturing, because thinking that simulations of Leninism can go back and correct Leninism without the Leninism on the ground just one day saying "yeah, no, I'm going to go get my own separate simulations, bye" is what Trotskyism does, and it keeps pointlessly attacking other Marxisms and splitting. - Marx was actually a meta-Marxist / Marx believed in meta-Marxism, not in Marxism or Leninism / Engels was actually a meta-Marxist / (9k) -> I floated this one once not necessarily standing by it; Althusser also effectively said it. I'm pinning the blame on Althusser because he actually believed it somewhat seriously despite not having a very good formulation of what meta-Marxism is.
Related
- Anarchism or Socialism? (Stalin 1906) / (9k) -> book in which Stalin attempts to explain dialectical materialism.
Ideologies or fields
- / natural philosophy
- / natural philosophy of societies
- / Stalinism as meta-Marxism
- / Trotskyism
- / Althusser