User:NickelBank/RedSpectre/AgainstDengism

Against Dengism

organization

Bolshevik Organization (📥 (pronounced proposed) / ML)1:-1:-1

field, scope, or group [Item]

Z–41,03 (pronounced 41,03. (Z))[Z] (pronounced (Z):) ⧼Hue-ins-domain-spacer/⧽mainstream Marxism-Leninism(ML) (pronounced (ML))1:-1:-1

Nickel usage or significance

• (fill in later)

Motifs or claims

618. Socialist society is capable of loosening the relations of production before the productive forces collide with them in crisis because it does not include the obsolescent classes that could organize resistance (Stalin) [1] -> but because Deng Xiaoping Thought can absolutely fill up with bourgeoisie, they won't allow the class structures on the ground to be changed, is the implication.
618. opportunist party of China / central opportunist party of China -> the motif of characterizing the CPC as a party that has lost its principles with regard to filtration or building transition to an optimal mode of production, and
618. 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.
     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.
618. monopoly of foreign trade
618. Electric motors are the key to getting patriarchal farm production straight over into Bolshevism [2] -> this stuff has made it so much clearer what the difference between small capitalism, state capitalism, and central planning is
618. Why does a country with more GDP Per capita than the USSR still have poverty? [3] -> excellent question. might not be as straightforward as it seems.
618. Bourgeois Filaments naturally punish individual bourgeoisie for impeding the overall Filament (Stalin) [4] -> after all the stuff I have seen Existentialists say on supposedly non-economic issues I fully believe this. this really is just kind of how Existentialism operates before it fully realizes into Nazism or Liberal-republicanism.
618. Strawberry Marxisms are a form of nationalism / Creating a strawberry Marxism full of capitalists is not internationalism -> honestly. when China was so bad at seriously cooperating with other countries in any kind of way that would form a Communist International, I would entertain this. second, if Gramscianism and Deng Xiaoping Thought are similar to where the first might hypothetically realize the second, Gramscianism looks like a really small nationalism already, trying to defend particular tiny nationalities within a country erratically splitting into a bunch of nationalities. the concept that Dengism is only scarcely better than the KMT is not that upsetting to me.
618. The suggestions of the CPSU are not an order for China to submit to, despite the loss of the Communist International [5]
618. There is no uniquely Russian socialism (Stalin) / There is no uniquely Russian, English, French, German, Italian, or Chinese socialism because all of these country characteristics will enter Bolshevism if they sufficiently apply a particular set of laws; this is strongly implied to be the 'seven general laws of socialism' [6]
618. seven laws of transition to Bolshevism (Stalin) / seven general laws of socialism [7]
     1) workers lead the workers' state 2) expropriate every business of significant size 3) merge together all the capitalist banks into a state bank 4) coordinate the economy from a single center, but encourage everyone to produce to be rewarded according to work 5) replace all capitalist ideology with Marxist-Leninist ideology 6) army sufficient to defend the country 7) be ready to kill or get rid of counter-revolutionaries who would help the bourgeoisie or foreign countries crack the country open
     as far as I know... the ones the Soviet Union failed at were 4 and 5. everything else was going great up to 1953. one of the biggest problems that fed into everything else was that it was genuinely hard to get people to take up initiative to build various parts of the country just because. the very boring parts of 'socially necessary labor' surrounding WWII were part of that but not all of it.
618. Modes of production do not have country characteristics -> I think this is what Stalin is really saying when he says there is only one socialism. it goes back to this concept of feudal orders always doing the same basic things, and capitalism always doing the same basic things. so to him, the things that happen after capitalism are specific repeated patterns that in every country will always do the same basic things. and I don't have any problem with that. my only real question is if there are multiple possible patterns instead of one. I agree Bolshevism is basically just one thing and there is nothing really stopping it happening in China and Vietnam given the right industrial structures to build the new mode of production. I just wonder if postcapitalisms can be plural. or alternatively if Stalin had the scale wrong the entire time. it takes socialism-in-one-country and carefully watching a country's borders with things like a foreign import and export monopoly to get to Bolshevism. but then when you get there the self-contained nature of it threatens to collapse it because it's obsessed with protecting itself and potentially destroys itself and fills up with capitalism just to do that. it's this weird gift-of-the-magi paradox. but you can't guarantee multiple countries will get to Bolshevism and be able to surmount that isolation problem, so what do you even do?
     I guess I have to like, put a huge caveat on meta-Marxism that trying to use it to justify replacing crimson Marxism with strawberry Marxism forever is the wrong use and it isn't a get-out-of-Bolshevism-free card. that is really not what it was meant for, as much as basically identifying obstacles that keep you from getting into Bolshevism. you read Deng's writing and it's like he doesn't know the obstacles are obstacles, he thinks those are just the shape of the road and yet doesn't know how to correct around them
618. Although commodity production is the precursor to capitalism, not all commodity production turns into capitalism (Stalin 1952) [8] [9] -> I find this much more believable than what the Bordigists and Tony Cliff say
618. Means of production are capital when they have the ability to make a chunk of people something that can be held or after a fashion "owned" / Capital is created at the time it exploits and subjects the labourer (Marx, Capital volume I) [10]
618. A post-structuralist labor market means capitalism / If capitalists hold full power over trading workers between each other as individuals — individuals who are capable of monopolizing all means of production as a group — rather than an overall system or mono-structure holding that power to trade people between regions, then the capitalist mode of production exists; there exists a countable area of capitalism (Stalin) -> this part I actually think is true. I think there is a fully-formed capitalism buried inside China. the one thing different about it is that it's very enclosed instead of being global capitalism. ...I think. I mean, it does export to other countries, but it isn't really obligated to slurp up land and business territories and groups of people in other countries just to grow. it doesn't have an inherent incentive toward neocolonialism and instead has the incentive to develop inward and become more connected, and that's a substantial difference. it's a countable area of capitalism that's directed at gunpoint to step toward becoming socialism. to be fair I don't really know if that's succeeding.
618. China is 25% of the way to outright having a countable area of global capitalism
     A post-structuralist labor market means capitalism + China and relaxed foreign trade monopoly = this.
618. Whether China is socialist can be judged by whether it contains capital [11] -> this... seems like a really backward 1900s way of thinking. actually going through socialist transition and keeping a country standing is so hard and takes such a long time it seems questionable to me whether this is a good standard for whether a country is at the very beginning of socialism versus whether it's at the end and say, exiting Bolshevism into post-Bolshevism. entering socialism and exiting socialism should be wildly different criteria.
618. China cannot be a dictatorship of the proletariat if there is not a proletarian Social-Philosophical System with the power to eliminate the ability of the bourgeoisie to own free-floating business territories and exploit whole people in chunks as their tools — if chunk competition exists between free-floating business territories and there is nothing to stop the blue chunks growing but there are no crimson chunks with the ability to take out countable areas of capitalism then the dictatorship of the proletariat as a process is not happening, because the dictatorship of the proletariat as a process is the crimson Social-Philosophical-Material-Systems overcoming and replacing the blue ones and putting down a republic if applicable at a greater rate than the reverse happening [12] -> when you frame all this in terms that are equivalent to "for certain reasons the proletariat isn't forming together and winning, it seems to be losing" it's hard to argue with. that process of having "the dictatorship of the proletariat proper" is a severely important milestone where things actually change and the country is in an entirely different realized ideology. arguably things do get a lot better. and arguably you are not in Bolshevism before that happens, you are in some philosophy that's weirdly not crimson. the challenge is characterizing what on earth is going on before that. like if China isn't in Bolshevism and the CPC is not a dictatorship of the proletariat (arguably true) then what is that Marxist party doing there. it's really confusing what's actually going on. I think there needs to be an actual Materialist analysis to judge whether it's okay or bad, but it's sometimes hard to make sense of it at all.
618. Every republic which contains capital contains state machinery for the bourgeoisie to oppress the whole of society / Once capital exists, it dominates the whole of society, and no democratic republic, no franchise can change its nature. (Lenin 1919) -> I'm not confident enough to mark this false but oh boy, there is some indescribable thing wrong in here
     my first thought is, I think you have to look at this globally. the CPC exists almost entirely to create a border around China. calling China out for having even somewhat substantial islands of capital despite the CPC performing its job feels like it's saying that a border around China is oppression by the bourgeoisie. which is about what you say when you want to burn down China to realize Trotskyism but accidentally end up aiding the CIA in order to bring back Taiwan to conquer China. this is focusing on the trees, the fine-scale structures of society, while missing the forest, that the world shouldn't have empires and one ethnic group grinding down another ethnic group or cluster of ethnic groups to make them do what it wants. Materialist theories that create strong national populations are the only way to actually protect ethnic groups.