User:RD/9k/Q29,38: Difference between revisions
m Gramscianism is molecular Juche-socialism |
Gramscianism is molecular Juche-socialism ; kinds of dialectical materialism |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean"> | {{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean"> | ||
{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=29,38|Q2=2938|h4 = Gramscianism & Dengism are related }} / Gramscianism and Deng Xiaoping Thought are related -> the more I would think about it, the more I would realize, huh, it's almost like one of them is tiny and one of them is big and that's the only serious difference. aside from that it's only similarities. the bourgeoisie rush to defend the borders or frontiers of a countable culture to protect ethnic groups from being dominated or dispersed across the world by outside populations, and Marxist theorists have to reluctantly let it happen. (or at least they believe they do.) the process of securing frontiers from outside populations naturally results in a | {{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=29,38|Q2=2938|h4 = Gramscianism & Dengism are related }} / Gramscianism and Deng Xiaoping Thought are related -> the more I would think about it, the more I would realize, huh, it's almost like one of them is tiny and one of them is big and that's the only serious difference. aside from that it's only similarities. the bourgeoisie rush to defend the borders or frontiers of a countable culture to protect ethnic groups from being dominated or dispersed across the world by outside populations, and Marxist theorists have to reluctantly let it happen. (or at least they believe they do.) the process of securing frontiers from outside populations naturally results in a {{a|shepherd sheet|E=shepherd sheet (meta-Marxism)}} of theorists and bureaucrats, but doesn't naturally result in proletarian structures. (it's only my hypothesis that Gramscianism would produce another China, but I think there's decent reason to think that, as far as the "there's just a capitalism inside it and no Bolshevism" part. you point out that Gramscianism is just a bunch of progressive bourgeoisie squabbling against reactionary bourgeoisie and it's like, yeah, how else could it go? I'm hesitant to say the same thing about Stalin's Marxism though, considering it didn't have the same result as Deng Xiaoping Thought and there was actually some Bolshevism in it. the content that ideologies realize is very important to me. so if Stalin's Marxism realizes Bolshevism even somewhat, there had to be something right in that historical period that Stalin couldn't possibly ruin by getting everyone onto his cause. now, as for Trotskyism... I consider it very suspect for never actually realizing any of its content, but I give it a couple points for constantly claiming the internal structure of the Soviet Union was wrong and thereby implying it does have specific content it wants to realize instead.) | ||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
{{li|I=S2/DX|tradition=MX onto DX, MX onto W|Q=21,98|Q2=2198|h4 = Gramscianism is molecular Dengism }} / Gramscianism is already molecular Deng Xiaoping Thought -> this is nearly the same statement as Deng Xiaoping Thought being global Gramscianism, but slightly different. the other statement is that Deng Xiaoping Thought has "Trotskyized" Gramscianism by multiplying it over a big area. this statement is that Gramscianism and Deng Xiaoping Thought are the same <em>because</em> they have the same internal structure, and they would be the same on the inside if they each started with only 5,000 people or so. if both statements are true they're synonymous. if exactly one of them is false then they aren't the same statement. | {{li|I=S2/DX|tradition=MX onto DX, MX onto W|Q=21,98|Q2=2198|h4 = Gramscianism is molecular Dengism }} / Gramscianism is already molecular Deng Xiaoping Thought -> this is nearly the same statement as Deng Xiaoping Thought being global Gramscianism, but slightly different. the other statement is that Deng Xiaoping Thought has "Trotskyized" Gramscianism by multiplying it over a big area. this statement is that Gramscianism and Deng Xiaoping Thought are the same <em>because</em> they have the same internal structure, and they would be the same on the inside if they each started with only 5,000 people or so. if both statements are true they're synonymous. if exactly one of them is false then they aren't the same statement. | ||
{{li|I=S2/MX/W/JC|Q=618|h4 = Gramscianism is molecular Juche-socialism }} -> this..... might actually be true. like if you throw away all the 'consciousness' stuff from Gramscianism and purely use it to describe Gramscianism containing overhead pictures of itself. it's just center-wing nationalism | {{li|I=S2/MX/W/JC|tradition=MX onto W, MX onto JC|Q=618|h4 = Gramscianism is molecular Juche-socialism }} -> this..... might actually be true. like, if you {{a|throw away all the 'consciousness' stuff from Gramscianism and purely use it to describe Gramscianism containing overhead pictures of itself|E=Hyper-Materialism (meta-Marxism)}}. it's just center-wing nationalism. Rhizome is Gramscianism is Juche. if nobody was ever an anarchist that's how it would be. | ||
{{li|I=S2/MX/W/JC|Q=618}}Gramscianism is molecular Juche-socialism -> so here's how it goes in Western Marxism / strawberry Marxisms. Fisherism is a bunch of academics lamenting that people can't see outside 'capitalist ideology'. Gramscianism, done badly, contains a bit of Fisherism. Gramscianism done well tosses out every single thing about 'consciousness' and 'mentality' and looks like a bunch of chunks of workers and a few chunks of Communist-aligned skilled experts all joined together occupying factories more specifically as an emerging nationality than as a class, to shove out a second emerging nationality of reactionaries into another national population Taiwan-style. Gramscianism is something of a 'hammer and ink brush' or 'hammer and quill pen' philosophy; it does have a real class basis even if not the best one. looking inward at it from the small scale up, Gramscianism would succeed specifically because it brought together many local populations into a national population and temporarily built a fortress around the new nation to keep empires out while trying its best to get everyone unified and make the new nation coherent. in this sense Gramscianism and Juche-socialism should logically be the same thing. Gramscianism is just a little more fine-grained, a little closer to molecularization and the careful study of small-scale structures which will transition to larger or more effective structures during socialist transition.<br/> | |||
there is still a little ways to go to get to [[E:Hyper-Materialism (meta-Marxism)|full Materialism]] in Gramscianism and 'truly' be a molecular Marxism. it's like, the difference between different kinds of dialectical materialism. the crudest wavemachine that uses one kind of dialectical interaction model "A + B = C" versus the most concrete things on the level of chemistry or quantum physics models. but, you have a progression between Gramscianism and Juche-socialism where as you study the fine-scale structure more closely it quantizes and gets more concrete. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
Latest revision as of 05:06, 17 April 2026
Main entry
/ Gramscianism and Deng Xiaoping Thought are related -> the more I would think about it, the more I would realize, huh, it's almost like one of them is tiny and one of them is big and that's the only serious difference. aside from that it's only similarities. the bourgeoisie rush to defend the borders or frontiers of a countable culture to protect ethnic groups from being dominated or dispersed across the world by outside populations, and Marxist theorists have to reluctantly let it happen. (or at least they believe they do.) the process of securing frontiers from outside populations naturally results in a shepherd sheet of theorists and bureaucrats, but doesn't naturally result in proletarian structures. (it's only my hypothesis that Gramscianism would produce another China, but I think there's decent reason to think that, as far as the "there's just a capitalism inside it and no Bolshevism" part. you point out that Gramscianism is just a bunch of progressive bourgeoisie squabbling against reactionary bourgeoisie and it's like, yeah, how else could it go? I'm hesitant to say the same thing about Stalin's Marxism though, considering it didn't have the same result as Deng Xiaoping Thought and there was actually some Bolshevism in it. the content that ideologies realize is very important to me. so if Stalin's Marxism realizes Bolshevism even somewhat, there had to be something right in that historical period that Stalin couldn't possibly ruin by getting everyone onto his cause. now, as for Trotskyism... I consider it very suspect for never actually realizing any of its content, but I give it a couple points for constantly claiming the internal structure of the Soviet Union was wrong and thereby implying it does have specific content it wants to realize instead.)
Positive reasons
is global Gramscianism
Gramscianism is molecular Dengism
/ Gramscianism is already molecular Deng Xiaoping Thought -> this is nearly the same statement as Deng Xiaoping Thought being global Gramscianism, but slightly different. the other statement is that Deng Xiaoping Thought has "Trotskyized" Gramscianism by multiplying it over a big area. this statement is that Gramscianism and Deng Xiaoping Thought are the same because they have the same internal structure, and they would be the same on the inside if they each started with only 5,000 people or so. if both statements are true they're synonymous. if exactly one of them is false then they aren't the same statement.Gramscianism is molecular Juche-socialism
-> this..... might actually be true. like, if you throw away all the 'consciousness' stuff from Gramscianism and purely use it to describe Gramscianism containing overhead pictures of itself. it's just center-wing nationalism. Rhizome is Gramscianism is Juche. if nobody was ever an anarchist that's how it would be.- Gramscianism is molecular Juche-socialism -> so here's how it goes in Western Marxism / strawberry Marxisms. Fisherism is a bunch of academics lamenting that people can't see outside 'capitalist ideology'. Gramscianism, done badly, contains a bit of Fisherism. Gramscianism done well tosses out every single thing about 'consciousness' and 'mentality' and looks like a bunch of chunks of workers and a few chunks of Communist-aligned skilled experts all joined together occupying factories more specifically as an emerging nationality than as a class, to shove out a second emerging nationality of reactionaries into another national population Taiwan-style. Gramscianism is something of a 'hammer and ink brush' or 'hammer and quill pen' philosophy; it does have a real class basis even if not the best one. looking inward at it from the small scale up, Gramscianism would succeed specifically because it brought together many local populations into a national population and temporarily built a fortress around the new nation to keep empires out while trying its best to get everyone unified and make the new nation coherent. in this sense Gramscianism and Juche-socialism should logically be the same thing. Gramscianism is just a little more fine-grained, a little closer to molecularization and the careful study of small-scale structures which will transition to larger or more effective structures during socialist transition.
there is still a little ways to go to get to full Materialism in Gramscianism and 'truly' be a molecular Marxism. it's like, the difference between different kinds of dialectical materialism. the crudest wavemachine that uses one kind of dialectical interaction model "A + B = C" versus the most concrete things on the level of chemistry or quantum physics models. but, you have a progression between Gramscianism and Juche-socialism where as you study the fine-scale structure more closely it quantizes and gets more concrete.
Negative reasons
Strawberry justifies class collaboration
/ Strawberry swatch comes from justifying class collaboration / Gramscianism, Deng Xiaoping Thought, and late Juche-socialism all share a concept of justifiable class collaboration to defend against capitalist encroachment into the material territory of a Third World national population or an emerging intra- Liberal-republican nationality in the form of a supposedly defensive center-Liberal and blue-anarchist faction or in the form of a minority-demographic subpopulation; this is to imply that in general an appearance of the strawberry swatch color is rooted specifically in asserting "justified" class collaboration -> I used to give more leeway to ink-brush Marxism until I learned that North Korea had literally turned into Deng Xiaoping Thought by any reasonable material model. and then I was like, hey, wait a minute, integrating them is one thing but socialism isn't supposed to be multiplying the bourgeoisie.
Ideologies
- DX / Deng Xiaoping Thought
- JC / Juche-socialism
- W / Gramscianism
- MX / meta-Marxism
- MX onto DX
- MX onto JC
- MX onto W