Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q4208: Difference between revisions
mark Dengism |
Trotskyists don't understand global empire / Meta-Marxism doesn't reach classes |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
{{li|I=S2/MX/MX|Q=28,79|Q2=2879}}R.D. has not done meta-Marxism correctly / ({{9k|RD/Q28,98}}) -> holy hell. [[E:Meta-Marxism is not capable of calculating the results of class conflicts if it is a different vantage point from Trotskyism|if there is any such thing as a meta-Marxist error in the first place]] then that was one of them. | {{li|I=S2/MX/MX|Q=28,79|Q2=2879}}R.D. has not done meta-Marxism correctly / ({{9k|RD/Q28,98}}) -> holy hell. [[E:Meta-Marxism is not capable of calculating the results of class conflicts if it is a different vantage point from Trotskyism|if there is any such thing as a meta-Marxist error in the first place]] then that was one of them. | ||
</li></ol> | |||
== Trotskyists don't understand imperialism == | |||
<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"> | |||
{{li|start=y|I=F2/DX|tradition=MX thru DX|Q=42,17|Q2=4217}}Trotskyists don't understand global empire / The reason Trotskyists bash Deng Xiaoping states and East Germany is that they don't understand global empire -> I think there's a pretty good case for this. you lay out what a [[E:Deng process|Deng process]] is and it seems Trotskyists really don't get that.<ref group="error" name="f"/> <s>they are really against measures that happen to make countries actually independent from imperial powers and protect them from utterly being colonized.</s><ref group="error" name="g"/> the bright side? this is a colonialism discourse I actually can stand. fine-scale neocolonialism and crude national independence are both things that make material sense, unlike the notion that prejudices in White people's heads are somehow colonialism. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
| Line 17: | Line 24: | ||
{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX/IV|tradition=IV oer MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}Meta-Marxism doesn't reach classes / Meta-Marxism is improperly classless / Meta-Marxism ([[EC:9k/RD/Q92|violet Materialism]]; violet Marxism) is not capable of calculating the results of class conflicts if it is a different vantage point from Trotskyism | {{li|start=y|I=S2/MX/IV|tradition=IV oer MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}Meta-Marxism doesn't reach classes / Meta-Marxism is improperly classless / Meta-Marxism ([[EC:9k/RD/Q92|violet Materialism]]; violet Marxism) is not capable of calculating the results of class conflicts if it is a different vantage point from Trotskyism | ||
{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}Meta-Marxism doesn't reach classes -> in some ways, there is already an argument for this. I set down a "meta-Marxist analysis" that is questionable. I come back and mark it as an error. I decide that in order to mark it as an error I will mark it as the error of a specific tendency (Dengism), because that is the [[E:apparent form of Marxism|apparent form of Marxism]] I had tentatively decided to defend. so, the question comes up: is the violet swatch just an excuse to wildly oscillate between different kinds of errors that are all aligned with some particular internal structure with a class character? I definitely did not beat the accusation on this page.<br/> | |||
I want to entertain the path of just going full orange on this wiki and only keeping the violet swatch in limited cases as a pure formality — for general-sense Materialism, etc. but I have a horrible problem: I can't prove that I wouldn't just be choosing it out of opportunism and a lack of commitment. so, ironically, I have to keep my alignment to meta-Marxism and the concept of meta-Marxist theory until the day I can prove I'm a {{caps|Real}} Trotskyist. and I genuinely don't know if I can ever make it there. putting aside the wrong entries that are jokes, it seems like I never stop making stupid mistakes. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
| Line 28: | Line 38: | ||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
== Errors == | == Errors == | ||
<references group="error"> | <references group="error"> | ||
| Line 53: | Line 50: | ||
<ref name="e">"You genuinely need some kind of meta-ontology to understand China": maybe, because China doesn't claim to obey proletarian-materialist rules. "Unify with it against non-Marxisms": there is no need to do this because we aren't living in 1930.<br/> | <ref name="e">"You genuinely need some kind of meta-ontology to understand China": maybe, because China doesn't claim to obey proletarian-materialist rules. "Unify with it against non-Marxisms": there is no need to do this because we aren't living in 1930.<br/> | ||
Trotskyists will fight you on this one. They do not like the concept that you need [[E:Q92|a special meta-ontology]] weaving itself through all Marxist tendencies but claiming to be separate from them just to understand highly dubious Socialisms that are probably not Marxist. They will immediately get suspicious that any attempt at meta-Marxism is just restoring the glue between bourgeois leaderships. And, here? That would be a totally fair criticism to throw at this page.</ref> | Trotskyists will fight you on this one. They do not like the concept that you need [[E:Q92|a special meta-ontology]] weaving itself through all Marxist tendencies but claiming to be separate from them just to understand highly dubious Socialisms that are probably not Marxist. They will immediately get suspicious that any attempt at meta-Marxism is just restoring the glue between bourgeois leaderships. And, here? That would be a totally fair criticism to throw at this page.</ref> | ||
<ref name="f">"Trotskyists really don't get Deng processes": one of the few cases where Trotskyists not understanding something might be a good thing. [[User:RD/9k/Q19,08|In 1909]] Rosa Luxemburg hardly understood why Germany was there. In 1928 Trotsky's "failure" to understand socialism in one country led him to a reasonable analysis of how Marx's original positions were similar to his own understanding of [[Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q43,92|world revolution]].</ref> | |||
<ref name="g">They are and they aren't. This comes down to a totally different definition of what an exploited/colonized country is, where Trotskyists have zero tolerance for Marxist movements that showed any sign of being Marxist at any point vulgarizing into Dengism and putting the bourgeoisie in charge.</ref> | |||
</references> | </references> | ||
== Wavebuilder combinations == | |||
<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three"> | |||
{{WaveBuild| {{E:Q618/ML|??}} | -- | -- }} <!-- en: Along With, Produces ?? ?? --> | |||
</dl> | |||
== Subpages or related scraps == | |||
<!-- | |||
=== Nickels === | |||
* {{nickel/silent}} [[Research talk:5c/|]] | |||
--> | |||
[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]] <!-- page ends here. TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming | [[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]] <!-- page ends here. TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming | ||
redirects or titles: [[Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q4208]] | redirects or titles: [[Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q4208]] | ||
duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN|Q42,08]] --> | duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN|Q42,08]] --> | ||
Latest revision as of 02:12, 15 September 2026
Main entry
- I'm a Marxist-Leninist but China needs to be Zinovievized / I'm not anticommunist, but... (Zinovievizing China)
- I'm a Leninist but China needs to be Zinovievized
- I'm a Marxist-Leninist but China needs to be Zinovievized ->
this feels like one of the biggest blunders of modern Marxism besides people around the world thinking Trotskyism is more valid[error 1]than any of the Marxisms that have actually worked[error 2]. like, no, you've lost the plot.one of the major reasons for Marxism is to understand how countries have developedin order to understand how countries can stop fighting each other[error 3], and this does neither of those things[error 4]. you genuinely need some kind of meta-ontology to understand China,which actually deals with the prospect of a totally different Marxism existing and the "correct" Marxism having to exist alongside it, broadly predict what it will do, and take appropriate kinds of actions to unify with it[error 5]against non-Marxisms. - R.D. has not done meta-Marxism correctly / (9k) -> holy hell. if there is any such thing as a meta-Marxist error in the first place then that was one of them.
Trotskyists don't understand imperialism
- Trotskyists don't understand global empire / The reason Trotskyists bash Deng Xiaoping states and East Germany is that they don't understand global empire -> I think there's a pretty good case for this. you lay out what a Deng process is and it seems Trotskyists really don't get that.[error 6]
they are really against measures that happen to make countries actually independent from imperial powers and protect them from utterly being colonized.[error 7] the bright side? this is a colonialism discourse I actually can stand. fine-scale neocolonialism and crude national independence are both things that make material sense, unlike the notion that prejudices in White people's heads are somehow colonialism.
Related
- Meta-Marxism doesn't reach classes / Meta-Marxism is improperly classless / Meta-Marxism (violet Materialism; violet Marxism) is not capable of calculating the results of class conflicts if it is a different vantage point from Trotskyism
- Meta-Marxism doesn't reach classes -> in some ways, there is already an argument for this. I set down a "meta-Marxist analysis" that is questionable. I come back and mark it as an error. I decide that in order to mark it as an error I will mark it as the error of a specific tendency (Dengism), because that is the apparent form of Marxism I had tentatively decided to defend. so, the question comes up: is the violet swatch just an excuse to wildly oscillate between different kinds of errors that are all aligned with some particular internal structure with a class character? I definitely did not beat the accusation on this page.
I want to entertain the path of just going full orange on this wiki and only keeping the violet swatch in limited cases as a pure formality — for general-sense Materialism, etc. but I have a horrible problem: I can't prove that I wouldn't just be choosing it out of opportunism and a lack of commitment. so, ironically, I have to keep my alignment to meta-Marxism and the concept of meta-Marxist theory until the day I can prove I'm a Real Trotskyist. and I genuinely don't know if I can ever make it there. putting aside the wrong entries that are jokes, it seems like I never stop making stupid mistakes.
Ideologies or fields
- / modern Stalinism (2020s)
- / Trotskyism
- / Deng Xiaoping Thought
Errors
- ↑ "Trotskyism is more valid": it is, for the important reason that it is able to model and critique other philosophical tendencies. I really used to believe that it was necessary to create meta-Marxism just to do that, but it isn't.
- ↑ It's arguable these "Marxisms" have not "actually worked" to any extent that is meaningful.
- ↑ "Marxism is so countries can stop fighting each other": yes but no. Note the strange grouping of workers and owners in China into a "country".
- ↑ "This does neither of those things": Dengist error. This statement assumes that all Marxist tendencies are supposed to coexist with Dengism unless they are Trotskyism and cannot be predicted to, discarding everything that doesn't as "not understanding country development". Then it tries to say that Dengism actually achieves peace on the basis of a strawberry Materialism that treats whole corporations with owners as productive forces inside a production relation (the border of China?).
- ↑ "You genuinely need some kind of meta-ontology to understand China": maybe, because China doesn't claim to obey proletarian-materialist rules. "Unify with it against non-Marxisms": there is no need to do this because we aren't living in 1930.
Trotskyists will fight you on this one. They do not like the concept that you need a special meta-ontology weaving itself through all Marxist tendencies but claiming to be separate from them just to understand highly dubious Socialisms that are probably not Marxist. They will immediately get suspicious that any attempt at meta-Marxism is just restoring the glue between bourgeois leaderships. And, here? That would be a totally fair criticism to throw at this page. - ↑ "Trotskyists really don't get Deng processes": one of the few cases where Trotskyists not understanding something might be a good thing. In 1909 Rosa Luxemburg hardly understood why Germany was there. In 1928 Trotsky's "failure" to understand socialism in one country led him to a reasonable analysis of how Marx's original positions were similar to his own understanding of world revolution.
- ↑ They are and they aren't. This comes down to a totally different definition of what an exploited/colonized country is, where Trotskyists have zero tolerance for Marxist movements that showed any sign of being Marxist at any point vulgarizing into Dengism and putting the bourgeoisie in charge.
Wavebuilder combinations
- : forms result [Item]
- --