From Philosophical Research
Main entry
- 1910Anarchism or Socialism? (Stalin 1906) [1]
Motifs or claims
- 2692Marx going meta / (9k) -> Stalin says that Marxists 'do not simply wave anarchism away' but try to do class analysis to determine what anarchism is made of and how it will develop. if done well at a level that's good enough to be predictive this is a violet statement.
- Liberal-republicanism is divisible into different trends corresponding to different strata of the bourgeoisie
- "Socialism" is divided into reformism, anarchism, and Marxism -> all right, but which one is Deng Xiaoping Thought? it didn't reform capitalism, it flat-out birthed it out of nothing specifically to put a border around the country. that's very unusual and I'm not sure it fits into any of these three.
I think... he's defining it to be reformism? he says if you're utopian and a republican or utopian and trying to build transition to Bolshevism inside a republic of capitalists you're a reformist. but the third thing he says is that class collaboration is a hallmark of reformism. and that's like, the only thing that China didn't fall into because whatever the party-nation is it has actually subdued capitalism and become capable of regulating it sometimes. some class is struggling against the capitalists and leaping its State over them despite there still being a lot of them, and the only question is which class this is.
mainstream Marxism-Leninism and meta-Marxism have some points where what they say is just exactly the same, notably that Liberal capitalism is a blue SPS with chiefly big or small bourgeoisie forming a State that leaps over the rest of the area, and that Bolshevism is a crimson SPS which is closely aligned with the proletariat and leaps its state over the bourgeoisie inasmuch as they still exist until their class territories are abolished; the bourgeois class territories are these little free-floating corporate territories but the proletarian class territory looks a little more like the whole country put together and not divided any more. what confuses me is who exactly is leaping over China, Cuba, North Korea, or Vietnam to create Deng Xiaoping Thought. Careerists??
- 3390Anarchists are material enemies of Marxism (Stalin) / Anarchism is something to overthrow
- Marxism already is meta-Leninism / (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.
Regard life as it actually is
/ We must regard life as it actually is (dialectical materialism) / The life of a population is a series of material objects growing, dying, joining, splitting, and rearranging, and we must understand its development in terms of the way it actually functions or the way that interactions between currently apparent objects or processes create new kinds of objects or processes (existential materialism, meta-Marxism)
- 2968
The existiest will win
/ That which is born and grows is invincible; that which is aging and crumbling suffers defeat (Stalin) / When all are Subjects, the existiest will rule (MX onto ES) / (9k)
- A bunch of Narodniks will win because they are many and they are poor -> they didn't win, did they?
- Quantity stacks into quality / Minor quantitative changes stack up into major qualitative changes / Evolution pre-configures revolution -> I think this is one of the concepts that anarchists really abuse, because every time they do some small act of "direct action" they totally think they're doing that
- Neo-Lamarckism (discarded theory) [2]
- Orbitals illustrate quantity-to-quality (dialectical materialism) / Electron quantum numbers stacking up into new periods illustrate quantity into quality
- Hegel was a monarchist so he never could have said anything correct (Cherkezishvili, Kropotkin)
- immutable justice (Proudhon)
- Pascal contributed to science (dialectical materialism) / Pascal, Leibnitz, Mayer, and Helmholtz were not revolutionaries but they still contributed to science -> see, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to say but it's a very crimson position today. Trotskyists might give it to you too. but everyone else from charcoal anarchists to blue anarchists to Liberal-republicans and Christian or conspiracy-theorist Tories just about utterly hates science because of how it isn't fundamentally based in Lived Experience and seeing reality specifically as a bunch of Lived Experiences stitching together rather than a single material realm which is perceived by different Lived Experiences. Liberal-republicanism seems to have really warped people's method of perceiving the world to where they want to understand reality itself as "democratic" instead of scientific — complete with the dubious "features" of arbitrarily dividing people up whenever they're unified on reality in order to supposedly give people Freedom to think, and thoroughly beating them up for having the wrong conclusion after you prohibited everybody from having the same one. Habermas in particular wanted to introduce a whole new form of logic in which 'emancipation' was going to be a truth value and two people coming to consensus on something being it was going to be the standard for judging whether all statements were true or false. being me and loving absurd hypotheticals, I can't say that's a terrible idea you can't even think of, because out of context the concept is at least rather funny to say out loud; the only thing I don't like was that the proposal was totally serious. this is the environment you're going to be in arguing science to people. a bunch of people who supposedly think that two people coming to consensus on "whether a statement is Emancipation" and yet if you ask them to have that dialogue with a handful of Cubans and come to Emancipation on that subject they just Won't; they're basically liars.
- The claim of immutable justice shows that Proudhonism is based on metaphysics (1906) -> honestly. that's pretty sound
- The positive trend we must defend / Every phenomenon of life has two trends: a positive and a negative; the first we must defend, the second we must reject (Stalin) / Because things are in motion and change at all times, Marxist allies must defend constructive processes and reject destructive processes
- At some point in their development, the growth of chunks of workers will begin to overcome the tendency of business territories to accumulate earnings onto capitalists instead of give back to either build public facilities or reproduce the population -> truth value: true in Russian Empire, not true in the United States.
why this isn't true in the United States is.... complicated. you almost need to model every scale of the society to see what's going on. we seem to get a new pattern where people continue to reproduce but they don't actually go into industry and as for industry creating proletarians it seems to like to throw them out and kick them over to different corporations. society fills up with all the products it could want whereas the stated purpose of hiring people is to invent more kinds of products; businesses periodically discontinue a bunch of products just to be able to invent more products and get more money, but it doesn't really help much. owners just get to push people out whenever they like and there's no serious moment of people really functioning as "overflowing productive forces". they just sort of go start a teeny tiny business and enter into these gigantic "hyper-malls" in hopes of scraping off a teeny tiny bit of income, where all of society judges the hell out of them relative to each other to determine how much they get to keep earning. if they fail at that they pretty much get kicked out of the population and into another population, usually in the form of moving out of their house and having to get rid of belongings and move to the first town that has an opening. that notion of "an opening" is really curious because it's like the number of receiving nodes that hire people is never much bigger than the number of granting nodes that get hired. the individual people or households are playing a bigger role somehow, and it's not just the relatively large business territories overflowing with workers versus the owners. I don't really know what Marx says would even happen to this. I don't really see a single particular notion of productive forces here. the closest thing I can point out that looks like that is entire Third-World countries in Deng Xiaoping Thought. which can't overcome capitalists because this single gigantic sea of capitalists from 25 countries at once will hit one country and try to starve and dissolve its whole populace and strip them of their ethnic group if they even try, they just barely get allowed to have a nationality and ethnic group if they surround their country with export-selling capitalists for protection.
- Bolshevism will not burst from capitalism until all the chunks of workers are present / No social order is overthrown before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed (Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy)
Subjective themes
- Liberal-republicanism believes it has bested or "hacked" the dialectical method by taking generalizable things like class territories stacking up into Social-Philosophical Systems of particular colors, and replacing them with totally unique non-generalizable objects like specific individual corporations, specific industries, or specific individual countries or ethnic groups that are to destroy and replace each other over and over -> the big question is, why??
- Actually, scientists only ever came to consensuses on facts because they joined together around each other's Lived Experiences (derived critical-theory proposition) -> predicting a Habermas follower's response to Stalin's text.
- Immutable justice cannot exist if the borders of Palestine or Israel and the living conditions of the people inside can change -> you have to make things super duper topical for U.S. people to get them
- It is undialectical to claim that Marxism will simply be created and keep existing and developing all the way to the end for the indefinite future rather than there being a possibility it will be entirely dismantled and replaced with a different group of people -> this scares me because it makes it so easy for Identitarian fascists to show up and argue that North Koreans are inherently bad as an ethnic group or something and that's why their country will be dissolved and replaced. and yet, from historical evidence it seems to be materially true. dialectical materialism is accurate and yet it has such scary conclusions. it doesn't seem to favor Communism anywhere near as much as people thought it did in 1900. it seems that so far the single most successful type of civilization is the one that links together with a bunch of others and is as brutal and inhumane as possible to anybody that challenges their material power. like, as far as I can tell the only reason Hitler didn't succeed in conquering the world is that the Axis powers didn't stay together and there was only one Nazi Germany instead of 20.
- Deng Xiaoping Thought will successfully transition to Bolshevism through a revolution -> you'd definitely think this if you read too much early Marxism from before about 1940.
- Mark propositions with country or region if there is any chance the truth value will change within the area of other countries or regions; if a geographic region has not been specified on a proposition which should apply to a geographic area, do not assume the proposition or truth value is final (with state; with local-state; with county; with city; project policy)
- Mark propositions with historical period if there is any chance the truth value will have changed in a matter of years; if a time period has not been specified on a proposition which should apply to a particular time period, do not assume the proposition or truth value is final
- Names associated with Nazi Germany or the Axis Powers do not have to be censored on Ontology and prototype pages -> "Hitler" is okay on Item pages as long as it's not a joke.
Related
Ideology codes
- S–83[ML] [S] (83)ML / dialectical materialism
-1:-1
- PT / monarchism
- AS / Hegel
- AS / Hegelianism
- LR / Liberal-republicanism
- STM / scientific method
- ML / Stalin
- A / anarchism
- A / Proudhon
- A / Kropotkin
- HM / critical theory
- MX / meta-Marxism
- A onto AS
- A onto PT
- MX onto LR
- MX onto HM
