User:RD/9k/Yaroshenkoism (Q22,13)
Main entry
Yaroshenkoism
/ pseudo-Marxist model that relations of production (class territories or industrial structures) are contained inside productive forces instead of productive forces that include physical businesses and chunks of workers being contained inside relations of production in a contradictory relationship (1952) / -> "late Dengism should be called Yaroshenkoism". [1] [2] [3] 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.
- Yaroshenkoism / treating all bourgeoisie and granting nodes as workers (Yaroshenko) -> so. if the class territories are not a cage around the productive forces, I think that basically implies that the bourgeoisie are workers, doesn't it? part of the reason you have to separate out the relations of production from the productive forces is to make it easier for the connected crimson Social-Philosophical System of workers to break out and create a dictatorship of the proletariat early on. while if you try to say they're the same thing you get some kind of confusing Gramscian account that the bourgeoisie can totally help a proletarian revolution develop and create a workers' state. by the time Yaroshenkoism gets to China it really does feel like what they've done is say the bourgeoisie can liberate China because the bourgeoisie are Basically workers as long as the corporation contains a bunch of workers. although they aren't.
- Yaroshenkoism / universal organizing science (Bogdanov, Yaroshenko) / technique of social organization (Bukharin, Yaroshenko)
- Yaroshenko -> I need to note that this man sent letters to everybody in the Politburo defending revisionist 'Marxism' a total of three times. after the first time the Politburo seems to have made a bad joke about arresting him. but after he had been demoted to work in Siberia came the second and third time, and the third one actually got him arrested. [4] Yaroshenko is impressive in all the wrong ways. this is the funniest thing I've learned about all week
Motifs and claims
- All relations of production do is limit the development of the productive forces (Yaroshenko)
- Soviet-Union production relations are intelligently designed (Yaroshenko 1952) / Inside a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat, the workers have full control of the relations of production (Yaroshenko) -> that is clearly not true just because of uneven development. the NEP is one example of this, they had to have a phase of constructing free-floating corporations because there were no larger structures and the workers had no way to control those structures as processes.
- Bourgeois political economy and socialist political economy are completely different disciplines because of how (supposedly) workers have turned relations of production into productive forces -> this is totally the kind of thing that creates Deng Xiaoping Thought if you try to do it too early
Claims against
- Yaroshenkoism is not even anarchology because it does not acknowledge material elements of the economy such as commodities, forms of "property" or non-individually-owned structure, and the matter of workers increasingly producing and regions trading workers; understanding the development of these material elements is what allows a region of workers to control transition between different sets of structures or so-called "productive forces", not whatever Yaroshenko thinks gives that control
- Never "strawberry" production relations / Marxisms must not "strawberry" production relations / If strawberry Marxisms present models of parts of society and those particular models are to be called "Marxism" at all, one thing they must not do is try to "un-crimson" and "strawberry" the basic concepts of what productive forces and relations of production are; at the moments a strawberry ideology understands this correctly it is doing Marxism, while at the moments it tries to "strawberry" relations of production it is not doing Marxism
- Men enter into definite relations not of their choosing / Each time human beings are involved in productive forces, there are sets of relations of production that correlate to them, limited in their possibilities by the form of the productive forces themselves and basically the limitations of that historical period; the relations of production are created according to the material rules of physical processes and not primarily created by individual people's spontaneous choices of what structures they will create and how to design the social structure of Belgium- or Maryland-sized areas (Marx) / (9k)
- Production relations are graph links / Relations of production are a form of social graph connection / Relations of production include connections between workers, connections from workers to owners or specific business territories, and connections between separate enterprises -> seems almost tautologically obvious until you have to analyze Yaroshenko, at which point it becomes unusually interesting. you're basically left having to tell him that there's a material difference between free-floating capitalist business territories having this shifting post-structuralist set of relationships between them that are one kind of relation of production and then within socialism there will be many other different kinds of connections but it's knowing the abilities of each of those connections and not just putting a Marxist party over the country that makes workers able to change to better relations of production. Stalin was very violet in this text, surprisingly. he's usually not very violet but he will go to the violet scale when small-scale phenomena materially count. maybe there was a small possibility of the Soviet Union fully quantizing Marxism if Khruschev didn't take over.
- Productive forces are connections between human beings and the surrounding material world where humans obtain what they need
- At the moment new relations of production are put in place to remedy the problems of old ones they aid productive forces rather than hindering them (Stalin) / The point of anarchology within the economic aspects of the socioeconomy is to actually identify or quantify impediments to productive forces and free productive forces from them -> right. Yaroshenko doesn't seem to explain why the relations of production even changed, if they're supposedly only going to obstruct things again.
Related
- Small things organizing into bigger things is basically always the same thing (Bogdanov; tektology) [5] -> hmm. this is... not as bad as I'd expected it to be. chapter 1 deals with the concept of bisimilarity and how analogies come from actual similarities between arrangements of parts. the one thing I notice right away is there isn't much space dedicated to the concept of systems turning over and evolving reterministically as all their pieces interact at once, so it might not understand dialectical materialism? I am not sure.
my second thought while reading: "ohstop saying the phrases 'systems thinking' and 'systemic'."
Ideologies or fields
- DX / Yaroshenkoism
- DX / Deng Xiaoping Thought
- ML / mainstream Marxism-Leninism
- MX / meta-Marxism
- ML onto DX
- MX onto DX