User:RD/9k/Materialist postcolonial theory? (Q36,61)
Main entry
- Deng Xiaoping Thought is a postcolonial theory
- Deng Xiaoping Thought is a postcolonial theory / Deng Xiaoping Thought is part of a new category of postcolonial theories solidly based in Materialism instead of Idealism -> the claim that because it is primarily focused on maintaining the national independence of China and not on creating Bolshevism or abolishing capitalism, Deng Xiaoping Thought is not a Leninism but does instead qualify as a postcolonial theory. if this is true, there would exist a category of Marxisms which are postcolonial theories based in Materialism but are not Leninisms.
I'm not positive on this one, yet there is just enough of an argument here to change over Deng Xiaoping Thought to the strawberry swatch, as a rather complimentary use of that swatch that contrasts all its negative meanings. it's better than giving any statist things the charcoal swatch. probably... Deng Xiaoping Thought needs its own ideology code now. ok.MZandDXare the new codes for Maoism and Deng Xiaoping Thought.
Origin
- East Germany was indistinguishable from an Anarchism / East Germany was actually an Anarchism -> I am pretty sure this is false but I could not actually explain why. so this is basically one of those "man is equivalent to a chicken" type statements. the heart of this probably-spurious claim would be that because events like Black Lives Matter and the Paris Commune were built around people of a particular idealistic countable Culture assertively occupying a particular spatial area, the distinction between a hypothetical successful Anarchism and a real-world historical fortress state is rather fuzzy. what actually is the difference? you can't say that a fortress state is different from an Anarchism because it's based around the proletariat, because North Korea became a fortress state and hardly had a proletariat at all. I guess you could appeal to "The State", but personally? in my opinion an army always counts as having a State. that's the easiest way to interpret the Trotskyite conspiracy as the seeds of a plural Marxism and open up the road to diplomacy and healing traumas between rival Marxisms. so like, if an Anarchism always realistically has to have a State to perform realization and exist, how is it actually different from a fortress state?
- East Germany was a postcolonial movement / East Germany provides evidence for a new category of postcolonial theories solidly based in Materialism instead of Idealism -> I think this is one possible answer to the jamming question of whether East Germany was "an anarchism". the claim would be that all successful instances of creating a workers' state have been postcolonial movements, and it has been a fundamental truth of workers' states that they operate on ensuring the whole population is competitive against or defended against all the other countries around it who every day still eat and occupy space — postcolonial movements are in contradiction with degrowth and the environment, contrary to what everyone wants to think, and only either industry or a very concerted push from as many Third World individuals as possible to form a coherent and operational civilization and a unified government can actually make Third World nationalities free. said another way, if Third World people can solve Trotskyism and merge into one big country of like 5 billion people they're good on having to build more industry or damage the environment, but it's still the case anarchism has to go.
- Juche-socialism is a postcolonial theory / Juche-socialism is part of a new category of postcolonial theories solidly based in Materialism instead of Idealism -> I think there's also equally as good a case for this.
- Yaroshenkoism is a postcolonial theory / Yaroshenkoism is a Materialist postcolonial theory which promotes national liberation starting at very small scales of society at which individuals and small groups can potentially resist global empire or global capitalism and make a difference on international scales / Yaroshenkoism is a pseudo-MDem, but one which belongs in the top tier of pseudo-MDems in that it can create national borders from the inside and actually possesses a certain kind of revolutionary potential; Yaroshenkoism is a variety of molecular bourgeois democracy capable of molecularized bourgeois revolutions / (9k) -> Yaroshenko's final chance to be relevant. one of the only reasons a sane person would argue that a strawberry "dictatorship-of-the-whatever" allows workers to control all structural elements including the bourgeoisie as 'productive forces' is to argue a Gramscian line that the connections between whole corporations and whole subpopulations or countries are absolutely critical to maintaining national independence and allowing any of the people-groups of the world any chance to break free of the single gigantic global-capital object that otherwise outnumbers them. like without Yaroshenkoism the United States can just mobilize all the world's countries to blockade Cuba and shut off all its energy, and there's very little anyone can do about it except maybe drop their day jobs and put all their energy into sanctioning their connection to the United States economy and illegally ferrying oil to Cuba. at which point they'd basically be doing active, militant Yaroshenkoism. Existentialism's major strategy is outright pulling people away from nationalities and ethnic groups through 'carrots' or through psychological torture and then using them as weapons to destroy their own ethnic group. so one of the only conceivable ways to counteract that is doing it backwards and pulling people away to serve the Third World or Second World until the First World starts hurting and has to capitulate. there's a small chance Yaroshenko's philosophy is actually a stroke of dark genius and he may effectively have saved} China, Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea. that's the flipside of all this!
- United States strengthening South Koreans to destroy North Korea / (9k) -> ... it's like there is only one way to win and that way is to absolutely out-live and out-exist and out-Existentialize Existentialism until proletarian civilization has covered the earth as much as Existentialism does right now and Existentialists just don't
exist any more. if we hypothetically imagine Richard Wolff's co-op theory was right then the co-ops would have to trade with Cuba or North Korea etc and refuse to stock all the most reactionary businesses in the United States at a level equivalent to the incoming goods, basically Boston-Tea-Party the khaki businesses' income. the structure of which businesses are connected globally is almost as critical as trying to have a country exclusively full of workers. like, that horizontal production relation of what city buys what city's goods and causes the productive forces to build up is the real thing that defines country borders now and whether a country survives. the bourgeoisie got their power by actually selling goods and now they maintain their power by abruptly pulling goods and jobs and an area's entire socioeconomy. the only way to defeat embargoes and perhaps the very concept of sanctions might just be radically ferrying goods to other countries as if the embargo doesn't exist in spite of what they do to you
Arguments against
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) / (9k)- 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? ... 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.
- 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
Productive forces are inputs
/ Productive forces are connections between human beings and the surrounding material world where humans obtain what they need / (9k)- Abundance will not be reached without the right small-scale relations of production that keep the development of productive forces moving / (9k)
China is a production relation
/ China is one big production relation containing a bunch of corporations that are all productive forces -> this is obviously wrong but it's a little hard to tell at first glance what's wrong with it. that is, exactly how you'd get to such a weird conclusion.Productive forces birth sociophilosophies
(Marx 1859, Stalin 1951) / (9k)Deng Xiaoping Thought is a colonial theory
/ China considers itself one giant production relation because it does not realize that treating itself as a production relation is colonial thinking -> I had an epiphany today.
for a while I was unclear if the best argument for Deng Xiaoping Thought was or wasn't any good — the notion that it wasn't meant to be a transition to socialism and actually it was meant to be a theory of national independence. but this week I was looking though Marx and Stalin's concept of sociophilosophies (as I call them) broken down into modes of production and what a production relation is. and then it hit me. a production relation is when there is a productive force and you can draw an arrow from somebody who makes use of a productive force to the productive force. it's easy to see that a factory in China can be a productive force which is used at a business in the United States and which connects parts of China into the overall United States economy — its mode of production. but... if all of China was one giant relation of production containing businesses that are the productive forces. any particular production structure such as a corporation or a collective farm is typically used by somebody in the rest of the economy. so that implies that China itself is being used by someone else. China is a production structure; the corporations are (not) productive forces because their horizontal connections don't matter and they are connected to China vertically; "socialism" is being achieved through creating a border around China and producing lots of stuff that keeps people connected to China and keeps them from defecting, but where in practice a lot of the stuff is being collected by the capitalists for running "the productive forces"; "socialism" is building up capitalism to enrich the ring of capitalists distributed between China and the United States; therefore, Deng Xiaoping Thought is a Marxism based on transitioning China into a colonial possession of the United States, and it is not a postcolonial theory.
I'm not positive on this, but... damn. it's looking really really bad for Deng Xiaoping Thought if this is true. the best you could say to defend China is that it's transitioning itself into a colonial possession of the United States slowly and not quickly. it's strawberry all the way through, like, the bad kind where it's just plain looking backwards and keeping old structures out of some kind of fear of change. wow. I might just have to not mark any self-described "postcolonial" theories strawberry because of how much of an insult it actually seems to be.- Deng Xiaoping Thought is a colonial theory -> "creating a border around China and producing lots of stuff that keeps people connected to China and keeps them from defecting" — I need to note that, rereading that, that's basically what First-World countries do to try not to lose capitalism. they try to argue that if they produce fast enough capitalism will always be good enough, woooo tent of freedom poles economics. which on its flipside is one of the most negative things about capitalism, it unapologetically chunk-competes and then wages frontier wars when it feels like it. so Deng Xiaoping Thought has two big marks against it: 1) tent of freedom poles economics, which sometimes bulldozes other ethnic groups and always refuses to apologize 2) casts China as the instrument of the United States and leaves would-be US people to protect it by exploiting it. Animal Farm is backhandedly true
- No more countries should ever build new instances of strawberry Marxism again [1] -> that's a bold thing to claim is possible but if it were possible it would be nice. all of them seem to shove aside the proletariat and slowly merge back into global capitalism. Yaroshenkoism has been a double-sided theory with such a sharp 'other side' it would definitely be way better not to do it any more
Ideologies or fields
- DX / Deng Xiaoping Thought
- DX / Yaroshenkoism
- ML / mainstream Marxism-Leninism
- ML / Marxist political economy
- MX / meta-Marxism