User:RD/9k/definite relations (Q21,04)
Main entry
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) [1]- Men enter into definite relations not of their choosing -> one of the big problems within Marxism these days is Existentialists do not believe this. Existentialists, the majority of all people, instead believe that every relationship is a choice, and every change in relationships is a matter of Free Will. the important consequence is that Existentialists rely on people finding okay bosses versus terrible bosses and okay landlords versus terrible landlords and okay towns to work in versus terrible towns as an important part of the process of building progressivism. Deleuze & Guattari and the notion of "lines of flight" or "rearranging bodies/machines" — this is what is meant by all that
Links
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 [2]Productive forces are inputs
/ Productive forces are connections between human beings and the surrounding material world where humans obtain what they need [3]Inputs and relations are bound
/ Productive forces and production relations are inseparably connected [4]
Sociophilosophies
Productive forces birth sociophilosophies
(Marx 1859, Stalin 1951) / A productive force replicated births a sociophilosophy / Every stage of productive forces bundles itself into particular relations of production, which form into a particular sociophilosophy /
At each stage of development of productive forces (direct connections from human needs or goals to the material world) there necessarily comes to be a particular set of relations of production, which if repeated across the whole of society gives rise to a particular discrete kind of socioeconomy (economic shape which affects or warps all aspects of life in that society, such as feudal orders or modern capitalism), and inasmuch as that specific kind of socioeconomy always produces representatives of a particular class to create government, the whole population of rulers and bureaucrats and allies directly associated into or with that class necessarily creates some specific limited strain of political philosophy and overall government shape, this political philosophy or political-economic theory ultimately originating out of the population's most common productive forces and immediate relations of production; this particular phenomenon of discrete kinds of socioeconomies contained in discrete populations in the form of factions or republics and containing specific forms of politics, economics, and philosophy may be referred to as Social-Philosophical Systems (SPSs, sociophilosophies, ideologies) and the content of a repeatable sociophilosophy producing highly similar socioeconomies across different countries or regions may be represented by a two-letter symbol or a particular color swatch that separates that particular two-letter code from dissimilar sociophilosophies which, for instance, are clearly filled with different classes, or have very different structural groupings of individuals on a small scale such as improperly labeling small bourgeois or peasant producers as workers versus making the small producers build proletarian structures /
In the social production of [material values necessary to life], men enter into definite relations ... which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political super-structure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness [5] /
Political economy studies 1) the ownership of means of production or nesting of production structures and territories (petty-bourgeois territory, large capitalist territory, collective farm bridging several small territories into a production structure, etc) 2) the social groups that are created from putting people into production structures, and any tensions coming out of structures or appearing between separable social layers 2B) the way products are distributed, which depends on the current kinds of relationships inside and contradictory interactions within structures: worker to 100 workers versus 5 workers to capitalist versus 1 peasant to self and market versus 1 peasant to collective farm, etc.; political economy is the study of socioeconomies and how the small-scale structure of socioeconomies causes one discrete kind of socioeconomy to develop into another [6] [7] / the removal of these notions from the consciousness of men [this was something having to do with squaring Reason with religion], will ... be effected by altered circumstances, not by theoretical deductions (Marx) [8]- Productive forces birth sociophilosophies -> this is Marx's version of what I call Social-Philosophical Systems. the only major difference between the way I do it and the way he did it is I start by picking out groups of people that have linked together, confirm that they all have the same coherent shared ideology, and then ask where that recurring ideology came from structurally, while Marx jumps to "the good part" and says, sociophilosophies are really just a bunch of evolving production structures chained together and you can distinguish the whole thing by its inner physical structure because the government and philosophy that come out of it are somewhat predictable. there's no opposition between Marx's model and the meta-Marxist model of "sociophilosophies"/"socioeconomies", the meta-Marxist model just tries to be more accommodating of the way everyone observing reality sees things from the outside (ideological statements, news events, seemingly-abstract factions and movements) before seeing them from the inside (production structures). which is to say, if you do see a logical contradiction between meta-Marxist characterizations of what a Social-Philosophical System is and Marx, assume Marx is more likely to be right. because again, this is basically his model, it just has a few more details added.
when I said in my book drafts that 'society is like a wavefunction' and the idea in meta-Marxism is to guess what's inside a society though you can't directly see it and then broadly predict what it will do? yeah. Marx's political economy is a way to put together some of those predictions. if you knew a society had one set of internal structures you'd expect it to produce blue ideology, if it had another you'd expect strawberry ideology, if it had another which is still somewhat unknown you'd expect crimson ideology. and if you see a given society where the structural plan you've modeled is matching the ideology and news events it generates, you know basically what to do with that society to change the production structures and get it to generate better ideology.
honestly, you know. Marxism is a little like when you cheese random number generators by finding out what the seed is. it's just not that level of utterly precise.
Related
- Soviet-Union production relations are intelligently designed (Yaroshenko 1952) / Inside a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat, the workers have full control of changes to relations of production (Yaroshenkoism) / (9k)
Ideologies or fields
- ML / early Marxism