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.
socio-politico-economy (early Marxism) -> the ongoing connection from production or economy to social structures and then to political structures with an indivisibility of the three layers from each other. [9] this can be read as either a crimson concept or a violet concept; this is one of the times that there's no real distinction between crimson and violet.
to me, this is 'existential materialism put to use'. exmat starts at "the fun stuff" of bashing Free Will and showing that individual will operates back and forth in all directions within the structure of groups, this thing that either comes from individuals' physical needs and their emergent emotions and personalities on top of those, or emerges from interactions between people where neither individual really controls it and yet it at the larger scale it happens. then it progresses up to "the hard stuff" of showing how the needs of individuals and their current physical arrangements work together to produce seemingly complicated sociophilosophies like Liberal-republicanism, mainstream Marxism-Leninism, a hypothetical Trotskyism, a specific anarchism, nested tribal populations, and so forth.
to Marx and Engels this is kind of just 'the rejection of Ideals creating material shapes' (as long as the ideals contain either abstraction or prescription and aren't literally just descriptions of material shapes). Marx is in one sense trying to center the "socioeconomy" as the place where history really happens through the sheer interactions of individuals to form a society being the "actual cause" of specific historical periods, and not the words or actions of governments. when you look at things that way it's much easier to see how capital has power and how when capital is an important part of a society it becomes able to wield governments and armies in and of itself. in one sense all societies are anarchic, in the sense that socioeconomic structures are what truly runs and decides everything. exmat isn't necessarily new, when you look at Marx and Lenin doing slightly muddy versions of the same thing that nonetheless manage to laser-focus onto some basic conclusion of what causes bring what effects.
and in that sense something like Deng Xiaoping Thought at first seems really concerning because, how do you know all the free-floating businesses aren't going to take control of the thing? but of course, there are other considerations at the same time. the notion that all societies are technically anarchic means that China having any kind of socioeconomy that is going strong has an important role in creating a border around China and a sovereign government; governments don't drop out of the air. as well, the central party-nation is a socioeconomic structure in its own way. it has or previously had the capacity to move people between regions or try to get them to stay in a certain region, and it has the capacity to address living standards and get people out of peasant-level living. the interaction between the people and the central party and especially everyone trusting the central party to carry out tasks is a socioeconomic phenomenon. one of the only things saving China from a color revolution is basically that it contains a socioeconomic phenomenon which is so big and extended across the country it's hard for the capitalists to break it up. (it doesn't help that the capitalists aren't neatly united into two parties, there are or were about eight parties with comically similar names outside the central party and as far as I know none of those are as "important" as the U.S. Republican or Democratic parties.) the layer of capitalists and the central party are sort of going along on separate levels accomplishing different goals. which loosely suggests that they might not actually be getting in each other's way. (and in a weird way, doing almost exactly the opposite of which job you'd think each one of them would be doing. the capitalist layer creates the nation-state, the central party provides for the people?? it neatly matches up with Marxist predictions because, I mean, when do capitalists actually care, but it's still weird to look at.) it's unclear how either layer is supposed to get out of Deng Xiaoping Thought and lead the country into the next stage. the material development of social structures in China and Vietnam is weird and you pretty much need meta-Marxist Bauplan analysis to understand it. which just makes things harder for everyone given that meta-Marxism / existential materialism isn't even complete.
socio-politico-economy (early Marxism) / civil society as unbreakable sociopolitical and socioeconomic connection -> the word Marx says here is "civil society", while I say "socioeconomy". there's very little difference between those two. the only real substantial difference I can think of is that socioeconomies could theoretically be plural. there could be two socioeconomies stuffed underneath one formal government which each have different ideological "swatch colors" and perhaps internal structures that generate those, while "civil society" implies there's only one 'socioeconomy' that maybe contains multiple ideologies in an inseparable multiplicity. I fundamentally think we have to take that and separate it into multiple countable objects to get everyone out of the thinking that classes don't exist and material contradictions don't exist and societies are made of Ideas that successfully pile on because they're 'not extreme' and all that ~~pronounced redacted~~. how do you know what's not extreme? if there was a group of Maoists who thought that things were in the middle when they were following a materially-accurate Maoist line, then who would you be to say that left and right errors from Maoism weren't what was extreme and correctly realizing Maoism wasn't what was in the middle? a lot of attempts to use Hegel without Materialism just feel like totally ungrounded spaghetti.

Ideologies or fields

ML / early Marxism

Main entry

Men enter into definite relations not of their choosing

Links

Production relations are graph links

Productive forces are inputs

Inputs and relations are bound

Sociophilosophies

Productive forces birth sociophilosophies

Related

Ideologies or fields