9k:RD/ China needs to be Zinovievized (Q42,08)
Main entry
- I'm a Marxist-Leninist but China needs to be Zinovievized / I'm not anticommunist, but... (Zinovievizing China)
- I'm a Leninist but China needs to be Zinovievized
- I'm a Marxist-Leninist but China needs to be Zinovievized ->
this feels like one of the biggest blunders of modern Marxism besides people around the world thinking Trotskyism is more valid[error 1]than any of the Marxisms that have actually worked[error 2]. like, no, you've lost the plot.one of the major reasons for Marxism is to understand how countries have developedin order to understand how countries can stop fighting each other[error 3], and this does neither of those things[error 4]. you genuinely need some kind of meta-ontology to understand China,which actually deals with the prospect of a totally different Marxism existing and the "correct" Marxism having to exist alongside it, broadly predict what it will do, and take appropriate kinds of actions to unify with it[error 5]against non-Marxisms. - R.D. has not done meta-Marxism correctly / (9k) -> holy hell. if there is any such thing as a meta-Marxist error in the first place then that was one of them.
Related
- Meta-Marxism doesn't reach classes / Meta-Marxism is improperly classless / Meta-Marxism (violet Materialism; violet Marxism) is not capable of calculating the results of class conflicts if it is a different vantage point from Trotskyism
Ideologies or fields
- / modern Stalinism (2020s)
- / Trotskyism
- / Deng Xiaoping Thought
Wavebuilder combinations
- : forms result [Item]
- --
Errors
- ↑ "Trotskyism is more valid": it is, for the important reason that it is able to model and critique other philosophical tendencies. I really used to believe that it was necessary to create meta-Marxism just to do that, but it isn't.
- ↑ It's arguable these "Marxisms" have not "actually worked" to any extent that is meaningful.
- ↑ "Marxism is so countries can stop fighting each other": yes but no. Note the strange grouping of workers and owners in China into a "country".
- ↑ "This does neither of those things": Dengist error. This statement assumes that all Marxist tendencies are supposed to coexist with Dengism unless they are Trotskyism and cannot be predicted to, discarding everything that doesn't as "not understanding country development". Then it tries to say that Dengism actually achieves peace on the basis of a strawberry Materialism that treats whole corporations with owners as productive forces inside a production relation (the border of China?).
- ↑ "You genuinely need some kind of meta-ontology to understand China": maybe, because China doesn't claim to obey proletarian-materialist rules. "Unify with it against non-Marxisms": there is no need to do this because we aren't living in 1930.
Trotskyists will fight you on this one. They do not like the concept that you need a special meta-ontology weaving itself through all Marxist tendencies but claiming to be separate from them just to understand highly dubious Socialisms that are probably not Marxist. They will immediately get suspicious that any attempt at meta-Marxism is just restoring the glue between bourgeois leaderships. And, here? That would be a totally fair criticism to throw at this page.