View source for User:RD/9k/Q40,70

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Trotskyism-in-one-country isn't Trotskyism|User=RD|E=Q40,70|Contents=y}}
<!-- == Ontology entry ==
{{HueNumberPreview|E=Q40,70}}

-->== Main entry ==

<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol start="4000" class="hue clean">

<li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,70" value="4070" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism-in-one-country would not be a Trotskyism / Trotskyism-in-one-country isn't Trotskyism (abbreviation) / Trotskyism-in-one-country would not fit the definition of Leninism given by any Trotskyism / If a group of Trotskyists built socialism in one country it would actually be a different named Marxism and they would not be Trotskyists any more  ->  this seems to be the case as far as I have ever seen, but I still have no idea why it's true. if the definition of Trotskyism always includes separating from Stalin, then why would a Fortress Trotskyism not fit the definition of Trotskyism? the Trotskyite conspiracy never had very many people in it; practically speaking you'd think a tiny Trotskyism-in-one-country would be one of the most realistic options. Stalin's Marxism, funny enough, doesn't go around cracking open workers' states the way Trotskyism does, so it might actually leave a Fortress Trotskyism alone if it only returned the favor and resolved to primarily join up with other Trotskyisms.

</li></ol>

== Possibilities ==

<ol class="hue clean">

<li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,71" value="4071" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism-in-one-country would be a Maoism / If a group of Trotskyists built socialism in one country it would actually be a Maoism and they would not be Trotskyists any more

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,72" value="4072" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Juche-socialism / Trotskyism-in-one-country would be leadership socialism / If a group of Trotskyists built socialism in one country it would actually be a Juche-socialism and they would not be Trotskyists any more  ->  this proposition is easier to define than it being a Maoism because if you start with the claim that "Trotskyite" is a national identity, all of a sudden the notion of Trotskyism and the notion of leadership socialism don't actually seem that separate any more. the primary concept of Juche-socialism was... let's see if I can remember... it was like, a holistic system where it was largely about getting the country to cohere together and operate as a single entity, it was about pursuing the population's development into its own entity with its own populational identity as part of that, the Materialist stuff supports the basic construction of the country and its immediate immaterial wants, the immaterial wants of the country feed into cooperation with Materialism and Marxism. a countable culture has certain immaterial desires to build identity and cultural activity and connection, to feel something; North Koreans wring out participation in Marxism and scientific thinking from allowing and encouraging the stuff that humanities people think is supposedly beyond words. looked at from that angle... there are significant handfuls of people who become aligned with Trotskyism at least temporarily because it supposedly is less harsh on the immaterial exercise of the arts. Eric Flint, Lois Lowry's husband (who dropped out if he was in it at all but sure did know a weird amount about it), Noam Chomsky claiming to be aligned with Trotskyism and then just retreating into his university to do a lot of stuff about language, etc. I feel like there are more people in Trotskyist parties who are strongly aligned to Materialism and actually understand it. but, Trotskyism transforming into Juche-socialism on the grounds that people want to break from Stalin and not fight a global war and create a Trotskyite identity by growing the arts? doesn't seem impossible. I think one reason this isn't the primary "other thing" Trotskyism would be is that Trotskyism is relatively material whenever it attempts to describe internal structure. it actually begins its spitballing on structure with concrete concepts like "restore the soviets", "free the unions", where both soviets making up factories or towns and unions are material things, not a squishy description of how people are tied together by shared cultural activity and acts of chronicling history that feed back and forth with their material life. and that leads me to think that a Trotskyism-in-one-country would actually describe its independence and new identity in a different framing than that. I want to say they would be gloating about how well it was producing, not in a "maximum productivity" sense but in a particular sense of no part of the system being broken because if anything is really evident about Trotskyism it's that they hate broken things. Trotskyists are really grounded in Materialism, they just don't have a good scientific method.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,73" value="4073" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism-in-one-country would be mainstream Marxism-Leninism / If a group of Trotskyists built socialism in one country it would actually be an instance of Stalin's Marxism and they would not be Trotskyists any more  ->  this is what I thought in the beginning. this is what everybody thought. but by now I doubt that it's actually true. the image of a country which is Stalin's Marxism in every way except it hates Stalin is very funny. but practically, the way the Trotskyite conspiracy so strongly resisted every specific thing Stalin was doing and in particular the way that Trotskyists get upset about China and Cuba as violations of some freedom to be Trotskyist makes me think that there is something core to Trotskyism other than it just being really big or containing all nation-states — something core to Trotskyism which could actually be pointed to inside the area of one country instead of having to look at any other country.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,75" value="4075" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Bordigism  ->  this statement sounds like "the gostak distims the doshes" or "colorless green ideas sleep furiously". I <em>think</em> it's false but I don't know where to start. I guess step one is: what is Bordigism in one country? from the little I know, it's supposed to be a world workers' state just like Trotskyism is. which does open up the question, if Bordigism in one country were possible and Trotskyism in one country were possible, how would the two be different?

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,76" value="4076" data-dimension="F2">Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Deng Xiaoping Thought  ->  troll proposition. I do think there's a decent argument to be made that every single socialism in one country devolves into Deng Xiaoping Thought, and so then you could say that if there were a Trotskyism in one country it would do that too. I had a thought once that Trotskyism and Deng Xiaoping Thought were superficially similar although I don't know if the reasoning was good. I think what I was saying was something like Mao was relatively lenient on other factions and ideas which allowed Deng Xiaoping Thought to happen, and Trotskyists hated it when a central party would be strict on them so ultimately they'd end up doing the same thing. either way I think it's worth noting that Trotskyists don't like it when the initial plan for workers' states devolves into something new but lesser, so I think it's almost certain that kind of thing happening is not part of the core definition of Trotskyism. I guess that has actually provided some information: Trotskyism in one country is closer to early Maoism than it is to Deng Xiaoping Thought.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,74" value="4074" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Trotskyism / If a group of Trotskyists built socialism in one country it would distinctly still be Trotskyism and have its own particular Trotskyist content and identity, regardless of what other groups of Trotskyists feel like saying about it  ->  this is the one I've been thinking is the most likely. the content of Trotskyism is weirdly specific. it doesn't matter if they think they got it solely from the works of Lenin. whenever they bash Cuba or Vietnam it's really clear that even if they had to live in a one-country socialism there's still something specific they want instead.

</li></ol>

== Related ==

<ol class="hue clean">

<li class="field_mdem" data-qid="28,92" value="2892" data-dimension="S2">Socialism can have Trotskyist characteristics / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,92|9k]])

</li></ol>

== Ideology codes ==

* MX onto IV


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]  <!-- page ends here.  TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming
redirects:   [[User:RD/9k/Q4070]]
redirects, related:   [[User:RD/9k/Q40,74]]
duplication hint:   copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNNN|9k/Q40,70]] -->