View source for User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/4000

<h2 id="section-4000"><span class="mw-headline">4000</span> <span class="mw-editsection plainlinks"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span>[https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/4000&action=edit edit]<span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2>

Concepts related to Trotskyism, or named Leninisms in general.<noinclude><br /> Final live version of this section: [[Philosophical Research:Items 4,000 to 5,000]]</noinclude>

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

<li class="field_trotsky" value="4000" data-dimension="S">Bolshevik-Leninism / Leninism (Trotsky's definition)  ->  use to mark highly specific definitions of "Leninism" in Trotskyist texts. all Trotskyist definitions of Leninism are this, and all non-Trotskyist definitions are not.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4001" data-dimension="S">Stalinism (corruption) / Stalinism (prejudice)  ->  use to mark the concept of "Stalinism" specifically as defined in Trotskyist texts, and not in any non-Trotskyist text. if you simply gather up data on this you'll realize it refers to something much more specific than you'd think it is. "Stalin's Marxism" isn't actually the same thing as "Stalinism", even though in practice the concept of "Stalinism" <em>is</em> being used to reject Stalin's Marxism.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4002" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Stalin's Marxism isn't Leninism|Stalin's Marxism isn't Leninism]] / He calls it Marxism-Leninism, but it isn't really Leninism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,92|9k]])

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4003" data-dimension="S">degenerated workers' state
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4004" data-dimension="S">restore the soviets
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4005" data-dimension="S2">State businesses equal capitalism  ->  Hayashi
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4006" data-dimension="S2">State capitalism inevitably evolves to uncontained capitalism  ->  Hayashi
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4007" data-dimension="S2">Workers will all take action given crisis
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="4008" data-dimension="S2">Workers will all take action given spontaneous tiny breakages / clinamen (Althusser) / The Fracture (meta-Marxism)  ->  Althusser actually

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4009">??
</li><li value="4010" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S0">internationally-scoped collection of connected Trotskyist groups  ->  important element of - international-conference Trotskyism, international-party Trotskyism, Trotskyism in one identity-federation

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="IV" value="4011" data-dimension="S2">Abandon Trotsky, and Bolshevism has failed / If Bolshevism fails to take the educated individuals who are dedicated supporters throughout a revolution and integrate them into society such that they will not starve and can use their talents to improve society then Bolshevism has failed  ->  sub-case of: [[E:I'm not anticommunist but|I'm not anticommunist but]]. this is about the only anticommunist argument I have ever found convincing. every anticommunist argument that wasn't Trotsky was totally confusing to me and just left me digging deeper and deeper until I saw how false every one of them was. but this is the only one that's sort of held up as I got more and more information. and it's haunted me ever since. it's easy to blame Trotsky and say he made the wrong choices. but like, what happens if he obeys? if the country is actually failing at things and every time he tries to get into a position the should theoretically be worthy of the experts just kick him out until he's standing next the handful of peasants still starving, isn't there actually some point where he has a right to complain? that has never sat right with me. the notion that even when you build Bolshevism it could have a fraying edge where people are still shunted into a world of individualism with no support, and perhaps treated really badly for just failing to spontaneously be unbelievably excellent at things, tossed quotes about revisionism because their actual skills are not perfect. it feels like there are natural points where people simply aren't materially part of the material object called society and it makes them angry because in a world where everything is claimed by a group of human beings they don't want to be treated as not human beings.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4012" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q40,12|A Trotskyist group is a countable culture]] / Any particular Trotskyist group is a countable culture  / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,92|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4013" data-dimension="S2">[[E:TrotskyIsSafeHere|Trotskyist groups are a safe space for Trotskyist identity]] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,92|9k]])
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4014" data-dimension="S">Trotsky syndrome of countable cultures / ([[User:RD/9k/Q33,17|9k]])

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4015">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,16" value="4016" data-dimension="S">Trotsky, who founded the CPSU / Trotsky, who was the founder of the CPSU along with Lenin {{YouTube|C_wWvpXZTTg}} / ([[User:RD/9k/Q49,17|9k]])

</li><li value="4017" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="S">Trotskyist revolution  ->  very theoretical concept despite a great number of Trotskyists claiming they are described in the collected works of Lenin
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4018" data-dimension="S2">[[E:TheyWillHaveToTalkAboutTrotsky|They'll have to talk about Trotsky someday]]  ->  <i>I am madly trying to find a video. there was this video by the IMT, and Alan Woods is on a stage. the overall room looks kind of bluish. it's kind of like he's giving a <b class="caps">Ted</b> Talk or something. and he says, he says something to the effect of "They're going to have to talk about Trotsky someday. [glib, barely not winking]". I cannot find this video for the life of me. does anybody have any idea where it went</i> (2023-12-06)

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,19" value="4019" data-dimension="S">Trotsky disappearing from pictures  ->  one of those things that's very important to normal people as a "memorable historical event" and yet almost never gets talked about by Marxist theorists. unless maybe they're Trotskyists.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,20" value="4020" data-dimension="S">named Trotskyism
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,21" value="4021" data-dimension="S">international-conference Trotskyism  ->  motif, Particle Theory
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,22" value="4022" data-dimension="S">international-party Trotskyism  ->  motif, Particle Theory. [https://university.marxist.com/en/imt-history Fred Weston] believes that certain groups apart from Ted Grant were getting absorbed into reformism; Grant, apparently, is a believer in watching for crises (S2-4007). was trying really hard to name this thing a person's name but couldn't quite land on one
</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="40,23" value="4023" data-dimension="S">multiple Trotskyisms in one country / multiple local Trotskyist parties  ->  hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - North American Maoism / New Democracy
</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="40,24" value="4024" data-dimension="S">Trotskyism in one supranational federation / Trotskyism in several union republics  ->  hypothetical Particle Theory; actually suggested by Trotsky once or twice regarding North America and Europe
</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="40,25" value="4025" data-dimension="S">Trotskyism in one subpopulational minority / Ethnic Trotskyism  ->  believed to be different from: Maoism in one subpopulational minority
</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="40,26" value="4026" data-dimension="S">Trotskyism in one union republic / Trotskyist nationality / Trotskyist local-state  ->  hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - local state
</li><li data-qid="40,27" value="4027" class="field_geo" data-dimension="S">Trotskyism in one country / Trotskyist nation-state  ->  hypothetical Particle Theory
</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="40,28" value="4028" data-dimension="S">Fortress Trotskyism  ->  subset of: Trotskyism in one country; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - Juche-socialism
</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="40,29" value="4029" data-dimension="S">Trotskyism in one identity subpopulation / hegemony Trotskyism  ->  hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - Gramscianism; superset of: Ethnic Trotskyism

</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="40,30" value="4030" data-dimension="S">Trotskyism as structure integrated with other theory's structure / Trotskyism as large Particle Element containing smaller elements / Trotskyism as small Particle Element contained by larger elements
</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="40,31" value="4031" data-dimension="S">Trotskyism-in-Maoism  ->  subset of: Trotskyism in one union republic
</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="40,32" value="4032" data-dimension="S">Maoism-in-Trotskyism  ->  subset of: Trotskyism in one supranational federation
</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="40,33" value="4033" data-dimension="S">Trotskyism in one identity-federation / international-identity Trotskyism / world hegemony Trotskyism / Trotskyism in Gramscianism in Trotskyism  ->  hypothetical Particle Theory; International or international-party on top, otherwise-anarchic political-identity subpopulations below
</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="40,34" value="4034" data-dimension="S">economic peace Trotskyism / Deng Xiaoping Thought in Trotskyism in Wilsonianism  ->  hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - Deng Xiaoping Thought
</li><li class="field_geo" data-qid="40,35" value="4035" data-dimension="S">Trotskyism for export / Deng Xiaoping Thought in Trotskyism in Liberalism / Trotskyism in Deng Xiaoping Thought / economic-imperialist Trotskyism  ->  hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyists hide inside Liberalism and smuggle all their activities through Third World exploitation. honestly, one of those possibilities I ironically came up with just because it was horrifying

</li><li data-qid="40,36" value="4036" data-remark="trials" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="S2">Stalin is basically Monokuma / Trotskyites don't know the difference between Soviet history and Danganronpa  ->  an analogy I used in a historical fiction summary and now after digging up again cannot get over. the idea is that people think the Soviet Union was just one big trap where because people are in such fierce competition to exist until the country is properly built up, the government then just starts accusing people of things to preemptively get rid of them. almost exactly like Monokuma sets the students up to be in trouble for killing each other, blaming them for each other's graphic deaths over and over when really he started the whole thing

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,37" value="4037" data-dimension="S">Pigs theory / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,92|9k]])
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="DX" data-qid="40,38" value="4038" data-dimension="S">Pig state / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,92|9k]])

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-tradition="DX" data-qid="40,39" value="4039" data-dimension="S2">A Pig state isn't the end of the world / A Pig state is not the end of the world / Orwell handed Russians to butcher knives / Orwell handed Ukrainians to butcher knives / {{book|Animal Farm}} is a reality where George Orwell saw an effort to take a living, breathing, thinking ethnic group and cut them up with butcher's knives and eat them and didn't think it was worth it to do everything to resist that  ->  when you think about it hard enough, {{book|Animal Farm}}'s setting should make the choice to stick to Bolshevism way easier rather than any harder. it really says something about the people who would read or write a book like this when they can't see it as arguing Marxism by accident.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4040">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,41" value="4041" data-dimension="S2">Great productive forces mean great carrying capacity  ->  very popular and common remark in early 1900s Leninism, still pretty controversial to challenge, yet graph theory + chunk competition models bring some worrying suggestions for how trivial it is to make a reality. doesn't mean it's impossible to solve of course, just harder than we thought
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="40,42" value="4042" data-dimension="S2">Extra production over the number of people who will buy at full price is waste  ->  the typical counterpart up to the time of Lenin; why Lenin's and Masnick's line graph is not widely accepted. notable weakness: does not explain how to actually tell if society needs something or not, only how to sell an unnecessary thing for as much as possible
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,43" value="4043" data-dimension="S2">Socialism-in-one-country is basically Existentialism with countries  ->  [https://university.marxist.com/en/imt-history Ted Grant]
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,44" value="4044" data-dimension="S2">Hegemony politics is reformism and Gramscians are a bunch of bureaucrats  ->  [https://university.marxist.com/en/imt-history Ted Grant]
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4045">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4046">??

</li><li class="field_ML" data-remark="Marx said this" data-qid="40,47" value="4047" data-dimension="S2">Having a movement at all is half the battle / Having a Social-Philosophical-Material-System is half the battle / Having an SPMS is step zero / The key to beginning socialist transition is grouping people into a movement  ->  the claim that for instance the Paris Commune (perhaps the example I would pick is North Korea) is important primarily because it actually created a movement, Factically existing within the real world; a single physical movement of people doing anything is worth far more than any stack of ideology because it can, in theory, be transformed into a more intelligent system with more accurate theory as time goes on. I have only tiny issues with this concept, such as: if a movement is based on things fundamentally incompatible with any of the suggestions Marx made, to the point you have no idea at all how to transform it into a workers' state, can this really be true? this is a big problem in the United States. we base all our movements in things like racism and transphobia, in the specific sense that progress itself equals people already in power deciding not to be mean to the people they oppress, and progress couldn't possibly equal ethnic minorities or LGBT people being workers and actively building a new society to replace the old one, it has to be solely based on the right of populations and individuals <em>to merely exist</em> and the responsibility of populations <em>to coexist</em>. it's in the name (that I gave all this stuff), "Existentialism" — capitalism is over if Black people are doing capitalism but they're not being horrifically shot to death in inner cities and they now live and exist. capitalism is over if homosexuality isn't illegal and trans people can be in public instead of hanging out with the mafia because they have nowhere to go. you can get gigantic protests out of this and yet it only regenerates capitalism, because it's not doing the duty of trying to unify individuals into a country around a new Particle Theory; it's not actually building a new SPMS even though people falsely believe it is. how do you transform that? you need a really good new theory that can actually analyze the moving parts of every movement and how movements relate to each other — meta-Marxism — so you can actually listen to each movement and compute the most effective way to transform the whole country out of capitalism with that particular class-ignoring ideology, or successfully fit the class-ignoring ideologies together.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="40,48" value="4048" data-dimension="S2">Capitalism only ends when workers' states cover the world  ->  note how different plural Trotskyisms twist this different ways, some claiming a sea of socialisms-in-one-country is enough, some claiming there are more stringent requirements of having a Fourth International, freeform international party, etc
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,49" value="4049" data-dimension="S2">Capitalism only ends when workers' states form into a single government  ->  the generic Trotskyist version.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="40,50" value="4050" data-dimension="S0">derived Trotskyist proposition / statement that Trotskyists should logically believe although in practice they might not  ->  there are so, so many of these if you think about anything Trotskyists say for even a moment.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,51" value="4051" data-dimension="S2">Socialism in one country will fail because borders leave people unconnected / Socialism in one country will fail because the point of Bolshevism is to connect people, and borders leave many people unconnected
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,52" value="4052" data-dimension="S2">Any particular group of individuals pursuing socialist transition benefits from being part of something larger  ->  molecularized version of the statement that there can't be a socialist transition in one country.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="40,53" value="4053" data-dimension="S2">If Trotskyists turn against a workers' state, they create a population too small to succeed  ->  logically true if you accept Q4052. if most of the people in the Soviet Union don't want to join Trotsky, the best result for Trotsky is he forms a teeny tiny Trotskyist workers' state, and if there can't be socialism in one country, by Trotskyist logic, that tiny Trotskyist workers' state will fail.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="40,54" value="4054" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyists benefit from standing together with mainstream Marxism-Leninism  ->  clearly follows from Q4052 and Q4053. if it is more or less impossible for Trotskyists to ever form into a workers' state bigger than South Korea without eventually running into "Stalinist" interference, they will only ever overcome the rest of the world's capitalists by joining together with other named Marxisms and each socialism aiding the others.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4055" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4056" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4057" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4058" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4059" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4060" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4061" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4062" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4063" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4064" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4065" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4066" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4067" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4068" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4069" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><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 would not fit the definition of Leninism given by any Trotskyism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q40,70|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" 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 / ([[User:RD/9k/Q40,70|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="40,72" value="4072" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Juche-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 / ([[User:RD/9k/Q40,70|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" 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 / ([[User:RD/9k/Q40,70|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" 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 / ([[User:RD/9k/Q40,70|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="40,75" value="4075" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Bordigism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q40,70|9k]])
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="40,76" value="4076" data-dimension="F2">Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Deng Xiaoping Thought (troll proposition; meta-Marxism) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q40,70|9k]])

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4077" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4078" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4079" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4080" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4081" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4082" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4083" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML, W" data-qid="40,84" value="4084" data-dimension="S">wage slavery / slave class of workers (Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/wages.htm] / slave labour (in reference to proletariat; Marx) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/wages.htm]  ->  I have never really liked this motif when people bring it up today. when it appears in Marx... I'll let that by because of how extensively he described capitalism and how brutal he could be on calling out some of the specifics. but as for anyone that lives today, especially in the United States, the context of everything has really changed a lot since 1900.<br/>
the separations between nations and racial subpopulations and union republics and named Marxisms have all become nearly as important as the separations between owner and worker subpopulations in a given country. now you have to deal with things like people desperately wanting to become workers in the United States so they can be part of United States nationality and not be forced into the "inferior" economically-stagnating population of Mexico, or historically, the "inferior" war-torn slowly-rebuilding population of the Soviet Union. since the original Cold War the way people are trapped in capitalism is very racialized and nazified — it's now all about chopping populations into slots and trying to gain exclusive entry into [[E:First World|the world's best races]] so you can brag about how awesome you are and beat up on [[E:Third World|the world's worst races]]. on this note, it's worth thinking about something. United States chattel slavery in the Confederacy was tightly intertwined with a very proto-fascist racism. whether any particular Confederate landowner was thinking of things in terms of old-style pseudo-biological "[[E:fringe science|fringe genetics]]", or new-style Identitarian mysticism that tries to mark countries as better based on abstract "cultural values" doesn't really matter because the outcomes are about the same. but, United States chattel slavery was woven together with a certain kind of deep built-up [[E:alterity|alterity]] where Black people weren't just treated like second-class citizens but were really being pushed into the status of another species where human rights and human empathy simply couldn't apply. the gap between the two ethnic populations was molded into the shape of a gap between species populations, to where you could consume Black people (as slaves) the way a fox consumes an extra rabbit, or a human farmer consumes a cow. so, the sheer difference between White racists and Black slaves in the Confederate population was core to the definition of slavery. all of this is to say that when slavery was abolished, what basically happened is that wage "slavery" specifically became this kind of predatory chaining to being one of the "Whites" and being part of the population that considered itself the superior race. wage "slavery" turned into this weird special form of being in slavery {{em|to being a slaveholder}}, while the former slaves were arguably the ones that were more free. I think people really resented that. I think the slowly emerging phenomenon of the Black subpopulation just being able to form new communities out of itself without so much experiencing the kind of fierce competition between individuals built into the White subpopulation since early on thanks to containing more large-scale owners and people who opened smaller businesses to claim frontier plots made people mad and fed into a big division between White people (the British/French/German/Dutch axis that didn't always include Irish immigrants) and all other ethnicities. I think this separation of populational characteristics right at the end of the Civil War did a lot to eventually fuel the huge explosion of charcoal and blue anarchisms. all of these anarchisms (and in practice {{em|nearly every movement you can term The U.S. Left}}) disproportionately focus on concepts of humans 'really just being built to clump into organic Communities when capitalism suddenly chopped that up into corporations and installed cops for no real reason' {{YouTube|ePcFZ9VtWMc}} or humans 'just trying to clump into organic Communities when suddenly out of nowhere The Colonizer Attitude or Domination convinced everyone to smash them to pieces and take the land'. whatever weird narrative anarchists come up with — or, you know, purported assertion that narratives and ontologies are inherently racist — the major recurring theme is that minorities and non-minorities have fundamentally different populational class structures causing them to behave differently and separating them from ever truly being a single nation with a single "democratic process" or transition process.<br/>
as I've said, anyone from the United States but especially Black people would know there's quite a substantive difference between Southern slavery and capitalist exploitation. this is what that is: the people whose ancestors would have been slaves are not the ones entering into the same particular "wage slave" relationships that would have formed right before the end of the Civil War. which has both good and bad connotations: some people are "not good enough" to be trapped and exploited, some people are actually more free, and they sometimes overlap but not always.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,85" value="4085" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,86" value="4086" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,87" value="4087" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_nations" data-tradition="ML, PT" data-qid="40,88" value="4088" data-dimension="F2">Whites working for Blacks is slavery / White people working for Black people is slavery  ->  this is why I really don't like the phrasing of "wage slavery". it ignores the completely different historical connotations of slavery that have developed in North America. and of course, anyone can say that without having any idea what it means, but here's what I think those specifically are: there is a certain inherent {{em|nazi}} connotation to slavery the moment that Confederate slave plantations were created. not to suggest that slavery was ever "good", but Confederate slave plantations were the seed of turning slavery to the particular tint of nazi eugenics and the eradication of ethnicities and the entitlement to never have to share the earth with other ethnic groups, such that the mere concept of Black people winning at capitalism and becoming bosses fuels utter rage. why would such a small change to a system without actually changing it become so charged that it's almost unspeakable? the ultimate reason is the shift from medieval spatial hierarchies to [[E:microhierarchy|networkisms]]. in spatial hierarchies, someone actually defends the land itself and it can simply continue to add people. in networkisms, the leaders of particular groups of people are tasked with defending the group from incoming attacks directly launched by other groups, and are incentivized to either pretend they are the nicest most moral people on earth who know everything about being way human better than most regular idiot hardly-even-humans who the planet hardly needs when they could do everything human all by themselves, or to act like outside groups are evil when they attack and must be exterminated. either of these kinds of behavior generates prejudice — the second directed out of the group, the first directed in. many people do not realize how destructive internally-directed prejudice can actually be, and start to regard it as perfectly normal, although it will eventually turn around to bite them the moment Tory types become "the best at being human" and at preventing blood feuds and crimes. the antagonisms between subpopulations and really any break in the population are distinctly "nazi", on a populational level, no matter how much you don't want to be one. in a sense, any act of being the bourgeoisie is passively loaded with fascism. it really isn't this way in the Third World; it isn't this way in much of China or Cuba, although things could be different in Iraq where the population can be highly divided. owning is fascism. working is fascism. attacking the bourgeoisie is sectarian or ethnic violence rather than productive. after capitalism has been going a long time and avoiding Bolshevism by a wide margin a long time the whole dynamic of it becomes drastically different. it turns into something vaguely like teeny tiny nation-states having a tiny World War I, or even a tiny World War II where they want to exterminate each other.<br />
this proposition, properly disproved, is key to solving what actual small-scale historical processes and levels of structure exist in the United States.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" data-tradition="A, ML" data-qid="40,89" value="4089" data-dimension="S">wage slavery in fiction / workplaces as wage slavery, portrayed in fiction  ->  appears in: Kiki's Delivery Service.<br/>
it's a little bit of an editorial decision to make this charcoal, but it has to do with the idea that Marxism has a lot of unexamined anarchist ideas embedded into it that are Idealist/non-Materialist. as such, the charcoal swatch actually has a positive connotation here as opposed to many other Items — if mainsteam Marxist-Leninists can't figure out something is non-Marxist and is better labeled anarchist, then as an anarchist you've somewhat succeeded.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="Bordigism" data-qid="40,90" value="4090" data-dimension="S2">Bordiga hates talking about theorists [https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htm]  ->  I don't really blame him, because it's dumb we always have to. why {{em|not}} focus on the objects, processes, or ideas instead? but {{censor|god}} everything he says is so hard to read because I never know what point it's actually building to. as a writer or orator he could have learned a lot from Gramsci

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-tradition="ES, A" data-qid="40,91" value="4091" data-dimension="S2">Wage slavery is when somebody is blocked from being a Careerist and forced to be a proletarian [https://www.nirandfar.com/wage-slaves/]  ->  in recent decades this term has weirdly caught on among non-Marxists, but for totally the wrong reasons.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="40,92" value="4092" data-dimension="S2">Communism doesn't work, but {{TTS|tts=poly-Communism|polycommunism}} does  ->  the claim that a central party-nation such as the Communist Party of China is incapable of steering a country toward the right path because of how little control it has over the rest of the world and the needs of the population inside the country to survive, while a bloc of two or three Communist parties is actually capable of making decisions that affect all three countries as long as the countries are tightly linked economically. a reasonable person would allow that this could be a new form of Trotskyism, but I am not sure if Trotskyists are reasonable people.

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="40,93" value="4093" data-dimension="S">poly-Maoism  ->  case of: Bauplan. the hypothetical configuration of several separate Maoisms forming as party-nations, going through Deng Xiaoping Thought, and then connecting to each other only to turn back into one large Maoism.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,94" value="4094" data-dimension="S">poly-Trotskyism  ->  the hypothetical configuration of several smaller Trotskyisms-in-one-country forming and then joining into a bigger more favorable Trotskyism. if there is anything categorically wrong with this according to Trotskyists the color swatch can be changed. this entry does not specify the content of the Trotskyisms-in-one-country beyond that they dislike Stalin's government (if asked about that historical period) and are "somehow" Trotskyisms.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="40,95" value="4095" data-dimension="S">poly-Bordigism  ->  knowing that Bordigism is supposedly more than one country to begin with, this <em>may</em> be logically possible?

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4096" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4097" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4098" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="40,99" value="4099" data-dimension="S">poly-Menshevism  ->  the hypothetical configuration of three or more center-Liberalisms joining together to make it so that not having social-democracy in any of the individual countries is somehow utterly illegal and considered basically treason. I don't know how this would be possible, but if you propose poly-Maoism or poly-Trotskyism somebody's going to propose it.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="4100" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q4100|Leninism]] (top-level category)  ->  this entry is the same thing as "Marxism-Leninism"; it ignores Trotsky's claim that Stalin did not correctly continue Marxism. it also tentatively grants that Trotskyism is a garbled version of the same Marxism-Leninism, just as it says it is. (well, it doesn't admit "garbled", but, you know.)
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="41,01" value="4101" data-dimension="Z">early Marxism  ->  this refers to Marxist theories or movements that existed before Lenin, notably Marx and Engels. it genuinely might not include the people Marx thought were "hardly Marxists". definitely not if those people can be shown to be integral sources to Western Marxism or in some particular grouping of their own, like Menshevism or some new category of "proto-Western-Marxism" or whatever. at the same time: it is always technically okay for things to be grouped into multiple traditions if they were important to both.
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="41,02" data-qid="41,02" value="4102" data-dimension="S0">Third-World Marxisms
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="41,03" data-qid="41,03" value="4103" data-dimension="Z">mainstream Marxism-Leninism / Stalin Thought / Stalinism (Marxist model used by Stalin; rarely used definition)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="41,04" value="4104" data-dimension="Z">[[E:Trotskyism|Trotskyism]] / Leninism (Trotskyist movement) / revolutionary socialism (Trotskyist movement)  ->  this is the top level category for all things Trotskyism, not the signifier for what specific Trotskyist subsets say Leninism is
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="41,05" value="4105" data-dimension="Z">Juche-socialism / leadership socialism
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="41,06" value="4106" data-dimension="Z">Maoism
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-qid="41,07" value="4107" data-dimension="Z">[[E:Deng Xiaoping Thought|Deng Xiaoping Thought]] / Dengism / socialism with Chinese characteristics (Deng era)
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-qid="41,08" value="4108" data-dimension="Z">Western Marxism
</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-qid="41,09" value="4109" data-dimension="Z">Gramscianism
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="41,10" value="4110" data-dimension="Z">Bordigism (named Marxism) / Bordiga and ICP's Marxism  ->  this is not affiliated with Trotskyism as far as I know right now. it has the swatch because from the little I've heard about it, I half remember somebody accusing it of being sectarian. still learning about it, so the swatch may change later

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4111" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4112" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4113" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4114" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4115" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4116" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4117" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4118" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4119" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4120" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4121" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4122" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4123" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4124" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4125" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4126" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4127" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4128" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4129" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4130" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4131" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4132" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4133" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4134" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4135" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4136" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4137" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4138" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4139" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4140" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4141" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4142" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4143" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4144" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4145" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4146" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4147" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4148" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4149" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4150" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4151" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4152" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4153" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4154" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4155" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4156" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4157" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4158" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4159" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4160" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4161" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4162" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4163" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4164" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4165" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="BPP" data-qid="41,66" value="4166" data-dimension="Z">BlackPantherism  ->  United States. one of the most effective North American Marxisms, but largely gets erased today. many people will claim it gets forgotten due to racism but I think there are actually other reasons it gets forgotten, one of them being that a great number of Black people have become anarchists and don't want to remember their own Marxism. (and a few of them have become Gramscians or critical theorists. not that that isn't respectable at least 1% of the time with people like W.E.B. DuBois. it improves when you throw minority demographics into it. I think it's White people doing critical theory that are more likely to make me tired.)<br/>
BlackPantherism gets the violet swatch simply due to the notion it correctly applies Materialism at small scales and "did a number of things right". the violet swatch doesn't mean it's literally the first known MDem, or that it's literally the first application of meta-Marxism. what it does mean is that whenever I write about what I think an MDem would be like I periodically reinvent something that sounds like what the Black Panthers did without being fully aware it happened; meta-Marxism "predicts" after the fact that they did things right. so I think it only makes sense to use swatches as if "molecular BlackPantherism" was the first named Marxism for meta-Marxism to be aligned with. that particular MDem is still totally hypothetical but it at least is closer to having been real than any other one.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4167" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4168" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4169" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4170" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4171" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4172" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4173" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4174" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4175" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4176" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4177" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4178" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4179" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4180" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4181" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4182" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4183" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4184" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4185" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4186" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4187" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4188" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4189" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4190" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4191" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4192" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4193" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4194" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4195" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4196" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4197" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4198" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_gramsci" data-qid="41,99" value="4199" data-dimension="M1">unknown Marxist subdivision / Marxism unknown  ->  may be used for coding any work that "sounds" Marxist but whose particular preceding Marxist theorists or movements haven't been traced. in practice, some works that are technically anarchist or Existentialist in their affiliation may get marked with this, just because sometimes it can be difficult to separate these non-Marxist traditions from Western Marxism. again, sometimes that is not necessarily harmful, and there's a "[[Ontology:Is topology a threat to Marxism?|topology]]" effect where a non-Marxist theory describes something very real, and yet the theory is something other than Marxism.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="4200" data-dimension="S2">In 1992, the vast majority of self-professed Marxists supported counterrevolution [https://bolshevik.org/1917/no30/no30-Rev_Regroupment.html]  ->  I can't tell if they are talking about Zinovievizing or not, or if they mean Western Marxism and Existentialists, or what. if they do mean Zinovievizing it would be a huge admission from Trotskyism, while if they don't the same statement means nothing at all. this is a really common problem in Trotskyism, that you never know if a statement that sounds correct internally is good or whether it's weirdly a lie.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="42,01" value="4201" data-dimension="S2">Trotsky thought he believed in Leninism  ->  the claim that Trotsky thought the theory he held of workers' movements, revolution, and/or constructing workers' states was the same theory Lenin had leading up to 1925. mostly uncontroversial, although some may tell you Trotsky was absolutely nothing but a liar. I think that's an exaggeration, because he spent significant effort telling parties in North America and Europe things that <em>sounded like</em> correct Marxist positions (but had subtle errors hiding behind them in terms of actually applying them). I think the evidence supports that Trotsky <em>was</em> dedicated to Leninism but his "Leninism" managed to be a garbled, totally wrong version of Leninism. many Marxists don't like to admit that that kind of thing is possible, because it would vulgarize Marxism into a mere identity that doesn't guarantee the class composition of the movement. but I think the dark truth of things is that that has always been the case. mathematically, all arrangements of people are identities, even if they're class subpopulations. organizing people always creates identities. the fact East Germany came to exist shows that all workers' states are identities, like any other nationality. so what's wrong with realizing that "theoretical" Marxism and the basic phenomenon of people sorting into movements are always separate until they're not? it explains how there can be multiple rival Marxisms. it might be that several of them are not connected to the people at all, that some of them connect to a really specific subset of actual workers but not all of them, or that none of them are correct, none of them predicting or guiding what people are actually doing at all. it's particularly believable this could happen if every current movement is operating under a [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|different theory]] of connecting people together that replaces Marxism.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="42,02" value="4202" data-dimension="S2">The Fourth International was an act of filtration / Leon Trotsky sought to regroup the best militants from the Stalinized Communist International [https://bolshevik.org/1917/no30/no30-Rev_Regroupment.html] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,92|9k]])

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="42,03" value="4203" data-dimension="F2">Every Trotskyite Stalin eliminated was a Leninist [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS8s6j5gVEo]  ->  read Trotskyist talks really closely and you see the assumptions between the lines. past Trotsky and Zinoviev (? if he even was, which I usually assume he wasn't.) practically none of the Trotskyites were Leninists or "allies of the world revolution" — which, sure, they only have to be workers if the conditions are right, but knowing how many capitalists were in there, you'd have a stronger claim if they were Leninists. can you build a revolution with enough Gramscis? who knows, but if you have anything less the chances don't look good.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4204" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="42,05" value="4205" data-dimension="S2">Bonapartism is when Germany prevents the Berlin wall / Bonapartism is when a bourgeois and proletarian subpopulation become deadlocked and The State becomes an instrument for keeping the lid on the country and preventing the proletarian subpopulation from breaking out  ->  okay. that's more of a word definition than something that's strictly a wrong application of a concept. I wish this wasn't the same word as they use to criticize Stalin though. if this is what it means then why do they use it on Stalin?

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4206" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4207" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4208" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4209" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="42,10" value="4210" data-remark="Q42,18 Che is Trotskyist?" data-dimension="S2">British Trotskyists care about Vietnam {{YouTube|mmxfao7FtR}}  ->  Trotskyists are so quick to tell you that this is true but I highly doubt it. Trotskyists assembled against the Vietnam War? believable. Trotskyists actually care about Vietnam? don't think so. behind the scenes there is this oddly specific thing they do where it's almost like they are <em>taking advantage of</em> other countries rather than actually helping them. imagine Trotskyists were effective, and they liberated Vietnam from empire. what would they do then? they'd probably start trying to subtly dominate the country like Vietnam has to do what Greg and Ted in Britain and some random Rosa over in Vietnam want rather than what the workers of Vietnam want.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4211" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4212" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX onto IV" data-qid="42,13" value="4213" data-dimension="S2">If a Trotskyist civilization committed imperialism, what would it look like? / ([[User:RD/9k/Q42,13|9k]])

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="42,14" value="4214" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q42,14|The Cuba blockade preserved the republic]] / The blockade of Cuba is what's preserved the regime (Alan Woods) {{YouTube|mn7nv15rgKA}}  ->  as far as I can tell, that's correct. one of the most successful things Marxists have ever done is simply close off Third World countries from foreign capitalists.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="42,15" value="4215" data-dimension="F2">[[Ontology:Q42,15|Deng Xiaoping Thought has a limited lifespan]] / You can't have both capitalism and a Stalinist regime, it'll blow up (Alan Woods) / It's like a pressure cooker (on Deng Xiaoping Thought styled countries; Alan Woods) {{YouTube|mn7nv15rgKA}}  ->  this seems to be the opposite of what's true. [[User:RD/9k/Q49,98|[...]]]

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="42,16" value="4216" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Alan Woods had books published in Cuba|Alan Woods had books published in Cuba]] / I've had my books published in Cuba (Alan Woods) / Cuban Marxists are turning towards Trotskyism  ->  this remark really stands out because it could mean at least two things: A) the private sector in Cuba likes Trotskyist books B) Cuban Marxism has actually become tolerant of Trotskyism. I have no idea which of these is true. Woods really wants to believe it's the second one and specifically that all the Cuban Marxists are turning into Trotskyists.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="42,17" value="4217" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyists don't understand global empire / The reason Trotskyists bash Deng Xiaoping states and East Germany is that they don't understand global empire  ->  I think there's a pretty good case for this. you lay out what a [[E:Deng process|Deng process]] is and it seems Trotskyists really don't get that. they are really against measures that happen to make countries actually independent from imperial powers and protect them from utterly being colonized. the bright side? this is a colonialism discourse I actually can stand. fine-scale neocolonialism and crude national independence are both things that make material sense, unlike the notion that prejudices in White people's heads are somehow colonialism.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="42,18" value="4218" data-dimension="S2">Che Guevara got his ideas of international revolution from Trotsky  ->  this seems laughable to me. it's like... didn't everything he did originate from the Latin American people. it's so weird how they have to set up that Che Guevara is supposedly positioned with early Trotskyism to explain why him supposedly turning against the Cuban bureaucracy is good
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="42,19" value="4219" data-dimension="S2">Che Guevara could have become a Trotskyist [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn7nv15rgKA]  ->  kind of a ridiculous claim when Trotskyists are saying such bad things about Cuba now. what does it mean for Che Guevara to fight for the people? it means Che Guevara and all the more peaceful Third-World Marxists fight to defend Third World populations from First-World populations. if you tear down their "wall" they'll probably hate you. that said, if you look at this from a class analysis angle it manages to be a little less terrible. here again we have Trotskyists trying to claim Cuba has the wrong internal structure and if it had the right internal structure [[E:The Pigs (Animal Farm)|The Pigs]] wouldn't have won and created a "Pig state". this thing they keep saying should hypothetically be testable, if you could somehow do a crude simulation of the internal structure of workers' states and watch that structure stack up emergently and develop. I'm really feeling that Marxism can be a science someday if we just had the right meta-Marxist mathematics.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4220" data-dimension="S2"><cite>[[Ontology:Q42,40|Reason in Revolt]]</cite> (1995)  ->  this is apparently one of the Trotskyist books that has been published in Cuba. on the surface it seems to lean into "Trotskyism is early-Marxism" and not go into any of the "Stalinism controversy". so, I guess it isn't all that surprising he got it through. still kind of funny he talked about his books like they were really subversive, and from that angle, worth discussing the possibility of what a genuinely critical Trotskyist book getting through would mean.

</li><li class="field_ML" value="4221" data-dimension="S">crisis of capitalism  ->  Trotskyists are always talking about these. as are most Marxists. it's a fairly good talking point.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4222" data-dimension="S">crisis of Bolshevism  ->  the motif of a system within a workers' state ripping apart and not working as intended. everyone outgrowing microdistricts as populations expand could be considered one, as could ripping open the economy into a trapped capitalism. a country opening up to imports and exports isn't necessarily a crisis of Bolshevism in and of itself. in general these are more "orderly" than crises of capitalism; the central party can often see them coming and see why they happened whether they ultimately get stopped or not.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4223" data-qid="42,23" data-dimension="S">crisis of named Leninist movement  ->  system-breaking crisis that occurs in a Marxist movement which has not become a workers' state.
</li><li class="field_trotsky"  value="4224" data-qid="42,24" data-dimension="S">crisis of Trotskyism  ->  there are about two kinds: groups falling apart and everybody simply dropping out.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="4225" data-qid="42,25" data-dimension="S">crisis of schizoanalysis  ->  when schizoanalysis tries to assert that different movements are inherently connected but the different movements just start fighting each other.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4226" data-dimension="S">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4227" data-dimension="S">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4228" data-qid="42,28" data-dimension="S">the boring Bread store {{YouTube|C_wWvpXZTTg}}  ->  Dennis Prager's dumb, funny way of slamming state businesses. he says that private businesses don't necessarily not exist but then he gets upset about "boring" established state businesses anyway — kind of contradictory. if tiny businesses still exist why are the boring big ones even a problem to you? reading what he says generously, he might know that Marx implies a future historical period when the tiny ones go away to leave only the big ones as something a bit like republicanized micro-states inside nations and local-states and counties because people just don't need to do those things as businesses any more, and maybe do them for no money if they are really important, the way people just kind of put up educational videos on YouTube instead of getting hired to produce them.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="42,29" value="4229" data-remark="4236 stale rat bread" data-dimension="S">fonts as culture of The Government [https://www.comradegallery.com/journal/fonts-typography-and-freedom-ussr] / Stalinist font / font of The Totalitarian State  ->  I have heard this trope all my life and I am so sick of it. what is the big deal with "Stalinist fonts" and what is so bad about them. fonts standardize all the time without Stalin, considering how there is this one font on signs that everyone knows, I think it's Helvetica. this concept is so stupid.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="42,30" value="4230" data-dimension="S2">Stalin built the country wrong / Stalin's government built the country with structures that are bad although we are not specifying what the actual error is / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,92|9k]])
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="42,31" value="4231" data-dimension="S2">Ministries existing means there is no democracy / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,92|9k]])
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4232">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4233">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4234">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="42,35" value="4235" data-dimension="S2">The internal shape of a workers' state leads to buffer state conflicts / There is something about the internal activity of a workers' state which can cause it to participate in international war or not / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,92|9k]])

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4236" data-qid="42,36" data-dimension="S">[[Ontology:Q4236|I'm eating stale rat bread and I can't take it any more]] / I'm eating the stale rat bread and I can't {{censor|fucking}} take it any more [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cET8bJ2xlUA&t=237s]  ->  when somebody attempts to criticize corporations for having made bad "culture" that is bad precisely because it intrudes on a person's individual Lived Experience and not because the structure and function of the corporation has any effect on the larger society such as the health of workers or impact on the internal functioning of socially-linked communities that decide to tie themselves to the product. Žižek is guilty of this: he makes strange claims that Lenin and Stalin couldn't create good "culture", which make no sense <em>until</em> you realize he is trying to make a Marxism that has nothing to do with workers and is all about the Lived Experience of existing in the midst of a bunch of bad products — or when it stoops to being about workers is about bad working conditions being <em>a bad individualized Lived Experience</em>. the Zinovievist accusation of bad "culture" is strange. it's like wrong culture is about the consumer's Lived Experience, but the problems with corporations essentially become about corporations Freely Willing to do the wrong thing when they could have Freely Decided to do better. some chunks of Existentialists seem to conceptualize literally every movement as democulture including the function of unions and so-called ""corporate greed"". they don't even believe in Menshevism and political parties. they think all society is just made of good-idea orthodoxies stomping bad people and forcing them to behave better, squashing bad people's otherwise sacred Lived Experiences and forcing them to exist better when they weren't existing good.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4237" data-qid="42,37" data-tradition="Zv" data-dimension="S">the science bureaucracy
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4238" data-qid="42,38" data-tradition="Zv" data-dimension="S">science Trotskyites  ->  the non-fictional motif that there are people who oppose established structures of science purely for their failures without thinking about their successes. this could be a good thing or a bad thing. some people could have legitimate complaints that universities are stagnating and churning out a lot of papers that do very little. other people are [https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6156 Alexander Unzicker] and sound comically similar to <cite>The Revolution Betrayed</cite> in that their criticisms sound like facts but in context do not even make any sense.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="4239" data-qid="42,39" data-tradition="ES" data-dimension="S">science Tories  ->  the non-fictional motif that people should be presumed to not actually be knowledgeable about science because they "[[E:assigned liberal at birth|Are Actually Part Of The Right]]". (examples: Richard Dawkins, Sabine Hossenfelder.) this isn't really correct on a factual basis. somebody can be an absolutely horrible person and still understand science and create an informative book or video about science which is educational to people of all ideologies. in such a case, the work becomes valid through death of the author and other people reappropriating the work, exactly as with fictional works. it is also possible that misconceptions about science will lead somebody into Toryism, or that facts or models will become misinterpreted through Toryism into models that don't actually make sense. but this happens for reasons that a lot of center-Liberals don't want to think about: people form ontologies to comprehend the world, they strain everything through ontologies, sometimes the ontologies are inaccurate, sometimes the ontologies are accurate. in recent decades people really hate the notion of ontologies because of the fact <i>ontologies can form stereotypes</i>, so they want to smash all ontologies, but that's a bad plan when all countable Cultures and marginalized religions and things they want to protect bring ontologies, so smashing ontologies is an easy way to let people get away with forced assimilation, the opposite of the goal. there is such a trend to say reality can't be predicted and people can't be predicted to try to encourage people to be open-minded, but it never really works because people need to form ontologies to [[Ontology:Q2970|avoid catastrophes in their lives and physically survive]], and if you don't give them objectively accurate ontologies of how to successfully survive and build society they <em>will</em> use stereotypes for the same purpose, taking down notes to avoid "all men" or "all Black people" just to have a better day-to-day experience with less pain in their individual lives. back to science-Tories: science-Tories are the motif that people form countable Cultures of Toryism and then they do science for the "Tory ethnicity", and you have to root them out of science because the Tory people-group is an evil malicious people-group which [[Ontology:Q3667|intends to use]] all pieces of the Tory machine to eliminate the center-Liberal people-group so all pieces of the Tory machine are bad. even if this is true... do you see how there are undercurrents in this which indicate some nasty biases or fallacies of some kind? not in the sense of "Tories could be good", but more in the sense of "nations must be adversarial to the extent of internal imperialism and there's nothing we could have done to prevent this, we've just gotta divide and fight a civil war one day because that's the only way countries can be".

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4240" data-qid="42,40" data-dimension="S2">Absurdism, nihilism, and existentialism are all the same thing / Existence-philosophy, nihilism, and absurdism are all the same thing  ->  sounds like it couldn't be possible, but all three of them say individuals make their own meaning. all three of them are versions of the same existentialism. (this has nothing to do with Trotskyism, and is only here because of the number.)
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4241" data-qid="42,41" data-dimension="S2">Optimistic nihilism is about making your own meaning  ->  sic. heard somebody say this verbatim. five years ago I might have gotten pedantic and said "that's (early-) existentialism!!" but now I think there is no actual difference.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4242" data-qid="42,42" data-dimension="M3">Is there a point to believing in existentialism? / Is it possible for individuals to assert existentialism is meaningful? / Is believing in early-existentialism meaningless?  ->  the hyper-existentialist question. does the premise of existentialism apply to existentialism? entropicism would argue that ultimately this is not true, or at the very least, this is not a thing people can say trivially and it's a really difficult question.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4243" data-qid="42,43" data-dimension="S2">A Trotskyism-in-one-country could invest in Vietnam / A Trotskyism-in-one-country can invest in a Third World country  ->  not sure why this wouldn't be true considering China does this. but the implications of a Trotskyism doing this are maybe a bit chilling. imagine there's a Trotskyist Britain. it invests in Vietnam before other countries get there, ostensibly in order to keep Liberal-republican countries out, but also to make sure Vietnam doesn't team up with "Stalinist" countries — stay on the good side of Trotskyism and there will be no Trotskyite conspiracy, but the Communist party of Britain controls your factories. British Trotskyists position themselves like they are trying to be nice and they will listen to Vietnam's workers, but the whole thing is an inch from erupting into Trotskyists just gutting Vietnam's government and putting the population of Vietnam under colonial rule of Trotskyist theorists. ostensibly not doing anything worse to them than a workers' state would do to its own people and yet they have absolutely no national autonomy because Trotskyism didn't value it. you know what's worse than this hypothetical scenario though? the fact capitalism can already do this with no responsibility to anyone. if Trotskyism was exploiting Vietnam there would at least be a consolidated group of people to hold responsible. if capitalists complained about the human rights abuses of Trotskyist Britain you'd never hear the end of it. but capitalism manages to be worse than Trotskyist empire would likely be because it's always hiding behind the notion of globally universal individuals that have to be free yet get to dominate everyone with all the choices they make about how everyone else has to be.<br />
this statement is false if it can be conclusively shown that there's no such thing as Trotskyism in one country and there would never be a group of Trotskyists that would create it at least without all of them deciding they are not Trotskyists any more. if this statement is appropriate to a different named Marxism in one country then a new proposition must be created.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4244">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4245">??

</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="entropy Existentialism motif" value="4246" data-qid="42,46" data-dimension="F2">Academic science is a planned economy [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPy3DeMUyI] (7:37)  ->  Sabine Hossenfelder's somewhat pitiful attempt to justify why science in an environment of [[Term:chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy|chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy]] carefully modifying behavior to conform to selection pressures and survive is somehow the wrong way to operate in that environment. very bad choice of words because you've literally described capitalism.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4247" data-qid="42,47" data-dimension="S2">Academic science is capitalism / Academic science is an undesigned system which creates selection pressures and where the science that gets produced operates on the logic of assembly theories such that scientists are obligated to join socially-linked countable cultures in order to survive expulsion from the environment as opposed to thinking for themselves as individuals<br />
it'll throw some people off that this claim is violet, but it's using the particular meta-Marxist definition of capitalism as a social-darwinist struggle between countable cultures which each individually would otherwise be the proletariat in the time of a workers' state. I abbreviated it to "capitalism" because in the end saying "it's capitalism" is a nicely equivalent, easily recognizable, and shorter statement.

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4248" data-qid="42,48" data-dimension="S2">Absurdism, nihilism, and existentialism are the biased political compass of philosophy
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4249" data-qid="42,49" data-dimension="S2">Absurdism, nihilism, and existentialism are reversed stages of grief  ->  thought of this while adding "all the same thing". first comes absurdism, then nihilism, then existentialism, so it's like, acceptance, depression (optional), then anger and denial. first we realize that nothing actually makes coherent sense including morality or justice. then we get upset. then we try to convince ourselves "in each of ours groups separately in parallel" there really is a meaning and we have the answers

</li><li class="field_ML" value="4250" data-qid="42,50" data-dimension="F2">It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in The West [https://actuallyexistingstalinist.substack.com/p/western-anti-marxist-leninist-leftism]  ->  a lot of mainstream Marxist-Leninists <em>believe</em> this out of some kind of envy for the people they imagine having successfully become "non-Marxist passing", but I'm pretty sure that as of the 2010s it isn't even true. what's more correct is most people have a really, really low opinion of anybody who claims to be a Leninist or quotes Marx or Lenin at all. "non-Marxist passing" is more like "White-passing" than it is like "cis-passing"; it's a thing of intolerance, not acceptance. this could vary a lot by country. but I think it's fair to mark it false just because believing it will give you wrong impressions of at least one First-World country.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4251" data-qid="42,51" data-dimension="F2">It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in the United States  ->  it's generally not. it's very common to see a narrative that (along with Stalin) Trotsky was practically deranged and [[E:psychoanalytically wrong|Psychoanalytically Wrong]] while only non-Communists are the Real Human Beings. it's weird and contradictory how we have so much talk about prejudice and yet most people would nearly institutionalize Communists as having a mental illness. protest about the treatment of schizophrenics but keep an asylum only for Communists.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4252" data-qid="42,52" data-dimension="S2">It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Britain  ->  this is the proposition I find a lot more interesting but genuinely don't know the answer to.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4253" data-qid="42,53" data-dimension="S2">It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Australia
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4254" data-qid="42,54" data-dimension="S2">It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Canada
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4255" data-qid="42,55" data-dimension="S2">It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Germany
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4256" data-qid="42,56" data-dimension="S2">It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Spain  ->  this is an interesting question because of the history of Trotskyists and anarchists clashing over Spain.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4257" data-qid="42,57" data-dimension="S2">It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Japan  ->  as far as I know Trotskyism is kind of.... forgotten and unheard-of in Japan. in Japan it's weirdly acceptable to be a parliamentary Marxist or whatever the Communist Party of Japan is. but I feel like most people have absolutely no idea that Trotskyism exists or what it is
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4258" data-qid="42,58" data-dimension="S2">It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in South Korea  ->  a while in the past it used to be really forbidden. I do not remember what year that happened though or how close it was to today. the funny thing is I almost feel like it's less forbidden to discuss a world workers' state in North Korea as long as it isn't an actual conspiracy or campaign against the government — I feel as if a lot of things that are unacceptable in North Korea are actually just socially isolated before anyone ever has to be arrested. is that accurate? I have only shreds of information about the history of this country. but everything I have heard makes it sound like at the end of the day North Korea is incredibly like the United States and every time it is oppressive it's very similar to the way local people in Florida are oppressive to local people — obsessed with Freedom, obsessed with patriotism, not wanting to be controlled by the nearby outside world, not knowing that may lead them to be mean to their neighbor <em>in their pursuit of being Free</em>. in fact, as I always say, Florida is probably a little worse. North Korea is only so good but like, Florida is the cesspool out of the two.
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4259" data-qid="42,59" data-dimension="S2">It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in South America  ->  this one seems to have some probability of being true. it feels like Trotsky really did make an impact on Central and South America but it just went at this glacially slow pace until... there is sort of a little bit of Trotskyism today.

</li><li class="field_geo" data-tradition="STM; string theory" value="4260" data-qid="42,60" data-dimension="F2">String theorists are not suppressing dissent / String theorists are <em>not</em> creating localized [[E:There are millions of Spanishness Offices|Spanishness Offices]] which become more about cliques and socially-linked groups of people protecting each other than actual objective standards of science  ->  oh boy. one of those questions where I don't like having to talk about it because I know the parties are talking past each other and not even talking about the same thing. when Sabine Hossenfelder and Jim Baggott or people like that allege that string theorists are suppressing dissent, they mean inside individual specific institutions such as a university or a journal. they don't mean nationwide. what The Hossenfelder or The Baggott or The Science Trotskyite is saying is that there is a process that takes hold <em>sometimes</em> inside particular institutions where some particular individual or Filament of individuals takes over them and if you don't fit into that limited local countable culture of scientists and play by exactly the rules it wants then it doesn't let you play the game. while it can be true that Not All String Theorists do it, the accusation itself is that it's an undesirable process that happens spontaneously somewhere without recourse and so it feels like anybody anywhere can "get Gramsci'd". and here's how it historically goes in each of these cases of people complaining about "suppression": when you get Gramscianized or musical-chairs-attacked you start to feel paranoid like all the Stalinists across the Soviet Union or all the string theorists everywhere across all of Germany or all of the United Kingdom are joining together to find you and kick you out — whether such a statement is accurate or not. whereas, the claim that string theory has been improperly accepted across all of Germany is a claim of much greater scope than anybody is practically intending to make. the problem The Science Trotskyites are talking about is less a science problem and more of a social problem of localized countable cultures of people meshing badly and failing to share localized institutions such that the group of people has to divide and each countable culture has to aggressively secure its own territory. really not a problem that has much to do with the scientific method.

</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="4261" data-qid="42,61" data-dimension="S2">Prediction markets could pick the best researchers  ->  there is definitely something wrong with this but it would take a lot of unpacking to figure out exactly what weird thing is going on. I'm thinking this is a matter of networkism, where in one sense Serializers rule the world because every successful industrial structure can be phrased in terms of a prediction of the future and when everybody believes the future is not a matter of physics investors profit off all of us.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4262" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4263" data-qid="42,63" data-dimension="S2">Steven Universe is actually about Trotskyism / Steven Universe is definitely about Trotskyism  ->  this was the subject of an <cite>MDem</cite> chapter I didn't finish — one of the off-the-wall satirical "B-side" chapters. I think it works better in chapter form but this proposition can still be about the underlying concept that it's possible to argue a work into meaning utterly anything.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4264" data-qid="42,64" data-remark="40,64 The Matrix is about Toryism etc" data-dimension="S2">The Matrix is actually about Trotskyism  ->  troll argument / jamming proposition. the claim that <cite>The Matrix</cite> is actually about realizing capitalism makes no sense and will inevitably fall into crises, while the whole world is stuck in the illusion that it won't so you have to break the whole world out of it, which leads to Trotskyism. it's funny how almost logical this is when it began as a total {{censor|ass}} pull, more so than the Lion = Trotskyism one. I think what's so funny about it is that the whole trans erasure red pill proposition is so toxic but although this is meant to be the same thing in a different color it's more or less harmless; if Trotskyists are convinced their message is more important than a trans identity message it will probably just wrap around to them pushing parties that support trans identity anyway.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4265" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4266" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4267" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4268" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4269" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4270" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4271" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4272" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4273" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4274" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4275" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4276" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4277" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4278" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4279" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="Bordigism" data-qid="42,80" value="4280" data-dimension="S">commodity (Bordigism)  ->  I feel like this needs its own entry because I'm not entirely sure what specific things Bordiga is taking commodity to mean. let's see here<br />
A) commodities have exchange value. this is bad for some reason. B) you have to take away the precise exchange values between commodities to have properly created Bolshevism. (that sounds... kind of correct, except - when do you think the mono-structure is actually created then? do you not think the mono-structure was created starting in 1917?)

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="Bordigism" data-qid="42,81" value="4281" data-dimension="S2">Commodity production suggests enslavement / any existence of a mass of commodities suggests ... If in the past there was [[E:commodity (Bordigism)|commodity production]] ... it was not because the labour-power was sold “voluntarily” as it is today, but rather because it was squeezed by force of arms (Bordiga) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htm]  ->  the claim that because Bolshevism produces a particular quantity of commodities, it is not basically different from capitalism and it has not created a period of socialism. this is terribly un-molecularized, and just gross frankly. now I do like this form of argument {{em|better}} than what Trotsky and Zinoviev were doing in the 1930s but, oh boy.<br />
I think this falls apart immediately when you start imagining it applying to Black people. say Malcom X founds a Communist party and it somehow realizes itself into a functioning Social-Philosophical-Material System (a union republic, a free-floating molecular population with state businesses people can be part of or not, a whatever). BlackPantherism starts going through socialist transition and abolishing the gaps that characterize capitalism to create a [[Term:mono-structure|mono-structure]]. then a Bordigist shows up and says, this isn't socialism, this is just state capitalism whether I want to use that term or not. if you'd put up with this in ancient times you would have been slaves. will the Bordigist get through saying this with a straight face? I feel like the Black Panther allies have a good idea what being slaves is and whether they're being exploited right now or whether they've made a reasonable sacrifice to be free from the utter abject horrors of structural racism they'd be facing if they didn't create... the thing they just created, the countable named Marxism. it really isn't about whether you like "state capitalism" or not, it's about the survival consequences to your material population of not doing it within a world of empires and [[E:structural racism|chunk competition]].

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4282" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4283" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4284" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="Bordigism" data-qid="42,85" value="4285" data-dimension="S2">Commodity production destroys socialism / Every system of [[E:commodity (Bordigism)|commodity production]] is a non-socialist system, as we have affirmed in various texts (Bordiga) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htm]  ->  is it? that does not sound correct.<br />
Lenin talks about the concept of "to each according to his work", which boils down to a lesser version of markets or commodities. so like.... isn't socialism inherently the stage where you haven't gotten away from commodity production yet? at least at the start? I don't think this is correct. this seems kind of like one of those "let's attack state capitalism as not socialism" arguments. it seems a lot like what Hayashi was claiming really, I don't see much difference.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4286" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4287" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4288" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4289" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4290" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4291" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4292" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4293" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4294" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li value="4295" data-remark="Clippy, 1995" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="S2">change your profile pic to Clippy / change your profile picture to a Clippy {{YouTube|2_Dtmpe9qaQ}}  ->  normal people baffle me. how can they so confidently believe that "corporations treating people like human beings" is a coherent thing that corporations would intuitively understand and wouldn't need a whole book explaining it to them. I'd need a whole book explaining it to me just to understand how they think a bunch of Clippy could actually teach anyone the intended message. people who would defend factory workers getting confused about "artists" and whether they're workers is one thing, this is entirely another thing.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4296" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4297" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li value="4298" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Socialism: Stalinist or scientific</cite> (Hayashi 1998/2000) / "Stalinism, socialist ..." (typo)
</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="MX onto ML" value="4299" data-dimension="S2">State capitalism isn't even bad / Complaining about state capitalism is like complaining about {{TTS|tts=nation-state local-state-ism|nationstate localstateism}}

</li><li class="field_ML"   value="4300" data-dimension="M3">[[E:What was wrong with East Germany?|What was wrong with East Germany?]] / Why was the existence of East Germany a problem? / Why did center-Liberals dislike the existence of East Germany?  ->  I know "center-Liberals" can almost be neatly replaced with "bourgeoisie" to create a laughable tautology, but come on, we have to at least pretend to sound fair.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4301" data-dimension="M3">[[E:Why wasn't East Germany progress toward Trotskyism?|Why did Trotskyists not consider East Germany to be progress?]]  ->  you have to think about this a bit to realize that it's a good question. Trotsky wants each country in Europe to overthrow capitalists and create a workers' state. East Germany pushed out capitalists and created a workers' state. if other European countries had each become "East Germany", it would have been one possible route to a union of European socialist republics — even one independent from the USSR, potentially, given that the USSR stopped occupying East Germany at a certain point. the process of creating East Germany is more or less in line with the mechanism Trotsky proposed for creating Trotskyism. so why were Trotskyists not on board with East Germany?
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4302" data-dimension="S2">[[E:East Germany was too small to be Trotskyism|East Germany was too small to be Trotskyism]] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,92|9k]])
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4303" data-dimension="S2">East Germany did not have the correct internal structure to be Trotskyism / East Germany had the wrong internal structure according to Trotskyists / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,92|9k]])
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4304" data-dimension="S2">If East Germany had been a Fortress Trotskyism, it would have been okay / If East Germany had had the correct internal structure to be Trotskyist, Trotskyists would have found it acceptable / East Germany could have built up to a Fourth International if only it were Trotskyism in one country  ->  derived Trotskyist proposition. I have literally never heard this. but it's rather confusing <em>why</em> nobody says this. 1) Trotsky believed every country in Europe could become Trotskyist 2) The European countries form workers' resistances separately around local groups of workers, then they link up into a Trotskyism 3) What's wrong with each of the European countries being Trotskyism in one country, when it's the only way you can build a bigger Trotskyism? put another way, if several European countries can be Trotskyist and oppose Stalin's government, why not just one? how does one prevent there being others? I guess you could argue from Stalin's point of view that because Trotskyisms are sectarian two Trotskyisms-in-one-country would fight each other, but I don't think Trotskyists would actually be that mean in criticizing their own parties. I don't think they see it that way.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4305" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4306" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4307" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4308" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4309" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_geo" value="4310" data-dimension="S">non-Marxist error in Marxist text / non-Marxist error in Marxist talk / "can't believe all these Trotskyist errors!" (the errors are typos)  ->  non-fictional motif which may be framed either humorously or seriously. this concept first came to mind when I was reading the first edition of a Trotskyist text with typos in it. but it could apply to any number of things, like Marxists making a background-information error about science, etc. Trotskyists using Kalinin as Trotsky's actor would fall under this.

</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="4311" data-dimension="S2">Slavoj Žižek is an anarchist / Slavoj Žižek is not a Trotskyist in any sense and can only be termed either an anarchist or an [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition|Existentialist]]  ->  this is true if Q43,12 is true. Slavoj Žižek is "a Trotskyist" if Zinovievism is Trotskyism. if Zinovievism, when separated from the small number of Leninist theorists who would lead it and claim it is Leninism, is definitely an anarchism, then Žižek is not a Trotskyist. this proposition has the charcoal swatch because I saw an anarchist text define "[[Term:anarcho-nihilism|anarcho-nihilism]]" and it seems very similar to the definition of Zinovievism although I honestly do not have extensive enough historical background information about either of them to verify that they're the same.
</li><li value="4312" data-remark="Q1312 'street protest' as anarchist number" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="S2">Early Trotskyism was actually an anarchism / Zinovievism is an instance of anarchism, not a double-vulgarized Trotskyism (black swatch instead of orange swatch, charcoal instead of flame; [[Term:Zinovievism|meta-Marxist terminology]]) / The functional purpose of 1900s Trotskyism was to create anarchist movements which would then attempt to realize a world Anarchism  ->  I know this sounds <s class="censor">batshit</s>. but this claim is specifically making a historical argument. it begins with the claim that the Trotskyite conspiracy was not really practicing Leninism and mostly lying about being Leninists — this is a relatively fair thing to say. from there it observes the results of Trotskyist movements, which tended to disintegrate into something of a disorganized mess. Spain contained something of an attempt at Marxism or "a socialist party" but is much more famous for anarchists, and George Orwell. Trotsky and ex-Trotskyists like Orwell became weapons for First-World countries to allege that Trotskyites never were Leninists and that was a good thing. Ted Grant shows up trying to create a hypothetical Leninist Trotskyism that never existed. a little later, schizoanalysts show up trying to explain how countries are made of organic assemblies of parts (is this true? maybe) and implying that the components of any particular entity are arbitrary and throughout history periodically change. core concepts of schizoanalysis become wildly popular. schizoanalytic "science" of joining and separating entities merges into anarchism to supposedly create a practice of non-ideological unity of demographic identities. schizoanalysis-influenced crowds continue to "non-ideologically" unify with Third World anticommunists and bash Third-World countries. so overall, the claim here is that because Zinovievism and modern anarchisms share the characteristics of having no real ideology or end goal, allowing chains of First-World countries and defectors to bash whole Third World countries, and generally having a distinctly international scope, modern anarchisms existed as early as Zinovievism, and it was basically concealing the emergence of modern anarchisms inside it. I'm not at all sure that this claim is true. but if it somehow turns out it is, the Zinovievism swatch can be changed to charcoal. the Ted-Grant-ist Trotskyism swatch can stay orange.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4313" data-dimension="S">Kalinin as Trotsky's actor / Kalinin in place of Trotsky  ->  every so often with independent videos you see a video accidentally use a picture of Kalinin to represent Trotsky, as if he's not Trotsky but he plays him on TV. as far as I know this doesn't really happen with actual Trotskyist parties, thankfully.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4314" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4315" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4316" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4317" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4318" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4319" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4320" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4321" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4322" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4323" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4324" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4325" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4326" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4327" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4328" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4329" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4330" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4331" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4332" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4333" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4334" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4335" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4336" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4337" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4338" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4339" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4340" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4341" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4342" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4343" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4344" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4345" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4346" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4347" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4348" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4349" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4350" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4351" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4352" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4353" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4354" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4355" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4356" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4357" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4358" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4359" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4360" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4361" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4362" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4363" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4364" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4365" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4366" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4367" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4368" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4369" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4370" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4371" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4372" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4373" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4374" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4375" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4376" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4377" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4378" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4379" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4380" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4381" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4382" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4383" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4384" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4385" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4386" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4387" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4388" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4389" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4390" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4391" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4392" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4393" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4394" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4395" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4396" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4397" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4398" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4399" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4400">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4410">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4420">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4430">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4440">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4444" data-dimension="S">sectarian Communist International / Communist International formed around specific named Marxism and not admitting other named Marxisms  ->  on one hand, it was kind of inevitable these would be invented. on the other, it feels like they have never ever been effective. it may be worth saying under the "spanishness office principle" that sectarian Communist Internationals are <em>probably</em> a symptom of Marxist parties consisting of detached Filaments of bourgeoisie that have no inherent reason to work together. (the spanishness office principle: if people are complaining about Spanishness Offices, they're the bourgeoisie, because people who fight for control of "institutions" of elite experts are generally the bourgeoisie. institutions includes the Communist International should it happen people are fiercely squabbling over it.)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4450">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4460">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4470">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4480">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4490" data-dimension="M3">Why is Trotskyism so ironic? / Why is Trotskyism the biggest irony? / Trotskyism is one of the most ironic things ever (proposition phrasing)  ->  it always stands out as weird that Trotskyism intends to unify everybody in all countries but it does almost the polar opposite of that, turning countries against each other and dividing people inside countries. why none of them ever notice this and stop and say, "oh wait, we're dividing people" would seem like the biggest mystery. you'd think that after the Soviet Union dissolved and generic resistances were indistinguishable from the Trotskyite conspiracy even if not the same, they would have stopped and thought about it then. but it seems like they always double down and they never do. observations: A) Trotskyists genuinely believe in Trotskyism B) Trotskyism is intended to stop exactly the thing it doesn't stop C) Trotskyism has not succeeded D) Trotskyism is ironic simply because it failed.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-remark="as surface observation" value="4491" data-dimension="S2">Every incorrect progressivism produces irony / Every incorrect progressive theory produces irony  ->  it's easy to notice this but not common to notice why it happens. the point of progressive theories is generally exactly to prevent the "ironic" things, so their failure naturally produces irony.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4492" data-dimension="S2">Molecular Marxisms are not ironic / <em>If</em> we first assume molecular Marxisms are possible, <em>then</em> they are identified by having theories that correctly predict reality to some extent, charting out the most important details of specific realistic outcomes which describe their success state, and thus do not produce irony / Irony is the failure to predict reality to the point outcomes are logically consistent (in the context of meta-Marxism and hypothetical molecular Marxisms) / Correct predictions are more important than specific theoretical content to molecular Marxisms (contrast with Trotskyism, where theoretical content is almost maximally important)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4493">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4494">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4495">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4496">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4497">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4498">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4499">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4500">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4510">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4511" data-remark="guy fawkes, 05/11" data-dimension="M3">Treason of what? / What is treason? / Treason is not a Materialist term (meta-Marxist answer to question)  ->  on the surface, Trotskyists will love this one, although when you actually drill down into it the question is very complicated. Communism is treason to the United States! okay, but treason of what? the constitution!! okay, but why is the constitution there? you still haven't really answered treason of what. one somewhat valid answer would be "the population". this answer is somewhat meta-ontologically sound, as both the United States and the historical Soviet Union could say it. if there are one million people behind Stalin and ten thousand Trotskyites attack, attacking Stalin's government is <em>treason of</em> the one million people by the ten thousand Trotskyites. however, this also means that if there are half a billion people behind Deng Xiaoping and anybody attacks that government, this is <em>treason of</em> half a billion people. that's so many people that although it should be less bad, in a logical contradiction it should also be much worse. the United States also has a third of a billion people, which is definitely a few. so is Liberal-republicanism good then? no. the amazing thing about Communist revolutions is that if and when they happen they open up the weirdest loophole in this question — if nearly all the people in the United States defect from the United States, can they even meaningfully commit treason against themselves? and the answer is no. this is one coarse answer to how revolutions happen, or at least how they stop not happening. but with that said, how do you teach Trotskyists and Tories and even anarchists that the [[E:Sunny fallacy|Sunny fallacy]] is different from a successful revolution? every single group of people that separates from anything will try to claim it can't commit treason against itself.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4512" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4513" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q45,13|A revolution in the United States is revolution against two separate countries at once]]  ->  this is part of why it's so hard. in daily life people have to pretend to be part of two separate countries which are violently hostile to each other (quite literally when there are so many shootings), and only a small portion of people are skilled enough to even pull off that act. it's almost trivial for one of the two countries to prevent a strike simply by breaking up the graph population of workers and owners along the lines of the two nations and call foul on one countable culture [[E:Being wrong means relinquishing freedom|violating the cultural self-determination of the other countable culture]]. conditioned by things like religious teachings about the sanctity of religion and humanities teachings about [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition|the sanctity of inner experience of individuals and identity-demographics]], people are quick to flare up even across countable cultures when they think any "community" is getting hit by an external threat. all this is to say that Lived-Experience nonsense is the weapon of the bourgeoisie against the people. it facilitates the general pattern of all existing owners and their allied {{Term:Wasp Swarm}} banding together to crush anything that could actually bring change better than it facilitates anyone actually overcoming them. which should cast a lot of doubt on whether schizoanalyst concepts of [[E:the united nonviolence of identities|the united nonviolence of identities]] should just totally be dismissed as inherently incorrect. I'm not quite confident enough to say that just yet, although I think with a better explanation of what is supposed to replace them that might become okay. my thoughts are something like this: A) people are made of populations, not inherently born into culture or identity. A1) culture can be developed or created in a group of people once they are linked. B) the proletariat is born beginning at all the slots for people to even be useful for anything filling up, and people thrashing their way back in to be able to work without creating a whole new business. C) the United States is saved if some unknown significant ratio of people thrashes back into industry like ten or fifty times the number of workers to owners, and the subpopulation of workers creates almost everything in society of its own will while nobody with the power to create a business creates much of anything. D) this outcome is really different from the way things work right now in huge swaths of the United States. E) the cleanest process, which I don't think will happen, would be your fifty Tory types per owner overtaking Tory businesses as a coherent population and your fifty progressive types per owner overtaking progressive businesses separately. F) most identity-politics populations all fall inside the progressive subpopulation and inherently only have the power to take back half the country. G) progressive types have an interest in overcoming all the Tory owners but Tory types have no serious interest in overcoming Tory owners. these two political subpopulations belong to truly different ideologies and different [[Term:Bauplan|Bauplans]], as different as West Germany and East Germany right now at this second. that map with Mao and the [[Term:KMT|KMT]] graph-struggling [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gu%C3%A8rra_Civila_Chinesa_(1946-1950).png over a giant area] comes to mind. H) postcolonial theories have to go because at the present second no matter what ideology you choose (center-Liberalism, Toryism, anarchism, unnamed-Frantz-Fanon-obssessed-ideology...) every single good outcome is colonial. this might be fixable with the brightest Marxists working on it, but that's not the step the United States is at right now. I) unity between the two proletariats or twenty proletariats wouldn't actually matter if each proletariat somehow had the ability to win and guard its sector separately. but right now the individual proletariats are very weak and not very functional as industries. the {{Term:Wasp Swarm}} is honestly just hiding behind its owners pretending that isn't true. I1) that technically means that if there were a totally bourgeois Marxism and it somehow defeated all the Tory owners tomorrow the Tory workers probably wouldn't put up much of a fight. but then of course you'd have a bottom-tier Marxism. it would have absolute dumpster level theory as bad as all the Gramscian and Existentialist theory going around now or worse. J) if all the progressive workers were able to conquer the whole Tory population as a sheer whole monolithic chunked-together ethnic group, ripping their owners away from them, Marxism can win. J1) actually stopping and thinking about this, and realizing it is inherently colonial, anarchists will hate it. the sheer bulk of all actual progressives beyond center-Liberalism would not want to acknowledge the truth. K) banish the Tories to West Germany, you get East Germany. banish the KMT to Taiwan, you get the People's Republic of China. conquering a monolithic {{Term:Wasp Swarm}} is hard, but banishing them actually does work. where exactly would United States Tories have to go? on what lines would the country have to be sheared in two?

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4515">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4516">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4517" data-dimension="S2">Revolution happens when the group of people defecting from a country is so much bigger than the country it cannot commit treason against itself

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4520">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4530">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4540">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4550">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4560">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4570">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4580">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4590">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4591" data-dimension="Z">Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4592" data-dimension="Z">Bolshevik party
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4593" data-dimension="Z">Third International
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4594" data-dimension="Z">Left Opposition
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4595" data-dimension="Z">Menshevik party
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4596">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4597">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4598">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4599">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4600" data-dimension="S0">Trotskyist group, organization, or party
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4601" data-dimension="Z">International Secretariat (1953) / ISFI (attempted International)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4602" data-dimension="Z">International Committee (1953) / ICFI (attempted International)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4603" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4604" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4605" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4606" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4607" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4608" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4609" data-dimension="Z">Committee for a Workers' International (defunct) / CWI (attempted International)

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4610" data-dimension="Z">local Trotskyist group unaffiliated with larger formation
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4611" data-dimension="Z">Denver Communists (??; United States Midwest)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="9999" data-dimension="Z">Japan Revolutionary Communist League (JRCL) [https://tankyuka.hatenablog.com/entry/2023/07/25/005113 '23]  ->  you find the weirdest things when searching for arbitrary Japanese words. one of them is miscellaneous Trotskyist blogs. every time I find one of these, I am like, man, these are the coolest people in Japan. most of the time Japan is so crushingly the same but... if you look around enough.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4612" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4613" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4614" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4615" data-dimension="Z">??

</li><li value="4616" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="S">Žižekian
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4617" data-dimension="S">terrorist (Zinovievism)  ->  wrecker, rival proletarian revolution
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4618" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4619" data-dimension="Z">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4620" data-dimension="S0">Trotskyist group affiliated with the Fourth International of 1938
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4621" data-dimension="Z">Socialist Workers' Party (United States)  ->  helped split the Fourth International into the ISFI and ICFI, funny enough
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4622">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4623">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4624">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4625">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4626">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4627">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4628">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4629">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4630" data-dimension="Z">International Marxist Tendency (party)  ->  international-party Trotskyism
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4631" data-dimension="Z">Workers' International League (1938)  ->  [https://university.marxist.com/en/imt-history]
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4632" data-dimension="Z">"The Militant"  ->  [https://university.marxist.com/en/imt-history]
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4633" data-dimension="Z">Revolutionary Communist Party  ->  [https://university.marxist.com/en/imt-history] [https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2024-05-07/tale-three-rcps]
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4634" data-dimension="Z">In Defence of Marxism (outlet; Britain)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4635" data-dimension="Z">Socialist Appeal (Britain)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4636" data-dimension="Z">Socialist Alternative (United States)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4637">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4638" data-dimension="Z">[[E:Q4601|Fourth International]] (1938)  ->  became: Q46,01 International Secretariat, Q46,02 International Committee
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4639">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4640">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4650">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4660">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4664">??
</li><li value="4665" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="S">contentless revolutionary socialism - Rosa Luxemburg
</li><li value="4666" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q4666|contentless Trotskyite-conspirator ideology]] / Zinovievism (meta-Marxism)

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4670"><cite>Literature and Revolution</cite> (Trotsky 1924) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/lit_revo/]  ->  the origin of most of the stupid claims about Trotsky in <cite>The Giver</cite>. ex-Trotskyist novelists really had some problems with this text apparently.
</li><li class="field_nations" value="4671" data-dimension="F2">Trotsky wanted to abolish sex / Trotsky hated the concept of sex and wanted to get rid of it, according to the text <cite>Literature and Revolution</cite>  ->  I found this BS in a YouTube comments section once, and ever since then I have not been able to forget it; it was just too funny. the misinterpretation seems to have stemmed from a work where Trotsky was lightly criticizing people <em>escaping from their problems</em> through one or two genuninely weird pieces of sexual literature that had been put out recently — the key word was escaping, not sex. I have no idea exactly what group of people were getting things so twisted but man, when people want to misinterpret Communists they really go all the way. this was one of those things that led to me realizing that <cite>The Giver</cite> was actually a skewed portrayal of Trotsky in the first place, because you see the theme of abolishing sex and "controlling emotions" in both places. in the original Trotsky text he was talking about "emotions" like clinical depression and anxiety, when they did not even really have psychotherapy in Russia.

</li><li class="field_nations" value="4672" data-dimension="S2">Lenin hated the concept of sex  ->  this one is actually somewhat true. Lenin felt like whatever he or anyone else sacrificed to make the Russian Revolution happen was more or less okay in that the longer you are committed to having principles and not falling into a bloc of bourgeoisie the more there are some things you stop caring about giving up because the alternative to the choice that led to that is simply so much worse. this whole situation is much easier to understand if we look at a totally different example like North Korea "banning radios". Third World countries have to have this crushingly strict discipline about building things in their own country and only using their own stuff no matter what kind of short-term suffering that brings just because trusting the totally untrustworthy bloc of foreign bourgeoisie is so exponentially worse that they have to wrest themselves free just to be free and be able to think, exactly like if an individual was in a toxic relationship and has to get a divorce and be poor just to not endure spousal abuse.<br />
so... if you're taking Trotsky at his word he has nothing to say about sex, but if you think Trotsky believes whatever Lenin believes then you might think it's transitively true that Trotsky hates people having sex because Lenin does. but actually, that logic is a little off because Lenin's reasoning goes A) people should make sacrifices to create the Second World B) people might not have sex C) the proletariat cannot or might not have sex. but Trotsky doesn't really adhere to the first proposition. Trotsky just hates Third World countries and likes Europe, so he doesn't really like temporary solutions and sacrifices. that means his reasoning is more like A) socialist transition is {{YouTube|a5K3o2wCKC8|taking too long}} B) sacrifices are dumb unless they produce socialist transition right now C) have sex if you want but I'm going to smash the Soviet government and create a Marxism purely based on ordering everybody around and not on compromises, let's just see if any Marxist states survive me

</li><li class="field_ML" data-tradition="ML, JC" value="4673" data-dimension="S2">People must make sacrifices to create the Second World / If an individual's higher needs and an imminent process of creating the Second World are in conflict — an imminent revolution or transition process is one that's happening across the next couple of years with little uncertainty — the Second World is more important  ->  this is like, the single proposition that tenuously allowed Juche-socialism to have the red swatch instead of the strawberry one. I suppose that in the end I think that historically this concept has been very important. considering countries like China and Cuba, I don't think it has the level of relevance now that it did in 1910-1950. but I still think it's worth always remembering that it did have relevance then. it still has some limited relevance over in North Korea, and terrifyingly, in the rust-tinted areas of the United States that aren't the major cities. some days I swear we actually live in one big North Korea that never saved itself from the teeny tiny United Stateses that rule it.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4674" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4675" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4676" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4677" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4678" data-dimension="S2">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4679" data-dimension="S2">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4680">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4690" data-dimension="Z">Left Voice (federated outlet)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4700">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4710">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4720">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4730">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4740">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4750">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4760">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4770" data-dimension="S">the Vegeta of Communism / the Vegeta of Bolshevism (Marxism, Leninism; motif)  ->  a very silly metaphor I came up with early in {{book|MDem}} 5.1 when I was thinking about {{book|Dragon Ball}} and the relationship between it, religion, non-belief, wars, and historical materialism. there was this particular concept of two people in a rivalry and one of them really upset about not being able to get into the top position of something instead of ever cooling down about it, and it just haunted my mind. I was like, honestly, Trotsky is the [[E:Vegeta IV|Vegeta]] of Bolshevism. and it never really left me.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4775">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="MX onto Zv" value="4776" data-remark="Liberal-republicanism" data-dimension="S">negative democracy / un-voting (act of casting a vote for something to not exist) / Antiliberalism (in the sense of "anti-matter" or "anti-clockwise", not "anti-war" or "anti-communism"; hypothetical republic based on voting against things more than for them)  ->  the motif of defining democracy specifically as a bunch of people voting for something to not exist. note that this does not refer to protests. this actually refers to a hypothetical ballot box or equivalent exercise of individual (non-)allegiance within a system where people cast a ballot for not-the-president rather than voting for said president to be president, or cast a non-purchase to get rid of a corporation they are tired of.<br />
I could totally imagine a hypothetical Trotskyism implementing this on everything, and honestly... in that context of a country having a central Leninist party where some people will be appointed by representatives but then if people don't like them you take them back, and you can also take the representatives back, it doesn't sound half bad. Antiliberalism might actually be better than Liberalism. see, my biggest problem with Trotskyism has always been that it hasn't happened, not in the concept of people trying it if it did exist. really. this is one way to stop the Trotskyite conspirators. simply let them un-vote and watch the numbers until the problem has reached its minimum solution and they stop un-voting. once they stop un-voting you've got their loyalty and the country stays together.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-tradition="IV" value="4777" data-dimension="F2">Trotskyism succeeding will be a black swan event  ->  the claim that all the previous events of Trotskyism failing are not predictive of what it will do in the future relative to those events. honestly, this is basically what Trotskyists already say. but given that it has had almost a century to happen and hasn't happened, while mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Deng Xiaoping Thought each <em>have</em> happened during the same time, it's probably fair to mark it false.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4778" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism is like cold fusion  ->  it would be so useful if it was possible but it never comes to be.<br />
if cold fusion becomes possible before Trotskyism in one country, then this statement is false.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4780">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4790">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4800" data-dimension="S0">Maoist group, organization, or party
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4810">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4820">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4830" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Energy Conspiracy</cite> (Seman 1981) {{YouTube|ozqj75e574s}}
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4831">??
</li><li value="4832" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q4832|The correct group will make you free]] / The correct relationship and shared culture will make you free / The truth will make you free / John 8:32  ->  if you read this the way it's intended, like, it applies to Marxism if Marxism is true — though it equally applies to Anarchism if Anarchism is truer. it is so telling that Tories would use this in a context totally outside of religion and purely against "Big Government". it shows that some people cling to religion purely because they believe having the correct Social-Philosophical System, the correct group of people and culture, will give them a better life either taking away their worries or crushing their enemies, or both. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozqj75e574s]

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4840">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4850">??

</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4861" data-remark="United States Civil War, 1861" data-dimension="S">Trotskyites as similar to Confederates / 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy as similar to Confederate States of America (Confederacy, The South; United States history versus Soviet history) / a poison mirror of your own philosophy (hypothetical remark from mainstream Marxist-Leninist allies to United States Trotskyists)  ->  there is a lot to get into as far as actually explaining this. it definitely has nothing to do with the ideological content of Trotskyism or claiming they aren't Leninists or aren't progressive. this is a very mathematical argument based entirely on the outer borders of the Trotskyite conspiracy and the Confederacy versus a larger republic. this argument is solidly grounded in meta-Marxism, existential materialism, and general-sense historical materialism, it's not very much like any form of argument most people are used to in Liberalism <em>or</em> Trotskyism.

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4870">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4880">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4890">??

</li><li class="field_ML" value="4900" data-dimension="Z0">prominent Marxist theorist or organizer / notable Marxist theorist or organizer  ->  this is the colloquial usage of "very notable", not the Wikipedia usage of "notable"
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="49,01" value="4901" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q49,01|Karl Marx]]
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="49,02" value="4902" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q49,02|Friedrich Engels]]
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4903" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4904" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4905" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4906" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4907" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4908" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4909" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="49,10" value="4910" data-dimension="Z0">prominent mainstream-Marxist-Leninist theorist or organizer / prominent Marxist theorist or organizer associated with Stalin Thought
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="49,11" value="4911" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q49,11|Vladimir Lenin]]  ->  note: there are Properties for "believed to be within ideology" allowing the separation of "believed to be associated with Trotskyism" from "believed to be associated with Stalin Thought" and the two statements to coexist at once
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="49,12" value="4912" data-dimension="Z">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4913">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4914">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4915">??

</li><li data-qid="49,16" value="4916" class="field_ML" data-dimension="Z">Ho Chi Minh

</li><li data-qid="49,17" value="4917" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="S">Russian Revolution according to Trotskyists / Russian Revolution specifically according to Leon Trotsky / ([[User:RD/9k/Q49,17|9k]])

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="49,18" value="4918" data-dimension="Z">Mao Zedong / Mao Tse-tung  ->  remember. theorists aren't inherently interesting just for being theorists. they're interesting either for being associated with historical events where they represented particular perspectives or having authored specific texts
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="49,19" value="4919" data-dimension="Z">Enver Hoxha  ->  yes, he has his own subset ideology, but it still falls under this tradition
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4920">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4925">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4930">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4935">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4939">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4940" data-dimension="Z0">prominent Trotskyist theorist or organizer / notable Trotskyist theorist or organizer
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4941" data-dimension="Z">Leon Trotsky  ->  Soviet Union / miscellaneous; Fourth International
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4942" data-dimension="Z">Rosa Luxemburg  ->  Germany
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4943" data-dimension="Z">Ted Grant  ->  United Kingdom (?)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4944" data-dimension="Z">James P. Cannon  ->  United States; Socialist Workers' Party
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4945">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4946">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4947">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4948">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4949" data-dimension="Z">Hiroyoshi Hayashi / {{caps|Hayashi}} Hiroyoshi  ->  Japan; (retrieve organization)
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4950" data-dimension="Z0">notable Trotskyite resistance leader or advocate / notable Zinovievist advocate or leader / notable Trotskyite conspiracy member
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4951" data-dimension="Z">Grigori Zinoviev  ->  he became my arbitrary example of Trotskyite conspiracies versus what Trotskyism claims it is, after a few modern-day Trotskyites called him a hero just for wrecking the Soviet Union
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4952">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4953">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4954">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4955">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4956">??
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4957" data-dimension="Z">Nikolai Bukharin / <span lang="ja">ニコライ・ブハーリン</span>  ->  he quit, but there's not a better place to put him
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="4958" data-dimension="Z">George Orwell  ->  by some definitions of Trotskyite, the most famous one ever
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="4959" data-dimension="Z">Slavoj Žižek  ->  may sound surprising to call him a "Zinovievist" or Trotskyite, but after much analysis of his rhetorical patterns and motifs he truly belongs here

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4960">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4965">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4970">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4975">??

</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4980">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4981">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4982">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4983">??
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="49,84" value="4984" data-dimension="Z">[[Ontology:Q49,84|Joseph Stalin]]
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4985">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4986">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4987">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4988">??
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="49,89" value="4989" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q4989|Anarchism is over]]
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="49,90" value="4990" data-dimension="S2">Stalin's Marxism is over / Stalin Thought is over  ->  had some vanishing chance of being true in 1940, not very believable these days
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="49,91" value="4991" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q4991|Trotskyism is over]]  ->  why is it that all Trotskyists refuse to believe this while most or all mainstream Marxist-Leninists believe it and about half of all center-Liberals and Existentialists believe it? this should be less controversial than "Bolshevism is over". if Trotskyism isn't materially possible but mainstream Marxism-Leninism is, you'd think that nearly everyone would be unanimous about the first part of that, because advocating for Trotskyism isn't advantageous to either Existentialists or mainstream Marxist-Leninists.
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="49,92" value="4992" data-dimension="S2">Non-molecular Trotskyism is over  ->  the most generous interpretation of Trotskyism. probably too generous. but very useful for getting Existentialists to <em>actually think for once</em>
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="49,93" value="4993" data-dimension="S2">[[Ontology:Q49,93|Leninism is over but "Marxism" is not]]  ->  I'm half convinced that every time somebody implies this (and isn't from China, Cuba, or Vietnam) that it's literally just a way to sneak in Existentialism and deceive people into believing all the things smaller than Liberalism and capitalism that ultimately reconstruct capitalism. half the time I laugh at this one and half the time I get angry, because it tends to trap people in this loop of insisting that if you don't believe Marxism can be used to purge people of all incorrect beliefs and create a perfect society full of nice people <em>before</em> getting rid of capitalism you're racist, while due to the actual [[E:structural racism|material definition]] of capitalism, if they believe it it makes them absolutely, absolutely incapable of stopping people from becoming racist, digging them deeper and deeper into this hole they can never get out of.
</li><li class="field_exstruct" data-qid="49,94" value="4994" data-dimension="S2">Party-nations are not specifically Marxist / Marxism is over but party-nations are not / Marxism is over but Leninism is not  ->  the claim that central party-nations are not over but the attempt to regulate the stochastic sorting of people into corporate countable Cultures basically is. somewhat credible when there are about three countries that can vouch for it. many people like to think you can immediately springboard off this to justifying Existentialism but you actually can't. it almost implies the opposite: that primitive Existentialism is most stable when it's regulated from above and not allowed to become a government in and of itself.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4995">??
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4996">??
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="49,97" value="4997" data-dimension="S2">No Marxism is actually over  ->  <cite>MDem</cite>'s basic working model of Marxisms. if you want to prevent all future Trotskyite conspiracies, you have to talk to Trotskyists as human beings and not immediately scare them off. you have to recognize the existence of different Social-Philosophical Systems around different Marxist models and discuss every model as if it's vaguely possible in order to guide people into forming an agreement for all the different divergent Marxisms and so-called "leftisms" you more commonly find everywhere to live in the same world and not fight each other. this is not a trivial thing given that people unify based on the outcome they believe in rather than whether they are currently oppressed.
</li><li class="field_trotsky" data-qid="49,98" value="4998" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Deng Xiaoping Thought is over|Deng Xiaoping Thought is over]] / ([[User:RD/9k/Q49,98|9k]])
</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="49,99" value="4999" data-dimension="F2">[[Ontology:Q4999|Liberalism is over]]  ->  fun. cathartic. as time goes on, bizarrely not true. why not? that's the question of the century.
</li></ol><noinclude>

[[Category:First nine thousand (RD)]]</noinclude>