Category:East Germany thought experiments ontology - Revision history

Reversedragon: use Q618 "proposed Item" instead of manual lists

2025-08-29T06:52:46Z

use Q618 "proposed Item" instead of manual lists

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:52, 29 August 2025
Line 2:		Line 2:

	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean compound">		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean compound">
	{{~~HueNumber~~\|~~Q3776~~}} ~~<!-- en~~: ~~hypothetical object -->~~		{{E:Q618/MX\|Q=3319\|If Communist-ally is not an identity, East Germany wouldn't have existed \|li=y\|dimension=F2}}
			{{E:Q618/A\|Q=3660\|East Germany was indistinguishable from an Anarchism \|li=y\|dimension=F2}}
			{{E:Q618/DX\|Q=3663\|East Germany was a postcolonial movement \|li=y\|dimension=S2}}
	</ol>		</ol>

	~~<ol class~~=~~"hue clean">~~		=== Un-forming East Germany ===
	~~</li><li class~~=~~"field_nations" value~~=~~"3086" data~~-~~dimension="F2">Kevins don't belong in~~ Germany
	~~</li><li class~~=~~"field_exstruct" value~~=~~"3087" data-dimension~~=~~"S2">Karens don't belong in Seattle~~

	<~~/li><li value="3776"~~ class="~~field_exstruct~~" ~~data~~-~~dimension="F2">[[Ontology~~:~~Q3776\|~~Solidarity is strictly optional]]		<ol class="hue clean compound">
			{{HueNumber\|Q3776}} <!-- en: Solidarity is strictly optional -->
			{{E:Q618/ES\|Q=3087\|Karens don't belong in Seattle \|li=y\|dimension=S2}}
			{{E:Q618/PT\|Q=3086\|Kevins don't belong in Germany \|li=y\|dimension=S2}}
			</ol>

	~~</li><li class~~=~~"field_mdem" value~~="618" data-dimension="F2">If Communist-ally is not an identity, East Germany wouldn't have existed / If Communist-ally is not an identity, there would be no North Korea -> the claim that creating East Germany required the formation of an East-German identity, in the strict mathematical sense of membership in a socially-linked graph of people calling themselves East Germans. no concept of "East-German culture", "East-German traditions", or "East-German ethnic history narratives" is required for this definition; this is strictly conceptualizing the notion of groups of people or identities as raw divisions of people into groups who are connected because they agree to ~~be connected. with that established, the claim is that~~ East Germany formed because a particular subpopulation of workers formed connected to a particular body of theorists and non-proletarian Communist allies, and it was the agreement of all these people to form a group separate from the rest of the country if the people of West Germany did not meet the conditions to be a proletarian ally that allowed it to act as a capable subpopulation that was able to assemble a new country after the Soviet Union (which could also be considered in the category of "Communist allies") removed itself from East Germany. this is the claim that solidarity throughout the capable subpopulation in the sense of firm dedication to not dissolving it is ultimately a more important thing than the proletariat itself even as the capable subpopulation will only develop if the proletariat has a very prominent role in it. you can now see why East Germany not being a win for Trotskyists would be so confusing. a small number of mainstream Marxist-Leninist allies being able to create East Germany should logically entail that a bunch of Trotskyists wanting to wall themselves off from Stalin should be able to do the same thing starting from a relatively tiny number of people. East Germany should actually have showed that Trotskyism is more feasible than people thought because it shows that every country in Europe could go Trotskyist if the requirement is they turn over independently of each other without Stalin's help. the fact Trotskyists did not see things this way is very telling.		== Objections to East Germany ==

	<~~/li><li~~ class="~~field_anarchy~~" ~~value~~=~~"3660" data-~~dimension=~~"F2"~~>~~East Germany was indistinguishable from an Anarchism~~		<ol class="hue clean compound">
			{{HueNumber\|Q4300}} <!-- en: What was wrong with East Germany? -->
			{{E:Q618/A\|Q=618\|East Germany wasn't a tent of freedom poles \|li=y\|dimension=S2}}
			</ol>

	~~</li><li class~~="field_gramsci" value="3663" data-dimension="S2">East Germany was a postcolonial movement / East Germany provides evidence for a new category of postcolonial theories solidly based in Materialism instead of Idealism ...		=== Rejection within Trotskyism ===

	</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">East Germany wasn't a tent of freedom poles / East Germany was not an anarchism because two people could not [[E:freedom for everybody with the only limit of equal freedom for others\|be free and be free separately in parallel but both the same]] ...

	~~</li></ol>~~

	== Rejection within Trotskyism ==

	<ol class="hue clean compound">		<ol class="hue clean compound">
	~~{{HueNumber\|Q4300}} <!-- en: What was wrong with East Germany? -->~~
	{{HueNumber\|Q43,01}} <!-- en: Why wasn't East Germany progress toward Trotskyism? -->		{{HueNumber\|Q43,01}} <!-- en: Why wasn't East Germany progress toward Trotskyism? -->
	{{HueNumber\|Q43,02}} <!-- en: East Germany was too small to be Trotskyism -->		{{HueNumber\|Q43,02}} <!-- en: East Germany was too small to be Trotskyism -->
	</~~ol>~~		{{E:Q618/IV\|Q=4303\|East Germany did not have the correct internal structure to be Trotskyism \|li=y\|dimension=S2}}
			{{E:Q618/IV\|Q=4304\|If East Germany had been a Fortress Trotskyism, it would have been okay \|li=y\|dimension=S2}}
	~~<ol class~~=~~"hue clean">~~
	~~</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="~~4303~~" data-dimension="S2">~~East Germany did not have the correct internal structure to be Trotskyism
	~~</li><~~li ~~class="field_trotsky" value~~=~~"4304" data-~~dimension="S2">If East Germany had been a Fortress Trotskyism, it would have been okay ~~/ East Germany could have built up to a Fourth International if only it were Trotskyism in one country~~
	</ol>		</ol>


	[[Category:Metatransitional thought experiments ontology]]		[[Category:Metatransitional thought experiments ontology]] [[Category:Trotskyism ontology]]

Reversedragon: East Germany was indistinguishable from an Anarchism

2025-08-29T01:10:45Z

East Germany was indistinguishable from an Anarchism

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:10, 29 August 2025
Line 13:		Line 13:
	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="F2">If Communist-ally is not an identity, East Germany wouldn't have existed / If Communist-ally is not an identity, there would be no North Korea -> the claim that creating East Germany required the formation of an East-German identity, in the strict mathematical sense of membership in a socially-linked graph of people calling themselves East Germans. no concept of "East-German culture", "East-German traditions", or "East-German ethnic history narratives" is required for this definition; this is strictly conceptualizing the notion of groups of people or identities as raw divisions of people into groups who are connected because they agree to be connected. with that established, the claim is that East Germany formed because a particular subpopulation of workers formed connected to a particular body of theorists and non-proletarian Communist allies, and it was the agreement of all these people to form a group separate from the rest of the country if the people of West Germany did not meet the conditions to be a proletarian ally that allowed it to act as a capable subpopulation that was able to assemble a new country after the Soviet Union (which could also be considered in the category of "Communist allies") removed itself from East Germany. this is the claim that solidarity throughout the capable subpopulation in the sense of firm dedication to not dissolving it is ultimately a more important thing than the proletariat itself even as the capable subpopulation will only develop if the proletariat has a very prominent role in it. you can now see why East Germany not being a win for Trotskyists would be so confusing. a small number of mainstream Marxist-Leninist allies being able to create East Germany should logically entail that a bunch of Trotskyists wanting to wall themselves off from Stalin should be able to do the same thing starting from a relatively tiny number of people. East Germany should actually have showed that Trotskyism is more feasible than people thought because it shows that every country in Europe could go Trotskyist if the requirement is they turn over independently of each other without Stalin's help. the fact Trotskyists did not see things this way is very telling.		</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="F2">If Communist-ally is not an identity, East Germany wouldn't have existed / If Communist-ally is not an identity, there would be no North Korea -> the claim that creating East Germany required the formation of an East-German identity, in the strict mathematical sense of membership in a socially-linked graph of people calling themselves East Germans. no concept of "East-German culture", "East-German traditions", or "East-German ethnic history narratives" is required for this definition; this is strictly conceptualizing the notion of groups of people or identities as raw divisions of people into groups who are connected because they agree to be connected. with that established, the claim is that East Germany formed because a particular subpopulation of workers formed connected to a particular body of theorists and non-proletarian Communist allies, and it was the agreement of all these people to form a group separate from the rest of the country if the people of West Germany did not meet the conditions to be a proletarian ally that allowed it to act as a capable subpopulation that was able to assemble a new country after the Soviet Union (which could also be considered in the category of "Communist allies") removed itself from East Germany. this is the claim that solidarity throughout the capable subpopulation in the sense of firm dedication to not dissolving it is ultimately a more important thing than the proletariat itself even as the capable subpopulation will only develop if the proletariat has a very prominent role in it. you can now see why East Germany not being a win for Trotskyists would be so confusing. a small number of mainstream Marxist-Leninist allies being able to create East Germany should logically entail that a bunch of Trotskyists wanting to wall themselves off from Stalin should be able to do the same thing starting from a relatively tiny number of people. East Germany should actually have showed that Trotskyism is more feasible than people thought because it shows that every country in Europe could go Trotskyist if the requirement is they turn over independently of each other without Stalin's help. the fact Trotskyists did not see things this way is very telling.

	</li><li ~~value~~="~~618~~" ~~class~~="~~field_anarchy~~" data-dimension="F2">East Germany was indistinguishable from an Anarchism / East Germany was actually an Anarchism -> I am pretty sure this is false but I could not actually explain why. so this is basically one of those "man is equivalent to a chicken" type statements. the heart of this probably-spurious claim would be that because events like Black Lives Matter and the Paris Commune were built around people of a particular idealistic countable Culture assertively occupying a particular spatial area, the distinction between a hypothetical successful Anarchism and a real-world historical fortress state is rather fuzzy. what actually is the difference? you can't say that a fortress state is different from an Anarchism because it's based around the proletariat, because North Korea became a fortress state and hardly had a proletariat at all. I guess you could appeal to "The State", but personally? in my opinion an army always counts as having a State. that's the easiest way to interpret the Trotskyite conspiracy as the seeds of a plural Marxism and open up the road to diplomacy and healing traumas between rival Marxisms. so like, if an Anarchism always realistically has to have a State to perform realization and exist, how is it actually different from a fortress state?		</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="3660" data-dimension="F2">East Germany was indistinguishable from an Anarchism

	</li><li class="~~field_geo~~" value="~~618~~" data-dimension="S2">East Germany was a postcolonial movement / East Germany provides evidence for a new category of postcolonial theories solidly based in Materialism instead of Idealism ...		</li><li class="field_gramsci" value="3663" data-dimension="S2">East Germany was a postcolonial movement / East Germany provides evidence for a new category of postcolonial theories solidly based in Materialism instead of Idealism ...

	</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">East Germany wasn't a tent of freedom poles / East Germany was not an anarchism because two people could not [[E:freedom for everybody with the only limit of equal freedom for others\|be free and be free separately in parallel but both the same]] ...		</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">East Germany wasn't a tent of freedom poles / East Germany was not an anarchism because two people could not [[E:freedom for everybody with the only limit of equal freedom for others\|be free and be free separately in parallel but both the same]] ...
Line 31:		Line 31:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4303" data-dimension="S2">East Germany did not have the correct internal structure to be Trotskyism		</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4303" data-dimension="S2">East Germany did not have the correct internal structure to be Trotskyism
	</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		</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4304" data-dimension="S2">If East Germany had been a Fortress Trotskyism, it would have been okay / East Germany could have built up to a Fourth International if only it were Trotskyism in one country
	</ol>		</ol>


	[[Category:Metatransitional thought experiments ontology]]		[[Category:Metatransitional thought experiments ontology]]

Reversedragon: East Germany wasn't a tent of freedom poles

2025-08-18T01:56:00Z

East Germany wasn't a tent of freedom poles

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:56, 18 August 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:

	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">
	</li><li class="field_nations" value="3086" data-dimension="F2">~~[F2]~~ Kevins don't belong in Germany		</li><li class="field_nations" value="3086" data-dimension="F2">Kevins don't belong in Germany
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3087" data-dimension="S2">~~[S2]~~ Karens don't belong in Seattle		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3087" data-dimension="S2">Karens don't belong in Seattle

	</li><li value="3776" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="F2">~~[F2]~~ [[Ontology:Q3776\|Solidarity is strictly optional]]		</li><li value="3776" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="F2">[[Ontology:Q3776\|Solidarity is strictly optional]]

	</li><li ~~value~~="~~9999~~" ~~class~~="~~field_mdem~~" data-dimension="F2">~~[F2]~~ If Communist-ally is not an identity, East Germany wouldn't have existed / If Communist-ally is not an identity, there would be no North Korea -> the claim that creating East Germany required the formation of an East-German identity, in the strict mathematical sense of membership in a socially-linked graph of people calling themselves East Germans. no concept of "East-German culture", "East-German traditions", or "East-German ethnic history narratives" is required for this definition; this is strictly conceptualizing the notion of groups of people or identities as raw divisions of people into groups who are connected because they agree to be connected. with that established, the claim is that East Germany formed because a particular subpopulation of workers formed connected to a particular body of theorists and non-proletarian Communist allies, and it was the agreement of all these people to form a group separate from the rest of the country if the people of West Germany did not meet the conditions to be a proletarian ally that allowed it to act as a capable subpopulation that was able to assemble a new country after the Soviet Union (which could also be considered in the category of "Communist allies") removed itself from East Germany. this is the claim that solidarity throughout the capable subpopulation in the sense of firm dedication to not dissolving it is ultimately a more important thing than the proletariat itself even as the capable subpopulation will only develop if the proletariat has a very prominent role in it. you can now see why East Germany not being a win for Trotskyists would be so confusing. a small number of mainstream Marxist-Leninist allies being able to create East Germany should logically entail that a bunch of Trotskyists wanting to wall themselves off from Stalin should be able to do the same thing starting from a relatively tiny number of people. East Germany should actually have showed that Trotskyism is more feasible than people thought because it shows that every country in Europe could go Trotskyist if the requirement is they turn over independently of each other without Stalin's help. the fact Trotskyists did not see things this way is very telling.		</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="F2">If Communist-ally is not an identity, East Germany wouldn't have existed / If Communist-ally is not an identity, there would be no North Korea -> the claim that creating East Germany required the formation of an East-German identity, in the strict mathematical sense of membership in a socially-linked graph of people calling themselves East Germans. no concept of "East-German culture", "East-German traditions", or "East-German ethnic history narratives" is required for this definition; this is strictly conceptualizing the notion of groups of people or identities as raw divisions of people into groups who are connected because they agree to be connected. with that established, the claim is that East Germany formed because a particular subpopulation of workers formed connected to a particular body of theorists and non-proletarian Communist allies, and it was the agreement of all these people to form a group separate from the rest of the country if the people of West Germany did not meet the conditions to be a proletarian ally that allowed it to act as a capable subpopulation that was able to assemble a new country after the Soviet Union (which could also be considered in the category of "Communist allies") removed itself from East Germany. this is the claim that solidarity throughout the capable subpopulation in the sense of firm dedication to not dissolving it is ultimately a more important thing than the proletariat itself even as the capable subpopulation will only develop if the proletariat has a very prominent role in it. you can now see why East Germany not being a win for Trotskyists would be so confusing. a small number of mainstream Marxist-Leninist allies being able to create East Germany should logically entail that a bunch of Trotskyists wanting to wall themselves off from Stalin should be able to do the same thing starting from a relatively tiny number of people. East Germany should actually have showed that Trotskyism is more feasible than people thought because it shows that every country in Europe could go Trotskyist if the requirement is they turn over independently of each other without Stalin's help. the fact Trotskyists did not see things this way is very telling.

			</li><li value="618" class="field_anarchy" data-dimension="F2">East Germany was indistinguishable from an Anarchism / East Germany was actually an Anarchism -> I am pretty sure this is false but I could not actually explain why. so this is basically one of those "man is equivalent to a chicken" type statements. the heart of this probably-spurious claim would be that because events like Black Lives Matter and the Paris Commune were built around people of a particular idealistic countable Culture assertively occupying a particular spatial area, the distinction between a hypothetical successful Anarchism and a real-world historical fortress state is rather fuzzy. what actually is the difference? you can't say that a fortress state is different from an Anarchism because it's based around the proletariat, because North Korea became a fortress state and hardly had a proletariat at all. I guess you could appeal to "The State", but personally? in my opinion an army always counts as having a State. that's the easiest way to interpret the Trotskyite conspiracy as the seeds of a plural Marxism and open up the road to diplomacy and healing traumas between rival Marxisms. so like, if an Anarchism always realistically has to have a State to perform realization and exist, how is it actually different from a fortress state?

			</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S2">East Germany was a postcolonial movement / East Germany provides evidence for a new category of postcolonial theories solidly based in Materialism instead of Idealism ...

			</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">East Germany wasn't a tent of freedom poles / East Germany was not an anarchism because two people could not [[E:freedom for everybody with the only limit of equal freedom for others\|be free and be free separately in parallel but both the same]] ...

	</li><li value="9999" class="field_anarchy" data-dimension="F2">[F2] East Germany was indistinguishable from an Anarchism / East Germany was actually an Anarchism -> I am pretty sure this is false but I could not actually explain why. so this is basically one of those "man is equivalent to a chicken" type statements. the heart of this probably-spurious claim would be that because events like Black Lives Matter and the Paris Commune were built around people of a particular idealistic countable Culture assertively occupying a particular spatial area, the distinction between a hypothetical successful Anarchism and a real-world historical fortress state is rather fuzzy. what actually is the difference? you can't say that a fortress state is different from an Anarchism because it's based around the proletariat, because North Korea became a fortress state and hardly had a proletariat at all. I guess you could appeal to "The State", but personally? in my opinion an army always counts as having a State. that's the easiest way to interpret the Trotskyite conspiracy as the seeds of a plural Marxism and open up the road to diplomacy and healing traumas between rival Marxisms. so like, if an Anarchism always realistically has to have a State to perform realization and exist, how is it actually different from a fortress state?
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Line 25:		Line 30:

	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4303" data-dimension="S2">~~[S2]~~ East Germany did not have the correct internal structure to be Trotskyism		</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4303" data-dimension="S2">East Germany did not have the correct internal structure to be Trotskyism
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4304" data-dimension="S2">~~[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		</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
	</ol>		</ol>


	[[Category:Metatransitional thought experiments ontology]]		[[Category:Metatransitional thought experiments ontology]]

Reversedragon: East Germany was too small to be Trotskyism

2025-07-31T12:09:46Z

East Germany was too small to be Trotskyism

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:09, 31 July 2025
Line 19:		Line 19:

	<ol class="hue clean compound">		<ol class="hue clean compound">
	{{HueNumber\|Q4300}} <!-- en: What was wrong with East Germany? -->		{{HueNumber\|Q4300}} <!-- en: What was wrong with East Germany? -->
			{{HueNumber\|Q43,01}} <!-- en: Why wasn't East Germany progress toward Trotskyism? -->
			{{HueNumber\|Q43,02}} <!-- en: East Germany was too small to be Trotskyism -->
	</ol>		</ol>

	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">
	~~</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4301" data-dimension="M3">[M] Why did Trotskyists not consider East Germany to be progress?~~
	~~</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4302" data-dimension="S2">[S2] East Germany was too small to be Trotskyism~~
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4303" data-dimension="S2">[S2] East Germany did not have the correct internal structure to be Trotskyism		</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4303" data-dimension="S2">[S2] East Germany did not have the correct internal structure to be Trotskyism
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4304" data-dimension="S2">[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		</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4304" data-dimension="S2">[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

Reversedragon: What was wrong with East Germany?

2025-07-31T05:39:28Z

What was wrong with East Germany?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:39, 31 July 2025
Line 17:		Line 17:

	== Rejection within Trotskyism ==		== Rejection within Trotskyism ==

			<ol class="hue clean compound">
			{{HueNumber\|Q4300}} <!-- en: What was wrong with East Germany? -->
			</ol>

	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">
	</li><li class="field_ML" value="4300" data-dimension="M3">[M] 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?
	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4301" data-dimension="M3">[M] Why did Trotskyists not consider East Germany to be progress?		</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4301" data-dimension="M3">[M] Why did Trotskyists not consider East Germany to be progress?
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4302" data-dimension="S2">[S2] East Germany was too small to be Trotskyism		</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4302" data-dimension="S2">[S2] East Germany was too small to be Trotskyism

Reversedragon: number list

2025-06-20T05:16:22Z

number list

New page

== Processes of forming East Germany ==

{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean compound">
{{HueNumber|Q3776}} 
</ol>

<ol class="hue clean">
</li><li class="field_nations" value="3086" data-dimension="F2">[F2] Kevins don't belong in Germany
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="3087" data-dimension="S2">[S2] Karens don't belong in Seattle

</li><li value="3776" class="field_exstruct" data-dimension="F2">[F2] [[Ontology:Q3776|Solidarity is strictly optional]]

</li><li value="9999" class="field_mdem" data-dimension="F2">[F2] If Communist-ally is not an identity, East Germany wouldn't have existed / If Communist-ally is not an identity, there would be no North Korea -> the claim that creating East Germany required the formation of an East-German identity, in the strict mathematical sense of membership in a socially-linked graph of people calling themselves East Germans. no concept of "East-German culture", "East-German traditions", or "East-German ethnic history narratives" is required for this definition; this is strictly conceptualizing the notion of groups of people or identities as raw divisions of people into groups who are connected because they agree to be connected. with that established, the claim is that East Germany formed because a particular subpopulation of workers formed connected to a particular body of theorists and non-proletarian Communist allies, and it was the agreement of all these people to form a group separate from the rest of the country if the people of West Germany did not meet the conditions to be a proletarian ally that allowed it to act as a capable subpopulation that was able to assemble a new country after the Soviet Union (which could also be considered in the category of "Communist allies") removed itself from East Germany. this is the claim that solidarity throughout the capable subpopulation in the sense of firm dedication to not dissolving it is ultimately a more important thing than the proletariat itself even as the capable subpopulation will only develop if the proletariat has a very prominent role in it. you can now see why East Germany not being a win for Trotskyists would be so confusing. a small number of mainstream Marxist-Leninist allies being able to create East Germany should logically entail that a bunch of Trotskyists wanting to wall themselves off from Stalin should be able to do the same thing starting from a relatively tiny number of people. East Germany should actually have showed that Trotskyism is more feasible than people thought because it shows that every country in Europe could go Trotskyist if the requirement is they turn over independently of each other without Stalin's help. the fact Trotskyists did not see things this way is very telling.

</li><li value="9999" class="field_anarchy" data-dimension="F2">[F2] East Germany was indistinguishable from an Anarchism / East Germany was actually an Anarchism -> I am pretty sure this is false but I could not actually explain why. so this is basically one of those "man is equivalent to a chicken" type statements. the heart of this probably-spurious claim would be that because events like Black Lives Matter and the Paris Commune were built around people of a particular idealistic countable Culture assertively occupying a particular spatial area, the distinction between a hypothetical successful Anarchism and a real-world historical fortress state is rather fuzzy. what actually is the difference? you can't say that a fortress state is different from an Anarchism because it's based around the proletariat, because North Korea became a fortress state and hardly had a proletariat at all. I guess you could appeal to "The State", but personally? in my opinion an army always counts as having a State. that's the easiest way to interpret the Trotskyite conspiracy as the seeds of a plural Marxism and open up the road to diplomacy and healing traumas between rival Marxisms. so like, if an Anarchism always realistically has to have a State to perform realization and exist, how is it actually different from a fortress state?
</li></ol>

== Rejection within Trotskyism ==

<ol class="hue clean">
</li><li class="field_ML" value="4300" data-dimension="M3">[M] 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?
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="4301" data-dimension="M3">[M] Why did Trotskyists not consider East Germany to be progress?
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4302" data-dimension="S2">[S2] East Germany was too small to be Trotskyism
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4303" data-dimension="S2">[S2] East Germany did not have the correct internal structure to be Trotskyism
</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4304" data-dimension="S2">[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
</ol>

[[Category:Metatransitional thought experiments ontology]]