Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q21,44 - Revision history

Reversedragon: Trotskyism in the Soviet Union is obviously incorrect because of what classes it came from [false?]

2026-04-24T01:05:28Z

Trotskyism in the Soviet Union is obviously incorrect because of what classes it came from [false?]

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:05, 24 April 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

	</li~~><li class~~=~~"field_ML" data-qid~~="21,44~~" value~~="2144~~" data-dimension="S2"><cite>~~Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in Disguise~~</cite>~~ (Olgin 1935) -> Soviet record of the history of Trotskyism up to the first attack. relatively comprehensive, although I would expect no less. it was amusing to me when they got the trade unions incident in there, which had been one of my favorite historical anecdotes — and even better when there were apparently several more factual details to how badly Trotsky screwed it up. good history text. the only problem is I have questions about how complete its class analysis is.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=21,44\|Q2=2144}}{{book\|Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in Disguise}} (Olgin 1935) -> Soviet record of the history of Trotskyism up to the first attack. relatively comprehensive, although I would expect no less. it was amusing to me when they got the trade unions incident in there, which had been one of my favorite historical anecdotes — and even better when there were apparently several more factual details to how badly Trotsky screwed it up. good history text. the only problem is I have questions about how complete its class analysis is.<br/>
	of all the statements made, I wouldn't dispute any of them but I do feel like there are some crucial statements missing that might just explain everything. Trotskyism was born out of a churning creek of petty bourgeoisie that could never pick a side? true. Trotsky was never integrated into the Russian revolution? true. I mean, he himself complains about that, so there's no denying it. the behavior of creeks of petty bourgeoisie can be ignored and brushed off as a factor in the motions of history? false. creeks of petty bourgeoisie are not periodically generating entire new competing Marxisms and separating whole racial movements from nation-states to then call all Marxists racist? false. the CPSU tended to totally dismiss these layers of society as people who exist, which actually did make sense in a country like theirs where it was a small portion of the population, but it's a rather terrible thing to present this point of view to other countries where conditions are very different. even if this layer is "unimportant" you still have to understand its behavior, and effectively, give it something to do before it gets into trouble. though Trotskyists literally don't believe it (and we can guess why.) the United States is filled to the brim with "petty bourgeoisie" and the problem only gets worse every time capitalism has a crisis. it's like rather than consolidating the bourgeoisie, crises in capitalism actually result in big corporations exploding, destroying the proletariat, and wildly creating petty bourgeoisie, which then wildly fall away and regenerate over and over.		of all the statements made, I wouldn't dispute any of them but I do feel like there are some crucial statements missing that might just explain everything. Trotskyism was born out of a churning creek of petty bourgeoisie that could never pick a side? true. Trotsky was never integrated into the Russian revolution? true. I mean, he himself complains about that, so there's no denying it. the behavior of creeks of petty bourgeoisie can be ignored and brushed off as a factor in the motions of history? false. creeks of petty bourgeoisie are not periodically generating entire new competing Marxisms and separating whole racial movements from nation-states to then call all Marxists racist? false. the CPSU tended to totally dismiss these layers of society as people who exist, which actually did make sense in a country like theirs where it was a small portion of the population, but it's a rather terrible thing to present this point of view to other countries where conditions are very different. even if this layer is "unimportant" you still have to understand its behavior, and effectively, give it something to do before it gets into trouble. though Trotskyists literally don't believe it (and we can guess why.) the United States is filled to the brim with "petty bourgeoisie" and the problem only gets worse every time capitalism has a crisis. it's like rather than consolidating the bourgeoisie, crises in capitalism actually result in big corporations exploding, destroying the proletariat, and wildly creating petty bourgeoisie, which then wildly fall away and regenerate over and over.

Line 9:		Line 9:

	== Motifs or claims ==		== Motifs or claims ==

	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	<li ~~class~~=~~"field_ML" data-qid~~="26,10~~" value~~="2610~~" data-dimension="S">~~petty bourgeoisie / ([[User:RD/9k/Q2610\|9k]])		{{li\|I=S1/ML\|Q=26,10\|Q2=2610}}petty bourgeoisie / ([[User:RD/9k/Q2610\|9k]])

	<li ~~class~~=~~"field_ML" data-qid~~="26,14~~" value~~="2614~~" data-dimension="S2">~~Trotsky was a member of the petty bourgeoisie -> claim given in <cite>Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in disguise</cite> (Q21,44). a concept that always stuck out at me from the first moment I heard of him and that as a result I have to pretty much agree with.		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=26,14\|Q2=2614}}Trotsky was a member of the petty bourgeoisie -> claim given in <cite>Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in disguise</cite> (Q21,44). a concept that always stuck out at me from the first moment I heard of him and that as a result I have to pretty much agree with.

	<li ~~class~~=~~"field_ML" data-qid~~="21,45~~" value~~="2145~~" data-dimension="S2">~~Trotskyism is the shovel dream of small owners / Trotskyism is the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] of the petty bourgeoisie (small owners; Artisan types; mainstream Marxism-Leninism) -> I think this is only half the explanation but I can't disagree. I think you have to model it as the shovel dream of a separate unique cluster of "petty bourgeoisie", a subpopulation as a countable object, to where there can be plural groups which fail to unify because they're fundamentally separate objects. but at that point you've basically got it.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=21,45\|Q2=2145}}Trotskyism is the shovel dream of small owners / Trotskyism is the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] of the petty bourgeoisie (small owners; Artisan types; mainstream Marxism-Leninism) -> I think this is only half the explanation but I can't disagree. I think you have to model it as the shovel dream of a separate unique cluster of "petty bourgeoisie", a subpopulation as a countable object, to where there can be plural groups which fail to unify because they're fundamentally separate objects. but at that point you've basically got it.<br/>
	yes, the "proliferation of Marxisms" and "plurality" I keep talking about are some very petty-bourgeois problems. but I can't just walk away from these problems because the oceans of petty bourgeoisie that create them all really actually exist and have to be studied. they're the numerous, insular, backward peasants of the modern world.		yes, the "proliferation of Marxisms" and "plurality" I keep talking about are some very petty-bourgeois problems. but I can't just walk away from these problems because the oceans of petty bourgeoisie that create them all really actually exist and have to be studied. they're the numerous, insular, backward peasants of the modern world.

			{{li\|I=S2/ML\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}Trotskyism in the historical Soviet Union is obviously incorrect because of {{em\|what classes}} it came from / ([[User:RD/9k/Q618-AntiJakeTheory\|9k]]) -> even within the context of the Soviet Union this feels like a logical fallacy because the movement started with class traitors. Lenin and Che Guevara were class traitors from the [[E:Careerist layer\|Careerist]] or bourgeois layers; Mao is one of the only exceptions in coming from the peasants. Stalin dragged the Soviet Union along by being an expert at observing structures full of workers rather than a representative of a body of average workers. so calling out Trotsky for coming from the bourgeoisie just.... doesn't make any sense in his historical context. the best Marxist theorists from the Soviet Union {{em\|were not}} representatives of the people. this has made anarchists super upset about the Soviet Union because they hate the idea of one person slurping up all the expertise and ordering everyone else around instead of everybody somehow being equally educated and them all being interchangeable. but unfortunately for them Stalin showed it was totally possible. Marxism isn't a matter of naïve democracy like that where representatives are a dumb conduit for a group of people's Lived Experiences, it's a process of making a whole model of a country where everyone consents to the model and participates and the model is what rules people; representatives can demand tweaks to the model, but aside from that the model rules people rather than representatives or even experts.

	{{li\|I=F2/ML\|Q=618}}An ideology consisting of a tiny circle of 10 theorists means it's wrong [https://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/13.htm] -> this is a very bad criticism againt Trotskyism because it was pretty much how Stalin's Marxism was going [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-EconomicProblemsStalin\|around 1952]], causing the Soviet Union to immediately start picking from the much larger pool of bad theorists when Stalin died. if you believe this you'd be unable to not conclude that Khruschev and Yaroshenko were right.		{{li\|I=F2/ML\|Q=618}}An ideology consisting of a tiny circle of 10 theorists means it's wrong [https://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/13.htm] -> this is a very bad criticism againt Trotskyism because it was pretty much how Stalin's Marxism was going [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-EconomicProblemsStalin\|around 1952]], causing the Soviet Union to immediately start picking from the much larger pool of bad theorists when Stalin died. if you believe this you'd be unable to not conclude that Khruschev and Yaroshenko were right.

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page Ontology:9k/RD/Q21,44 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q21,44 without leaving a redirect: Misspelled title: wrong namespace

2026-04-24T01:01:39Z

Reversedragon moved page Ontology:9k/RD/Q21,44 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q21,44 without leaving a redirect: Misspelled title: wrong namespace

← Older revision	Revision as of 01:01, 24 April 2026
(No difference)

Reversedragon: An ideology consisting of a tiny circle of 10 theorists means it's wrong

2026-04-15T02:25:58Z

An ideology consisting of a tiny circle of 10 theorists means it's wrong

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:25, 15 April 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in Disguise\|User=RD\|E=Q21,44\|Contents=y}}		{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in Disguise\|User=RD\|E=Q21,44\|Contents=y}}
	== Main entry ==		== Main entry ==
	~~<noinclude>~~{{HueCSS}}~~</noinclude>~~<ol class="hue clean">		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">

	</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="21,44" value="2144" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in Disguise</cite> (Olgin 1935) -> Soviet record of the history of Trotskyism up to the first attack. relatively comprehensive, although I would expect no less. it was amusing to me when they got the trade unions incident in there, which had been one of my favorite historical anecdotes — and even better when there were apparently several more factual details to how badly Trotsky screwed it up. good history text. the only problem is I have questions about how complete its class analysis is.<br/>		</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="21,44" value="2144" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in Disguise</cite> (Olgin 1935) -> Soviet record of the history of Trotskyism up to the first attack. relatively comprehensive, although I would expect no less. it was amusing to me when they got the trade unions incident in there, which had been one of my favorite historical anecdotes — and even better when there were apparently several more factual details to how badly Trotsky screwed it up. good history text. the only problem is I have questions about how complete its class analysis is.<br/>
Line 8:		Line 8:
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== Motifs or ~~Claims~~ ==		== Motifs or claims ==

	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">
Line 18:		Line 18:
	<li class="field_ML" data-qid="21,45" value="2145" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism is the shovel dream of small owners / Trotskyism is the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] of the petty bourgeoisie (small owners; Artisan types; mainstream Marxism-Leninism) -> I think this is only half the explanation but I can't disagree. I think you have to model it as the shovel dream of a separate unique cluster of "petty bourgeoisie", a subpopulation as a countable object, to where there can be plural groups which fail to unify because they're fundamentally separate objects. but at that point you've basically got it.<br/>		<li class="field_ML" data-qid="21,45" value="2145" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism is the shovel dream of small owners / Trotskyism is the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] of the petty bourgeoisie (small owners; Artisan types; mainstream Marxism-Leninism) -> I think this is only half the explanation but I can't disagree. I think you have to model it as the shovel dream of a separate unique cluster of "petty bourgeoisie", a subpopulation as a countable object, to where there can be plural groups which fail to unify because they're fundamentally separate objects. but at that point you've basically got it.<br/>
	yes, the "proliferation of Marxisms" and "plurality" I keep talking about are some very petty-bourgeois problems. but I can't just walk away from these problems because the oceans of petty bourgeoisie that create them all really actually exist and have to be studied. they're the numerous, insular, backward peasants of the modern world.		yes, the "proliferation of Marxisms" and "plurality" I keep talking about are some very petty-bourgeois problems. but I can't just walk away from these problems because the oceans of petty bourgeoisie that create them all really actually exist and have to be studied. they're the numerous, insular, backward peasants of the modern world.

			{{li\|I=F2/ML\|Q=618}}An ideology consisting of a tiny circle of 10 theorists means it's wrong [https://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/13.htm] -> this is a very bad criticism againt Trotskyism because it was pretty much how Stalin's Marxism was going [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-EconomicProblemsStalin\|around 1952]], causing the Soviet Union to immediately start picking from the much larger pool of bad theorists when Stalin died. if you believe this you'd be unable to not conclude that Khruschev and Yaroshenko were right.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 23:		Line 25:

	[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]] <!-- page ends here. TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming		[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]] <!-- page ends here. TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming
	redirects: [[User:RD/9k/Q2144]]		redirects: [[User:RD/9k/Q2144]] [[User:RD/9k/Q21,44]]
	duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|9k/Q21,44]] -->		duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|9k/Q21,44]] -->

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q21,44 to Ontology:9k/RD/Q21,44: Moving 9k pages to Ontology talk for search purposes

2026-04-15T02:22:37Z

Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q21,44 to Ontology:9k/RD/Q21,44: Moving 9k pages to Ontology talk for search purposes

← Older revision	Revision as of 02:22, 15 April 2026
(No difference)

Reversedragon: motif: petty bourgeoisie

2026-02-06T06:10:01Z

motif: petty bourgeoisie

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:10, 6 February 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== Claims ==		== Motifs or Claims ==

	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

			<li class="field_ML" data-qid="26,10" value="2610" data-dimension="S">petty bourgeoisie / ([[User:RD/9k/Q2610\|9k]])

	<li class="field_ML" data-qid="26,14" value="2614" data-dimension="S2">Trotsky was a member of the petty bourgeoisie -> claim given in <cite>Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in disguise</cite> (Q21,44). a concept that always stuck out at me from the first moment I heard of him and that as a result I have to pretty much agree with.		<li class="field_ML" data-qid="26,14" value="2614" data-dimension="S2">Trotsky was a member of the petty bourgeoisie -> claim given in <cite>Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in disguise</cite> (Q21,44). a concept that always stuck out at me from the first moment I heard of him and that as a result I have to pretty much agree with.

	<li class="field_ML" data-qid="21,45" value="2145" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism is the shovel dream of small owners / Trotskyism is the shovel dream of the petty bourgeoisie (small owners; Artisan types; mainstream Marxism-Leninism) -> I think this is only half the explanation but I can't disagree. I think you have to model it as the shovel dream of a separate unique cluster of "petty bourgeoisie", a subpopulation as a countable object, to where there can be plural groups which fail to unify because they're fundamentally separate objects. but at that point you've basically got it.<br/>		<li class="field_ML" data-qid="21,45" value="2145" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism is the shovel dream of small owners / Trotskyism is the [[E:shovel dream\|shovel dream]] of the petty bourgeoisie (small owners; Artisan types; mainstream Marxism-Leninism) -> I think this is only half the explanation but I can't disagree. I think you have to model it as the shovel dream of a separate unique cluster of "petty bourgeoisie", a subpopulation as a countable object, to where there can be plural groups which fail to unify because they're fundamentally separate objects. but at that point you've basically got it.<br/>
	yes, the "proliferation of Marxisms" and "plurality" I keep talking about are some very petty-bourgeois problems. but I can't just walk away from these problems because the oceans of petty bourgeoisie that create them all really actually exist and have to be studied. they're the numerous, insular, backward peasants of the modern world.		yes, the "proliferation of Marxisms" and "plurality" I keep talking about are some very petty-bourgeois problems. but I can't just walk away from these problems because the oceans of petty bourgeoisie that create them all really actually exist and have to be studied. they're the numerous, insular, backward peasants of the modern world.

Reversedragon: page title

2026-02-06T05:50:48Z

page title

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:50, 6 February 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!-~~- == Ontology entry =~~=		{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in Disguise\|User=RD\|E=Q21,44\|Contents=y}}
	~~{{HueNumberPreview~~\|E=Q21,44}}		== Main entry ==

	~~-->~~== ~~[[Special:PermanentLink/10493\|Prototype]] notes~~ ==
	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">

	</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="21,44" value="2144" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in Disguise</cite> (Olgin 1935) -> Soviet record of the history of Trotskyism up to the first attack. relatively comprehensive, although I would expect no less. it was amusing to me when they got the trade unions incident in there, which had been one of my favorite historical anecdotes — and even better when there were apparently several more factual details to how badly Trotsky screwed it up. good history text. the only problem is I have questions about how complete its class analysis is.<br />		</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="21,44" value="2144" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in Disguise</cite> (Olgin 1935) -> Soviet record of the history of Trotskyism up to the first attack. relatively comprehensive, although I would expect no less. it was amusing to me when they got the trade unions incident in there, which had been one of my favorite historical anecdotes — and even better when there were apparently several more factual details to how badly Trotsky screwed it up. good history text. the only problem is I have questions about how complete its class analysis is.<br/>
	of all the statements made, I wouldn't dispute any of them but I do feel like there are some crucial statements missing that might just explain everything. Trotskyism was born out of a churning creek of petty bourgeoisie that could never pick a side? true. Trotsky was never integrated into the Russian revolution? true. I mean, he himself complains about that, so there's no denying it. the behavior of creeks of petty bourgeoisie can be ignored and brushed off as a factor in the motions of history? false. creeks of petty bourgeoisie are not periodically generating entire new competing Marxisms and separating whole racial movements from nation-states to then call all Marxists racist? false. the CPSU tended to totally dismiss these layers of society as people who exist, which actually did make sense in a country like theirs where it was a small portion of the population, but it's a rather terrible thing to present this point of view to other countries where conditions are very different. even if this layer is "unimportant" you still have to understand its behavior, and effectively, give it something to do before it gets into trouble. though Trotskyists literally don't believe it (and we can guess why.) the United States is filled to the brim with "petty bourgeoisie" and the problem only gets worse every time capitalism has a crisis. it's like rather than consolidating the bourgeoisie, crises in capitalism actually result in big corporations exploding, destroying the proletariat, and wildly creating petty bourgeoisie.		of all the statements made, I wouldn't dispute any of them but I do feel like there are some crucial statements missing that might just explain everything. Trotskyism was born out of a churning creek of petty bourgeoisie that could never pick a side? true. Trotsky was never integrated into the Russian revolution? true. I mean, he himself complains about that, so there's no denying it. the behavior of creeks of petty bourgeoisie can be ignored and brushed off as a factor in the motions of history? false. creeks of petty bourgeoisie are not periodically generating entire new competing Marxisms and separating whole racial movements from nation-states to then call all Marxists racist? false. the CPSU tended to totally dismiss these layers of society as people who exist, which actually did make sense in a country like theirs where it was a small portion of the population, but it's a rather terrible thing to present this point of view to other countries where conditions are very different. even if this layer is "unimportant" you still have to understand its behavior, and effectively, give it something to do before it gets into trouble. though Trotskyists literally don't believe it (and we can guess why.) the United States is filled to the brim with "petty bourgeoisie" and the problem only gets worse every time capitalism has a crisis. it's like rather than consolidating the bourgeoisie, crises in capitalism actually result in big corporations exploding, destroying the proletariat, and wildly creating petty bourgeoisie, which then wildly fall away and regenerate over and over.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 14:		Line 12:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	~~</li>~~<li class="field_ML" data-qid="26,14" value="2614" data-dimension="S2">Trotsky was a member of the petty bourgeoisie -> claim given in <cite>Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in disguise</cite> (Q21,44). a concept that always stuck out at me from the first moment I heard of him and that as a result I have to pretty much agree with.		<li class="field_ML" data-qid="26,14" value="2614" data-dimension="S2">Trotsky was a member of the petty bourgeoisie -> claim given in <cite>Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in disguise</cite> (Q21,44). a concept that always stuck out at me from the first moment I heard of him and that as a result I have to pretty much agree with.

	<li class="field_ML" data-qid="21,45" value="2145" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism is the shovel dream of small owners / Trotskyism is the shovel dream of the petty ~~bourgeosie~~ (small owners; Artisan types; mainstream Marxism-Leninism) -> I think this is only half the explanation but I can't disagree. I think you have to model it as the shovel dream of a separate unique cluster of "petty bourgeoisie", a subpopulation as a countable object, to where there can be plural groups which fail to unify because they're fundamentally separate objects. but at that point you've basically got it. yes, the "proliferation of Marxisms" and "plurality" I keep talking about are some very petty-bourgeois problems. but I can't just walk away from these problems because the oceans of petty ~~bourgeosie~~ that create them all really actually exist and have to be studied. they're the numerous, insular, backward peasants of the modern world.		<li class="field_ML" data-qid="21,45" value="2145" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism is the shovel dream of small owners / Trotskyism is the shovel dream of the petty bourgeoisie (small owners; Artisan types; mainstream Marxism-Leninism) -> I think this is only half the explanation but I can't disagree. I think you have to model it as the shovel dream of a separate unique cluster of "petty bourgeoisie", a subpopulation as a countable object, to where there can be plural groups which fail to unify because they're fundamentally separate objects. but at that point you've basically got it.<br/>
			yes, the "proliferation of Marxisms" and "plurality" I keep talking about are some very petty-bourgeois problems. but I can't just walk away from these problems because the oceans of petty bourgeoisie that create them all really actually exist and have to be studied. they're the numerous, insular, backward peasants of the modern world.

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

Reversedragon: Q26,14 Trotsky was a member of the petty bourgeoisie

2025-12-28T11:20:27Z

Q26,14 Trotsky was a member of the petty bourgeoisie

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:20, 28 December 2025
Line 5:		Line 5:
	<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">		<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">

	</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="21,44" value="2144" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in Disguise</cite> (Olgin 1935) -> Soviet record of the history of Trotskyism up to the first attack. relatively comprehensive, although I would expect no less. it was amusing to me when they got the trade unions incident in there, which had been one of my favorite historical anecdotes — and even better when there were apparently several more factual details to how badly Trotsky screwed it up. good history text. the only problem is I have questions about how complete its class analysis is. of all the statements made, I wouldn't dispute any of them but I do feel like there are some crucial statements missing that might just explain everything. Trotskyism was born out of a churning creek of petty bourgeoisie that could never pick a side? true. Trotsky was never integrated into the Russian revolution? true. I mean, he himself complains about that, so there's no denying it. the behavior of creeks of petty bourgeoisie can be ignored and brushed off as a factor in the motions of history? false. creeks of petty bourgeoisie are not periodically generating entire new competing Marxisms and separating whole racial movements from nation-states to then call all Marxists racist? false. the CPSU tended to totally dismiss these layers of society as people who exist, which actually did make sense in a country like theirs where it was a small portion of the population, but it's a rather terrible thing to present this point of view to other countries where conditions are very different. even if this layer is "unimportant" you still have to understand its behavior, and effectively, give it something to do before it gets into trouble. though Trotskyists literally don't believe it (and we can guess why.) the United States is filled to the brim with "petty bourgeoisie" and the problem only gets worse every time capitalism has a crisis. it's like rather than consolidating the bourgeoisie, crises in capitalism actually result in big corporations exploding, destroying the proletariat, and wildly creating petty bourgeoisie.		</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="21,44" value="2144" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in Disguise</cite> (Olgin 1935) -> Soviet record of the history of Trotskyism up to the first attack. relatively comprehensive, although I would expect no less. it was amusing to me when they got the trade unions incident in there, which had been one of my favorite historical anecdotes — and even better when there were apparently several more factual details to how badly Trotsky screwed it up. good history text. the only problem is I have questions about how complete its class analysis is.<br />
			of all the statements made, I wouldn't dispute any of them but I do feel like there are some crucial statements missing that might just explain everything. Trotskyism was born out of a churning creek of petty bourgeoisie that could never pick a side? true. Trotsky was never integrated into the Russian revolution? true. I mean, he himself complains about that, so there's no denying it. the behavior of creeks of petty bourgeoisie can be ignored and brushed off as a factor in the motions of history? false. creeks of petty bourgeoisie are not periodically generating entire new competing Marxisms and separating whole racial movements from nation-states to then call all Marxists racist? false. the CPSU tended to totally dismiss these layers of society as people who exist, which actually did make sense in a country like theirs where it was a small portion of the population, but it's a rather terrible thing to present this point of view to other countries where conditions are very different. even if this layer is "unimportant" you still have to understand its behavior, and effectively, give it something to do before it gets into trouble. though Trotskyists literally don't believe it (and we can guess why.) the United States is filled to the brim with "petty bourgeoisie" and the problem only gets worse every time capitalism has a crisis. it's like rather than consolidating the bourgeoisie, crises in capitalism actually result in big corporations exploding, destroying the proletariat, and wildly creating petty bourgeoisie.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 13:		Line 14:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	<li class="field_ML" value="2145" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism is the shovel dream of small owners / Trotskyism is the shovel dream of the petty bourgeosie (small owners; Artisan types; mainstream Marxism-Leninism) -> I think this is only half the explanation but I can't disagree. I think you have to model it as the shovel dream of a separate unique cluster of "petty bourgeoisie", a subpopulation as a countable object, to where there can be plural groups which fail to unify because they're fundamentally separate objects. but at that point you've basically got it. yes, the "proliferation of Marxisms" and "plurality" I keep talking about are some very petty-bourgeois problems. but I can't just walk away from these problems because the oceans of petty bourgeosie that create them all really actually exist and have to be studied. they're the numerous, insular, backward peasants of the modern world.		</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="26,14" value="2614" data-dimension="S2">Trotsky was a member of the petty bourgeoisie -> claim given in <cite>Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in disguise</cite> (Q21,44). a concept that always stuck out at me from the first moment I heard of him and that as a result I have to pretty much agree with.

			<li class="field_ML" data-qid="21,45" value="2145" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism is the shovel dream of small owners / Trotskyism is the shovel dream of the petty bourgeosie (small owners; Artisan types; mainstream Marxism-Leninism) -> I think this is only half the explanation but I can't disagree. I think you have to model it as the shovel dream of a separate unique cluster of "petty bourgeoisie", a subpopulation as a countable object, to where there can be plural groups which fail to unify because they're fundamentally separate objects. but at that point you've basically got it. yes, the "proliferation of Marxisms" and "plurality" I keep talking about are some very petty-bourgeois problems. but I can't just walk away from these problems because the oceans of petty bourgeosie that create them all really actually exist and have to be studied. they're the numerous, insular, backward peasants of the modern world.

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

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q2144 to User:RD/9k/Q21,44: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

2025-12-28T11:16:28Z

Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q2144 to User:RD/9k/Q21,44: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

← Older revision	Revision as of 11:16, 28 December 2025
(No difference)

Reversedragon: copy markup from 9k/Q22,45

2025-12-28T11:15:52Z

copy markup from 9k/Q22,45

New page

== [[Special:PermanentLink/10493|Prototype]] notes ==
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">

</li><li class="field_ML" data-qid="21,44" value="2144" data-dimension="S2"><cite>Trotskyism: Counter-revolution in Disguise</cite> (Olgin 1935) -> Soviet record of the history of Trotskyism up to the first attack. relatively comprehensive, although I would expect no less. it was amusing to me when they got the trade unions incident in there, which had been one of my favorite historical anecdotes — and even better when there were apparently several more factual details to how badly Trotsky screwed it up. good history text. the only problem is I have questions about how complete its class analysis is. of all the statements made, I wouldn't dispute any of them but I do feel like there are some crucial statements missing that might just explain everything. Trotskyism was born out of a churning creek of petty bourgeoisie that could never pick a side? true. Trotsky was never integrated into the Russian revolution? true. I mean, he himself complains about that, so there's no denying it. the behavior of creeks of petty bourgeoisie can be ignored and brushed off as a factor in the motions of history? false. creeks of petty bourgeoisie are not periodically generating entire new competing Marxisms and separating whole racial movements from nation-states to then call all Marxists racist? false. the CPSU tended to totally dismiss these layers of society as people who exist, which actually did make sense in a country like theirs where it was a small portion of the population, but it's a rather terrible thing to present this point of view to other countries where conditions are very different. even if this layer is "unimportant" you still have to understand its behavior, and effectively, give it something to do before it gets into trouble. though Trotskyists literally don't believe it (and we can guess why.) the United States is filled to the brim with "petty bourgeoisie" and the problem only gets worse every time capitalism has a crisis. it's like rather than consolidating the bourgeoisie, crises in capitalism actually result in big corporations exploding, destroying the proletariat, and wildly creating petty bourgeoisie.

</li></ol>

== Claims ==

<ol class="hue clean">

<li class="field_ML" value="2145" data-dimension="S2">Trotskyism is the shovel dream of small owners / Trotskyism is the shovel dream of the petty bourgeosie (small owners; Artisan types; mainstream Marxism-Leninism) -> I think this is only half the explanation but I can't disagree. I think you have to model it as the shovel dream of a separate unique cluster of "petty bourgeoisie", a subpopulation as a countable object, to where there can be plural groups which fail to unify because they're fundamentally separate objects. but at that point you've basically got it. yes, the "proliferation of Marxisms" and "plurality" I keep talking about are some very petty-bourgeois problems. but I can't just walk away from these problems because the oceans of petty bourgeosie that create them all really actually exist and have to be studied. they're the numerous, insular, backward peasants of the modern world.

</li></ol>

[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]