Reversedragon: formatting

2026-09-06T11:49:48Z

formatting

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:49, 6 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=~~free Bogdan Syrotiuk~~\|E=Q43,12\|User=RD\|Contents=y}}		{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=Early Trotskyism was anarchism\|E=Q43,12\|User=RD\|Contents=y}}
	== Main entry ==		== Main entry ==
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"><!-- inactive: {{int:hue-ixn-classname-DFy}} -->		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"><!-- inactive: {{int:hue-ixn-classname-DFy}} -->

	<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\|start=y\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=\|Q=43,12\|Q2=4312\|rem=Q1312 'street protest' as anarchist number}}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 -><br/>
			I know this sounds {{censor\|batshit}}. 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 hypothesize 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></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 15:		Line 16:
	<ol class="hue clean terse {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">		<ol class="hue clean terse {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">
	{{li\|start=y		{{li\|start=y
	\|I=Z1/IV\|Q=41,04\|Q2=4104}}{{TTS\|IV\|Fourth}} / Trotskyism		\|I=S1/MX\|Q= 92\|Q2= 92}}{{TTS\|MX\|M.X.}} / meta-Marxism
			{{li\|I=S1/ML\|Q=44,43\|Q2=4443}}{{TTS\|ML\|M-L}} / Stalinism as meta-Marxism
			{{li\|I=Z1/IV\|Q=41,04\|Q2=4104}}{{TTS\|IV\|Fourth}} / Trotskyism
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: copy markup from Q43,12

2026-09-06T07:50:47Z

copy markup from Q43,12

New page

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=free Bogdan Syrotiuk|E=Q43,12|User=RD|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">

<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></ol>

== Related ==


== Ideologies or fields ==
<ol class="hue clean terse {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">
{{li|start=y
|I=Z1/IV|Q=41,04|Q2=4104}}{{TTS|IV|Fourth}} / Trotskyism
</li></ol>

== Wavebuilder combinations ==
<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three">

{{WaveBuild| {{E:Q618/IV|??}} | -- | -- }} 

</dl>

== Subpages or related scraps ==


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

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q4312 - Revision history

Reversedragon: formatting

Reversedragon: copy markup from Q43,12