User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/4000 - Revision history

Reversedragon: Trotsky stole his point about restoring the soviets from anarchism

2026-04-23T23:43:44Z

Trotsky stole his point about restoring the soviets from anarchism

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:43, 23 April 2026
Line 451:		Line 451:
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4314" data-dimension="S2">??		</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="4315" data-dimension="S2">??
	</~~li><li class~~=~~"field_trotsky" value~~="4316~~" data~~-~~dimension~~=~~"S2">??~~
			{{li\|I=S2/IV/A\|Q=43,16\|Q2=4316}}Trotsky stole his point about restoring the soviets from anarchism -> I do not know if this is true but it definitely feels like something anarchists would claim is true.<br/>
			Bolshevism appropriated anarchist movements + restore the soviets (Trotskyism) = this.

	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4317" 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="4318" data-dimension="S2">??

Reversedragon: Orange anarchism withdraws

2026-04-23T20:35:28Z

Orange anarchism withdraws

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:35, 23 April 2026
Line 871:		Line 871:
	</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="4830" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Energy Conspiracy</cite> (Seman 1981) {{YouTube\|ozqj75e574s}}

	{{li\|I=S2/Zv\|Q=48,31\|Q2=4831}}~~Orange anarchism withdraws /~~ Orange anarchism is partly defined by pulling chunks of people out of some greater structure or population when they are dissatisfied with their relationship with that population -> this definition explains the strangely large set of commonalities between Trotskyists and right-Liberals while some of their values are drastically different. whether they know it or not they both fundamentally base their ideologies on the concept of splitting society. of course, I think you could say the same thing about uniquely brown "anarcho-Tory" movements — they want to detach out of a greater society they're dissatisfied with due to being nationalists and practicing local-scale nationalism.		{{li\|I=S2/Zv\|Q=48,31\|Q2=4831}}Orange anarchism is partly defined by pulling chunks of people out of some greater structure or population when they are dissatisfied with their relationship with that population / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q3300\|9k]])

	</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. {{YouTube\|ozqj75e574s}}		</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. {{YouTube\|ozqj75e574s}}

Reversedragon: See through one lie, and their whole testimony falls apart

2026-04-23T03:50:24Z

See through one lie, and their whole testimony falls apart

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:50, 23 April 2026
Line 551:		Line 551:
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4412" data-dimension="S2">??		</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4412" data-dimension="S2">??

	{{li\|I=S2/Fy/IV\|Q=44,13\|Q2=4413}}See through one lie, and their whole testimony falls apart / ~~Lies always beget more lies. See through one~~, ~~and their whole testimony falls apart ({{game~~\|~~Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney}} tutorial~~) ~~{{YouTube\|aha0iZQvMvY}} -> you know what joke I'm going to make.~~		{{li\|I=S2/Fy/IV\|Q=44,13\|Q2=4413}}See through one lie, and their whole testimony falls apart / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q64,30\|9k]])

	~~</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4413" data-dimension="S2">??~~
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4414" data-dimension="S2">??		</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4414" data-dimension="S2">??
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4415" data-dimension="S2">??		</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4415" data-dimension="S2">??

Reversedragon: See through one lie, and their whole testimony falls apart

2026-04-22T20:10:53Z

See through one lie, and their whole testimony falls apart

@@ Line 537: / Line 537: @@
 </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|I=S2/Fy/IV|Q=44,13|Q2=4413}}See through one lie, and their whole testimony falls apart / Lies always beget more lies. See through one, and their whole testimony falls apart ({{game|Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney}} tutorial) {{YouTube|aha0iZQvMvY}}  ->  you know what joke I'm going to make.
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4440">??
+</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4413" data-dimension="S2">??
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4441">??
+</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4414" data-dimension="S2">??
 </li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX" data-qid="44,42" value="4442" data-dimension="S2">All republics threaten to disintegrate when a population of people is no longer oppressed  ->  this poses its problems for Bolshevism but there is a potential answer: Bolshevism, a republic, is supposed to transition to some material object that is somehow not considered a republic and after the stages of monarchy and republic is properly called something else.
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4443">??
+</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4443" data-dimension="S2">??
 {{li|I=S1/IV|Q=44,44|Q2=4444}}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="4445" data-dimension="S2">??
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4455">??
+</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4446" data-dimension="S2">??
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4460">??
+</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4447" data-dimension="S2">??
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4465">??
+</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4448" data-dimension="S2">??
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4470">??
+</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4449" data-dimension="S2">??
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4475">??
+</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4450" data-dimension="S2">??
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4476">??
+</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4451" data-dimension="S2">??
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4480">??
+</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4452" data-dimension="S2">??
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4485">??
+</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4453" data-dimension="S2">??
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4489">??
+</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4454" data-dimension="S2">??
 {{li|I=M3/MX|Q=44,90|Q2=4490}}Why is Trotskyism so ironic? / Why is Trotskyism the biggest irony? / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q44,91|9k]])

Reversedragon: ICFI socialism prompts

2026-04-22T10:33:15Z

ICFI socialism prompts

@@ Line 702: / Line 702: @@
 </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="4705">??
+{{li|I=S1/IV|Q=4700|Q2=4700}}ICFI socialism prompts / ICFI "socialism AI" questions
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4710">??
+{{li|I=M3/IV|Q=47,01|Q2=4701}}What was Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution?
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4715">??
+{{li|I=M3/IV|Q=47,02|Q2=4702}}What is the difference between Trotskyism and Stalinism?
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4720">??
+{{li|I=M3/IV|Q=47,03|Q2=4703}}What conditions do warehouse and logistics workers face?
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4725">??
+{{li|I=M3/IV|Q=47,04|Q2=4704}}How can we put an end to the Gaza genocide?
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4730">??
+{{li|I=M3/IV|Q=47,05|Q2=4705}}What is Long COVID and how has it affected global society?
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4735">??
+{{li|I=M3/IV|Q=47,06|Q2=4706}}Why are democratic rights under relentless attack today?
 </li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4740">??
 </li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4745">??

Reversedragon: Trotskyism and metallic rules / international bank

2026-04-22T01:29:44Z

Trotskyism and metallic rules / international bank

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:29, 22 April 2026
Line 417:		Line 417:

	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4296" data-dimension="S2">??		</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4296" data-dimension="S2">??
	</~~li><li class~~=~~"field_trotsky" value~~="4297~~" data-dimension~~=~~"S2">??~~		{{li\|I=S1/MX/IV\|Q=42,97\|Q2=4297\|rem=The Subject}}Trotskyism and metallic rules

	</li><li value="4298" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Socialism: Stalinist or scientific</cite> (Hayashi 1998/2000) / "Stalinism, socialist ..." (typo)		</li><li value="4298" class="field_trotsky" data-dimension="Z"><cite>Socialism: Stalinist or scientific</cite> (Hayashi 1998/2000) / "Stalinism, socialist ..." (typo)
Line 428:		Line 428:
	</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="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\|I=S2/IV\|Q=43,05\|Q2=4305}}Pablo expected that Stalinist workers' states might change themselves and become part of Trotskyism (Cannon) [~~https~~://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/10/open-o21.html] -> honestly? I don't see what's wrong with his logic. {{em\|if}} we already assume that a bunch of countries have orange parties somehow that are actually effective, and there are three countries with crimson parties, there is basically no reason for the crimson countries to not turn orange and join the Fourth International. when you look at the emergence of Deng Xiaoping Thought, each country copied the others specifically because it worked. so Cannon really overestimates how much workers' states would resist Trotskyism. I think the real problem here is that it doesn't function. if it {{em\|was}} functional, I feel like all the countries that are in Deng Xiaoping Thought right now would have just lined up and joined Trotskyism; China, Cuba, Vietnam, maybe Venezuela would all be part of some kind of Trotskyism right now.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=43,05\|Q2=4305}}Pablo expected that Stalinist workers' states might change themselves and become part of Trotskyism (Cannon) / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q43,21\|9k]])
	you really have to ask why BRICS is a serious discussion and why these eight countries haven't just all signed onto the international bank of Trotskyism. they really could have done that. just create a single BRICS currency to be used by the current pool of workers' states and allow other Third World countries to use it at their choice. maybe create another currency if there came to be too many countries on one of them, then put both currencies together into the same international bank. (having too many Third World people on one currency seems to lead to instability because Third World economies are more prone to crashes than First World currencies are, but on the other hand blockchain fanatics have managed to accidentally demonstrate that currencies keep their value better if you split them than if you let the ratio of people per currency unit go up and up and up.) that sounds like a solid idea to me. I have no idea why I haven't heard Trotskyists saying this. I guess maybe it would have to do with the fact that this isn't quite the issue of an "independent" orange workers' party these days and it's more the already-powerful people that are the ones who decide on currencies? but by that same reasoning, already-powerful people are the ones who push for stopping Israel, and Trotskyists aren't against that. so I'm not sure why an issue being one you have to force the Careerists and mayors and legislators etc to stop not doing is an inappropriate issue. making mayors sort of acknowledge the housing issue is one of the only things Trotskyist groups have been genuinely achieving. so why not an eight-country bank designed to stop "Pabloism"?

	{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=43,06\|Q2=4306}}An uprising in East Germany means that workers' states are making concessions to the people, which is to imply they are making concessions toward forming an orange party or Fourth International (Pablo) -> cool idea. I'd hate it much less than a lot of Trotskyist ideas if it was true. Cannon had problems with this but they seem to have been the wrong problems. Cannon was fixated on the fight between Zinovievization and "Stalinist" governments but didn't really bother to talk about the notion of capitalist reversion inside countries or the prevalence of people like Yaroshenko and Deng Xiaoping, which around 1938-1960 are the primary reason "the Stalinists" fought against being Zinovievized.		{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=43,06\|Q2=4306}}An uprising in East Germany means that workers' states are making concessions to the people, which is to imply they are making concessions toward forming an orange party or Fourth International (Pablo) -> cool idea. I'd hate it much less than a lot of Trotskyist ideas if it was true. Cannon had problems with this but they seem to have been the wrong problems. Cannon was fixated on the fight between Zinovievization and "Stalinist" governments but didn't really bother to talk about the notion of capitalist reversion inside countries or the prevalence of people like Yaroshenko and Deng Xiaoping, which around 1938-1960 are the primary reason "the Stalinists" fought against being Zinovievized.
Line 456:		Line 455:
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4318" 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="4319" data-dimension="S2">??

	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4320" data-dimension="S2">??		</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4320" data-dimension="S2">??
	</~~li><li class~~=~~"field_trotsky" value~~="4321~~" data-dimension~~=~~"S2">??~~		{{li\|I=S1/MX/IV\|Q=43,21\|Q2=4321\|rem=post revolution}}international bank of Trotskyism (hypothetical; motif) / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q4321\|9k]])
	</~~li><li class~~=~~"field_trotsky" value~~="4322~~" data-dimension="S2">??~~		{{li\|I=S1/MX/IV\|Q=43,22\|Q2=4322}}international health care program (hypothetical; motif) / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q4321\|9k]])
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4323" 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="4324" data-dimension="S2">??

Reversedragon: Trotskyism is like livermorium: it's really big, but it falls apart and disappears before it can even be observed

2026-04-21T10:18:04Z

Trotskyism is like livermorium: it's really big, but it falls apart and disappears before it can even be observed

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:18, 21 April 2026
Line 731:		Line 731:
	</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" 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\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto IV\|Q=~~4778~~\|Q2=4778}}Trotskyism is like cold fusion / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q47,78\|9k]])		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto IV\|Q=47,78\|Q2=4778}}Trotskyism is like cold fusion / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q47,78\|9k]])
			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto IV\|Q=47,79\|Q2=4779}}Trotskyism is like livermorium: it's really big, but it falls apart and disappears immediately before it can even be observed

	~~</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4779">??~~
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4780">??		</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4780">??
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4781">??		</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4781">??

Reversedragon: Revisionism is when Marxist parties aren't orange

2026-04-14T10:33:21Z

Revisionism is when Marxist parties aren't orange

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:33, 14 April 2026
Line 66:		Line 66:
	</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" 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="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 {{TTS\|tts=a Social-Philosophical-Material System\|an ~~SPMs~~}}; is step zero) / The key to beginning socialist transition is grouping people into a movement / ([[User:RD/9k/Q40,47\|9k]])		{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=40,46\|Q2=4046}}Revisionism is when Marxist parties aren't orange -> Cannon, Pablo, ICFI. this seems like a terrible stance to take if you want as many regions of the world in an era of socialism as possible.

			</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 {{TTS\|tts=a Social-Philosophical-Material System\|an SPMS}}; is step zero) / The key to beginning socialist transition is grouping people into a movement / ([[User:RD/9k/Q40,47\|9k]])

	</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_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

Reversedragon: Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Pabloism

2026-04-13T20:39:36Z

Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Pabloism

Reversedragon: Pabloism

2026-04-13T10:40:44Z

Pabloism

Show changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:35, 23 April 2026
Line 871:		Line 871:
	</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="4830" data-dimension="Z"><cite>The Energy Conspiracy</cite> (Seman 1981) {{YouTube\|ozqj75e574s}}

	{{li\|I=S2/Zv\|Q=48,31\|Q2=4831}}~~Orange anarchism withdraws /~~ Orange anarchism is partly defined by pulling chunks of people out of some greater structure or population when they are dissatisfied with their relationship with that population -> this definition explains the strangely large set of commonalities between Trotskyists and right-Liberals while some of their values are drastically different. whether they know it or not they both fundamentally base their ideologies on the concept of splitting society. of course, I think you could say the same thing about uniquely brown "anarcho-Tory" movements — they want to detach out of a greater society they're dissatisfied with due to being nationalists and practicing local-scale nationalism.		{{li\|I=S2/Zv\|Q=48,31\|Q2=4831}}Orange anarchism is partly defined by pulling chunks of people out of some greater structure or population when they are dissatisfied with their relationship with that population / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q3300\|9k]])

	</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. {{YouTube\|ozqj75e574s}}		</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. {{YouTube\|ozqj75e574s}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:39, 13 April 2026
Line 16:		Line 16:
	</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_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~~" data-tradition="MX, MX onto Zv, MX onto IV" data-qid="40,09" value="4009" data-dimension="S2">A theory of society which cannot explain the Trotskyite conspiracy is no theory of society at all -> a statement which is bold but as far as I can tell completely justified. mainstream Marxism-Leninism can't actually explain the series of events which would prevent Trotsky going to the external empires and betraying the Soviet population. early Maoism was actually closer to being able to solve this problem, ~~even though there are still problems of people leaving countries and becoming their enemies, all of them smaller in scope than the Trotskyite conspiracy.~~		</li><li class="field_mdem" data-tradition="MX, MX onto Zv, MX onto IV" data-qid="40,09" value="4009" data-dimension="S2">A theory of society which cannot explain the Trotskyite conspiracy is no theory of society at all / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q41,91\|9k]])

	</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 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\|I=S2/IV\|Q=40,11\|Q2=4011}}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 / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q41,91\|9k]])

	</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="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]])
Line 115:		Line 115:
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4082" data-dimension="S2">??		</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4082" data-dimension="S2">??

	</~~li><li class~~=~~"field_trotsky" value~~="4083~~" data~~-~~dimension="S2">??~~		{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=40,83\|Q2=4083}}Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Pabloism / Trotskyism-in-one-country would be a countable instance of Pabloism

	{{li\|I=S1/ML\|tradition=ML, W\|Q=40,84\|Q2=4084}}wage slavery / slave class of workers (Marx) / slave labour (in reference to proletariat; Marx) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q4084\|9k]])		{{li\|I=S1/ML\|tradition=ML, W\|Q=40,84\|Q2=4084}}wage slavery / slave class of workers (Marx) / slave labour (in reference to proletariat; Marx) / ([[User:RD/9k/Q4084\|9k]])
Line 358:		Line 358:
	{{li\|I=S2/IV\|tradition=ML onto IV\|Q=42,65\|Q2=4265}}The {{abbr\|PSL\|title=Party of Socialism and Liberation}} did not split from the Workers' World Party for ideological reasons; this is not to imply that the party did not drift away from Trotskyism later (United States)		{{li\|I=S2/IV\|tradition=ML onto IV\|Q=42,65\|Q2=4265}}The {{abbr\|PSL\|title=Party of Socialism and Liberation}} did not split from the Workers' World Party for ideological reasons; this is not to imply that the party did not drift away from Trotskyism later (United States)

	{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=42,66\|Q2=4266}}James P. Cannon believed that each country must construct an orange central party that performs filtration just like any Marxist party would ~~("combining democracy and centralism")~~, and the central parties of multiple countries would form into a larger-scale era of socialism [~~https~~://~~www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/10/open-o21.html~~]		{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=42,66\|Q2=4266}}James P. Cannon believed that each country must construct an orange central party that performs filtration just like any Marxist party would, and the central parties of multiple countries would form into a larger-scale era of socialism / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,92\|9k]])

	{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=42,67\|Q2=4267}}Stalinist parties are preventing countries from completing revolution and creating socialism (Cannon) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/10/open-o21.html] -> I'm confused on what Cannon is saying but this is my best guess on what he means. I {{em\|think}} he's trying to point at countries like Japan where all the parties were failing at getting anywhere and claim that {{em\|actually}} they weren't succeeding because they weren't Trotskyist, and more specifically that they weren't succeeding because they didn't have help from central parties in other countries. it's.... a thought. I'm not really sure how it could possibly work realistically when like, you are going to need so many workers united together from other countries just to overpower countries which have made themselves majority bourgeoisie. you can't just take every First World country and join them together because all the people who could plausibly become Communist allies in those countries are quite a minority versus the overall population of that group of countries. you'd have to do something more like join up 40 Third World countries to specifically focus on Japan and nowhere else and then move on to another country.		{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=42,67\|Q2=4267}}Stalinist parties are preventing countries from completing revolution and creating socialism (Cannon) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/10/open-o21.html] -> I'm confused on what Cannon is saying but this is my best guess on what he means. I {{em\|think}} he's trying to point at countries like Japan where all the parties were failing at getting anywhere and claim that {{em\|actually}} they weren't succeeding because they weren't Trotskyist, and more specifically that they weren't succeeding because they didn't have help from central parties in other countries. it's.... a thought. I'm not really sure how it could possibly work realistically when like, you are going to need so many workers united together from other countries just to overpower countries which have made themselves majority bourgeoisie. you can't just take every First World country and join them together because all the people who could plausibly become Communist allies in those countries are quite a minority versus the overall population of that group of countries. you'd have to do something more like join up 40 Third World countries to specifically focus on Japan and nowhere else and then move on to another country.
Line 368:		Line 368:
	{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=42,70\|Q2=4270}}Marxism's great crisis is the crisis of revolutionary leadership (Trotsky 1938) -> this is... actually not untrue. the problem is that he contributed to the crisis. that's the only major problem with that statement.		{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=42,70\|Q2=4270}}Marxism's great crisis is the crisis of revolutionary leadership (Trotsky 1938) -> this is... actually not untrue. the problem is that he contributed to the crisis. that's the only major problem with that statement.

	{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=42,71\|Q2=4271}}The ICFI (Fourth International of 1953) aims to realize an era of socialism which stretches around the world [~~https~~://~~www.wsws.org/en/special/pages/icfi/about.html~~] / The ICFI believes the realization of Trotskyism begins with an era of socialism -> see, like, all by itself, this makes sense. what doesn't make sense is A) Trotskyists have never realized (noticed) that the more Dengisms or East-Germanies there are the more likely it is that they get world socialism (Bolshevism) specifically B) Trotskyists have never realized that mainstream Marxism-Leninism contributed to getting to world socialism C) the observed fact that in the real world whenever you challenge socialisms-in-one-country you're way more likely to get international anarchist movements that reject an era of socialism than you are to get anything resembling Trotskyism or any form of Leninism period. this honestly still confuses me because you would think a Trotskyism consisting of about 5-20 countries at a time would make more logical sense than anarchism in like every regard. it has possible structures that come to mind based on history (although there might be several that are possible) and if it ever came to be it could defend itself. but everything that isn't Liberal-republicanism or socialism-in-one-country (plus Dengism etc) being anarchism is the observed real-world pattern. it's vaguely as if it's only physically possible to create populational structures that are smaller than one population or the exact size of one population while it's physically impossible to take all the people inside two populations and form a new border around them as is required for an era of socialism.		{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=42,71\|Q2=4271}}The ICFI (Fourth International of 1953) aims to realize an era of socialism which stretches around the world / ([[User:RD/9k/Q28,92\|9k]])

	{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=42,72\|Q2=4272}}??		{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=42,72\|Q2=4272}}??