Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q42,86: Difference between revisions
m Reversedragon moved page Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q4286 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q42,86: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title |
m Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Pabloism |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean"> | {{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean"> | ||
{{li|I= | {{li|start=y|I=S1/IV/ML|Q=42,86|Q2=4286}}Pabloism / the opportunist current that sought to liquidate the Fourth International into Stalinist parties, social-democracy, and bourgeois nationalism [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/10/open-o21.html] -> so Pabloism wanted to dissolve the Fourth International? why? by 1950 the Third International was already dissolved, so you'd think it would be the perfect time to have a Fourth International just in terms of anybody being able to "obstruct" it. were they simply not Leninists? was the Fourth International predictably flooded with Western-Marxists that just didn't even get it? or what the hell was going on there | ||
{{li|I=S1/MX|Q=42,86|Q2=4286}}Pabloism -> looks like some of my weirder ideas have been vindicated. the whole thing happening here is that Trotskyists genuinely get upset when Communist parties are not orange. they actually appear to have criteria for what counts as an orange party, and they just ruthlessly try to get rid of all States that aren't orange States, because in 1950 it almost kind of made sense to keep countries from having mainstream Marxism-Leninism just to make sure they wouldn't {{em|not}} have a Communist International.<br/> | |||
the inner motions of Trotskyism really aren't based on what individuals-of-a-class are inside it. they're based on Trotskyism's unique model of how central parties of each country are supposed to be structured and how they're supposed to join together at larger scales. that particular [[E:shovel dream (meta-Marxism)|shovel-dream]] may be ([[EC:RD/9k/Q21,04|and probably is]]) generated by other [[E:shovel (meta-Marxism)|shovel-objects]]. it's important to figure out exactly what shovels are actually generating it to accurately say why it's wrong. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
| Line 10: | Line 13: | ||
<ol class="hue clean"> | <ol class="hue clean"> | ||
{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=43,08|Q2=4308}}James P. Cannon unknowingly promoted Pabloism [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/10/open-o21.html] -> cannon's whole letter reads like this: hello fourth international, so in the United States we had to disband the Fourth International in order to not get caught, imagine my horror when I found out that Trotskyists not being allowed to create a Fourth International was invented by Pabloites and not by national bourgeoises and their associated states like I just said it was<br/> | {{li|start=y|I=S2/IV|Q=43,08|Q2=4308}}James P. Cannon unknowingly promoted Pabloism [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/10/open-o21.html] -> cannon's whole letter reads like this: {{i|hello fourth international, so in the United States we had to disband the Fourth International in order to not get caught, imagine my horror when I found out that Trotskyists not being allowed to create a Fourth International was invented by Pabloites and not by national bourgeoises and their associated states like I just said it was}}<br/> | ||
it makes me wonder, is Cannon determined to believe in Pabloism existing just so he doesn't have to take the blame for chickening out on forming the Fourth International and hiding?<br/> | it makes me wonder, is Cannon determined to believe in Pabloism existing just so he doesn't have to take the blame for chickening out on forming the Fourth International and hiding?<br/> | ||
in every era Trotskyists have been so bad about attributing problems in forming parties to the wrong causes. first it was "Stalin invented underdeveloped countries", then in 1953 it's "Pabloites invented failure to form the Fourth International"<br/> | in every era Trotskyists have been so bad about attributing problems in forming parties to the wrong causes. first it was "Stalin invented underdeveloped countries", then in 1953 it's "Pabloites invented failure to form the Fourth International"<br/> | ||
well. they almost made a bit of progress. the one good thing about this is it almost resembles a real actual problem you could tell parties to avoid. {{i|oh no the parties are letting the Fourth International fracture, it must be Pabloism, that's what that error is called now.}} I have no idea why it's called that but you know what, sure, you can call it that as long as you admit that Cannon was at least bordering on doing the same thing. | well. they almost made a bit of progress. the one good thing about this is it almost resembles a real actual problem you could tell parties to avoid. {{i|oh no the parties are letting the Fourth International fracture, it must be Pabloism, that's what that error is called now.}} I have no idea why it's called that but you know what, sure, you can call it that as long as you admit that Cannon was at least bordering on doing the same thing. | ||
{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=42,90|Q2=4290|rem=almost 91}}The world will cover itself in a number of Stalinist workers' states that last for centuries (Pablo) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/10/open-o21.html] -> oh so that's what Pablo said. from how negative the ICFI was about him I thought he was gonna be like, a classical Menshevik. but he's kind of cool actually. I mean, so far he was closer to correct and the only thing he didn't get right is the magnitude, that there would be somewhere around less than 15 Dengisms that would do basically what he said, and a number of generic anti-imperialisms that didn't even get very far (Venezuela, South Africa, Sahel States? or are those better than that). really, in my opinion the "Pabloisms" should have just formed a Third International and they would have gotten a lot more accomplished that way than the Fourth International.<br/> | {{li|I=S2/IV/ML|Q=42,90|Q2=4290|rem=almost 91}}The world will cover itself in a number of Stalinist workers' states that last for centuries (Pablo) [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/10/open-o21.html] -> oh so that's what Pablo said. from how negative the ICFI was about him I thought he was gonna be like, a classical Menshevik. but he's kind of cool actually. I mean, so far he was closer to correct and the only thing he didn't get right is the magnitude, that there would be somewhere around less than 15 Dengisms that would do basically what he said, and a number of generic anti-imperialisms that didn't even get very far (Venezuela, South Africa, Sahel States? or are those better than that). really, in my opinion the "Pabloisms" should have just formed a Third International and they would have gotten a lot more accomplished that way than the Fourth International.<br/> | ||
what does Pabloism even mean practically? so far I see three possible definitions. A) failing to form the Fourth International. B) forming a scattered sea of socialisms-in-one-country, with or without a Third International. C) any socialism-in-one-country that is not orange and won't form a Fourth International.<br/> | what does Pabloism even mean practically? so far I see three possible definitions. A) failing to form the Fourth International. B) forming a scattered sea of socialisms-in-one-country, with or without a Third International. C) any socialism-in-one-country that is not orange and won't form a Fourth International.<br/> | ||
I really want to know if I'm actually a Pabloist. otherwise it would just be a silly bit of trivia. but apparently this is actually something I can be or not be depending on if I align with the ICFI?? and I never knew.<br/> | I really want to know if I'm actually a Pabloist. otherwise it would just be a silly bit of trivia. but apparently this is actually something I can be or not be depending on if I align with the ICFI?? and I never knew.<br/> | ||
Cannon seems to believe that Pabloism means no Third International, because otherwise the notion of it destroying the Fourth International wouldn't be such a big issue. | Cannon seems to believe that Pabloism means no Third International, because otherwise the notion of it destroying the Fourth International wouldn't be such a big issue. | ||
{{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/ML|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/> | ||
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"? | 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"? | ||
| Line 28: | Line 31: | ||
{{li|I=F2/MX|Q=42,69|Q2=4269}}Posadism is a form of Pabloism -> <s>Cannon implies this.</s> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/10/open-o21.html] okay he doesn't, he actually sort of gave a definition. I'll leave this proposition anyway. | {{li|I=F2/MX|Q=42,69|Q2=4269}}Posadism is a form of Pabloism -> <s>Cannon implies this.</s> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/10/open-o21.html] okay he doesn't, he actually sort of gave a definition. I'll leave this proposition anyway. | ||
{{li|I=S2/IV|Q=40,83|Q2=4083}}Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Pabloism / ([[EC:9k/RD/Q40,70|9k]]) | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
Latest revision as of 20:03, 13 April 2026
Main entry
- Pabloism / the opportunist current that sought to liquidate the Fourth International into Stalinist parties, social-democracy, and bourgeois nationalism [1] -> so Pabloism wanted to dissolve the Fourth International? why? by 1950 the Third International was already dissolved, so you'd think it would be the perfect time to have a Fourth International just in terms of anybody being able to "obstruct" it. were they simply not Leninists? was the Fourth International predictably flooded with Western-Marxists that just didn't even get it? or what the hell was going on there
- Pabloism -> looks like some of my weirder ideas have been vindicated. the whole thing happening here is that Trotskyists genuinely get upset when Communist parties are not orange. they actually appear to have criteria for what counts as an orange party, and they just ruthlessly try to get rid of all States that aren't orange States, because in 1950 it almost kind of made sense to keep countries from having mainstream Marxism-Leninism just to make sure they wouldn't not have a Communist International.
the inner motions of Trotskyism really aren't based on what individuals-of-a-class are inside it. they're based on Trotskyism's unique model of how central parties of each country are supposed to be structured and how they're supposed to join together at larger scales. that particular shovel-dream may be (and probably is) generated by other shovel-objects. it's important to figure out exactly what shovels are actually generating it to accurately say why it's wrong.
Related
- James P. Cannon unknowingly promoted Pabloism [2] -> cannon's whole letter reads like this: hello fourth international, so in the United States we had to disband the Fourth International in order to not get caught, imagine my horror when I found out that Trotskyists not being allowed to create a Fourth International was invented by Pabloites and not by national bourgeoises and their associated states like I just said it was
it makes me wonder, is Cannon determined to believe in Pabloism existing just so he doesn't have to take the blame for chickening out on forming the Fourth International and hiding?
in every era Trotskyists have been so bad about attributing problems in forming parties to the wrong causes. first it was "Stalin invented underdeveloped countries", then in 1953 it's "Pabloites invented failure to form the Fourth International"
well. they almost made a bit of progress. the one good thing about this is it almost resembles a real actual problem you could tell parties to avoid. oh no the parties are letting the Fourth International fracture, it must be Pabloism, that's what that error is called now. I have no idea why it's called that but you know what, sure, you can call it that as long as you admit that Cannon was at least bordering on doing the same thing. - The world will cover itself in a number of Stalinist workers' states that last for centuries (Pablo) [3] -> oh so that's what Pablo said. from how negative the ICFI was about him I thought he was gonna be like, a classical Menshevik. but he's kind of cool actually. I mean, so far he was closer to correct and the only thing he didn't get right is the magnitude, that there would be somewhere around less than 15 Dengisms that would do basically what he said, and a number of generic anti-imperialisms that didn't even get very far (Venezuela, South Africa, Sahel States? or are those better than that). really, in my opinion the "Pabloisms" should have just formed a Third International and they would have gotten a lot more accomplished that way than the Fourth International.
what does Pabloism even mean practically? so far I see three possible definitions. A) failing to form the Fourth International. B) forming a scattered sea of socialisms-in-one-country, with or without a Third International. C) any socialism-in-one-country that is not orange and won't form a Fourth International.
I really want to know if I'm actually a Pabloist. otherwise it would just be a silly bit of trivia. but apparently this is actually something I can be or not be depending on if I align with the ICFI?? and I never knew.
Cannon seems to believe that Pabloism means no Third International, because otherwise the notion of it destroying the Fourth International wouldn't be such a big issue. - Pablo expected that Stalinist workers' states might change themselves and become part of Trotskyism (Cannon) [4] -> honestly? I don't see what's wrong with his logic. 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 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.
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"? - 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.
- The Soviet Union promoted Pabloism -> implied by Cannon. [5] what he seems to be saying is that a miscellaneous sea of disconnected socialisms-in-one-country that don't form a Communist International are Pabloism. so like, North Korea is a manifestation of Pabloism? Cuba is? or is it only the existence of both of them sitting there disconnected. which material thing is Pabloism exactly?
- Posadism is a form of Pabloism ->
Cannon implies this.[6] okay he doesn't, he actually sort of gave a definition. I'll leave this proposition anyway. - Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Pabloism / (9k)
Ideologies or fields
- (none)