Ontology:Q28,94: Difference between revisions
m Reversedragon moved page Ontology:Q2894 to Ontology:Q28,94: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title |
m prototype notes |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
<dl class="wikitable hue"> | <dl class="wikitable hue"> | ||
{{HueClaim |P=item type| {{Template:S1}} }} | {{HueClaim |P=item type| {{Template:S1}} }} | ||
{{HueRoster|EP=PPPA/L| {{E: | {{HueRoster|EP=PPPA/L| {{E:Q28,94}} }} | ||
{{HueClaim |EP=PPPA|lang=en| - | {{HueClaim |EP=PPPA|lang=en| non-revisionist Trotskyism (hypothetical possibility; motif) }} | ||
{{HueRoster|EP=P42/BB| {{E:Q2900}} }} <!-- en: QID references --> | {{HueRoster|EP=P42/BB| {{E:Q2900}} }} <!-- en: QID references --> | ||
{{HueRoster|EP=P34| {{E:Q92}} }} <!-- en: color swatch references --> | {{HueRoster|EP=P34| {{E:Q92}} }} <!-- en: color swatch references --> | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
{{HueRoster|EP=P14| -- }} | {{HueRoster|EP=P14| -- }} | ||
</dl> | </dl> | ||
<!-- | |||
=== Components === | === Components === | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
{{HueRoster|P=model combines claims| -- }} | {{HueRoster|P=model combines claims| -- }} | ||
</dl> | </dl> | ||
--> | |||
== Wavebuilder combinations == | == Wavebuilder combinations == | ||
| Line 34: | Line 35: | ||
<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three"> | <dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three"> | ||
{{WaveRoute| {{E:Q4104}} | self-criticism | {{E:Q2894}} }} <!-- en: From Trotskyism ?? --> | {{WaveRoute| {{E:Q4104}} | {{E:Q618/ML|self-criticism}} | {{E:Q2894}} }} <!-- en: From Trotskyism ?? --> | ||
{{WaveRoute| {{E:Q4941}} | {{E:Q618/ML|socialism in one country}} | {{E:Q2894}} }} | |||
</dl> | </dl> | ||
== [[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand|Prototype]] notes == | |||
<ol class="hue clean"> | |||
<li class="field_anarchy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Lenin said workers never become class-conscious / Lenin said that workers in trade unions only get to trade union consciousness, therefore within the historical process of a Leninist movement and transition into the beginning of Bolshevism workers never extract themselves from rule by the bourgeoisie [https://libcom.org/article/pretension-class-consciousness] -> ... so let's assume that this is true. traditional capitalists are toeing the line and Lenin is toeing the line, and Stalin and Trotsky are toeing the line. Lenin takes capitalism and he replaces it with a new capitalism which is headed by Marxist theorists. ... that argument only even begins to have any legs when you recognize Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism and Maoism as separate parallel Marxisms. ... it's only when we get to China and the Soviet Union separating and failing to form an International because at different times they call each other revisionist (if I remember right?) that we start to see that there is kind of an argument to be made <em>only</em> if you somehow know what existential materialism is [...].<br /> | |||
starting from this article's premises you can argue Trotskyism, but argue anything else and you basically deny the Cold War and the latter half of the 1900s. why is arguing Trotskyism not denying the Cold War? well, because you said the movement was somehow made of a solid base of workers exactly like it totally wasn't the first time. if Trotskyism was made of workers constantly kicking out their theorists for bad Leninism and refusing to split apart versus joining into an increasingly huger population of people, yet also actually accepting at the end of the day that the workers need Marxist theorists and the concept of countable populations to actually defeat borders and become connected, then it actually wouldn't be all that bad. out of all the forms of Trotskyism there are like fifteen I hate and two I like but the problem is <em>nobody advocates the actually good ones</em>. I wonder if the problem is that I'm naming things that aren't Trotskyism Trotskyism. I have [[:Category:Bauplan ontologies|so many civilizational shapes]] to study the history of and properly distinguish and name. | |||
</li><li class="field_ML" data-remark="concept of a non-revisionist Trotskyism" value="2894" data-dimension="S">the only good form of Trotskyism / non-revisionist Trotskyism (hypothetical possibility; motif) -> the motif of someone, usually me, claiming that there is a form of Trotskyism which would be acceptable to people who are Stalin-followers today but which currently practically nobody advocates for. I have always been confused why this is. it's not like Trotskyists are totally stupid and that's why they could never realize their theories are wrong. so is it that I am naming things that aren't Trotskyism Trotskyism and then asserting they're the only good Trotskyism? I am still unpacking this. | |||
</li></ol> | |||
== Usage notes == | == Usage notes == | ||
Revision as of 02:54, 13 August 2025
- pronounced [MX] the only good form of Trotskyism 1-1-1
Core characteristics
- pronounced [P] alias (en) [string]
- non-revisionist Trotskyism (hypothetical possibility; motif)
- shares thematic block [Item] (BB) 1-1-1
- pronounced [S0] meta-Marxist hypothesis (C) 1-1-1
- field, scope, or group [Item]
- pronounced Z–617 pronounced [MX] [Z] meta-Marxism 1-1-1
- associated Term [Lexeme]
- --
- sub-case of [Item]
- named Marxism substantiated by history / non-revisionist Marxism
- case of [Item]
- meta-Marxist motif
- super-case of [Item]
- --
- appears in work [Item]
- --
Wavebuilder combinations
- pronounced [P] pronounced Wavebuilder: forms result [Item]
- --
- along with [Item]
- --
Wavebuilder characterizations
- pronounced Wavebuilder: route [Item]
- pronounced [MX] the only good form of Trotskyism 1-1-1
- along with [Item]
- pronounced Z–617 pronounced [IV] [Z] Trotskyism (top-level category) 1-1-1
- forming from [Item]
- pronounced Z–617 pronounced [IV] [Z] Trotskyism (top-level category) 1-1-1
- self-criticism (proposed; ML) 1-1-1
- pronounced [MX] the only good form of Trotskyism 1-1-1
- pronounced Wavebuilder: route [Item]
- pronounced [MX] the only good form of Trotskyism 1-1-1
- along with [Item]
- pronounced Z–617 pronounced [IV] [Z] Leon Trotsky 1-1-1
- forming from [Item]
- pronounced Z–617 pronounced [IV] [Z] Leon Trotsky 1-1-1
- socialism in one country (proposed; ML) 1-1-1
- pronounced [MX] the only good form of Trotskyism 1-1-1
Prototype notes
- Lenin said workers never become class-conscious / Lenin said that workers in trade unions only get to trade union consciousness, therefore within the historical process of a Leninist movement and transition into the beginning of Bolshevism workers never extract themselves from rule by the bourgeoisie [1] -> ... so let's assume that this is true. traditional capitalists are toeing the line and Lenin is toeing the line, and Stalin and Trotsky are toeing the line. Lenin takes capitalism and he replaces it with a new capitalism which is headed by Marxist theorists. ... that argument only even begins to have any legs when you recognize Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism and Maoism as separate parallel Marxisms. ... it's only when we get to China and the Soviet Union separating and failing to form an International because at different times they call each other revisionist (if I remember right?) that we start to see that there is kind of an argument to be made only if you somehow know what existential materialism is [...].
starting from this article's premises you can argue Trotskyism, but argue anything else and you basically deny the Cold War and the latter half of the 1900s. why is arguing Trotskyism not denying the Cold War? well, because you said the movement was somehow made of a solid base of workers exactly like it totally wasn't the first time. if Trotskyism was made of workers constantly kicking out their theorists for bad Leninism and refusing to split apart versus joining into an increasingly huger population of people, yet also actually accepting at the end of the day that the workers need Marxist theorists and the concept of countable populations to actually defeat borders and become connected, then it actually wouldn't be all that bad. out of all the forms of Trotskyism there are like fifteen I hate and two I like but the problem is nobody advocates the actually good ones. I wonder if the problem is that I'm naming things that aren't Trotskyism Trotskyism. I have so many civilizational shapes to study the history of and properly distinguish and name. - the only good form of Trotskyism / non-revisionist Trotskyism (hypothetical possibility; motif) -> the motif of someone, usually me, claiming that there is a form of Trotskyism which would be acceptable to people who are Stalin-followers today but which currently practically nobody advocates for. I have always been confused why this is. it's not like Trotskyists are totally stupid and that's why they could never realize their theories are wrong. so is it that I am naming things that aren't Trotskyism Trotskyism and then asserting they're the only good Trotskyism? I am still unpacking this.