Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q11,05: Difference between revisions
m Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q1105 to User:RD/9k/Q11,05: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title |
m Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q11,05 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q11,05: Moving 9k pages to EC: or nickels/5c to R: talk for search purposes |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
== Related == | == Related == | ||
<ol class="hue clean"> | <ol class="hue clean"> | ||
{{li|start=y|I=M3/ML|tradition=MX onto ML, MX onto Zv, MX onto IV|Q=11,04|Q2=1104}}Why is Trotsky not on lists of famous traitors? / Why is Stalin not on lists of the most famous traitors? -> it's really weird. Trotsky frequently makes it onto lists of most famous assassinations, but nobody actually talks about the internal conflict between the central party and the Trotskyites long enough to conclude that the assassination was a {{em|betrayal}} of one of the sides against the other. while you'd totally get the impression Trotsky was betrayed if you'd been reading his own accounts of Stalin's government and the Russian revolution? I wouldn't be so surprised if the list of most famous traitors had suddenly included Stalin or an ally of Stalin's government — I'd just go, "yeah, okay, that figures, that fits into the typical narratives". but they never put {{em|either of them}} on the list. it's hard to say it's because people have agendas, because nobody cares one way or the other which side won with all the "famous traitors" they list from centuries and centuries ago. it's also not like the lists are using a formal definition of treason, because they contain people that turned against mafias; at that point you might as well put Nikolai Bukharin on the list for turning away from the Trotskyite conspiracy and confessing. like, Trotsky is ridiculously well known as about argument number two [[E:Bolshevism is over|Communism is bad]]. even if it's rare for people to start talking about him in other contexts he is about as significant to world history as any oddly-specific scientist or inventor we put in textbooks, all just because he wrote some dubious books about how he didn't understand mainstream Marxism-Leninism and then got assassinated, catapulting him into one of the "greatest" philosophers of right-Liberal [[E:philosophy of science (economics)|philosophy-of-economics]]. (Trotskyists will hate this observation but it's true.) I don't understand the methodology these lists are using at all. | |||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
<!--</li> | <!--</li> | ||
| Line 26: | Line 29: | ||
* HAS / history as bourgeois craft | * HAS / history as bourgeois craft | ||
* Zv / | * Zv / Trotskyist secret operations | ||
<!--== Full title for bookmarks (optional) == | <!--== Full title for bookmarks (optional) == | ||
Latest revision as of 12:10, 3 August 2026
Main entry
abandoning a country
(parting from; deserting; betraying) / betraying a national poulation as an individual / quisling (anarchic individual who separates from a country after not caring about populational power relations) / recreant (anarchic individual who separates from a country after not caring about populational power relations) -> the number refers to Guy Fawkes day.
Related
- Why is Trotsky not on lists of famous traitors? / Why is Stalin not on lists of the most famous traitors? -> it's really weird. Trotsky frequently makes it onto lists of most famous assassinations, but nobody actually talks about the internal conflict between the central party and the Trotskyites long enough to conclude that the assassination was a betrayal of one of the sides against the other. while you'd totally get the impression Trotsky was betrayed if you'd been reading his own accounts of Stalin's government and the Russian revolution? I wouldn't be so surprised if the list of most famous traitors had suddenly included Stalin or an ally of Stalin's government — I'd just go, "yeah, okay, that figures, that fits into the typical narratives". but they never put either of them on the list. it's hard to say it's because people have agendas, because nobody cares one way or the other which side won with all the "famous traitors" they list from centuries and centuries ago. it's also not like the lists are using a formal definition of treason, because they contain people that turned against mafias; at that point you might as well put Nikolai Bukharin on the list for turning away from the Trotskyite conspiracy and confessing. like, Trotsky is ridiculously well known as about argument number two Communism is bad. even if it's rare for people to start talking about him in other contexts he is about as significant to world history as any oddly-specific scientist or inventor we put in textbooks, all just because he wrote some dubious books about how he didn't understand mainstream Marxism-Leninism and then got assassinated, catapulting him into one of the "greatest" philosophers of right-Liberal philosophy-of-economics. (Trotskyists will hate this observation but it's true.) I don't understand the methodology these lists are using at all.
Ideologies or fields
- HAS / history as bourgeois craft
- Zv / Trotskyist secret operations