Jump to content

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q41,04/summary330: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From LithoGraphica
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
14,281 edits
dumping a scrap that isn't book material and really belongs on the Ontology page - work it in there later
 
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
14,281 edits
m notes after adding some to main article
 
Line 1: Line 1:
"I'm trying to figure out what Trotskyism even is"<br/>
there are answers but this is an utter rabbit hole of _really specific_ weird ideas that don't make sense.
* Lenin was right and there has to be a transitional workers' state to get to upper-phase communism, anarchism is incorrect
* Stalin doomed the Soviet Union because he didn't figure out how to glue more countries onto it so it could be the super Soviet Union of 30 countries and each center of socialism could just keep fusing into bigger socialisms
* Stalin doomed the Soviet Union because he didn't figure out how to glue more countries onto it so it could be the super Soviet Union of 30 countries and each center of socialism could just keep fusing into bigger socialisms


* If Stalin's government occupies other countries to keep out invading First World armies that's bad because the Soviet army being there supposedly forces them to create a Stalinist workers' state instead of a Trotskyist workers' state. The giant federation of countries has to have a uniquely Trotskyist inner structure
* When people show up with later understandings of Marxism that have attempted to improve with data from later historical events (Stalin's Marxism, Hoxhaism, Maoism, etc) Trotsky or Ted Grant shows up and says they can't do that because the first things Lenin said were the correct things


* When Stalin's government tries to build socialist transition you complain — there may be multiple reasons for this but one of the most consistent patterns I've observed is something would happen in Russia, Lenin would look at it and do a correct analysis, then Trotsky would show up and do an incorrect analysis just garbling the Marxist method and Trotsky would complain that various people weren't correctly applying Leninism because _he_ wasn't correctly applying Leninism.
* if Trotskyists were thinking coherently, there could be a "Stalinist" party in some countries and they could build a Trotskyist party in another cluster of countries that could both coexist.
 
* When people show up with later understandings of Marxism that have attempted to improve with data from later historical events (Stalin's Marxism, Hoxhaism, Maoism, etc) Trotsky or Ted Grant shows up and says they can't do that because the first things Lenin said were the correct things because Lenin said them and if you repeat Lenin you are loyal to the revolution.
 
* They really don't like the way that when Trotskyists have tried to break open workers' states they've been imprisoned or killed. That is a big talking point for them specifically because when those things happen they start to panic that you've eliminated the only non-revisionist Marxism from the world when you've eliminated Trotskyism. It's not a generic "human rights" thing like Liberal-republicans will misrepresent it as. It's actually that they're dead-set on creating a Trotskyist party and when you don't let them create their own specifically Trotskyist party they get upset.
 
* The Trotskyist party of a particular region — though I'm not sure how big this is — is supposed to be the one and only party, just like with Stalin's government. So logically, you know, if Trotskyists were thinking coherently, there could be a "Stalinist" party in some countries and they could build a Trotskyist party in another cluster of countries that could both coexist.
 
* The Trotskyist party is supposed to get through socialist transition faster than a "Stalinist" party — that or Trotsky just had his analysis really wrong that day
 
* Deng Xiaoping states like China, Cuba, Vietnam, and now North Korea will all explode into ordinary capitalism — of all the things they say this is actually kind of correct. China is too confident about how safe it is to keep wildly creating national bourgeoisie.


* Trotskyists don't like Cuba (for example) because it isn't transitioning to Trotskyism. But sometimes they will actually sort of have principles and attempt to defend countries like Cuba or the Soviet Union from First-World countries. This is typically a very last-minute change in response to some especially adverse event. James P. Cannon is notable for saying bad things about Stalin's government up until it was actually in danger and then suddenly turning around and going 'wait, we shouldn't destroy it'. Similarly, British and United States Trotskyists were saying ample bad things about Cuba up until the recent oil blockade when they suddenly started saying "defend the Cuban revolution". The implication is that Trotskyists believe that countries that are currently "Stalinist" can transition to Trotskyism and are trying to pressure them to for Trotskyists' own benefit, but they don't truly want to get rid of a workers' state, they just insist on it being a Trotskyist party and a Trotskyist workers' state (or strange dictatorship-of-the-petty-bourgeoisie like in China or whatever it would actually be).
* Trotskyists don't like Cuba (for example) because it isn't transitioning to Trotskyism. But sometimes they will actually sort of have principles and attempt to defend countries like Cuba or the Soviet Union from First-World countries. This is typically a very last-minute change in response to some especially adverse event. James P. Cannon is notable for saying bad things about Stalin's government up until it was actually in danger and then suddenly turning around and going 'wait, we shouldn't destroy it'. Similarly, British and United States Trotskyists were saying ample bad things about Cuba up until the recent oil blockade when they suddenly started saying "defend the Cuban revolution". The implication is that Trotskyists believe that countries that are currently "Stalinist" can transition to Trotskyism and are trying to pressure them to for Trotskyists' own benefit, but they don't truly want to get rid of a workers' state, they just insist on it being a Trotskyist party and a Trotskyist workers' state (or strange dictatorship-of-the-petty-bourgeoisie like in China or whatever it would actually be).


* So Trotskyists are really insistent that every country become a really really specific Leninism rather similar in shape to the Soviet Union, preferably like 100+ countries at once, but they almost refuse to be specific about how you build Trotskyism and how you create a country (or large federation, whatever) which would actually be acceptable to them.
* So Trotskyists are really insistent that every country become a really really specific Leninism rather similar in shape to the Soviet Union, preferably like 100+ countries at once, but they almost refuse to be specific about how you build Trotskyism and how you create a country (or large federation, whatever) which would actually be acceptable to them.
[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]  <!-- page ends here.
search-friendly numbers:  Q4104
-->

Latest revision as of 12:55, 15 April 2026

  • Stalin doomed the Soviet Union because he didn't figure out how to glue more countries onto it so it could be the super Soviet Union of 30 countries and each center of socialism could just keep fusing into bigger socialisms
  • When people show up with later understandings of Marxism that have attempted to improve with data from later historical events (Stalin's Marxism, Hoxhaism, Maoism, etc) Trotsky or Ted Grant shows up and says they can't do that because the first things Lenin said were the correct things
  • if Trotskyists were thinking coherently, there could be a "Stalinist" party in some countries and they could build a Trotskyist party in another cluster of countries that could both coexist.
  • Trotskyists don't like Cuba (for example) because it isn't transitioning to Trotskyism. But sometimes they will actually sort of have principles and attempt to defend countries like Cuba or the Soviet Union from First-World countries. This is typically a very last-minute change in response to some especially adverse event. James P. Cannon is notable for saying bad things about Stalin's government up until it was actually in danger and then suddenly turning around and going 'wait, we shouldn't destroy it'. Similarly, British and United States Trotskyists were saying ample bad things about Cuba up until the recent oil blockade when they suddenly started saying "defend the Cuban revolution". The implication is that Trotskyists believe that countries that are currently "Stalinist" can transition to Trotskyism and are trying to pressure them to for Trotskyists' own benefit, but they don't truly want to get rid of a workers' state, they just insist on it being a Trotskyist party and a Trotskyist workers' state (or strange dictatorship-of-the-petty-bourgeoisie like in China or whatever it would actually be).
  • So Trotskyists are really insistent that every country become a really really specific Leninism rather similar in shape to the Soviet Union, preferably like 100+ countries at once, but they almost refuse to be specific about how you build Trotskyism and how you create a country (or large federation, whatever) which would actually be acceptable to them.
Retrieved from "https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q41,04/summary330&oldid=42092"