Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q29,40: Difference between revisions
copy markup from FreeBogdanSyrotiuk |
m Reversedragon moved page Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q2940 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q29,40: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== Main entry == | == Main entry == | ||
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"><!-- inactive: {{int:hue-ixn-classname-DFy}} --> | {{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"><!-- inactive: {{int:hue-ixn-classname-DFy}} --> | ||
{{li|start=y|I=M3/ML|tradition=MX thru ML onto IV|Q=29,40|Q2=2940}}Can Stalin and Trotsky coexist? / How can Stalin and Trotsky coexist in the same reality? | |||
{{li|I=F2/MX/ML|tradition=MX thru ML|Q=29,40|Q2=2940}}Stalin and Trotsky can coexist (sense) | |||
{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=29,40|Q2=2940}}Can Stalin and Trotsky coexist? -> whenever I run into a question about the United States that's really difficult I come back to this and I ask myself if there's any way to draw lessons out of a Stalin and Trotsky scenario. Black Lives Matter not cooperating with Trotskyists? turn it around a little bit so the Trotskyists are Stalin and BLM is Trotsky — suddenly everything makes more sense. | |||
{{li|I=S2/IV|tradition=MX thru ML|Q=29,40|Q2=2940}}Stalin and Trotsky can coexist -> note: this is not true. historically it always led to Stalinists killing Trotskyists for reasons that have been unclear to me. it's still fairly unclear from the point of view of a group of Stalinist theorists, but it becomes clearer from the point of view of a sea of appointed bureaucrats, who have every incentive to preserve things the way they are. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
== | == Consistency == | ||
<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"> | <ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"> | ||
{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=29,41|Q2=2941}}If philosophies can coexist, they should be mutually consistent / If two philosophical traditions (tendencies; "ideologies") can exist in harmony, they should be ontologically consistent across each other / Compromise is nothing, ontological consistency is key | |||
{{li|I=S2/MX/ML|Q=29,41|Q2=2941}}If philosophies can coexist, they should be mutually consistent -><br/> | |||
one of the biggest, most central claims of meta-Marxism. this is the claim that if Trotskyists and Stalin followers can exist in the same world, then we should expect Stalin's Marxism to correctly model the historical emergence of Trotskyism and its persistence after being exposed while Trotskyism correctly models the emergence and persistence of socialisms-in-one-country; this is the claim that if US "Democrats" and "Republicans" (center-Liberals and Tories) can coexist, they should each have completely accurate models of how the other behaves which they can use to predict how to peacefully resolve their differences. obviously this sounds rather laughable for Liberal-republicanism. but for Marxism, the notion that mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism could update themselves to correctly model each other and all other ideology-populations as potentially independent entities wouldn't sound anywhere near as far-fetched. <s>it's actually quite baffling why after generating so much new history without prior precedents Trotskyism would never have switched to correctly explaining its own material real-world history as an emerging "nation" or constellation of workers' states</s><ref group="error" name="a"/><s> and realizing that there are steps in between</s><ref group="error" name="b"/><s> what has actually happened and the purported end state for Trotskyism of a global civilization that they take out of Lenin's 1920 writings.</s> | |||
{{li|I=S2/MX/IV|Q=29,41|Q2=2941}}Compromise is nothing, ontological consistency is key -> implied in this claim is the claim that "Stalin and Trotsky coexisting" would never happen just because Stalinists had mercy, only because there are actual commonalities between the two [[E:apparent form of Marxism (meta-Marxism)|apparent-forms-of-Marxism]].<br/> | |||
that then leaves open the question of whether there {{em|actually are}} commonalities. Trotskyists would argue {{em|there are not}}, and that there is a clear class divide between Stalinist formations and Trotskyism in which Stalinist states are quickly overcome by either capitalists or imperial bureaucrats. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
== Related == | |||
<!-- | |||
<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"> | |||
</li></ol> --> | |||
== Ideologies or fields == | == Ideologies or fields == | ||
<ol class="hue clean terse {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"> | <ol class="hue clean terse {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"> | ||
{{li|start=y | {{li|start=y | ||
|I=S1/MX|Q=92|Q2=92}}{{TTS|MX|M.X.}} / meta-Marxism | |I=S1/MX|Q= 92|Q2= 92}}{{TTS|MX|M.X.}} / [[E:Q92|meta-Marxism]] | ||
{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=41,03|Q2=4103}}{{TTS|ML|M-L}} / [[EC:9k/RD/Q41,03|Stalin's Marxism]] (2020s) | |||
{{li|I=S1/ML|Q=44,43|Q2=4443}}{{TTS|ML|M-L}} / Stalinism as meta-Marxism | {{li|I=S1/ML|Q=44,43|Q2=4443}}{{TTS|ML|M-L}} / Stalinism as meta-Marxism | ||
{{li|I=Z1/IV|Q=41,04|Q2=4104}}{{TTS|IV|Fourth}} / Trotskyism | {{li|I=Z1/IV|Q=41,04|Q2=4104}}{{TTS|IV|Fourth}} / Trotskyism | ||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
== Errors == | |||
<references group="error"> | |||
<ref name="a">"Its own history as a constellation of workers' states": this is not a correct characterization of Trotskyism. Trotskyism models the transformation of every country region into socialism as part of a [[EC:9k/RD/Q43,92|single {{em|revolution}}]], not as part of a [[RN:5c/RegenMag/ParallelEconomyWright|small-scale transition]] through socialism. So, the "meta-Marxist" conclusion here is wrong, let alone the practical advice.</ref> | |||
<ref name="b">"There are steps in between what has actually happened and global civilization": technically there are. Trotskyists call this a "crisis of revolutionary leadership". But it's very important to note that while these "steps" are physical actions that can be studied they are not a slow process. Don't let Stalin-followers, {{em|or meta-Marxists}} if you find any of those, tell you that there is no difference between revolution and transition or that there is only some kind of quantity difference.</ref> | |||
</references> | |||
<!-- | |||
== External links == | |||
<references> | |||
<ref name="a">No!</ref> | |||
</references> | |||
--> | |||
== Wavebuilder combinations == | == Wavebuilder combinations == | ||
Latest revision as of 04:40, 16 September 2026
Main entry
- Can Stalin and Trotsky coexist? / How can Stalin and Trotsky coexist in the same reality?
- Stalin and Trotsky can coexist (sense)
- Can Stalin and Trotsky coexist? -> whenever I run into a question about the United States that's really difficult I come back to this and I ask myself if there's any way to draw lessons out of a Stalin and Trotsky scenario. Black Lives Matter not cooperating with Trotskyists? turn it around a little bit so the Trotskyists are Stalin and BLM is Trotsky — suddenly everything makes more sense.
- Stalin and Trotsky can coexist -> note: this is not true. historically it always led to Stalinists killing Trotskyists for reasons that have been unclear to me. it's still fairly unclear from the point of view of a group of Stalinist theorists, but it becomes clearer from the point of view of a sea of appointed bureaucrats, who have every incentive to preserve things the way they are.
Consistency
- If philosophies can coexist, they should be mutually consistent / If two philosophical traditions (tendencies; "ideologies") can exist in harmony, they should be ontologically consistent across each other / Compromise is nothing, ontological consistency is key
- If philosophies can coexist, they should be mutually consistent ->
one of the biggest, most central claims of meta-Marxism. this is the claim that if Trotskyists and Stalin followers can exist in the same world, then we should expect Stalin's Marxism to correctly model the historical emergence of Trotskyism and its persistence after being exposed while Trotskyism correctly models the emergence and persistence of socialisms-in-one-country; this is the claim that if US "Democrats" and "Republicans" (center-Liberals and Tories) can coexist, they should each have completely accurate models of how the other behaves which they can use to predict how to peacefully resolve their differences. obviously this sounds rather laughable for Liberal-republicanism. but for Marxism, the notion that mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism could update themselves to correctly model each other and all other ideology-populations as potentially independent entities wouldn't sound anywhere near as far-fetched.it's actually quite baffling why after generating so much new history without prior precedents Trotskyism would never have switched to correctly explaining its own material real-world history as an emerging "nation" or constellation of workers' states[error 1]and realizing that there are steps in between[error 2]what has actually happened and the purported end state for Trotskyism of a global civilization that they take out of Lenin's 1920 writings. - Compromise is nothing, ontological consistency is key -> implied in this claim is the claim that "Stalin and Trotsky coexisting" would never happen just because Stalinists had mercy, only because there are actual commonalities between the two apparent-forms-of-Marxism.
that then leaves open the question of whether there actually are commonalities. Trotskyists would argue there are not, and that there is a clear class divide between Stalinist formations and Trotskyism in which Stalinist states are quickly overcome by either capitalists or imperial bureaucrats.
Related
Ideologies or fields
- / meta-Marxism
- / Stalin's Marxism (2020s)
- / Stalinism as meta-Marxism
- / Trotskyism
Errors
- ↑ "Its own history as a constellation of workers' states": this is not a correct characterization of Trotskyism. Trotskyism models the transformation of every country region into socialism as part of a single revolution, not as part of a small-scale transition through socialism. So, the "meta-Marxist" conclusion here is wrong, let alone the practical advice.
- ↑ "There are steps in between what has actually happened and global civilization": technically there are. Trotskyists call this a "crisis of revolutionary leadership". But it's very important to note that while these "steps" are physical actions that can be studied they are not a slow process. Don't let Stalin-followers, or meta-Marxists if you find any of those, tell you that there is no difference between revolution and transition or that there is only some kind of quantity difference.
Wavebuilder combinations
- : forms result [Item]
- --