User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/4000: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

Revision as of 01:54, 31 July 2025

4000 [edit]

Concepts related to Trotskyism, or named Leninisms in general.

Bolshevik-Leninism / Leninism (Trotsky's definition) -> use to mark highly specific definitions of "Leninism" in Trotskyist texts
Stalinism (prejudice)
Stalin's Marxism isn't Leninism / He calls it Marxism-Leninism, but it isn't really Leninism / Marxism-Leninism (disputed theory) -> components: the most correct Leninism is Trotskyism, Stalin Thought is a revisionist Leninism
degenerated workers' state
restore the soviets
State businesses equal capitalism -> Hayashi
State capitalism inevitably evolves to uncontained capitalism -> Hayashi
Workers will all take action given crisis
Workers will all take action given spontaneous tiny breakages / clinamen (Althusser) / The Fracture (meta-Marxism) -> Althusser actually
??
internationally-scoped collection of connected Trotskyist groups -> important element of - international-conference Trotskyism, international-party Trotskyism, Trotskyism in one identity-federation
??
??
??
Trotsky syndrome of countable cultures -> the usually-nonfictional motif of someone being able to realize, assuming they're smart, that various people are forming into a countable culture and fighting for their rights against the rest of society legitimately and perhaps effectively, but utterly not being able to fit into that countable culture as a culture and remaining a cultural "foreigner" to countable civil rights movements that they never actually want inside them. you can see this with the Trotskyite conspiracy, with very little wisdom or awareness, and separately with the way modern Trotskyism reacted to BLM / 1619 Project — although they were marginally smarter in that case. although it's hard to pinpoint exactly why it happens, this is a really big problem for progressive theories and movements in general. it has the potential to kill schizoanalysis through the failure of different sorted cultures to "properly" act as a freeform, uncountable unity of opposites that inherently wants to go together, but it can even kill particular Marxisms, as historically it arguably did. any movement or party or cluster of people-groups hit with Trotsky syndrome sees that it can't possibly control the people who don't fit into it and its days are numbered.
Trotskyist groups are a safe space for Trotskyist identity -> this sounds like a joke until you realize what it actually means, at which point it sounds more reasonable. this is operating on the definition of "safe space" as a Social-Graph System or Social-Philosophical System that people dive into in order to be accepted and not to be questioned on basic facts of their individual identity; under this definition, things such as a Christian church or a Muslim mosque may qualify as a safe space for Christian or Muslim identity, due to the fact that within that space a particular religion is condoned or practiced consistently. thus, this is the claim that Trotskyist groups exist partly to be a loose "congregation" of Trotskyist theorists where Trotskyist theories are condoned and practiced consistently, rather than being rejected from "Stalinist spaces". the Trotskyist theories in question do attempt to do what Marxist theories should do, to unite groups and mobilize workers, yet at the same time, when a group is founded it must explicitly make a choice on whether Trotskyist theories are allowed at all or perhaps preferred, versus whether they are fundamentally rejected from the group. this necessity to either accept or reject people who align with the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy, or modern Trotskyism, creates a fundamental cultural divide between different Marxist organizations similar to the divide between a Marxist organization in one country versus a Marxist organization in another country, or between a movement for White transgender people inside the United States versus a movement for Black subpopulations inside the United States — Trotskyists are their own countable Culture, as much as Ukrainians are distinct from Russians. the matter of how Trotskyist identity as a countable Culture interacts with "other" demographic identities is not necessarily well understood. there are only two small thoughts I can offer on that: A) look at a British Trotskyist group, and you will probably observe that its members fail to see outside a White, British perspective, for instance often failing to quite understand what is going on for Black subpopulations in the United States and why they frame things the way they do, based on what locally-preferred ideologies (often anarchism or some Fanon-based non-Marxist theory). B) this same problem didn't necessarily exist for Trotsky's circle of people, who at the very least understood Jewish subpopulational struggles, even if they were baffled in their own way by United States racism. so, there are times when Trotskyist identity clashes with racial subpopulation identity, although it does depend on the quality of theorists admitted to a Trotskyist group. this + ?? = Trotskyism is the prototypical oppressed group.
??
Trotskyist revolution -> very theoretical concept despite a great number of Trotskyists claiming they are described in the collected works of Lenin
They'll have to talk about Trotsky someday -> I am madly trying to find a video. there was this video by the IMT, and Alan Woods is on a stage. the overall room looks kind of bluish. it's kind of like he's giving a Ted Talk or something. and he says, he says something to the effect of "They're going to have to talk about Trotsky someday. [glib, barely not winking]". I cannot find this video for the life of me. does anybody have any idea where it went (2023-12-06)
??
named Trotskyism
international-conference Trotskyism -> motif, Particle Theory
international-party Trotskyism -> motif, Particle Theory. Fred Weston believes that certain groups apart from Ted Grant were getting absorbed into reformism; Grant, apparently, is a believer in watching for crises (S2-4007). was trying really hard to name this thing a person's name but couldn't quite land on one
multiple Trotskyisms in one country / multiple local Trotskyist parties -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - North American Maoism / New Democracy
Trotskyism in one supranational federation / Trotskyism in several union republics -> hypothetical Particle Theory; actually suggested by Trotsky once or twice regarding North America and Europe
Trotskyism in one subpopulational minority / Ethnic Trotskyism -> believed to be different from: Maoism in one subpopulational minority
Trotskyism in one union republic / Trotskyist nationality / Trotskyist local-state -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - local state
Trotskyism in one country / Trotskyist nation-state -> hypothetical Particle Theory
Fortress Trotskyism -> subset of: Trotskyism in one country; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - Juche-socialism
Trotskyism in one identity subpopulation / hegemony Trotskyism -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - Gramscianism; superset of: Ethnic Trotskyism
Trotskyism as structure integrated with other theory's structure / Trotskyism as large Particle Element containing smaller elements / Trotskyism as small Particle Element contained by larger elements
Trotskyism-in-Maoism -> subset of: Trotskyism in one union republic
Maoism-in-Trotskyism -> subset of: Trotskyism in one supranational federation
Trotskyism in one identity-federation / international-identity Trotskyism / world hegemony Trotskyism / Trotskyism in Gramscianism in Trotskyism -> hypothetical Particle Theory; International or international-party on top, otherwise-anarchic political-identity subpopulations below
economic peace Trotskyism / Deng Xiaoping Thought in Trotskyism in Wilsonianism -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - Deng Xiaoping Thought
Trotskyism for export / Deng Xiaoping Thought in Trotskyism in Liberalism / Trotskyism in Deng Xiaoping Thought / economic-imperialist Trotskyism -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyists hide inside Liberalism and smuggle all their activities through Third World exploitation. honestly, one of those possibilities I ironically came up with just because it was horrifying
Stalin is basically Monokuma / Trotskyites don't know the difference between Soviet history and Danganronpa -> an analogy I used in a historical fiction summary and now after digging up again cannot get over. the idea is that people think the Soviet Union was just one big trap where because people are in such fierce competition to exist until the country is properly built up, the government then just starts accusing people of things to preemptively get rid of them. almost exactly like Monokuma sets the students up to be in trouble for killing each other, blaming them for each other's graphic deaths over and over when really he started the whole thing
Pigs theory -> the motif of models of workers' states that center around "bureaucrats" or experts taking the country away from the people. you sometimes see "Pigs theory" in Maoism independently of its appearances in Trotskyism. so with only that much information it's vaguely possible Che Guevara also came up with "Pigs theory" on his own without having to be drawn toward Trotskyism. the fact he only knew so much about Leninism only makes that more likely, I mean, look at how Trotsky barely understood it and came up with Pigs theory. the bigger question is, is "Pigs theory" actually right? I feel like in some ways it can be true but the way Trotskyists formulate it it never is. I feel like if it's true it's probably much more complicated how it comes to be and how to prevent it. for one, I'm almost half convinced that populations like China and even Cuba have figured out how to have a "Pigs theory" structure safely although the Soviet Union did not.
??
??
??
Great productive forces mean great carrying capacity -> very popular and common remark in early 1900s Leninism, still pretty controversial to challenge, yet graph theory + chunk competition models bring some worrying suggestions for how trivial it is to make a reality. doesn't mean it's impossible to solve of course, just harder than we thought
Extra production over the number of people who will buy at full price is waste -> the typical counterpart up to the time of Lenin; why Lenin's and Masnick's line graph is not widely accepted. notable weakness: does not explain how to actually tell if society needs something or not, only how to sell an unnecessary thing for as much as possible
Socialism-in-one-country is basically Existentialism with countries -> Ted Grant
Hegemony politics is reformism and Gramscians are a bunch of bureaucrats -> Ted Grant
??
??
Having a movement at all is half the battle / Having a Social-Philosophical-Material-System is half the battle / Having an SPMS is step zero / The key to beginning socialist transition is grouping people into a movement -> the claim that for instance the Paris Commune (perhaps the example I would pick is North Korea) is important primarily because it actually created a movement, Factically existing within the real world; a single physical movement of people doing anything is worth far more than any stack of ideology because it can, in theory, be transformed into a more intelligent system with more accurate theory as time goes on. I have only tiny issues with this concept, such as: if a movement is based on things fundamentally incompatible with any of the suggestions Marx made, to the point you have no idea at all how to transform it into a workers' state, can this really be true? this is a big problem in the United States. we base all our movements in things like racism and transphobia, in the specific sense that progress itself equals people already in power deciding not to be mean to the people they oppress, and progress couldn't possibly equal ethnic minorities or LGBT people being workers and actively building a new society to replace the old one, it has to be solely based on the right of populations and individuals to merely exist and the responsibility of populations to coexist. it's in the name (that I gave all this stuff), "Existentialism" — capitalism is over if Black people are doing capitalism but they're not being horrifically shot to death in inner cities and they now live and exist. capitalism is over if homosexuality isn't illegal and trans people can be in public instead of hanging out with the mafia because they have nowhere to go. you can get gigantic protests out of this and yet it only regenerates capitalism, because it's not doing the duty of trying to unify individuals into a country around a new Particle Theory; it's not actually building a new SPMS even though people falsely believe it is. how do you transform that? you need a really good new theory that can actually analyze the moving parts of every movement and how movements relate to each other — meta-Marxism — so you can actually listen to each movement and compute the most effective way to transform the whole country out of capitalism with that particular class-ignoring ideology, or successfully fit the class-ignoring ideologies together.
Capitalism only ends when workers' states cover the world -> note how different plural Trotskyisms twist this different ways, some claiming a sea of socialisms-in-one-country is enough, some claiming there are more stringent requirements of having a Fourth International, freeform international party, etc
Capitalism only ends when workers' states form into a single government -> the generic Trotskyist version.
derived Trotskyist proposition / statement that Trotskyists should logically believe although in practice they might not -> there are so, so many of these if you think about anything Trotskyists say for even a moment.
Socialism in one country will fail because borders leave people unconnected / Socialism in one country will fail because the point of Bolshevism is to connect people, and borders leave many people unconnected
Any particular group of individuals pursuing socialist transition benefits from being part of something larger -> molecularized version of the statement that there can't be a socialist transition in one country.
If Trotskyists turn against a workers' state, they create a population too small to succeed -> logically true if you accept Q4052. if most of the people in the Soviet Union don't want to join Trotsky, the best result for Trotsky is he forms a teeny tiny Trotskyist workers' state, and if there can't be socialism in one country, by Trotskyist logic, that tiny Trotskyist workers' state will fail.
Trotskyists benefit from standing together with mainstream Marxism-Leninism -> clearly follows from Q4052 and Q4053. if it is more or less impossible for Trotskyists to ever form into a workers' state bigger than South Korea without eventually running into "Stalinist" interference, they will only ever overcome the rest of the world's capitalists by joining together with other named Marxisms and each socialism aiding the others.
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
Leninism (top-level category) -> this entry is the same thing as "Marxism-Leninism"; it ignores Trotsky's claim that Stalin did not correctly continue Marxism. it also tentatively grants that Trotskyism is a garbled version of the same Marxism-Leninism, just as it says it is. (well, it doesn't admit "garbled", but, you know.)
early Marxism -> this refers to Marxist theories or movements that existed before Lenin, notably Marx and Engels. it genuinely might not include the people Marx thought were "hardly Marxists". definitely not if those people can be shown to be integral sources to Western Marxism or in some particular grouping of their own, like Menshevism or some new category of "proto-Western-Marxism" or whatever. at the same time: it is always technically okay for things to be grouped into multiple traditions if they were important to both.
Third-World Marxisms
mainstream Marxism-Leninism / Stalin Thought / Stalinism (Marxist model used by Stalin; rarely used definition)
Trotskyism / Leninism (Trotskyist movement) / revolutionary socialism (Trotskyist movement) -> this is the top level category for all things Trotskyism, not the signifier for what specific Trotskyist subsets say Leninism is
Juche-socialism / leadership socialism
Maoism
Deng Xiaoping Thought / Dengism / socialism with Chinese characteristics (Deng era)
Western Marxism
Gramscianism
Bordigism (named Marxism) / Bordiga and ICP's Marxism -> this is not affiliated with Trotskyism as far as I know right now. it has the swatch because from the little I've heard about it, I half remember somebody accusing it of being sectarian. still learning about it, so the swatch may change later
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
unknown Marxist subdivision / Marxism unknown -> may be used for coding any work that "sounds" Marxist but whose particular preceding Marxist theorists or movements haven't been traced. in practice, some works that are technically anarchist or Existentialist in their affiliation may get marked with this, just because sometimes it can be difficult to separate these non-Marxist traditions from Western Marxism. again, sometimes that is not necessarily harmful, and there's a "topology" effect where a non-Marxist theory describes something very real, and yet the theory is something other than Marxism.
??
Trotsky thought he believed in Leninism -> the claim that Trotsky thought the theory he held of workers' movements, revolution, and/or constructing workers' states was the same theory Lenin had leading up to 1925. mostly uncontroversial, although some may tell you Trotsky was absolutely nothing but a liar. I think that's an exaggeration, because he spent significant effort telling parties in North America and Europe things that sounded like correct Marxist positions (but had subtle errors hiding behind them in terms of actually applying them). I think the evidence supports that Trotsky was dedicated to Leninism but his "Leninism" managed to be a garbled, totally wrong version of Leninism. many Marxists don't like to admit that that kind of thing is possible, because it would vulgarize Marxism into a mere identity that doesn't guarantee the class composition of the movement. but I think the dark truth of things is that that has always been the case. mathematically, all arrangements of people are identities, even if they're class subpopulations. organizing people always creates identities. the fact East Germany came to exist shows that all workers' states are identities, like any other nationality. so what's wrong with realizing that "theoretical" Marxism and the basic phenomenon of people sorting into movements are always separate until they're not? it explains how there can be multiple rival Marxisms. it might be that several of them are not connected to the people at all, that some of them connect to a really specific subset of actual workers but not all of them, or that none of them are correct, none of them predicting or guiding what people are actually doing at all. it's particularly believable this could happen if every current movement is operating under a different theory of connecting people together that replaces Marxism.
??
Every Trotskyite Stalin eliminated was a Leninist [1] -> read Trotskyist talks really closely and you see the assumptions between the lines. past Trotsky and Zinoviev (? if he even was, which I usually assume he wasn't.) practically none of the Trotskyites were Leninists or "allies of the world revolution" — which, sure, they only have to be workers if the conditions are right, but knowing how many capitalists were in there, you'd have a stronger claim if they were Leninists. can you build a revolution with enough Gramscis? who knows, but if you have anything less the chances don't look good.
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
The Cuba blockade preserved the republic / The blockade of Cuba is what's preserved the regime (Alan Woods) [2] -> as far as I can tell, that's correct. one of the most successful things Marxists have ever done is simply close off Third World countries from foreign capitalists.
Deng Xiaoping Thought has a limited lifespan / You can't have both capitalism and a Stalinist regime, it'll blow up (Alan Woods) / It's like a pressure cooker (on Deng Xiaoping Thought styled countries; Alan Woods) [3] -> this seems to be the opposite of what's true. practically speaking it seems like Deng Xiaoping Thought might be stronger than either Bolshevism or capitalism, empowered by being open to the world but protected by being closed on the inside. nobody really enjoys that outcome between the CPC quickly lying to people about Bolshevism coming back later and the Existentialists trying to claim party-nations are the devil but we do have to be honest about what patterns exist in history.
Alan Woods had books published in Cuba / I've had my books published in Cuba (Alan Woods) / Cuban Marxists are turning towards Trotskyism -> this remark really stands out because it could mean at least two things: A) the private sector in Cuba likes Trotskyist books B) Cuban Marxism has actually become tolerant of Trotskyism. I have no idea which of these is true. Woods really wants to believe it's the second one and specifically that all the Cuban Marxists are turning into Trotskyists.
??
Che Guevara got his ideas of international revolution from Trotsky -> this seems laughable to me. it's like... didn't everything he did originate from the Latin American people. it's so weird how they have to set up that Che Guevara is supposedly positioned with early Trotskyism to explain why him supposedly turning against the Cuban bureaucracy is good
Che Guevara could have become a Trotskyist [4] -> kind of a ridiculous claim when Trotskyists are saying such bad things about Cuba now. what does it mean for Che Guevara to fight for the people? it means Che Guevara and all the more peaceful Third-World Marxists fight to defend Third World populations from First-World populations. if you tear down their "wall" they'll probably hate you. that said, if you look at this from a class analysis angle it manages to be a little less terrible. here again we have Trotskyists trying to claim Cuba has the wrong internal structure and if it had the right internal structure The Pigs wouldn't have won and created a "Pig state". this thing they keep saying should hypothetically be testable, if you could somehow do a crude simulation of the internal structure of workers' states and watch that structure stack up emergently and develop. I'm really feeling that Marxism can be a science someday if we just had the right meta-Marxist mathematics.
Reason in Revolt (1995) -> this is apparently one of the Trotskyist books that has been published in Cuba. on the surface it seems to lean into "Trotskyism is early-Marxism" and not go into any of the "Stalinism controversy". so, I guess it isn't all that surprising he got it through. still kind of funny he talked about his books like they were really subversive, and from that angle, worth discussing the possibility of what a genuinely critical Trotskyist book getting through would mean.
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
Stalin built the country wrong / Stalin's government built the country with structures that are bad although we are not specifying what the actual error is -> what The Revolution Betrayed kept sounding like to me in every chapter. I know the real reason it sounds like something was missing is because of the Trotskyite conspirators' lies, while the point of the book is no deeper than Q4236 "I am sick of eating rat bread". even so, I always think about how the first time I tried to read this thing I assumed what was missing was an accompanying description of the inner Particle Theory of Trotskyism. I didn't want to believe that Trotsky could be both wrong and not even smart, so I kept trying to figure out what he believed to be correct, because, hey, even if the structure of Trotskyism didn't make a lot of sense, maybe we could all learn from it. I was so surprised to learn that Trotskyists really don't think like that at all.
Ministries existing means there is no democracy -> one of the strongest arguments that Trotskyism actually is a distinct form of Leninism with its own idea of a workers' state Stalin could be (supposedly) preventing. still not a very strong argument said Trotskyism is possible, of course. appears in: "Trotsky's mistakes"
??
??
??
The internal shape of a workers' state leads to buffer state conflicts / There is something about the internal activity of a workers' state which can cause it to participate in international war or not -> statements like this are wild when you think about it, because it's like, Trotsky almost accidentally invented MDem and then didn't. if there was actually something inside the Soviet Union which caused it to have to fight imperialist blocs, that would be implying that restructuring the Soviet Union in a specific way changes its outward behavior, which would be claiming that there are multiple possible Bolshevisms. you see this pop up a number of times in Trotskyism, and it's basically never delivered on at any time.
I'm eating stale rat bread and I can't take it any more / I'm eating the stale rat bread and I can't ~~fucking~~ take it any more [5] -> when somebody attempts to criticize corporations for having made bad "culture" that is bad precisely because it intrudes on a person's individual Lived Experience and not because the structure and function of the corporation has any effect on the larger society such as the health of workers or impact on the internal functioning of socially-linked communities that decide to tie themselves to the product. Žižek is guilty of this: he makes strange claims that Lenin and Stalin couldn't create good "culture", which make no sense until you realize he is trying to make a Marxism that has nothing to do with workers and is all about the Lived Experience of existing in the midst of a bunch of bad products — or when it stoops to being about workers is about bad working conditions being a bad individualized Lived Experience. the Zinovievist accusation of bad "culture" is strange. it's like wrong culture is about the consumer's Lived Experience, but the problems with corporations essentially become about corporations Freely Willing to do the wrong thing when they could have Freely Decided to do better. some chunks of Existentialists seem to conceptualize literally every movement as democulture including the function of unions and so-called ""corporate greed"". they don't even believe in Menshevism and political parties. they think all society is just made of good-idea orthodoxies stomping bad people and forcing them to behave better, squashing bad people's otherwise sacred Lived Experiences and forcing them to exist better when they weren't existing good.
the science bureaucracy
science Trotskyites -> the non-fictional motif that there are people who oppose established structures of science purely for their failures without thinking about their successes. this could be a good thing or a bad thing. some people could have legitimate complaints that universities are stagnating and churning out a lot of papers that do very little. other people are Alexander Unzicker and sound comically similar to The Revolution Betrayed in that their criticisms sound like facts but in context do not even make any sense.
science Tories -> the non-fictional motif that people should be presumed to not actually be knowledgeable about science because they "Are Actually Part Of The Right". (example: Richard Dawkins.) this isn't really correct on a factual basis. somebody can be an absolutely horrible person and still understand science and create an informative book or video about science which is educational to people of all ideologies. in such a case, the work becomes valid through death of the author and other people reappropriating the work, exactly as with fictional works. it is also possible that misconceptions about science will lead somebody into Toryism, or that facts or models will become misinterpreted through Toryism into models that don't actually make sense. but this happens for reasons that a lot of center-Liberals don't want to think about: people form ontologies to comprehend the world, they strain everything through ontologies, sometimes the ontologies are inaccurate, sometimes the ontologies are accurate. in recent decades people really hate the notion of ontologies because of the fact ontologies can form stereotypes, so they want to smash all ontologies, but that's a bad plan when all countable Cultures and marginalized religions and things they want to protect bring ontologies, so smashing ontologies is an easy way to let people get away with forced assimilation, the opposite of the goal. there is such a trend to say reality can't be predicted and people can't be predicted to try to encourage people to be open-minded, but it never really works because people need to form ontologies to avoid catastrophes in their lives and physically survive, and if you don't give them objectively accurate ontologies of how to successfully survive and build society they will use stereotypes for the same purpose, taking down notes to avoid "all men" or "all Black people" just to have a better day-to-day experience with less pain in their individual lives. back to science-Tories: science-Tories are the motif that people form countable Cultures of Toryism and then they do science for the "Tory ethnicity", and you have to root them out of science because the Tory people-group is an evil malicious people-group which intends to use all pieces of the Tory machine to eliminate the center-Liberal people-group so all pieces of the Tory machine are bad. even if this is true... do you see how there are undercurrents in this which indicate some nasty biases or fallacies of some kind? not in the sense of "Tories could be good", but more in the sense of "nations must be adversarial to the extent of internal imperialism and there's nothing we could have done to prevent this, we've just gotta divide and fight a civil war one day because that's the only way countries can be".
Absurdism, nihilism, and existentialism are all the same thing / Existence-philosophy, nihilism, and absurdism are all the same thing -> sounds like it couldn't be possible, but all three of them say individuals make their own meaning. all three of them are versions of the same existentialism. (this has nothing to do with Trotskyism, and is only here because of the number.)
Optimistic nihilism is about making your own meaning -> sic. heard somebody say this verbatim. five years ago I might have gotten pedantic and said "that's (early-) existentialism!!" but now I think there is no actual difference.
Is there a point to believing in existentialism? / Is it possible for individuals to assert existentialism is meaningful? / Is believing in early-existentialism meaningless? -> the hyper-existentialist question. does the premise of existentialism apply to existentialism? entropicism would argue that ultimately this is not true, or at the very least, this is not a thing people can say trivially and it's a really difficult question.
??
??
??
??
??
Absurdism, nihilism, and existentialism are the biased political compass of philosophy
Absurdism, nihilism, and existentialism are reversed stages of grief -> thought of this while adding "all the same thing". first comes absurdism, then nihilism, then existentialism, so it's like, acceptance, depression (optional), then anger and denial. first we realize that nothing actually makes coherent sense including morality or justice. then we get upset. then we try to convince ourselves "in each of ours groups separately in parallel" there really is a meaning and we have the answers
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
Socialism: Stalinist or scientific (Hayashi 1998/2000) / "Stalinism, socialist ..." (typo)
??
What was wrong with East Germany? / Why was the existence of East Germany a problem? / Why did center-Liberals dislike the existence of East Germany? -> I know "center-Liberals" can almost be neatly replaced with "bourgeoisie" to create a laughable tautology, but come on, we have to at least pretend to sound fair.
Why did Trotskyists not consider East Germany to be progress? -> you have to think about this a bit to realize that it's a good question. Trotsky wants each country in Europe to overthrow capitalists and create a workers' state. East Germany pushed out capitalists and created a workers' state. if other European countries had each become "East Germany", it would have been one possible route to a union of European socialist republics — even one independent from the USSR, potentially, given that the USSR stopped occupying East Germany at a certain point. the process of creating East Germany is more or less in line with the mechanism Trotsky proposed for creating Trotskyism. so why were Trotskyists not on board with East Germany?
East Germany was too small to be Trotskyism -> relatively likely to be the answer you actually get. East Germany small, Trotskyism big. this has never been a satisfying answer to me because it doesn't explain how any group of countries ever gets big enough to form Trotskyism without inevitably forming into unacceptably small "Stalinisms" first.
East Germany did not have the correct internal structure to be Trotskyism / East Germany had the wrong internal structure according to Trotskyists -> derived Trotskyist proposition. some Trotskyists talk about "bureaucracy" and how they don't like the way government ministries and central party structures are put together to unite a country. this would lead to the prediction that Trotskyists look at East Germany and do not like East Germany's internal structure. if this statement about Trotskyism is true, then it implies that Trotskyists have a particular internal structure they require a country to have after expropriating the bourgeoisie or they will not believe the country is in socialist transition. it also vaguely implies that everything Trotskyists say about creating a worldwide civilization and going beyond one country is irrelevant fluff because what they really actually believe is that socialist transition depends on the internal structure of individual countries and each workers' state that has existed is bad because it has gone through transition wrong. a Trotskyism that believed this intentionally and was perfectly honest about it could become a molecular Trotskyism.
If East Germany had been a Fortress Trotskyism, it would have been okay / If East Germany had had the correct internal structure to be Trotskyist, Trotskyists would have found it acceptable / East Germany could have built up to a Fourth International if only it were Trotskyism in one country -> derived Trotskyist proposition. I have literally never heard this. but it's rather confusing why nobody says this. 1) Trotsky believed every country in Europe could become Trotskyist 2) The European countries form workers' resistances separately around local groups of workers, then they link up into a Trotskyism 3) What's wrong with each of the European countries being Trotskyism in one country, when it's the only way you can build a bigger Trotskyism? put another way, if several European countries can be Trotskyist and oppose Stalin's government, why not just one? how does one prevent there being others? I guess you could argue from Stalin's point of view that because Trotskyisms are sectarian two Trotskyisms-in-one-country would fight each other, but I don't think Trotskyists would actually be that mean in criticizing their own parties. I don't think they see it that way.
??
??
??
??
??
non-Marxist error in Marxist text / non-Marxist error in Marxist talk / "can't believe all these Trotskyist errors!" (the errors are typos) -> non-fictional motif which may be framed either humorously or seriously. this concept first came to mind when I was reading the first edition of a Trotskyist text with typos in it. but it could apply to any number of things, like Marxists making a background-information error about science, etc. Trotskyists using Kalinin as Trotsky's actor would fall under this.
??
??
Kalinin as Trotsky's actor / Kalinin in place of Trotsky -> every so often with independent videos you see a video accidentally use a picture of Kalinin to represent Trotsky, as if he's not Trotsky but he plays him on TV. as far as I know this doesn't really happen with actual Trotskyist parties, thankfully.
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
sectarian Communist International / Communist International formed around specific named Marxism and not admitting other named Marxisms -> on one hand, it was kind of inevitable these would be invented. on the other, it feels like they have never ever been effective. it may be worth saying under the "spanishness office principle" that sectarian Communist Internationals are probably a symptom of Marxist parties consisting of detached Filaments of bourgeoisie that have no inherent reason to work together. (the spanishness office principle: if people are complaining about Spanishness Offices, they're the bourgeoisie, because people who fight for control of "institutions" of elite experts are generally the bourgeoisie. institutions includes the Communist International should it happen people are fiercely squabbling over it.)
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party
Bolshevik party
Third International
Left Opposition
Menshevik party
??
??
??
??
Trotskyist group, organization, or party
Fourth International (1938) -> became: International Secretariat, International Committee
International Secretariat (1953) / ISFI (attempted International)
International Committee (1953) / ICFI (attempted International)
(reserved for International)
??
??
??
??
Committee for a Workers' International (defunct) / CWI (attempted International)
local Trotskyist group unaffiliated with larger formation
Denver Communists (??; United States Midwest)
??
??
??
??
Žižekian
terrorist (Zinovievism) -> wrecker, rival proletarian revolution
??
??
Trotskyist group affiliated with the Fourth International of 1938
Socialist Workers' Party (United States) -> helped split the Fourth International into the ISFI and ICFI, funny enough
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
International Marxist Tendency (party) -> international-party Trotskyism
Workers' International League (1938) -> [6]
"The Militant" -> [7]
Revolutionary Communist Party -> [8] [9]
In Defence of Marxism (outlet; Britain)
Socialist Appeal (Britain)
Socialist Alternative (United States)
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
contentless revolutionary socialism - Rosa Luxemburg
contentless Trotskyite-conspirator ideology / Zinovievism (meta-Marxism)
Literature and Revolution (Trotsky 1924) [10] -> the origin of most of the stupid claims about Trotsky in The Giver. ex-Trotskyist novelists really had some problems with this text apparently.
Trotsky wanted to abolish sex / Trotsky hated the concept of sex -> I found this BS in a YouTube comments section once, and ever since then I have not been able to forget it; it was just too funny. the misinterpretation seems to have stemmed from a work where Trotsky was lightly criticizing people escaping from their problems through one or two genuninely weird pieces of sexual literature that had been put out recently — the key word was escaping, not sex. I have no idea exactly what group of people were getting things so twisted but man, when people want to misinterpret Communists they really go all the way. oh, right, and this was one of those things that led to me realizing that The Giver was a skewed portrayal of Trotsky, because you see the theme of abolishing sex and "controlling emotions" in both places. in the original Trotsky text he was talking about things like depression and anxiety, when they did not even really have psychotherapy in Russia.
??
Left Voice (federated outlet)
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
Maoist group, organization, or party
??
??
The Energy Conspiracy (Seman 1981) [11]
??
The correct group will make you free / The correct relationship and shared culture will make you free / The truth will make you free / John 8:32 -> if you read this the way it's intended, like, it applies to Marxism if Marxism is true — though it equally applies to Anarchism if Anarchism is truer. it is so telling that Tories would use this in a context totally outside of religion and purely against "Big Government". it shows that some people cling to religion purely because they believe having the correct Social-Philosophical System, the correct group of people and culture, will give them a better life either taking away their worries or crushing their enemies, or both. [12]
??
??
??
??
??
??
prominent Marxist theorist or organizer / notable Marxist theorist or organizer -> this is the colloquial usage of "very notable", not the Wikipedia usage of "notable"
prominent mainstream-Marxist-Leninist theorist or organizer / prominent Marxist theorist or organizer associated with Stalin Thought
Vladimir Lenin -> note: there are Properties for "believed to be within ideology" allowing the separation of "believed to be associated with Trotskyism" from "believed to be associated with Stalin Thought" and the two statements to coexist at once
Joseph Stalin
??
??
??
??
Russian Revolution according to Trotskyists / Russian Revolution specifically according to Leon Trotsky -> it's worth taking people's bullpronounced redacted and just repeating it back, going through it line by line. in some cases, you spot the errors that led somebody to think that way. in other cases, you spot the material processes that caused somebody to make the error that led them to think that way. I think the latter applies here. I would read the anecdotes about Trotsky and Lenin visiting Europe and think, huh, so he was reasonably close to some of the actually important figures in the Russian Revolution, and seemed to generalize that to being a serious member of Bolshevik identity. there was a strong theme of groups linked by social bonds rather than by theory.
??
Enver Hoxha -> yes, he has his own subset ideology, but it still falls under this tradition
??
??
prominent Trotskyist theorist or organizer / notable Trotskyist theorist or organizer
Leon Trotsky -> Soviet Union / miscellaneous; Fourth International
Rosa Luxemburg -> Germany
Ted Grant -> United Kingdom (?)
James P. Cannon -> United States; Socialist Workers' Party
??
??
??
??
Hiroyoshi Hayashi / Hayashi Hiroyoshi -> Japan; (retrieve organization)
notable Trotskyite resistance leader or advocate / notable Zinovievist advocate or leader / notable Trotskyite conspiracy member
Grigori Zinoviev -> he became my arbitrary example of Trotskyite conspiracies versus what Trotskyism claims it is, after a few Trotskyites called him a hero just for wrecking the Soviet Union
??
??
??
??
??
Nikolai Bukharin -> he quit, but there's not a better place to put him
George Orwell -> by some definitions of Trotskyite, the most famous one ever
Slavoj Žižek -> may sound surprising to call him a "Zinovievist" or Trotskyite, but after much analysis of his rhetorical patterns and motifs he truly belongs here
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
Anarchism is over
Stalin Thought is over -> had some vanishing chance of being true in 1940, not very believable these days
Trotskyism is over -> why is it that all Trotskyists refuse to believe this while most or all mainstream Marxist-Leninists believe it and about half of all center-Liberals and Existentialists believe it? this should be less controversial than "Bolshevism is over". if Trotskyism isn't materially possible but mainstream Marxism-Leninism is, you'd think that nearly everyone would be unanimous about the first part of that, because advocating for Trotskyism isn't advantageous to either Existentialists or mainstream Marxist-Leninists.
Non-molecular Trotskyism is over -> the most generous interpretation of Trotskyism. probably too generous. but very useful for getting Existentialists to actually think for once
Leninism is over but "Marxism" is not -> I'm half convinced that every time somebody implies this (and isn't from China, Cuba, or Vietnam) that it's literally just a way to sneak in Existentialism and deceive people into believing all the things smaller than Liberalism and capitalism that ultimately reconstruct capitalism. half the time I laugh at this one and half the time I get angry, because it tends to trap people in this loop of insisting that if you don't believe Marxism can be used to purge people of all incorrect beliefs and create a perfect society full of nice people before getting rid of capitalism you're racist, while due to the actual material definition of capitalism, if they believe it it makes them absolutely, absolutely incapable of stopping people from becoming racist, digging them deeper and deeper into this hole they can never get out of.
Marxism is over but party-nations are not / Marxism is over but Leninism is not -> the claim that central party-nations are not over but the attempt to regulate the stochastic sorting of people into corporate countable Cultures basically is. somewhat credible when there are about three countries that can vouch for it. many people like to think you can immediately springboard off this to justifying Existentialism but you actually can't. it almost implies the opposite: that primitive Existentialism is most stable when it's regulated from above and not allowed to become a government in and of itself.
??
??
No Marxism is actually over -> MDem's basic working model of Marxisms. if you want to prevent all future Trotskyite conspiracies, you have to talk to Trotskyists as human beings and not immediately scare them off. you have to recognize the existence of different Social-Philosophical Systems around different Marxist models and discuss every model as if it's vaguely possible in order to guide people into forming an agreement for all the different divergent Marxisms and so-called "leftisms" you more commonly find everywhere to live in the same world and not fight each other. this is not a trivial thing given that people unify based on the outcome they believe in rather than whether they are currently oppressed.
Deng Xiaoping Thought is over -> this one is terrible to discuss because I am convinced that up to now almost everyone in the whole entire world has the wrong interpretation of what the thing actually is. I have heard mainstream Marxist-Leninists casually put the word "overthrow" next to "CPC" / Chinese party-nation without realizing that this is one of the most forbidden things you can say in China and only Trotskyists say it. despite what people think there are very few statements that are big-time illegal to say in China versus just getting deleted off a message board, while that's one of the very few things that actually might be. the Chinese party-nation takes protecting the population very seriously, for better or for worse, and everything it does is in response to possible threats. imagine a reality where most Marxist literature is banned in China but there's still a central party-nation. that's kind of what you invite to happen when you fail to understand that the CPC primarily exists to protect the people from other countries. you must understand that behaving in a non-threatening way toward China is necessarily to get a proper understanding of what it is and how to change it. this of course goes about 100 times as much for Trotskyists, who never even would have thought of this.
Liberalism is over -> fun. cathartic. as time goes on, bizarrely not true. why not? that's the question of the century.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 <li class="field_trotsky" value="4000" data-dimension="S">Bolshevik-Leninism / Leninism (Trotsky's definition)  ->  use to mark highly specific definitions of "Leninism" in Trotskyist texts
 </li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4001" data-dimension="S">Stalinism (prejudice)
-</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4002" data-dimension="S2">He calls it Marxism-Leninism, but it isn't really Leninism / Marxism-Leninism (disputed theory)  ->  components: the most correct Leninism is Trotskyism, Stalin Thought is a revisionist Leninism
+</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4002" data-dimension="S2">[[E:Stalin's Marxism isn't Leninism|Stalin's Marxism isn't Leninism]] / He calls it Marxism-Leninism, but it isn't really Leninism / Marxism-Leninism (disputed theory)  ->  components: the most correct Leninism is Trotskyism, Stalin Thought is a revisionist Leninism
 </li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4003" data-dimension="S">degenerated workers' state
 </li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4004" data-dimension="S">restore the soviets
@@ Line 341: / Line 341: @@
 </li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4309" data-dimension="S2">??
-</li><li class="field_geo" value="4310" data-dimension="S">non-Marxist error in Marxist text / non-Marxist error in Marxist talk / "can't believe all these Trotskyist errors!" (the errors are typos)  ->  non-fictional motif which may be framed either humorously or seriously. this concept first came to mind when I was reading the first edition of a Trotskyist text with typos in it. but it could apply to any number of things, like Marxists making a background information error about science, etc. Trotskyists using Kalinin as Trotsky's actor would fall under this.
+</li><li class="field_geo" value="4310" data-dimension="S">non-Marxist error in Marxist text / non-Marxist error in Marxist talk / "can't believe all these Trotskyist errors!" (the errors are typos)  ->  non-fictional motif which may be framed either humorously or seriously. this concept first came to mind when I was reading the first edition of a Trotskyist text with typos in it. but it could apply to any number of things, like Marxists making a background-information error about science, etc. Trotskyists using Kalinin as Trotsky's actor would fall under this.
 </li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4311" data-dimension="S2">??
 </li><li class="field_trotsky" value="4312" data-dimension="S2">??