User:RD/9k/Q28,92: Difference between revisions
Appearance
copy markup from 9k/Q28,87 |
m Reversedragon moved page User:RD/9k/Q2892 to User:RD/9k/Q28,92: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 05:16, 19 January 2026
Main entry
- Socialism can have Trotskyist characteristics / Trotsky's Bolshevism would have Trotskyist characteristics / If Trotskyists successfully created a workers' state, its emergence from the countable culture consisting of Trotskyite history, Trotskyite oral tradition, and Trotskyite-to-Leninist allegiances would cause it become a particular new thing of socialism with Trotskyist characteristics -> this comes from the claim that Trotskyism is a countable culture. if it's the case that Trotskyism is a countable culture, then it is approximately similar to any sovereign national population such as China or Cuba. and if that is the case, then socialist transition in China will have Chinese characteristics, and socialist transition created by Trotskyists will have Trotskyist characteristics. of course, the other implication of this is that when there are plural Marxisms in a country, one of them will want mainstream Marxist-Leninist characteristics and one of them will want Trotskyist characteristics and one of them will want Gramscian characteristics. I think this hypothesis actually explains a lot about why movements that should be able to unify together end up fighting each other: they all already have characteristics and end up containing incompatible characteristics. worse, capitalist-aligned ideologies can have "characteristics" too. the Democratic Party and the Republican party can be countable cultures with national history and be glued to their favorite characteristics that realize their particular national ideology. if the United States was one countable culture which didn't break into multiple just because people had different positions on issues everything would be easier but it clearly consists of multiple countable cultures so distinct they have more reason to be separate structures than the House and the Senate do, or than some of the individual states do. the whole premise of the United States has been wrong from the beginning, and you can see this without any Marxism or appeals to the proletariat.
it's probably worth noting: I think this statement is almost heresy inside Trotskyism. I still don't understand why it would be, I mean the more you dislike Stalin the more you benefit from realizing Trotskyism and Stalin's Marxism are plural Marxisms and that Trotskyism has never actually been very big, it's always been a small Marxism more the size of socialism-in-one-country than the size of an imminent world workers' state. that's Trotskyism. why do they think the eventual world workers' state is Trotskyism when the clash between mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism by itself has made that impossible?
Reasoning
Ideology codes
- (none)