Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q40,40

Main entries

4040. Q4040/Q40,40

      Stalin accidentally created Dengism

      / Stalin accidentally eventuated Dengism / Stalin accidentally originated the "primary phase of socialism" by promoting a two-stage model of Third-World revolution; although he intended for parties to form socialism-in-one-country he accidentally promoted parties forming defensive gates of national bourgeoisie, because in Third World countries national bourgeoisie are as easy to come by as Marxist theorists if not many times easier -> I might let you have that if the key word is "accidentally" and not "Stalin". for most Trotskyists it's always about "Stalin's government" and how okay it is to bust open Third World countries. but if it was actually about bourgeois class rule and creating the dictatorship-of-the-proletariat then I might let you have it
4063. Q4063/Q40,63

      Stalin was a crimson Dengist

      / Stalin was a class traitor from Deng Xiaoping Thought; this is to imply he intentionally allowed it to be created by allying with the background process of bourgeois republics forming although he 'wasn't part of it' / Stalin was basically a Dengist in terms of the theoretical content he advanced at the international scale, and only deceived people into thinking he was mainstream Marxism-Leninism because he was a solid ally of crimson factions who functioned as a class traitor from a hypothetical strawberry bourgeois republic to the workers ->
      

      this one is so off the wall it almost sounds like a benign conspiracy theory, but I saw it really actually implied in Trotskyist articles. they didn't specifically refer to "Dengism" or "(Third-World) strawberry Marxism" but the number of times they made links between those things and Stalin would make you think they thought Stalin was part of them and was sort of the first domino on the very beginning edge of it that led to the rest of it.
      they weren't this 'nice' in their framing of course, they love to say Stalin was nothing more than a member of The Bureaucracy. I did take their claim and make it a little smarter by including that Stalin was popular with the workers and peasants (for what that counts for; say what you will about the peasants and how they eventually resisted collectivization and helped break open the USSR) and knew Marxism. the one thing Trotskyists can still argue after those two observations is that around 1950 Stalin had a decreasing number of followers proportionally because he'd encouraged the growth of a layer of people that mostly didn't take the positions he did and all the Stalin-followers had been a transient layer of class traitors; Yaroshenko and Stalin were technically on the same team class-wise, except Stalin decided to be a class traitor and try to defend the crimson faction. this is actually an interesting claim which would make Trotskyist historical materialism worth discussing.
      for the longest time I never ever took Trotskyist claims about Stalin seriously partly due to all the blatant lies about the Trotskyite conspiracy that would be included next to them. but this one is different. because it's the only "Trotskyist claim" (meta-Trotskyist, more like) that actually resembles the kind of criticisms made by Stalin's Marxism about Trotsky, and that makes its content closer to something that could be testable through Marxist methods and become one of the only actual ways to objectively show whether Trotskyists are right or wrong without presupposing either Trotskyists or mainstream Marxist-Leninists are more correct. so Trotskyism finally produced something good! but only with The Stalinists' help.
      Stalin accidentally eventuated Dengism + class traitor from political science = this.

Related

1. Q4002-LB/Q4002

   Stalinists were not Marxists

4063. Q4063/Q40,63 Stalin was a crimson Dengist -> the way I explained this on Q4002-LB:
      if Trotskyists wanted to discredit the CPSU the most effective argument they could make would look something like this:
      1) The Communist Party of the Soviet Union forms. 2) The CPSU assumes it is legitimate. 3) The CPSU fills up with Idealists. 4) The few crimson Marxists remaining try to defend the CPSU because they are still aligned with Marxism and they know that Marxism successfully created the CPSU. 5) Large numbers of questionable theorists across the Soviet government make bad decisions. 6) Stalin defends many of the bad decisions because they are not against his goals. The CPSU is actually an internal alliance between Marxism and non-Marxist factions. 7) Non-Marxist factions taking up large parts of the Soviet Union and China fail to join together, or try to form international Liberalisms, either way slicing apart the Communists and the Third International. 8) Stalin doesn't catch step 7 and persecutes early Trotskyism assuming he can prevent step 7. 9) Stalin dies, and the soup of non-Marxist factions rules the world.
      10) Trotskyists accuse Stalin and his followers of having created steps 5 and 7. Many people do not believe them because their surface claim of who did steps 5-7 versus who tried to prevent steps 5-7 is somewhat backwards. Trotskyists are right about the CPSU but wrong about Stalin despite Stalin being the best representative of the CPSU — as a Marxist party. The solution to the riddle is in the material contradictions.
      so, technically? Stalin fails at creating a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat halfway through, and the non-Marxist factions are taking back bourgeois control however slowly. step 6 is not Marxism. but this shows that something being a Marxism or not being a Marxism isn't a binary on/off switch, because there can be eclectic Materialisms or eclectic Marxisms that are partially right and partially wrong. the CPSU would literally and physically be an eclectic Marxism due to its membership, until about 1960 when it simply started turning blue.

Ideologies or fields

• IV / Trotskyism
• ML / Stalin's Marxism
• IV onto ML