Research:MDem/5.4r/0999 north-letter

26-7

Hello.

Since around 2021 I have been working on a framework I now call "violet Marxism", or more generically, "meta-Marxism". This is a strictly Materialist framework which attempts to remove the concept of abstract ideas from Marxism as much as is actually feasible. (I unfortunately have to clarify that when there are a couple recorded uses of the term "meta-Marxism" before violet Marxism and unrelated to it which were more or less improperly applying bourgeois ideals to Marxism, notably one from Althusser.) Violet Marxism is the study of Marxisms and other philosophies as physical objects, namely countable republics or movements containing arrangements of people. It is very similar to Marxism in general, but with one major distinction that makes them different: whenever real-world Marxist organizations run into irreconcilable differences, violet Marxism takes a step back and looks at the entire situation from above, considering the two parties or Internationals to be completely different things and no longer preserving the assumption that either of them is the same kind of phenomenon as the other one. For instance, the day the Soviet Union's party split from China, violet Marxism would start to distinguish them and treat them as different movements or philosophies specifically in order to try to uncover which one has the more salvageable program and which one is making the worst errors. Analyzing errors is already a fairly common activity within Marxism, but there is one major problem with it. Whenever any two organizations diverge from each other, they will each come up with a different account of who made errors and what errors everyone made, sometimes defending their own flawed accounts over other parties' accounts to the end. This can be rather intimidating to newcomers to Marxist theory, much less average workers, because the entire process of figuring out what parties might be right becomes a complicated logical puzzle which requires extensive research on many different Marxist tendencies and each tendency's whole timeline of history to even begin to understand. In my own experience, a lot of people seem to give up and take various parties that made errors at face value, thinking that that particular program "is Marxism" and they no longer trust Marxism and are going to go along with some bourgeois philosophy, or they no longer trust Trotskyism (this was a problem I had). With a method that explicitly starts by treating no particular version of Marxism as official and instead studying each one as its own entity with its own understandings and motivations (including instances of violet Marxism being put into practice, if necessary), this might become less of a problem, and it might become easier to give people an intuitive understanding of what is an error and what is Marxism and what is a small variation within Marxism as it is still searching for the best strategies.

One of the first important caveats to understand with a Materialist analysis "of Marxisms" is that in one sense violet Marxism does not exist, and will never exist. There can be a violet Marxist method, but it will always be applied inside some real Marxist organization in a real set of historical circumstances that will create some particular vantage point and set of biases in how the Materialist analysis of that party and other parties should be applied. Thus, violet Marxism does not "magically" solve the problem of parties showing up with different distorted perspectives, which will still continue to exist. The thing it does instead is attempt to construct shared grounds on which two parties could come to an objective consensus only if they actually wish to know what is materially accurate, and to find ways out of local perspectives to a bigger-picture view. Violet Marxism has the same quirk seen in many forms of mathematics of being a bit more precise than reality so that the people who know how to use it will find enough flexibility between it and the reality placed inside it to make good use of it. Between the factions inside it and the people looking at it an analysis of history never really is neutral, nor does it need to be perfectly neutral to be useful. So violet Marxism uses the rhetorical conceit of looking outside multiple factions as its tool, but in reality, it only does that so that the factions with the best overall understanding of material reality can take hold of it and use it to better make their point. Marxism begins well aware that its purpose is to empower a new historical period to take its position over previous stagnating historical periods that have impeded it — whether this is capitalism, or perhaps a low-quality Marxist party attempting and failing to create the type of physical historical period we call a workers' state. Violet Marxism does basically the same thing, but aims to do it more precisely.

The conditions that led to me putting together violet Marxism were rather strange and specific, although familiar to anyone from the United States or Australia. The United States has been... uniquely in a slump. I don't know what better way to put it than that. Not in a slump economically, exactly. Not in terms of its organizations, which have always been sporadic yet are not in a state which has really changed much since 1980. Not in terms of bourgeois parties, which have been doing the same things for around 200 years now. Instead there has been... a weirdly indescribable kind of slump where it seems as if the concept of knowledge has died and social interaction has died. Everyone is shocked and horrified by news headlines and keeps lining up with their cafeteria tray for more poison, but it seems as if knowledge is no longer learned because it is useful and nobody ever actually makes use of it in order to interpret anything that has ever happened. Everything anyone knows is "because I said so" or "because they made me learn it". Everyone seems to know that ethics is "obvious" but can't actually explain it to anyone well enough for it to actually have any use in teaching anyone who isn't ethical to be ethical. The word "community" is in every other sentence people say, like saying a word referring to society existing explains all the details that make up society. But nobody seems to know for the life of them what a community even is or how any countable group of people can form around anything except sheer inherent similarity and compatibility and intuition. Nobody here can keep friends. Interacting with relatives makes you wonder more and more every day when families ever existed and what a family is. People online who ironically are on the internet periodically complain about how you shouldn't let the internet try to grab every bit of your attention, but if you happily disconnect from all the noise of the internet, you'll pretty quickly find yourself entirely alone. Some days I am not sure what a society even is any more or when sociality ever actually existed. But I do know that the United States is so violent that you'd better not leave your door and actually talk to anyone because somebody might shoot you. That's about how bad it's been. I feel like society has not actually existed since about 2015 and I have already been living in societal collapse for 11 years. I have tap water. I can analyze internet videos. But every day for at least a couple of seconds I feel like people are spontaneously going to go mad some day and I'm going to die. Everybody believes nothing is wrong, but nothing is right.
Oh, right, and people are constantly arguing back and forth over whether gender identity is a conspiracy, as the only political issue anyone "understands". Gender identity and Palestine — the only two political issues in existence that everybody thinks they know about but most people cannot explain their position on whatsoever.

I feel like my journey started when I found some garbled second-hand conspiracy theories from the Republican Party that "The Left" was planting Communists who were also anarchists and religious fundamentalists and Gnostics depending on the person retelling the story inside universities and the arts. No part of the story made any sense. And it really made me wonder, how did we even get here? What are any of the actual actors inside these statements? What is the actual causality going on here? So every time I thought I'd found a true fact that matched up with these stories, I would silently compile them all together and see if any of it had come closer to making sense. And I discovered something strange. The United States looked a lot less like one society than like two separate societies competing over a disputed territory. The fault lines between clusters of people aligned with each bourgeois party were real, and the two bodies of people would periodically try to fill up particular businesses or government institutions all "sky" or all "rust", acting really upset and pushing out the couple of extra members who appeared who would suddenly show up as Republicans or Democrats. Sometimes it would happen as specific demographic identities, like 13 men and 2 women, or 10 White people and 1 Black person, or 11 atheists and 1 Christian. There were a lot of different lines on which people would become divided into a traditional majority and an uncommon minority, or a new majority and a traditional minority, and any of them could stack up into the rust and sky divisions, leading to people feeling like minorities who happened not to belong to the most well-established social graph or most common ideology had to be some kind of conspiracy. But that was silly. What was really happening was that people had not fully internalized that philosophies were inherently tied to particular countable socially-linked groups of allies or acquaintances, connecting society and philosophy into a single phenomenon of _sociophilosophies_.

Liberal-republicanism had designed itself assuming that Liberal-republican political parties weren't actually "real". That they would form each election around arbitrary interest groups and issues, but that they wouldn't necessarily stick around in nearly the same shapes for 200 years. But reality had not agreed. Instead, what seemed to actually be happening was that people would align onto a party and keep voting for all its candidates until they felt "betrayed" by that party and then would start voting for the other party, alternating wildly if they had no consistent trust but passing the same party down to their children if they did. [DFR] During the Civil War period, Liberal-republican parties aligned neatly onto slave states and free states and formed entire separate nationalities; even after the United States abolished slavery and attempted to force itself back together, White people in the Southern states were still doing their best to keep Black people from living in their areas and it still seemed as if the division was permanent. On one hand, these observations seemed to make sense with the Marxist account of capitalism. Large societies had to be made of structures (relations arranged to harness productive forces), and if capitalists owned those structures and conflated the structures with themselves, the capitalists would be able to chain together to form something like the modern Democratic Party, or the modern Republican Party. Society in general being like one big graph of dots linked together, you could then have any number of people chaining onto the major groups of capitalists believing the representatives that group chose somehow represented the overall group's interests. But that didn't explain how the two parties had stayed so consistent since the Civil War. Marx had taken note of how the division in the United States had happened due to slavery, and the re-unification of the two bodies of westward-leaking colonists had correlated with the North being able to force the South away from slavery to capitalism. But centuries later there was also something else going on that was hard to quantify. If the United States was all capitalism now, why was it still divided? Why was every election making the divisions cleaner and the district lines stranger and only sharpening the old division further? Why was the United States behaving like it wanted to partly define freedom as the ideological segregation of the Confederate party and ultimately throw out elections and the Constitution in favor of claiming that whether a Constitution existed or not ethics was ethics and freedom was freedom?

Well, to bring this back on track and give a short answer, the Chinese revolution and the two different periods of division in the Soviet Union seemed like they were leading me to the answers. In China, Mao's party had to cover a very large terrain, to the point it was possible to plot on a map what overall percentage of China was still under feudal control or under control of the nationalists. In the Soviet Union region, again, there was a very big terrain to cover in the process of the revolution. I had found one particular text by Trotsky, Terrorism and Communism chapter 8, which described this quite vividly. The Red Army and the White Armies were no mere ideas, they were occupying specific places at specific points in time, and — the most interesting to me — fighting battles back and forth over particular pieces of industry. It was vaguely similar to the incidents of Republicans and Democrats fighting over corporations, although more dramatic and violent. But then something else caught my attention — the conflict between Stalin's party and early Trotskyism. I had not seen a lot of in-depth coverage on this in mainstream Marxist sources. Trotskyists were talking about it, of course, because that was their history. And for a while, I became obsessed with figuring out where this conflict had come from and what exactly had been driving it. I was fairly solidly aligned with the Stalinists back then, but I was just about the most interested in the history of early Trotskyism of any Stalinist in the whole United States. Every so often I would go through Trotskyist programs and I would keep trying to reconstruct exactly what Trotskyists were trying to accomplish and what made a party Trotskyist. And I could never figure it out.

At that time I was really focused on the concept of describing civilizations as small-scale structure inside a particular region. "Socialism in one country" made sense to me not because I thought countries were natural or had to be the way they currently were, but because I was beginning to see Marxism as a model of how countries formed into different kinds of civilizations based on different kinds of arrangements of people from the level of individuals to the level of class territories or institutions up to the level of factions like the Bolshevik Party fighting the White Army up to the level of China- or Russia-sized republics where a specific kind of state would be created and the bourgeoisie or eventually the proletariat would be able to control the entire region. I thought Marx and Lenin and maybe even Mao with his other huge terrain to cover and successful army were brilliant for being able to take descriptions of feudal orders, capitalism, and socialism and turn them from abstract ideas into material objects with internal structure, so that socialism really was something in the same sense that carbon dioxide was something specific with a specific shape or cellulose was something specific. I dubbed this concept of analyzing civilizations or revolutionary movements down to a very fine "chemical" scale molecularization and I was convinced that by the time Marxism was able to properly understand weird situations like the Democrats and Republicans or (as I believed then) Stalin's party versus early Trotskyism, it would become a new kind of Marxist theory called molecular Marxism that would eventually be able to create successful revolutions into socialism in the First World. Molecular Marxism might at some point in the future actually take Marxism from a proto-science into a proper science. But despite knowing Marxism had a lot of potential to improve "in the future" I still kept ending up completely baffled by Trotskyism. I would keep taking Trotskyism and thinking, surely if Trotskyists successfully created a republic controlled solely by them and not containing any Stalinists, there would be some particular thing they would create inside it which would be unique to Trotskyism. Whenever people separate themselves into factions that are in heated conflict there is always some actual reason related to what each faction actually wants to materially achieve. The White Army wanted to defend aging structures like the Russian Orthodox Church in its powerful medieval form. The Nazi Party, although not as distinct from capitalism as people would like to believe, did have its own material aim of expanding its violence to other regions to create a larger empire. Even the Republicans and Democrats have small and slightly complicated material differences: people cluster into particular localized demographic subpopulations like the Black subpopulation or the LGBT+ subpopulation that line up behind the Democrats, the Republicans are slightly more openly friendly to capitalists as a bloc, and although they all live in capitalism they materially consist of different assembled populations of people and become distinct material objects, similar to how countries are distinct partly because there are borders between their bodies of capitalists. But I really could not figure out what made Trotskyists different from Stalinists. Both of them were claiming to follow Marxism. Stalin would stand by everything Lenin said in the same period, about Materialism and forming nation-wide Marxist parties instead of disorganized clusters of trade unions. But once he was in contact with the United States, Trotsky was giving people advice that sounded like he understood what a Marxist party was and how to stop capitalist-style revisionism from leaking into parties. So both of them were Marxists, both of them believed in nationalized property in the Soviet Union, and both of them talked about socialist transition. And both of them had a Communist International. Trotsky showed up at the Third International, and later claimed that policies were wrong inside the Third International. But this all connected back to Stalin and his allies, so didn't Trotsky's complaints have to somehow be at a scale smaller than Communist Internationals? So that left me scrambling trying to figure out exactly what policy complaints Trotsky actually had inside the space of any particular region as the key to what a Trotskyist party was supposed to have already solved and how Stalinists had failed to create Trotskyist transition. My analysis was a bit blockheaded, but I did have a very specific angle that I was looking at things from. I was okay with the concept of Trotskyism containing a Fourth International as a necessary component of what Trotskyism is. I was okay with the concept of Trotskyism going through a Marxist revolution and then taking up the area of what had been several countries before — if the Soviet Union came to be, was that really an impossibility? I wasn't going through this analysis "for the NKVD", feeling like Trotskyism had to be understood so it could be destroyed. If anything, I found the conflict between Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism upsetting and I wanted to solve the structure and development of each of them so that maybe they could coexist. (The continued existence of Stalinist states anywhere on this planet being entirely hypothetical and counterfactual at this point, but I think you can see what I meant.) I knew that proposition was a bit naïve, to simply say that all groups of Marxist theorists "ought to" work together to create a Communist International, but I didn't really know why that was. And so, I set out to create meta-Marxist analysis to explain on a Materialist basis why different Marxist tendencies were different.

I knew on some level that if I was hypothetically trying to get Stalinism and Trotskyism to coexist some time back in the 1920s, it might be a wholly irreconcilable thing. When groups of people structure themselves into separate factions, there are moments in history where those factions neatly consist of particular class structures, and where the division in classes is going to lead to class conflict. At other moments, factions like the Republicans and Democrats do not lead to this kind of conflict because both of them are arranged around a group of bourgeoisie and they are able to recognize each other as similar. But I had the facts in front of me that Stalinist parties and Trotskyism had repeatedly ended up in violent conflict in various regions of the world for some unknown reason. I had to at least consider that the separation between them was somehow similar to a class conflict. But the thing that kept me stumped was this: bourgeois factions that are both capitalism manage to uneasily get along, so if Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism are both Marxisms, or at least they both were in the 1920s, then why wouldn't the two of them simply get along and form socialism? The major class conflict of the 1900s was between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, it was always just those two except in feudal orders containing nobility, and all the other layers joined to one of them or the other. The two seemingly separate Marxisms eventually merging back together or coexisting seemed much more consistent with all the Marxist theory I'd been looking at up to that point... all the Marxist theory I'd been looking at from the Stalinists.

This was the problem. All the Stalinist theory I had ever seen seemed to weirdly oversimplify Marxism and not give enough detail to describe real-world situations. Bourgeoise, proletariat, bourgeoisie, proletariat, form organizations, four legs good, two legs bad. It couldn't explain something like the IMT making an announcement it had failed to infiltrate the British Labour Party and whether that was a good thing because they were providing an example that bourgeois reforms weren't working or whether it was a bad thing because this was not the first time and the IMT had been repeatedly trying the same opportunist methods over and over. (For anyone new to Marxism who finds this: it's the latter. Up to now the RCI has been dangerously close to becoming the 21st Century's Second International, and can only be spared that title because the USFI got closer.) Now, educating people about the existence of the bourgeoisie and forming organizations both do have their role (it would be nice if the United States actually had any functioning organizations capable of forming a larger movement), but this kind of rhetoric was never going to be able to explain the existence of Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Dengism as separate philosophies embedded in their own distinct republics or movements.

I knew that trying to think of Marxism as a single world revolution was simply not working; this seemed to sink all Marxist movements into sectarianism and actively fighting each other for control every single time. But what I gradually discovered over time was that countries themselves have always been made of parallel layers of structure that each attempted to land on the same particular outer country border independently, which back in the time of monarchy were known as estates. Marx had examined this phenomenon of estates too. (I currently still need to go back and read some of the earliest Marxist works, but I knew that was worth mentioning.) The clergy, nobility, and lower classes of the time all had their own "parliament processes" of sorts, which were eventually separated out into different kinds of republics. The clergy could only do so much and may have participated in separating different European empires into separate kingdoms, while the nobility were capable of using their wealth and land to section kingdoms into smaller states that in regions like China would sometimes fracture into separate clusters and become new kingdoms, and the bourgeoisie would eventually form Liberal republics — three different forms of structure came out of them all occupying different scales, in the form of kingdoms (or expanding empires) that became nation-states, local-states, and Liberal-republican parties or disembodied political factions. But if you superimpose the centuries-old concept of estates onto the Chinese revolution or the Russian revolution, what you begin to notice is that estates exist before and below nation-states, and estates form into states specifically based on their internal characteristics as estates. This meant that a more sophisticated theory of what estates were and "are" that examined them for their own sake could explain the difference between two distinct factions of people that appear to contain the same classes — if England and France both contained nobility, even if you could outline a section of noble territories that were all Protestant and should not have obvious reasons to be rivals, that was not going to guarantee they would both fuse into one kingdom. From there, I started considering different rival Marxist movements as unities of opposites that operated inside the same material contradiction and interacted with and changed each other. The nature of interactions themselves is that they keep seemingly separate objects from actually being separate, and instead allow two distinct objects to add to each other's history. For a while I believed that the material separation between Stalin's Marxism and Trotskyism was simply recursively building on itself and the existing forms of resistance or violence in each faction were somehow leading to each other. That seemed to somewhat explain Dengism: China seemed to be drifting away from Marxism because of the antagonism between China and the First World, and as long as various other countries didn't understand that antagonism China would only defend itself harder and become more strict. But that certainly did not explain everything. Why had Trotsky written a lengthy criticism of the way the USSR operated internally (The Revolution Betrayed) if he wasn't trying to say that Trotskyism had a noticeably different internal structure and its entire socialist transition would look different? Was he just impatient about the pace of socialist transition? Was he trying to skip phases and land on upper-phase communism early? I wasn't fully convinced that Trotsky was bad at Marxism and knew nothing about it — as much as Stalinist sources were definitely trying to make me think that, and had made me quick to identify every single one of Trotsky's errors — so I was willing to entertain that he simply had a different way of doing things, but I still did not understand what it was.

Then in 2026 I had a "terrible" realization: people form a consciousness sized to whatever evolving object they are part of. If the way organizations form into larger structures when those structures are actually effective (Marxist parties, independent labor movements) is to go through a process of consciousness which is fundamentally shaped by or inside the active process of building themselves up into their near-future forms, then the process of forming a Communist International should affect the parties inside it downward giving them information about forming a Communist International as they are forming it. Many Marxist parties tend to assume that the task of forming a party inside a particular country region is separate from the task of forming a Communist International, but in doing that, they potentially overlook the changes that will occur in them when they actually form one, or worse, actively transform their party in a way that will make it difficult to form a Communist International. There is not exactly anything special and unique about first-hand experience, not for an individual and not even for an organization if either of them is equipped with the right knowledge to understand the overall material processes that happen inside experiences they haven't had. But at the same time, one of the things that does come with first-hand experience is the ability to directly interact with the near future. The closer an organization is to being in the physical state of cooperating with other organizations to form international structures, the closer it is to being able to interact with and learn about the next possible steps after or above that moment, through various spatial areas analyzing each other and each other's next moves apart or together. If two parties in the United States and Canada are already connected, they might be better able to predict what the best-case scenario for the overall region would be together than if they were acting separately. This would be true of any number of scales: when small organizations form spontaneously they are disconnected and do not have good understandings of each other's behavior, but as they succeed at becoming connected, if things go well their contradictory and "unpredictable" behavior versus each other should actually be able to turn around into a kind of error-correcting process where several different organizations understanding each other from the outside reveal each other's errors and quirks and eventually start to understand in what situations they will be able to rely on each other, or how to all increasingly align onto a better program. For any given social graph of workers all the groups of workers in the graph can become more capable of coordinated behavior after they have actually been functioning together and become more connected around the same objectives. Likewise, the exercise of several parties functioning together should give them the opportunity to actually change their behavior and become more functional as a Communist International. Instead of looking at things through traditional Marxist writings on dialectics, I tend to see everything through my own accumulated knowledge on physics and the kinds of mathematics appropriate to relativity or quantum mechanics, specifically because of strange correspondences I noticed between quantum mechanics and human behavior that made me come to the conclusion that relativity and quantum mechanics might offer insights for dialectical materialism. But either way, I had found a process I couldn't un-see. An isolated party was less likely by some kind of cumulative, repeating multiplier to develop the correct consciousness to form a Communist International, while if several parties managed to figure it out correctly they might all accomplish it faster. This was consistent with everything else I knew about time and historical events, that everything that happens in the universe is actually more like many separate timelines colliding with each other and building on each other in a circle, and events have an odd way of happening either more and more or less and less. A star is a great number of atoms all colliding and leading to more fusion reactions; a galaxy has fewer events between the objects in it the further apart the stars or other objects are. So it's not necessarily a mystery why important historical events all like to cluster together or not happen for long stretches of time; history itself is like a sudden burst of many events competing to happen. I should not have been surprised that this sort of fast, clustering all-or-nothing pattern would extend up to parties forming into Communist Internationals. But everything felt different the moment that actually sunk in. I had to really take my "meta-Marxist analysis" and draw it out on a space without boundaries, so it could extend out from tiny scales upward across the world. I was going to need that full terrain to understand each of the new "estates" possible today or historical Communist Internationals. I felt like I was going crazy. I had always believed there was next to no chance Trotskyism could actually be true. But I also felt like things were making more sense than before and the project was getting somewhere.

"No chance Trotskyism could be true". In some ways this was the key to everything. Because every population is made of heterogeneous parts. Populations start out with various heterogeneous parts, and some of them turn out to be insignificant distinctions, but some of them turn into contradictory unities of opposites which can actively develop a population into something new or set it back. Between 2021 and 2026 I had always made the mistake of thinking that Trotskyism is only one thing, and that whenever Trotskyists had a bad program that this was also part of Trotskyism. I now see why I thought that: Trotskyists everywhere had always said they wanted to create a worldwide government where every Trotskyist party would join into a Fourth International and more or less every industrial population would act together to form a new society, with all the neighboring tribal societies and so forth presumably integrated into their region's democracy so that they are no longer in conflict with the former nation-states and can develop toward socialism to the extent they want to. Trotskyists kept saying they wanted to become a single world system; I wrote that down and didn't question it. I simply said, okay, I guess that makes sense, but if Trotskyist parties are all supposed to form one Fourth International then why are they so infamous for constantly being in conflict and calling each other revisionist? Why is it that Stalinists are so easily able to summarize Trotskyists as "Trotskyists' worst enemy", and why does that feel perfectly accurate whenever I open up one Trotskyist group's criticism of another one and attempt to understand it? Well... I was missing something that I would not have seen without both attempting to put together meta-Marxism and extending it out to the largest scales. Trotskyism is not just a single thing. When you actually look at Marxist movements out in the field there are about two versions of Trotskyism, one which is Marxist and one which is fake and resembles a Second International. Trotskyism is the process of the Fourth International attempting to form as a single system, but also of various groups that fail to understand Marxism breaking off the Fourth International at various times, while spreading around Marxist concepts and falsely appearing to be part of it. To anyone that interacted with the "fake" side of Trotskyism, it would definitely appear there was no chance of Trotskyism achieving anything. But probability is outwardly deceptive — if there are two colors of marbles in a jar and someone repeatedly draws exactly one, it's only when they actually draw the other one that there will appear to finally be a chance. And apparently, this was Trotsky and Cannon, while Grant, Cliff, and even Luxemburg were not quite as close to the winning fraction. (Much less Stalin or Mao.)

So, in short, I started out thinking there was only one Communist International, but it seems what was really happening from 1925 to 1940 was that the Soviet Union contained Stalin's party, the layer of bureaucrats and Idealists (Yaroshenko, etc.), and then an entire second process of forming a Communist International all over again from the First to the Fourth which was all compressed into the space of one party and was busy messily sorting itself out to finally pull out of itself the real Fourth International. Stalinism and Trotskyism were separate things, but not because of the theoretical quality of each faction "as a whole". They were separate parallel processes of forming a Communist International. So everything I had thought was a sign of Trotskyism being unprincipled or having bad theories was actually more like a sign the USFI was going to develop later, and actually, that whole gradient from "bad" Trotskyist theories up to good ones was going to begin working itself out between 1936 and 1960. This seems like a period of history that everyone forgot. Everyone knows about the Great Terror. Everyone knows about "Animal Farm" and the Soviet Union sliding away into a sea of bureaucrats. Some people know about the hidden letters in which early Trotskyism plotted to kill members of the Soviet government in the course of its overall plan to try to overwrite Stalin's party with a Trotskyist revolution. (This did happen, by the way. It doesn't do anyone any good to keep denying that early Trotskyists did in fact die for a revolution.) But nobody remembers the second cascade of Communist Internationals that was busy secretly iterating on itself to finally churn out a Bolshevik International all over again. They called this "sectarianism", because they did not understand the consequences of molecularizing Marxism.

So, I am not aligned with Stalinism any more. I started putting together a new Marxist method (or maybe not new, I don't really know) for fully understanding every philosophy and political party including the strange mess of academic philosophies in the United States, but it ended me up here. I was as skeptical of Trotskyism as I could possibly be but my violet-Marxist method ended me up at realizing that it might just be the tendency that matches my findings the best and overall makes the most sense. So, now, I would like to present all the basic concepts of violet Marxism to the ICFI as best I can in hopes of getting closer to actually seeing it applied and improved.
I have always had a very peripheral position as far as interesting events happening in the United States; I have a basic 4-year degree in science but my area never really sees any organizations or movements and I have always been a bit too disabled to work, so I mostly sit around trying to solve the world like a puzzle in hopes that will somehow make things better. I have never really felt like that was accomplishing much by itself, and have always wanted to actually get involved in some kind of organization, but due to various physical difficulties, trying to analyze the Marxist method and create better models of history is about all I can do. So, this is my attempt to try to begin contributing my findings. (I had also attempted to send letters to two other places outlining violet Marxism before, but I never actually got a response from either of them. This might be partly because the previous letters were not as well-ordered and thought-through and I've been developing my framework a lot more even since the second letter in March 2026. But, neither of the places I submitted this to before was Trotskyist, either.)

On Good and Evil

Throughout history, there has been a tendency to try to characterize national or international historical events in terms of morality. Christianity and its siblings are some of the most infamous for these characterizations: if an international war is Christian, it can become a righteous crusade, or if Muslims were to do the same thing it could become a jihad — a religious "struggle", as if who has what religion was one of the most important axes of historical progression. These kinds of characterizations of royal armies as "good" or "evil" have been wildly secularized and spread across everything from fictional fantasy narratives to actual accounts of World War II — the Nazis were Evil, the part of the First World that didn't turn into nazis was Good. At the same time, these simplistic conceptions of history are almost wholly incapable of understanding Liberal-republicanism and why exactly it is that for instance the US Republican and Democratic Parties can both call each other Evil and themselves Good and fear each other equally. It has been a running joke in the United States that people constantly compare the Republican Party to Voldemort and the Harry Potter books' fictional depictions of wizard nazis, first in a sincere capacity and then in a reflexive ironic capacity sketching a picture frame around the absurdity that anyone including typical center-Liberal academics would think such a metaphor was actually useful. One of these interpretations is the Idealist view of history; one of these interpretations is slowly and painfully discovering the Materialist model.

In a feudal period, depending on exactly how a kingdom develops, the borders of two kingdoms will essentially be formed with the help of two particular bodies of clergy. Each of them will have particular definitions of which kingdoms they think are Good or Evil, but in the end, all of that is each body of clergy protecting its own interests — associated with its class position, but also with its own specific kingdom it has control over. It is often not advantageous to them to acknowledge anything but their own body of clergy as Good or "human", so sometimes they simply uphold the "reality" that other kingdoms are not to be trusted.

Of course, religious layers can have many possible roles within a feudal society, each one with hidden consequences. These may include justifying a particular king as "the correct one", building loyalty between groups of nobles or merchants or peasants all aligned around the same religion, or actually structuring mundane functions of local government as in the parish system in Germany (which was effectively used to collect taxes) or the use of churches as meeting-houses in the early United States. In Greece, Rome, and Egypt, polytheistic religion aided in joining separate cities or patches of feudalism into larger societies as people began to rationalize various gods or groups of priests as inherently belonging to the same greater whole. In the ancient world, religion slowly aided people toward urbanization, as Greek or Egyptian cults helped to anchor and structure cities, or later European-style churches in the 1700s would come to provide "spaces of community" that once again would allow people to meet together in a period where agrarian society tended to push people apart, slowly encouraging towns and secular forms of town government to be created. The creation of cities was not the "goal" of religion, as historical events themselves generally cannot think or plan anything, and as far as trying to plan for what the future can actually become, any Idealist philosophy is even worse at that. However, the one thing that gives Idealism power, very much by accident, is that all Idealist philosophies will always have material consequences no matter what is in them. The consequences may look nothing like what the Idealist philosophy promises, and yet they will happen, because whenever any two Idealist prescriptions or projections run into each other and have no actual answer, the material world will decide independent of them what the real answer is. Thus, religions can form "Protestant community spaces", and end up with the secular result of cities and United States federalism mediated by the Constitution, or they can form supposedly-perfect estates with an entire parliament just for the churches centuries ago in France or Germany, and yet ultimately end up with the people getting tired of the top two estates and dissolving them to create a new republic with only one estate (Liberal-republicanism). The clergy and the nobility didn't ask for there to be a French Revolution or an English war over parliament that would eventually end in a bourgeois parliament. But the act of religion or morality dictating what "should" happen or what "should" exist or what abstract Ideals inherently belong in balance is separate from the way the world really functions — Idealism may study the poetic art of essences, balanced conglomerates, and oppositions, but Materialism describes the results of concrete interactions within the physical world.

All of this should be familiar to anyone who already knows about Marx and Engels. But the actual experiences of the Russian Revolution and the Cold War have brought in one very important twist: most of the time, "Progressive" and "Reactionary" are equally as arbitrary in their meanings as "Good" and "Evil". We mostly have Liberal-republicanism to blame for this, but at this point it's unfortunately true. Most people within Liberal-republicanism use the concept of Progress completely arbitrarily and assign it to whatever philosophy they happen to personally trust the most, rather than taking any time to consider the difficult problem of whether there actually could be an objective answer to the question.

A great number of people can read a fictional book and tell that when a book proceeds from a framing that a particular imagined empire is Evil, this is actually somewhat arbitrary. Some people even read the Harry Potter books and begin questioning whether they actually make sense and whether the Slytherin wizards as a whole are truly Evil or perhaps, if Hogwarts school continued to allow itself to contain an entire quadrant of them, whether this problem might only apply to a particular fraction of them. But... what about Stalin and Trotsky? What is people's general understanding of that historical series of events in the First World?

When you truly test people by giving them a historical situation in another country seemingly nothing like their own that they should have no personal stake in, you really start to see how people actually construct morality and the concept of "correct" or "incorrect" historical events. In practice, how people respond to the Moscow Trials era will vary wildly depending on exactly what specific faction of people they belong to. If you're a center-Liberal like the Democrats, Trotsky is good. If you're a Tory, Trotsky is bad. If you're a Maoist, Trotsky is bad. If you're PragerU, Trotsky is good. If you're a Stalinist, Trotsky is bad. If you're a Trotskyist from Japan, Trotsky is bad. If you're a Lacanian psychoanalyst, Trotsky is good. If you're a Lacanian named Molly Ann Rothenberg, Trotsky is bad. If you're a journalist Trotsky is good. If you're an anarchist Trotsky is bad. If you're a Duginist neo-nazi Trotsky is good. If you're a social-democratic organizer Trotsky is good. If you're a lawyer Trotsky is bad. If you're Alan Woods Trotsky is the best thing ever. If you're a social-democrat on the internet Trotsky is bad. It is as if Trotsky has completely broken morality open like some kind of memory access error where a computer program that would normally behave in specific ways is churning through random garbage data and spitting out nonsense. Nobody seems to know what they're talking about whatsoever. Trotsky seems to turn into a different "character" in each retelling of the story, sometimes a bourgeois democrat, sometimes a terrible dictator, sometimes a kulak, sometimes a bad copy of Rosa Luxemburg, sometimes Brutus, sometimes Caesar, sometimes the patron saint of newspapers as government, sometimes a true Russian revolutionary for helping Toryism, sometimes a forgotten British Labour MP, sometimes a wannabe framer of the US Constitution who couldn't do anything right, sometimes the only real heir of the one genuine Marxism but announced in exactly the kind of way that makes you wonder if it's actually true. Nobody can seem to make up their minds who exactly he was even as people seem to have a relatively homogeneous pool of opinions about Stalin — either Stalin defended Bolshevism and that was good, or Stalin defended Bolshevism but that was bad. Anarchists will often give strange opinions about Stalin, but almost all of these come down to word definitions and trying to appropriate the word "communism" to solely mean "anarchism", blending back into all the center-Liberal opinions in the "Bad" bucket. Trotskyists seem to be the only group of people to regularly claim that Stalin did not represent Bolshevism and Bolshevism as it existed in the Soviet Union should have been something different. But, hand the modern Trotskyists over to all the people putting out different narratives about Trotsky, and the bourgeoisie and center-Liberal voters will basically spin the same narratives as they ever did. Nobody but Trotskyists seems to actually have a clear understanding of what Trotskyism really is. The average First-World citizen almost seems to have a better understanding of quantum physics and how to disprove string theory than they do of Trotskyism.

As people left feudal periods and entered republican periods, some started to notice the futility of labeling things Good or Evil. In China, weakened by repeated and seemingly endless warring states periods, religion began trying a new tactic of simply _giving up_, and conceptualizing what might be called Good and Evil as simple opposing parts of a greater whole, always in competition, but inevitably present. To philosophers, a turn like this can seem unbelievably profound, but in its proper context it is easy to recognize as an adaptation to existing historical circumstances more than it means anything else. The telltale sign of this is that after 200 years of Liberal-republican parties increasingly stagnating in the United States, anarchists and various others have been increasingly turning to Buddhist "Light and Dark" imagery simply to represent the ever-present opposition between center-Liberals and Tories. We know by now that the division between center-Liberal and Tory parties like the Democrats and Republicans or supposed "Labor" and Liberal parties is deliberately engineered. Periodically, the United States bourgeoisie will see islands of bourgeoisie centralizing and then decide that having too many bourgeoisie in one place is "tyrannical" — as with corporate mergers, or the Democratic-Republican party — and that they must be divided in two as the correct course of action that is supposedly conducive to "human rights" and "freedom". The question almost nobody has stopped and thought about enough is, _why is this_? What is the significance of the United States constantly and deliberately dividing in defiance of its background condition of trying to consolidate and unify each of its forcibly divided halves?

Could it be that United States capitalists and all the world's Marxisms are divided for the same reason?

The answer to that is complicated and I will definitely end up in irrelevant places if I go into it too deeply. So what I will say is this. No matter how you attempt to construct a framework of ethics to serve the goals ethics is supposedly intended to serve, you will eventually find that it is contradictory for Liberal-republicans to claim they support Trotsky but to not accept Trotskyism. It is not possible to actually side with Trotsky in a sense where he would hypothetically agree the person in question is in support of human rights and also to remain on the side of Liberal-republicanism at the same time. It is also not possible to side with Liberal-republicanism and consistently get it to agree that Trotsky is in support of human rights. What Trotsky considered to be a desirable outcome and what Liberal-republicanism considers to be Good or ethical are completely different things, shaped by the fact that Liberal-republicanism wants to maintain capitalism and Trotsky aimed to get rid of global capitalism. Likewise, Stalin's set of priorities around preventing the Soviet population from returning to deathly starvation and Trotsky's set of priorities around attempting to liberate Europe also produced different conceptions of what a desirable outcome is. To put things another way, Stalin and Trotsky had different models of the future and what possibilities the near future could produce — they effectively had _different plural bodies of historical materialism_ containing different collections of facts and guesses.

The United States bourgeoisie are generally trapped in what can be called _ideology_ in the strong sense: their models of reality are often not even close to how reality actually works, and largely amount to the sets of ideas that their class position, situated along the outer borders of the Republican or Democratic "estates", produces. What happens to Marxist theorists in different tendencies only creates "ideology" in a much weaker sense. Two parties will end up with diverging models of reality that cause them to behave as different identifiable tendencies, but in some cases, these incorrect models of reality can actually be fixed. It is unlikely the whole organization will notice the error at once, but through the development of contradictions in the organization, the organization can turn itself around and use the process of people dividing themselves by reality-model that would otherwise destroy organizations in order to constructively assemble as many people as possible back onto the correct "estate".

This is the real consequence of _molecularizing Marxism_. Marxism does not actually take place in parties in the way that was once thought to be the case. In one sense, Marxism starts distinctly below the scale of any party with factions simply assembling themselves together around a particular model of reality, and if that model of reality has enough explanatory power, the underlying faction will simply continue extending upward to such a great scale it escapes the bounds of individual countries. This does not mean parties do not need to exist — organizations still serve an important role of connecting people across space and bringing "democracy" to the seemingly unregulated process of allegiances to particular models spontaneously extending across the population. What it does mean is that the process of forming a party of any particular type is fundamentally similar to and connected to the large-scale process of forming an International. Simply through existing at a smaller scale, anarchist formations attempt to generate First Internationals, center-Liberal formations attempt to generate Second Internationals (whether we choose to label them that way, or label formations such as the United Nations specially), and Trotskyist organizations attempt to generate Fourth Internationals. (Whether Stalinist parties inherently attempt to generate Third Internationals is somewhat unclear, given their apparently unstable character that also tends to destroy Third Internationals.)

The presence of the Left Opposition in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was not an anomaly. No matter how negatively some people may feel about Trotsky himself, the one thing that is perfectly clear by now is that that division in the party was part of an overall attempt to correct the errors in Stalinist parties and the Third International; without a Left Opposition of any kind, the party was doomed, while with the correct people holding the correct ideas dividing the party, it might well have found the possibility to save itself. We may never know if Trotsky literally had the correct strategy to save the parties of the Third International or not, but as Trotskyist parties have been busy trying to reconstruct the Fourth International, all the evidence needed to demonstrate this pattern of soft division and error-correction has been steadily piling up.

Swatch analysis and slice analysis

With all the context for violet Marxism explained, I can now explain the current theoretical tools used by meta-Marxism.

One of the most basic tools used by meta-Marxism is color swatch analysis. At the beginning, when I said that two rival Marxist parties "are treated as completely different things", this is what I was referring to. Any time two parties with particular known goals or known factional philosophies are in conflict, they can be labeled using different "color swatches" which are chosen based on each party's theoretical content or current political positions. At any given time there will be a particular predefined body of color swatches accompanied by 2-3 letter codes which is recognized by a group of meta-Marxist theorists, and factions in concrete situations will be classified into these letter codes representing specific philosophical traditions or tendencies. The colors associated with the codes have variable degrees of precision, so that for instance in a situation where there are several small Marxist parties and some very large bodies of center-Liberals, all the Marxist parties could be shown in red instead of in their higher-precision colors, or the center-Liberals could be divided into more precise shades of blue since there are so many of them they could conceivably produce important contradictions. Color swatch analysis is largely a tool for communicating solutions to problems as opposed to a tool for solving complicated problems, but it can be used to communicate situations in terms that will seem more familiar to center-Liberals or social-democrat types who are not yet familiar with the ways Marxism frames things; a pedantic center-Liberal may find it much more intuitive to actually see a group of schizoanalysts labeled "schizoanalysis [DG]" but given a blue swatch than to see that group labeled "bourgeois ideologies" (although for Marxists who already know what things are, "bourgeois ideologies [ES]" would also be an option).

The first thing I have been using color swatch analysis for is a project where I am trying to expand and overhaul formal logic to cover different use cases than it is usually used for. In traditional versions of formal logic, there will be two binary truth values and statements are not allowed to be ambiguous. But within what I call "wavemachine logic", neither of those things applies. Statements can be expressed in natural language as long as it is clear exactly what proposition they are presenting and they are not confusable for another statement; there is a large and perhaps countably-infinite number of possible truth values; statements are allowed to be true any percentage of the time as opposed to always true or always false, and their truth value will be chosen to reflect the percentage of the time they are actually true. To some people this form of logic might sound strange and useless. But to me, this is the only good way to write logical statements about color swatch analysis. Taking a statement like "Trotskyists should enter the Labor party", it's perfectly clear what the statement is saying but you need a rather complicated system of truth values to express its practical significance. Within wavemachine logic, you might say the truth values of this statement are "statement believed to be true by USFI (blue)", "statement rejected by ICFI (blue)", "Menshevik statement (blue)" or "failed multiple times". Of course, which truth value you would return as the most important truth value depends on what context the statement is being evaluated in. Every single truth value can be used to imply a contextual color swatch for that truth value in context, and then that swatch can be used to assign the statement a color swatch in context — for instance, these truth values might assign this statement a sky blue swatch indicating the USFI or IMT is making errors that lean toward center-Liberal social-democracy (opportunist errors). Concepts such as opportunism might become much easier to communicate to newcomers to Marxism if they can see a statement that is supposed to be red or orange suddenly turn blue when in context that swatch is supposed to be opposed to Trotskyism and represent everything it doesn't stand for.

One other problem with formal logic is that it is bad at handling changes in state and the concept of something being true in one year and not true in another year. Given a statement like "Stalin is in support of Bolshevism" the truth value would become ambiguous because the degree to which that statement is true would be completely different in 1920 from what it would be in 1936. In order to fix this problem to the degree it can be fixed, I have taken to modeling different historical periods understood as complicated physical objects as different coherent bodies of knowledge which are separated but both represented within the same containing body of knowledge — where it becomes important, the conditions of the Soviet Union in 1920 are taken to be a different thing from the conditions of the Soviet Union in 1936, and statements are tagged with the explicit time and place they apply to whenever that might become a potential problem. I know this does not completely fix the problem of making formal logic dialectical, but it does at least allow for otherwise rigid systems of reasoning to outwardly approximate the concept of historical periods transitioning into other historical periods, which is valuable for representing and analyzing claims within computer programs without having to have any kind of fancy new programming environment or computer hardware.

I originally got the idea for adapting formal logic to meta-Marxism when I saw a large language model being used to create an "alchemy game" called _Infinite Craft_ where a player could combine two words and the game would spit out a concept which would be the consequence of putting those two concepts together. (For instance, combining the words "Fire" and "Water" produces "Steam", and combining "Democracy" and "Storm" gives "Revolution", if I remember those combinations right.) I thought that program was really fascinating but I was struck by how bad the combination results would get if you kept playing it for too long — the Idealist assumptions behind language models were quickly going from coherent logic to bad puns and total gibberish, while in my mind, this could be a great game if it actually started with more Materialist assumptions. I started drawing up a concept for a better "mathematician's combination game" but before long I was putting entire sentence-long propositions into it and combining them to produce logical syllogisms, and then I realized I'd actually invented a simple logic engine. From there I started creating a wiki to try to map out the relationships between a wide array of material things ("Z1 Items"), motifs I'd found in videos or articles ("S1 Items"), and propositions putting the objects and motifs into some particular order and making claims about them ("S2 Items", "Z2 Items", and "F2 Items"). Basically, I was laying out a system of second-order logic (you may need a math book to know what that is) where at the second-order level, all the statements could also turn into truth values for other statements when they happened to describe a thing that could be true about another thing only sometimes — for example, one statement could be "A shape with three sides is a triangle" and that statement would turn into the new truth value "Is A Triangle", or a statement could be "Trotskyist parties must form a Fourth International" and that would turn into the new truth value "Trotskyist party".

I had a rather elaborate conceptual system in place for trying to begin figuring out what statements and philosophies were the most accurate and which ones did not match up to material reality, previous historical periods, or whatever specific topic they were actually speaking about. And, in spite of all the science-minded skepticism that went into that system and just how many Stalinist-aligned propositions I started with, because of the particular "formally neutral" way I did things and how statements in each philosophy were set aside in their own swatch color to be evaluated starting from their own context, I still ended up here. I can't emphasize that enough. I feel like at some later time when meta-Marxism is even more refined than it is now, it would be the tool the Fourth International could use to finally get everyone to actually understand Trotskyism and move on from Stalinism. And considering how hard _I_ resisted and kept trying to endlessly question everything before I passed through the other side, I feel like the body of people who would be successfully won over from Stalinism might just produce some of the best Marxist theorists the world has ever known.

Estates as "Social-Philosophical Systems"

With the concepts of color swatch analysis and wavemachine logic established, I can now go into what my actual working model of populations or civilizations is. The surface model of color swatches is the simplified model that's meant to be easy to render visually; the model "underneath" the surface is somewhat more complex.

Within meta-Marxism, the basic units of society are generally objects with antagonistic borders around them, and linked individuals. When individuals are understood in isolation, they are "objects with antagonistic borders", but of course, that condition of isolated individuals doesn't occur often. (In this sense, people are vaguely similar to quarks and gluons. Quarks that make up protons or neutrons do not generally exist in isolation, and if you tear apart the gluon that connects them, the wad of fermion matter actually tears into two new sets of quarks connected by gluons. Humans can be separated at times but when one relationship breaks they generally try to find another one.) Because trying to understand individuals as free-floating "helium atoms" does not make sense, meta-Marxism conceptualizes societies as generally being made up of many small social graphs that may include households, businesses, towns, trade unions, and so forth. Various social graphs can form or break or change size at different times, and the same individuals can be connected into multiple social graphs that exist at different scales. Some of this social graph activity is "obvious", like people being affiliated with center-Liberal or Tory parties, or maybe being affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America (a kind of center-Liberal strategist organization that on the day I wrote this I saw bragging about getting small social-democratic gains in one city; always remember that the Mensheviks, these people, and the Democrats are all blue). Some of this social graph activity is not obvious. Any number of people may be busy silently dividing unions in order to try to form new independent working-class organizations. Some people might be trying to form alliances between local groups of workers and Marxist parties or the Fourth International. Within Liberal-republicanism people will mostly be captured into large "blue" or "brown" graphs (the brown swatch is one of the "precision colors" used to represent an antagonism between Tory parties and non-Tories), but within those graphs there will be new smaller graphs of other colors tracing themselves onto or between what already exists. Meta-Marxism refers to these new graphs as "worker lattices" or just "Lattices", and basically any mathematical model of how the small graphs expand as a _Lattice model_.

The Lattice model is one of those cases where meta-Marxism may actually be unnecessarily precise, and might be presenting a simplified model which is much neater and easier to understand than the messy reality. Either way, it began when I was contemplating the concept of center-Liberal type people having to physically avoid Tory types, and comparing that to Lenin's models of building up a workers' party and then sending it "into the marsh" to try to study local movements and form bridges to them. As I worked with the shape of the Lattice model I saw that it could potentially be used to model any number of situations, including the Chinese revolution (where it would be interesting to actually see the differences between workers' movements and peasant movements on the map) or Che Guevara leading a scattered array of guerilla units. I didn't create the model expecting it would be useful for violent situations, but I was surprised when reading his writings how important the concept of graphs and covering areas became to that situation, and thought, _huh, I guess that's a different type of Lattice that happens to have the same shape_. Fairly early on when looking into the Lattice model, the words that came to mind were "permanent revolution". At that time I was operating off the Stalinist concept of what permanent revolution meant, but the concept of Lattices of organizations really helped me crystallize the overall process of smaller and more localized workers' movements having to form into a larger nation-wide movement over time and link up with a Marxist party to succeed. A Lattice model could just as easily be used to represent a Fourth International, and the process of a Lattice of organizations piercing across multiple countries before ultimately filling them up.

Six years ago, I did not understand Trotskyism at all. But I think the prospect of having a coherent model of Trotskyist revolution within the next ten years (the model, not the revolution) which is as easily comprehensible as Stalinist texts is on the horizon now. That is huge news.

[...]

Trotskyism and Deltarune

I have to confess that because I learned Marxism in such an oddly specific way (skipping over some of Marx and Engels to focus on Lenin and Stalin's era, applying meta-Marxist models to news events or generalized models of historical periods, comparing everything to the conflict between Stalin's party and early Trotskyism) there is a lot of basic Marxist terminology I don't know that I will frequently "reinvent" in different words and become confused "why no Marxist has ever talked about this" when actually there is at least one person who has. For the longest time I was confused on what a cadre was referring to even though I actually had the basic idea jotted down under words like "Lattice model", "filtration", and "Marxist theorist". I understood the concept of setting down "Marxist theorists" to expand organizations ("going into the marsh", as Lenin put it) and how they could only do it if they had a good Materialist understanding of how historical situations functioned, but the way I tended to see things was to point out Marxist theorists or advanced workers and categorize them into swatch colors by their level of knowledge, so that over a region of space "Lattices" were forming based on having a frame of red theorists or a frame of orange theorists rising out of the background mass of blue-aligned people. I think what my experiences have taught me is that there actually are multiple ways to learn Marxism and that applying models to really understand how the models behave can be more helpful than just memorizing things. It's one thing to know a list of events and what terms mean, and it's another thing to be someone who is good enough at Marxist theory to look at some new chewed-up form of terminology that has come out of workers who haven't read theory but do have practical experience and say, "oh wait, this is actually talking about Marxist concepts X, Y, and Z, so the workers really do know what they're doing; I'm going to open up my wiki entry on Marxist cadres and write down the phrase 'Lattice model'". I'm personally fine with going back and learning the traditional terms for the purpose of making any articles I write make more sense, but I think this is an important thing to remember in terms of identifying what class consciousness or consciousness that can form a Fourth International looks like out in the field. Proletarian consciousness is almost "mathematical" in a way, existing a bit below the level of language and more in the form of _imagery_ of objects interacting materially.

In this sense, Western-Marxists in the orbit of Mark Fisher and Stuart Hall who will try to act like the arts and the overall phenomenon of all fictional or non-fictional media are critically important to understanding society and the spread of clear versus unclear forms of consciousness (bourgeois ideology versus Materialism) are not entirely wrong, because in a tiny, vanishingly-small fraction of cases, progressive factions within society will express legitimate Materialist knowledge in highly metaphorical forms either because they don't know how to better express it or because any concrete form of expressing it has been so forbidden this is the only form they can get away with saying out loud. Here my mind goes to the incident in Lenin's writings where underground publications in Russia kept quietly talking about roosters and suns. This is an old practice that dates back to the times of alchemy with alchemists quietly hiding chemical equations in mythical pictures, but it can still be seen today in some remote corners of the internet. One thing I have increasingly become convinced of recently is that the more fantasy works containing "superstructural fantasy worlds" are created to talk about LGBT+ self-discovery and social circles, the closer each of these works inches toward Communism, and even toward Trotskyism — while early works in this genre like _The Chronicles of Narnia_ and _Toy Story_ had absolutely nothing to do with either gay people or Marxism, something seems to have happened by the time LGBT people found _The Wizard of Oz_ where they all started slowly realizing that adventure narratives as described in Jung are something of an illusion and the quest of those three protagonists to become "someone better" was only a quest to better understand the existing reality of living in their own material bodies, and by 2017, gay and transgender people had caused entire console role-playing games to exist which were essentially about rejecting the adventure narrative monomyth as a model of reality and _embracing historical materialism_ as the only way characters can possibly "win" at history in the midst of a cruel, godless reality. You'd have to see it to believe it, but as a recent chapter of the game came out I was floored by the messages that were accidentally being conveyed by _Undertale_ and _Deltarune_. The vast majority of people casually reviewing these games online had not been able to pick up on the dense themes the second game was actually burying inside itself, but when I saw the fifth chapter I could tell the concepts internally driving the narrative were in fact more complex than those people thought. To make a long story shorter, _Deltarune_ is adapting "Theses on Feuerbach" — or at least Feuerbach's _Essence of Christianity_, one of the two — and because queer people are so tired of capitalism they all lined up for an essentially-Communist console RPG. I am not sure _Deltarune_'s writer even knows what he's done. But the closer you look at the story you start to see it as a fable about how the whole industrial world is now just one big sea of competing islands of proletarians, or islands of small businesses, and living in it is pain, and everyone is tired of it, and all the islands need to join up and stop believing the internal mythology that says they need to be separate, or else the world will face the common ruin of everything. It doesn't _state_ "on a planetary scale" but within the specific narrative context of everything it is so close to saying it that I don't think that matters. _Deltarune_ is the most thinly-veiled appeal toward Trotskyism I have ever seen capitalism produce and it has really made me feel like the link between LGBT+ people and Materialism in everyday life should be studied more. The United States has very few people friendly to "Marxism", "Leninism", or even "Materialism", but it does now have a shocking number of people who are friendly to _The Matrix_ and are now essentially using these films and other versions of the same narrative as a Marxist reading list. As strange as it is to say it out loud, I feel like the ICFI may need to study what produced that.

Trotsky and Deng

So, in the first few sections I casually brought up the strange hypothetical of Trotskyism and Stalinism coexisting side-by-side, neither interfering with the other, as separate bordered political entities. To people as knowledgeable on the history of Trotskyism as the ICFI, I can see why at first glance basically nothing about this concept would make sense. And by now, even I have to agree. But, for the sake of the historical record and giving everyone a better understanding of Stalinism, it is worth laying out exactly how I came to conceptualize things that way.

A lot of my early thoughts on "Marxisms coexisting" were direct responses to Cold War rhetoric. My mind would go back to 1930 and think, _but if I'm in the United States, the United States attacking the Soviet Union was the wrong decision_, and as if I had a time machine I would feel like I had to defend Stalin so that today's Russians wouldn't have to suffer the destruction of all democracy and a lack of affordable health care. I would look at China or Cuba or North Korea and I would think to myself, _sure, I wouldn't really want to live there, but I'm also not a Third World peasant, so the people in those countries seeing the social transformations they did must have been amazing for them_. I was thoughtful about the wants and needs of people in other countries, and I always tried to avoid simply eternalizing the exact conditions of the United States and transferring all the things that are currently happening in the United States' unique historical period onto them. I was convinced for a while, incorrectly, that Trotskyists "didn't think like this" and whenever the United States and Europe went around spreading rhetoric that Third World countries were merely behind them in history and letting other countries flood in and herd their people into First World businesses was the solution that Trotskyists didn't actually care and were simply waiting around for global empire to scoop up and assimilate everyone into "The West" so they could avoid having to deal with rival forms of Marxism they didn't understand and have the initial country characteristics they wanted to ensure that the form of Marxism they only subjectively believed to be superior happened first. I generally saw Trotskyists as "unwitting imperialists" with false consciousness about the Third World, so when I would see talks or articles that actually said Trotskyists should _defend_ Cuba my first reaction was intense skepticism — "they still continue to say that Stalinism is bad and they don't want it to exist, so when they claim to care about Cuba, are they just lying to make themselves look good?". My perceptions of Trotskyists had largely been very negative, because the fact that people turning against the Soviet Union had ultimately brought such horrific outcomes while every moment people stood with Stalin's allies had at least delayed those outcomes had colored my entire mental concept of what a Trotskyist was capable of thinking or knowing. And yet, in spite of that, I didn't hate Trotskyists. At every moment on the historical timeline what I saw was Trotsky making some kind of effort to understand Leninism and be part of the Russian Revolution or try to create more Marxist parties in Europe or Mexico; I'd heard about so many of Trotsky's errors and Luxemburg's crude-sounding positions but I knew they weren't reactionaries. So I was confused for a while what Stalinists even had against them. If they were just a bit less talented at Marxism and tended to distort things, wouldn't the sensible position be to simply try to give them ways to help the overall national movement or Stalinist republic out of sight of its central positions of authority? Stalinists would often repeat at people new to Marxism that it was important to not become an ultraleft and to be able to analyze non-Marxist movements such as alliances between social-democratic parties and workers' movements so that Marxist theorists could "go into the marsh" and build bridges between all potential Marxists. So I couldn't understand how Trotskyists were the enemy if they were simply a bit bad at Marxism, and why you wouldn't simply start that "marsh process" over at the beginning of a workers' state to try to turn all the remaining bourgeois progressive movements and distortions of Marxism into Marxism and make use of existing historical elements to get the workers' state to cohere together.

I had taken everything I'd learned so far at that time and had spun this unique new narrative that Stalin was a sensible defender of the Russian Revolution and Trotsky tended to get things wrong but actually when Trotsky wrote his criticism of the Soviet Union's failure to get an upsettingly-long list of features of the 14 republics through socialist transition, it was just some kind of misunderstanding where Trotsky was dissatisfied with the way the CPSU was doing things and somehow if somebody just _went and attended to those things_ everything would have been okay. Marxism is the study of the developmental stages of societies and the best ways to construct government, so surely if Trotsky was a Marxist and he had at least some understanding of the problems in the Soviet Union he could have tried to fix a few of them himself? I was so ready to just put Trotsky back into the Soviet party apparatus and turn him into a bureaucrat "if he'd only behave", or into the concentric system of soviets somewhere so he could learn what was actually wrong with industry and come back with a better assessment of how to begin a transformation of the entire country starting at small scales. Or failing that, I thought, put him into a different group of countries, maybe Europe, and he can simply go build Trotskyism there. The point of any particular cluster of Marxist theorists is that they solve what civilization is supposed to look like and as they are doing it people put down structures to realize that civilization. So maybe Trotsky didn't have quite the correct schema for the Soviet Union but if you sent him to Europe (and assume he somehow assembled a party that could defeat the Axis powers), maybe he would be better at solving Europe. I noticed this odd recurring theme in Trotsky's works that it vaguely seemed like he was very dissatisfied with the Soviet Union, for reasons that he himself admitted were connected to it being a backward Third World country, but didn't seem to have as many bad things to say about the United States or Europe given that those countries, unimpeded by their own imperialism, were already developing more smoothly. So my logical conclusion had been that Trotsky must simply be tired of Third World countries and prefer countries or clusters of nationalities with more First-World characteristics. I was big on the idea of "country characteristics". I thought that had to be one of the explanations of why Trotskyism existed. And the funny thing is that I wasn't completely wrong, because First World countries do have more globalization and interconnected economies, making them less likely to accept Stalinism. But I had taken it a bit further than it was really supposed to go, thinking that if Trotsky recognized "uneven development" and also believed in an international permanent revolution that would span "a number of countries" then it must be because he was describing the fragment of world socialist transition that would happen inside European-style country characteristics. Blockheaded analysis, yet again, but this is what happens when you try to understand the whole world and all its material contradictions from inside Stalinism.

I was a bit biased toward Mao at the time. I was halfway convinced he "had it figured out" and when he wrote that one article about making sure everybody's opinions were heard so people wouldn't disrupt the organization ("On correcting mistaken ideas in the party") he must have known the actual correct method for preventing a Left Opposition. If I couldn't understand why Trotsky created the Fourth International, then surely he must have done it because all the existing Marxist parties were like a Fourth International but bigger and more successful and due to arbitrary disagreements that had physically split the two instances of Marxism apart early Trotskyism was simply trying to start the same thing over again smaller with far too few people. Because I didn't understand the difference between a Third International and a Fourth International, I was stuck on this weird theory that if somehow Mao hadn't allowed China to turn its back on the Third International that somehow he could have seen the division between Stalinism and Trotskyism coming and fixed the entire problem. I'm not sure why I attributed so much theoretical mastery to Mao when I knew he never stopped the arrival of Deng Xiaoping and I even knew that Dengists in China were now making a habit of claiming that everything they were doing was consistent with Mao. I guess I simply chalked that one up to typical revisionist methods, because growing up in the United States I'd seen an absurd number of different distortions of Marxism that would always try to argue that a few people forming a cooperative or a cluster of actual frontier settlers forming an anarcho-syndicalist civilization in Israel or a perfect Menshevik party that actually manages to regulate capitalists through parliament was _exactly_ what was said in Marx. Sometimes it was hard to tell whether people in various situations across history were giving an inaccurate account of Marxist parties they didn't belong to, or a perfectly accurate account of revisionist tendencies passed down from old traditional revisionist standbys that just mysteriously happened to be told in the first person.

In the very beginning around 2020 I was still largely standing on top of bourgeois philosophical frameworks, not really believing them sincerely, but trying to see if I could find ways to twist them toward an honest analysis of Marxism instead of a distorted analysis of Liberal-republicanism. I liked to play around with the concept of bourgeois ethics and the concepts of Good and Evil. Those seemed at first glance to be completely inadequate for explaining why the Cold War had happened, but when PragerU dropped a video in 2015 about how Trotsky supposedly proved US imperialism (!), that video really stuck in my mind for a while as one of the funniest and most obviously-incorrect things I'd ever seen. (I actually made an edit of that video where I had Bret Stephens giving a satirical "Trotskyist talk" that included all the most quintessentially "baffling" things I'd heard Trotskyists say, as well as a few Stalinist talking points I put in there so that the joke wouldn't be hating on Trotskyism as much as replicating the feel of an IMT talk that seems to toss around a bunch of irrelevant complaints and then end up at a good conclusion.) Sometimes I would set up scenarios where because Liberal-republicans believe in standpoint epistemology they can't defend Trotsky without asking what Trotsky actually wants and then they become obligated to realize a Fourth International; sometimes I would take the concept of some 40% of US people believing in a god and set up a scenario where if something resembling the bible god exists then Trotsky would have to have gone somewhere when he died but if the US believes God sided against Stalinism and the Soviet Union believes God sided with Stalinism and everyone believes something different about Trotsky, where he went would become a total paradox because you can't be in separation from God and not in separation from God at the same time. I didn't take those particular scenarios very seriously. One thing I took a little more seriously was the Liberal-republican concept of intersectionality and the notion of _conglomerate anarchies_ that had grown up around it. (My term.)

Within the United States there has been this gap between the promises of Liberal-republicanism of granting human rights to everybody just because the Constitution says every individual in the country has human rights and has human rights separately and in parallel, and the reality of actually trying to organize civil rights movements and seeing that there is no actual incentive for any of them to cooperate with each other outside the fact that _Tories hate all of them_. In this weird way, all progress in the United States is driven by utter hatred and no progress occurs without hatred, only different minority demographics radially oppressing each other and regenerating each other's oppression. Anarchists will do everything to cover up the real nature of this process. They'll tell you that the radial oppression wouldn't occur if people just practiced the Ideal of intersectionality. They'll tell you that the natural state of human beings is for all demographics to live in harmony and Tories are the only ones who spontaneously invented Prejudice on a Thursday. They'll tell you that Communists don't understand how to be human and only a community free of scientific analysis of communities and formed out of the passion of the moment is a real community. They'll appeal to incomprehensible concepts of Rhizome and groups of people never consisting of individuals and being totally uncountable, all inherently clumping inward and inward like iron and lead atoms increasingly crunching all the heavy atoms around them into a black hole. They'll... just go make a bunch of videos about _Pokémon_ that they think are not political but are actually all an unconscious way of expressing their desire for 18 abstract Ideals (Pokémon types) that constantly fight and compete with each other to always have been designed to live in harmony as necessary indivisible parts of a single cosmic Creation. This is more or less what people think the United States _is_ — a perfect indivisible conglomerate of different but perfectly parallel identities that _just happen_ not to destroy each other in a way that is inexplicable and incomprehensible but also natural and sacred. In medieval Europe people used to speak of "hierarchy" as this concept that kings, nobles, and clergy believed that the pyramidal order they had created was holy. Now it seems like that concept has shifted a bit so that the god of the 21st Century is Arceus the world-god, and the sacred order handed down by Arceus is many local competing islands which are ruled not by specific individual owners but by the simple agreement by any possible decision-making representative of the island that they will all remain islands competing with the world outside them but they will all live in harmony. What do you call such a "voluntary agreement"? There are few reasonable things to call that other than using the word _anarchy_ in a way that is completely upsetting to anarchists. Hierarchy has already yielded to anarchy, but has become it "in the wrong way".

This sets the stage for why I felt compelled to see the overall world as a vaguely static system and make everything "coexist". Some forms of anarchism — admittedly still not every one of them — have been taken up as the weapon of Liberal-republicanism such that U.S. people are being relentlessly assaulted every day with _two_ bourgeois ideologies that each have their own harsh consequences if not obeyed; Liberal-republicanism and anarchism have lined up side-by-side and are now just one big comprehensive system of formal and informal government that take turns doing hired jobs for each other, and to say the least, it's getting tiring.

Thus, after being fed the line that _center-Liberals and anarchists have to coexist and center-Liberals and kulaks had to coexist and trans people and alleged rapists with a sky-colored letter on their name tag have to coexist and literally everyone who isn't Donald Trump has to coexist but J.K. Rowling and Rebecca Sugar can't coexist but Communists and Kropotkinists and Arceus-loving agorists have to coexist and every country and every other country has to coexist unless they're Deng Xiaoping explicitly telling countries to coexist_ for 27 years straight, you can see why my head was spinning and I simply had to start sorting out the whole puzzle in a methodical, logical way _immediately_ before I had any real time to gather up all the necessary background reading an "Orthodox" Marxist usually needs. I would do the readings at the pace I could but I had a very urgent need to actually calculate through the complicated math problem of which people in society I was actually obligated to obey the ethical imperatives of to successfully gain any allies and which people were just knocking me around. I no longer believe the phrase "The Left" (or "leftists") means anything whatsoever. What philosophy people align with says very little about whether you can trust them. It's almost more accurate to say people are just plain garbage wherever you go and the only thing anyone can actually believe in is the Materialist analysis of society and the prospect that if you take accurate observations of reality it will reward you for correct predictions. When anarchists and Tories were both becoming insufferable and actually impossible to talk to, I retreated into my "lair" behind a sizable shelf of dragons and math books and I just started writing down every statement I could ever remember anarchists saying, every statement I could ever remember Trotskyists saying, every statement I could remember center-Liberals saying, every statement I remembered from Tories, every statement I remembered from Dengists, and every statement I could remember coming from Stalinists, and I stopped judging them based on my own desires and simply started asking, "okay, but what does this statement _actually mean_?". I knew that there was no chance in _hell_ that all of these contradictions between different philosophies were ever going to work themselves out through discussion and "community". So I was going to solve them using some form of mathematical reasoning. I was going to just take all these groups of people and solve them so I could stop retreating away from all people since the year 2020 and one day come out of my house. I wasn't going to be picky any more. Anarchists said "we aren't going to tolerate Stalin"? Okay. Trotskyists said "you can't create socialism in one country"? All right, I'm writing it down. Stalinists said "Trotskyists are liars and you can't trust them"? Okay, I'm adding that too. Maoists said "Deng enabled the bureaucracy"? Got it. Center-Liberals said "regulations are Actually magic spells that absolutely _Penrose-world-line_ capitalists into inevitably perfecting Liberalism"? Nasty; it's recorded. I was so angry and tired, but I wasn't one to direct my anger toward hurting people. The only revenge I knew was to maliciously comply with what everyone said until I had given them exactly what they asked for but given it to them so precisely they were disconcerted and upset. And this was the condition I was in when trying to solve Trotskyism. It felt like it was the only philosophy that hadn't already abused me, but I was quite used to human societies in general being hazardous and unreasonable and I was fully prepared for it to be just like the rest of them and ultimately stop just a few unsolved contradictions short of making sense. I'd come up with an entire scheme of existential materialism to "objectify" human beings and reduce all groups of people to semi-deterministic processes almost resembling computations. I was ready to just accept that people were more physical and chemical-like, driven by arbitrary A × B equations that simply _led to things_, than they were reasonable actors.

So... imagine my surprise when I found out I didn't really have to do that and by trying to create "meta-Marxism" out of Stalinism I was more or less solving a problem that Stalinism had set up.

Within the past year or so of developing my framework for analyzing all philosophies starting at their surface claims and evident social links with other philosophies, I had to ask myself the seemingly strange question of whether Deng Xiaoping Thought is actually a form of anarchism. At first this would seem like a silly question, because anarchism tells you it's against states and Deng Xiaoping Thought is a statist system. But here's the thing about that: anarchism lies to you by constantly resorting to Liberal-republican civil rights legislation enforced by the same state and cops it hates, and Deng Xiaoping Thought fundamentally believes that the correct path for a nation-state is whatever brings nation-states out of domination and into harmony. This is very, very similar to the things typical United States anarchists say. So is Deng Xiaoping Thought a form of what anarchism actually is, or is anarchism a variation on Dengism? I now realize that if anything you get better insights by looking at it the latter way around. There are at least two kinds of anarchism, the "charcoal" kind that is practiced by nameless ordinary people and the "blue" kind that is practiced by various different academics including David Graeber (much of this can also be termed _agorism_), and blue anarchism is the revisionist wing out of the two that will certainly hand people back to capitalism. In this sense blue anarchism is the Deng Xiaoping Thought of anarchism. Just as the USFI-IMT axis is the bluest wing of Trotskyism that has ended up seeking harmony with center-Liberal Labor parties and the Tories and outright capitalists, blue anarchism seeks harmony and complementarity with all existing fragments of capitalism. To some extent this happens because of the way capitalism deliberately removed all forms of structure from kingdoms and forced people to become dependent on "structure experts" (capitalists, "Archons") to continuously solve society's structure as it would come to constantly and endlessly change. Anarchists seem to silently want to believe this naïve myth that if structure is removed from society and it is consequently "free" from all authorities that previously conflated themselves with forms of structure (nobility, clergy, Stalin, etc.) then no new structure-experts conflated with structures can ever emerge. But this myth is dangerously wrong, because it doesn't take into account the concept that a lot of these Archons actually emerge in order to _prevent_ violence. Much of the appeal of capitalism is that once capitalists fill up an area they can all tell everyone exactly how to live their lives at every hour of the day and pass laws onto the entire rest of the population based on which forms of activity are recognized as conducive to capitalism and which forms of activity are "dangerous, illegal" businesses. Think for a moment about the fact that money laundering is actually just running a business, and prostitution is just running a business, and dealing drugs is just running a business, and online platforms having to worry about whether they're hosting "illegal content" is just running a business. Capitalists don't materially care whether an online platform left up a graphic beheading video or an unofficial copy of a perfectly innocuous movie or an impressive fan-made "nintendo game" — the only people they allow to remain alive and think about the workings of society are the people who thoughtlessly accept the requirement to only do the arbitrary pre-approved list of activities that are recognized as necessary organs of a world sectioned up into capitalist businesses. Capitalism is quite a totalitarian system when you think about it — if that word is to mean anything whatsoever (and there's otherwise a very decent argument to be made it's complete nonsense), then let it be applied to the fact that capitalism only spits out a lengthy constitution full of ways you're supposedly free after it has outright eliminated all humans who have not been molded and designed from their ancestry to their adulthood to be ideal capitalists from the human gene pool. Blue anarchism cannot make progress without hatred, and it cannot offer freedom without loading every social interaction with the potential for punishment and deleting all possible incorrect thoughts from society by weaponizing natural selection.

By now, I've come to understand how truly monstrous capitalism really is. First there is capitalism, which despite a lot of psychological projection around such phrases from Liberal-republicans, really does eliminate anything that doesn't agree with it. Then there is the great variety of attempts to get humanity out of capitalism, and in general, they all promise to get rid of some aspect of capitalism, thus creating the odd result that whenever they fail to do their task they will all logically end in irony by regenerating everything they said they wouldn't do. When Maoism fails to preserve Bolshevism, it "ironically" brings back all the injustices of capitalism. Likewise when the historical Militant Tendency or IMT fails to actually create any successful fissure through the surface of capitalism, it "ironically" hands power back to capitalists, and when blue anarchism has no serious strategy for breaking up the boundaries of the capitalist estate and laying down an equally powerful defense against capitalism over the same area it "ironically" begins cracking down on the presence of every individual it finds undesirable to its "small-and-local community" and viciously purging Communists from reality itself. I used to think Trotskyists were part of this great blue continuum of awful. But many people still think Stalinism is part of the continuum of awful. Are they right? The real answer is a superposition. Stalin was totally devoted to making sure that the Soviet Union would not turn blue, but Stalin's party was a failure that undeniably allowed the Soviet Union to turn strawberry, and a party cannot survive through one person. So, the merit of a Trotskyist party has to be judged by how capable it is of lifting populations — hopefully several — into a movement of a new swatch color and _out_ of the fatal sea of blue. This is the key to whether different movements can be expected to coexist. When a Marxist party appears its behavior is generally characterized by attempting to separate itself from capitalism. So, a red or orange party is inherently intolerant of a blue party. It does not bring intolerance in the form of hating that party's people, but it does bring in the reasonable requirement that blue movements do not get to link up with other blue movements to defeat Communism, and no other Marxism is allowed to let the blue movements do this either. Strawberry "Marxisms" (or, republics pretending to be Marxisms) do not uphold this barrier, so red parties and orange parties do not tolerate them. Likewise capitalists inside a strawberry government will quickly eliminate red and orange parties because those are quick to mess up their plan of linking to blue parties and putting the country back to blue (Liberal-republicanism). So, why do orange parties try to get rid of red parties? This one was the most complicated for me to try to phrase in terms of my simple diagram-friendly system. The short answer is something like that Stalin's party, ostensibly red, put up a bunch of strawberry governments. Stalin's party decided that it would attempt to extend over about half the world and then stop, and the result is that all of the edges of the Third International either turned blue themselves or conceded to blue. Parties are always in motion either toward something capitalism-approved or away from capitalism, so it was not long before this surrender at the edges swept back through the entire thing and reached the core parties that were supposed to be "protected".

So, Trotsky did care about the internal structure of a country. The color swatch system communicates this easily — to give one of the most succinct summaries possible of _The Revolution Betrayed_, Trotsky did not want _any_ countries turning strawberry. The world may or may not already have a precise understanding of how exactly it is that areas like the Soviet Union became overrun with bureaucrats (China directly handing control to its ally capitalists is more obvious), but either way he was able to leave a clear message for everyone that the effort required to get out of capitalism is almost unimaginably great. Many people are still surprised at the scope of the Soviet Union and its bloc of allies, and yet the real nightmare is realizing that _it wasn't enough_. The true level of effort required to get out of capitalism is almost unimaginable. Toward that end, Marxism does have to become more extensive and robust than it ever was before, and more capable of recognizing social phenomena on their own level such that all social phenomena that aid capitalism can be theoretically deconstructed from top to bottom so decisively that there is no way for any of them to fool anyone any longer. ("This is what Community is, this is what Rhizome is, this is what Arceus is; fiction is fiction but here is what metaphysics and Idealism are and here is why they're a problem.") Why do we need meta-Marxism? To expose every single one of the blue philosophies, and to expose the situations in which every one of them leads back to problems like infighting, stagnation, oppression of demographics, and imperialism. If anarchism is a problem, it must be exposed too, along with sophisticated but false concepts that First World countries only have to tolerate Stalinist states to make them stable — no, as long as First World countries contain substantially powerful capitalists those capitalists will inevitably take charge of the First World country and warp Stalinism into Dengism. Perhaps it's really the capitalists' fault that Stalinism historically doesn't survive, but that doesn't take away the material fact that all the capitalists and capitalist-leaning bureaucrats still have the power to join up across countries and undo everything. If capitalist-leaning bureaucrats in a strawberry government somehow figured out how to start twisting an orange party and getting _it_ to start regenerating capitalists, Trotskyists would have no reason to tolerate that either. So, inasmuch as tolerating Stalinism allows capitalists to stay in place in the First World, once a Fourth International has a chance of stopping that same outcome the Stalinist party more or less has to go. This "risky" transition from crimson or strawberry to orange becomes okay when there is reason to believe the Fourth International really can overwrite the red party with a functioning orange party. If Trotskyism covered two thirds of the world, not simply with parties but with something more resembling the crimson estate seen at the _very beginning_ of the Soviet Union, the remaining third would have a harder time resisting than it would joining.

I won't say I'm not still nervous about what will happen to the remaining three or so strawberry countries. Every strawberry country turning into Russia and periodically killing its neighbors is entirely possible! The more desperate and cornered a population is, the more likely it is to regenerate Duginism-Zionism — the two are nearly the same in that they both believe that poorer populations' oppression is only solved by immediately making other countries pay for it in land and blood. And who can really blame them for that choice, if history has done everything to isolate them and crush them from every angle and given them no other options? This is the danger of putting pressure on any Third World country from within other countries. Given a bit of pressure countries will burst their regimes, but given _enough_ pressure, countries will never choose self-genocide when capitalism is conveniently available instead. This brought terrible outcomes to Russia, where the set of people handed capitalism were given no incentive to join together in conglomerate anarchy and every incentive to believe in capitalism only to compete with each other to gain the most physical assets. Tell Russians to respect capitalist islands, there goes Ukraine. But one thing must be remembered: only to Communists is imperialism actually a taboo. Pressure can drive anyone else toward accepting imperialism under the rule of capitalists or outright nazism if cities worth of people dying around them is the alternative. This is approximately why feudal orders and decades- to centuries-long warring states periods happened in the first place: pressure from surrounding kingdoms that all wanted to expand encouraged everyone to support the nobility and empire for the overall population to survive.

So, I have my doubts that Trotskyism should even be spreading so much rhetoric against strawberry countries across the world at all. Keep in mind how poorly most people understand Trotskyism — most people who would see this rhetoric are effectively no better at Marxism than Stalinists, and I've just given you a thorough examination of exactly how far off from a correct understanding of Marxism most Stalinists are. I can't repeat this enough: no matter how many people become sympathetic to groups that claim to have Trotskyist programs, almost nobody alive in the 2020s actually understands a Fourth International. So in effect, rhetoric about how "Stalinism was always doomed" or "Mao handed China to capitalists" has been teaching everyone that attempts at a Third International need to be overwritten with more Third Internationals, and that if the United States' imperialists manage to pressure Cuba out of state businesses everyone may as well support the imperialists when they explode the strawberry government and take away its national independence specifically for imperialism. My mistake was thinking that problem was Trotskyism's fault, when really, it's more like capitalism and Stalin's Marxism that did it accidentally. It can be very difficult to get people to correct or apologize for unconscious accidents deliberately advanced by only a few conscious actors. While it may be dreadfully popular for social-democrats and anarchists to throw around a proverbial "we" that "let everything happen", the reality is that people everywhere will basically never be able to accept that they are responsible for such things — including climate change, Israel, and First World capital obliterating national independence and any possibility of "democracy" — until they have truly unified into new structures and come to a new consciousness that allows them to really actually make choices and take action in order to stop them. Trotskyists think the world needs a Fourth International to empower the proletariat. The reality is that the world needs a Fourth International to get everyone out of thinking in terms of nation-states and imperialism, because it will keep doing both up until the day Trotskyist socialism can actually be realized.

Is Liberal-republicanism an anarchism?

By this point, I hope I have succeeded at laying out a basic outline of how meta-Marxism is different from previous formulations of Marxism, and the ways in which it might or might not appear strange and quirky to anyone seeing it for the first time. Crimson Marxism (Stalinist analysis) is bottom-up. Violet Marxism is top-down. Violet Marxism looks at entire systems first, identifies large-scale contradictions, and then looks inside the parts of each major contradiction to see how they operate, in order to assign every level of "pieces" a swatch color. This is when meta-Marxism stops being a "beginner" method and reveals dialectical processes: identify a sea of workers inside blue capitalist territories, or identify a forest of orange soviets beneath a strawberry ministry but across from an orange party, and you see how class-associated formations can break out of other formations of the wrong color to realize across a region into larger estates (class rule or "dictatorship"). Violet Marxism preoccupies itself with "defining philosophy objects" such as "Marxisms" and "anarchisms" only to allow everyone to more effectively start that process.

So... what _is_ Liberal-republicanism — what is it really?

We know first of all that Liberal-republicanism is not a Marxism. It is not a version of Stalinism or Trotskyism; all its closest allies relentlessly persecute Communists. It is also not a version of Deng Xiaoping Thought, because despite the two being almost identical on the inside Liberal-republicanism also insists on persecuting Dengism. This is some very curious behavior, because if you had never read Liberal-republican theory and only read the works of Marx and Engels you might start to believe that if both kinds of countries are capitalism and based on capitalist class-rule they should be indistinguishable. Even Trotskyists will go around claiming that capitalism has been entirely restored in China, but a Marxist should know that capitalism cannot separate itself from government and whenever it exists it is inherently connected to the process of forming a republic. So, why exactly are Liberal-republicanism and Deng Xiaoping states fighting? There is no satisfactory explanation for this within Marxism. Up to now, this has been a genuine explanatory gap where Marxism has left a dissonance between how it _claims_ capitalism generates governments and how capitalism _actually_ generates governments.

Let's look inside Liberal-republicanism one more time. Inside the United States are the Republican and Democratic parties. Inside China is China's central government. But, wait, the CPC isn't part of the United States political system, is it? Liberal-republicans think it isn't. But in reality, capitalists in China are manufacturing huge numbers of products and shipping them to the United States, where sky- and rust-aligned businesses buy the products, and sky- and rust-aligned businesses are occasionally shipping products such as animated movies back to China. The relationship between the Democrats and the CPC is similar to the relationship between the Republicans and the Democrats. But, the Republicans and the Democrats hate each other, and... _oh_. They also both hate the CPC. So they really _do_ have the same relationship. They all exchange products with each other but they all hate each other and would prefer a world in which they could get rid of each other's leadership and replace it with their own. Well, maybe not the CPC, which has no interest in clearing out the Republicans or Democrats, but definitely the other two, who have already been clearing out the leadership of Cuba to effectively begin adding Cuba to the Democratic and Republican Parties.

So, a contradiction emerges. Liberal-republicanism is a nation-state or "republicanized kingdom" composed of parties, but parties do not all belong to the same country. Within Deng Xiaoping states, each party forms its own different country. But Liberal-republicanism doesn't like this. It despises the concept of Deng Xiaoping states having only one party. Why is this? You will hear a lot of rationalizations out of Liberal-republicanism as to why a capitalist republic "has" to have multiple parties and a lot of them don't really explain anything. China is getting by just fine with a cooperative congress of only one party; by now its overall set of problems is not any worse than the United States'. And nobody enjoys the United States being divided or becoming more and more polarized every time it insists there must be two parties. So from a capitalist point of view isn't there every incentive for the United States to transition to a Deng Xiaoping state? This would better match everything said in the United States constitution about everyone being equal and the government not being created to be an instrument of one group of capitalists persecuting another. This would better match popular imagery of the United States being "indivisible". So if both Liberal-republicanism and Deng Xiaoping Thought are capitalism and they both hold similar amounts of government oppression, neither one inherently generating more, then why isn't Dengism logically the better choice? Why is such a suggestion so inherently offensive to United States capitalists?

Here, oddly enough, we can go to Stalinists for the answers. When Stalin's party came to power, they assumed that they could get rid of capitalism and create a basic instance of socialism within one country. This rests on some very interesting assumptions. In order to get rid of capitalism within one country, there must first be one countable and separable instance of capitalism only extending through one country (or through one easily-defined region of 14 republics). Stalinists assumed that capitalism was fundamentally countable; they assumed that there could exist "exactly one capitalism" or "exactly two capitalisms". When early Maoism disintegrated into Deng Xiaoping Thought, this assumption was carried through into Deng Xiaoping states. And Deng Xiaoping states contained their supposed single instance of capitalism in the borders of a central capitalist party. This is to say: if capitalism is countable whatsoever, then the United States indisputably contains at _least two capitalisms_, not just one.

I think it is arguable that capitalism actually is semi-countable. And this is why the United States is so angry at Deng Xiaoping states: capitalists' favorite form of society is not _capitalism_, but _multicapitalism_. China, Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea are some of the only places on earth that have ever had _monocapitalism_ as described in Marx and Engels. These countries all developed monocapitalism because of an error made by Marxist theorists, in which historical Marxist theorists usually assumed that a country full of capitalists is one united body of capitalists called _the capitalist class_, as opposed to two or more truly distinct bodies of capitalists called _semi-countable capitalist estates_. Nobody could have guessed this correctly before 1953. Monarchy appears to be a unified system which is only broken up into warring states by the destruction of monarchy. But capitalism is entirely different because it is fundamentally made of social links between individual capitalists. These arbitrary social links simultaneously ensure that capitalism is never entirely dissolved and that capitalism is never entirely unified into a single society.

This is why, the day I discovered an unbelievably terrible Lacanian book called _The Excessive Subject_ which was attempting to dismantle every progressive ideology in existence which did not promote capitalism, I jokingly called it "the best book I've ever read on Marxism". In assuming that Liberal capitalism was composed of perfectly atomic individuals, Molly Ann Rothenberg started with an assumption that was _so_ terrible and _so_ uniquely mired in capitalist thinking that she unknowingly handed me the key to cracking all the central assumptions of capitalism and everything wrong with it. Today I call this book a work of dark genius, because quite honestly, she may have accidentally saved the world in her attempt to destroy it.

Liberal-republicanism is approximately two capitalisms. Deng Xiaoping states are approximately one. But the world as a whole always generally contains multicapitalism, not monocapitalism. This is the crux of all the ideological differences between Liberal-republicanism and Dengism. Dengism values unity and harmony because it is in fact largely unified. Liberal-republicanism values division and spreads ample myths about that being a form of "freedom" because it itself is divided.

So what about anarchism? Are there any unique characteristics to the divided pieces inside Liberal-republicanism, and is there any relationship between these pieces and anarchism?

Logically speaking, if we have established that Liberal-republicanism is formed out of islands of capitalism, and the historical evidence has established that anarchism is generally not very different from early forms of capitalism (you will have to read other Marxist articles for an explanation on that), it would almost have to be the case that anarchism is simply a very strange manifestation of a Liberal-republican party with completely different goals than most others but which in any particular country region is still simply one of the many wings of multicapitalism. Anarchists will often deny this, telling you that anarchism is actually the rejection of political parties and the black flag of charcoal anarchism represents the melding of separate political islands into a non-political structure which is truly uncountable. But, whether those claims make any actual sense or not, that's _charcoal_ anarchism, not _blue_ anarchism. Whenever Tory parties show up and propose any actually threatening policies within Liberal-republican governments, all the world's David Graebers and Slavoj Žižeks and all the charcoal anarchists as well can never seem to get out of the bad habit of grouping themselves into "The Left". This shouldn't make any sense if anarchism was a truly uncountable phenomenon which was truly done with political parties, because in practice, any formulation of "The Left" or "The U.S. Left" inevitably becomes a political party, and inevitably collects political candidates that become official Liberal-republican theorists and go to the Liberal-republican state. A Stalinist party equipped with meta-Marxism can talk about "The Left"; an anarchist cannot. So, why is it that blue anarchists are far more obsessed with the concept of "The Left" than Communists ever have been, and with being the one true political theory that far more than Stalinism or Trotskyism will supposedly be the only thing that can ever rise out of Toryism? Because blue anarchism is in every single way Liberal-republicanism's child and heir.

Now, we're at a point where the United States constitution can finally be of use to Marxists. The Constitution promises a bunch of "freedoms". These are said to already exist — "inalienable", "self-evident". There is no such thing as an inalienable right, as every transgender person who encourages people to go around saying "trans rights are human rights" but has been recently arrested over a drivers' license would know. And there is no such thing as an "obvious" right, as everyone who has tried to explain gay marriage to a Tory would know. So in what sense are these rights "inalienable" or "self-evident" at all? Stalin's party would know the answers to this one — when a particular faction of people is freed from competition with other factions over a government and it is not bound by class rule such that it is merely removed from factional competition by the winners, then for the duration of the new historical period it has created it receives tentatively inalienable rights. The proletariat does not even have to properly control a republic for this much to be true, even though in such a situation the republic and its new rights are likely to only last for a temporary period of time. So, the obvious conclusion from looking at Stalin's party is that inalienable rights _are nothing more than_ the product of a specific socially-linked faction of people becoming totally independent from another faction and not subject to its culture, laws, or government. One of many possible definitions of a _revolution_, then, is a historical process within a specific limited time period which completely separates one self-contained political faction with a distinct political philosophy from others: in China, a Dengist revolution against feudalism was achieved even if the meaningful results of that revolution seen by the people are limited.

We have already established that no instance of capitalism is actually independent from others, and in this sense, all _bourgeois revolutions_ of this type within a period of capitalism are futile. So this exposes another contradiction: if capitalism separating itself from nobility and other nation-states is the real source of "inalienable rights", and capitalism cannot be separated from bourgeois parties that group capitalists into nation-states, but bourgeois parties cannot actually separate themselves out and become independent in a period of capitalism, then bourgeois parties should not be capable of granting "inalienable rights", even though they are effectively the source of "inalienable rights" that has supposedly already granted people some. This, like many things, would seem to be a case of basic formal logic failing to capture transitions between historical periods: a body of capitalists granting inalienable rights the first time ought to be different from a body of capitalists granting inalienable rights when there is already capitalism. But this is not actually a sensible objection, because today millions of Liberal-republicans still ardently believe that capitalism can continue to grant people more and more inalienable rights _against something other than feudalism_ that it has never granted them before. "Capitalism cannot transition people into capitalism a second time" _would_ make sense except that the facts are on the table that whenever anyone says it can't, wide swaths of average people almost violently object that it must. Some things can be attributed to old forms of consciousness, but when Marxism flat-out starts to lose its predictive power as the same "false consciousness" is generated over and over for decades and decades across more and more crises we have to ask if something else is going on. The limited cluster of Stalinists holding down the Soviet Union was not holding on against Trotskyism and global capitalism simply due to "false consciousness". Stalin's party was holding on based on its concrete historical situation of materially facing attacks from two different directions. Its behavior was not "logical", but when it was under attack from capitalist pressure and a then-disorganized axis of right-Liberals, anarchists, and early Trotskyists, it did not have any real time to think, and simply had to act. The question, then, is: is this what has happened to the overall body of blue anarchists and Democrats?

Here is my bold hypothesis that I think only a meta-Marxist could make. Anarchism is a form of society in which people form together based on arbitrary social links, as in a tribal society, or as in a small town linked together by the relationships between small or medium-sized businesses, and in which all the people within the society _believe_ it is linked together on the basis of morality. The codes of morality believed by an anarchism may include "No hierarchy", "No domination", "No capitalist will own all the businesses", "No capitalist will control a party that controls the entire government", or "Society is based on a social contract". [*AF] Anarchists believe that codes of morality are enough to keep societies from developing into kingdoms or Duginisms, but they are mistaken, because there is one thing codes of morality can never ever solve, which is the division of people into two separate socially-linked groups of people. This can happen for the tiniest reasons like two people believing in different sects of a religion or breaking up with a lover or accidentally excluding a demographic with no malicious intention. But the moment two people are incompatible and do not want to see each other anarchism immediately breaks down, because as soon as two people completely cease to have a relationship there is no incentive for them to follow every moral pronouncement that somebody on the other side of a relationship division has made any more. If person A shows up with a stack of evidence that person B is a rapist and person B denies it, all good will will quickly break down between the clusters of people around person A and person B, and person B will quickly be barred from creating social contracts that apply to person A's friends; if person X insults transgender people and says it is impossible for gender identity to be true, and person Y is transgender, person Y has no incentive to maintain a non-hierarchical society where person X is not put below person Y. In one sense social bonds are a terrible basis for forming a society, because the moment people stop liking each other for any reason an empty void opens up between two newly separate societies where civilization ceases to exist. Anarchists have spent at least 176 years trying to solve this problem with absolutely no success. They can try to say that divisions between societies are the real location of government (Bellegarrigue), they can try to say that prejudices are culturally fabricated and not real, they can try to say that bodies of capitalists are divided because choosing Greed divides each capitalist from the rest of society, they can try to say that Marxist party filtration is a form of hierarchy where Marxist parties have divided themselves from society by choosing Elitism, they can try to say that societies that would be divided "ought" to be merged together just because "societal pluralism" is inherently good. But an anarchist can never un-abuse an abused child, wind back a war between two tribal societies, or make a divorced couple get un-divorced. There will always be gaps between human beings where relationships do not exist which no anarchist Ideal can possibly bridge. But given enough of them, absolutely any of these gaps can stack back up to divisions so big Bellegarrigue would call them "governments". It has been terribly popular lately for blue anarchists to label any criticism of religion as a simple violation of societal pluralism on the grounds that any criticism of religion can be used as a lever to exclude Catholics or exclude Muslims or exclude Mormons specifically, while the only thing that is acceptable to anarchists is attempting to rationalize how all religions and spiritualities are true and how secular morality is essentially a new form of religion. [*as] But in the real world, the moment there is one church full of Tories believing that gay people are unholy, one church full of center-Liberals believing that accepting transgender people is a virtue, and one group of atheists that happens to believe that homosexuality is real but transgender people are dangerous to women, they have already drawn their lines of compatibility as far as which individuals will be able to form links and which will not, and none of the groups is going to agree accept any of the other groups' versions of morality, even if they are told that they all belong to an overarching society and code of morality that says they are obligated to all unify on one moral code. The natural response of anarchists is to draft up a lot of books and magazines (today, videos) that supposedly prove that other people have unacceptable codes of morality and which codes of morality are the final cosmic truth that all other codes of morality must bend themselves around just because the absolute moral truth is what's Right. But ultimately, none of these texts will be more powerful than the sheer power of which groups of people are socially connected and which are not — even at scales too small for proper class analysis, the current body of people in a group as distinguished from the people who are not will generate its ideology. Here we arrive at the United States' national independence movement. People moved to the early United States colonies to be free to form a new society by simply linking together with people like them. They accepted having to work for others to pay the voyage, but they knew people supporting each other in community was the way society would form afterward. At that time many people were Christians, but either way many people believed in morality and over time, the thirteen colonies drifted to each largely contain people of specific Christian sects. In reality, everyone had religious freedom because they segregated away from each other and physically avoided the question of which religion was more correct. When the British crown became intolerable, the people of the United States got behind their best experts on government in order to create a new society that would respect each of the 13 colonies' human rights. The need to banish the British empire brought up questions that I think frankly the people of the United States otherwise didn't want to answer. The United States constitution was something of a formality to enshrine the way in which separating people into homogeneous clumps of "community" ensured each one freedom from the others. This is the way in which the fiction of "liberal democracy" ultimately emerged: if people were getting by making all their decisions within localized "communities", government by the people must in fact be attempting to preserve all these localized decisions and immediately giving the upper levels as little to do as possible so everyone can act like they don't exist. So, _if_ the United States began as a form of anarchism, it ended in various parts of the anarchism slowly or quickly producing capitalists who then generated a bourgeois republic to resolve the inherent conflicts within capitalism and multicapitalism.

I think a lot of people are resentful of this apparent takeover of anarchism by capitalism, and so a great part of the ideology in the United States is people coming up with mythological accounts of how the top layer of capitalism can simply be cut off and the United States can return to its supposedly perfect anarchist past. Nobody knows how societies actually work — not even CPUSA, not even the RCI — but they know what is viscerally wrong and they know what has seemingly been taken from them, and they are very angry. So angry they will just about punch a Communist over it if everyone doesn't restore anarchism immediately. To that I say... look at the middle of the timeline. Circa 1850 the United States government was granting people inalienable freedoms by planting "starter anarchisms" on the United States frontier. But I don't even have to open up a history book to tell you that if you do that those will generate capitalists, and if the capitalists all vote that eliminating North American tribes is in everyone's best interests, then that's the direction they will tug the whole population in, and you can't take it back even if a significant number of people were opposed to it. The early United States is broadly similar to Israel's Histadrut period in that even if you start with carefully designed anarchist compounds, when capitalists are in charge of the empire and they are all socially-linked members of your same nationality with a claim to represent its border and the day it was founded, the nation becomes theirs and what will happen to neighboring nations of people becomes entirely theirs. If you are not as physically powerful as a ring of capitalists who have all been able to form a socially-linked Community inside your Community and who can buy literally anyone to help them, you cannot win. It's very popular today for people to say that if you don't believe Israel can be defeated with nothing but a big stack of morality you are a defeatist and a traitor and — they don't say it out loud but they're thinking it — you basically belong in Hell. Most people are unwilling to accept the possibility that believing that anarchism doesn't regenerate capitalism has real material consequences, or that consequences come from anything but angering a cluster of individuals that has assumed the authority to dictate arbitrary moral codes. So here I will say the single angriest thing I will let out in this letter: if there was a God, or if there is anything that is universally Good or Evil, by taking this tack on reality you have definitely offended it. God cannot represent anything but the sum of all material processes and physical interactions in the universe, outside societies and inside societies. Every story about God, on paper or coming out of a United States president, is a story about how the motions of material reality will favor the kingdom or empire that has best predicted them. In that sense, a civilization that refuses to understand that the process of forming Community generates capitalism _cannot but have defied God_, and _cannot but have offended every form of cosmic Way and cosmic Good ever dreamed of_. Morality cannot exist without reality. If what was true was not strictly more important than what was moral, every single Tory who says transgender people don't exist or gay people are unholy or one Mexican immigrant far off in a town nobody thinks about stealing from a store should be locked up in a concentration camp would be right.

So. Historically speaking it should be unimportant whether the United States is an anarchism, but practically speaking, until the day it has any consciousness of material reality whatsoever it will be. The Idealism that drenches the United States and the Idealism that makes an anarchism are equally toxic; both believe that passing a law or putting up a list of commandments is enough to stop imperialism forever, and so in the end, both join together to blow up Palestine and keep regenerating imperialism. I think there may be a real difference between charcoal anarchisms and blue anarchisms, but I feel like it's an effective framing rhetorically to say to anarchists that try to call out Communists for statism, "no, _you_ created oppressive Tory statism because _you_ created the United States." "The United States is not a Marxist country founded by Mao or Hoxha, so tell me, who created all this?" Anarchists put heavy importance on morality and the ethical concept of individuals choosing fitting actions, so the moment you can get them to believe that supporting anarchism is actually _leading_ to capitalism, statism, anti-transgender laws, and Israel, I feel like they would be less inclined to resist either Stalinism or Trotskyism when they realized they genuinely had blood on their hands and them talking about "Communist atrocities" was only a cheap distraction from the actual important topic of their own choices and their own guilt.

I am experimenting with a definition that all societies before kingdoms and principalities or that go along with Liberal-republicanism are technically anarchisms. I recognize that this is a bit of a rhetorical tactic where I try to subliminally influence how people think by redefining the word _anarchism_ to something that better promotes historical-materialist thinking. But I am very tired of anarchism. Humanity doesn't have much time left. There isn't time for all this continued fighting between anarchists and Communists. So maybe, one of the few ways to actually get everyone to turn against anarchism and all the unacceptable things it allows to happen and unify with the Marxist movements anarchism has usually opposed is to present to them a superficially non-Marxist account of how almost everything anarchism has ever tried to stop is actually itself an anarchism that develops out of other anarchisms and thus the only way for anarchists to really achieve what anarchists want instead of regenerating it all over again is to take a look at Trotskyism.

[unfinished]

Links

• survey questions [not actually used... yet]