User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/4000

4000

Concepts related to Trotskyism, or named Leninisms in general.
Final live version of this section: Philosophical Research:Items 4,000 to 5,000

4000. Bolshevik-Leninism / Leninism (Trotsky's definition) -> use to mark highly specific definitions of "Leninism" in Trotskyist texts. all Trotskyist definitions of Leninism are this, and all non-Trotskyist definitions are not.
4001. Stalinism (prejudice) -> use to mark the concept of "Stalinism" specifically as defined in Trotskyist texts, and not in any non-Trotskyist text. if you simply gather up data on this you'll realize it refers to something much more specific than you'd think it is. "Stalin's Marxism" isn't actually the same thing as "Stalinism", even though in practice the concept of "Stalinism" is being used to reject Stalin's Marxism.
4002. Stalin's Marxism isn't Leninism / He calls it Marxism-Leninism, but it isn't really Leninism / Marxism-Leninism (disputed theory) -> components: the most correct Leninism is Trotskyism, Stalin Thought is a revisionist Leninism
4003. degenerated workers' state
4004. restore the soviets
4005. State businesses equal capitalism -> Hayashi
4006. State capitalism inevitably evolves to uncontained capitalism -> Hayashi
4007. Workers will all take action given crisis
4008. Workers will all take action given spontaneous tiny breakages / clinamen (Althusser) / The Fracture (meta-Marxism) -> Althusser actually
4009. ??
4010. internationally-scoped collection of connected Trotskyist groups -> important element of - international-conference Trotskyism, international-party Trotskyism, Trotskyism in one identity-federation
4011. Abandon Trotsky, and Bolshevism has failed / If Bolshevism fails to take the educated individuals who are dedicated supporters throughout a revolution and integrate them into society such that they will not starve and can use their talents to improve society then Bolshevism has failed -> sub-case of: I'm not anticommunist but. this is about the only anticommunist argument I have ever found convincing. every anticommunist argument that wasn't Trotsky was totally confusing to me and just left me digging deeper and deeper until I saw how false every one of them was. but this is the only one that's sort of held up as I got more and more information. and it's haunted me ever since. it's easy to blame Trotsky and say he made the wrong choices. but like, what happens if he obeys? if the country is actually failing at things and every time he tries to get into a position the should theoretically be worthy of the experts just kick him out until he's standing next the handful of peasants still starving, isn't there actually some point where he has a right to complain? that has never sat right with me. the notion that even when you build Bolshevism it could have a fraying edge where people are still shunted into a world of individualism with no support, and perhaps treated really badly for just failing to spontaneously be unbelievably excellent at things, tossed quotes about revisionism because their actual skills are not perfect. it feels like there are natural points where people simply aren't materially part of the material object called society and it makes them angry because in a world where everything is claimed by a group of human beings they don't want to be treated as not human beings.
4012. A Trotskyist group is a countable culture / Any particular Trotskyist group is a countable culture -> seems weird to say until you have to explain to mainstream Marxist-Leninists how Trotskyite conspiracies happen materially — why they aren't trivial to stop and yet why it's not productive to just mark the people in them Evil.
4013. Trotskyist groups are a safe space for Trotskyist identity -> this sounds like a joke until you realize what it actually means, at which point it sounds more reasonable. this is operating on the definition of "safe space" as a Social-Graph System or Social-Philosophical System that people dive into in order to be accepted and not to be questioned on basic facts of their individual identity; under this definition, things such as a Christian church or a Muslim mosque may qualify as a safe space for Christian or Muslim identity, due to the fact that within that space a particular religion is condoned or practiced consistently. thus, this is the claim that Trotskyist groups exist partly to be a loose "congregation" of Trotskyist theorists where Trotskyist theories are condoned and practiced consistently, rather than being rejected from "Stalinist spaces". the Trotskyist theories in question do attempt to do what Marxist theories should do, to unite groups and mobilize workers, yet at the same time, when a group is founded it must explicitly make a choice on whether Trotskyist theories are allowed at all or perhaps preferred, versus whether they are fundamentally rejected from the group. this necessity to either accept or reject people who align with the 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy, or modern Trotskyism, creates a fundamental cultural divide between different Marxist organizations similar to the divide between a Marxist organization in one country versus a Marxist organization in another country, or between a movement for White transgender people inside the United States versus a movement for Black subpopulations inside the United States — Trotskyists are their own countable Culture, as much as Ukrainians are distinct from Russians. the matter of how Trotskyist identity as a countable Culture interacts with "other" demographic identities is not necessarily well understood. there are only two small thoughts I can offer on that: A) look at a British Trotskyist group, and you will probably observe that its members fail to see outside a White, British perspective, for instance often failing to quite understand what is going on for Black subpopulations in the United States and why they frame things the way they do, based on what locally-preferred ideologies (often anarchism or some Fanon-based non-Marxist theory). B) this same problem didn't necessarily exist for Trotsky's circle of people, who at the very least understood Jewish subpopulational struggles, even if they were baffled in their own way by United States racism. so, there are times when Trotskyist identity clashes with racial subpopulation identity, although it does depend on the quality of theorists admitted to a Trotskyist group. this + ?? = Trotskyism is the prototypical oppressed group.
4014. Trotsky syndrome of countable cultures -> the usually-nonfictional motif of someone being able to realize, assuming they're smart, that various people are forming into a countable culture and fighting for their rights against the rest of society legitimately and perhaps effectively, but utterly not being able to fit into that countable culture as a culture and remaining a cultural "foreigner" to countable civil rights movements that they never actually want inside them. you can see this with the Trotskyite conspiracy, which did it with very little wisdom or awareness, and separately with the way modern Trotskyism reacted to BLM / 1619 Project — although they were marginally smarter in that case. though it's hard to pinpoint exactly why it happens, this is a really big problem for progressive theories and movements in general. it has the potential to kill schizoanalysis through the failure of different sorted cultures to "properly" act as a freeform, uncountable unity of opposites that inherently wants to go together, but it can even kill particular Marxisms, as historically it arguably did. any movement or party or cluster of people-groups hit with Trotsky syndrome sees that it can't possibly control the people who don't fit into it and its days are numbered.
4015. ??
4016. ??
4017. Trotskyist revolution -> very theoretical concept despite a great number of Trotskyists claiming they are described in the collected works of Lenin
4018. They'll have to talk about Trotsky someday -> I am madly trying to find a video. there was this video by the IMT, and Alan Woods is on a stage. the overall room looks kind of bluish. it's kind of like he's giving a Ted Talk or something. and he says, he says something to the effect of "They're going to have to talk about Trotsky someday. [glib, barely not winking]". I cannot find this video for the life of me. does anybody have any idea where it went (2023-12-06)
4019. ??
4020. named Trotskyism
4021. international-conference Trotskyism -> motif, Particle Theory
4022. international-party Trotskyism -> motif, Particle Theory. Fred Weston believes that certain groups apart from Ted Grant were getting absorbed into reformism; Grant, apparently, is a believer in watching for crises (S2-4007). was trying really hard to name this thing a person's name but couldn't quite land on one
4023. multiple Trotskyisms in one country / multiple local Trotskyist parties -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - North American Maoism / New Democracy
4024. Trotskyism in one supranational federation / Trotskyism in several union republics -> hypothetical Particle Theory; actually suggested by Trotsky once or twice regarding North America and Europe
4025. Trotskyism in one subpopulational minority / Ethnic Trotskyism -> believed to be different from: Maoism in one subpopulational minority
4026. Trotskyism in one union republic / Trotskyist nationality / Trotskyist local-state -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - local state
4027. Trotskyism in one country / Trotskyist nation-state -> hypothetical Particle Theory
4028. Fortress Trotskyism -> subset of: Trotskyism in one country; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - Juche-socialism
4029. Trotskyism in one identity subpopulation / hegemony Trotskyism -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - Gramscianism; superset of: Ethnic Trotskyism
4030. Trotskyism as structure integrated with other theory's structure / Trotskyism as large Particle Element containing smaller elements / Trotskyism as small Particle Element contained by larger elements
4031. Trotskyism-in-Maoism -> subset of: Trotskyism in one union republic
4032. Maoism-in-Trotskyism -> subset of: Trotskyism in one supranational federation
4033. Trotskyism in one identity-federation / international-identity Trotskyism / world hegemony Trotskyism / Trotskyism in Gramscianism in Trotskyism -> hypothetical Particle Theory; International or international-party on top, otherwise-anarchic political-identity subpopulations below
4034. economic peace Trotskyism / Deng Xiaoping Thought in Trotskyism in Wilsonianism -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyism - taking the shape of - Deng Xiaoping Thought
4035. Trotskyism for export / Deng Xiaoping Thought in Trotskyism in Liberalism / Trotskyism in Deng Xiaoping Thought / economic-imperialist Trotskyism -> hypothetical Particle Theory; Trotskyists hide inside Liberalism and smuggle all their activities through Third World exploitation. honestly, one of those possibilities I ironically came up with just because it was horrifying
4036. Stalin is basically Monokuma / Trotskyites don't know the difference between Soviet history and Danganronpa -> an analogy I used in a historical fiction summary and now after digging up again cannot get over. the idea is that people think the Soviet Union was just one big trap where because people are in such fierce competition to exist until the country is properly built up, the government then just starts accusing people of things to preemptively get rid of them. almost exactly like Monokuma sets the students up to be in trouble for killing each other, blaming them for each other's graphic deaths over and over when really he started the whole thing
4037. Pigs theory -> the motif of models of workers' states that center around "bureaucrats" or experts taking the country away from the people. you sometimes see "Pigs theory" in Maoism independently of its appearances in Trotskyism. so with only that much information it's vaguely possible Che Guevara also came up with "Pigs theory" on his own without having to be drawn toward Trotskyism. the fact he only knew so much about Leninism only makes that more likely, I mean, look at how Trotsky barely understood it and came up with Pigs theory. the bigger question is, is "Pigs theory" actually right? I feel like in some ways it can be true but the way Trotskyists formulate it it never is. I feel like if it's true it's probably much more complicated how it comes to be and how to prevent it. for one, I'm almost half convinced that populations like China and even Cuba have figured out how to have a "Pigs theory" structure safely although the Soviet Union did not.
4038. Pig state -> the motif of a republic which is primarily run by a limited number of specialized experts who eat up large salaries while, archetypically, everyone else remains peasants or low earners. people are under some kind of illusion that this is caused by Communism, when it absolutely isn't, and even Animal Farm acknowledges that.
      it's quite arguable that both the United States Congress and universities operate like Pig states. "pig" being such a negative word usually, this sounds like far more of an insult than it actually is. all this really means is that the United States population is constantly churning and re-inventing and requiring experts to make decisions for everybody else and constantly send new experts through extensive training to keep doing this, when the predictions of Marxism didn't think it would shape up this way because eventually the experts would just have made all the stuff and people would only be copying the same things over and over much more cheaply. a few things really are that way, like 15-year-old books and the CD-ROM standard. but many things are not because people just keep subjectively deciding on new frameworks and The Pigs keep fighting each other over university time, thesis defenses, which inherently prejudiced thing is less prejudiced, shareholders or customers, totally subjective interpretations of the Constitution where really nothing even makes any coherent sense any more, these angry arguments over which incredibly-difficult-to-test hypothetical science ontology is more scientific, and overall, it's like the whole point of capitalism is constant culture war where The Pigs, foolishly convinced it will be safe if they only present their own side in the most calm and rational possible way, are the ones that lead each side of it. science is like democracy? sure, in a totally backhanded way. democracy is a bunch of capitalists endlessly fighting over subjective cultural pronouncements and by now science is just like that too. Liberal-republicanism isn't just the government of capitalism, in a way it literally is capitalism. there isn't really a place where capitalism ends and government begins. it takes something like abolishing parties and creating a single party-nation to even begin ending capitalism and the influence of capitalism.
4039. A Pig state isn't the end of the world / A Pig state is not the end of the world / Orwell handed Russians to butcher knives / Orwell handed Ukrainians to butcher knives / Animal Farm is a reality where George Orwell saw an effort to take a living, breathing, thinking ethnic group and cut them up with butcher's knives and eat them and didn't think it was worth it to do everything to resist that -> when you think about it hard enough, Animal Farm's setting should make the choice to stick to Bolshevism way easier rather than any harder. it really says something about the people who would read or write a book like this when they can't see it as arguing Marxism by accident.
4039. ??
4040. ??
4041. Great productive forces mean great carrying capacity -> very popular and common remark in early 1900s Leninism, still pretty controversial to challenge, yet graph theory + chunk competition models bring some worrying suggestions for how trivial it is to make a reality. doesn't mean it's impossible to solve of course, just harder than we thought
4042. Extra production over the number of people who will buy at full price is waste -> the typical counterpart up to the time of Lenin; why Lenin's and Masnick's line graph is not widely accepted. notable weakness: does not explain how to actually tell if society needs something or not, only how to sell an unnecessary thing for as much as possible
4043. Socialism-in-one-country is basically Existentialism with countries -> Ted Grant
4044. Hegemony politics is reformism and Gramscians are a bunch of bureaucrats -> Ted Grant
4045. ??
4046. ??
4047. Having a movement at all is half the battle / Having a Social-Philosophical-Material-System is half the battle / Having an SPMS is step zero / The key to beginning socialist transition is grouping people into a movement -> the claim that for instance the Paris Commune (perhaps the example I would pick is North Korea) is important primarily because it actually created a movement, Factically existing within the real world; a single physical movement of people doing anything is worth far more than any stack of ideology because it can, in theory, be transformed into a more intelligent system with more accurate theory as time goes on. I have only tiny issues with this concept, such as: if a movement is based on things fundamentally incompatible with any of the suggestions Marx made, to the point you have no idea at all how to transform it into a workers' state, can this really be true? this is a big problem in the United States. we base all our movements in things like racism and transphobia, in the specific sense that progress itself equals people already in power deciding not to be mean to the people they oppress, and progress couldn't possibly equal ethnic minorities or LGBT people being workers and actively building a new society to replace the old one, it has to be solely based on the right of populations and individuals to merely exist and the responsibility of populations to coexist. it's in the name (that I gave all this stuff), "Existentialism" — capitalism is over if Black people are doing capitalism but they're not being horrifically shot to death in inner cities and they now live and exist. capitalism is over if homosexuality isn't illegal and trans people can be in public instead of hanging out with the mafia because they have nowhere to go. you can get gigantic protests out of this and yet it only regenerates capitalism, because it's not doing the duty of trying to unify individuals into a country around a new Particle Theory; it's not actually building a new SPMS even though people falsely believe it is. how do you transform that? you need a really good new theory that can actually analyze the moving parts of every movement and how movements relate to each other — meta-Marxism — so you can actually listen to each movement and compute the most effective way to transform the whole country out of capitalism with that particular class-ignoring ideology, or successfully fit the class-ignoring ideologies together.
4048. Capitalism only ends when workers' states cover the world -> note how different plural Trotskyisms twist this different ways, some claiming a sea of socialisms-in-one-country is enough, some claiming there are more stringent requirements of having a Fourth International, freeform international party, etc
4049. Capitalism only ends when workers' states form into a single government -> the generic Trotskyist version.
4050. derived Trotskyist proposition / statement that Trotskyists should logically believe although in practice they might not -> there are so, so many of these if you think about anything Trotskyists say for even a moment.
4051. Socialism in one country will fail because borders leave people unconnected / Socialism in one country will fail because the point of Bolshevism is to connect people, and borders leave many people unconnected
4052. Any particular group of individuals pursuing socialist transition benefits from being part of something larger -> molecularized version of the statement that there can't be a socialist transition in one country.
4053. If Trotskyists turn against a workers' state, they create a population too small to succeed -> logically true if you accept Q4052. if most of the people in the Soviet Union don't want to join Trotsky, the best result for Trotsky is he forms a teeny tiny Trotskyist workers' state, and if there can't be socialism in one country, by Trotskyist logic, that tiny Trotskyist workers' state will fail.
4054. Trotskyists benefit from standing together with mainstream Marxism-Leninism -> clearly follows from Q4052 and Q4053. if it is more or less impossible for Trotskyists to ever form into a workers' state bigger than South Korea without eventually running into "Stalinist" interference, they will only ever overcome the rest of the world's capitalists by joining together with other named Marxisms and each socialism aiding the others.
4055. ??
4056. ??
4057. ??
4058. ??
4059. ??
4060. ??
4061. ??
4062. ??
4063. ??
4064. ??
4065. ??
4066. ??
4067. ??
4068. ??
4069. ??
4070. Trotskyism-in-one-country would not be a Trotskyism / Trotskyism-in-one-country would not fit the definition of Leninism given by any Trotskyism -> this seems to be the case as far as I have ever seen, but I still have no idea why it's true. if the definition of Trotskyism always includes separating from Stalin, then why would a Fortress Trotskyism not fit the definition of Trotskyism? the Trotskyite conspiracy never had very many people in it; practically speaking you'd think a tiny Trotskyism-in-one-country would be one of the most realistic options. Stalin's Marxism, funny enough, doesn't go around cracking open workers' states the way Trotskyism does, so it might actually leave a Fortress Trotskyism alone if it only returned the favor and resolved to primarily join up with other Trotskyisms.
4071. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be a Maoism / If a group of Trotskyists built socialism in one country it would actually be a Maoism and they would not be Trotskyists any more
4072. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be leadership socialism / If a group of Trotskyists built socialism in one country it would actually be a Juche-socialism and they would not be Trotskyists any more -> this proposition is easier to define than it being a Maoism because if you start with the claim that "Trotskyite" is a national identity, all of a sudden the notion of Trotskyism and the notion of leadership socialism don't actually seem that separate any more. the primary concept of Juche-socialism was... let's see if I can remember... it was like, a holistic system where it was largely about getting the country to cohere together and operate as a single entity, it was about pursuing the population's development into its own entity with its own populational identity as part of that, the Materialist stuff supports the basic construction of the country and its immediate immaterial wants, the immaterial wants of the country feed into cooperation with Materialism and Marxism. a countable culture has certain immaterial desires to build identity and cultural activity and connection, to feel something; North Koreans wring out participation in Marxism and scientific thinking from allowing and encouraging the stuff that humanities people think is supposedly beyond words. looked at from that angle... there are significant handfuls of people who become aligned with Trotskyism at least temporarily because it supposedly is less harsh on the immaterial exercise of the arts. Eric Flint, Lois Lowry's husband (who dropped out if he was in it at all but sure did know a weird amount about it), Noam Chomsky claiming to be aligned with Trotskyism and then just retreating into his university to do a lot of stuff about language, etc. I feel like there are more people in Trotskyist parties who are strongly aligned to Materialism and actually understand it. but, Trotskyism transforming into Juche-socialism on the grounds that people want to break from Stalin and not fight a global war and create a Trotskyite identity by growing the arts? doesn't seem impossible. I think one reason this isn't the primary "other thing" Trotskyism would be is that Trotskyism is relatively material whenever it attempts to describe internal structure. it actually begins its spitballing on structure with concrete concepts like "restore the soviets", "free the unions", where both soviets making up factories or towns and unions are material things, not a squishy description of how people are tied together by shared cultural activity and acts of chronicling history that feed back and forth with their material life. and that leads me to think that a Trotskyism-in-one-country would actually describe its independence and new identity in a different framing than that. I want to say they would be gloating about how well it was producing, not in a "maximum productivity" sense but in a particular sense of no part of the system being broken because if anything is really evident about Trotskyism it's that they hate broken things. Trotskyists are really grounded in Materialism, they just don't have a good scientific method.
4073. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be mainstream Marxism-Leninism / If a group of Trotskyists built socialism in one country it would actually be an instance of Stalin's Marxism and they would not be Trotskyists any more -> this is what I thought in the beginning. this is what everybody thought. but by now I doubt that it's actually true. the image of a country which is Stalin's Marxism in every way except it hates Stalin is very funny. but practically, the way the Trotskyite conspiracy so strongly resisted every specific thing Stalin was doing and in particular the way that Trotskyists get upset about China and Cuba as violations of some freedom to be Trotskyist makes me think that there is something core to Trotskyism other than it just being really big or containing all nation-states — something core to Trotskyism which could actually be pointed to inside the area of one country instead of having to look at any other country.
4074. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Trotskyism / If a group of Trotskyists built socialism in one country it would distinctly still be Trotskyism and have its own particular Trotskyist content and identity, regardless of what other groups of Trotskyists feel like saying about it -> this is the one I've been thinking is the most likely. the content of Trotskyism is weirdly specific. it doesn't matter if they think they got it solely from the works of Lenin. whenever they bash Cuba or Vietnam it's really clear that even if they had to live in a one-country socialism there's still something specific they want instead.
4075. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Bordigism -> this statement sounds like "the gostak distims the doshes" or "colorless green ideas sleep furiously". I think it's false but I don't know where to start. I guess step one is: what is Bordigism in one country? from the little I know, it's supposed to be a world workers' state just like Trotskyism is. which does open up the question, if Bordigism in one country were possible and Trotskyism in one country were possible, how would the two be different?
4076. Trotskyism-in-one-country would be Deng Xiaoping Thought -> troll proposition. I do think there's a decent argument to be made that every single socialism in one country devolves into Deng Xiaoping Thought, and so then you could say that if there were a Trotskyism in one country it would do that too. I had a thought once that Trotskyism and Deng Xiaoping Thought were superficially similar although I don't know if the reasoning was good. I think what I was saying was something like Mao was relatively lenient on other factions and ideas which allowed Deng Xiaoping Thought to happen, and Trotskyists hated it when a central party would be strict on them so ultimately they'd end up doing the same thing. either way I think it's worth noting that Trotskyists don't like it when the initial plan for workers' states devolves into something new but lesser, so I think it's almost certain that kind of thing happening is not part of the core definition of Trotskyism. I guess that has actually provided some information: Trotskyism in one country is closer to early Maoism than it is to Deng Xiaoping Thought.
4077. ??
4078. ??
4079. ??
4080. ??
4081. ??
4082. ??
4083. ??
4084. ??
4085. ??
4086. ??
4087. ??
4088. ??
4089. ??
4090. ??
4091. ??
4092. Communism doesn't work, but polycommunism (pronounced polycommunism) does -> the claim that a central party-nation such as the Communist Party of China is incapable of steering a country toward the right path because of how little control it has over the rest of the world and the needs of the population inside the country to survive, while a bloc of two or three Communist parties is actually capable of making decisions that affect all three countries as long as the countries are tightly linked economically. a reasonable person would allow that this could be a new form of Trotskyism, but I am not sure if Trotskyists are reasonable people.
4093. poly-Maoism -> case of: Bauplan. the hypothetical configuration of several separate Maoisms forming as party-nations, going through Deng Xiaoping Thought, and then connecting to each other only to turn back into one large Maoism.
4094. poly-Trotskyism -> the hypothetical configuration of several smaller Trotskyisms-in-one-country forming and then joining into a bigger more favorable Trotskyism. if there is anything categorically wrong with this according to Trotskyists the color swatch can be changed. this entry does not specify the content of the Trotskyisms-in-one-country beyond that they dislike Stalin's government and are "somehow" Trotskyisms.
4095. poly-Bordigism -> knowing that Bordigism is supposedly more than one country to begin with, this may be logically possible?
4096. ??
4097. ??
4098. ??
4099. poly-Menshevism -> the hypothetical configuration of three or more center-Liberalisms joining together to make it so that not having social-democracy in any of the individual countries is somehow utterly illegal and considered basically treason. I don't know how this would be possible, but if you propose poly-Maoism or poly-Trotskyism somebody's going to propose it.
4100. Leninism (top-level category) -> this entry is the same thing as "Marxism-Leninism"; it ignores Trotsky's claim that Stalin did not correctly continue Marxism. it also tentatively grants that Trotskyism is a garbled version of the same Marxism-Leninism, just as it says it is. (well, it doesn't admit "garbled", but, you know.)
4101. early Marxism -> this refers to Marxist theories or movements that existed before Lenin, notably Marx and Engels. it genuinely might not include the people Marx thought were "hardly Marxists". definitely not if those people can be shown to be integral sources to Western Marxism or in some particular grouping of their own, like Menshevism or some new category of "proto-Western-Marxism" or whatever. at the same time: it is always technically okay for things to be grouped into multiple traditions if they were important to both.
4102. Third-World Marxisms
4103. mainstream Marxism-Leninism / Stalin Thought / Stalinism (Marxist model used by Stalin; rarely used definition)
4104. Trotskyism / Leninism (Trotskyist movement) / revolutionary socialism (Trotskyist movement) -> this is the top level category for all things Trotskyism, not the signifier for what specific Trotskyist subsets say Leninism is
4105. Juche-socialism / leadership socialism
4106. Maoism
4107. Deng Xiaoping Thought / Dengism / socialism with Chinese characteristics (Deng era)
4108. Western Marxism
4109. Gramscianism
4110. Bordigism (named Marxism) / Bordiga and ICP's Marxism -> this is not affiliated with Trotskyism as far as I know right now. it has the swatch because from the little I've heard about it, I half remember somebody accusing it of being sectarian. still learning about it, so the swatch may change later
4111. ??
4112. ??
4113. ??
4114. ??
4115. ??
4116. ??
4117. ??
4118. ??
4119. ??
4120. ??
4121. ??
4122. ??
4123. ??
4124. ??
4125. ??
4126. ??
4127. ??
4128. ??
4129. ??
4130. ??
4131. ??
4132. ??
4133. ??
4134. ??
4135. ??
4136. ??
4137. ??
4138. ??
4139. ??
4140. ??
4141. ??
4142. ??
4143. ??
4144. ??
4145. ??
4146. ??
4147. ??
4148. ??
4149. ??
4150. ??
4151. ??
4152. ??
4153. ??
4154. ??
4155. ??
4156. ??
4157. ??
4158. ??
4159. ??
4160. ??
4161. ??
4162. ??
4163. ??
4164. ??
4165. ??
4166. ??
4167. ??
4168. ??
4169. ??
4170. ??
4171. ??
4172. ??
4173. ??
4174. ??
4175. ??
4176. ??
4177. ??
4178. ??
4179. ??
4180. ??
4181. ??
4182. ??
4183. ??
4184. ??
4185. ??
4186. ??
4187. ??
4188. ??
4189. ??
4190. ??
4191. ??
4192. ??
4193. ??
4194. ??
4195. ??
4196. ??
4197. ??
4198. ??
4199. unknown Marxist subdivision / Marxism unknown -> may be used for coding any work that "sounds" Marxist but whose particular preceding Marxist theorists or movements haven't been traced. in practice, some works that are technically anarchist or Existentialist in their affiliation may get marked with this, just because sometimes it can be difficult to separate these non-Marxist traditions from Western Marxism. again, sometimes that is not necessarily harmful, and there's a "topology" effect where a non-Marxist theory describes something very real, and yet the theory is something other than Marxism.
4200. ??
4201. Trotsky thought he believed in Leninism -> the claim that Trotsky thought the theory he held of workers' movements, revolution, and/or constructing workers' states was the same theory Lenin had leading up to 1925. mostly uncontroversial, although some may tell you Trotsky was absolutely nothing but a liar. I think that's an exaggeration, because he spent significant effort telling parties in North America and Europe things that sounded like correct Marxist positions (but had subtle errors hiding behind them in terms of actually applying them). I think the evidence supports that Trotsky was dedicated to Leninism but his "Leninism" managed to be a garbled, totally wrong version of Leninism. many Marxists don't like to admit that that kind of thing is possible, because it would vulgarize Marxism into a mere identity that doesn't guarantee the class composition of the movement. but I think the dark truth of things is that that has always been the case. mathematically, all arrangements of people are identities, even if they're class subpopulations. organizing people always creates identities. the fact East Germany came to exist shows that all workers' states are identities, like any other nationality. so what's wrong with realizing that "theoretical" Marxism and the basic phenomenon of people sorting into movements are always separate until they're not? it explains how there can be multiple rival Marxisms. it might be that several of them are not connected to the people at all, that some of them connect to a really specific subset of actual workers but not all of them, or that none of them are correct, none of them predicting or guiding what people are actually doing at all. it's particularly believable this could happen if every current movement is operating under a different theory of connecting people together that replaces Marxism.
4202. ??
4203. Every Trotskyite Stalin eliminated was a Leninist [1] -> read Trotskyist talks really closely and you see the assumptions between the lines. past Trotsky and Zinoviev (? if he even was, which I usually assume he wasn't.) practically none of the Trotskyites were Leninists or "allies of the world revolution" — which, sure, they only have to be workers if the conditions are right, but knowing how many capitalists were in there, you'd have a stronger claim if they were Leninists. can you build a revolution with enough Gramscis? who knows, but if you have anything less the chances don't look good.
4204. ??
4205. Bonapartism is when Germany prevents the Berlin wall / Bonapartism is when a bourgeois and proletarian subpopulation become deadlocked and The State becomes an instrument for keeping the lid on the country and preventing the proletarian subpopulation from breaking out -> okay. that's more of a word definition than something that's strictly a wrong application of a concept. I wish this wasn't the same word as they use to criticize Stalin though. if this is what it means then why do they use it on Stalin?
4206. ??
4207. ??
4208. ??
4209. ??
4210. British Trotskyists care about Vietnam [2] -> Trotskyists are so quick to tell you that this is true but I highly doubt it. Trotskyists assembled against the Vietnam War? believable. Trotskyists actually care about Vietnam? don't think so. behind the scenes there is this oddly specific thing they do where it's almost like they are taking advantage of other countries rather than actually helping them. imagine Trotskyists were effective, and they liberated Vietnam from empire. what would they do then? they'd probably start trying to subtly dominate the country like Vietnam has to do what Greg and Ted in Britain and some random Rosa over in Vietnam want rather than what the workers of Vietnam want.
4211. ??
4212. ??
4213. ??
4214. The Cuba blockade preserved the republic / The blockade of Cuba is what's preserved the regime (Alan Woods) [3] -> as far as I can tell, that's correct. one of the most successful things Marxists have ever done is simply close off Third World countries from foreign capitalists.
4215. Deng Xiaoping Thought has a limited lifespan / You can't have both capitalism and a Stalinist regime, it'll blow up (Alan Woods) / It's like a pressure cooker (on Deng Xiaoping Thought styled countries; Alan Woods) [4] -> this seems to be the opposite of what's true. practically speaking it seems like Deng Xiaoping Thought might be stronger than either Bolshevism or capitalism, empowered by being open to the world but protected by being closed on the inside. nobody really enjoys that outcome between the CPC quickly lying to people about Bolshevism coming back later and the Existentialists trying to claim party-nations are the devil but we do have to be honest about what patterns exist in history.
4216. Alan Woods had books published in Cuba / I've had my books published in Cuba (Alan Woods) / Cuban Marxists are turning towards Trotskyism -> this remark really stands out because it could mean at least two things: A) the private sector in Cuba likes Trotskyist books B) Cuban Marxism has actually become tolerant of Trotskyism. I have no idea which of these is true. Woods really wants to believe it's the second one and specifically that all the Cuban Marxists are turning into Trotskyists.
4217. Trotskyists don't understand global empire / The reason Trotskyists bash Deng Xiaoping states and East Germany is that they don't understand global empire -> I think there's a pretty good case for this. you lay out what a Deng process is and it seems Trotskyists really don't get that. they are really against measures that happen to make countries actually independent from imperial powers and protect them from utterly being colonized. the bright side? this is a colonialism discourse I actually can stand. fine-scale neocolonialism and crude national independence are both things that make material sense, unlike the notion that prejudices in White people's heads are somehow colonialism.
4218. Che Guevara got his ideas of international revolution from Trotsky -> this seems laughable to me. it's like... didn't everything he did originate from the Latin American people. it's so weird how they have to set up that Che Guevara is supposedly positioned with early Trotskyism to explain why him supposedly turning against the Cuban bureaucracy is good
4219. Che Guevara could have become a Trotskyist [5] -> kind of a ridiculous claim when Trotskyists are saying such bad things about Cuba now. what does it mean for Che Guevara to fight for the people? it means Che Guevara and all the more peaceful Third-World Marxists fight to defend Third World populations from First-World populations. if you tear down their "wall" they'll probably hate you. that said, if you look at this from a class analysis angle it manages to be a little less terrible. here again we have Trotskyists trying to claim Cuba has the wrong internal structure and if it had the right internal structure The Pigs wouldn't have won and created a "Pig state". this thing they keep saying should hypothetically be testable, if you could somehow do a crude simulation of the internal structure of workers' states and watch that structure stack up emergently and develop. I'm really feeling that Marxism can be a science someday if we just had the right meta-Marxist mathematics.
4220. Reason in Revolt (1995) -> this is apparently one of the Trotskyist books that has been published in Cuba. on the surface it seems to lean into "Trotskyism is early-Marxism" and not go into any of the "Stalinism controversy". so, I guess it isn't all that surprising he got it through. still kind of funny he talked about his books like they were really subversive, and from that angle, worth discussing the possibility of what a genuinely critical Trotskyist book getting through would mean.
4221. crisis of capitalism -> Trotskyists are always talking about these. as are most Marxists. it's a fairly good talking point.
4222. crisis of Bolshevism -> the motif of a system within a workers' state ripping apart and not working as intended. everyone outgrowing microdistricts as populations expand could be considered one, as could ripping open the economy into a trapped capitalism. a country opening up to imports and exports isn't necessarily a crisis of Bolshevism in and of itself. in general these are more "orderly" than crises of capitalism; the central party can often see them coming and see why they happened whether they ultimately get stopped or not.
4223. crisis of named Leninist movement -> system-breaking crisis that occurs in a Marxist movement which has not become a workers' state.
4224. crisis of Trotskyism -> there are about two kinds: groups falling apart and everybody simply dropping out.
4225. crisis of schizoanalysis -> when schizoanalysis tries to assert that different movements are inherently connected but the different movements just start fighting each other.
4226. ??
4227. ??
4228. ??
4229. fonts as culture of The Government [6] / Stalinist font / font of The Totalitarian State -> I have heard this trope all my life and I am so sick of it. what is the big deal with "Stalinist fonts" and what is so bad about them. fonts standardize all the time without Stalin, considering how there is this one font on signs that everyone knows, I think it's Helvetica. this concept is so stupid.
4230. Stalin built the country wrong / Stalin's government built the country with structures that are bad although we are not specifying what the actual error is -> what The Revolution Betrayed kept sounding like to me in every chapter. I know the real reason it sounds like something was missing is because of the Trotskyite conspirators' lies, while the point of the book is no deeper than Q4236 "I am sick of eating rat bread". even so, I always think about how the first time I tried to read this thing I assumed what was missing was an accompanying description of the inner Particle Theory of Trotskyism. I didn't want to believe that Trotsky could be both wrong and not even smart, so I kept trying to figure out what he believed to be correct, because, hey, even if the structure of Trotskyism didn't make a lot of sense, maybe we could all learn from it. I was so surprised to learn that Trotskyists really don't think like that at all.
4231. Ministries existing means there is no democracy -> one of the strongest arguments that Trotskyism actually is a distinct form of Leninism with its own idea of a workers' state Stalin could be (supposedly) preventing. still not a very strong argument said Trotskyism is possible, of course. appears in: "Trotsky's mistakes"
4232. ??
4233. ??
4234. ??
4235. The internal shape of a workers' state leads to buffer state conflicts / There is something about the internal activity of a workers' state which can cause it to participate in international war or not -> statements like this are wild when you think about it, because it's like, Trotsky almost accidentally invented MDem and then didn't. if there was actually something inside the Soviet Union which caused it to have to fight imperialist blocs, that would be implying that restructuring the Soviet Union in a specific way changes its outward behavior, which would be claiming that there are multiple possible Bolshevisms. you see this pop up a number of times in Trotskyism, and it's basically never delivered on at any time.
4236. I'm eating stale rat bread and I can't take it any more / I'm eating the stale rat bread and I can't fucking take it any more [7] -> when somebody attempts to criticize corporations for having made bad "culture" that is bad precisely because it intrudes on a person's individual Lived Experience and not because the structure and function of the corporation has any effect on the larger society such as the health of workers or impact on the internal functioning of socially-linked communities that decide to tie themselves to the product. Žižek is guilty of this: he makes strange claims that Lenin and Stalin couldn't create good "culture", which make no sense until you realize he is trying to make a Marxism that has nothing to do with workers and is all about the Lived Experience of existing in the midst of a bunch of bad products — or when it stoops to being about workers is about bad working conditions being a bad individualized Lived Experience. the Zinovievist accusation of bad "culture" is strange. it's like wrong culture is about the consumer's Lived Experience, but the problems with corporations essentially become about corporations Freely Willing to do the wrong thing when they could have Freely Decided to do better. some chunks of Existentialists seem to conceptualize literally every movement as democulture including the function of unions and so-called ""corporate greed"". they don't even believe in Menshevism and political parties. they think all society is just made of good-idea orthodoxies stomping bad people and forcing them to behave better, squashing bad people's otherwise sacred Lived Experiences and forcing them to exist better when they weren't existing good.
4237. the science bureaucracy
4238. science Trotskyites -> the non-fictional motif that there are people who oppose established structures of science purely for their failures without thinking about their successes. this could be a good thing or a bad thing. some people could have legitimate complaints that universities are stagnating and churning out a lot of papers that do very little. other people are Alexander Unzicker and sound comically similar to The Revolution Betrayed in that their criticisms sound like facts but in context do not even make any sense.
4239. science Tories -> the non-fictional motif that people should be presumed to not actually be knowledgeable about science because they "Are Actually Part Of The Right". (examples: Richard Dawkins, Sabine Hossenfelder.) this isn't really correct on a factual basis. somebody can be an absolutely horrible person and still understand science and create an informative book or video about science which is educational to people of all ideologies. in such a case, the work becomes valid through death of the author and other people reappropriating the work, exactly as with fictional works. it is also possible that misconceptions about science will lead somebody into Toryism, or that facts or models will become misinterpreted through Toryism into models that don't actually make sense. but this happens for reasons that a lot of center-Liberals don't want to think about: people form ontologies to comprehend the world, they strain everything through ontologies, sometimes the ontologies are inaccurate, sometimes the ontologies are accurate. in recent decades people really hate the notion of ontologies because of the fact ontologies can form stereotypes, so they want to smash all ontologies, but that's a bad plan when all countable Cultures and marginalized religions and things they want to protect bring ontologies, so smashing ontologies is an easy way to let people get away with forced assimilation, the opposite of the goal. there is such a trend to say reality can't be predicted and people can't be predicted to try to encourage people to be open-minded, but it never really works because people need to form ontologies to avoid catastrophes in their lives and physically survive, and if you don't give them objectively accurate ontologies of how to successfully survive and build society they will use stereotypes for the same purpose, taking down notes to avoid "all men" or "all Black people" just to have a better day-to-day experience with less pain in their individual lives. back to science-Tories: science-Tories are the motif that people form countable Cultures of Toryism and then they do science for the "Tory ethnicity", and you have to root them out of science because the Tory people-group is an evil malicious people-group which intends to use all pieces of the Tory machine to eliminate the center-Liberal people-group so all pieces of the Tory machine are bad. even if this is true... do you see how there are undercurrents in this which indicate some nasty biases or fallacies of some kind? not in the sense of "Tories could be good", but more in the sense of "nations must be adversarial to the extent of internal imperialism and there's nothing we could have done to prevent this, we've just gotta divide and fight a civil war one day because that's the only way countries can be".
4240. Absurdism, nihilism, and existentialism are all the same thing / Existence-philosophy, nihilism, and absurdism are all the same thing -> sounds like it couldn't be possible, but all three of them say individuals make their own meaning. all three of them are versions of the same existentialism. (this has nothing to do with Trotskyism, and is only here because of the number.)
4241. Optimistic nihilism is about making your own meaning -> sic. heard somebody say this verbatim. five years ago I might have gotten pedantic and said "that's (early-) existentialism!!" but now I think there is no actual difference.
4242. Is there a point to believing in existentialism? / Is it possible for individuals to assert existentialism is meaningful? / Is believing in early-existentialism meaningless? -> the hyper-existentialist question. does the premise of existentialism apply to existentialism? entropicism would argue that ultimately this is not true, or at the very least, this is not a thing people can say trivially and it's a really difficult question.
4243. A Trotskyism-in-one-country could invest in Vietnam / A Trotskyism-in-one-country can invest in a Third World country -> not sure why this wouldn't be true considering China does this. but the implications of a Trotskyism doing this are maybe a bit chilling. imagine there's a Trotskyist Britain. it invests in Vietnam before other countries get there, ostensibly in order to keep Liberal-republican countries out, but also to make sure Vietnam doesn't team up with "Stalinist" countries — stay on the good side of Trotskyism and there will be no Trotskyite conspiracy, but the Communist party of Britain controls your factories. British Trotskyists position themselves like they are trying to be nice and they will listen to Vietnam's workers, but the whole thing is an inch from erupting into Trotskyists just gutting Vietnam's government and putting the population of Vietnam under colonial rule of Trotskyist theorists. ostensibly not doing anything worse to them than a workers' state would do to its own people and yet they have absolutely no national autonomy because Trotskyism didn't value it. you know what's worse than this hypothetical scenario though? the fact capitalism can already do this with no responsibility to anyone. if Trotskyism was exploiting Vietnam there would at least be a consolidated group of people to hold responsible. if capitalists complained about the human rights abuses of Trotskyist Britain you'd never hear the end of it. but capitalism manages to be worse than Trotskyist empire would likely be because it's always hiding behind the notion of globally universal individuals that have to be free yet get to dominate everyone with all the choices they make about how everyone else has to be.
      this statement is false if it can be conclusively shown that there's no such thing as Trotskyism in one country and there would never be a group of Trotskyists that would create it at least without all of them deciding they are not Trotskyists any more. if this statement is appropriate to a different named Marxism in one country then a new proposition must be created.
4244. ??
4245. ??
4246. Academic science is a planned economy [8] (7:37) -> Sabine Hossenfelder's somewhat pitiful attempt to justify why science in an environment of chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy carefully modifying behavior to conform to selection pressures and survive is somehow the wrong way to operate in that environment. very bad choice of words because you've literally described capitalism.
4247. Academic science is capitalism / Academic science is an undesigned system which creates selection pressures and where the science that gets produced operates on the logic of assembly theories such that scientists are obligated to join socially-linked countable cultures in order to survive expulsion from the environment as opposed to thinking for themselves as individuals
      it'll throw some people off that this claim is violet, but it's using the particular meta-Marxist definition of capitalism as a social-darwinist struggle between countable cultures which each individually would otherwise be the proletariat in the time of a workers' state. I abbreviated it to "capitalism" because in the end saying "it's capitalism" is a nicely equivalent, easily recognizable, and shorter statement.
4248. Absurdism, nihilism, and existentialism are the biased political compass of philosophy
4249. Absurdism, nihilism, and existentialism are reversed stages of grief -> thought of this while adding "all the same thing". first comes absurdism, then nihilism, then existentialism, so it's like, acceptance, depression (optional), then anger and denial. first we realize that nothing actually makes coherent sense including morality or justice. then we get upset. then we try to convince ourselves "in each of ours groups separately in parallel" there really is a meaning and we have the answers
4250. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in The West [9] -> a lot of mainstream Marxist-Leninists believe this out of some kind of envy for the people they imagine having successfully become "non-Marxist passing", but I'm pretty sure that as of the 2010s it isn't even true. what's more correct is most people have a really, really low opinion of anybody who claims to be a Leninist or quotes Marx or Lenin at all. "non-Marxist passing" is more like "White-passing" than it is like "cis-passing"; it's a thing of intolerance, not acceptance. this could vary a lot by country. but I think it's fair to mark it false just because believing it will give you wrong impressions of at least one First-World country.
4251. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in the United States -> it's generally not. it's very common to see a narrative that (along with Stalin) Trotsky was practically deranged and Psychoanalytically Wrong while only non-Communists are the Real Human Beings. it's weird and contradictory how we have so much talk about prejudice and yet most people would nearly institutionalize Communists as having a mental illness. protest about the treatment of schizophrenics but keep an asylum only for Communists.
4252. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Britain -> this is the proposition I find a lot more interesting but genuinely don't know the answer to.
4253. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Australia
4254. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Canada
4255. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Germany
4256. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Spain -> this is an interesting question because of the history of Trotskyists and anarchists clashing over Spain.
4257. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in Japan -> as far as I know Trotskyism is kind of.... forgotten and unheard-of in Japan. in Japan it's weirdly acceptable to be a parliamentary Marxist or whatever the Communist Party of Japan is. but I feel like most people have absolutely no idea that Trotskyism exists or what it is
4258. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in South Korea -> a while in the past it used to be really forbidden. I do not remember what year that happened though or how close it was to today. the funny thing is I almost feel like it's less forbidden to discuss a world workers' state in North Korea as long as it isn't an actual conspiracy or campaign against the government — I feel as if a lot of things that are unacceptable in North Korea are actually just socially isolated before anyone ever has to be arrested. is that accurate? I have only shreds of information about the history of this country. but everything I have heard makes it sound like at the end of the day North Korea is incredibly like the United States and every time it is oppressive it's very similar to the way local people in Florida are oppressive to local people — obsessed with Freedom, obsessed with patriotism, not wanting to be controlled by the nearby outside world, not knowing that may lead them to be mean to their neighbor in their pursuit of being Free. in fact, as I always say, Florida is probably a little worse. North Korea is only so good but like, Florida is the cesspool out of the two.
4259. It's acceptable to be a Trotskyist in South America -> this one seems to have some probability of being true. it feels like Trotsky really did make an impact on Central and South America but it just went at this glacially slow pace until... there is sort of a little bit of Trotskyism today.
4260. String theorists are not suppressing dissent / String theorists are not creating localized Spanishness Offices which become more about cliques and socially-linked groups of people protecting each other than actual objective standards of science -> oh boy. one of those questions where I don't like having to talk about it because I know the parties are talking past each other and not even talking about the same thing. when Sabine Hossenfelder and Jim Baggott or people like that allege that string theorists are suppressing dissent, they mean inside individual specific institutions such as a university or a journal. they don't mean nationwide. what The Hossenfelder or The Baggott or The Science Trotskyite is saying is that there is a process that takes hold sometimes inside particular institutions where some particular individual or Filament of individuals takes over them and if you don't fit into that limited local countable culture of scientists and play by exactly the rules it wants then it doesn't let you play the game. while it can be true that Not All String Theorists do it, the accusation itself is that it's an undesirable process that happens spontaneously somewhere without recourse and so it feels like anybody anywhere can "get Gramsci'd". and here's how it historically goes in each of these cases of people complaining about "suppression": when you get Gramscianized or musical-chairs-attacked you start to feel paranoid like all the Stalinists across the Soviet Union or all the string theorists everywhere across all of Germany or all of the United Kingdom are joining together to find you and kick you out — whether such a statement is accurate or not. whereas, the claim that string theory has been improperly accepted across all of Germany is a claim of much greater scope than anybody is practically intending to make. the problem The Science Trotskyites are talking about is less a science problem and more of a social problem of localized countable cultures of people meshing badly and failing to share localized institutions such that the group of people has to divide and each countable culture has to aggressively secure its own territory. really not a problem that has much to do with the scientific method.
4261. Prediction markets could pick the best researchers -> there is definitely something wrong with this but it would take a lot of unpacking to figure out exactly what weird thing is going on. I'm thinking this is a matter of networkism, where in one sense Serializers rule the world because every successful industrial structure can be phrased in terms of a prediction of the future and when everybody believes the future is not a matter of physics investors profit off all of us.
4262. ??
4263. Steven Universe is actually about Trotskyism / Steven Universe is definitely about Trotskyism -> this was the subject of an MDem chapter I didn't finish — one of the off-the-wall satirical "B-side" chapters. I think it works better in chapter form but this proposition can still be about the underlying concept that it's possible to argue a work into meaning utterly anything.
4264. The Matrix is actually about Trotskyism -> troll argument / jamming proposition. the claim that The Matrix is actually about realizing capitalism makes no sense and will inevitably fall into crises, while the whole world is stuck in the illusion that it won't so you have to break the whole world out of it, which leads to Trotskyism. it's funny how almost logical this is when it began as a total ass (pronounced ass) pull, more so than the Lion = Trotskyism one. I think what's so funny about it is that the whole trans erasure red pill proposition is so toxic but although this is meant to be the same thing in a different color it's more or less harmless; if Trotskyists are convinced their message is more important than a trans identity message it will probably just wrap around to them pushing parties that support trans identity anyway.
4265. ??
4266. ??
4267. ??
4268. ??
4269. ??
4270. ??
4271. ??
4272. ??
4273. ??
4274. ??
4275. ??
4276. ??
4277. ??
4278. ??
4279. ??
4280. ??
4281. ??
4282. ??
4283. ??
4284. ??
4285. ??
4286. ??
4287. ??
4288. ??
4289. ??
4290. ??
4291. ??
4292. ??
4293. ??
4294. ??
4295. change your profile pic to Clippy / change your profile picture to a Clippy [10] -> normal people baffle me. how can they so confidently believe that "corporations treating people like human beings" is a coherent thing that corporations would intuitively understand and wouldn't need a whole book explaining it to them. I'd need a whole book explaining it to me just to understand how they think a bunch of Clippy could actually teach anyone the intended message. people who would defend factory workers getting confused about "artists" and whether they're workers is one thing, this is entirely another thing.
4296. ??
4297. ??
4298. Socialism: Stalinist or scientific (Hayashi 1998/2000) / "Stalinism, socialist ..." (typo)
4299. ??
4300. What was wrong with East Germany? / Why was the existence of East Germany a problem? / Why did center-Liberals dislike the existence of East Germany? -> I know "center-Liberals" can almost be neatly replaced with "bourgeoisie" to create a laughable tautology, but come on, we have to at least pretend to sound fair.
4301. Why did Trotskyists not consider East Germany to be progress? -> you have to think about this a bit to realize that it's a good question. Trotsky wants each country in Europe to overthrow capitalists and create a workers' state. East Germany pushed out capitalists and created a workers' state. if other European countries had each become "East Germany", it would have been one possible route to a union of European socialist republics — even one independent from the USSR, potentially, given that the USSR stopped occupying East Germany at a certain point. the process of creating East Germany is more or less in line with the mechanism Trotsky proposed for creating Trotskyism. so why were Trotskyists not on board with East Germany?
4302. East Germany was too small to be Trotskyism -> relatively likely to be the answer you actually get. East Germany small, Trotskyism big. this has never been a satisfying answer to me because it doesn't explain how any group of countries ever gets big enough to form Trotskyism without inevitably forming into unacceptably small "Stalinisms" first.
4303. East Germany did not have the correct internal structure to be Trotskyism / East Germany had the wrong internal structure according to Trotskyists -> derived Trotskyist proposition. some Trotskyists talk about "bureaucracy" and how they don't like the way government ministries and central party structures are put together to unite a country. this would lead to the prediction that Trotskyists look at East Germany and do not like East Germany's internal structure. if this statement about Trotskyism is true, then it implies that Trotskyists have a particular internal structure they require a country to have after expropriating the bourgeoisie or they will not believe the country is in socialist transition. it also vaguely implies that everything Trotskyists say about creating a worldwide civilization and going beyond one country is irrelevant fluff because what they really actually believe is that socialist transition depends on the internal structure of individual countries and each workers' state that has existed is bad because it has gone through transition wrong. a Trotskyism that believed this intentionally and was perfectly honest about it could become a molecular Trotskyism.
4304. If East Germany had been a Fortress Trotskyism, it would have been okay / If East Germany had had the correct internal structure to be Trotskyist, Trotskyists would have found it acceptable / East Germany could have built up to a Fourth International if only it were Trotskyism in one country -> derived Trotskyist proposition. I have literally never heard this. but it's rather confusing why nobody says this. 1) Trotsky believed every country in Europe could become Trotskyist 2) The European countries form workers' resistances separately around local groups of workers, then they link up into a Trotskyism 3) What's wrong with each of the European countries being Trotskyism in one country, when it's the only way you can build a bigger Trotskyism? put another way, if several European countries can be Trotskyist and oppose Stalin's government, why not just one? how does one prevent there being others? I guess you could argue from Stalin's point of view that because Trotskyisms are sectarian two Trotskyisms-in-one-country would fight each other, but I don't think Trotskyists would actually be that mean in criticizing their own parties. I don't think they see it that way.
4305. ??
4306. ??
4307. ??
4308. ??
4309. ??
4310. non-Marxist error in Marxist text / non-Marxist error in Marxist talk / "can't believe all these Trotskyist errors!" (the errors are typos) -> non-fictional motif which may be framed either humorously or seriously. this concept first came to mind when I was reading the first edition of a Trotskyist text with typos in it. but it could apply to any number of things, like Marxists making a background-information error about science, etc. Trotskyists using Kalinin as Trotsky's actor would fall under this.
4311. Slavoj Žižek is an anarchist / Slavoj Žižek is not a Trotskyist in any sense and can only be termed either an anarchist or an Existentialist -> this is true if Q43,12 is true. Slavoj Žižek is "a Trotskyist" if Zinovievism is Trotskyism. if Zinovievism, when separated from the small number of Leninist theorists who would lead it and claim it is Leninism, is definitely an anarchism, then Žižek is not a Trotskyist. this proposition has the charcoal swatch because I saw an anarchist text define "anarcho-nihilism" and it seems very similar to the definition of Zinovievism although I honestly do not have extensive enough historical background information about either of them to verify that they're the same.
4312. Early Trotskyism was actually an anarchism / Zinovievism is an instance of anarchism, not a double-vulgarized Trotskyism (black swatch instead of orange swatch, charcoal instead of flame; meta-Marxist terminology) / The functional purpose of 1900s Trotskyism was to create anarchist movements which would then attempt to realize a world Anarchism -> I know this sounds batshit. but this claim is specifically making a historical argument. it begins with the claim that the Trotskyite conspiracy was not really practicing Leninism and mostly lying about being Leninists — this is a relatively fair thing to say. from there it observes the results of Trotskyist movements, which tended to disintegrate into something of a disorganized mess. Spain contained something of an attempt at Marxism or "a socialist party" but is much more famous for anarchists, and George Orwell. Trotsky and ex-Trotskyists like Orwell became weapons for First-World countries to allege that Trotskyites never were Leninists and that was a good thing. Ted Grant shows up trying to create a hypothetical Leninist Trotskyism that never existed. a little later, schizoanalysts show up trying to explain how countries are made of organic assemblies of parts (is this true? maybe) and implying that the components of any particular entity are arbitrary and throughout history periodically change. core concepts of schizoanalysis become wildly popular. schizoanalytic "science" of joining and separating entities merges into anarchism to supposedly create a practice of non-ideological unity of demographic identities. schizoanalysis-influenced crowds continue to "non-ideologically" unify with Third World anticommunists and bash Third-World countries. so overall, the claim here is that because Zinovievism and modern anarchisms share the characteristics of having no real ideology or end goal, allowing chains of First-World countries and defectors to bash whole Third World countries, and generally having a distinctly international scope, modern anarchisms existed as early as Zinovievism, and it was basically concealing the emergence of modern anarchisms inside it. I'm not at all sure that this claim is true. but if it somehow turns out it is, the Zinovievism swatch can be changed to charcoal. the Ted-Grant-ist Trotskyism swatch can stay orange.
4313. Kalinin as Trotsky's actor / Kalinin in place of Trotsky -> every so often with independent videos you see a video accidentally use a picture of Kalinin to represent Trotsky, as if he's not Trotsky but he plays him on TV. as far as I know this doesn't really happen with actual Trotskyist parties, thankfully.
4314. ??
4315. ??
4316. ??
4317. ??
4318. ??
4319. ??
4320. ??
4321. ??
4322. ??
4323. ??
4324. ??
4325. ??
4326. ??
4327. ??
4328. ??
4329. ??
4330. ??
4331. ??
4332. ??
4333. ??
4334. ??
4335. ??
4336. ??
4337. ??
4338. ??
4339. ??
4340. ??
4341. ??
4342. ??
4343. ??
4344. ??
4345. ??
4346. ??
4347. ??
4348. ??
4349. ??
4350. ??
4351. ??
4352. ??
4353. ??
4354. ??
4355. ??
4356. ??
4357. ??
4358. ??
4359. ??
4360. ??
4361. ??
4362. ??
4363. ??
4364. ??
4365. ??
4366. ??
4367. ??
4368. ??
4369. ??
4370. ??
4371. ??
4372. ??
4373. ??
4374. ??
4375. ??
4376. ??
4377. ??
4378. ??
4379. ??
4380. ??
4381. ??
4382. ??
4383. ??
4384. ??
4385. ??
4386. ??
4387. ??
4388. ??
4389. ??
4390. ??
4391. ??
4392. ??
4393. ??
4394. ??
4395. ??
4396. ??
4397. ??
4398. ??
4399. ??
4400. ??
4410. ??
4420. ??
4430. ??
4440. ??
4444. sectarian Communist International / Communist International formed around specific named Marxism and not admitting other named Marxisms -> on one hand, it was kind of inevitable these would be invented. on the other, it feels like they have never ever been effective. it may be worth saying under the "spanishness office principle" that sectarian Communist Internationals are probably a symptom of Marxist parties consisting of detached Filaments of bourgeoisie that have no inherent reason to work together. (the spanishness office principle: if people are complaining about Spanishness Offices, they're the bourgeoisie, because people who fight for control of "institutions" of elite experts are generally the bourgeoisie. institutions includes the Communist International should it happen people are fiercely squabbling over it.)
4450. ??
4460. ??
4470. ??
4480. ??
4490. ??
4500. ??
4510. ??
4511. Treason of what? / What is treason? / Treason is not a Materialist term (meta-Marxist answer to question) -> on the surface, Trotskyists will love this one, although when you actually drill down into it the question is very complicated. Communism is treason to the United States! okay, but treason of what? the constitution!! okay, but why is the constitution there? you still haven't really answered treason of what. one somewhat valid answer would be "the population". this answer is somewhat meta-ontologically sound, as both the United States and the historical Soviet Union could say it. if there are one million people behind Stalin and ten thousand Trotskyites attack, attacking Stalin's government is treason of the one million people by the ten thousand Trotskyites. however, this also means that if there are half a billion people behind Deng Xiaoping and anybody attacks that government, this is treason of half a billion people. that's so many people that although it should be less bad, in a logical contradiction it should also be much worse. the United States also has a third of a billion people, which is definitely a few. so is Liberal-republicanism good then? no. the amazing thing about Communist revolutions is that if and when they happen they open up the weirdest loophole in this question — if nearly all the people in the United States defect from the United States, can they even meaningfully commit treason against themselves? and the answer is no. this is one coarse answer to how revolutions happen, or at least how they stop not happening. but with that said, how do you teach Trotskyists and Tories and even anarchists that the Sunny fallacy is different from a successful revolution? every single group of people that separates from anything will try to claim it can't commit treason against itself.
4512. ??
4513. A revolution in the United States is revolution against two separate countries at once -> this is part of why it's so hard. in daily life people have to pretend to be part of two separate countries which are violently hostile to each other (quite literally when there are so many shootings), and only a small portion of people are skilled enough to even pull off that act. it's almost trivial for one of the two countries to prevent a strike simply by breaking up the graph population of workers and owners along the lines of the two nations and call foul on one countable culture violating the cultural self-determination of the other countable culture. conditioned by things like religious teachings about the sanctity of religion and humanities teachings about the sanctity of inner experience of individuals and identity-demographics, people are quick to flare up even across countable cultures when they think any "community" is getting hit by an external threat. all this is to say that Lived-Experience nonsense is the weapon of the bourgeoisie against the people. it facilitates the general pattern of all existing owners and their allied [L] (pronounced [L]) Wasp swarm 1:(-)1:(-)1 banding together to crush anything that could actually bring change better than it facilitates anyone actually overcoming them. which should cast a lot of doubt on whether schizoanalyst concepts of the united nonviolence of identities should just totally be dismissed as inherently incorrect. I'm not quite confident enough to say that just yet, although I think with a better explanation of what is supposed to replace them that might become okay. my thoughts are something like this: A) people are made of populations, not inherently born into culture or identity. A1) culture can be developed or created in a group of people once they are linked. B) the proletariat begins at all the slots for people to even be useful for anything filling up, and people thrashing their way back in to be able to work without creating a whole new business. C) the United States is saved if some unknown significant ratio of people thrashes back into industry like ten or fifty times the number of workers to owners, and the subpopulation of workers does almost everything in society of its own will while nobody with the power to create a business does much of anything. D) this outcome is really different from the way things work right now in huge swaths of the United States. E) the cleanest process, which I don't think will happen, would be your fifty Tory types per owner overtaking Tory businesses as a coherent population and your fifty progressive types per owner overtaking progressive businesses separately. F) most identity-politics populations all fall inside the progressive subpopulation and inherently only have the power to take back half the country. G) progressive types have an interest in overcoming all the Tory owners but Tory types have no serious interest in overcoming Tory owners. these two political subpopulations belong to truly different ideologies and different Bauplans, as different as West Germany and East Germany right now at this second. that map with Mao and the KMT graph-struggling over a giant area comes to mind. H) postcolonial theories have to go because at the present second no matter what ideology you choose every single good outcome is colonial. this might be fixable with the brightest Marxists working on it, but that's not the step we're at right now.
4515. ??
4516. ??
4517. Revolution happens when the group of people defecting from a country is so much bigger than the country it cannot commit treason against itself
4520. ??
4530. ??
4540. ??
4550. ??
4560. ??
4570. ??
4580. ??
4590. ??
4591. Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party
4592. Bolshevik party
4593. Third International
4594. Left Opposition
4595. Menshevik party
4596. ??
4597. ??
4598. ??
4599. ??
4600. Trotskyist group, organization, or party
4601. International Secretariat (1953) / ISFI (attempted International)
4602. International Committee (1953) / ICFI (attempted International)
4603. ??
4604. ??
4605. ??
4606. ??
4607. ??
4608. ??
4609. Committee for a Workers' International (defunct) / CWI (attempted International)
4610. local Trotskyist group unaffiliated with larger formation
4611. Denver Communists (??; United States Midwest)
9999. Japan Revolutionary Communist League (JRCL) '23 -> you find the weirdest things when searching for arbitrary Japanese words. one of them is miscellaneous Trotskyist blogs. every time I find one of these, I am like, man, these are the coolest people in Japan. most of the time Japan is so crushingly the same but... if you look around enough.
4612. ??
4613. ??
4614. ??
4615. ??
4616. Žižekian
4617. terrorist (Zinovievism) -> wrecker, rival proletarian revolution
4618. ??
4619. ??
4620. Trotskyist group affiliated with the Fourth International of 1938
4621. Socialist Workers' Party (United States) -> helped split the Fourth International into the ISFI and ICFI, funny enough
4622. ??
4623. ??
4624. ??
4625. ??
4626. ??
4627. ??
4628. ??
4629. ??
4630. International Marxist Tendency (party) -> international-party Trotskyism
4631. Workers' International League (1938) -> [11]
4632. "The Militant" -> [12]
4633. Revolutionary Communist Party -> [13] [14]
4634. In Defence of Marxism (outlet; Britain)
4635. Socialist Appeal (Britain)
4636. Socialist Alternative (United States)
4637. ??
4638. Fourth International (1938) -> became: Q46,01 International Secretariat, Q46,02 International Committee
4639. ??
4640. ??
4650. ??
4660. ??
4664. ??
4665. contentless revolutionary socialism - Rosa Luxemburg
4666. contentless Trotskyite-conspirator ideology / Zinovievism (meta-Marxism)
4670. Literature and Revolution (Trotsky 1924) [15] -> the origin of most of the stupid claims about Trotsky in The Giver. ex-Trotskyist novelists really had some problems with this text apparently.
4671. Trotsky wanted to abolish sex / Trotsky hated the concept of sex -> I found this BS in a YouTube comments section once, and ever since then I have not been able to forget it; it was just too funny. the misinterpretation seems to have stemmed from a work where Trotsky was lightly criticizing people escaping from their problems through one or two genuninely weird pieces of sexual literature that had been put out recently — the key word was escaping, not sex. I have no idea exactly what group of people were getting things so twisted but man, when people want to misinterpret Communists they really go all the way. this was one of those things that led to me realizing that The Giver was a skewed portrayal of Trotsky in the first place, because you see the theme of abolishing sex and "controlling emotions" in both places. in the original Trotsky text he was talking about "emotions" like clinical depression and anxiety, when they did not even really have psychotherapy in Russia.
4680. ??
4690. Left Voice (federated outlet)
4700. ??
4710. ??
4720. ??
4730. ??
4740. ??
4750. ??
4760. ??
4770. the Vegeta of Communism / the Vegeta of Bolshevism (Marxism, Leninism; motif) -> a very silly metaphor I came up with early in MDem 5.1 when I was thinking about Dragon Ball and the relationship between it, religion, non-belief, wars, and historical materialism. there was this particular concept of two people in a rivalry and one of them really upset about not being able to get into the top position of something instead of ever cooling down about it, and it just haunted my mind. I was like, honestly, Trotsky is the Vegeta of Bolshevism. and it never really left me.
4775. ??
4776. ??
4777. Trotskyism succeeding will be a black swan event -> the claim that all the previous events of Trotskyism failing are not predictive of what it will do in the future relative to those events. honestly, this is basically what Trotskyists already say. but given that it has had almost a century to happen and hasn't happened, while mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Deng Xiaoping Thought each have happened during the same time, it's probably fair to mark it false.
4778. Trotskyism is like cold fusion -> it would be so useful if it was possible but it never comes to be.
4780. ??
4790. ??
4800. Maoist group, organization, or party
4810. ??
4820. ??
4830. The Energy Conspiracy (Seman 1981) [16]
4831. ??
4832. The correct group will make you free / The correct relationship and shared culture will make you free / The truth will make you free / John 8:32 -> if you read this the way it's intended, like, it applies to Marxism if Marxism is true — though it equally applies to Anarchism if Anarchism is truer. it is so telling that Tories would use this in a context totally outside of religion and purely against "Big Government". it shows that some people cling to religion purely because they believe having the correct Social-Philosophical System, the correct group of people and culture, will give them a better life either taking away their worries or crushing their enemies, or both. [17]
4840. ??
4850. ??
4861. Trotskyites as similar to Confederates / 1930s Trotskyite conspiracy as similar to Confederate States of America (Confederacy, The South; United States history versus Soviet history) / a poison mirror of your own philosophy (hypothetical remark from mainstream Marxist-Leninist allies to United States Trotskyists) -> there is a lot to get into as far as actually explaining this. it definitely has nothing to do with the ideological content of Trotskyism or claiming they aren't Leninists or aren't progressive. this is a very mathematical argument based entirely on the outer borders of the Trotskyite conspiracy and the Confederacy versus a larger republic. this argument is solidly grounded in meta-Marxism, existential materialism, and general-sense historical materialism, it's not very much like any form of argument most people are used to in Liberalism or Trotskyism.
4870. ??
4880. ??
4890. ??
4900. prominent Marxist theorist or organizer / notable Marxist theorist or organizer -> this is the colloquial usage of "very notable", not the Wikipedia usage of "notable"
4910. prominent mainstream-Marxist-Leninist theorist or organizer / prominent Marxist theorist or organizer associated with Stalin Thought
4911. Vladimir Lenin -> note: there are Properties for "believed to be within ideology" allowing the separation of "believed to be associated with Trotskyism" from "believed to be associated with Stalin Thought" and the two statements to coexist at once
4912. Joseph Stalin
4913. ??
4914. ??
4915. ??
4916. ??
4917. Russian Revolution according to Trotskyists / Russian Revolution specifically according to Leon Trotsky -> it's worth taking people's bullshit (pronounced shit) and just repeating it back, going through it line by line. in some cases, you spot the errors that led somebody to think that way. in other cases, you spot the material processes that caused somebody to make the error that led them to think that way. I think the latter applies here. I would read the anecdotes about Trotsky and Lenin visiting Europe and think, huh, so he was reasonably close to some of the actually important figures in the Russian Revolution, and seemed to generalize that to being a serious member of Bolshevik identity. there was a strong theme of groups linked by social bonds rather than by theory.
4918. ??
4919. Enver Hoxha -> yes, he has his own subset ideology, but it still falls under this tradition
4920. ??
4930. ??
4940. prominent Trotskyist theorist or organizer / notable Trotskyist theorist or organizer
4941. Leon Trotsky -> Soviet Union / miscellaneous; Fourth International
4942. Rosa Luxemburg -> Germany
4943. Ted Grant -> United Kingdom (?)
4944. James P. Cannon -> United States; Socialist Workers' Party
4945. ??
4946. ??
4947. ??
4948. ??
4949. Hiroyoshi Hayashi / Hayashi Hiroyoshi -> Japan; (retrieve organization)
4950. notable Trotskyite resistance leader or advocate / notable Zinovievist advocate or leader / notable Trotskyite conspiracy member
4951. Grigori Zinoviev -> he became my arbitrary example of Trotskyite conspiracies versus what Trotskyism claims it is, after a few Trotskyites called him a hero just for wrecking the Soviet Union
4952. ??
4953. ??
4954. ??
4955. ??
4956. ??
4957. Nikolai Bukharin / ニコライ・ブハーリン -> he quit, but there's not a better place to put him
4958. George Orwell -> by some definitions of Trotskyite, the most famous one ever
4959. Slavoj Žižek -> may sound surprising to call him a "Zinovievist" or Trotskyite, but after much analysis of his rhetorical patterns and motifs he truly belongs here
4960. ??
4965. ??
4970. ??
4975. ??
4980. ??
4981. ??
4982. ??
4983. ??
4984. ??
4985. ??
4986. ??
4987. ??
4988. ??
4989. Anarchism is over
4990. Stalin Thought is over -> had some vanishing chance of being true in 1940, not very believable these days
4991. Trotskyism is over -> why is it that all Trotskyists refuse to believe this while most or all mainstream Marxist-Leninists believe it and about half of all center-Liberals and Existentialists believe it? this should be less controversial than "Bolshevism is over". if Trotskyism isn't materially possible but mainstream Marxism-Leninism is, you'd think that nearly everyone would be unanimous about the first part of that, because advocating for Trotskyism isn't advantageous to either Existentialists or mainstream Marxist-Leninists.
4992. Non-molecular Trotskyism is over -> the most generous interpretation of Trotskyism. probably too generous. but very useful for getting Existentialists to actually think for once
4993. Leninism is over but "Marxism" is not -> I'm half convinced that every time somebody implies this (and isn't from China, Cuba, or Vietnam) that it's literally just a way to sneak in Existentialism and deceive people into believing all the things smaller than Liberalism and capitalism that ultimately reconstruct capitalism. half the time I laugh at this one and half the time I get angry, because it tends to trap people in this loop of insisting that if you don't believe Marxism can be used to purge people of all incorrect beliefs and create a perfect society full of nice people before getting rid of capitalism you're racist, while due to the actual material definition of capitalism, if they believe it it makes them absolutely, absolutely incapable of stopping people from becoming racist, digging them deeper and deeper into this hole they can never get out of.
4994. Party-nations are not actually Marxist / Marxism is over but party-nations are not / Marxism is over but Leninism is not -> the claim that central party-nations are not over but the attempt to regulate the stochastic sorting of people into corporate countable Cultures basically is. somewhat credible when there are about three countries that can vouch for it. many people like to think you can immediately springboard off this to justifying Existentialism but you actually can't. it almost implies the opposite: that primitive Existentialism is most stable when it's regulated from above and not allowed to become a government in and of itself.
4995. ??
4996. ??
4997. No Marxism is actually over -> MDem's basic working model of Marxisms. if you want to prevent all future Trotskyite conspiracies, you have to talk to Trotskyists as human beings and not immediately scare them off. you have to recognize the existence of different Social-Philosophical Systems around different Marxist models and discuss every model as if it's vaguely possible in order to guide people into forming an agreement for all the different divergent Marxisms and so-called "leftisms" you more commonly find everywhere to live in the same world and not fight each other. this is not a trivial thing given that people unify based on the outcome they believe in rather than whether they are currently oppressed.
4998. Deng Xiaoping Thought is over -> this one is terrible to discuss because I am convinced that up to now almost everyone in the whole entire world has the wrong interpretation of what the thing actually is. I have heard mainstream Marxist-Leninists casually put the word "overthrow" next to "CPC" / Chinese party-nation without realizing that this is one of the most forbidden things you can say in China and only Trotskyists say it. despite what people think there are very few statements that are big-time illegal to say in China versus just getting deleted off a message board, while that's one of the very few things that actually might be. the Chinese party-nation takes protecting the population very seriously, for better or for worse, and everything it does is in response to possible threats. imagine a reality where most Marxist literature is banned in China but there's still a central party-nation. that's kind of what you invite to happen when you fail to understand that the CPC primarily exists to protect the people from other countries. you must understand that behaving in a non-threatening way toward China is necessarily to get a proper understanding of what it is and how to change it. this of course goes about 100 times as much for Trotskyists, who never even would have thought of this.
4999. Liberalism is over -> fun. cathartic. as time goes on, bizarrely not true. why not? that's the question of the century.