Because england was in competition with the SU post WWII and so they villanized stalin, so leftists turned to the largest left opposition which at the time was the 4th international. If it had been anarchists we'd be talking about the anarchist to neocon pipeline.
It's why the newly radicalizing US left is largely demsoc and anarchist. They're the strongest left opposition.
I think it's a result of "What You See Is All There Is" bias. Behavioral economics is pretty lib, but Kahneman's book "Thinking Fast and Slow" is certainly an interesting exploration of cognitive biases in our thought process. I think the Trot hate stems from a series of these biases working together.
The explanation above (and the similar comment in the most recent Trot struggle session) are super obvious in retrospect. Once that narrative is established it makes perfect sense. But before then people will jump to faulty conclusion based on heuristics and run with it more or less uncritically until corrected. Just the way we seem to be wired. They see a bunch of former Trots sell out- they identify the common factor- they assume it must be causal. End of process. Sampling errors/biases don't tend to immediately (if ever) jump to mind naturally. People have to train to look for it.
Because england was in competition with the SU post WWII and so they villanized stalin, so leftists turned to the largest left opposition which at the time was the 4th international. If it had been anarchists we'd be talking about the anarchist to neocon pipeline.
It's why the newly radicalizing US left is largely demsoc and anarchist. They're the strongest left opposition.
deleted by creator
I think it's a result of "What You See Is All There Is" bias. Behavioral economics is pretty lib, but Kahneman's book "Thinking Fast and Slow" is certainly an interesting exploration of cognitive biases in our thought process. I think the Trot hate stems from a series of these biases working together.
The explanation above (and the similar comment in the most recent Trot struggle session) are super obvious in retrospect. Once that narrative is established it makes perfect sense. But before then people will jump to faulty conclusion based on heuristics and run with it more or less uncritically until corrected. Just the way we seem to be wired. They see a bunch of former Trots sell out- they identify the common factor- they assume it must be causal. End of process. Sampling errors/biases don't tend to immediately (if ever) jump to mind naturally. People have to train to look for it.