Why do so many people on Revleft hate Trotsky?

[Red Star Rising]

I just started reading The Revolution Betrayed for a project I'm doing (it's partly about Stalinism). Most of the Communists I know seem to admire or be indifferent to Trotsky, but on this forum loads of users seem to hate him. Just wondering why...

[Blake's Baby]

There are both Stalinists and Anarchists on this forum who 'hate' Trotsky, for different reasons.

Stalinists (including Maoists) believe that Trotsky was an anti-Bolshevik wrecker, and Anarchists who beleive that Trotsky was just as bad as Stalin, but did it first.

As the rest forum consists, pretty much, of Trotskyists (who are pretty much pro-Trotsky) and Left Communists (who are critical of some of what Trotsky did and said and support other things), they're not so anti-Trotsky.

Then there are the Impossiblists around the SPGB, who don't 'hate' Trotsky but do think he was completely wrong.

[tuwix]

There is a huge difference between no to admire and to hate. I don't admire Trotsky, but I don't hate him. And the reason of that is he was a Leninist. He supported a version of changes that had to lead to a state capitalism. Fo r example, he was elitist as so-called 'vanguardist'.

[Art Vandelay]

Revolutionaries are polarizing figures. People who take a negative view of Trotsky, generally do so because they have a certain level of disagreement with his actions and contributions to Marxist theory. Simple as that really.

[Red Star Rising]

Then there are the Impossiblists around the SPGB, who don't 'hate' Trotsky but do think he was completely wrong.

I haven't really read much of Trotsky's work so forgive my ignorance but why would Impossiblists think he was wrong? Isn't Impossiblism just the belief that reforming Capitalism is in the long run detrimental to socialism as it basically takes the wind out of the revolutionary sails? Did Trotsky think otherwise?

[rylasasin]

Because... why not? I hate pretty much everyone else these days.

Yes that's a joke, people. I don't really hate everyone. Well, at least, not around here anyway.

[RedWorker]

I don't 'hate' Trotsky, but dislike modern Trotskyism. Trotskyism has many common traits with Stalinism, both having descended from the particularities of the Russian Revolution. Many Trotskyist groups today claim that the Soviet Union was not capitalist, or that it was socialist but not democratic, or that it was neither capitalist nor socialist, and some refuse to even analyze it. Such Trotskyist groups fail to understand various concepts of Marxism, communism, capital and class society, socialization and nationalization, the class character of the state, and so on, and their thoughts on the matter are either in line with Stalinism or share its flawed analysis or foolishness.

There are many Trotskyist groups, and you'll really find anything there; there is a wide array of different tendencies and claims between them. For instance, many are social-democratic but have retained the aesthetics of communism, and so on...

Trotskyism was relevant as an opposition to Stalinism, but the followers of Trotskyism in 2014 are just following an useless dogma. People could just become Marxists, but don't because they fear of being associated with Stalin, so they feel the need to take sides and become Trotskyists. Many self-defined Trotskyists (not the convinced Trotskyists we often see here) are just really confused people who may be closer to social-democracy or who sympathize with communism, dislike Stalin's USSR but don't know much about Marxism.

[Blake's Baby]

I haven't really read much of Trotsky's work so forgive my ignorance but why would Impossiblists think he was wrong? Isn't Impossiblism just the belief that reforming Capitalism is in the long run detrimental to socialism as it basically takes the wind out of the revolutionary sails? Did Trotsky think otherwise?

Instead of asking me, I'd urge you to try to get an answer from the Impossiblists.

My version is, becauser they think that the whole Bolshevik project was a) unemocratic and b) un-Marxist.

[Red Star Rising]

Trotskyism was relevant as an opposition to Stalinism, but the followers of Trotskyism in 2014 are just following an useless dogma. People could just become Marxists, but don't because they fear of being associated with Stalin, so they feel the need to take sides and become Trotskyists.

Can't you be both? Presumably, if you follow Leon Trotsky's ideas you are a Marxist seeing as he was.

[RedWorker]

Can't you be both? Presumably, if you follow Leon Trotsky's ideas you are a Marxist seeing as he was.

I mean people avoiding being only Marxists, as opposed to being a Marxist and a Trotskyist. However, note the un-Marxism of the Trotskyism I pointed out; there's a case that Trotskyism is closer to Stalinism than Marxism.

[Redistribute the Rep]

It's impossible not to hate someone people like 870 associate with

...but if that's not enough for you, here are some well known positions of the Trotskyist organization known as the International Spartacist League:


We Marxists oppose not only reactionary “age of consent” and “statutory rape” laws, but also other laws against “crimes without victims”, such as gambling, prostitution, drug abuse and pornography. Our defence of Polanski, like our longstanding defence of NAMBLA (North American Man/ Boy Love Association, which advocates the decriminalisation of consensual sex between men and boys), is based on our Marxist programme for women’s liberation through socialist revolution

http://spartacist.org/english/wh/209/Polanski.html

And


The fact that all these forces are “boots on the ground” for imperialist intervention means that revolutionary Marxists have a military side with ISIS when it targets the imperialists and their proxies, including the Syrian Kurdish nationalists, the pesh merga, the Baghdad government and its Shi’ite militias.

Well I suppose I should give the trots on here the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that they don't necessarily identify with the ISL, but these positions seem to arise from Troskys theories on imperialism and women's liberation. Many Trotskyists on this website also reject the label of feminist based on the fact that it was strongly associated with liberalism at the beginning of the twentieth century. This criticism I would say is outdated by about a century as the definition of feminism has now broadened to include what today is known as Marxist Feminism. Why it seems to be exclusively the trots who insist on living in the past with respect to this is anybody's guess. The trots on here are also known for filling up threads about the Soviet Union with bullshit, although I guess the same critcism applies to anarchists

[Sandy Becker]

Ah, those ISL (sic) folks just aren't serious enough for someone who is for "intergalactic" socialism.

I like the ICL's line generally -- and since it is forbidden to discuss the ICL's position on age of consent laws and NAMBLA, except to use it as a truncheon with which to pummel the ICL, I will just advise the folks that tirelessly bring this up whenever they mention the ICL that they have an unhealthy obsession with this stuff. Marxism and feminism are not compatible ideologies. If you view the main division in society as gender, it leads to a myriad of non-Marxist positions. Marxists fight for the liberation of women, of course, but view the key division in society as being class division. In the US, the vast majority of people that consider themselves feminists are pro-Democratic Party, are fond of Obama and will be delighted if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

Trotsky is hated by many sections of the left because in his writings and actions he contradicts their views -- pointing out their non-marxist practices (e.g., popular frontism) and fighting for intransigent opposition to capitalism. The Stalinists hate him, of course, because he early on exposed them for exactly what they are, bureaucratic nationalists -- parasites deriving privilege based on planned collectivized economies (USSR, PRC, etc.). The Anarchists hate him for suppressing the Kronstadt uprising and perhaps because of his exposing their utter bankruptcy during the failed Spanish Revolution/Civil War. Obviously they are also not fans of the idea of centralized power, as well.

It is true, in my opinion, and a poster above, that many so-called Trotskyist tendencies in the world long ago slipped into reformist (or stranger) politics. The USec for example, ande the Lambertistes and Healyites. The SWP (UK) and the CWP often refer to themselves as Trotskyists, but their tendencies were products of a right-wing split from Trotskyism led by Tony Cliff deciding to be neutral in the Korean War conflict (tacitly supporting British Imperialism). At which point they abandoned military defense of the USSR.

As Leninism was an update of Marxism, Trotskyism is an update of Leninism.

[Sandy Becker]

Said case for Trotskyism being closer to Stalinsim pales before the case of Feminism being closer to liberalism than Marxism.

[RedWorker]

What's wrong with opposition to the age of consent? The age of consent was changed from 13 to 16 in Spain. Was there any less rape? No. The Bolsheviks abolished the age of consent, didn't they? Was there a mass rape? No. The age of consent is a moralistic, and furthermore useless, law of bourgeois society.

That said, the ICL(FI) is a piece of crap and so are most of their positions.

[consuming negativity]

hate is such a strong word

LOL

but seriously, how can i hate someone i don't even know? i mean yeah he was wrong about shit but everybody is wrong sometimes, including me

what makes you think people hate him?

[Sinister Intents]

What's wrong with opposition to the age of consent? The age of consent was changed from 13 to 16 in Spain. Was there any less rape? No. The Bolsheviks abolished the age of consent, didn't they? Was there a mass rape? No. The age of consent is a moralistic, and furthermore useless, law of bourgeois society.

That said, the ICL(FI) is a piece of crap and so are most of their positions.

I'm pretty sure discussion of the age of consent is banned on RevLeft.

I don't hate Trotsky, but I have some harsh distaste for certain Trotskyist, but not all of them. Some trots are very great politically.

Let's not discuss Bordiga....

[Red Star Rising]

It's impossible not to hate someone people like 870 associate with
I'll give you that but I doubt that it's really relevant - don't dismiss ideas because self-important morons profess them - just dismiss self-important morons whoever they are associating with.


...but if that's not enough for you, here are some well known positions of the Trotskyist organization known as the International Spartacist League

Oh I don't doubt that there are fucked up Trotskyist organisations but that's true of almost every tendency on all points of the political spectrum. Did Trotsky himself say anything about the sorts of issues ISL like to bring up? And don't think I'm set out to defend him - I'm looking for a good evaluation so I can use it for a project. Still, I think Trotsky was right on some things and just because ISL happen to be Trotskyists doesn't mean that the ideas are wrong (I need to avoid this kind of hypocrisy considering the context of my project).

[Red Star Rising]

but seriously, how can i hate someone i don't even know? i mean yeah he was wrong about shit but everybody is wrong sometimes, including me

what makes you think people hate him?

Just what I have seen, Trotsky being brought up on any thread seems to spiral into a fruitless argument between those who fanatically defend him and those who bitterly criticise him, and the former are usually outnumbered.

[Red Star Rising]

I'm pretty sure discussion of the age of consent is banned on RevLeft.
Why? Purely out of curiosity, don't ban me please.


I don't hate Trotsky, but I have some harsh distaste for certain Trotskyist, but not all of them. Some trots are very great politically.
Definitely, this is true of every political belief (the far left for example), religion (the new pope seems nice all things considered), organisation etc. etc. I'm more interested in the credibility of Trotsky himself though, seeing as I'm going to be reading and quoting him and not some isolated groups/individuals who follow him.

[Sinister Intents]

Why? Purely out of curiosity, don't ban me please.


Definitely, this is true of every political belief (the far left for example), religion (the new pope seems nice all things considered), organisation etc. etc. I'm more interested in the credibility of Trotsky himself though, seeing as I'm going to be reading and quoting him and not some isolated groups/individuals who follow him.

I've seen every thread that brings up age of consent get closed and someone gets banned. I just know its a sensitive subject that brings out some truly fucked up responses.

I can't ban, I'm a CU member. I'm not an admin or mod.

I like Trotsky's writings on fascism, and I recommend it to all tendencies. I can't speak for his other stuff only because I've read snippets as well as antitrot propaganda written by a man named Olgin.

I'd say read all of his stuff before doing anything really. You've read Marx and Engels right? Lenin?

[Red Star Rising]

I'd say read all of his stuff before doing anything really. You've read Marx and Engels right? Lenin?

Some (I have a maximum word count of about 5,000 so I don't think I need absolutely everything they ever wrote), and no (I do have his books though so I probably should, do you recommend reading Lenin first?)

[Tsiolkovsky on the Moon]

The only people I have seen who absolutely "hate" Trotsky are hardcore Stalinists. Most I know simply disagree with a few of his views, but such is to be expected. No one can be right about everything.

[Sinister Intents]

Some (I have a maximum word count of about 5,000 so I don't think I need absolutely everything they ever wrote), and no (I do have his books though so I probably should, do you recommend reading Lenin first?)

Actually I'd suggest finding a .pdf of Marx and Engels selected works, and then work on Lenin then to Trotsky

[Red Star Rising]

Actually I'd suggest finding a .pdf of Marx and Engels selected works, and then work on Lenin then to Trotsky

Would this do? https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/

[Sinister Intents]

Yeah! That's the one I own, I own both volumes, and I have another selected works text. Also keep in mind I'm not fully a marxist so someone may have a differing opinion of what you should read. Actually the user RedWorker would give you a great four texts to read initially, but the selected works covers all of that really. Also be sure to read Capital, at least snippets of it.

I don't know fully what you've read though.

When it comes to Trotksy I used to actually consider a leaning towards Trotskyism but never went through with fully reading his works. Just select quotes. As per Lenin I suggest reading as much of him as you can

[theblitz6794]

I've wondered this too. I think that people who would support Trotsky don't really care because it's old and gone. Meanwhile the Stalinist and more....conservative socialists/communists (conservative in the sense they are more following of original Marxism/Leninism/ect) are more ideological

Personally I think he would've done a lot better. He seemed to understand some brutality was required because the Soviet Union was pretty backward, devastated, and feudal, but that brutality wasn't the answer but a method. That's my impression at least. Brutality with a human face? Stalin seemed just power hungry to me.

That could've translated, however, into a less economically prepared and thus militarily prepared Red Army in WW2. On the other hand, the Red Army may have been tactically more effective without it's officer pool purged and Stalin giving questionable orders. Then there's the argument that the Red Army was in attack positions in June of 1941 and Hitler jumped the gun, catching them very off guard.

But it's not that simple because the entire 1920s and 30s would've progressed differently on the international front. Communists in Germany and other parts of the world would've had a more free hand under Trotsky afaik, and the economic/military cooperation the SU and Germany would've had probably would've been different. Along with relations with the West. Again, just different. Maybe better or worse AFAIK. If someone could post some sources on Trotsky's plans that'd be great. I don't know Trotsky's plans for an isolated Soviet Union.

[Red Star Rising]

Yeah! That's the one I own, I own both volumes, and I have another selected works text. Also keep in mind I'm not fully a marxist so someone may have a differing opinion of what you should read. Actually the user RedWorker would give you a great four texts to read initially, but the selected works covers all of that really. Also be sure to read Capital, at least snippets of it.

I don't know fully what you've read though.

When it comes to Trotksy I used to actually consider a leaning towards Trotskyism but never went through with fully reading his works. Just select quotes. As per Lenin I suggest reading as much of him as you can

Yep, I'm dipping in and out of Capital at the moment and I've found a few useful qoutes, I think I should start doing more specific snippet searching though seeing as I'm unlikely to finish it any time soon XD I've also read the Communist Manifesto a few times and am using it as a main reference point for my basic definition(s) of Marxism seeing as it is probably the most famous text by Marx/EngelsMarx/Engels

Considering the time frame I'm using (1920-1953) The Revolution Betrayed is probably the most relevant book by Trotsky, and it's pretty short so I could probably read it cover to cover.

[Sandy Becker]

Yep, I'm dipping in and out of Capital at the moment and I've found a few useful qoutes, I think I should start doing more specific snippet searching though seeing as I'm unlikely to finish it any time soon XD I've also read the Communist Manifesto a few times and am using it as a main reference point for my basic definition(s) of Marxism seeing as it is probably the most famous text by Marx/EngelsMarx/Engels

Considering the time frame I'm using (1920-1953) The Revolution Betrayed is probably the most relevant book by Trotsky, and it's pretty short so I could probably read it cover to cover.

There are a few other readings of Trotsky that are highly recommended in that time frame. His "History of the Russian Revolution," is rather large, but phenomenal. "The Lessons of October" is a short book that was considered one of the opening shots of the fight between the Triumvirate and the incipient Left Opposition. It helps to have a solid understanding of what actually happened in 1917.

The tone and content from some of the posters here is regrettable. From the Pedophile baiting of the ICL to the ad hominem attacks on comrades. Keep being curious comrade. If you would like more info, feel free to message me directly.

[motion denied]

Since you are concerned with Trotsky's accounts, these might help you (shorter though): Stalin school of falsification (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/index.htm) and this letter (https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1935/11/stalin.htm)

[Redistribute the Rep]

What's wrong with opposition to the age of consent? The age of consent was changed from 13 to 16 in Spain. Was there any less rape? No. The Bolsheviks abolished the age of consent, didn't they? Was there a mass rape? No. The age of consent is a moralistic, and furthermore useless, law of bourgeois society.

That said, the ICL(FI) is a piece of crap and so are most of their positions.

The Bolsheviks replaced the age of consent with the age of maturity. Multiple studies reveal the average "age of maturity" for women by the legal definition was 17, and a bit older for males.

And is it really "moralistic" to acknowledge that an adult getting "consent" from a child is almost surely taking advantage of their youth and lack of experience? Friends of mine who were raped as children would say yes, as well as anyone else with an understanding of child psychology.

Your argument that age of consent doesnt affect the number of rapes for one is based partially off of a misunderstanding of the Bolsheviks law change, and also is irrelevant. I doubt 'evidence' (even if legitimate) that suggested abolishing rape laws entirely would have no affect on the number of rapes would be interpreted to mean rape laws should be opposed

[RedWorker]

Make another thread, I don't want to derail this.

[Rafiq]

Trotsky is a despicable figure. While he could be commended for its efforts during the civil war, ultimately, Trotsky was a menshevik at heart - a thoroughly bourgeois ideologue who gave rise to the tendency of Communist apologia - trotsky represents bourgeois apologia for the movement of Communism, rather than identification for it.

This is excluding the fact that he was an arrogant piece of shit, personally.

[Sinister Intents]

My opinion of Trotsky in all honesty because I was lying: Abject HATE. The actions at kronstadt and so on.

[RedWorker]

Trotsky is a despicable figure. While he could be commended for its efforts during the civil war, ultimately, Trotsky was a menshevik at heart - a thoroughly bourgeois ideologue who gave rise to the tendency of Communist apologia - trotsky represents bourgeois apologia for the movement of Communism, rather than identification for it.

This is excluding the fact that he was an arrogant piece of shit, personally.

Elaborate. On everything.

[Creative Destruction]

http://spartacist.org/english/wh/209/Polanski.html

lol, what does defending a rapist have to do with women's lib?

[Creative Destruction]

as to Trotsky, i don't "hate" him. i just don't think his theories are convincing.

[Zoroaster]

Trotsky, well...

I'll just say that Bordiga was cooler and leave it at that.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

it's incredibly dishonest to argue against trotsky or trotskyism by using the sparts as an example. they represent one very bizarre tendency/interpretation among dozens if not hundreds of much more relevant ones

[PhoenixAsh]

Really? Relevant ones? Which one of the "hundreds" (I hope you see the irony there...) ?



*puts empty can of oil away*

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

relevant, at the very least, in terms of understanding trotsky and trotskyist theory

[Creative Destruction]

it's incredibly dishonest to argue against trotsky or trotskyism by using the sparts as an example. they represent one very bizarre tendency/interpretation among dozens if not hundreds of much more relevant ones

on the one hand, i wouldn't use them to represent trotskyist thought generally; but, on the other, they are one of the more visible tendencies, aside from the ISO or the CWI.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

where exactly? in the US?

[Sandy Becker]

Certainly in the US. But the stupid references to the ICL, that deal only with one or two aspects of their program (ad nauseum), don't help clarify anything. For those that want the bourgeoisie of their countries to legislate what constitutes appropriate sexuality, that is, IMHO, a far more bizarre position for a revolutionary to have than anything the ICL may have to offer.

I searched and found a number of long threads dealing with Kronstadt and I don't want to go into that. Certainly the Trotskyists have, at the very least, a good argument that at the very least, the Bolsheviks had reason to believe that this rebellion, if successful, would lead to counterrevolution.

The Spartacist League, US is probably the most visible of Trotskyist groups in the US. The historical party of Trotskyism in the US, the SWP, no longer claims to be Trotskyist. The ISO, never really was Trotskyist, and the rest are even tinier than the SLUS. The Workers League (or is it now the Socialist Equity Party) - left the workers' movement when Healy and his band of merry con men got on the payroll of governments of capitalist countries (e.g., Iran, Libya).

[Illegalitarian]

Hate the sin, not the sinner :P

[Atsumari]

I honestly hate Trotskyists more than I hate Trotsky.
At first, I actually respected Trotsky and Trotskyists for opposing Stalin and for what appeared to me as intellectual honesty in the face of all their bullshit. After a while, I started to learn that many of them were just insufferable to be around.
The self-righteousness, dogmatism, sectarianism, and their extreme lack of imagination was so extreme, that the newspaper that I worked for kicked many of them out. As bad as tankies are, the ones I worked with were at least able to work with people outside their little cults on issues like anti-war, feminism, and LGBT rights.

Even though Trots in the West seemed more comical than a group to be taken seriously, Trotskyism and other anti-Stalinist tendencies in Japan was a tragedy. Stalin had a habit of pretty much calling anything that opposed him as being "Trotskyist" or "reactionary" and much of the Japanese leftists did the same thing, but instead calling each other "Stalinist." The sectarianism was so bad, that a good number of people died. In 1975, 16 people died and there were deaths every single year from left-wing groups fighting each until 2003.
As a result of this shitstorm as well as the stupidity of the Japanese Red Army, most people became disillusioned with revolutionary left-wing politics and those who were still identified as communists went to the Eurocommunist JCP, although pretty bad imo, are at least not insane.

On the bright side, they know how to produce good riot porn and fight for a good cause when they were not killing each other. :laugh:
(In English)
6pK5RfE7mTY
(Japanese)
slK7W9zHHrs

[Sandy Becker]

Why are you blaming those deaths on Trotskyists? Real Trotskyists abhor violence on the left.

[Red Star Rising]

Why are you blaming those deaths on Trotskyists? Real Trotskyists abhor violence on the left.

Any evidence from Trotsky's works? Otherwise that's just a no true scotsman fallacy.

[Counterculturalist]

. Marxism and feminism are not compatible ideologies. If you view the main division in society as gender, it leads to a myriad of non-Marxist positions. Marxists fight for the liberation of women, of course, but view the key division in society as being class division. In the US, the vast majority of people that consider themselves feminists are pro-Democratic Party, are fond of Obama and will be delighted if Hillary Clinton is elected president.


Honestly, this is a foolish position. The rationale for identifying as feminist is a willingness to fight for the liberation of of women. That willingness can accompany and complement Marxism quite handily.

I agree that certain varieties of feminism are classist and counterrevolutionary. But we needn't think of feminism as a monolithic political ideology that sees gender as the key divide in society and leads to worshiping Obama and Clinton. It's as absurd as saying that Marxism sees totalitarianism as essential to society and leads to worshipping Lenin and Stalin. And yes, there are people who make such claims, but I think we can all agree that those people are idiots.

And, frankly, claiming to be in favor of women's liberation but anti-feminist is a meaningless distinction which, in practice, leads to a marginalization of women's concerns; organizations that take an antifeminist stance seem to breed a particularly toxic atmosphere for women.

Would you say you're anti-capitalist but also anti-socialist, because some people who call themselves socialists are really social democrats who like Obama?

[synthesis]

Ah, those ISL (sic) folks just aren't serious enough for someone who is for "intergalactic" socialism.

I like the ICL's line generally -- and since it is forbidden to discuss the ICL's position on age of consent laws and NAMBLA, except to use it as a truncheon with which to pummel the ICL, I will just advise the folks that tirelessly bring this up whenever they mention the ICL that they have an unhealthy obsession with this stuff. Marxism and feminism are not compatible ideologies. If you view the main division in society as gender, it leads to a myriad of non-Marxist positions. Marxists fight for the liberation of women, of course, but view the key division in society as being class division. In the US, the vast majority of people that consider themselves feminists are pro-Democratic Party, are fond of Obama and will be delighted if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

Trotsky is hated by many sections of the left because in his writings and actions he contradicts their views -- pointing out their non-marxist practices (e.g., popular frontism) and fighting for intransigent opposition to capitalism. The Stalinists hate him, of course, because he early on exposed them for exactly what they are, bureaucratic nationalists -- parasites deriving privilege based on planned collectivized economies (USSR, PRC, etc.). The Anarchists hate him for suppressing the Kronstadt uprising and perhaps because of his exposing their utter bankruptcy during the failed Spanish Revolution/Civil War. Obviously they are also not fans of the idea of centralized power, as well.

It is true, in my opinion, and a poster above, that many so-called Trotskyist tendencies in the world long ago slipped into reformist (or stranger) politics. The USec for example, ande the Lambertistes and Healyites. The SWP (UK) and the CWP often refer to themselves as Trotskyists, but their tendencies were products of a right-wing split from Trotskyism led by Tony Cliff deciding to be neutral in the Korean War conflict (tacitly supporting British Imperialism). At which point they abandoned military defense of the USSR.

As Leninism was an update of Marxism, Trotskyism is an update of Leninism.

This user is very clearly a sockpuppet for Five Year Plan/Lucretia, in case anyone gives a shit.