What are the REAL differences between Trots and MLs?

Fuck off tankie, I never said anything about whether Stalin could've achieved full socialism in the early 20th century, I said it was laughable you laud around revisionism as an insult.

So what should they have done while world war I was raging and the country was starving? Just Pray? Or maybe wait 100 years until the country was developed enough for socialism?

Pretty sure sitting on your ass is probably the grossest form of revisionism there is since it involves giving up the political struggle and the revolutionary core of Marxist theory. I'm not even a don-think-act-type but your lack of serious criticisms of Stalin leads me to believe you haven't thought through what you would've done if you were in his place or if you have their mostly of the historical idealist variety.

This is now proletarian vanguard thread leftcoms and other pseudo-anarchist New Left-Influenced intellectuals need not apply.

But isn't it objectively true that the USSR, China, and Cuba were/are autocratic states in which everyday citizens had no way to affect their governance?

Literally only happened because of Nazi incompetence

Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm

0/10 kill yourself faggots

A class is defined not by its participation in the distribution of the national income alone, but by its independent role in the general structure of economy and by its independent roots in the economic foundation of society. Each class (the feudal nobility, the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie, the capitalist bourgeoisie, and the proletariat) works out its own special forms of property. The bureaucracy lacks all these social traits. It has no independent position in the process of production and distribution. It has no independent property roots. Its functions relate basically to the political technique of class rule. The existence of a bureaucracy, in all its variety of forms and differences in specific weight, characterizes every class regime. Its power is of a reflected character. The bureaucracy is indissolubly bound up with ruling economic class, feeding itself upon the social roots of the latter, maintaining itself and falling together with it….

Nevertheless, the muh privileges of the bureaucracy by themselves do not change the bases of the Soviet society, because the bureaucracy derives its muh privileges not from any special property relations, peculiar to it as a “class”, but from those property relations which have been created by the October revolution, and which are fundamentally adequate for the dictatorship of the proletariat."
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1933/10/sovunion1.htm

Besides some wryness Trotsky himself admits that a "dictatorship by the bureaucracy" in the Soviet Union is impossible. Bureaucracy can never and nowhere become an independent class. It thus cannot constitute its own dictatorship. This is the unambiguous marxist and leninist standpoint, and if Trotsky later rants against the supposedly existing "dictatorship of bureaucracy", this too only is further proof of him willingly throwing Marxist insights over board for his power struggle while turning against Marxism. In the same paper, in which Trotsky argues that the bureaucracy doesn't constitute an own independent class and thus cannot carry out the functions of a ruling class - the dictatorship - he goes on to claim the roughly opposite (page 16/17): 'Yet the development of the bureaucratic regime can lead to the emergence of a new ruling class; not on the organically way of degeneration, but through counterrevolution.' What does this mean? There'll emerge a new class that will take rule and wields the dictatorship. Should the bureaucracy develop to the new ruling class? How does it become the new ruling class? Trotsky says, not on the organic way of degeneration but through counterrevolution. Who's to perform the counterrevolution? The bureaucracy?
For what purpose? Supposedly it already exercises its dictatorship over the people. Should it conduct the counterrevolution to overthrow its own rule? All of these are very complex riddles. However: we know that bureaucracy under the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't an independent class just as much as it isn't under capitalism. So how can it, who can only be a tool of the ruling class, conduct a counterrevolution out of its own resources and how can it become an independent class after the victory of its counterrevolution? We know from Trotsky himself that bureaucracy can only be the clerk of the bourgeoise, even under fascism. Talk about the bureaucracy, in the Soviet Union out of all, making a counterrevolution or that it must become the ruling class after the victory of its counterrevolution, is utter nonsense judged from a marxist perspective. Yet Trotsky needs such intricate constructions to justify his fight against the Soviet Union. What he's pretending to to fight doesn't even exist. His struggle is aimed against the bolshevik party, the first workers state, his struggle serves the regression, the counterrevolution."
offen-siv.net/Buch-Kubi-Stalin.pdf

Stalin and his cronies probably slaughtered more Marxist than the United States has. We shit on socdems for murdering Rosa Lumexburg, we Stalin should be shat on for murdering Isaac Rubin. Tankies are the cancer killing the left. Also
Kek, Leftcom tendencies predate ML.

Yeah, shove it up your ass.

Second link is a work in german which i was working on translating into english. What i quoted there is partly translating a german source on my own rather than looking up already existing english translations, so pardon me if this causes issues in finding the related paragraphs.

...

I'm sure you're well aware that Marx and Engels both entertained the idea of the national capitalist. Considering the Law of Value persisted in the Soviet Union (in fact, it was the Soviets goal to set up a capitalist economy in equilibrium), it's completely possible for the bureaucracy to take on the role of the "national capitalist". Capitalist relations still persisted in the Soviet Union - this is a fact. Stalin admitted themselves in his "Economic Problems in the Soviet Union". My point is that people were so limited that they weren't even aloud to express themselves through music. I wonder tankie, who was enforcing rules like that, rules that infringe on the individual's freedom to expression, if it wasn't the bureaucracy who made the rules and instructed the police? Tell me tankie, why did you slaughter thousands of Marxist including theorist who are now considered some of the most important in 20th century Marxist economics like Isaac Rubin if it wasn't the state capitalist bureaucracy? Slaughtering Socialist sounds like something Capitalist do using the bureaucracy.

...

"Marxism-Leninism" is just a mask for Stalinism

Trotskyism is basically Leninism + Permanent Revolution

"Marxism-Leninism" is just a nice way of referring to Stalinism and its various ideological offspring. This is either out of a desire to downplay Stalin's influence on their ideology (Khrushchevites and the like) or out of the dogmatic insistence that Stalin's program was just a continuation of Lenin (as was the claim of Stalin himself) and, thus, a direct denial of any claim that Stalin greatly altered Soviet policies away from Lenin's original vision.

Trotsky believed that revolution should be eternal whereas Marxist-Leninsts had real goals.

I'm pretty sure most MLs today are rejecting Khrushchev and his revisionist policies in retrospect.

Also, what exactly is your claim based on that Stalin wasn't a continuation of Lenin?

...

MLs actually have some principles and a comprehensible world view.

Trots are just don't. As an example, in the UK trots where behind the anti war movement during the iraq invasion, on the grounds of it being imperialist, and they actually did some very good organising on it, now fast forward to Libya and Syria and the trots now are valourising the "revolutionaries" and calling anyone who disagrees an apologist for tyranny, the exact same insult they used to get from the pro war lobby. How can you oppose british troops toppling Sadam but call british armed turkish troops toppling assad a revolution?

Trots are just very confused

Because Iraq happened under Dubya while Syria happened under Obongo.

It's too fucking painful to watch Holla Forums pretend to be one of us.

Well, exactly. Trotsky's argument wasn't about superstructural nations, it was about the class relations in those nations. You know, real Marxism.

The issue Trotsky got at, showing why Stalinism was so fucking awful, was that Russia was not an industrialized country and so, as Marx himself knew, socialism couldn't come into being there. To survive in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries meant industrializing, but that process can't be accomplished by the pre-proletariat alone. There has to be capital, and therefore a capital interest. Hence the so-called "state capitalism" (more precisely, the deformed worker's state) of the USSR. Bureaucratization happened because capital had to concentrate for industrialization. So now the people directing industry develop a capital interest in it, and move toward autocracy. That's Marxism-Leninism: basically a guide for third world nations to sit at the big boy table of politics without making any substantial movement toward socialism.

Trotskyism, meanwhile, agrees with Marx that capitalism needs to happen for socialism to begin, and that didn't happen in the USSR. In our first world today that specific fact doesn't matter so much, but the thought behind it can help with theory - for example, the need for a state during the transition to communism to enforce the good parts of bourgeois economy and morality. MLs, meanwhile, simply don't have any lessons to apply to the modern world, since they don't think in terms of economy or history. It's a very weird reversal that they call us "revisionists".

Also this.

*"Degenerated" rather than "deformed", although I myself don't value the distinction very much.

Trotsky was against the NEP and wanted rapid industrialisation and collectivisation of agriculture

True, insofar as he wanted to preserve the revolution in his own country. That was absolutely and obviously necessary. But he also makes no bones about the fact that it wasn't a stable system, that the revolution had to go international to actually move toward socialism, and so that the industrialized West had to fall too.

Do I think an ascendant Trotsky could have actually worked (i.e. establish actual socialism) in Russia in 1923? No, barring some serious luck with Germany or elsewhere. The thing about theory is that it's not about what a man did but what he knew - something Stalinists always forget.