Positive views of Stalin among Russians reach 16-year high, poll shows

The way to find out whether people with Stalin nostalgia relate to left positions would be to poll them. Ask them whether they believe that less market and more planning with guaranteed full employment would be better or not. Ask them whether they think healthcare should be run by private insurance companies or not. Ask them whether they believe markets and money have an automatic drive towards inequality, booms and busts, and so on.

You know this because Trotsky keeps saying this I suppose?

Trotsky died in 1940, son.

Great intellectualism, truly this will help us forward. I don't even like Stalin.

Not at all. It's important to understand how and why they were duped, as much as it's important to get to the bottom of "muh free market will fix it" and how people rationalize liberalism in general.

Lenin hated Trotsky.

Wow it's like the tankie has never read anything about the Russian revolution. Shocking
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Vladimir_Lenin
I'm sure that's why they got flats right next door to one another, because of deep-seated animosity.

Well that's troubling

...

Is it?

Consider suicide

Lenin literally wanted Stalin to get canned from his position as General Secretary as soon as he took office.

Stalin was burgoise

Permanent revolution is literally the Marxist position
The world cannot stably exist part capitalist and part not. The forces of capital assault and expand into every unoccupied corner of the globe, and bear down on any utopian project of people declaring themselves "free" from it.
There's this thing called the "Paris Commune" I think you need to read up on, particularly Marx's response to its collapse and Lenin's commentary on this response. And you have stuff like Catalonia and so on and so on.
The task of revolution is to make it possible. No more of this reactionary "pragmatism."
Let's split Poland with Hitler!

Speaks for itself tbh
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch09.htm

He also dubbed him "Judas Trotsky"
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1911/jan/02.htm

Wasn't this all when Trotsky was still with the Mensheviks?

kek

So how would you practically apply that? War with the entire world?

And? What's your argument? Should we just all become leftcoms and do nothing? Face it, there will never be a global revolution, such a thought is utopian, we can strive for regional pockets of revolution and distribute socialism via international solidarity while enforcing protectionist measures to inhibit the dependency on foreign capital. Reminder that the USSR was never actually afflicted by global economic crisis the way the West was.

Are you kidding me? Stalin was everything but not pragmatic. What would you have done? War with the whole world or retreat to capitalism?

On one hand you want permanent revolution but you shy away when territories are annexed?!

*but pragmatic

This should include a Thursday panel when the fascists let him out of prison bc they realize how little of a threat he was.

so close Holla Forums yet so far

so communism is cool with the youth again

i must wonder however

will this just give more power to the revisionist putin servants of the KPRF or will it give the communists of russia party more popularity ?

Hmm… I wonder whether we should give stronger weight to Lenin's opinions on Trotsky from before or after Lenin came to Petrograd, and from before or after they started governing together?

Yeah, his insufficiently strong stance, for what Lenin would like, against speaking with the newspaper publishers within the RSDLP who advocated liquidationism and withdrawal from bourgeois electoral politics is a blemish on his career!
We write polemics against each other all the time. It's literally part of being leftists. It's like our version of giving a firm handshake. Lenin's commentary here is well within the bounds of routine debate.
This clearly doesn't mean what you take it to mean. The context is one of factional strife and revolutionary strategy, not one of theory.

An obscene strawman. If you're not going to argue in good faith, I'm not going to reply.
Like it or not, Stalin is the one who "did nothing" to advance world revolution.
Again you're misrepresenting permanent revolution, either from a position of ignorance or intent to deceive. I'm not advocating for some "spontaneous uprising of the whole world at once." Revolution always, necessarily begins on the national level, unfolds on the international, and completes on the global. Global revolution is an effect, not a cause, and it is one we can choose to contribute to rather than stifle with the state machinery. In all the ways we normally build revolution, not this nonsense "pursuing war with the whole world."
How do you get a revolution in one country? You do that, but with the added benefit and resources from a functioning state apparatus. You can do pretty much whatever, the point is that it's absolutely necessary to overcome capitalism everywhere to establish a communist society. This is amply justified by the theory. Even if it weren't possible, that doesn't invalidate the theory, its necessity, or the fact that capitalism will always in the long run overcome its rivals because it maximizes compete-ability at the expense of social welfare and democratic rights.
Marx himself identified that the revolution would need to occur in the developed west in order to last, and for world revolution to take root.

It was, however, under constant siege and in continuous proxy war.
What do you call the Cold War?
Stalinism already necessitates war with the whole world, just like forming a drug cartel, or any other forcible rejection of bourgeois authority as absolute. The only question is whether you're going to use the state to sponsor workers' struggles or enrich a local elite. Permanent revolution is not synonymous with military conquest, because that's usually used for the latter.

I "shy away" when Stalinists out themselves as class collaborators by working with the Nazis, to the degree that they dismiss advance warning of Operation Barbarossa as "British propaganda." In '38 Trotsky's a nazi, in '39 he's laying British mines.

I've read Lenin

marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/against-trotskyism-a-reading-guide/

As if I didn't read the testament myself! haha
mltheory.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/80/

Proofs?

Every fucking time
Dropped.
The bolshevik program in 1917 was based on internationalism and permanent revolution

implying these 2 have anything to do with trotskism

ciml.250x.com/archive/trotskyism.html
internationalstalinsociety.wordpress.com/trotsky-the-anti-communist/
etc.

…
Are you actually denying that?

>marxists.org/archive/kamenev/1924/11/trotskyism.htm
It also bears noting that Results and Prospects was published in 1906, so the quote is clearly untrue in the first place. I guess politicians are capable of saying things other than the truth, and with less than noble intentions, as much as the next guy. Who'd've thunk it?

Look, I don't have time to look into all these quotes, point out every time you're trying to pull the wool over our eyes and put every genuine quote from this monstrous gish gallop into its proper context. You've got to collect and curate evidence, not just throw out a bucket of primary source material and ask me to make sense of your position for you.

Step back for a moment from the cult of personality you're so accustomed to and approach this the "anonymous imageboard" way. Theory is something we can evaluate on its own, who cares who insulted who? That's only a tool for manufacturing controversy and assigning it undue importance.

Did I really BTFO you that badly?