What do you actually think about Trots and Trotskyism?

haha yeah, let's just slaughter anyone who dissents, such special revolutionaries

leninism is cancer

the Left SRs should've shot the Bolsheviks

Surprise, surprise.

Weak bait

pick one

First section (on Trotsky): theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/notes-trotsky-pannekoek-bordiga-gilles-dauvé-jean-barrot-1972.

Trotskyist praxis may be summed up by PDF related, which belongs to the largest Trot org in the world.

...

End the nightmare
by a couple hundred. And the WSWS has a far larger daily readership than these guys. better just to head over there if you want to learn about actual trotskyism, and not mass-market genre fiction leftism

Theory is good but tankies and trots seem to jack off about theory just for the sake of it. Anarchists go to far the other way.

i'll pick both

bolsheviks love violence, so don't complain when you get it turned against you

Isn't Trotskyist theory about bringing Leninism back to Marx, and Trotskyist praxis about rooting socialism in the working class?

I thought it was about newspaper sales and party splits

...

imagine being this mad over my communism daddy losing to another communism daddy 100 years ago

hahahaha
it's close to the exact opposite

thats fuckin neato kid. when have anarchists ever managed to kill of the marxists?

Pretty much. The key idea is permanent revolution, that capitalism is an inherently international system that must be overthrown on the global scale or it will expand back in to every corner it is momentarily shut out of. Namely, several bourgeois revolutions have been prevented by the relationships of global capital, for example those behind colonialism and the two world wars, and so the revolutionary significance of the proletariat, revolutionary Russia and the postcolonial third world as important special cases, derives from its relationship to international capital, and experience success to the extent that it addresses capitalism as an international system.

>The SEP literally made wsws.org before the dot com bubble and started writing online news before fucking CNN
Hurr

do they actually sell newspapers?

I've never seen that irl

If you search hard enough on MIA you can find plenty of Trotskyist papers.

whats MIA

This was the only good thing Trotsky had in mind.

Bolsheviks are bad because they're power loving scum who just want to rule the workers

Bolshevism ruined the left permanently
Until it dies, we'll never conquer capitalism

Marxist Internet Archive

TROT GET

You do realize that an anarchist society would have to purge fucking everyone who refused to cooperate.

I'm not even counting the vast majority of the population that will sit by and be bystanders to the revolution. I'm talking genuine reactionaries who are very good at organization, Republican Spain learned this the hard way

One thing Lenin was right about (and my homeboy Bookchin agreed with) is the need for an ideological vanguard for a revolution, to say otherwise is ahistorical and idealist.

But then again you're a mutualist so I don't expect you to understand praxis.

...

meaningless garbage word

hint: explain your ideology better and listen to the people rather than ruling over them with a jewish security apparatus

Bookchinite showing his true colors

>>>Holla Forums

Could you screencap/quote his words

congrats on outing yourself Holla Forums

spectator.co.uk/2016/08/take-it-from-an-ex-trot-labour-neednt-worry-about-trotskyists/

this

Trotsky is my favorite leftist dip shit of all time. No one was more subversive

that article is an ex-trot neocon who finishes by crying about cultural marxism

perhaps, in the sense of neo meaning "all encompassing, accusatory, ungraspable vastness of an undefined enemy" like the neo in neoliberal

otherwise he is as far from a neocon as a conservative can get

At least his "true colors" aren't gray and dark gray, faggot

🍀🍀🍀W E W🍀🍀🍀

Neoliberalism is a specific ideology. That people don't know what it means doesn't make it non existent.

dude they complement each other extremely well, just ask /fa/

Bookchin used "vanguard" in sense of having a dedicated cadre of educated people leading the effort to organize and spread. As opposed to some anarchists delusions that you dont need elites or leaders(leaders are not rulers).

Some Leninists seem to think that a vanguard means that you have a dictatorial clique that opresses all other people and movements, which is obviously retarded.

D R O P P E D

Absolutely delusional.
They're brought within the fold of bourgeois party politics and the academy because they're ruling class ideologies, in both structure and content. So-called "Western Marxists" captured nothing.

I like the Keynes quote, though, but it's more apt to describing neoliberalism and the religiously "non-ideological." Which does seem to be what he's doing, only that he calls both communist.

He was a worthless criminal saboteur that tried to wreck peace talks and aid imperialism much like Bukharin and the Left SRs.

"Trials in 1936, 1937, and 1938 revealed, that Bukharinites and Trotskyites headed by Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Rykov already from the first days of the Great October Socialist Revolution took part in a conspiracy against Lenin, against the Party of the Bolsheviks, against the Soviet government; long ago they had already formed one common band of the worst enemies of the people. They tried to break the Brest peace, together with "Left" SRs overthrow Soviet authority, arrest and kill V. I. Lenin, I. V. Stalin, Ya. M. Sverdlov, and form a new government of Trotskyites, Bukharinites, and "Left" SRs." - Soviet Encyclopedia

...

Those proceedings were perfectly legitimate, don't just blindly accept the bourgeoisie interpretation of history.

Trotsky was in charge of the Brest-Litovsk negotiations and that is why they failed. He came up with the unacceptable idea of "no war no peace" which wrecked the peace negotiations and led to the continued hostilities under Operation Faustschlag which took thousands of lives. Trotsky would have continued his policy of "no peace" but he was stopped by Lenin, Stalin, and Sverdlov. The most vehement opponent of peace was Bukharin though.

The Left SRs were in charge of destroying the Leninist faction of the party, with Fanny Kaplan shooting Lenin. Had the Left SRs been successful in their coup attempt and Lenin was killed they would have formed a new government of Trotskyites, Bukharinites, and Left SRs which the opportunist Trotsky would have surely joined as just as he opportunistically joined the Bolsheviks in the first place when he was previously a Menshevik.

Left SRs like Fanny Kaplan tried to kill Lenin. Zinoviev and Kamenev were just opportunists they went from opposing Lenin to supporting Trotsky to then renouncing their support of him again but they were always criminal opportunist traitors.

jesus christ, fuck out of here

Permanent revolution is better than socialism in one country unless in times of world war.

Russia was over a barrel by the end of the war. They weren't going to end it without severe territorial concessions in any straight negotiation. An indefinite armistice made sense, because the central powers had their hands pretty full on the other front, and revolution was "around the corner" in Germany. In any case, Lenin clearly didn't see his work at the negotiations as "traitorous" in any sense, or he certainly wouldn't have made him War Commissar.
The Bolshevik program in 1917 was based on permanent revolution, which is both a synthesis and repudiation of Menshevik ideas. A sketch of this was laid out in Results and Prospects in 1906. Literally who cares if he was nominally a Menshevik? You're bringing circumstantial evidence and ad hom to the table, rather than talking theory.

Curiously, the one man you don't wantonly call an "opportunist" here is the guy who pulled "socialism in one country" out of his ass and made a pact with Hitler.

Curious world, too, where "opportunism" entails siding with the guy you just undermined against the one who now has all the power, yeah? Maybe, just maybe, they weren't in it strictly for reckless self-enrichment.

I swear, man. This paranoid-schizophrenic reading of history that Stalinists do is worthy of the man himself.

the NKVD did have a lot of Jews tbf

the Left SRs won the november election before the bolsheviks sperged out

I've been on leftypol since about 6 months into the board's existence. I've been in SAlt since early 2015, and all these criticisms are both true and very obvious, especially to party members. That's probably why leftypol has such an easy time getting all our internal documents(it wasn't me, I swear), people are pissed about some of the ridiculous directives coming down from on high. The emphasis on the paper is both ridiculously outdated, meaningless, and counterproductive. The idea of throwing parties to raise money is some high school level bullshit, no idea where that came from. Summer school seems oddly overemphasized. Usually people go after us for stuff that isn't even true, like having a bunch of liberal sjws, or being pro idpol. It's refreshing to see some blows that actually land for once.

That said, the party is slowly getting better on shit like this, give it another year or two and we'll be a real functioning political party.

I'd say mostly we get flak because there's very few leftypol tier autists in the party. It's mostly normies with successful careers who don't see the point of posting, so we don't defend ourselves online. Also, the autists we do have are on the mod team of /r/socialism, which precludes them posting here. These are also unsurprisingly the least useful members in each branch.

...

wat? only one thing was posted here

Autists don't make very good theorists.

I've seen one or two other other internal docs of ours floating around.

Rigor, precision, and sophistication are the cornerstones of good theory. That's what I assumed you meant.
I mean if you disavow those that just makes my point for me, and stronger.
Seriously though, and either way, claiming /r/socialism really isn't a great endorsement.

As I say, it feels like you guys try to straddle between rigor and normie appeal, never really accomplishing either.
wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/30/salt-j30.html

I so adore that picture. The artist knew that Trotsky was killed in Mexico by a Stalinist agent with an ice pick - so he draws Stalin wearing a sombrero sneaking up on Trotsky with a giant pickax.

Both are authoritarian. I want freedom.

W-what? No! Why would you think that?

Holla Forums pls go

True to form, the mutualist has a streak of anti-Semitism in his thought.

meant for:

They had enough forces left to launch operation faustschlag and revolution clearly was not around the corner. Trotsky always had a misguided idea that world revolution was around the corner, when in reality it would only happen in a single country. This caused him to wreck the peace negotiations.

It takes a ridiculous amount of idealism to claim that the fate of the world revolution was all dependent upon one man like Stalin. The world revolution succeeded in only one country, so socialism could only be built in one country but the Trotskyists vehemently opposed this. Instead the Trotskyists offered the bourgeoisie enslavement of the USSR converting it into a feeble agrarian appendage of the capitalist world. This is fully in line with the desires of the Zionist west.

"In 1925 the Trotskyites came out against the teaching of Lenin and Stalin about the victory of socialism in the Soviet land, against the party course on the victorious construction of socialism in the USSR, against the socialist industrialization of the country. To the general party line, to the Stalinist plan of socialist industrialization of the country, the Trotskyites offered in opposition a bourgeois plan of enslavement of the USSR, converting the Soviet Union into a feeble agrarian appendage of the capitalist world, disarmed and deprived of a possibility for existence in conditions of capitalist encirclement. The Trotskyites tried to corrupt and break up the Bolshevik party after the death of Lenin, to infect it with their disbelief in the cause of victory of socialism in the USSR and to create a party of capitalist restoration" - Soviet encyclopedia

A pact of peace, yes. This ensured peace would exist for years. Trotsky, much like Hitler who later broke this pact, opposed this pact and didn't support the cause of peace amongst their countries.

"Long live the peace between the peoples!" - Stalin

I hate trots with every fiber of my being.

Trotsky himself was nothing special; I unironically think he would have been worse than Stalin had he got in but he was probably less of a psychopath than big Joe.

I wasn't saying the central powers had run out of gas. But it was fair to think an armistice would've been to their benefit, in the sense that they'd have the option to focus on the other front rather than get greedy in the east. In any case it was a fair try, and it didn't leave the eventual treaty any worse off than it would have otherwise been, despite your nebulous hinting at some insult that "ruined" the negotiations.
Ok
That doesn't at all follow.
Look, I don't even need to pull out some "don't all people deserve to live in socialism?" here because socialism in one country does nothing to solve the contradictions of international capital.
???
???
You seem not to realise you're citing scripture to an atheist. This isn't some objective, purely factual source, but propaganda. In using it as one, you're assuming what you're trying to prove.

Yes, it did last for years. Almost two of them, to be exact.
What did he mean by this?

Honestly this has to be a clever parody of tankies, because nobody is this stupid.