TROTS OUT REEEEEEEEEEE

what about Tibet

that was under mao breh

Does BO own bunkerchan?

...

I'm not sure. I don't think so.

They didn't *call* themselves that, but they praised Lenin and the Bolsheviks while being lukewarm at best toward Stalin. Most believed Stalin couldn't have really done much different but he still wasn't worthy of praise or serious study.

Sounds like being a first day ML kid tbqh I wouldn't call that a tendency.

I don't understand why you think it's impossible to be a Leninist and not a Stalinist.

It's not like there was unanimous agreement after Lenin's death that Stalin was the torch-bearer of his ideological legacy. Quite the opposite, in fact.

All I said is that Trots are really the only "anti-Stalinist" Leninist tendency and everything else is a complete fucking meme.

Who else even makes the cut as "anti-Stalinist" Leninists? In truth, Maoists aren't really that keen on Stalin and Mao was pretty bipolar about him, but even though I wouldn't consider them "Stalinists" most people do. Who else might count? The Khruschevites–the literal tankies who carried sent tanks into Hungary in 1956, invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 and invaded Afghanistan in 1979. These people betrayed Lenin's legacy to a greater degree then Stalin could be accused of doing and there's not even much point in being a literal tank with the USSR gone unless you really love corn and shoe-banging.

I personally do not think you can be a Leninist without being a Stalinist because he carried forth Lenin's work and legacy, even made some contributions to it though he never bragged about it.

Trotsky on the other hand:
ciml.250x.com/archive/trotskyism.html

I mean what do the Trotskyists have proving that Lenin disapproved of Stalin? The alleged testament where Lenin chides Stalin for being "too rude" wow, deep criticism, and from a man who could be a world-class asshole when he was angry.

Interaction between historical personalities (who are now dead) doesn't determine politics–the political line does.

Read Trotsky's biography on Stalin.

He goes step by step, in excruciating chronological detail backed by more sources than the vast majority of anything ever written, to explain how Stalin had a minimal, negligible role in the years leading up to and during the revolution. The reason Lenin didn't insult Stalin is because he wasn't even *important* enough to insult. No one even remembered who the fuck he WAS half the time. There are cases of major, major revolutionary activity happening and no one even thinking to go get Stalin. He just wasn't a crucial or even semi-important part of the revolution.

Just to emphasize, you should seriously read some of Stalin's quotes from the time of the provisional government. The man said some absolutely abysmal things, sometimes he was less revolutionary than the fucking Mensheviks.

Nope. Space_ does.

As far as I can remember, ancoms have always been the largest group by far, with leftcoms a trailing second after their meme boom and communalists trailing after their meme boom. They were proportionately vocal until about the fall of 2016, when tankies became much more vocal. Even then and to this day, they have remained the largest group.
Tankies have consistently registered as 12-15% as far as I can remember. Other varieties of Leninists have jumped back and forth. Trotskyists have always been fairly rare because of their association with r/soc mods (deserved or not). Leninists had a jump around the time Muke started with the whole "libertarian Leninism" meme, which says a lot about this board as a whole.

Is this satire? I remember the "anti-imperialism line" map and how great it was for making fun of anti-imperialism - and then tankies made their own unironic version because they couldn't handle the bullying! Tankies are such jokes.

B O R D I G A
How so? Did they even necessarily "do" anything? The economy had to diversify and become more complex - the alternative to this was cybernetic planning, which would have given power to the workers themselves. This was opposed by the hardline Stalinists on ideological grounds when Kitov tried and on personal, opportunistic grounds when Glushkov tried. The system had its own momentum predicated upon the Law Of Value which made its return to markets highly likely, if not inevitable. The collapse of the system and subsequent outflow of capital occurred as a result of the state going bankrupt (money!!!) and losing the ability to finance isolated industrial towns, which then failed to collaborate (reintroduced borders didn't help) and went bankrupt and sold off their pieces of capital one by one. It was a ticking capitalist time bomb, and infinite productivist growth at gun barrel couldn't stop that.

I get enough neocon news, no thanks. Trotsky was an inveterate liar and he lied to the Dewey who was a convinced anti-communist btw Commission that found him "innocent" on all charges.

He was a nobody and yet the Bolsheviks used his work on the "National Question" to help deal with the nationalities problem? Doubt.png

You say he wasn't even semi-important in the Revolution but at the time that Lenin died 90% of the population were still peasants and most agricultural property was still in private hands. Stalin was the person who actually pushed forward with building socialism whereas Trotsky opposed it (though prior to that he wanted peasant land/grain seized at gunpoint).

You're being ridiculous.

I read things by people I radically oppose all the time. To do otherwise is willful ignorance. If you're not even going to attempt to understand Trotsky's take on the USSR, you're just limiting yourself and your own intellectual growth.

...

Again, complete meme ideology, and someone who wasn't even well-known on Holla Forums when we had like 200-300 posters. That was well before the Bordiga cancer posting began.

I don't consider Bordiga a leninist and deep-down he probably didn't either since he considered Lenin a progressive revolutionary that didn't go far enough and claimed that its key defect was that it was essentially too democratic. I've yet to meet one Bordigist who could specify how Stalin somehow made the Soviet more "capitalist" then Lenin left it. I doubt Bordgists are even familiar with Lenin's writings explicitly saying that state-capitalism is progressive in comparison to private capitalism, that state-capitalism wasn't the main contradiction in the advance towards socialism but rather private capitalism was, while at the same time maintaining the need to move towards socialism.

Then you have the hilarious piece around 1946 where after doing essentially nothing to fight fascism he comes out and says that the Allies won WWII with fascist methods and all of the Allied powers were moving towards fascist methods. The actual reality of the situation is that America, UK, France and the USSR became so liberal that their brains began to fall out of their skulls. The man was a complete clown who argued hilariously that the USSR should be governed by the Comintern.

My understanding is this debate really kicked into gear in the 50s, mainly after Stalin's death, with the Khruschevites and other liberal elements winning the debate against cybernetic planning by advocating a move towards mark soc.
web.mit.edu/slava/homepage/articles/Gerovitch-InterNyet.pdf
Even if it had begun before then I don't see the computing tech that the USSR had in the 30s-40s as really being capable of solving any kind of contradictions. Stalin did criticize those who fought solving technical problems associated with socialist planning via technocracy was the same as solving real political-economic contradictions of socialism in his last work. And he was right because those two are not the same things even if certain techno-fetishists confuse them to be.

*Leninism's key defect

trotsky did nothing wrong.

Extra salty in here.

Fuck.

Off

Back

2

REDDIT

...

I read an alt history story once where Trotsky was the one who ousted Stalin and the ussr ended up being the big bad guy in ww2, also Trotsky killed hitler and the americans had to team up with the remaining Nazi remanates to try and beat Trotsky Russia back

agree

I am no Trotskyiest but damn if I don't love the butthurt that surrounds those who hate.

t. unironic bunker guy
Wrong. Read "InterNyet" again and read this too
nautil.us/issue/23/dominoes/how-the-computer-got-its-revenge-on-the-soviet-union
Khrushchiov himself supported the project (not that I'm a fan of him at any rate). It was mainly the self-interested bureaucrats who emerged out of the power vacuum of Stalin dying and leaving behind an ad hoc industrialized system with no method of removing a single repressive leader and having the management continue to function who opposed cybernetic management.
No one claims this. Bordiga held that it was an all-or-nothing system and that Lenin retained capitalism. His "Leninism" is based off of his reading of "What Is To Be Done?" and its advocacy of vanguardism. Beyond that, he is highly divergent from Leninism as it originally was (although I've been told that ML is as well and that the only ones who try to stick to it completely are Trotskyists, although I haven't read the works of Trotsky or Stalin, so I can't say this). You can even see clear differences between Bordiga and Lenin in the Lyons Theses and Party And Class (expositions of his earlier views, to be contrasted with the more explicitly left-communist "Murdering The Dead" and other such works), and yet there's still an argument to be made that he was always a Leninist on the grounds of those points made in the Theses.
Not a Bordigist myself (those don't exist, by the way - that's mainly a pejorative term), but they never claimed to unironically take everything Lenin said as true word because Bordiga called himself a Leninist. This is contrary to the spirit of a scientific socialism in every way. Analyses are not correct because X said them.
It should have been, and it should have been restructured on organic-centralist lines.
He states in "The Fundamentals for a Marxist Orientation" that all the countries are moving towards a model of heavy state involvement in the process of capitalism at the expense of a variety of smaller, poorer countries. I don't see how he was wrong about that. "More liberal" would be after the epochal shift of the '80s and the fall of the USSR. I don't see how he was wrong about any of what he said. In many countries such as South Korea and West Germany, there were installations of fascistic dictatorial regimes by the West.
If they had implemented the work of Kitov and Glushkov, then everything would have been solved. The capitalistic contradictions of Soviet "socialism", however, precluded any instance of this. Soviet cybernetics are useful on two grounds - to show how deeply flawed and irreparable the system was already by that point and as a source of past information to guide future attempts at related projects. It's utopian to believe that they could have been implemented because they were useful. In the broadest, crudest sense, you could even say that they were not implemented precisely because they were potentially too useful.

found it hilarious when i learned trots selling newspapers was a meme because every trot i've met carries bundles of the things around with them.

what's with that?

"Ice…to meet you" - Jaime Ramón Mercader del Río

"Trotskyism" isn't even an ideology, it's a plot by imperialist elements to infiltrate genuine Marxist organizations and wreck them from the inside.

Trotsky himself agitating against the USSR when all the fascist world powers (Germany, Japan, Italy) were preparing for their war against the USSR. During WW2 the Nazis had radio towers broadcasting pirate signals into the USSR using Trotskyism as the rallying cry.

Marxism-Leninism is the only system which has practically proven of being able to overthrow capitalism, all other systems lead to defeat and continued supremacy of capital.

How's that IMF debt?

Nice reddit spacing.

I remember a time when I was literally the only trot on this board

Why do we have so few trots?

How long have you been here fam?

Because most of them hang around in their reddit safe spaces.

Because we ice-picked them all

I agree. Stalinists and narchos can fuck of as well.

Ya that maybe a "meme" but the fact is there are still Hoxhaist parties around (I'm told the Ecuadorian and Turkish parties are particularly strong) and even Hoxhaist international orgs:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_of_Marxist–Leninist_Parties_and_Organizations_(Unity_&_Struggle)
cipoml.net
ciml.250x.com/index1.html

You yourself write:

Meaning perhaps that he's not really a Leninist?

So, you're stating that Bordiga was a Leninist and that ML is divergent from Leninism without having any basis for what your saying. You haven't even read the works of two most talked about Russian socialist leaders after Lenin. I may not have read all Trotsky's major works but at least I've read enough of it to know that I disagree with him, that I don't really think he was a real Leninist or a particularly consistent Marxist. On what basis are you gonna say that Stalin wasn't a real Leninist if you haven't even read his works, comrade?

The first point is one of whether a socialist state should be run by their own party with representatives elected by their own people or whether it should be run by foreign-communists, who if we keep in mind the times, hadn't made any successful revolutions in their own countries and some parties barely had little significant influence on their working class and peasantry.

Secondly, the communist parties in the West were infiltrated and many still clung tight to centrist lines that had been popular in the second international. By the 1930s the Comintern had been infiltrated and taken over by revisionists like Dimitrov who shifted the focus away from the class-war and towards popular anti-fascist fronts on the basis of class collaboration:
ml-review.ca/aml/Comintern/DIMITROV_TOOL_COMPASS112.htm
ml-review.ca/aml/AllianceIssues/ALL12-DIMITROV.HTM
It's becoming better understood among anti-revisionist MLs that Dimitrov was a renegade from Leninism:ciml.250x.com/to/80th_anniversary_betrayal_7th_world_congress_comintern_25_july_1935.html

It's telling too that Stalin never talked about the Comintern after the right-opportunists had succeeded in subverting it and the fact that he couldn't liquid it outright, as bourgeois J. Arch Getty argued he had less executive power then Margaret Thatcher he couldn't do much about it. But when the Comintern was finally dissolved during WWII Stalin made sure to create a new Comintern-like organization (Cominform) that held a firm anti-revisionist line:
ml-review.ca/aml/Comintern/Cominform_WBB_StalinSoc.htm

Bordiga and Dimitrov were really two sides of the coin imo, one took an ultra-left position in the face of fascist danger while the other took a rightist-position. Both were let out of fascist jails to run scot-free while thousands of their fellow communists were being tortured; Thalmann for instance was murdered in prison while the Nazis let Dimitrov have press-coverage at his trial and later let him go.

Fascism is not when the government does stuff or helps to manage the economy and he states what I said outright in the "Fundamentals of the Marxist Orientation":

The USSR started to drift in a liberal direction in the 1950s, the colonial countries were by and large free of colonial bondage by the end of the sixties allowing them more freedom to "choose their master" so-to-speak, the US and other capitalist countries started moving in a more liberal direction in politics and culture after WWII but things really accelerated in the 60s and 70s. The 80s was really the accumulative effect of all these trends bearing fruit. Wrong is wrong, the liberal capitalist countries only moved towards a moderate "state-capitalism" if it could even be called that (see pic related on Sweden) and moved straight back to go-fast privatize everything capitalism. The socialist bloc moved to the Right and collapsed, the Western bloc didn't budge at all but rather went backwards and further to the right economically-speaking.

trots are the milhouse of the communist world, an ideology created by a failure, and propagated by failures who want other commies to fail too.

Seems like you know nothing about that

Basically it said that Khrushchev was for it but only to the extent that it didn't threaten the bureaucracy too much. There were liberal elements who were against it completely on the basis that central planning is wrong therefore what data a computer attained under those conditions could only be wrong and the market should fix it. As far as Cybernetics under Stalin he criticized it on the basis that cybernetics was not some kind of panacea theory that could replace Marxism or the class struggle as was being preached in the West at the time (one of the Stalin posters here and on /Marx/ has written on this.)

This is wrong, again technical and political economic problems are not the same and the Khruschevites introduced new damaging political-economic problems even if Khrushchev himself favored cybernetics to some degree.

For instance they abolished central planning and introduced a whole host of pro-capitalist reforms.
revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/BlandRestoration.pdf

As far as the notion that the USSR was capitalist under Stalin we should list some things:

-It was a planned economy where the market was restricted as much as possible

-much of the workforce were employed in coops (Kolkhoz) the rest worked for the state but had real checks and balances and real influence over what a Soviet director could do

-there was no private accumulation of capital, or lending at interest, the stock market was abolished

-private property in land abolished

-there was generous social programs for the working class that matched even the most generous social democracies

-It was more egalitarian then any Western social democracy

-It was relatively isolated from world trade and had centralized control over all foreign trade

-It didn't have a business-cycle and grew extremely rapidly and at a steady pace

-production wasn't determined by profit and funding for industrial production was determined on the basis of social need instead of profitability

Even if I were to accept the false assumption that it was a capitalist state we'd still have to give them credit for creating the most socially progressive and advanced form of capitalism of all time. I personally think Hoxha corrected one of the major errors of the Stalinist economy which was allowing income inequality among workers to get a bit too high. Albania by contrast had a wage inequality of 2:1–the lowest in the world.

Wage inequality in the USSR was only 4:1 and I don't think that's bad in itself. Wage equality would be achieved only under high stage communism anyway.

I don't think it was terrible in itself but merely that it might've undermined the goal of building socialism in certain respects. Marx talked about wage-inequality in Critique of the Gotha Program while he wasfairly ambiguous about it but absolutely rejected the everyone-gets-the-same-wage philosophy en vogue at the time.

Still in the West by contrast 20:1 or 30:1 was a pretty common wage-dispart between CEOs and the non-managerial workforce, today its far worse, I think the US its about 300:1.

...

Since there was about a dozen users on this board

admit that you faked the dewey report
do it

Only if you admit that Stalin set the workers revolution back by a hundred years