Ice Pick vs Armchair: Trotsk on Bordiga

This is exactly the sort of answer you'd expect.

People who hate Trotsky because they think they're supposed to always talk about him being sectarian, being arrogant, being the person responsible for destroying their Real Left tm movements and all that, but as soon as you press them a little bit for concrete examples you always hear:

You bunch of children. Stop parroting the first you heard about a person/movement just because you want to have an opinion about it.

...

/thread

it's like everyone's trying to make Dengism look appealing

Anyone with at least a high school-tier understanding of Communist history would know that Trotsky and Lenin were close until more or less 1903, grew apart, and then became allies again from 1917 until Lenin's death. There's no shortage of shit said about one another between the two Russian revolutions that, as future actions demonstrate, didn't represent opinions they stayed with.

As for Ho Chi Mihn, Mao Zedong and Che Guevara, they all ascended after Trotsky's time and didn't meet him directly (maybe Ho before the war when he wasn't particularly inflent, I'd have to check), so they're talking about Trotskyists parties, which a completely unrelated phenomenon (Trotsky himself had many disagreements with people from the Fourth International).

Also
This is when you know you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel, and just in case someone has not bothered reading until the end: the charge posted by this user, in complete seriousness, is that the Nazis were trying to put Trotsky in charge of the Soviet Union in exchange for Ukraine. I wonder if the people who post this pic even bothered reading it and realising how fucking ridiculous it is, or if they just see a bunch of text glued together and assume it makes good points.

Is there anything else in your meme folder, perhaps something that will support your initial point about Trotsky being so sectarian and sooo mean to everyone else on the Left?

Case in point.

It is true that basically no one who knew him liked him, thus why Stalin became Lenin's successor.

not even an icepick holster but wew lad

That's funny because Zinoviev, Kamenev and to a degree even Bukharin all came to Trotsky's side in the end, and tried to unite against Stalin, until arrested and tortured out if it. I guess you can say that if no one liked Trotsky, they liked Stalin even less.

see "learn to think" (1938) and pages 53-61 of libcom.org/files/p.bourrinet - the 'bordigist' current.pdf

Where's the evidence of it though? To me it just seems like the they were held for months on end and the NKVD kept interviewing them and getting bits and pieces from them until they started recusing each other.

Hoxhaists will defend literally anything Stalin did.

...

Trotsky himself did Kronstadt and was too apologetic for the state capitalist regime that later killed him.
Trots today tend to be cultish and ineffectual.

You say that like that's a bad thing.

Kronstadt, feuds with Stalin, OPs quote about Bordiga.

Stalin had Trotsky assassinated. That has to be a little sectarian of him, don't you think?

And yet he stuck with it rather than with bordigists. Guess which organisations are still revolutionary today?

Again, where's the evidence that Zinoviev, Bukharin, and Kamenev were tortured? You're just assuming it and not advancing any evidence. Just for the sake of argument I'll say that if you assume the American government tortured a particular person or is involved in some plot/conspiracy without evidence then that's not really a great argument either.

You know even if they were tortured that wouldn't prove they were innocent right?

I'm not Ismail, and Ismail is a revisionist who doesn't defend Stalin where it counts he'd rather spend his time defending Tito, Deng, and Khrushchev. And "hundreds of thousands of torture cases" getting real Conquest-esque in here, I haven't even heard reactionary bourgeois writers claim hundreds of thousands were tortuers much less hundreds of thousands of "less prominent" Soviet officials.

It's true the NKVD tortured people under Ezhov but this wasn't sanctioned along with a great many murders that he committed. Ezhov was executed for the crimes he committed against the Soviet people and not coincidentally Soviet executions fell to a rather small rate and many people were pardoned when Beria took over the NKVD.

You realize that people who disbelieve the charges against Ezhov and others aren't actually le rashunal skeptics XDDDD who are too good to be suckered by Stalinist conspiracy theories but rather people who believe in their own counter-conspiracies that explains away any challenges to their narrative, right?

So, Stalin and the politburo, besides setting limits on the repressions of counter-revolutionaries (which is typically mistranslated from the Russian as "quotas") that the NKVD could carry out, see that exceeded by a large degree. Various documents attest that the Soviet leadership was genuinely puzzled and curious about the reports they were getting about NKVD abuses, but that has to be either ignored or assumed to be a bunch of lies to designed to cover up the real truth. Then Stalin puts in Beria and they uncover the extent of Ezhov's crimes and he confesses and his executed. There are multiple accounts from high-profile soviet underground leaders and Moscow Trial members that this Ezhov is involved but to explain this its just assumed they were all told to say that! And even though Beria reverses the course of mass terror and repression started by Ezhov it can only be assumed that Stalin was covering his ass, which doesn't make much sense why in his diabolical plot he would deliberately allow things to get out of his control to terrorize everyone but then simply reverse course entirely. If the intention of the terror from the beginning was to scare good communists and the Russian people and to prove Stalin's power then it doesn't make much sense because the cover-story makes the Soviet government look incredibly weak.

In short, things can never be, as they are, for anti-Stalinist leftists and bourgeois anti-communists when looking at the Stalin period, everything has to be viewed through a glass darkly, as an implicit or explicit conspiracy to preserve or advance Stalin's power. The idea is never even considered that maybe at times he lacked power altogether or wasn't in control of things. Hell the bourgeois historian J. Arch Getty provocatively argued that Stalin had less power then Margaret Thatcher and the anti-Stalinist Left, ever so "critical" has failed to keep up with even bourgeois historiography of the Stalin period and is still stuck in the historical narratives of reactionaries like Hearst and Conquest.

Not the Bordigists? sorry to be autistic but I'm not sure if this was your true meaning or not

thoughtsofaeurasianist.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/trotskyism-viewed-from-the-right/
Just going to leave this one here

*tortured

As far as revolutions go
Lenin > Trotsky > Makhno > … > taking a shit > Bordiga

What you've just said makes no sense, stop posting.

So your examples of Trotsky hating and smearing everyone on the Left are: the overall Bolshevik reaction against an armed uprising, a factional struggle with one dude that history has shown was a power-hungry opportunist, and a feud with Bordigists that you didn't even know existed until a few minutes ago, and is probably completely unware of the circumstances, what caused it and who started the feud?

You need to learn how to take a deep breath, count to five and then ask yourself if you really know what you're talking about before you open your mouth, son.

OP BTFO

So basically: the years of legitimate theoretical struggle which involved opposing viewpoints and harsh criticism of eachother; leaving out Trotsky's conversion to Bolshevism and self-criticism, his commendable service to the civil war and his theoretical defense of the revolution; then moving on to the time where Stalin already took over and the "trotskyist saboteurs" myth was perpetrated as an ideological explanation for the politico-economic failures after the first five year plan.

WEW

And one more thing: have you read how the Bolsheviks talked to eachother in intense politburo sessions? I talk to my dog in a nicer tone.

libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=A87ECBB483BF27F182F31626527035A6

I obviously meant Bordigists are still revolutionary, while "Trotskyists" are not.

There was literally nothing wrong with Kronstadt. Deal with it.

kek

he killed Anarchists, left socialists, and everyone critical of the party more then anyone in the party leadership.

how are trotskyists not revolutionary

haven't read the thread so sorry if it's been brought up but Trotsky's explanation about dialectics threw me off of it for a while, and makes me question his intellectual powers.

Not so well read myself at the moment

i thought his explanation was good (better than stalin's)

Dengism is basically Social Democracy, minus the Democracy.

...