Both sides make convincing arguments

Correct me if I'm wrong but how are these two positions irreconciliable again? I do not understand the eternal fight between trots and MLs

Trotsky was retarded regardless, if you want to know whose side to pick as a Leninist, then Stalin is the only choice between the two. Stalin was with Lenin from the very beginning, Lenin repeatedly put him in charge, and the worst Lenin had to say about him was that he was rude. On the other hand, Lenin CONSTANTLY shat all over Trotsky and called him all sorts of names.

Because Trotsky wanted perpetual warfare, which would have caused the USSR to collapse.

Trotsky and Stalin's politics weren't actually all that different, and the issues that initially created a riff between them are completely irrelevant today. Anyone who thinks different is either a trot/stalinoid cultist or a brainlet. Please just read Marx and don't worry about this kind of retarded shit.

How can you even stand to be this transparently intellectually dishonest?

It's a fact. The workers were tired of war, but Trotsky wanted to keep the the war going.

Trotsky was a cuck anyways.

kek

urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Retard strength

BUKHARIN GANG
ASSEMBLE

...

READ LENIN 2017, BUKHARIN IS THE DIALECTICAL CHOICE.

...

Read Marx, Marx's letter to Russian socialists and Lenin.

Lenin fought to keep Stalin out of power you dumb nigger.

Jesus Christ what the fuck is wrong with you tanks?

Citation needed. Trotsky was against a war with Poland but given war Trotsky wanted a quick decapitating blow to the Polish goverment to end the war as quickly as possible yet it was Stalin that was thinking of expanding the war.

Those are not the real positions.

Trotsky was arguing for "light" industrialization: the standard (the only one that existed at the time) model of industrialisation that was based on selling consumer goods to the population. Essentially, Trotsky's grand idea was to treat rural USSR as a colony of urban USSR, and get money for industry from overpricing industrially-produced consumer goods. I.e. regular capitalist industrialization: build light industry first (with imported machinery), proceed to building heavy industry only when there is sufficient demand for creation of light industry.

Weakness of this position is obvious: not only NEP is perpetuated, not only dependence of Soviet economy on Capitalist nations is immense, the USSR itself codifies split into two nations: urban and rural, effectively switching to Imperialist Capitalism.

Stalin was demanding "heavy" industrialization: never seen before jump to producing heavy machinery without having any commercial demand for it. Machinery would be assigned/used by the state directly, without having any proper expectations of it being commercially viable in the capitalist sense. Basically, Stalin was betting on the idea that it would be possible to create, develop, and use Socialist mode of production (Planned Economy) - which was never applied before - to make industrialization happen.

While - in hindsight - this is obviously superior option, at the time it was considered utter insanity, only some incompetent hack would suggest. What was expected to be enacted by the best minds of all the planet collaborating together while having all industry of the world at their disposal, would be attempted by some backward nation possessing neither free access to the industries of the world, nor technologically educated workforce, nor stability (Soviets were under constant harassment by Capitalist nations). As a cherry on top, failure of Soviets would inevitably damage reputation of Marxists all around the globe and hinder World Revolution.

This is how position of "Stalinist" faction got labelled as "Socialism in one Country" and had "rejection" of World Revolution ascribed to it. This is also what Trotsky's prophecy about fall of USSR was about, not Perestroika.

Contemporary ML/Trot enmity is only partially based on this split (since ML proved themselves correct).

It primarily relies on hostility towards bureaucracy and party functionaries by Trotsky (of which State Capitalist nonsense with "new exploitative class" naturally develops) - as well as any nonsense that justifies support of Capitalism during Cold War (because Darwinist selection of less threatening of political enemies). IRL even this new position was also proven wrong (Khrushchev-Brezhnev were basically supporting Trotsky's side, even if neither admitted it), though it did not get as widespread recognition as the 1920s discussion.

Of course. Which is why Stalin was his right-hand man.

They actually made a movie about this called Ichi the Killer. HIGHLY recommend watching it

You probably think that jihad strictly refers to holy warfare as well you uninformed twit

That is complete bullshit.

Straight from Lenin's Testament

Why, OP? Presumably it all happened before you were born, so why do you let it get to you to such a degree? It's not healthy to fixate on century-old events to the point that it causes you mental duress.

Written after he was paralyzed and senile from the strokes, likely by his wife, who was salty because Stalin negged her.

...

...

I'm sorry, are you claiming that Lenin opposed Stalin only on his deathbed?

The most outspoken of both camps - at least these days - are also the most retarded and will give you a distorted view of MLs and Trots. Trotsky was correct, but the "Trotskyist analysis" that most people put forth is not the one Trotsky himself put forth. Though he was, of course, opposed to the bureaucracy, he defended the gains of the revolution and the achievements of the USSR and called for support of the USSR in wartime.

However, the element of anti-bureaucratism in Trotskyism opens to door to all sorts of right-opportunism. Since as a Trotskyist one is "allowed" to criticize Stalin's USSR, you see parties and tendencies that take that criticism way too far, attracting liberals, and ending up as, essentially, anti-communists. For example, the "About us" on Socialist Alternative's website unironically says "We believe the dictatorships that existed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were perversions of what socialism is really about."

But the fact that most Trotskyist groups are opportunist doesn't change the fact that he was correct in his analysis of the USSR. The ML rationalization for why capitalism was restored in Russia is an incohesive mishmash of Great Man Theory and cherry picking. The vast majority seem to think everything was fine “until 1953” (Stalin’s death) when revisionists took over. This coming from dialectical “materialists.” Where did those revisionists come from? Why was there a class nature to the Soviet Union? Trotsky explained this long before.

Let’s also not forgot that long before anyone else would even consider it (1905), Trotsky was suggesting that socialist revolution might first take place in Russia.

This is true, but he openly admitted he was wrong and moved on. It is unreasonable to expect complex people to have perfectly pristine backgrounds. Sure, Stalin was a Bolshevik from the get-go, but he was a nobody within the party until after the revolution.

No one denies the fact that Lenin and Trotsky had a feud earlier on, but ultimately they agreed on all the fundamental issues at the time of the revolution and afterwards. Lenin said in 1922 that “Throwing Trotsky overboard - surely you are hinting at that, it is impossible to interpret it otherwise - is the height of stupidity.”

Trotsky defended the gains of the revolution. He called for a political revolution to overthrow the bureaucracy because he wanted the Soviet Union to succeed, not perish, like it did. But even so, he still said that everything about the Soviet Union was historically justified due to how backwards and stagnant capitalism in Russia had been before the revolution.

Anyone who harbors anti-Trotsky sentiments has almost certainly never read anything by him. ☭TANKIE☭s, please read the Revolution Betrayed before you ever again sperge out about Trotsky, because what you think you know about him is not true.

NYET
so-called "heavy" industrialization model was mathematically formalized by Fel'dman, a Gosplan employee

The essence of the model lies in the distinction between capital goods used to produce more capital goods and capital goods used in the consumption goods sector, which is embodied in the ratio:
Ik = Ku/Kp
where Ku = capital goods in the producer goods sector
Kp = capital goods in the consumer goods sector
Ik reflects the ‘index of industrialization’
While Ik is given at any point of time, it will change over time as a result of a changing composition of investment, which was seen as the key policy variable affecting the long-run rate of growth of the economy.
The allocation of the output of sector A between the two types of capital goods is the means by which policy influences the growth rate. The larger the proportion of sector A’s output which is ploughed back into sector A, the higher the subsequent growth rate of the economy will be. However, this results in less of sector A’s output being allocated to sector B, which reduces the economy’s ability to provide consumption goods in the near future. This means that, as a result of the assumption of the full employment of all resources, higher growth rates come at the expense of lower consumption levels.

and long before Stalin decided to support "heavy" industrialization there was already a war going between Gosplan and the People's Commissariat for Finance as to the nature of economic planning and the actual numbers of drafted plans
both agencies regularly published pamphlets "debating" with each other, and as time went on these debates became less and less civil
Gosplan ended up accusing the Commissariat for Finance in sabotaging the revolution and representing bourgeois interests
at some point along the NEP Stalin became their man in the party
and when Stalin came out on top, Gosplan came out on top as well
Strumilin and Krzhizhanovsky came out on top of Bazarov and Kondratiev

hell, Strumilin even called their war with the Commissariat for Finance a Planning Front

Cute

The thing MLs neglect to mention is that prior to 1928, Trotsky was advocating planned industrialization while Stalin let the NEP continue too long. Once the overdue NEP was clearly a problem, Stalin did a 180 degree reversal and advocated for dangerously rapid industrialization. This problems that came from that rapid industrialization could have been avoided if the bureaucracy had followed the suggestions of the Left Opposition.

The cherry on top is that Stalin's failure to end the NEP on time is what produced the crisis of kulaks. So when ☭TANKIE☭s argue that they deserved it - though that is true - keep in mind that the existence of the kulaks in the first place could have been avoided.

meant to respond to

Okay. I exaggerated a bit.

Also, if one starts looking at mathematical models, one might go back as far as Ballod (he made suggestion on industrializing Russia, IIRC).

Would you mind putting specific date to those statement? Because, it seemed to me, Stalin never supported "light" industrialization. Also, its hardly "Stalin". For example, Dzerzhinsky since 1924 also was involved in the whole Finance/Planning debate. I.e. it was "Stalin's faction" (or even Lenin's).

False. I already pointed out qualitative difference between actual Planned Industrialization and the stuff Trotsky was suggesting.

You either didn't read the post or don't want to understand it.

Bullshit. First and foremost, until the crisis (1927/28) Stalin hardly was the one to decide anything.

If anything, crisis solidified position of Stalin&Co - since they were arguing for collectivization, while Opposition were suggesting much less strict approach.

Both sides make unconvincing arguments with little to do in terms of reasoning and more to do in terms of emotional thinking.

thank you for your enlightened, rational, centrist explanation

It would be centrist if you think those two worldviews are the only two, and that there is a centre between them.
Are you poking fun at rationality? Do you think a flock of youtubers who want subscribers and patreon donations have a monopoly on rationality? Criticizing bad arguments doesn't mean you believe in the reverse, which is difficult for brainlets, like yourself, to understand.

Shame on you.

Everything that disagrees with your worldview is bait? Interesting, are you incapable of realizing that different people believe in different arguments? Or is it all just 'my dogma, nothing else'?

Anything that has no useful content, but is phrased in a way that practically begs for a response - sure. That's bait.

I don't give a fuck about beliefs. Either post arguments, or don't expect to be cuddled.

And who is the arbiter of these sentences? If you cede that individuals believe in different arguments, then those within this very thread who are, as they call themselves, turd position, would see that statement as uncontroversial, as would many others. Therefore, it is bait to you because it contradicts your worldview and present a differing one. That does not constitute bait.

All arguments are within the context belief systems, you choose to believe, say, an axiomatic truth that differentiates between good and bad arguments. You can believe in certain methods of reasoning, but it is still a belief.
In any case, the arguments that I was talking about that were not well-reasoned (from my belief system's POV) and were more 'emotional' were the assumptions of exploitation and unjust action to warrant necessary counter-action. So, the workers are being exploited because of these conditions which, independent of the worker's own conscious realization, will always be fulfilled. That is an unfalsifiable premise because it exists beyond the worker's opinions of so-called exploitation. If you get some worker who rejects the dogma of Stalin or Trotsky and does not believe in the revolution/exploitation, he is just blinded by bourgeoise lies or still in his chains. It's a classic case of an ad hoc rescue to handwave away a contradiction (workers not being oppressed by their own admission; also assuming a middle class person of wealthy background can patronize the worker and explain to him why he is feeling oppressed) in order to satisfy the conclusion (that exploitation is real and extends to all wage workers, a universal claim). That is an emotional response, not one that is well-reasoned.

I also don't give a fuck about post-modernism.

There is a difference between belief and an assumption based on previous experience.

You didn't even read the thread, did you? Go back to Holla Forums, retard.

'Postmodernism' does not have a monopoly on differences of beliefs.
Then that method of reasoning would be dependent on anecdotal evidence if it is your previous experiences.
Not everyone who criticizes your worldview is from Holla Forums, I just think you have bad arguments which you, apparently, cannot even bother to defend.

I'd say sometime around the price scissors crisis

but he was pro NEP, and "light" industrialization is the NEP industrialization
they tried, they failed
only then he switched sides

sure, but he was the most influential supporter

I.e. when it became obvious, that World Revolution is not going anywhere. Unless you have some other reason to think otherwise, I don't agree that the word "decided" fits, since it implies that Stalin had a different opinion at some point, while IRL he had no time to have one.

At that time (1921) the choice was between new (this time real) Civil War, or temporary NEP. The problem of USSR developing alone did not exist. Consequently, Stalin did not switch any sides - there was no sides to choose from.

The idea of multiple worldviews being equally relevant is inherent to Postmodernism.

So?

Morons, who start soapboxing in the wrong thread usually are.

Who said anything about equal relevance? Observing that people differ in terms of their worldviews does not mean that they are all equally relevant.
There's a good example of one standard of evidence backing up a worldview not being equally relevant.
Okay, well I am not: I am here criticizing the worldviews as I did, not on any kind of soapbox.

I'm partial to Trotsky's ideas, but I feel like he literally believed in great man theory. I don't think he would have been that much different than Stalin, the USSR would have been under as much pressure, he would still have industrialized, although they would have done better in world war 2 because he wouldn't have killed all his generals, and he himself knew a thing or too about leading an army. This combined with his theory of permanent revolution makes me wonder what kinds of movements he would have supported around the world. The Spanish civil war definitely, hopefully he wouldn't have betrayed the leftists there like Stalin did. France maybe, didn't they have a large Communist party tied to Stalin? I wonder what he would have done with that.

...

Required reading for everyone here. Lenin and Stalin disagreed on lots and what the USSR ended up as was pretty far removed from the course of action Lenin recommended at the end of his life.

This is also true for the whole political axis, yet Holla Forums will have you banned for refusing to take a stance with them.

Holla Forums:

This is a strawman. Nationalists do make solid arguments about self preservation, ingroup preference, the natural inequality of human material, including genetic clustering around the globe, etc. Most people in the developed world would in fact have to reduce their quality of life if global equality is attempted, or if free movement of people worldwide is allowed.
They do have arguments, as do the liberals/individualists. Its ends up being a question of what matters more - morals, or freedom, or self interest, etc. And if one variable changes, your whole outlook logically follows.

The richest 1% literally own half the world's wealth. The wealth of the average prole in a first or third world country doesn't even come close. Even "redistribution", which is not even what socialists want, would drastically increase the standard of living of everyone across the globe. That's a fact. Right-wing arguments are built on misdirection, plain and simple, and thinking they equally valid is a dead end.

Link, by the way:
fortune.com/2017/11/14/credit-suisse-millionaires-millennials-inequality/

...

Sorry.

Bullshit.

No. It's not even true for the question at hand.

No, they do not. When they are not trying to "generate lulz", they spew retarded bullshit, argue in bad faith, and refuse to look at the facts.

They are literally degenerate.

Most people in the developed world are already getting their quality of life reduced. The only future new generations has is indistinguishable from Third World.

Also, nobody suggest "global equality", you fuckwit.

Can you add some more reddit spacing? I cannot quite understand what you wrote.

This is what 1st world stalinist teens actually believe.

I suggest. Third world need to go through economic development with support, not exploitation, from more developed parts of world. Most of people in 1st world will not see significant decrease in level of life, in exception maybe of young London enterpreneurs or someething.

You are not going to get any "global equality" any time soon. Third World doesn't have the infrastructure - and it is huge. It would take decades - under Socialism - for Calcutta to look no different from Berlin or London.

Also, you are delusional, if you think millennials are going to get some kind of a free ride.

Tankie has the right of it for once. Anti-imperialism is a core part of socialism, but that doesn't mean every part of the world is gonna be equally rich, which is what "global equality" implies.

huhhuh, Settle down Beavis! Soviet Union is like, dead. No ones gonna like, hit you with an icepick, dumbass! You can even like, mesh those two thoughts together to form an opinion that you can really stand behind, huhuhuh.

He's literally just saying that Stalin is rude. That's it.

Trotsky himself agreed with this

Friendship ended with Gorillaposting, now Buttheadposting is my best friend.

Real talk, what could have made the Soviet union more successful?