I work with them because rather a trot than a liberal, but almost all the marxists I know (I live in the UK) are trots, and our biggest newspaper is Socialist Appeal. Lots of these people are entry-level marxists, but I dont know how being a trot became the mainstream socialist choice, and I hate it tbh.
You're just as ridiculous as they are for worrying about what flavor of ideological dick they prefer to suck.
Introduce all trots to the immortal dialectical science of Juan Posadas Thought. Posadism is the logical conclusion to Trotskyism and is the highest evolved form of Communist thought.
probably because they go out and talk with people and don't alienate them immediately by sucking off papa stalin
Partly because many people see Trotskyism as a way to be a socialist while rejecting and washing their hands of the historical baggage of much of the socialist movement. This is particularly true of "third camp" Trots who entirely opposed all ostensibly socialist states, though it doesn't really jive with what is considered "Orthodox Trotskyism" which generally considers these states to be degenerated/deformed workers states and worthy of defending against imperialist predations. A lot of modern Trots are the sort of people Trotsky would have had shot during the civil war tbh.
If you want to make an appeal to respectability why don’t we quit jacking off all 20th century Russian red fashists
Back to /anarcho/with you!
Besides which most British 'Trots' don't even know/care they're trots and certainly don't subscribe to 'Orthodox Trotskyism' as points out.
Same thing to be done to anyone still calling themselves a communist: abandon the label and invent a new one, with new aesthetics and the same ideas worded differently. Regardless of its real and/or original meaning, it's now toxic. Proclaiming yourself a proud pederast in Ancient Greece would evoke nothing more than a "well duh", but doing so now, well, you get my meaning. Symbols' meanings change both according to space and time.
That's just stupid because our enemies will immediately accuse of being Marxists and, er, would be right. Plus we lose all the great history/works.
trots run the streets, ☭TANKIE☭s are all NEETs
They'll accuse anyone to the left of them of being Marxists. The point is precisely to not look like Marxists so their lies ring hollow for more people. Adopt what's good, drop what's bad, create something better. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. And why would we lose anything? All we have to do is stop treating certain figures like saints. Spread their ideas, not their visages. Do more reading beyond the traditional Marxists (and other leftists too for that matter) would do us good, both in philosophy and other areas. We could be paying a lot more attention to urbanism and management automation, for example.
That's… not true.
its simple, trots do what others cant
1 trillion years space gulag for you
Because Britain is imperialist and Trots are imperialist.
It's because Trotskyism is the superior ideology for explaining the failures of the 20th century and showing a path forward. It's because Trotskyism enthusiastically defends the achievements of 20th century state socialism while still putting forth a highly comprehensive and dialectical explanation for why they failed. It's because if you actually read Trotsky he is clearly a genius and highly convincing of socialism. It's because Trotskyists in general have the type of personality that is autistic enough to read a lot, but normie enough to go out and connect with people. It's because Trotskyism, when understood correctly, is neither opportunist nor ultra-leftist, nor full of retarded rationalizations for Stalinism.
Of course, most Trot groups are shit, but that doesn't make Trotskyism incorrect. Same could be said of leftism in general. If anyone would like to argue about Trotskyist theory or writings, please respond. But as always on the internet, I'm going to get berated by a bunch of mouth-breathing MLs who have the same inability to understand how power functions as do Clinton voters.
How was the revolution "betrayed"? And what is the meaning of the concept of "permanent revolution"? Also, why the fuck do all trots on the internet defend Syria's "revolution"? They seem to think that the "people" are trying to rise up against both Assad and US imperialism. But trots just end up tacitly approving US imperialism and screeching about Assad all day. wtf
An extremely backwards, mostly undeveloped country full of illiterate peasants was the first country to have a socialist revolution due to historical circumstance. The principle leader of the Revolution, Vladimir Lenin, constantly stressed that in order for the Soviet Union to develop in a healthy manner, the revolution had to spread to an advanced capitalist country. This didn't happen due to the failure of Social Democratic leadership. Russia was left isolated. Class tensions developed due to scarcity. A bureaucracy arose to try to reconcile these tensions in society. This process was aided by the fact that it was necessary to employ the help of ex-tsarist officials since there were not yet enough competent workers to run the state. All these factors combined and strengthened over the next decades, resulting in a needlessly bureaucratic state that was under stranglehold by a parasitic ruling caste (not class), and it eventually collapsed in 1991 due to this contradiction. It's important to not read too much into the "betrayed" part, it's really just a rhetorical flair. He wasn't implying that any one person betrayed it. Years before anyone else though it possible, Leon Trotsky explained that it might be possible for Russia to have a socialist revolution, despite the fact that Russia had barely gone through any capitalist development. He explained that the Russian bourgeoisie arrived on the scene of history too late to be a progressive force, and that it could not complete the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. But at the same time, the small amount of capitalism that did exist in Russia was highly concentrated and advanced. These factors allowed Russia to "skip" over capitalism straight into dictatorship of the proletariat, but this process was undermined by it's isolation as stated above. Idk, cause they're retards I guess. I really couldn't tell you. I agree with you on this one, but again, I don't see it as a condemnation of Trotskyism. He himself would absolute oppose these "Trotskyists." marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm
For some reason, all the right-wing history professors I've taken had very positive views of Trotsky.
What would you call it then? "Awesome fun time"?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like your proposal to "fix" the USSR would involve a massive Soviet invasion of Western Europe (so the USSR wouldn't be "isolated").
Considering the USSR had a piss poor industry at the time, this would have ended in complete defeat for the USSR, but not before wiping out tens of millions of people in an unwinnable war.
Not like that. You are correct that a massive invasion of Western Europe would utterly fail. That was never the idea.The idea was that the revolution would spread organically, which it did. A revolution in one country quickly and dramatically changes the consciousness in the surrounding countries. Germany had a revolutionary situation a year after the Russian revolution. But like I said, the leadership was weak and opportunistic and held the workers back from taking power. There were a series of other defeats (Germany again in 1923, China in 1927), which the Russian bureaucracy played increasingly important roles in.
If, for example, the German revolution had been successful, it would have totally transformed the situation. Germany's capitalist development would allow them a far better starting point, and they could have helped Russia develop. And two successful socialist revolutions in a row would have inspired the workers in other countries, spreading the revolution throughout Europe and eventually the world.
Of course, that didn't happen. But the Trotskyist praxis was not to call for invasion, but to continue organizing everywhere so that when another revolutionary situation arose, good leadership would already in place to guide the movement. One successful socialist revolution in an advanced capitalist country would have inspired the Russian workers and workers in all the degenerated workers' states to overthrow the bureaucracies, which is why Moscow tried so hard to co-opt or suppress revolutions in the following decades.
I should add, too, that there is plenty that the USSR could have done in the 20s and 30s to genuinely aid revolutionary movements, but that was increasingly not in the interest of the bureaucracy.
For the same reason that Stalinists have negative views: they don't know much about him besides that he was an enemy of Stalin.
"I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!"
If you support U$A bombing Saddam, Gaddafi, or Assad because they are "fascist" - I dunno about the "left" at large, including you ☭TANKIE☭s who support the assassination of Hafizullah Amin. But Trotsky does not fuck with you CIA stooges so go kys traitors
Kill Trotsky. Kill Trotsky. Kill Trotsky.
Too late - you killed the human but not the idea. Maybe it's like Marx says. Fella aint got a soul of his own, just a piece of the big soul. The one big soul that belongs to everybody. He'll be all around in the dark where the pigs can't see. Wherever there's a fight so hungry people can eat. Wherever there's a pig beating up a guy, he'll be there. And when the people are eating the food they made and living in the houses they build, he'll be there too.
Daily reminder that Trotsky would have been exactly like Stalin and only adopted an "anti-stalinist" stance after he got kicked out.
He could have easily done a coup in the mid 20s when he was still the leader of Red Army, but chose the principled route instead. Himself, his family, thousands of his comrades did not die for nothing.
trotskyism is basically leninism 2.0, trots get way more hate than they deserve.
Honestly kill yourself. Trotsky himself said exactly that. Do not project your flawed view of history into this thread. Your retarded and uneducated "gotcha" holds absolutely no weight, congrats.
No, he understood that his actions as an individual would not prevent the bureaucracy from growing and that what mattered was the material conditions.
What's your question?
We should gulag them, kill the most notable ones
International revolution is the best way forward
It's almost like there wasn't much of a difference between the two of them to begin with and that people only hate Trotsky today because Trotskyists fucking ruin everything.
Cheeky wanker. They mad because we have achieved equality by nuclear anihilation! Our communist ideals are backed with nuclear weapons! How are other faggots think they can stop over nine billion bougoise pigdogs and falsecommunists? Speaches? Serriously?
I still don't understand the Trotsky hate. I've heard people here say Trotskyists created neoconservatism in the USA, but how the fuck does that work?
I don't even like trots but Trots=neocons is a myth made up by right wingers.
Leo Strauss was a Trotskyite.
Neoconservatism as a movement wasn't made by Troskyists, but they are often their 'ideological' defense, who apply the idea of perpetual revolution from a democratic liberal standpoint, completely ignoring the imperialist aspects mention:
Ex: Christopher Hitchens, who claimed Rosa Luxemburg was a personal role model for him, and that Lenin and Che were great men.
Trotsky was cool and a good critic of the USSR. Trotskysts need to shill the fuck out and stop selling papers.
Trots are cool man Their mostly just M-L who ingested a bit to much Western/Khrushchevite propaganda
This is why you state capitalist need to be kicked out and shited on.
Please god call it anything but this retarded fucking meme phrase. It was a degenerated workers' state, or to be more precise a proletarian Bonapartist state, but even just saying it was socialism would be better than you parroting this nonsense.
No it's not a meme phrase, it was being used out an asshole but that still doesn't change the fact that it was state capitalism. Stalin never changed the government nor the system into communism, he keep things for for da most part the same when he came into power after cowering like a homo in the Russian Civil War, like the power cocksucc tyrant he is. TINKIEE BEEGONE!
I guarantee you are someone who almost never reads and bases their entire understanding of the USSR off of Holla Forums posts.
The inability of leftists to defend successes like the USSR and just dismissing it as not real socialism is why we aren't taken seriously
>inability of leftists to defend successes like the USSR >not real socialism The ussr in the days of Stalin wasn't socialism nor communism you dumbass, this isn't real socialism or the true scotsmen shit you're tying to shit out. It's wasn't socialism in the first place, it was socialism by name only.
I guarantee you are someone who almost never reads and bases their entire understanding of the USSR off of Holla Forums posts.
The revolution was doomed the moment the war stopped and the terror ended. The failiures of European socialist revolutions meant that the Soviets were on their own and the material conditions of the times meant that it could not be sustained. The Stalinists did what they had to do to defend the state, but in the same process of defending itself the state lost its revolutionary nature and opportunists took their place. Which ever person was at the helm wouldn't have mattered and degeneration was bound to happen. Still think Trotsky was a Menshevik pretender who was only an apologist for communism and merits ended at his contribution to the war. :3
libcom.org/files/Aufheben- What was the USSR.pdf Please read the above. It's a bit long and written by leftcoms, but has some really good discussions of the different trot descriptions of the ussr and why 'state capitalism' as a criticism is weak.
Thanks for sharing. I understand it as a degenerated workers' state (or more accurately, a proletarian Bonapartist state) but I will read this. Certainly 'state capitalism' is a horrible description.
Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism, that would be a victory. (Lenin 1918) Lenin's Collected Works Vol. 27, p. 293
Because Stalin's purges and lust for power basically disqualified him from being a human being? Stalin wasn't a communist, he was a dictator.