The Last Anti-Revisionist

What was the last true socialist state? The Soviets descended into revisionism with Khrushchev, the Yugoslavs after 1948, the Chinese with Deng, Vietnam in 90s. Was it Albania? Romania? East Germany? Belarus?

Other urls found in this thread:




befriends the US despite being the largest country in the world, allows the bourgeoisie to survive, kills sparrows
calls everyone a revisionist, writes legendary tomes exposing the lies of the Khrushchevites and Maoists, makes Albania 100% independent, kills traitors

After the USSR and China turned revisionist, Albania and the DPRK remained as the last strongholds of rigid anti-revisionism. Hoxhaism, Maosim and Juche remain as the anti-revisionist tendencies of Marxism-Leninism today.



How is Cuba anti-revisionist? Especially after Castro's death, who himself admitted he used to be a NatLib revolutionary before he got converted to Marxism-Leninism. I have nothing against Cuba but I'm not sure if they'd meet that standard.

Best Korea?

what's "anti-revisionist" about juche


he was just hiding his power level

Why can't someone who wasn't always a communist be anti-revisionist. Was Stalin a revisionist because he used to be a monk? I'm not saying Cuba hasn't made some liberal reforms, but Castro's pre-revolutionary views have nothing to do with that.

good joke

dictatorship of the proletariat is a state.

China right now

he wasn't a monk, though. he just trained to a preacher as a kid…

The USSR prior to 1924.

Cuba, probably.


That statement holds no meaning

yeah, and dictatorship of the proletariat isn't socialism.

Khmer Rouge.

this tbqh

The DPRK and Cuba at the moment. China is following some kind of program, but we cannot truly know what goes behind closed doors



xDD Well meme'd, my good sir. You got me there.

Nah dude. Cuba and the DPRK still exist. that's still 100% more than literally everything Trotskyism has ever achieved.

What were the material conditions that caused the dissolution of the USSR, in your opinion?

China is clearly socialist since the state does stuff. If all goes to plan they will have full communism by 2050

Trotskyism as revolutionary praxis is not different than Leninism. As a Trotskyist, I am also a Leninist and I defend anything Leninism has achieved, including, of course, anti-colonial movements that led to the deformed workers' states of Cuba and the DPRK, and the achievements of those countries. But defending the gains of two small countries is insufficient for building socialism further and ending imperialism. Trotskyism is an explanation for why socialism hasn't become worldwide, why the USSR degenerated/collapsed, why other socialist states were deformed, (or to use your terms, why they were revisionist), and what we can do to build communism and have it last. The "no Trotskyist countries argument" fundamentally misunderstands what Trotskyism is, to an embarrassing degree.

The existence of a bureaucratic ruling caste which gradually strengthened into the embryo of a capitalist class (which was the product of isolation and which ultimately was a historical anomaly). The caste was able to play a relatively progressive role, especially during the Stalin era, but the bureaucracy became such a burden on the economy as it became more advanced that growth inevitably stagnated. The contradictions in soviet society reached a breaking point in 1991 and, just as Trotsky had predicted, the ruling caste preferred to sell out to capitalism rather than lose their privileged status, as the only other path out of the crisis was a political revolution to overthrow the bureaucracy.

I understand fully that the subjective factor can play a decisive role in the historical process. Surely the Russian revolution would not have happened without Lenin, for example. But they are products of their material existence, and their decisions represent more than the will of just one individual. ML explanations for revisionism are borderline Great Man Theory sometimes. Simply blaming Khrushchev for revisionism and then "the traitor Gorbachev" for dissolution rather than engaging in any nuanced analysis of how those situations came into being. And I might add, the same applies to crediting Stalin alone for the achievements of the planned economy. To be fair, I have seen some smarter MLs try to give a better explanation for these questions but ultimately they always falls flat because the true explanation is contradictory to their ideology.

Meant to reply to

Which is not why I said, I was addressing the achievements of Trotskyism as a subset of Leninism as a whole. Every actual worker's revolution continues to refered to Marxism-Leninism because it is ultimately more practical both as a political ideology as well as a scientific analysis - and this continues to be happening, as you can see in Nepal, or any other ongoing signifcant worker's struggle, like the NPA in the Philippines. Admittedly they are Maoist, which is still continuity and rupture from orthodox Marxism-Leninism, whereas Trotskyism defines itself as a break from it. Trotskyist analysis falls short to tackle the primary contradictions of our time, as it is set-up as a critique of Stalinism mostly. In that role. Trotskyist have achieved little more than insignificant parliamentarian successes in few Western Countries while running on a SocDem platform - which Trotskyism always degenerates into, as the demand for "perpetual revolution" and the rejection of socialism in one country as an intermediate step makes revolutionary politics impossible.

At least you didn't say class. It's a cop-out though, because 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧bureaucracy🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 didn't become rampant before the introduction of market mechanisms, particularly the Kosgyn Reforms, which necessitated a new milieu of middle mean to mediate between the state plan and the emerging domination of the law of value. This new bureaucracy is very different in character from the one under Stalin.

Economically the bureaucrats weren't the problem. There were economic problems such as labour-hoarding in enterprises, but I don't see how the bureucracy was responsible for economic problems. Also, the USSR never economically stagnated, that's a meme.

Nah, they are based on materialism as well. Shitty material conditions in the beginning set up a necessary superstructure prone to revisionism, which is to be avoided the next time. Some other times it's also the capitalist siege. What do you want to concretely do about it anyway? The path to socialism will always have bumpholes, the worker's movement will try, fail, then try again until final victory. Often I see Trots complaining about material conditions ought to be, instead of working with what we have - hence, the zig-zag course of Trot parties about critically supporting this, critically supporting that.

Vladimir Lenin on Trotsky:
Lenin insulted Trotsky in his letters, telegrams and articles 219 times. How did Lenin call him? “Pustozvon” (“bell”, man who talks much and does nothing), “svin’ya” (pig), “podlec iz podlecov” (scoundrel of scoundlers), “iudushka” (“Judas”/traitor), “politicheskaya prostitutka” (political prostitute) and his most elegant phrase concerning Trotsky that became Russian proverb – “pizdit kak Trotskiy” – “to lie/bitch/bullshit like fu**ing Trotsky”.

“Trotsky is very fond of explaining historical events . . in pompous and sonorous phrases, in a manner flattering to Trotsky” (Lenin, SW #4 194).


Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and the liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned.

(Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20 p. 448, 1914).


Trotsky behaves like a despicable careerist and factionalist of the Ryazanov-and-co type. Either equality on the editorial board, subordination to the central committee and no one’s transfer to Paris except Trotsky’s (the scoundrel, he wants to ‘fix up’ the whole rascally crew of ‘Pravda’ at our expense!) – or a break with this swindler and an exposure of him in the CO. He pays lip-service to the Party and behaves worse than any other of the factionalists.

(Collected Works, Vol. 34, p. 400).


In the very first words of his resolution Trotsky expressed the full spirit of the worst kind of conciliation, ‘conciliation’ in inverted commas, of a sectarian and philistine conciliation, which deals with ‘given persons’ and not the given line of policy, the given spirit the given ideological and political content of Party work.

It is in this that the enormous difference lies between real partyism; which consists in purging the Party of liquidationism and otzovism, and the ‘conciliation’ of Trotsky and Co., which actually RENDERS THE MOST FAITHFUL SERVICE TO THE LIQUIDATORS AND OTZOVISTS, AND IS THEREFORE AN EVIL THAT IS ALL THE MORE DANGEROUS TO THE PARTY THE MORE CUNNINGLY, ARTFULLY AND RHETORICALLY IT CLOAKS ITSELF WITH PROFESSEDLY PRO-PARTY, PROFESSEDLY ANTI-FACTIONAL DECLAMATIONS.

(Notes of a Publicist, Collected Works, Vol. 16, June 1910, p 211).


The struggle between Bolshevism and Menshevism is… a struggle over the question whether to support the liberals or to overthrow the hegemony of the liberals over the peasantry. Therefore to attribute [as did Trotsky] our splits to the influence of the intelligentsia, to the immaturity of the proletariat, etc, is a childishly naive repetition of liberal fairy-tales.

Trotsky distorts Bolshevism, because he has never been able to form any definite views on the role of the proletariat in the Russian bourgeois revolution.

Therefore, when Trotsky tells the German comrades that he represents the ‘general Party tendency’ I am obliged to declare that Trotsky represents only his own faction and enjoys a certain amount of confidence exclusively among the otzovists and the liquidators.

(The Historical Meaning of the Inner-Party Struggle in Russia, Collected Works, Vol. 16 pp. 374-392).


It is an adventure in the ideological sense. Trotsky groups all the enemies of Marxism, he unites Potresov and Maximov, who detest the ‘Lenin-Plekhanov’ bloc, as they like to call it. TROTSKY UNITES ALL THOSE TO WHOM IDEOLOGICAL DECAY IS DEAR; ALL WHO ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE DEFENCE OF MARXISM, all philistines who do not understand the reasons for the struggle and who do not wish to learn, think and discover the ideological roots of the divergence of views. At this time of confusion, disintegration, and wavering it is easy for Trotsky to become the ‘hero of the hour’ and gather all the shabby elements around himself. The more openly this attempt is made, the more spectacular will be the defeat.

(Letter to the Russian Collegium of the Central Committee of the RSDLP, Collected Works, Vol. 17, pp. 17-22 – December 1910)


It is impossible to argue with Trotsky on the merits of the issue, because Trotsky holds no views whatever. We can and should argue with confirmed liquidators and otzovists, but it is no use arguing with a man whose game is to hide the errors of both these trends; in his case the thing to do is to expose him as a diplomat of the smallest calibre.

(Trotsky’s Diplomacy and a Certain Party Platform, Collected Works, Vol. 17 pp. 360362).


Trotsky’s dirty campaign against Pravda is one mass of lies and slander… This intriguer and liquidator goes on lying right and left.

(Collected Works, Vol. 35, pp. 40-41).


But the liquidators and Trotsky,… who tore up their own August bloc, who flouted all the decisions of the Party and dissociated themselves from the ‘underground’ as well as from the organised workers, are the worst splitters. Fortunately, the workers have already realised this, and all class-conscious workers are creating their own real unity against the liquidator disrupters of unity.

(Collected Works, Vol. 20 pp. 158-161).


Needless to say, this explanation is highly flattering, to Trotsky… and to the liquidators… Trotsky is very fond of using with the learned air of the expert pompous and high-sounding phrases to explain historical phenomena in a way that is flattering to Trotsky. Since ‘numerous advanced workers’ become ‘active agents’ of apolitical and Party line [Bolshevik Party line] which does not conform to Trotsky’s line, Trotsky settles the question unhesitatingly, out of hand these advanced workers are ‘in a state of utter political bewilderment’, whereas he, Trotsky, is evidently ‘in a state’ of political firmness and clarity, and keeps to the right line!… And this very same Trotsky, beating his breast, fulminates against factionalism parochialism, and the efforts of the intellectuals to impose their will on the workers!

Reading things like these, one cannot help asking oneself. – is it from a lunatic asylum that such voices come?

(Collected Works, Vol. 20 pp. 327-347).


The obliging Trotsky is more dangerous than an enemy! Trotsky could produce no proof except ‘private conversations’ (i.e., simply gossip, on which Trotsky always subsists), classifying the ‘Polish Marxists’ in general as supporters of every article by Rosa Luxemburg…


Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and the liquidators. And thee gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned.

(The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, Collected Works, Vol. 20 p. 447-8).


What a swine this Trotsky is – Left, phrases, and a bloc with the Right against the Zimmerwald Left!! He ought to be exposed (by you) if only in a brief letter to Sotsial-Demokrat!

(Collected Works, Vol. 35, p. 285).


There is also a letter from Kollontai who… has returned to Norway from America. N. Iv. and Pavlov… had won Novy Mir, she says,… but … Trotsky arrived, and this scoundrel at once ganged up with the Right wing of Novy Mir against the Left Zimmerwaldists!! That’s it!! That’s Trotsky for you!! Always true to himself, twists, swindles, poses as a Left, helps the Right, so long as he can…

(Collected Works, Vol. 35, p. 288).

Additionally to that, a bit of "Great Man Theory" sometimes may help in times of siege. DPRK grooms their leader meticulously, and they are still going. Marx materialism isn't prescriptive, it's descriptive, socialism will have to struggle with the conditions out of which it emerges, and if something necessitates unorthodox measures not to succumb to the siege, it's not "unmarxist" or whatever

Where does M-L differ from Trotskyism as regards scientific analysis, and for that matter, organizational structure? All that proves to me is the superiority of Leninism. Of course people in the undeveloped countries are going to be drawn to the ideology that boasts more "historical achievements" and that is understandable. But the final victory of socialism is dependent on achieving workers' power in one of the advanced capitalist countries, and the workers in those countries will not flock to Marxism-Leninism seeing as their living conditions are generally better than in workers' states. They will require nuanced explanation of the USSR etc. to understand why they should fight for socialism. Bear in mind, I'm not saying that the Third World needs to just wait around, but until First World workers take power, workers' power won't be permanent.

Firstly, by your own logic, wouldn't Maoism be the best philosophy since that is what people are drawn to? Secondly, Trotskyism adheres fully to Marxism and Leninism, and only opposes "Marxism-Leninism" because Stalinists coined that phrase.

Trotskyist analysis of Stalinism is vital for mobilizing workers in the advanced countries. And what primary contradictions does it not address?

Permanent* revolution does not mean what you think it does. And Trotskyists reject the possibility of socialism in one country, but that doesn't mean a workers' state in one country isn't possible and desirable as an intermediate step.

Why, then, did Stalin oppose "bureaucracy?"

Without direct worker control in planning, mismanagement and wastefulness were rampant and it demoralized the workers. There were also plenty of instances when there was easily enough of a given commodity in factories but not in the shops.

How are we to avoid it?

I understand this, but we can't move past those bumpholes by uncritically defending them. Also I won't defend the vast majority of Trot parties whatsoever, but I would be curious to see an example of Trots complaining about what material conditions "ought to be," as I have not seen this.

As for your Lenin quotes, no one would deny that Lenin and Trotsky had a very rocky relationship and years of bitter opposition. But from the revolution onward, they held deep respect for each other and were close collaborators. Note that your quotes were years prior to the revolution. And let's also not forget Lenin's ability to brutally take down people on specific issues while maintaining respect for them in general. Needless to say, one could produce Lenin quotes in which he praises and respects Trotsky deeply, and I would argue that they are more pertinent coming from the revolutionary era rather than the preparation era. I'm not going to slip into your intellectually lazy quote mining behavior, but I can provide these quotes upon request.

I don't at all deny that a cult of personality can be very useful and I don't oppose them. But there is a difference between using a cult of personality to propagandize and inspire the masses and a relying of personalities to explain your flawed view of history in intellectual/non-propaganda situations.

No, this is false. Trotsky was still constantly fucking things up and Lenin never stopped shitting on him, the only reason Lenin let him stick around was because he needed any help he could get.

lol 1914 is "years prior"

go find them then you trotskyist snake.

I have to leave for work immediately but I'll get back to you soon, ☭TANKIE☭ friend.

This guy.

Why isn't Burkina Faso on this map?

Because while it had a Marxist government for a few years, it was never officially a socialist state.





No. The Soviets descended into revisionism with Stalin.


basically, it was never called "Democratic People's Republic of Burkina Faso"