Leon trotsky, revisionist

why do some people consider trotsky as reactionary?

i mean, supporting international revolutions sounds pretty orthodox to me.

here is full of commicucks that love trotsky.

Because there were objective historical conditions that required protection of the first proletarian state and precluded revolutions in the capitalist countries. Trots, ancoms/leftcoms and other ultraleftists never understood that and whined all the way about muh authoritarian state capitalism.

because some posters here are tankies, no matter how much rat poison we put down

so trotskyists are reactionaries in the same way socdems and anararkids are? condemning the intermediate phase to achieve the classless society?

is that everything?

Love means never having to say you're sorry.

wew

i mean, they both are against the intermediate phase to achieve communism, socdems try to make it smoother, and anarchists try to avoid it.

Anarchists aren't "against an intermediate phase to communism". They just think it should be gone about differently. This is basic stuff, m8.

Typical

whatever

Just post more memes, that makes up for your inability to read

Well back in the height of the Stalinist heydays (the 30's and 40's) it was popular to call Trotsky and Trotskyists Fascists..

im no fucking nazbol, i was making a strawman waiting someone to give me some arguments against trotskyism, but as i see, this place is full of silly liberals.

why?
was their "permanent revolution" a type of elongated state dictatorship or something?

thanks

Because Leon "Brocialists before Hocialists" Trotsky was such a superhuman visionary that even now the greatest minds of leftism struggle to perceive the perfection of his dialectic.

I expect nothing less from nazbol

Who’s the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?

Stalin.

Eduard Limonov learn to english

Trot$kkky collaborated with Nazi Germany and the CIA in hopes of destroying the Soviet Union. He was a treacherous snake of the worst order. Ramon Mercader is a proletarian hero.

ech

If you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

Trotsky's stance was that the revolution had to grow outward or die and that trying to achieve an island of socialism was a Sisyphean task. The collapse of the USSR kind of proves Trotsky's point where it simply collapsed as the state bureaucracy became senile while the proletariat became apathetic.

Assuming a literal "World Revolution" interpretation as a Red Jihad, rather than a historical process. In latter case Revolution expanded throughout the whole world.

Revolution did not expand through the whole world thus why the USSR lost the cold war (since if revolution did expand through the whole world by definition the USSR would have won that struggle).

What happened was counter-revolution spread through the whole world, even in the heart of the revolution not only capitalism but naked unapologetic capitalism has taken hold.

It did. I repeat: you are not thinking about Revolution as a historical process.

It's the other way round.

No. How did you even come to this conclusion?

Simple if the revolution expanded then there is no logical explanation for Yugoslavia to implode into capitalist states along with the GDR being annexed by capitalist Germany without a fight along with few traces of Revolutionary Russia still existing in eastern Europe.

If the revolution expanded then at the very least you'd expect socialism in eastern Europe to be secured and unthreatened as the friction with the capitalist world would take place far from Saint Petersburg which was the heart of the 1917 revolution.

Because Trotskyite organizations have been used as fifth column in the western Left since the 1930s.

It's nothing against him personally, except for the Stalinists of course.

Did Marx at any point claim that being Communist will make you immortal and invincible? Because it's Popper all over.

See above. It's not a one-way process. After Revolution France even had a restoration of monarchy. Did it mean that feudalism won?

Revolution (transition from capitalism to socialism to communism) does not happen in one country. It's a global world now, therefore it's a global (world-encompassing) process. Just like you can get socialist processes going in the US, you can get capitalist processes going in USSR.

If they've been used, then Trotskyism allows them to be used, no?

Not Trotskyism per se because at the end of his life Trotsky was still defending the Soviet Union. Just look at how he defended the Winter War when a bunch of western moralist faggots were opposing Soviet Union's "imperialism" (e.g. attempts to ensure its own survival in a world war)

But what became Trotskyism on the hand of his followers is a different beast. They considered the destruction of the Soviet Union to be of utmost importance, and were then used to help shape an anti-Soviet consensus among the Left. And well, apparently it worked.

Ehm. My point was that Trotskyism wasn't good.

Trotsky himself was a Socialist. It's just he wasn't particularly good at it.

I'd say much better example would've been his definition of USSR as ultimately Socialist (though, obviously doomed without his teachings) in late 30s.

discuss

Is this a request, invitation or cry for help?

explain to me why is it

See, the Soviet Union actually won the cold war see. It's why it still exists and the United States doesn't.

What is USSR but a Socialism given form?

If you examine Cold War as a conflict between two states - then, yes. USSR lost. But it was hardly conflict between two states. It was a conflict of ideologies. And, if you take a better look, US (and the world in general) was forced to repeatedly make concessions to proletariat. I.e. it was becoming more and more Socialist as the time was passing on. Both economically and culturally. Old Star Trek movies practically described future as money-less Communism.

I'd say USSR (Socialist ideology) was winning in the Cold War.

Since all those Socialist victories are still (mostly) considered throughout the world par of the course, a basic civilized standard - I say USSR (as Socialism) is still standing pretty strong.

Granted, positions were weakened, but it is still nowhere near the pre-Soviet time.

...

He was the father of neoconservatism. Fuck him in the ass with an icepick

If it empowers proletariat (as opposed to not empowering) in a Capitalist state is it not a Socialist process?

Or do you accept only violent revolution?

Not it wasn't, the USSR could not even convince those in the Eastern Bloc to be wary of the west. Just look at how the GDR rejoined the FRG where East Germans only questioned the move years after they voted for it.

I want to be alone.

After all, tomorrow is another day!

Well, nobody's perfect.

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.

...

Did you read the goddamn post?

Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

How did you come up with the impression that social welfare empowers proletariat?

Trotsky would be fine, if he wasn't a cowardly horny old man.

Yes but you are totally ignoring the massive counter-revolution that came with the fall of the soviet block.

No, I'm not.
> Granted, positions were weakened, but it is still nowhere near the pre-Soviet time.

I.e. we are still in the … red?

What is the greatest weakness of Proletariat? They have a weaker position in negotiations with the Capitalist. Capitalist is not physically bound to give jobs. But workers will starve and die if they do not get a job.

At least partially negating this disadvantage improves position of the Proletariat. Strengthens it.