It should have been Trotsky

it should have been Trotsky

Attached: ic-5131.jpg (282x254, 105.7K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Attached: que-era-la-familia-charles-manson-1.jpg (853x480 27.48 KB, 83.55K)

Supposedly he wanted Trotsky to succeed but nobody listened to him in his later days

How would Trotsky fair against the Germans?
Would he have attacked the Japanese after Khalkin Gol?
I can't imagine him doing something like a Molotov-Ribbentrop-Pact.
Would he have waged the Winter War?
Would he have continued WW2 against the Allies after he took Berlin and Tokyo?

Possibly a little worse than Stalin. I'm not saying he didn't know how to organize armies but he couldn't have fostered a ludicrous personality cult and myth of a national liberation war like Stalin did either.
No he wasn't that stupid.
Why? After being isolated by the West it was the best option to buy time for the Stalin regime, Trotsky would likely see that if he were in the same position. Though hopefully he wouldn't make the same mistake of shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of petrol, oil, and manganese to Hitler.
The idea was to secure the Soviet northern border against potential aggression so Leningrad couldn't be lost so easily. It's very possible Trotsky might have agreed with Stalin here but I see no reason to give a definitive answer either way.
I would be genuinely surprised if a single person in the Soviet Union at the time would have been dumb enough to even consider this.

It should've been Bukharin you cucks

Attached: Krupskaja_1890.jpg (749x900, 254.91K)

Well now that it's actually been tested history we can now see that it should not have been Trotsky, Stalin, Bukharin, but rather it should have been no one, and everyone.

It should've been SR:s, not the bullshitweaks to begin with.

Attached: Russian_Constituent_Assembly_Election_1917.png (702x667, 51.17K)

that anime spoiler is literally the most annoying thing about this board and is used by anarkiddies to countersignal.

I'm good.

She's just a Leninist propagandist

Attached: Emma Goldman 3.jpg (300x384, 27.96K)

It should’ve been Bogdanov

Attached: AlexanderBogdanov.jpg (200x289, 60.31K)

I hope you actually Understand what Permeant Revolution is, and not some lib who thinks he was resisting “le evil dictator.”

I’m surprised Stalin was stupid enough to not do this. The USSR would’ve won such a war. The USSR would control all of continental Eurasian and Africa. America and Britain would be isolated and forced to sign a peace deal or eventually fall to revolution.

Attached: Leon THOTsky.jpeg (650x650, 92.54K)

I agree. If Lenin had lived a while longer tankies would find it harder to pine for the world that could have been and act like he did nothing wrong.

Attached: 1425594353485.jpg (510x546, 53.94K)

Make a better one then.

What a goddess

Bruh, Trotsky was much more “Tankie” and authoritarian than Trotsky. Unlike Stalin Trotsky wanted to invade the Capitalist world and shove Revolution down the throats of areas that were anti-communist majority. (Which is why he should’ve been put into power)

Attached: TrotskyCivilWar.jpg (600x828, 198.8K)

Oh, my mistake. I thought OP was saying Trotsky should have died shortly after the revolution like Lenin did.

Trotsky? More like, Trotsgay


Attached: bukharin.jpeg (506x750, 50.06K)

Complete speculation. The US had nukes and was at its height of industrial production. The US hadn't even tapped into all its resources as yet. All the UdSSR had was loads of tanks, which are more useless in the urban areas of West Germany and Western Europe, and no effective means of combatting allied air raids.

The NEP wasn't something that could have lasted forever, ironically Stalin was in favor of the NEP until it showed clear signs of stagnation.

look man who cares about the russian revolution shits over. nobody of these dumb dumbs was correct & they all failed. Lenin didn't predict it was gonna end up an autocracy, Stalin only did WW2 right, Trotsky only criticized Stalin right. Every single character involved there was a failure.

Russia was pre-revolution (post-revolution too) & still is an empire tho. WhAtever.
All the shit I like from the soviet union are UAZ cars, AKs, Vintorez & Dragunov rifles.

More than anarchism ever made

Imagine actually believing this

Nuh uh, anarchism gave us some music and this guy.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (370x632, 166.03K)

Catholic Spanish imperialism gave you this guy, modern pop-culture just appropriated it.

It's a joke, fam. And that's not guy fawkes.

Must have been why he was opposed to Brest-Livost….oh wait

Alan Moore gave us V

Attached: Alan Moore.jpg (720x480, 52.15K)

Stalin? More like, Gaylin

supporting the NEP to own the Left Opposition, then going to war against the peasants ~im sure they'll love forced collectivisation lmao~ uh oh looks like we've contributed to a terrible famine if not caused it, well its ok we'll just blame the Kulaks but we aren't actually petty moralists xdxdxd

Attached: nikolai-bukharin-1929.jpg (1623x2368, 509.49K)

it's lenin's wife

Broke: Trotsky would have been better because he's typically viewed as the only reasonable alternative to Stalin and it's impossible to prove it wouldn't be better because it never happened

Woke: Stalin happened and did a good job, there's no point worrying about the possible opportunities of a long collapsed superpower

Bespoke: Lenin should have begun the Red Terror earlier and annihilated the SR's before they could shoot him

They could only be deployed from bomber planes that can be shot down. Also none of America’s bombers could reach Moscow or St.Petersburg. Also in a few years the Soviets would’ve had the bomb too.

They still would’ve had to ship there goods through submarine infested watters.

Brest-Livosk was a temporary move because Russia at the time was exhausted and need to Industrialize before heading into war.

Morewoke: Trotsky should’ve cause a nuclear war to spread Communism and destroy Capitalism and Imperialism, even if millions die, the ends justify the means.

now this is a video game
fucking yay
you do know the soviet navy was absolutely terrible before the 60s or so? at the end of WWII the USA accounted for 50% of all industrial production in the world the soviets could have prob taken Europe regardless, but at horrible losses, quite possibly too severe
more like it was a condition for a Bolshevik takeover, it's no accident that Bolsheviks took over after promising peace and delivering it.
that's a mighty big assumption right there

You do not know what a B-29 is, do you?

Exactly. If the Soviets Blitzkrieg'ed Europe with a massive onslaught on multiple fronts, it could work, as they had more vehicles and manpower deployed at the exact end of WWII, but a long drawn-out conflict it would mabye exhaust them to death, and even if it didn't, it would probably cause another huge famine in the USSR (they experienced one anyway).

I say it is not impossible to pull this off, but highly risky, and only a psycho like Trotsky would try it. Remember that at the time, Stalin and friends, and even some westerners, thought that there is no need for further conquest because socialism is now going to outcompete capitalism anyway. Even Krushchev believed it as living standards peaked under him. He thought that by 1980s, the Soviet model would have outcompeted the US in every regard. Of course, this turned out to be quite too optmistic.

Also remember one of the ideological platforms of communists has always been peace. Starting World War III and brutally conquering Europe and whatnot would cause unprecedented hostility to communism, slaughter of communists world-wide, and basically treating them like Nazis during WWII. Not saying something like that happened anyway but it would have been much worse.

well, sorry I didn't know that. I pay attention to figures, not their wives.

Which has gotten us nowhere in the past 150 years.

Already happens. Most Boomers think Communists are worse than Nazis.

Lol fuck off. You fags should start reading before spouting bullshit. Trotsky wasn't a war mongerer and things are a lot more complicated than you weebs make it out to be

"There were high hopes of an uprising of the Polish workers. At any rate, Lenin fixed his mind on carrying the war to an end, up to the entry into Warsaw to help the Polish workers overthrow Pilsudski’s government and seize the power. The apparent decision by the government easily captured the imagination of the high command and of the command of the western front. By the time I paid my regular visit to Moscow, I found opinion strongly in favour of carrying on the war ‘until the end.’ To this I was resolutely opposed. The Poles were already asking for peace. I thought that we had reached the peak of our successes, and if we went farther, misjudging our strength, we would run the risk of passing beyond the victory already won to a defeat.”–Trotsky

The amount of historical ignorance in this thread is simply stupefying. I encourage all of you to have a very serious moment of introspection, question yourselves if you know anything about 20th century history whatsoever, and if you do not then PLEASE fuck off and do not return to this board without having read at least a few-thousand pages of decent books. I am fucking pleading with you idiots here.

SR's became enemies of the working class in 1917 after they refused to form a workers goverment and attempted to preserve a Bougie democracy in Russia Along with the Mensheviks and fucking Liberal Kadets

so you mean all the other parties that the russian people voted for

Not what I would propose.

Why did they never move on though? Why do you Lenin fanbois never move on?
Why do you chase after the nightmare of state mandated equality instead of reconnecting with the dream of greater freedom?

You're right, fuck socialism. We should all just blindly follow the masses in whatever decision they make no matter how destructive the outcome is. Heil Hitler.

Attached: Eugene Debs.jpg (979x1286, 190.3K)

a single party state is actually a zero party state figure it out lol…

soviet nomenklatura was only good to end the Tsars & conclude WW2. All that has happened is a necessary step on the historical dialectic.
Stalin didn't understood Marxism either.

The Marxist mantra that contradiction is the engine of change which is true (& stolen from Hegel's Philosophy of History) is just a verbose form of this: "real problems demand real solutions". Contradictions are problems, subtlations are solutions that maintain said problem in check by mediating its conditions.

Soviet Nomenklatura became a problem to the basic conception of freedom of a fuck ton of people, just like most autocratic states really… The heavy bureaucracy is what fucked it up. Because of that I unironically believe that socialism can never happen without giving direct democracy to the populous. Democracy everywhere btw the workplace, schools, everywhere. Its important to note why in the later editions of the Manifesto why Marx used the Paris Commune as his example, I'm pretty sure he would endorse the early Soviet Revolution but as it went on he would indeed get on the side of the socialists that criticized it for its bureaucracy, resembling a lot just a new top-down multilevel class hierarchy.

Tried but failed. Whatever it happens, needed to happen. Communism never happens in large empire size societies, impossible. Rather smaller communist societies inside them are possible tho as long as they got access to the means of autonomy. Communism IS the revolution, not the end state of it all. Authorities come & go historically this seems endless depending on the size of the state authority is more likely to be authoritarian & if smaller more relaxed. No dictator is needed tho at any point for any reason, it's such a retarded element to have in any society all it does is pivot away from any possibility of socialism since it becomes a burocracy, or in fascistic fashion a defense of the status quo hierarchy. The only way things will work is with direct democracy make it's existence & sovereignty law. Spooks that work, that are not really spooks because their usefulness.

Funny that me an Stirnerite is saying this but state on a larger scale will always exist pretty much… As long as organization is really truly needed to make life in general easier, etc.

& pls soviet union fanboys don't lie to yourselves. USSR didn't trully had direct democracy. lets be real. Whatever I'm off. gn lonely ass unwashed virgins (most of you), you guys should really go outside sometime.

& thats why I support direct democracy. War & Peace should be decided by everyone. I'm aware that whoever counts votes has the most power tho, but even those should be voted in by the population to do their task we have modern means (technology) of making everything more legit, more fair (or fake, unfair too why not). Depends who codes the fucking thing…

I have a positive outlook for the future, for democracy & true socialist states. it's just that all that is starting now, figuring it now how to make all of it work.

A single party is a monopoly on power. Those go through the regular stages. This I would think is common enough knowledge and I would have thought some of these M-List types would see it in hindsight at least.
I think we need to do away with written law as well. Relying on custom and direct democracy is all that is needed.
And now it sounds like you're giving up. They will only exist so long as the masses allow them to. We can organize without them.

Most technological advances are a threat under capitalism, a boon under (true) socialism.
And how best to start it.

Attached: Escape.jpg (780x439, 37.15K)

Democratic Centrism and Inter Party Democracy is not a fucking Monarchy
You don't just get elected to high positions in goverment because the guy that came before you personally liked you
Stalin was picked by the vast majority of his piers as the most capable of handling the task of leading the soviet goverment

Stalin also killed democratic centralism in USSR, with his group purging the Left Opposition and then the Right Opposition. Mao also shat on democratic centralism and collective leadership later in China, just as it made a return in the USSR after Stalin.

While debate between the Left opposition and Stalins goverment would have been much preferable to what occurred the Right Opposition were honestly just wreckers and Proto-Dengoid Revisionists with Bukharin in Particular basically wanting a Soviet NEP on steroids

But Yes Stalin did ultimately begin to betray the Soviet system and Democratic Centrallism near the end of his tenure / life
For instance after the end of WW2 with the exception of some show meetings the Politburo effectivly never met and most legislature was pre written by Stalin and his close confidants

is that a justification for their murder? you do realise that logic can be extended to just about everything, especially with how ideological orthodoxy was weaponised.
Bukharin was also right, and the 1931-33 famine proves it

If NEP was maintained the USSR would never have been able to build up the gigantic industrial and Agricultural muscle it needed to fend of the brown plague as it did under the centrally planned model it adopted

I disagree, USSR was reliant on wheat exports to fund industrialisation, and economic liberalisation a la NEP would have resulted in greater agricultural surpluses to sell to foreign capitalist powers. But these are contrafactuals and I certainly do see the validity of your view as well. As I see it the cure was almost as bad as the disease for the Soviet state and international communism either way: the USSR probably sacrificed too much to defeat the Nazi menace and was in many ways set on the wrong path.

nah, you need to read hegel to understand law & whats the point of it. Law doesn't exist to oppress freedom but instead to enable a superior form of freedom. In some societies at least…

Look wigga I'm anarchist as fuck, but my anarchism serves as a philosophical enlightened view of seeing the world where politics if they're against my freedom I can just leave them behind like the imaginary concepts they actually are.

But I cannot deny the usefulness of law in a lot of aspects of law. Rape is very easy to explain, rape is wrong but it's not wrong for some that might not understand that they're violating the will of another. Even the communist society is technically a minarchy since these "rules" (very petty to call em rules since they're so basic but they are) protect them from getting their will violated by another asshole's will. Therfore it's a higher form of freedom where your personal freedom isn't taited by assholes because society defends it, makes it possible, allows your RIGHT to that kind of freedom.

Look Stirner is great & all, he was a student of Hegel but you really should read his teacher. It's great to be able to point out what is purely abstract spook & what might be abstract, unreal but useful in some circumstances & be able to explain why. So law, rules those will never stop existing in larger societies they will just change with the times.

You need the masses to organize anything powerful & rn the world isn't in an stage where everyone is ok with each other so indeed military organization even if relaxed is needed to defend any large enough society. Even 1936 Catalonia was a minarchy for that reason, more akin to the Paris Commune tbh. It's not as easy as you might think, on a smaller scale it is tho you can just gather a group of friends (egoists) whatever they might be & agree on the terms to just practice communism autonomously, everyone watching over each other enforcing their own safety. But you're talking Nation scale here consider that… Shit ain't easy.

Attached: 1428297473538.png (535x546, 243.22K)

Law exists to establish order. This order is always illusory, and putting it to paper presents problems later on. People get attached to some as holy writ. old laws getting applied to new situations punish people unjustly. I don't believe people everywhere would be ready to just flush all that "useful spook" traditions away in a generation or two in a post-revolutionary setting, but we ought to be more flexible, more liquid.

Rape is pretty much meant to be a disrespectful abuse of power. Unless the attacker has the mind of an animal in heat, which I doubt is ever the case. But is there were such a case and a law in place that sentenced the perpetrator to a set amount of years in prison, this mindless animal sort should be treated the same? I believe general custom ought to be better able to navigate around such cases. Regional custom and periodic councils to decide things would be law enough I think.
Trade union councils would come up with rules of conduct in things concerning their trades in the same way.

I guess I'm just making a case for the various societies, some that believe in free-will, determinism or, as I do, compatibilism. The hard determinists would make their case to the other communes that treatment is better than punishment… But now I'm straying.

This is all very far off theoretical stuff I understand, and for now we do need to find better ways to influence and spread our transitory replacement models.

Forgot my pic

Attached: 1414011984278.gif (255x239, 795.15K)

Attached: chaddialectic.png (1200x626, 203.59K)

you idiot didn't even tried to comprehend some of the points I made. Read more… smh.

How lame I expected you to actually be interested in analyzing concepts with philosophical rigor since you like philosophy but you didn't. Please think harder on why laws, state in large organizations comes to be figure it out yourself. I already put it in very simple terms.

Tarzan won't understand why rape is him forcing his own will as authority upon another free will. But you who were raised by your parents not by gorillas might truly know why it's fucked up to put your peepee by force inside females (or anyone) that makes you horny like gorillas do. It's really not rocket science, same for a communist society whatever the size it might be even if just friendship, it has rules of respect, consent & yes it has also indeed "law" even if unspoken, absolutely abstract but you can bet your ass that group of friends is gonna watch over each other that their will isn't violated enabling them to hold a higher form of freedom by RIGHT which they made possible by their collective MIGHT, this enabled them to hold this freedom where you (the member of that society) don't risk getting raped, murdered, etc by a stronger uncaring random individual. Thats what law is for.

Good for you dude, figuring out at least

At least you're able to recognize law there. How about you pick up whats up with Philosophy of Right already? It would be better to discuss this with somebody that knows whats up than just have you assuming. Or at least a guide, introduction video whatever you can find.

Egoism isn't opposed to law either depending on what the concept LAW is being used for. Egoism doesn't opposes anything only when it becomes sacred & therefore a spook something useless for your personal realization of freedom.
Idk about you but I prefer to be in a lawful place where I'm not gonna get raped than to be alone to wilds mercy whoever finds me it's a gamble if he is not gonna force his will upon me or not. I would live with fear, with constant watching out for those preying authorities that are so easy to avoid by living in stronger society.

>& yes it has also indeed "law" even if unspoken, absolutely abstract but you can bet your ass that group of friends is gonna watch over each other that their will isn't violated enabling them to hold a higher form of freedom
This unspoken and unwritten "law" is what I mean by "custom". In the world that is post-capitalist, I expect a significant change in the human psyche and their sociability.

Obviously I haven't studied philosophy, I've had scant college courses in my life on other things, but have been studying on my own for years now.

Egoism isn't opposed to law, I am. An egoist could see him/herself seize power as much as the means of production.

Attached: My books.jpg (1280x3600, 725.9K)

it's however you want buddy. But I'm not I find safety in law.

Read some Hegel someday, he is hard as nails but there are people who know Hegel that can help you out in places like Twitter. He really goes ham on concepts or even reality (nature) & is able to explain it from the most abstract view of it to the most concrete way. This is useful, imo.

He btfo'd my anarchism, well anarchism to me is just the view grounded on pure concreteness, pure reality that if I'm not having a good time in a "system", an organization, a state, a group, etc I can just leave it behind or if somehow I'm powerful enough destroy it or take it for me, whatever but I don't have to endure it's shit thats what I'm trying to say. In the end all politics is abstraction, spooks.

It can be useful for the ego, it can be not. It depends…

Attached: 101040445.k9itrJQ8.MuseeDOrsayJul06021.jpg (402x600, 79K)

'M'-Ls need to commit suicide immediately.

Attached: DUL5LT4VMAABvkL.jpg large.jpg (723x435, 76.39K)

alzo ya agreed ofc

What did he mean by this?

Lol Bukharin was such a cuck that he admitted to the false allegations that the Stalinist bureaucracy accused him of in order to "preserve the Soviet Union"

Koba, why do you need me to die?

Stalin knew Bukharin was the smartest guy in the land, thats why he had to die
but he also instinctively felt that a brainlet like himself had no right destroying that which is good and beautiful, or maybe he just wanted to plagiarise the writings later

he wouldn't let his ego get ahead of his loyalty to the struggle even until the very end
we can all only look up to this great man and revolutionary and aspire to be just a little bit more like him


Attached: TASS_300791.jpg (1912x3000, 1011.53K)

Allegedly this note was still on Stalin's desk when he died in 1953

That's a face that enjoys life and smiles a lot.
He must've been immensely popular.

I think he was talking about the Left SR’s specifically.