Is there literally anything wrong with him other than permanent revolution...

No, sir. As the poster above pointed out, this is a strawman. It does not mean all at once everywhere. What it does mean if eventually there are single, isolated isles of socialism, capitalism will prevail. Because capitalism is much better at accumulating capital. And capitalist world market has forced socialist states to comply with it. It didn't matter that USSR and China were giant states that should, between themselves, be self sufficient.

They were forced to play their international politics by capitalist rules and they, of course, lost. And that doesn't mean anyone is taking anything away from the achievements of the USSR or China or Yugoslavia or Cuba.

US porky was much more influential and militarily stronger than USSR uncle joe

Nah for liberals and such hes just what could have been instead of ebin Stalen dectator even History Channel always puts him as the good option and explains how Stalin meticulously planned how to kick him out and get all the power

Attached: IMG-20180802-WA0302.jpg (1600x690, 77.41K)

but that's what Stalin did tho.

Permanent revolution was the only good thing about him you nigger. The capitalist restoration of the USSR and China proved him right. Socialism in one country doesn't work.

This is just a fight of fucking strawmen.The trots always say that the USSR and Stalin and M-l is all about muh socialism in one country and that's simply not fucking true you have M-l states like Albania that in the way they could helped communist parties from other countries like Spain or any other country with M-l parties. M-l doesn't advocate for socialism to be fully achieved if just one state has a revolution and actually transforms into a socialist state it's like saying feudalism disappears with the French Revolution or other bourgeois revolutions; it's a process way longer than that of just one country achieving a revolution. Now this doesn't mean revolution isnt possible in one state at a time (that's how it actually works)so revolution in the USSR was possible and happened but that does not exclude helping communist parties around the world; but neither it means the only goal of a socialist state is to help other communist parties, it must carry out its revolution as it is a long and continuous process. The problem comes when thinking that revolution will only prevail when extended to imperialist powers and other such really industrialised countries and assuming the only goal of a revolution in any country other than that is just to help carry out revolution in other countries. Don't mistake my words revolutions will come sooner or later in those countries and must come for the end of class antagonism in history but they're not the goal of any revolution

So the USSR should've just given up and surrendered to fascism. ⛏️rotsky was a menshevik to the death.

History channel confirms

All Marxists want global socialism, socialism in one country states that socialism can be built in one country, not that it should isolate itself and not spread the revolution. The alternatives are to either restore capitalism or declare an all out war to all of capitalism.
Permanent revolution is reactionary.

marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/09/ussr-war.htm
Read instead of making baseless claims you troglodyte.

The USSR wouldn't even have made it until then had ⛏️rotsky had a word.

Joseph "we have good relations with fascist countries" Stalin

"In this connection some German politicians say that the U.S.S.R. has now taken an orientation towards France and Poland; that from an opponent of the Versailles Treaty it has become a supporter of it, and that this change is to be explained by the establishment of the fascist regime in Germany. That is not true. Of course, we are far from being enthusiastic about the fascist regime in Germany. But it is not a question of fascism here, if only for the reason that fascism in Italy, for example, has not prevented the U.S.S.R. from establishing the best relations with that country."
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1934/01/26.htm

So this is the power of ultraleftism.

...

Pick one

How many levels of dialectical materialism was he on comrade?

Attached: stalin laugh.jpg (677x233 22.73 KB, 11.55K)

Mostly agree. But guess what tovarish. Many many times helping communist parties around the world meant going AGAINST the interests of the one socialist superpower. The Comintern explicitly said to the Yugoslav communists to NOT CARRY OUT A REVOLUTION DURING THE WW2, TO JUST KEEP IT ABOUT NATIONAL LIBERATION AND LET THE PORKIES RETURN AFTER.

Thanks to god they didn't follow this line, but did wait until after uncle joe's speech after the attack on the USSR to officially rise up. And afterwards they did start the revolution along the uprising against the nazis.

Hindsight is always 20/20 but few things come to mind

DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

The USSR tried to get the French and British to form an alliance with them against the Germans, while they both formed non-aggression pacts with Germany. They were trying to cause a German-USSR war so they could kill two birds with one stone. As we can see it didn't go so well.

The entire bolshevik revolution was funded by JP Morgan and tycoons like Lord Alfred Milner and William Boyce Thompson. You think Lenin and ⛏️rotsky financed the revolution through bake sales? Go look at who was putting millions of dollars in their laps and you'll understand everything wrong with Ice Picks

my dude

Source? And exactly what did they buy with those funds?

Most of my sourcing on this claim comes from Antony C. Sutton's books, which themselves are full of other references and sources. Some of those references are from ⛏️rotsky himself, particularly his book "my life" where he talks about getting "large loans" from british financiers to overthrow the tsar. I'm not going to summarize thousands of pages of research in a blogpost but business tycoons in the US and Europe wanted to fund revolutions to bring down the Russian Tsars, and saw Marxism as a perfect medium for stoking unrest. Millions of dollars were given just for propaganda efforts, others went towards personally financing the revolutionaries themselves (Trotsky himself talks about being given $10,000 USD in travel expenses - which is an incredible sum of money in the early 1900's for "food and loging"). I doubt you'll believe me because i'm just a random user online and it would serve your personal biases to dismiss my claims outright, but I strongly suggest you look in to Wall Street and UK tycoon financing of revolutions in the early 20th century to convince yourself. and it wasn't ideologically driven, it was economically driven. many of these same people funded the nazi and nationalist movements in europe to prevent the spreak of ML to their european interests

Attached: dee-lighted.jpg (650x1049, 243.94K)

look at this retard just making up things as he goes along

lmao, pathetic

sad people are this scared of basic history, but I get it. Like I said, it serves your personal biases and beliefs about the world to dismiss my words outright, without honest investigation. I get it. The mind of the dogmatic simpleton is predictable and unchanging.

I know you won't read it, but for those who are interested in honestly assessing their understanding of history, here's a free PDF of "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" by Sutton.

voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf

The Soviet files are mostly public. We know Lenin and Stalin said the same things to the public and behind closed doors. They didn't have a hidden agenda.
I doubt it but even if there was any funding, the Bolsheviks were just using it as a means to achieve their goal.

I'm not suggesting Lenin, Stalin, or ⛏️rotsky had a hidden agenda to help the capitalists, I'm saying they took capitalist money to finance their revolution. The Bolsheviks thought they were just being opportunists and using Wall St to leverage their ideological goal. The bankers wanted Russia out of the war and wanted control over the emerging russian economy so they were just being opportunists and used Bolsheviks to leverage their economic and political goals. Hitler and other reactionary movements took Wall St. money for the same reason - and were given money for the same reason. The point is that these revolutions are not self-started organic uprisings, but destabilization campaigns heavily financed by capitalist interests for larger geo-political games. All of the revolutionaries certainly believed they were doing the right thing, but, like a puppet on a string, was ultimately controlled into specific actions and propaganda campaigns for the capitalist west.

kek, imagine making shit up so blatantly, better cite the page faggot.

The book you linked also doesn't have a single mention of british or american or french loans to the Bolsheviks, only that Germany provided financial and logistical support in getting the Bolsheviks to Russia which everyone well knows. Moreover the notion that Britain and the US would want the government of Russia, their key ally in the war, overthrown is ridiculous not least because the Tsar had already been overthrown by the time the Bolsheviks were returning to Russia.
You self-evidently lack any historical knowledge and haven't read even your own shitty 'really makes you think' book.

Attached: you came to the wrong neighbourhood capitalist.jpg (564x489, 39.5K)

Tfw every capitalist superpower declined any kind of alliance with the USSR until 1939 and preferred having treaties with the Nazis 😎 now that's dialectical comrade

Comrade you look like you've seen a lot of threads like this take a break(absolutely agree btw)

Meh
While I have absolute admiration for Yugoslav partisans and communist resistance in Yugoslavia as in for example Spain or a country in which the national burgeoisie and the proletariat both have a common enemy(monarchies for example) in this case the interests of the German burgeoisie opposed to those of the national Yugoslav burgeoisie a communist party with a good analysis of the situation would have made a tactical alliance to fight the Nazis and after that continue with the next contradiction that the proletariat would face: it's national burgeoisie.
We can see this same dialectical process with countries like siria or Venezuela that must be supported and have the support of the communist parties of their countries because the first contradiction they face is imperialism, interests of foreign burgeoisies, burgeoisies that can't be fought by them in any other way because they are protected by states other than those of the countries they have occupied (for example if the proletariat in Brasil wanted to end class antagonism the bourgeoisie they would eliminate would be their national burgeoisie not the burgeoisie from multinationals, because they simply can't eliminate that burgeoisie. They can just turn the state apparatus of Brasil against their burgeoisie, which its interests it would protect but the only thing it would be able to do to foreign bourgeoisie is to nationalise the factories they have within the limits of the Brazilian state, certainly not socializing all the means of production of that bourgeoisie thus only being able to "kick out" the foreign bourgeoisie back to the limits of their own state and at the same time localising the conflict in the state from which they came, leaving the revolutionary task of turning the whole state apparatus to defend the interests of the proletariat to the proletariat in that nation.)that's why the main contradictions suffered by the proletariat at that time were the interests of the German bourgeoisie which were in the process of being imposed to them(that's why the communist party was recommended to act this way; it's the dialectical way;)

He was vehemently against Imperialism though?
He even used the Military (Psudo-fascist) gov of Brazil as an example
To Paraphrase
"If the Junta of Brazil was to come under imperialist invasion by the British empire I would sooner stand with the fascists in Rio then the Imperialists in London as a Brazilian victory would mean both further development of the National Bougie of Brazil and a weakening of the British empire thus exasperating capitalism contradictions in London"

no, he was still a comrade. splitting and communist infighting is cancerous

Attached: 1951135_1445217337241_original.png (1680x1050, 362.5K)

Saying something positive: his book on October Revolution is great, I find it on marxism.org

Because he was a political opportunist who changed his views like a hooker changing partners. When it suited him he attacked Lenin and Bolshevism, When it did, not, he supported and 'joined them' along with other Menshiviks. Then after Lenin died, he began pushing his own rhetoric, in fear of being marginalized as a politician, the increasing problematics of which led to him being kicked out of the USSR. He then criticized the USSR heavily whilst supporting or attacking capitalists as it suited him. something which at times included the support of fascists and the Nazis.

He was like a leftist, and less grandious churchill. Experienced, opportunistic and a false hero to many.

wat

Funny thing is, if ⛏️rotsky had taken power after Lenin's passing he would've been more ☭TANKIE☭ than Stalin. Revolutions and tanks rolling everywhere.

Steve Bannon

He literally worked with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan to bring about a coup in Stalin's Russia.

Permanent revolution was in fact one of the few things he did right. Otherwise, he's 60% at fault for our current left disunity (20% being Sergey Nechayev and 20% the CIA).

The Nazis actually funded ⛏️rotskyite groups it's in Goebbels diary

Good. Stalin was a bit of a pussy tbqh.

Attached: 6816021859141229.jpg (200x276, 29.31K)

Fuck off with this bullshit. Goebbels said they were broadcasting fake underground radio stations posing as various groups and spreading disinfo one of which was pretending to be trots. It was literally just cointelpro before its time not a 'trotskyite group'

Literally never been any proof of this.

You can really spot the newfags whenever ⛏️rotsky threads come up jesus fucking christ

Stalanists are power hungry fuckers

What could have been?

Attached: 1219406820972.jpg (321x585, 16.48K)

espressostalinist.com/2011/07/30/ho-chi-minh-on-trotskyites/

this is what OP does in his free time

Attached: download (9).gif (259x194, 27.64K)

trotsky was a fascist

I have the feeling that if ⛏️rotsky had known what Trotskists will do after his death he would have went back to the USSR to kiss Stalin's boots.
Although what he dis and wrote during the atart of operation Barbarrosa is terrible, even for being him

Attached: IMG_20180804_184627.png (1021x1466, 1.27M)

I agree that he shouldn't have been killed, but I see why he got killed. The trot movement he spawned is even worse than anything he did in his life, with many prominent trots openly becoming anti-communists since they were snitching on the "stalinists", not "actual" communists

t. theorylet

Lmao do you think only trotskites have given up on the struggle? Million of Stalinists/"ML" have done the same since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Communist parties all Around the world have become sects of a handful of people. Idk about Amerika but in my country there are many ex-stalinists now in bourgeois parties.
Also Lenin used the term state capitalism. Go read a book, dumbass

Trotsky wasn't alive by the time Barbarossa started

stfu kid

True my bad, I was refering about how he called for Germans "liberatinf" Ukraine

opposition to the popular front led to weird shit like trying to attempt a revolution against the spaniards while they were fighting against fascists