Why do Trots have no revolutionary potential despite saying all the time that PERMANENT REVOLUTION must happen?

Why do Trots have no revolutionary potential despite saying all the time that PERMANENT REVOLUTION must happen?

Attached: Trotskyist.png (634x250, 27.29K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxism.halkcephesi.net/Grover Furr/index.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

They are jewish

Tbh a lot of ML successes outside the USSR has less to do with their theory being the best and more to do with the fact that they had backing from a superpower while Trots didn’t.

What a shitty thread, not even a trot and I think you are being an idiot. If you want to post something smart take the time to actually critique. Explain what exactly ⛏️rotskyism is and where you disagree with it. Provide evidence. Anything other than these shitty posts.

This and this coming from someone who identifies more with MLism than ⛏️rotskyism.

Permanent revolution is the only position that makes sense dialectically.

The bombs haven’t dropped yet.

The fact that ⛏️rotskyists seem to be the only people on the planet who actually understand what ⛏️rotsky meant by 'Permanent Revolution' just solidifies in my mind that we are the only ones who have actually read him and that everyone who reads ⛏️rotsky will become a ⛏️rotskyist.

Also, these:

I’ve got a friend who’s a hardcore ☭TANKIE☭ and even he is a fan of ⛏️rotsky’s work and respects him as a revolutionary and a theorist.

You know what to do

Attached: Follow Your Leader.png (1220x822, 432.75K)

This seems to be more like an attempt at rationalization rather than actual reasoning.

Firstly, after collapse of Soviet Union (effectively, for 30 years, since Perestroika promoted idea of Soviet model being flawed), when ML got immense blow to reputation that granted every possible advantage to anti-ML movements, there are still no Trots anywhere, while ML is still being chosen by major revolutionary movements (ex. Nepal in 2008).

Secondly, after 1950s Soviets did not encourage any violent overthrows of the state, since they embraced Revisionist ideas of converging Capitalism and Communism. I.e. for all intents and purposes Soviets were suppressing ability of ML-aligned movements to seize power for 30 years before Perestroika.

And I'm not even touching the fact that ⛏️rotsky can be easily distanced from 90% of the shit that gets flung at ML, granting Trots immense advantage in promoting their ideas among non-Marxists.

There has to be at least some successes.

Ideas work if they reflect reality.


In my experience, ⛏️rotskyists did not read ⛏️rotsky, but edited versions of his ideas.

Needs to be said more often.

Forming a government inside a capitalist society

lmao

trotskites need good leader who will execute them later

Trotsky was icepicked by Ramón Mercader.
Mercader had a sister called María, an actress.
María Mercader married Italian film actor and director Vittorio De Sica.
They had two sons, Manuel and Christian.
Christian is an actor too.
He's specialised in trashy comedy films usually coming out for the summer and/or the Christmas holidays (almost) every year.

Attached: COMBO-DE-SICA-628x314.jpg (500x313 165.38 KB, 51.2K)

Fitting

Tbf, Trots have a real chance of taking power in Argentina decently soon…

Communism everywhere took a hit fam, any ML’s that still existed were either irrelevant little guerrilla groups with 1000 members, or governing tiny hermit enclaves. It’s worth noting that ML’s can’t even claim to be responsible for the Russian Revolution, since the Bolsheviks weren’t ML proper at the time. In addition they industrialized and built up the Soviet Union using policies that ⛏️rotsky was in favour of anyway.


That’s not true. They supported the Vietcong through North Vietnam, backed the leftist coup in Afghanistan, supported the Sandinistas, MPLA, ZAPU, and other’s. Their allies also supported similar groups, like the GDR backing the RAF. In addition it’s doubtful that any leftist government would have received Soviet aid if they had explicitly renounced ML in favour of ⛏️rotskyism.

Unfortunately the reputation of socialism in general suffered, not just ML. The implosion of the USSR did not give any advantages to non-ML movements whatsoever.
see below.


i would say both of you are wrong.

the USSR did not support any revolutions after the 1920s. they only supported potential allies that had already taken power. But this wasn't something that changed in the 1950s. As early as the Spanish Civil War is was clear that the USSR had decided to take a collaborationist line with bourgeois states in order to protect the national interests of the USSR even if it meant abandoning revolutions. I mean, it wasn't Khrushchev that disbanded the Communist International… it was Stalin. Even in the case of the Spanish Civil War, the USSR was not supporting revolutionaries but rather a bourgeois state attempting to defeat a Fascist coup. The USSR (again, even during Stalin's life) repeatedly attempted to collaborate and provide aid to bourgeois states or aspiring bourgeois states, such as Nationalist China.

The revolutions that did occur following the Stalin era happened independently of the USSR's support, although would probably have not survived without it long-term. China, Cuba, etc.

tl'dr i need to go but if you want to know why Trots/Ancoms/MLs etc haven't achieved a revolution recently the answer is…
M A T E R I A L C O N D I T O N S

My sides

Because trots don't understand marxism, their theory is undialectical and their whole "legacy" is based on a traitor. The only reason they prospered in anglo countries is due to not posing a threat to the status quo and their critique of the USSR being promoted in a "see, even communists don't like the ussr" kind of way. Trots have historically been class traitors, just take the archeiomarxists in greece as an example

I'm pretty sure most Stalinists have literally never read Marx because I only ever see them cite Lenin, Stalin, or Mao, so this is a non-argument.
Again, Stalin very rarely (if ever) cited dialectical logic and Mao misunderstood it more than I've ever seen someone misunderstand it, going so far as to 'reject' the negation of the negation.
Ever notice that Stalinists are much more comfortable attacking ⛏️rotsky as a person than they are attacking his actual ideas? Wonder why that is.

I've read all of his major works, what would you like to know

PSUV/chavistas are much closer to ⛏️rotskyists than MLs

There is no such thing
Stalin's works were encyclopedic in nature, he never claimed to further marxist theory in the revisionist way ⛏️rotsky did. ML's are dogmatic for quoting Stalin, but they aren't revisionists.
Wow it's like praxis and theory are linked or something.

I'm not going to fucking do this. If you prefer to be called a 'Marxist-Leninist', fine, that's what I'll call you just to get you to shut the hell up, but there is a distinct and measurable difference between the policies advocated for by the Left Opposition and those advocated for (and ultimately carried out) by Stalin. This makes Stalinism a distinct phenomenon.
What the fuck do you mean by 'further Marxist theory'? If you mean, 'come up with new concepts that apply Marxist theory to present material conditions', then I don't understand how on Earth you think that's revisionist unless you think the material conditions of the 21st century are exactly the same as the material conditions of the mid 1800's.
Trots criticize Stalin's theory AND his praxis. Marxist-Leninists (see? I used your autistic term) almost exclusively criticize ⛏️rotsky's praxis by their insane theory that he was trying to undermine socialist revolution from the very beginning (yes, I'm sure that's why he led the Red Army to victory in the civil war).

But it wasn't Stalin, it was the majority of the party that chose to elect him instead of ⛏️rotsky. ⛏️rotsky was the one that went against the communist consensus, to form something different in opposition to it. Hence while saying "Trotskyism" is valid, while "Stalinism" isn't.
You don't "come up" with theory trot, you discover dialectical laws through meticulous research on the subject. ⛏️rotsky's methodology wasn't scientific and his theories hold no merit, he never understood the dialectic method and never applied it to his works.
Stalin had no theory, and the praxis wasn't Stalin's but the party's. Don't try to present Stalin as an individual acting on whims, when all his policies were supported by majority vote of the party.
No they don't, ⛏️rotsky started undermining socialism from the point that he started running illegal presses that distributed anti-party material. His ideas, rejected by the party, never made him a target within it because democratic centralism allows everyone to express their opinion. What he did after his theories were rejected is what makes him a traitor.

You seem to lack fundamental understanding of the material conditions of the time. Even if ⛏️rotsky was at the helm of the party, he would have followed the exact same program at the end of the day because the conditions for a global revolution simply weren't there. He could have followed the rules and stayed in the country to help it from within, instead he formed his illegal fraction and even worse, after exile he actively worked to undermine the USSR.

There are a couple of interesting coincidences regarding Christian and Leon.
The first: he featured in a lot of those crappy films for like 20+ years together with this guy, an unbelievable moron that somewhat manages to be more imbecile than him. His name is Massimo Boldi. They had a quarrel around 2005 and they… split! KEK!
The second: the last film De Sica and Boldi featured in together is titled Natale a Miami (Christmas in Miami). Miami is a notorious centre of Anti-Castro Cubans. People plotting to overthrow the socialist government of the island where Uncle Ramón died.
And now, the icing on the cake.
Leon was expelled from the Soviet Union in 1927. He was eventually killed in 1940. Thirteen years later.
Well, De Sica and Boldi apparently got over their differences and reconciled this year. Thirteen years after they split.
Now someone should really watch his back…

Attached: Christian-De-Sica-Massimo-Boldi.jpg (620x350, 27.38K)

Since when does the party adopting a particular line justify silencing all opposition to that line within the party? Democracy doesn’t mean the majority has absolute power of the minority, it requires the continuous, free exchange of ideas and alternatives to be chosen freely by the majority. That requires free and continuous criticism and re-evaluation by everybody involved, and so the freedom of criticism from the minority should remain untouched.

Makes me love his films even more tee bee aitch

Cristian, non vittorio porcoddio!!! Vittorio é il padre che faceva bei film

Cristian not vittorio god's a pig!!! Vittorio is the father that did great movies

cazzo dici? è stato vittorio a sposarsi con la mercader

Yes, undoubtedly, and ML has obviously proven itself logically and practically, but that doesnt change the fact that having a 100 years to think about ⛏️rotskyism doesnt make it a failure or a success.
Sage because no one has made a solid argument here.

Since Democratic Centralism. Once the Party adopted a line all opposition should have stopped.

That’s a load of shit. Democratic centralism dictates that there must be a diversity of thought but unity of action. Ie if the party votes on a line and the minority carries out their line anyway, then they should be punished. It doesn’t mean that the line that the majority has adopted is now exempt from criticism. That completely undermines the democratic nature of the worker’s party and by extension the worker’s state. The most critical period of debate occurs during and after a line’s or policy’s implementation, not before, and stifling that debate permenantly just because it was voted on once is tantamount to destroying worker’s democracy.

With the Soviet Union gone, Stalinists have about as much “revolutionary potential” (foreign state sponsorship) as Trots. Maybe less considering Stalinists have never attempted to construct any kind of international.

Since 1991, Stalinists have accomplished about as much as Trots have. Which is to say, nothing.

Attached: 47444357-B918-487D-A84B-DA81D371F42B.jpeg (500x237, 80.59K)

That being said they are consistently anti-imperialist, which is a bit shocking all things considered.

Attached: 1530521131886.png (252x267, 71K)

This tbh. For all it’s successes the USSR was ultimately a failure, and it failed because ML created conditions that allowed revisionism to flourish and corruption to go unchallenged.

Maybe in the first world, but Marxism Leninism is still pretty large internationally, especially in the third world
not a turd worldist but we shouldn't ignore a large communist tendancy just because its most popular in the third world

I respectfully disagree with you OP, particularly with that quote that you posted. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a ⛏️rotskyist went on to become one of the most influential people in the White House from the 1960’s until now. He is the architect of the last 50 years of US foreign policy and his influence can be seen through the Project for the new Century American Century, Council of Foreign Relations, Paul Wolfawitz, Karl Rove, other Neoconservative think tanks and all recent Democrat and Republican administrations.

He was able to succeed where Leon ⛏️rotsky failed in which he helped destroy the USSR, suppressed and subverted countless anti-imperialist and Marxist Leninist uprisings in the Global South and brought about almost total western hegemony around the globe.

Brzezinski Died recently however his legacy (and I would argue Leon ⛏️rotsky’s legacy) lives on in the current Trump administration particularly with the current stance on Syria, Iran and North Korea as well as John Bolton.

Hope this helps.

I would go as far as to say that ML almost necessitates revisionism and corruption, based simply on how vanguardism and "freedom of discussion, unity of action" tend to work IRL.

I think that this is true to an extent. It quite telling that a consistent problem that dogs all ML regimes is the bureaucratization of the party. Something the leaders seem to recognize is a problem but fail to realize is being created by a system where the party is to a large degree alienated not only from the general public, but from the party membership as well. I mean the mere fact that the only hold party congresses every five years while letting appointed officials run it the rest of the time is kind of ridiculous. To me it seems like a perfect environment for corruption, bureaucratization, and revisionism to flourish, precisely because these processes can’t be identified, criticized, and arrested by the workers or rank and file members themselves. Instead we have to rely on the leadership to identify it, which usually is followed by purges without a change in the conditions that made them necessary in the first place.

Being in the middle of another synthesis isn't fun.

every movement necessitates this
ML recognizes this and it's what get's us labeled "paranoid"
part of "destalinization" was declaring socialism as already victorious and invincible while accusing MLs of shutting down exactly those enemies that come crawling out and set up failure as it came to be
there can be no freedom where revisionists are mudding the waters with confused ideas
freedom presupposes clarity

So is it just a coincidence that the ML approach to combatting revisionism has literally never worked? Pretty much every ML state has turned revisionist after its initial founder died. The USSR went as soon as Stalin was gone, China after Mao, even Albania after Hoxha, etc.

that's a real simpleton understanding of revisionism that you share with, funny enough, maoists and hoxhaists
every socialist movement will have to combat this
just as every socialist movement that wants to survive will adapt ML policies to some extend (and yet still fail for not just embracing it fully)
revisionism is not a thing that happens over night and just kills the socialism, rather it's eroding the ideological struggle, bringing it to a halt and in consequence sabotaging the economy and so on
Stalin managed to do so his entire life and the most destructive forms of it only showed decades later manifested in gorbachev with some pushback up until then
you have some illusionary believes on how this struggle is carried out
apparently you believe it's something entirely up to one persons pure will power, matching your weird ideas on how the soviet union must've been a dictatorship of evil stalin and a hand full of central figures
such decay is way deeper rooted

again: ML is the only theory that upholds this struggle
your opposition to this struggle is veiled under the guise of "anti-authoritarianism", just like those revisionists do, promoting a fake sense of "pluralism" to validate their falsifications of basic principles to undermine them
you literally offer nothing but spiteful rejection of the very idea of revisionism being even a thing while fully indulging in its basic principles of undermining socialism
you set yourself up for failure from the get go by rejecting Marxism Leninism, achieve nothing at all, ever, and then cry on about how "ML failed" because those revisionists did basically the same thing as you do: refusing to even acknowledge the necessity to fight revisionism
you are much more related to those failures than ML

So are you saying that Kruschev and Brezhnev weren’t revisionists?


That’s not what I believe at all, I simply believe that repression and purges is not the best way to combat revisionism. If revisionism is ever present and constantly emerges in every socialist movement or state, then by definition it’s impossible to stamp out. Trying to purge it out of existence is futile, and only creates a repressive apparatus that will one day fall into revisionist hands. This is exactly what happened time and time again in basically every ML state.


I’m not opposed to this struggle, I’m opposed to the ML approach to it, and simply because it clearly doesn’t work.


Of course it’s a thing, and needs to be fought against, although I’m certain my definition of it isn’t nearly as broad as yours.

former obviously, latter not really
and again you're trying to stick it on personalities and make it a mao-hoxha-esque shallow pseudo analysis
then why ask again about 2 people and not concrete issues?
neither does ML argue that but it is definitely a part of it
the point is not to stamp it out of existence but to engage it in every instance
you have this false idea of Stalin having only ever purged people out of existence, this is simply not the case, everything that follows are fallacies from this wrong premise
discussions were lively and broad and there is so much to read on Stalin arguing against deviators, it's insane to believe anyone he ever adressed was just killed off
it worked from '20 to '90 with a slow decay through some back and forth
if that's "clearly not working" in your mind, then i'm curious for how you'd describe the success story of anarchism

again your idea is: "well if they did it right they cannot fail"
that's what revisionists said as well
which goes straight against ML which teaches to stay on guard
i suppose true ML in your mind should really go all out and mercilessly kill anyone who ever gets things wrong in order to "work" rather than take a chance at losing by combating it exactly not just through repression and having a democracy that can be lead astray

regardless of that i suggest a read of grover furr on some things that might've helped in fighting more efficiently and keeping it up against those telling people sweet lies about invincibility and already reached peace after a bloody world war
marxism.halkcephesi.net/Grover Furr/index.htm

and again you're trying to stick it on personalities and make it a mao-hoxha-esque shallow pseudo analysis

I’m not trying to stick in on specific people, I’m looking for conditions under which revisionism tends to succeed.


Because those people are representative of a broader phenomenon. Obviously I don’t mean just Kruschev or Brezhnev specifically, rather their entire cliques and the tendencies they represented.


I don’t believe that Stalin killed literally everybody who disagreed with him, but he clearly did make wide use of purges and other repressive measures to combat what he saw as incorrect positions. What I believe is that the repressive apparatus he set up to combat revisionism ended up backfiring by falling into the hands of revisionists, and thus entrenched their position. I fully agree with you on the need to confront revisionism ideologically, where I disagree is on the use of repression to fight it.


I wouldn’t since I’m not an anarchist.


If the ML approach to combating revisionism was effective then they would have successfully kept it from taking power. Even if you want to argue that Stalin’s measures kept revisionism at bay until the 1980s, that’s clearly not enough. The goal of socialism isn’t to more or less adhere to Marxism for 40 years or so before collapsing into revisionism (and as a result collapsing entirely). This just seems to me to be damage control for an anti-revisionist praxis that clearly failed in its aims.

why did that guy stop posting
he was very interesting