This was the most evil man in history and if you know history, you know why.
You know why that is?
This was the most evil man in history and if you know history, you know why.
You know why that is?
Other urls found in this thread:
Because his retarded autism caused a massive split between the two biggest leftist branches and then went on to hack apart his own branch even more?
You know why that is?
Because he gets your panties in a twist.
explain please, i dont know soviet party history
Times and times again, when Soviet Union becomes history, Stalin will be viewed like Octavian Augustus, and Trotsky like Mark Antonius.
Does anyone actually have a principled critique of cultural hegemony or is it all REEEE BASE PRECEDES SUPERSTRUCTURE
More like gets panties wet, Big Ton' one of the sexiest commies of the 20th century alongside Che, Minh, and young Mao
I'm not super familiar with how they are viewed. Is it Octavian bad, Mark Antonius kind-of alright or the reverse?
Mark Antony let that sweet Ptolemaic poontang get to his head
I beg to differ. Lenin, Stalin, Sverdlov, Dzerzhinsky, Voroshilov and Yezhov were all more attractive than him.
I don't understand why people think Trot was going to be so much better than Stalin. Everything I've read suggests that he was a narcissistic asshole who might've become a dictator had he taken power. He hated Lenin and Stalin and disagreed with both of them, even when they were obviously right.
Who is this intense Jewish butch?
So since we are talking about Trotsky, is the claim that the man who icepicked him was pretending to be his twink bf true or did the guy who told me this uses too much acid?
I don't remember reading that anywhere, i just remember a part of Trotsky telling his guards to not kill the guy right after he got attacked "because he has a story to tell", nothing homo
You guys ever read Trotsky's last words?
My high (and still rising) blood pressure is deceiving those near me about my actual condition. I am active and able to work but the outcome is evidently near. These lines will be made public after my death.
I have no need to refute here once again the stupid and vile slander of Stalin and his agents: there is not a single spot on my revolutionary honour. I have never entered, either directly or indirectly, into any behind-the-scenes agreements or even negotiations with the enemies of the working class. Thousands of Stalin’s opponents have fallen, victims of similar false accusations. The new revolutionary generations will rehabilitate their political honour and deal with the Kremlin executioners according to their deserts.
I thank warmly the friends who remained loyal to me through the most difficult hours of my life. I do not name anyone in particular because I cannot name them all.
However, I consider myself justified in making an exception in the case of my companion, Natalia Ivanovna Sedova. In addition to the happiness of being a fighter for the cause of socialism, fate has given me the happiness of being her husband. During the almost forty years of our life together she remained an inexhaustible source of love, magnanimity, and tenderness. She underwent great suffering, especially in the last period of our lives. But I find some comfort in the fact that she also knew days of happiness.
For forty-three years of my conscious life I have remained a revolutionist; for forty-two of them I have fought under the banner of Marxism. If I had to begin all over again I would of course try and avoid this or that mistake, but the main course of my life would remain unchanged. I shall die a proletarian revolutionist, a Marxist, a dialectical materialist, and, consequently, an irreconcilable atheist. My faith in the communist future of mankind is not less ardent, indeed it is firmer today, than it was in the days of my youth.
Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence and enjoy it to the full.
This is so sad, can we make Trotsky the new leader of the USSR?
Trotsky also would have probably been even worse than Stalin from s moralfag perspective because rather than help colonized nations rebel and organize their own defensive capacities locally in a mutual manner and then establish trade relations with said countries Trotsky would have just started using the red army to steamroll through every single area where the US or UK had literally any involvement which would have both led to an economic collapse and an alied invasion that would have destroyed the ussr decades earlier than what we got
I also thought Trot was a homo (or at least bisexual) because of his book "My Life"
Thank you. I forgot to mention that he was highly irrational, and some people around him thought he had some sort of a mental disease.
Everything I've read suggests that he was a narcissistic asshole who might've become a dictator had he taken power.
NONONO THIS ISN'T TRUE SHUT UP SHUT UP STALIN GOOD
one person can't be q narcissist because another may also be a narcissist
Also you're aware of the fact that Stalin tried to resign 4 times and actively discouraged the personality cult forming around him right? Also shit like this isn't unique to stalin, people tend to romanticize the image of someone when they feel like they've gotten them through a hard time. Americans used to feel this way about FDR and still do about Reagan and the Bush family. It's not like Stalin decided one day to make everything in the ussr about him and then just shot everyone who wouldn't kiss his ass
I don't understand why people think Trot was going to be so much better than Stalin.
Yet you still post anti-stalinist pictures showing me things I already know. Well, I always knew Trots don't have any reading comprehension.
could i get a source on that
Stalin Resigning (sorry for WordPress but I'm lazy at right now and this article has sources)
Cult of personality
To be fair to you it's unclear whether he ever completely rejected the cult but it is clear that he spoke on numerous occasions discouraging the worship of individuals and so on. I don't think its really to crazy to say he might have made his peace with it out of the necessity to respond in an efficient way to the Nazis invading but that doesn't mean if you insulted or criticized Stalin you automatically were gulagged.
Stalin's paranoia (which did exist) was more about the infiltration of the party in general rather than anyone trying to challenge his personal authority
He did indeed "try to resign" multiple times. Every time was intended as a staged power play to try and humiliate his opponents with an outcry of support. Similar to how Julius Caesar "refused" Rome's crown multiple times.
one person can't be a narcissist because another may also be a narcissist
[Stalin] actively discouraged the personality cult forming around him
I primarily view the personality cult as a structural product of the ruling Party bureaucracy (PDF related), hence at first I viewed Stalin's comments downplaying his rising personality cult as genuine. However, the more I read, the more I think he actually was high on his own supply and viewed himself as the "colossus of thought". Take this quote from his own autobiography:
"Although he performed his tasks as leader of the Party and the people with consummate skill, and enjoyed the unreserved support of the entire Soviet people, Stalin never allowed his work to be marred by the slightest hint of vanity, conceit or self-adulation."
Thus writes the "humble" Stalin about himself.
le 4d chess
stalin discovering his cult of personality, 1941 (colorized)
You don't become one of the world's most powerful men without being a skilled political operative. Stalin was clever in the game of politics, and it's amusing how his biggest supporters often also are the ones who underestimate him again and again.
I am alluding that the conflict between Stalin and Trotsky is similar to that of Augustus and Anthony in that they had no political differences between each other, but could not share power due to sudden death of the leader and lack of political institutions of the new regime.
Although, there are more similarities too. Augustus is loyal, pragmatic, down to earth. Mark Anthony is ambitious, unconventional, adventurous.
I am so sick of this stupid shitflinging, especially since neither Stalin or Trotsky are blameless or wholly bad. Trots refuse to acknowledge that it was extremely irresponsible to the point of insanity for Trotsky, as an old respected Bolshevik, to start talking openly about overthrowing the government of the USSR at such a fragile time, and then go on to start a fucking 4th Internationale with himself at the head. The denial of this seems to be out of some need for Trotsky to be an entirely uncritically heroic figure who represents all of the potential of the Soviet revolution without any of the messy realities, which is funny because they have that in common with Stalinists who just choose to not believe there were any messy realities, or that the ones that happened were saved by the firm hand of Daddy Stalin. Stalinists do this really obnoxious thing where whenever they hear criticisms from the left they just respond as if the criticism was coming from the right. "What the fuck was up with the show trials, do you really believe that Stalin and Lenin were the only two out of the dozens of original, committed Bolsheviks that werent secretly fascist spies and provocateurs?" is met with "lmao ok liberal yeah that's right Stalin personally killed 10 gorillion kulaks"
Maybe we should stop trying to understand our history with Avatars of Revolution instead of material analysis.
One of the worst deals in the history of dealmaking.
Why was younger Trotsky such a femboy?
because he is a deluded retard just like all femboys and traps
Most evil man in history
Are you sure about that?
lol poor Trotsky, he gets no respect
Trotsky has been vindicated over and over. Permanent revolution has been vindicated, ie, that only the working class is the revolutionary force in society and that socialism MUST be international in scope. Read Revolution Betrayed, his analysis of the Soviet Union either having a workers revolution from within or reverting to capitalism has been vindicated, his analysis of fascism is the most accurate to this date, and unlike Stalin his legacy lives on. The WSWS, the SEP, and the ICFI will be the vanguard of the final socialist revolution as they are the only Marxist party around with an international setup. Trotsky will win.
Lol at calling yourself a Marxist and calling someone "evil" at the same time
Read Revolution Betrayed, his analysis of the Soviet Union either having a workers revolution from within or reverting to capitalism has been vindicated
Aaand… It's literally the only worthwhile piece of Trotsly's legacy, apart from his contribution to the October revolution itself. Even then, most of its' worth comes from Trotsky having both insider's knowledge and having no ties to the institution, rather than some sort of analytical genius.
mark antony was an extremely capable lieutenant but a poor politician
Permanent revolution has been vindicated, ie, that only the working class is the revolutionary force in society and that socialism MUST be international in scope.
his analysis of fascism is the most accurate to this date
I don't think it is true. Everyone knew that fascism bad. Eventually, Stalin's politics was the brilliant one. Trotsky's autism would result in Angloamerican Porky taking it all past WWII and Soviet Union, most likely, being crushed.
and unlike Stalin his legacy lives on.
Again, Trotsky's legacy is pretty pitiful.
I'm not against Trotsky per se, I'd even say as much as he is on par with Stalin personally. But Trotskyist cult of personality is cringeworthy, and definitely subpar to that of daddy Stalin.
In what way has permanent revolution been vindicated? Mao's Cultural Revolution is the closest example I can think of and it had serious, even fatal flaws.
Trotskyism and Hoxhaism are virtually the same - they have identical critiques of bureaucracy. The only difference is their opinion of Stalin.
How does it feel to talk out of your ass about things you have no clue about?
Stalin tried to resign 4 times
Need a meme word filter for this
Trotsky's autism would result in Angloamerican Porky taking it all past WWII and Soviet Union, most likely, being crushed.
This is such profound historical illiteracy. International socialist revolution doesn't mean the USSR would take over the world by force, it meant establishment of vanguard parties throughout the world with the goal of elevating workers political consciousness so that they could free themselves. Because Stalinism had always been a bureaucratic reaction to the Workers Revolution, it had no choice but to cut off any proletarian revolutionary movement throughout the world in order to settle deals with the imperialist powers.
Stalinism went through and muderered all true Leninist parties by killing off Trotskyists around the world and destroying the vanguard parties who meant to carry through workers revolutions. Popular frontism led to the betrayals of all anti-colonial movmenets because Stalinism promoted the two-stage theory of revolution which was thoroughly disproven by the Russian Revolution itself! All around the world, with the Stalinist support for the bourgeois nationalists of India, Ghana, Vietnam, Catalonia, Greece, etc, the world revolution was betrayed.
However, now Stalinism is DEAD. It "lives" in the minds of thoroughly reactionary online trolls and deranged middle class youth. Trotskyism is the only revolutionary tendency on this planet which is proven by the constant principled actions of the ICFI, SEP and its news organ the World Socialist Web Site.
to start talking openly about overthrowing the government of the USSR at such a fragile time
Is there any proof for this? By proof I mean a written statement from him, not Stalin's excuses to kill him
"the epoch of great convulsions upon which mankind has entered will strike the Kremlin oligarchy with blow after blow, will break up its totalitarian apparatus, will raise the self-confidence of the working masses and thereby facilitate the formation of the Soviet section of the Fourth International."
Not the best quote I could find on the subject, but Trotsky was indeed pushing for another russian revolution to overthrow the party bureaucracy and bring true workers' democracy back to the USSR. Don't believe the ☭TANKIE☭ show trial bullshit though, he had little to no contacts in the USSR thanks to Stalin's secret police, and he certainly was not a literal agent of Hitler as they eventually claimed.
Asked Ismail from /marx/:
Yes there are. Initially, Trotsky and his followers opposed all talk of overthrowing the government. They held that the "bureaucracy" could only be combated from within the legal avenues of the party, trade unions, soviets, etc. Ironically, this harmed Trotsky's popularity among workers in the late 20s, a considerable portion of whom initially resented the tight discipline being enacted to make the First Five-Year Plan a reality. They would privately talk to Trotskyists about starting strikes and other unauthorized activities, whereupon the Trots would argue that workers striking against the workers' state was harmful.
When Hitler came to power in 1933, Trotsky declared that the Comintern was dead as a revolutionary international (blaming it for Hitler's rise) and that a Fourth International was necessary. He also wrote the following that same year:
The fundamental historic task is to create the revolutionary party in the USSR from among the healthy elements of the old party and from among the youth. . . After the experiences of the last few years, it would be childish to suppose that the Stalinist bureaucracy can be removed by means of a party or soviet congress. In reality, the last congress of the Bolshevik Party took place at the beginning of 1923, the Twelfth Party Congress. All subsequent congresses were bureaucratic parades. Today, even such congresses have been discarded. No normal “constitutional” ways remain to remove the ruling clique. The bureaucracy can be compelled to yield power into the hands of the proletarian vanguard only by force.
All the hacks will immediately howl in chorus: The “Trotskyites,” like Kautsky, are preaching an armed insurrection against the dictatorship of the proletariat. But let us pass on. The question of seizing power will arise as a practical question for the new party only when it will have consolidated around itself the majority of the working class. In the course of such a radical change in the relation of forces, the bureaucracy would become more and more isolated, more and more split. As we know, the social roots of the bureaucracy lie in the proletariat, if not in its active support, then, at any rate, in its “toleration.” When the proletariat springs into action, the Stalinist apparatus will remain suspended in midair. Should it still attempt to resist, it will then be necessary to apply against it not the measures of civil war but rather the measures of a police character. In any case, what will be involved is not an armed insurrection against the dictatorship of the proletariat but the removal of a malignant growth upon it.
From that point on he was regularly asserting that the "bureaucracy" had to be overthrown to save the USSR and prevent the restoration of capitalism. For example, from the founding program of the Fourth International which he wrote:
Although it is thus impermissible to deny in advance the possibility, in strictly defined instances, of a “united front” with the Thermidorian section of the bureaucracy against open attack by capitalist counterrevolution, the chief political task in the USSR still remains the overthrow of this same Therrnidorian bureaucracy. Each day added to its domination helps rot the foundations of the socialist elements of economy and increases the chances for capitalist restoration. It is in precisely this direction that the Comintern moves as the agent and accomplice of the Stalinist clique in strangling the Spanish Revolution and demoralizing the international proletariat.
wtf I love Trotsky now
this is unironically pretty based
Yup exactly. Good posts.
Feels fine cause I'm not really claiming any knowledge I don't have, was the Cultural Revolution in no way comparable to Trotsky's Permanent Revolution?
Not to be too blunt but the Cultural Revolution and the Permanent revolution are in no way comparable. Read it straight from the horse's mouth so to speak; marxists.org
In essence the permanent revolution is the theory(proven by the history of the 20th century i might add) is the idea that a socialist revolution has to be led by the working class and no other class(Mao's bloc of 4 classes comes immediately in mind) because the working class is the only class whose material interests lay with the overthrow of capitalism. Second the revolution has to be of an international character because capitalism is an international system. As trotsky said "The completion of the socialist revolution within national limits is unthinkable. One of the basic reasons for the crisis in bourgeois society is the fact that the productive forces created by it can no longer be reconciled with the framework of the national state. From this follows on the one hand, imperialist wars, on the other, the utopia of a bourgeois United States of Europe. The socialist revolution begins on the national arena, it unfolds on the international arena, and is completed on the world arena. Thus, the socialist revolution becomes a permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense of the word; it attains completion, only in the final victory of the new society on our entire planet."
Eh, I thought his writing was OK.
Some of his theory seems kind of shit tho
what does this mean?
this description of permanent revolution
It really can't be this simple can it? I mean it makes sense but is there a critique of this anywhere?
Refers to Thermidor reaction against Robespierre. Thermidorian basically means reactionary against the more radical ideas of a revolution, that ultimately leads to its death
No worries that's my bad, thanks for the info. I did presume to know too much about it in my original post.
hey could you give like better citation rather than throwing a book at our face