It's 2019, will this ever be solved? Are we really going to celebrate a century of sectarian inter leftist violence

what's going on in china

Ignore narco-communists, Trots, MTW/Sakai retards, and especially rose-noses. They don't serve to aid in the communist goal and their theory doesn't even need to be debunked because anyone who bothers to read Marx and Lenin knows that they're wrong.
We focus on unity within the ACTUAL communist movement, the Marxist-Leninist movement. It serves nothing to be chasing after other cadres to try and recruit their members away or attempt to work together.

Have read Marx and Lenin, still a Trot, try again

Nothing I can do to cure cognitive deficiency. Sorry bud.

Nothing you're saying is relevant to anything that is being done or will be done by anyone. This isn't scientific socialism, its LARP.

I hear an ice-pick, applied to the head, is a great cure.

Imagine reading Marx and Lenin and being so fucking stupid that you actually still think socialism can be built on a national basis despite both writers repeatedly, emphatically, and unambiguously saying that it's impossible and people who think it's possible are opportunistic morons.

Imagine reading Marx and Lenin and being so fucking stupid that you actually still think secretly and extrajudicially assassinating political opponents is characteristic of a functioning workers' democracy.

damn right we're going to ya fucken bastard

Attached: ea481c858143a5efdd40ea32df75d483.jpg (500x415, 60.71K)

Holy fuck, after 80, maybe 90 years, you're still going.
Trotskism and Marxism-leninism aren't so different, at it's more about the Soviet Union, which has been defunct for 30 years now.
Can you just ignore your differences and cooperate for once, instead of discussing what would have been better for the Soviet Union?

It's not just about the Soviet Union. MLs and Trots disagree on the fundamental nature of what a socialist revolution entails. This is still relevant in the modern era.

Also, once again, there's nothing wrong with people debating their disagreements.

To add on, Trotsky himself was literally an ML since he agreed with all of Lenin's points.

This is true in a pedantic sense, but "Marxism-Leninism" as a term originated to defend and justify the policies of Stalinism. Before that, communists who agreed with Lenin's ideas simply called themselves Bolshevists.

Arguments have two components: the claim, and the justification. You've got one of those things, but not the other one. Can you guess which one that is?

Good catch, I forgot that one!

At the time Lenin died, was he saying anything to the effect of, "we gotta permanent revolution right now guise, USSR isn't the real socialism"? If so, I'd like to see it.

hoes mad

Trotsky got booted for being an obstructionist in government. He then proceeded to lead an international movement of people who did jack-fucking-shit except for disparage the USSR and tell everyone that it's not really socialist. Tell me which side of this dispute is the uncooperative one.

...

Meme thread gonna meme, so might as well get my 'left solidarity but fuck smashies' out of the way.

The organization of the proletarian class to combat the reaction IS A STATE. When it no longer has a reaction to combat, it is NOT a state. You're talking about "the state" like it's some kind of entity existing in a vacuum, with no relation to the real world except that it's "repressive" against any and all people for no fucking reason.

It's not a state of it's not hierarchical.

His letters regarding the Bavarian and Hungarian uprisings certainly suggest that he thought world revolution was necessary and crucially important.
Here's the Hungarian one, I'm not sure where the Bavarian one is: marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/may/27.htm
Coincidentally, the above letter has an excerpt from Lenin directly disputing the very common notion among Stalinists that the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism are the same thing. I almost never use this word, but you are a literal revisionist.

An organ of class rule which is devoid of internal hierarchy has literally never existed, and never will.

Also, Trotsky spent about as much time defending the USSR as critiquing it in his writings, which you would of course realize if you ever bothered to read Trotsky.

lol

I'm confident that only Trotskyists have actually read Trotsky, because otherwise everyone else would see how obviously right he is instead of just defaming him as a person and spreading thinly-veiled antisemitic propaganda about him being a secret double agent against communism his entire life.

Friendly reminder that MLs consider fallen states, revisionist state capitalist states, and small isolated states as "successful"

As a leftcom i have no problems working with anarchists but MLs have some level of dogmatic worship and retarded chauvinism of their ideology.

Adding on i dont mind working with trotskyists

Of course, he WANTED world revolution, but I don't think he was going to declare the Russian Revolution dead once the world revolution failed to come.
If you read Gotha, Marx refers to lower-stage and higher-stage communism. If you read S&R, Lenin calls this socialism and communism. The DOTP is not fully communist, by any means; it can, however, be socialist, if it has fully abolished the law of value, and world revolution is not necessary for that purpose. The USSR never fully abolished the law of value, AS STALIN ADMITS in "Economic Problems of the USSR", but it had in fact made great strides towards the completion of socialist development and was definitely on a socialist path for the entirety of Stalin's administration at least.
So what the fuck did the Fourth even do then? Certainly not make any kind of revolution.
pic related

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (960x539, 478.03K)

No one seems to ever be able to say what Trotsky or Zinoviev or Kamenev or Bukharin believed or argued for, its always just the most obvious lies like 'they wanted to declare war on everyone' or 'they wanted every worker in the world to revolt at once' which is utterly obvious no one would ever claim and no one ever did claim, but MLtards are all either completely naive as to believe these or they're willful dupes out of intellectual laziness and/or a pathological need to follow a the party line of a party which doesn't exist because they get libidinally invested in the moral character of certain people and entities.

This is a whole lot of waffling to admit that the USSR wasn't socialist lmao

It's true, Stalin does make my pp hard.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (280x456, 135.66K)

My problem with Trotsky is that he treated the USSR like a total failure in its attempt to reach socialism, and decided to become a big polemical writer against it instead of just accepting that he had been kicked out for good and going home to cry in a Mexican bar. You don't get socialism by writing about "the revolution betrayed".

So your problem with Trotsky is something he never did? Sounds like ML alright
Fucking read revolution betrayed you dumb faggot if you're so mad about it, it doesn't say what you think fyi, you have no clue what you're mad at and you're only mad at it because you've had your false assumptions reinforced by the countless other incoherently mad MLs peddling the same defamation and lies for 90 years

Marxism-leninism and trotskyism are identical.

This

Attached: Trotskyism vs stalinism.jpg (1033x800, 157.57K)

Okay, so even if Trotsky was great, and there was no problem at all between his ideas, and M-L, what about his followers? Trots have literally accomplished nothing besides splitting leftist movements, and aiding the US state department.

Let me tell you guys what left unity is.
Left unity is not agreeing with every leftist on everything.
Left unity is picking and choosing who you agree with most, and supporting them in the face of those you don't.
Left unity is not loving every leftist, left unity is defending leftists specifically in the face of rightists.
Never, ever belittle a leftist in the face of rightist. When a rightist says something correct, concede. When he says something wrong, attack him. When a leftist says something right, defend him. When a leftist says something wrong, distance yourself from his point but proclaim your leftism in any case. Do not belittle a leftist when they say something wrong; propose your alternative.
We must give bystanders an impression of the subtlety and the nuance required to fully understand leftist politics. They must know the difference between a stalinist and a trotskyist. However, stalin and trotsky must work together to defeat the rightists in the russian civil war. Therefore, never attack a leftist when a rightist is arguing against them. Defend them when they are right, distance yourself when they are wrong. When they are right, attack your right-wing opponent. When they are wrong, propose an alternative to their beliefs. However, in doing so, never attack them for their leftism. We are free to attack each-other within leftist spaces all we want - but, when we are not speaking exclusively to leftists, we must present a strong defence against rightist ideology.
That's left unity.

Attached: 63f03924e6b198d07511dc3a99f842c1b873fe474f273a4ecdcc5e95f66101fd.png (500x1049, 376.48K)

The ultimate spook coined to create class division, both """lefties""" and """righties""" have a place in the socialist system.

"Antifa" and "Neo-Nazis" are fighting in the streets not for ideology but to simply fight for fun, taking out their frustrations of the current globalist-capital system by beating each other.

This is the reason why they seek each other out after getting a taste, this cycle has been going on europe far longer than it did in america and it won't end anytime soon in the new world.

Attached: s-l1600.jpg (1200x1600, 468.83K)

Left / right dichotomy is and has always been about the direction of an economy. People who focus on non-economic issues have never been truly interested in exacting change in a feasible manner. Wealth and power distribution has always been at the heart of the left / right dichotomy. Most "social issue" liberals are neither left nor right if they have no economic views - typically they do, and typically those economic views are right-wing, not left-wing, thus making them right-wing liberals.

"the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone"- Lenin

"Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i.e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that ‘between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf’. In 1904-05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left ‘permanent revolution’ theory.”
- Lenin.

And if you say, "well this is OLD, and blah blah."

Guess what, literally one of the last things lenin wrote was this: "Indeed, the power of the state over all large-scale means of production, political power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured proletarian leadership of the peasantry, etc. . . Is this not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society? It is still not the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for it."

Yeah m8 it’s almost like he was the leader of the opposition or something. Do you unironically think that worker democracy can function without actual discussion and opposition taking place? You’re basically whining at Trotsky for having a position that differed from Stalin’s and fighting for that position, even though that’s exactly what the opposition in a democracy is supposed to do.

In my view, revolution was borne from oppression and oppression enhanced by the current distribution of capital. Thus, backlash will only happen while resisting oppression, rather than just economics. For a prole is a complacent creature. By putting focus on economics, you're doomed to become like China and USSR, slaving away for the global capitalist system. And what does it want? Infinite expansion. Which then means utilizing all of the resources of the revolution at the expense of the worker and the environment.

Lets face it, economic-based revolution will never occur perfectly where all the dominoes are aligned to fall, since no country can achieve utopian autarky and have all their needs met to be truly competitive in all spheres of life against the world, even Russia, there will also be times when your own economic system is not doing so good, so your single pillar of support, awe and ideology crumbles. There is no way to escape the global trend of markets because the economy is the dominated background of capitalism, it is a game present to sucker you in. Why do you think the United States government is letting everyone to learn about Marxist economics in colleges? Granted, in a half-baked way. Within this environment, this is an ideology that will be heavily affected and crushed by capitalists with the full brunt of the world. It is not recognized as a serious threat anymore, nor can it be a threat anymore, not since USSR failed to take the entirety of europe.

The future revolution will be based on the environment. When we will start running out of drinking water, living space, oil and even crops through rampant desertification. We will see oppression. That is the revolution that will solidify the conservation of capital and it will be in the hands of nobody and protected by everyone. There is no distinction between a "righty" and a "lefty" on this revolution. Governments have pathetically tried co-opt this issue and pretended to "solve it" by doing nothing of note as otherwise doing something would mean the dismantling of modern capitalism.

A state is an involuntary Monopoly on power enforced through violence and a hierarchy. An anarchist organization of workers would be a voluntary association merley reacting to an involuntary association such as the state.

Attached: e47a1fa.jpg (828x588, 45.62K)

shut the fuck up my dude

an economy doesn't have only two directions to go to

well you can look at economies through the lens of how exploitarian they are. You know how much of the surplus returns to the workers and society vs how much is privatised

Socialism or barbarism.

Then the Russian Revolution was anarchist too, I guess?

Until a point in centralization sure. It was also a revolution by SocDems and various elements of the left both in the people who participated and what it was building. It was a bit of a left unity project until the purges.
I mean even anarchists existed and fought in Russia after all.

What it was at any given point and what it ultimately became are totally different.
Why would you contest this?
Every revolution is like this to varying degrees.
#CataloniaWasMarxistFightMeNerd

It was a far left revolution, the party the Bolsheviks were a faction of was called Social Democratic but there was no meaningful distinction at the time and the provisional government had agrarian socialists and reformists in it, and even fought against the Bolsheviks and shot Lenin for overthrowing them.

Attached: 26cd7d40b316a7ebfaaa06664a25a1647c0e72e4.png (300x458, 96.01K)

hmmmm good point

but still thats not always a comparable distinction between two different policies

and still thats you trying to use the terms meaningfully, not how they are actually understood by people

the whole left-right dichotomy rots the brain and should be erased

Completely misunderstood my entire point there. Through an anarchist perspective, their use of force would be entirely justifiable because they are reacting to a force that claims an involuntary monopoly on power. The Russian Revolution was obviously not anarchist because they created a centralized state with a monopoly on power in the place of the Russian monarchy. An anarchist revolution would not create a state in the place of the old one.

For how long were they going to keep their monopoly on power though? Because reactionaries and surrounding capitalist countries were not going to just fuck off and leave them in peace, dissolving totally-not-army, totally-not-police and totally-not-prisons would see them invaded the next day.

You're assuming a leninist conception of the state here.
Anarchists dont conceive of the state as being any ol' body of armed men.
It's when this body stands over and subjugates / rules the proletariat that the anarchist critique comes in.
In strict Leninist terms anarchists and marxists support states and in strict anarchist terms only Leninist support states because leninists dont see a problem with mass unaccountable bolshevik "democratic centralism" wielding the body of armed men IM THE NAME of but also over the proletariat.
Anarchists would want the proletariat to wield that body or even be a self directing verson of that body.

Here cont.

It's not a question of did Lenin or even Stalin intend to keep the monopoly.

It's the central anarchist question of do our means even lead to our purported ends. It's not even a moralistic question its extremely scientific in nature, does what we do lead to what we want.
Does creating a red bureaucracy lead to a stateless society later and the answer for over a century is no. At least not alone. Although it can help your country to industrialize and defend itself from capitalist imperial aggression but that comes with the trade off of risking being a long cul de sac back into capitalism.

Prefigure stateless accountability into your cadres for communism's sake.

Lol, what do you think the mass executions of the whites were? Idiot.

What is "not secret assassinations"?

How are you supposed to assassinate someone without being secrete? What were they supposed to mail trotsky a letter letting him know? Lol, were the tsars family given a letter?

Lol what?
Are you even following the flow of your own talking points?

Actually is English your first language?
That or do you have a learning disability?
I seriously feel kinda bad for scoffing at you.

English is my first language, and I have no learning disabilities except if you count ADHD, but ADHD does not affect critical thinking skills or intelligence.

communism is about workers self management and giving the proles the power to decide their destiny.
also handing all the power to one person is like gambling on thin ice, yeah you might get a one great leader that's dedicated to the cause but how do you make sure that the next leader is not a power hungry dictator or a saboteur?
on the other side having a strong Marxist-leninist state makes the country a lot stronger and more able to defend itself against imperialism. the paris commune only lasted for a few months (it might have happened because they weren't radical enough) while the ussr became a superpower and lasted for almost a century.
but if we were pure pragmatists then we would choose social democracy (i.e protect the elite by silencing the poor with gibs that got stolen from their labor) because that's the best and most easy, realistic and available option we currently have due to communism having a worse reputation than Epstein and the majority of people being class cucks.
one would assume accelerating capitalism's collapse is the only solution but to be honest the only thing you are accelerating is porky's profits.
in conclusion shit is fucked up and complicated

Attached: marx face when.jpg (347x331, 18.28K)

Roast part 2.

Almost forgot to add this quote of Lenin clearly throwing shade at Trotsky:
“I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.” – Lenin, Speech delivered at a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet, 14th May 1918

Based and commiepilled

Lenin was talking about the Mensheviks you fucking retard, Trotsky supported the October Revolution and contributed greatly to it while Stalin sat on his ass literally the entire time doing absolutely nothing.

Stalin was being a lumpen while Trotsky was actually trying to get shit done. Trotsky's writings literally got me interested in Marxism, Stalin's writing on the other hand is totally bland and boring to read.

SHUT THE FUCK UP, THERMIDORIAN

Attached: b7519e98a42cc4bf9ed94addf7fb10b07d41ad307edc104852f4c6d8d07c0384.png (367x481, 153.17K)

Attached: 834f943365315e9d722d98edd6f8a255588b364af423a4bcd3291201310dc83b.png (838x983, 77.64K)

many blessings, friend

sometimes it gets tiring being the only person on this board who defends trotsky

>editor of Pravda

Attached: krupskaya on trotsky.png (1666x2585 645.79 KB, 869.7K)

Lenin also talked shit about Trotsky and urged the party to not elect him first secretary.

*Lenin also talked shit about Stalin

Also Marx:

Lenin requested that they choose someone who was like Stalin but less rude. In light of this Stalin offered his resignation, but this move was rejected by all delegates including Trotsky and his supporters

Attached: TrotskyandStalinatFelixZerzhinskyfuneral.jpg (611x757 221.5 KB, 121.37K)

Source me daddy

Don't take it from me, take it from Stalin. In 1918 he wrote this in Pravda:

You see these two cherrypicked, out of context Lenin quotes posted everywhere in spite of a veritable mountain of quotes contradicting them. Trotsky compiled these quotes in an appendix of his HotRR, and it demolishes any thought that Lenin believed that socialism in an isolated, backward country was possible.

marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/apdx-b2.htm

Don't want to long quote here, the two quotes you picked are dealt with beginning with the line:

As for the middle quote, it primarily deals with Trotsky's contemporary differences on the subject of party organization, which he later recanted and joined the Bolsheviks on. Lenin, on his part, adopted the premises of Permanent Revolution when he supported a socialist seizure of power in his April Theses, against the existing leadership of Stalin which preached subservience of Milyukov and co. in order to "finish the bourgeois revolution".

who gives a damn yall looking like fucking bible theologists saying "ay marx said this shit in this very specific point of his work, totally correct now".

No he wasn't, he was talking about trotsky, also I like how you only responded to one of the less direct quotes but not the quote where lenin literally calls permanent revolution "absurdly left" and says "the victory of socialism is possible…in one capitalist country alone".

Your theory is bad and you should feel bad

Because we're debating who follows Marx, I'd be open to debunking trotksyism with my own words without quoting other people, but the reason we're quoting people is because the *trot* claimed that Lenin was CLEARLY against socialism in one country depsite him saying permanent revolution is absurdly left, and saying that russia has all it needs for socialism, AND directly saying socialism in one revolution is possible. We're merely responding to the quote mongers and debunking them.

socialism in one country*

I have the feeling I'm being baited, that or you're an idiot. Stalin was the commander on the North caucus one of the most contested fields in the war, and was the people's commissar for the nationalities, being that Russia was a prisonhouse of nations, trying to make sure every nationality got their representation was highly important to stop inner-conflict.

It's true anons. You guys suck.

I know you're dodging the other quotes because you know there is no way to fidget around them, but look at this quote. This quote strikes at the center of permanent revolution, it says we need to solidify what we have, we cannot just wait for the international revolution. Trotsky opposed the brest-listvok treaty because he wanted to keep pushing like an ultra-left. But Lenin knew that he had to preserve the soviet union as a base for the proletariat, and thus needed to sue for peace.

what's your problem with that? by not being ultra left you are a traitor. you can't comment on the best decision. pushing at that moment would have spread it further, securing the homeland anyway. stop fucking lying man.

Bait

Part 2.

Stalin was directing the revolutionary armed contingents to all the decisive points of the city [Petrograd]. He was not in the limelight, but in his hands were the reins which guided forces in accordance with the collective will.
…Kerensky dived into an American motor-car and fled.
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 111

Early in August 1917, the Sixth Party Congress met secretly in Petrograd. In the absence of Lenin, Stalin delivered the Central Committee’s report to the 267 delegates, displaying great skill and persuasiveness…
Grey, Ian. Stalin, Man of History. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1979, p. 95

On the afternoon of 24 October, the day the struggle for the city [ Leningrad] began, Stalin reported on the current situation to a caucus of Bolshevik delegates, who had assembled in preparation for the opening on the next day of the Congress of Soviets. This report, along with the continuing responsibility for the editorial line of the party organ, disposes of the idea that Stalin was inactive during the seizure of power. In the speech he displayed a knowledge of the details concerning both the political and military aspects of the insurrection, which indicates that he was in close touch with the headquarters of the operation in Smolny Institute.
McNeal, Robert, Stalin: Man and Ruler. New York: New York University Press, 1988, p. 39

What ideology would be considered the furthest left?

Gay Furry Anarcho-Posadism.

Wraung

Interesting that your quotation has no supporting documentary evidence for this claim, and was written by someone who was not there. Have you ignored the quote I posted above?
If Stalin was in charge of the whole thing as you claim, why, in 1918, would he name Trotsky as the main driving force of the October revolution? Modesty?

i guess, an ideology that preaches the eradication of all classes way in advance of any kind of productive development? i.e. someone living in Ancient China or Egypt or Sumeria and advocating for communism to come immediately and without delay…

Attached: B2B-Boring-300x220.jpg (300x220, 18.71K)

Yeah half the people on this board are going to be posting on /fascist/ as strasserites in like a year tops.