It's 2019, will this ever be solved? Are we really going to celebrate a century...

Jonathan Brown
Jonathan Brown

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

Attached: DcUM7vxWkAISFSe.jpg (90.15 KB, 800x600)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/may/27.htm
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/apdx-b2.htm
mltheory.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/80/
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/10/23.htm
soviethistory.msu.edu/1954-2/succession-to-stalin/succession-to-stalin-texts/stalin-on-enlarging-the-central-committee/
socialistmlmusings.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/stalins-four-attempts-at-resignation/
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/opposition/ch09.htm
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/opposition/ch11.htm
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/12/02.htm

Jason Wood
Jason Wood

Leftist sectarian violence goes back way more than a century lmao

Jason Cruz
Jason Cruz

Unironically kill yourself

Carter Jackson
Carter Jackson

Criticisms should always be allowed tbqh.
It would work, the political theatre just needs our struggles seen.

Henry Jackson
Henry Jackson

I am a Marxist-Leninist, follower of the only way to build socialism. I do not befriend or identify myself with petty-bourgeoisie (anarchsits) or the revisionists adulterating the working class' ideology.

William Wood
William Wood

Nothing wrong with arguments. It only becomes a problem when you refuse to work with anyone who disagrees with your special brand of autism, like this guy

Justin Reed
Justin Reed

Also, inter-leftist violence, as far as I can tell, hasn't really been a serious problem for several decades. Occasionally an anarchist will firebomb another group's building (because anarchists are children) or a Maoist will stick up a pig head outside what they incorrectly think is another group's building (because Maoists are children), but most groups aren't actually trying to kill each other or anything.

Luis Foster
Luis Foster

As long as it doesn’t devolve into whatever the fuck is going on in China right now, I’ll be fine

Jack Lewis
Jack Lewis

It probably won't be solved. I can never see a proper alliance among the left especially between anarchists and MLs since they're the ones most hostile to each other.

Jeremiah Morris
Jeremiah Morris

Estimates place the average amount of communist parties per country to be 30 (with an average of 10 members). If we work really hard, we can make that number a solid 100, with exactly 5 members.

Ryder Evans
Ryder Evans

what's going on in china

Jordan Collins
Jordan Collins

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.

Henry Hall
Henry Hall

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

Jose Hernandez
Jose Hernandez

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

Ryder White
Ryder White

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.

Evan Gray
Evan Gray

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

Dominic Clark
Dominic Clark

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.

Caleb Clark
Caleb Clark

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.

Angel Anderson
Angel Anderson

Are we really going to celebrate a century of sectarian inter leftist violence
damn right we're going to ya fucken bastard

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

Evan Howard
Evan Howard

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?

Luke Rogers
Luke Rogers

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.

Parker Martinez
Parker Martinez

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

John Nelson
John Nelson

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.

Xavier Peterson
Xavier Peterson

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.

Henry Phillips
Henry Phillips

Maybe this time the state will magically whither away when it's done "protecting" the workers

Chase Smith
Chase Smith

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

Justin Phillips
Justin Phillips

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.

James Kelly
James Kelly

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

Brandon Sanders
Brandon Sanders

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.
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
who did jack-fucking-shit except for disparage the USSR and tell everyone that it's not really socialist.
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.
It requires a fairly long period of transition from capitalism to socialism, because the reorganisation of production is a difficult matter, because radical changes in all spheres of life need time, and because the enormous force of habit of running things in a petty-bourgeois and bourgeois way can only be overcome by a long and stubborn struggle. That is why Marx spoke of an entire period of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the period of transition from capitalism to socialism.

Evan Cox
Evan Cox

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

Samuel Lopez
Samuel Lopez

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.

Ryan Hernandez
Ryan Hernandez

implying literally anyone has ever actually read trotsky
lol

Juan Williams
Juan Williams

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.

John Brown
John Brown

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.

Joseph Hill
Joseph Hill

Adding on i dont mind working with trotskyists

Connor Collins
Connor Collins

he thought world revolution was necessary and crucially important.
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.
directly disputing the very common notion among Stalinists that the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism are the same thing.
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.
Also, Trotsky spent about as much time defending the USSR as critiquing it in his writings
So what the fuck did the Fourth even do then? Certainly not make any kind of revolution.
everyone else would see how obviously right he is
pic related
<Those MLs support imperfect countries. We should all be more leftcom, and support literally no-one ever!

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

Joshua Stewart
Joshua Stewart

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.

Aiden Martin
Aiden Martin

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

Jacob Gray
Jacob Gray

because they get libidinally invested
It's true, Stalin does make my pp hard.

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

James Clark
James Clark

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".

Juan Smith
Juan Smith

My problem with Trotsky is that he treated the USSR like a total failure in its attempt to reach socialism
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

Ian Lee
Ian Lee

Marxism-leninism and trotskyism are identical.

Isaiah Peterson
Isaiah Peterson

This

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

Owen Gomez
Owen Gomez

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.

Justin Foster
Justin Foster

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 (376.48 KB, 500x1049)

Austin Lewis
Austin Lewis

left/right dichotomy
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.

I was surprised by what I found; moreover, because I came away with a knowledge that I had not possessed before, I was also grateful, and surprised by that as well. I had not expected the violence to be so pleasurable….This is, if you like, the answer to the hundred-dollar question: why do young males riot every Saturday? They do it for the same reason that another generation drank too much, or smoked dope, or took hallucinogenic drugs, or behaved badly or rebelliously. Violence is their antisocial kick, their mind-altering experience, an adrenaline-induced euphoria that might be all the more powerful because it is generated by the body itself, with, I was convinced, many of the same addictive qualities that characterize synthetically-produced drugs.

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 (468.83 KB, 1200x1600)

Jack Diaz
Jack Diaz

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.

Angel Cook
Angel Cook

Imagine reading Marx and Lenin and being so fucking stupid that you actually still think socialism can be built on a national basis

"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."

Angel Allen
Angel Allen

Trotsky got booted for being an obstructionist in government.
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.

Jordan Mitchell
Jordan Mitchell

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.

Easton Nelson
Easton Nelson

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 (45.62 KB, 828x588)

Jordan Price
Jordan Price

Left / right dichotomy is and has always been about the direction of an economy
shut the fuck up my dude

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

Ayden Richardson
Ayden Richardson

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

Joseph Anderson
Joseph Anderson

Socialism or barbarism.

William Sanchez
William Sanchez

Then the Russian Revolution was anarchist too, I guess?

Connor Bell
Connor Bell

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

Jace Sullivan
Jace Sullivan

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.

Hunter Smith
Hunter Smith

Engels: Marx and [I have] fought harder all our lives against the alleged Socialists than against anyone else.
Lenin: Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism.
Stalin: We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies.

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

Christian Wilson
Christian Wilson

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

Adrian Watson
Adrian Watson

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.

Jayden Allen
Jayden Allen

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.

Xavier Price
Xavier Price

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.

Leo Stewart
Leo Stewart

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.

Evan Gonzalez
Evan Gonzalez

extrajudicially assassinating political opponents is characteristic of a functioning workers' democracy
Lol, what do you think the mass executions of the whites were? Idiot.

Nathan Ortiz
Nathan Ortiz

What is "not secret assassinations"?

Anthony James
Anthony James

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?

Charles Powell
Charles Powell

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

Adrian Rodriguez
Adrian Rodriguez

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

Jordan Cox
Jordan Cox

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.

Isaac James
Isaac James

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 (18.28 KB, 347x331)

Ryan Williams
Ryan Williams

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

Kayden Morales
Kayden Morales

Based and commiepilled

Colton Bennett
Colton Bennett

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.

Dominic Green
Dominic Green

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 (153.17 KB, 367x481)

Ryan Hughes
Ryan Hughes

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

Alexander Phillips
Alexander Phillips

many blessings, friend

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

Henry Perez
Henry Perez

editor of Pravda
help organize July Days
oversee 6th Party Congress
support the Cheka and the Red Terror
People's Commissar for Nationalities
Defense of Tsaritsyn
<absolutely nothing

Attached: koba-working-class-hero.png (869.7 KB, 1666x2585)
Attached: krupskaya-on-trotsky.png (645.79 KB, 1080x1196)

Bentley Bailey
Bentley Bailey

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

Kayden Morales
Kayden Morales

*Lenin also talked shit about Stalin

Blake Walker
Blake Walker

Also Marx:
Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.
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: jenny-marx-5.jpg (121.37 KB, 611x757)
Attached: TrotskyandStalinatFelixZerzhinskyfuneral.jpg (221.5 KB, 1000x681)

Blake Ward
Blake Ward

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
Source me daddy

Cooper Robinson
Cooper Robinson

Don't take it from me, take it from Stalin. In 1918 he wrote this in Pravda:
"All practical work in connection with the organization of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the President of the Petrograd Soviet. It can be stated with certainty that the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky for the rapid going over of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the efficient manner in which the work of the Military Revolutionary Committee was organized. "

Evan Garcia
Evan Garcia

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:

To cover up their break with the past, the Stalin school have tried to make use of certain lines of Lenin

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".

Logan Hall
Logan Hall

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".

Xavier Young
Xavier Young

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

Camden Jones
Camden Jones

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.

Carson Barnes
Carson Barnes

socialism in one country*

Ethan Ortiz
Ethan Ortiz

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.

Grayson Harris
Grayson Harris

It's true anons. You guys suck.

Carson Cox
Carson Cox

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
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.

Gabriel Turner
Gabriel Turner

ultra-left
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.

Cameron Lopez
Cameron Lopez

Bait

Lincoln Bell
Lincoln Bell

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

Alexander Sanchez
Alexander Sanchez

What ideology would be considered the furthest left?

Owen Williams
Owen Williams

Gay Furry Anarcho-Posadism.
No borders
No human hierarchies
No straights
No non-furries

Christopher Rodriguez
Christopher Rodriguez

idpol = left
Wraung

Nathaniel Powell
Nathaniel Powell

Stalin was directing the revolutionary armed contingents
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?

Ayden Perez
Ayden Perez

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…

Jaxson Cooper
Jaxson Cooper

it's another discussion thread turned into stalin vs trotsky balls licking

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

Ethan Diaz
Ethan Diaz

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

Connor Gonzalez
Connor Gonzalez

……….. what :D

Angel Johnson
Angel Johnson

modesty
Yes. He also said it because it is true, Trotsky did good work in Petrograd.

Robert Jackson
Robert Jackson

mltheory.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/80/

Josiah Cruz
Josiah Cruz

Lmao ngl that's funny af.

Grayson Cooper
Grayson Cooper

He still literally said socialism in one country is possible.

Justin Ward
Justin Ward

It is said that in that “will” Comrade Lenin suggested to the congress that in view of Stalin’s “rudeness” it should consider the question of putting another comrade in Stalin’s place as General Secretary. That is quite true.
Yes, comrades, I am rude to those who grossly and perfidiously wreck and split the Party. I have never concealed this and do not conceal it now. Perhaps some mildness is needed in the treatment of splitters, but I am a bad hand at that.
At the very first meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee after the Thirteenth Congress I asked the plenum of the Central Committee to release me from my duties as General Secretary. The congress itself discussed this question. It was discussed by each delegation separately, and all the delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain at his post.
What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my nature; I have never deserted any post, and I have no right to do so, for that would be desertion. As I have already said before, I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey.
A year later I again put in a request to the plenum to release me, but I was again obliged to remain at my post. What else could I do?
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/10/23.htm
And later in 1952:
<VOICE FROM THE FLOOR – We need to elect comrade Stalin as the General Secretary of the CC CPSU and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.
STALIN – No! I am asking that you relieve me of the two posts!
<MALENKOV – coming to the tribune: Comrades! We should all unanimously ask comrade Stalin, our leader and our teacher, to be again the General Secretary of the CC CPSU.
soviethistory.msu.edu/1954-2/succession-to-stalin/succession-to-stalin-texts/stalin-on-enlarging-the-central-committee/
socialistmlmusings.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/stalins-four-attempts-at-resignation/

Attached: students-of-the-great-lenin.png (16.12 KB, 1094x104)

Juan Watson
Juan Watson

Ask again next year I suppose

Colton James
Colton James

much of leftist infighting boils down to semantics abt, policy, culture, and philosophy and the only way shits gonna change is if we all learn to like the taste of trust fund kids and boomers more than the feeling we get when we win internet arguments over minor ideological differences

we’re all on this hellworld together after all

Attached: C046A06B-7E24-45E2-B0F3-77CAD2BA5C1C.png (662.48 KB, 750x500)

John Sanchez
John Sanchez

i love it

Attached: F61DA7AF-D4EF-48A8-90DC-FDF2E7C5AB42.jpeg (181.36 KB, 667x441)

Jack Peterson
Jack Peterson

The problem is with involuntary hierarchy as opposed to a voluntary hierarchy. For example, the state's monopoly on power manifests it's control through an involuntary hierarchy where it uses force on those who oppose it. In an anarchist society all hierarchies would be voluntary and lacking of coercion

David Clark
David Clark

Did you touch the source I provided? I guess I'll have to long quote it for you after all:

To cover up their break with the past, the Stalin school have tried to make use of certain lines of Lenin, which seem the least unsuitable. An article of 1915 on The United States of Europe throws out incidentally the remark that the working class in each separate country ought to win the power and enter upon the socialist construction without waiting for the others. If behind these indisputable lines there lurked a thought about a National Soycialist society, how could Lenin so fundamentally have forgotten it during the years following, and so stubbornly have contradicted it at every step? But there is no use resorting to oblique inferences when we have direct statements. The programme theses drafted by Lenin in the same year, 1915, answer the question accurately and directly: “The task of the proletariat of Russia is to carry through to the end the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia, in order to kindle the socialist revolution in Europe. This second task has now come extremely near to the first, but it remains nevertheless a special and a second task, for it is a question of different classes co-operating with the proletariat of Russia. For the first task the collaborator is the petty-bourgeois peasantry of Russia, for the second the proletariat of other countries.” No greater clarity could be demanded.

The second attempt to quote Lenin is no better founded. His unfinished article about co-operation says that in the Soviet Republic we have on hand “all that is necessary and enough” in order without new revolutions to accomplish the transition to socialism. Here it is a question, as is perfectly clear from the text, of the political and legal premises of socialism. The author does not forget to remind his readers that the productive and cultural premises are inadequate. In general Lenin repeated this thought many times. “We … lack the civilisation to make the transition directly to socialism,” he wrote in an article of the same period, the beginning of 1923, “although we have the political premises for it.” In this case as in all others, Lenin started from the assumption that the proletariat of the west would come to socialism along with the Russian proletariat and ahead of it. The article on co-operation does not contain a hint to the effect that the Soviet Republic might harmoniously and by reformist measures create its own National Soycialism, instead of taking its place through a process of antagonistic and revolutionary development in the world socialist society. Both quotations, introduced even into the text of the programme of the Communist International, were long ago explained in our Criticism of the Programme, and our opponents have not once attempted to defend their distortions and mistakes. The attempt would be too hopeless.

That amidst literally dozens of quotes above affirming that Lenin believed that "of course the final victory of socialism in one country is impossible". That's not to say that steps toward the building of a planned economy should not be taken, but without the economic basis of the industrial west, true socialism could not be achieved, rather, in Lenin's words, a "workers' state with bureaucratic distortions".

Hunter Rodriguez
Hunter Rodriguez

Learn to fucking read pls. Stalin's referring to the beginning of the uprising and the Petrograd Soviet (which is absolutely legit gj Trotsky).
Albaniaposter, on the other hand, is talking about what Stalin did during the civil war and the Battle of Tsaritsyn, which was like 1920 (aka two years after Stalin wrote that in Pravda).

Attached: 64386833-10219245301902736-6695895765841084416-n.jpg (56.26 KB, 960x539)

Jonathan Wilson
Jonathan Wilson

This 100%, MLs are the reason why socialism has seemed to have failed

Angel Kelly
Angel Kelly

MLs are literally the only socialists who have ever accomplished anything you retarded lib.

Thomas White
Thomas White

I did and those quotes are contradicted by other quotes, in those quotes lenin is reffering to socialism as full communism, lenin was reffering to socialism as the *final* victory of socialism.

Again, lenin in on cooperation said russia had all that is necessary for socialism. So either Lenin is blatantly contradicting himself, or when he ays sociaslism is impossible he is reffering to *full communism*, because lenin often used socialism for both higher stage and lower stage communism depending on his audience, because many workers only identified with the term socialism so he would use that term.

Parker Roberts
Parker Roberts

That amidst literally dozens of quotes above affirming that Lenin believed that "of course the final victory of socialism in one country is impossible"
But yet he also said before his death: 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 out of cooperatives, out of cooperatives alone, which we formerly ridiculed as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have the right to treat as such now, under NEP? 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.

This is saying Russia has everything it needs to build a socialist society

David Gonzalez
David Gonzalez

"“Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!"

I long for this day

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (43.04 KB, 184x266)

Brody Evans
Brody Evans

final victory of socialism in one country
Stalin agrees with this, lenin is talking about the final victory.

Michael Taylor
Michael Taylor

None of this contradicts the notion that the victory of socialism is impossible without world revolution/DotP hegemony, the argument that the notion of 'socialism in one country' is wrongheaded isn't based on some argument from autarky that posits a single country as incapable of possessing the material means to build socialism but rather that without crushing the world-power of capital and establishing proletarian dictatorship worldwide in such a fashion that worker's power is insurmountable if not total will inevitably result in the revolution being corralled in by the forces of capital and strangled and/or fall to eventual counter-revolution from within.
This is the same argument rightly levied against anarchists on their demand that socialist relations of production/communist society by established outright during the revolution, it does not matter whether you can or do establish socialism if you cannot keep it, whether it is for 7 months or 70 years, and the only way to keep it is true proletarian dictatorship, that is a state wherein the proletariat is the ruling class on a worldscale. Only from that position can you safely set about building socialism, otherwise regardless of whether you have the means to at your disposal, you have not the ability as you would disarm yourself while the wolf of capital is still growling at your door.
Bismarck probably never said this since there's no traceable source and had he 'Black' in the context of German politics of the day referred to the Catholic 'Zentrum' party not anarchists.

Cameron Peterson
Cameron Peterson

Wont stop me quoting it, thats for sure

Connor Gray
Connor Gray

Fair

Asher Mitchell
Asher Mitchell

reported for homophobic slurs

Anthony Anderson
Anthony Anderson

without crushing the world-power of capital and establishing proletarian dictatorship worldwide in such a fashion that worker's power is insurmountable if not total will inevitably result in the revolution being corralled in by the forces of capital and strangled and/or fall to eventual counter-revolution from within
Stalin agrees with this, this was not the argument, the argument was Trotsky was screeching "guys we can't do anything until there is a revolution in the western europe! We need to invade or do other adventurist bullshit now!"

Caleb Martinez
Caleb Martinez

to keep it is true proletarian dictatorship, that is a state wherein the proletariat is the ruling class on a worldscale
Stalin also agrees with this

Bentley Jackson
Bentley Jackson

Only from that position can you safely set about building socialism, otherwise regardless of whether you have the means to at your disposal, you have not the ability as you would disarm yourself while the wolf of capital is still growling at your door.
So what do you suggest? The soviet union just lie down and wait? Because the revolution in the west *didn't come*, it was thoroughly defeated, and the capitalist crisis had temporarily ended, the only logical thing to do is to start strengthening the homeland of the dotp

Benjamin Wood
Benjamin Wood

the argument was Trotsky was screeching "guys we can't do anything until there is a revolution in the western europe! We need to invade or do other adventurist bullshit now!"
lol no it wasn't, imagine lying/making shit up because you've never read a word by trotsky in your life like this

Easton Allen
Easton Allen

sectarianism
bad
The fact that the far left is a giant shitstorm of constant bickering is a badge of honor. It means the discussion of ideas and praxis matters to us. Even our biggest dipshits are at least man enough to express views and open themselves to criticism.
In comparison the right wing is so cohesive because, aside from the occasional Ebola-type autistic sociopath, most of them have no actual ideological views. They're disenfranchised normies being manipulated by petty-bourg narcissists driven solely by fear and ego.

Josiah Roberts
Josiah Roberts

In comparison the right wing is so cohesive
Not so much anymore tbh

Chase Murphy
Chase Murphy

I would recommend reading the platform of the join opposition, in particular the section on the international situation
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/opposition/ch09.htm
and the section on clarifying disagreements
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/opposition/ch11.htm
Then just as a kicker reading the transcript of Stalin's speech at the 1927 party congress where he addresses the platform as a result of which the members of the opposition were expelled from the party as their platform was deemed incompatible with party membership. Starting at section 3.2 here
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/12/02.htm