Tell me your thoughts about this little guy. Do you agree with him?

Tell me your thoughts about this little guy. Do you agree with him?

Attached: Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R15068,_Leo_Dawidowitsch_Trotzki.jpg (632x939, 221.27K)

He made Posadism possible.

Agree with him about what exactly? I haven't read really any of his writings, but his goldbuggery seemed really dumb at least.

After all these years I still haven't read much by Trotsky and feel like I know relatively little about him.

His theory wasn't that bad but as a person he was a stupid shit.

I haven't read much of his work but he was a cunt and his ideological inheritors carry on that aspect very well.

Smart guy but reading about the early years everyone thought he was an arrogant cock.

He had a knack for avant-garde fashion though. There are no color pictures of this but during the civil war he went full leather-daddy and I believe his pants in this photo were dyed red.

Attached: 103457399-640x640.jpg (480x360, 172.53K)

He as a person isn’t that bad. But 99.9999% of modern Trots are insufferable Anarco-liberals.

They're hostile to anarchists along with every other faction of the left, calling them anarcho-liberals instead of socdems is a misunderstanding of Trots.

Tbh if I had to make a list from what I dislike the least to most it would be:
trotskyism>trotskyists>Trotsky himself

Attached: nattrot.png (988x900 1.01 MB, 1.79M)

I want him to pound my small anarchist boi hole

Attached: 1537969789983.jpg (1152x2048, 225.12K)

...

wouldn't it be funny to wear it hahahaha
Just imagine how silly I'll look hahahaha

Trotsky hated anarchists. But a lot of modern day trotskyists are anarco-vegan fags. They don’t know anything about Anarchist philosophy, but they like calling themselves it because it makes Dad angry.

Trotskyists are a million times more sufrabale than trotskyism. Seriously Permeant Revolution was a bad Idea for the USSR in the early 20’s because it would lose such a war. However oftentimes it’s a worthwhile idea.

*insufferable

Read "The Revolution Betrayed". Trotsky was right about everything and predicted what Stalinism would devolve to. People hate Trotsky and his "followers" who are simply true Marxist-Leninists because they were absolutely correct and know that revolution cannot be successful unless it is international in scope. Ironically the failures of international revolution due to Stalinist policy boosted Stalin's power within the party because there was a shift towards nationalist policies. One should remember that Lenin and Trotsky both are on record for saying that they would rather have the Russian Revolution fail rather than the International Revolution.

Not really, most Trots are edgy socdems in a fringe political party they believe is the vanguard of the revolution, which ironically is the same state of most tankies under 30. While they share the anarcho-liberal's clinging to the corpse of electoralism and are "fuck you dad" mentality their activities are different enough to deserve different classification and different responses. I'd argue that they are worse than the anarcho-liberal in that the anarcho-liberal accepts his voting for the liberal party as an unsavory compromise while the trot/tankie thinks votes for SEP/PSL are revolutionary acts, so the anlib can be despooked of his foolishness significantly easier than the trot/tankie.

Attached: stfu.png (408x272, 86.89K)

People like yourself would never have been able to predict the Bolsheviks seizing power. As conditions worsen, people will turn to more radical solutions.

Nod an arbument xD
No shit. Where they aren't turning is the ballot box or online rags, which is where most Trots are.

lmao. yeah sure let's focus on international revolution while our whole fucking country collapses

Attached: 1476658841678.jpg (544x523, 32.29K)

This

I don't really understand why all the trot hate, I can understand an anarchist hating trots, but a communist, when it was demonstrated that everything he said became true.
I just think that people just don't give Trotsky a opportunity because it's more cool to bathe in stalineet propaganda and aesthetics than opening your mind or a fucking book larger than the manifesto, even his biography lets you see how capable was he and what a massive faggot Stalin was.

A revolution can never stay alive isolated in a single country and you know it.

Attached: d182d180d0bed186d0bad0b8d0b9-trotzki-rode-leger-1937a.jpg (417x462, 96.77K)

The SEP runs a popular socialist online publication that runs in over 17 languages. They have presence in university campuses throughout the world and have established parties in almost every major city in the world.

Look at organizations like the DSA and people like Ocasio-Cortez. Literally all it takes for a party like the SEP to gain even more followers and recognition is for one of their members to win an election and Niles Niemuth is so far doing a great job in Michigan's congressional district.

Historically speaking the power exerted by the SEP is similar to what the Bolsheviks had in their early stages and as things get worse they will get more influence. As of now, they are the premier M-L influence in the world.


The entire world and humanity itself is in the process of collapse due to capitalism which has produced irreversible climate change and a drive to world war you absolute dunce. Nothing short of an international revolution will save humanity.

aside from Posadism he needs an icepick

also along with Luxemburg and Goldmann (gee whiz just look at the coincidence) made these people exist:

although I digress, Communism works, just the kind Stalin had in the USSR after he purged the khazars.

Attached: 43342633_362957124247146_2386790051682975744_n.jpg (960x926, 51.88K)

like I said, Posadas is really his own only crowning achievement

who doesn't like nukes and aliens?

You realize that Tommy Robinson is a huge zionist right?

yeah he is. I know that. the meme is not without errors.

also the meme didn't mention Zionism, so the point is moot. its how NPCs view Robinson, not how I view Robinson.

to me he's just a Zionist pig pretending to be reactionary.

NazMut>Nazbol
Empircal favcts, alexander dugin is a filthy nihlist scum

All of which is disconnected from where the proletariat actually is, which isn't the ballot box or the university or the fringe internet news sites.
I'm well aware of the sheepdogs for liberalism.
Come election day Debbie Dingell is going to have received more votes in the Democrat primary than he will in the general election. Even if by some miracle a SEP candidate is elected the result will mirror what happened with Socialist Alternative and Kshama Sawant.

Attached: Stalin.png (500x514, 64.83K)

I don't really like Dugin. I'm actually NazSyn, not NazBol. and I prefer autocracy than Anarchy. you and I should have a debate. I'm sure you know who this is.

The thing is that if Soviet Russia focused on International Revolution in the 20s they’d’ve gotten themselves into a War that they would lose. The time for permeant Revolution was post WW2. When Nazi Germany was defeated, WAllies were exhausted, and the Soviet Army was stronger than ever. With Communist Gurilla groups running around Europe. The USSR could’ve driven the WAllies out of Continental Europe, Asia, and Africa. There’s a time for Socialism in one Country, and there’s a time for Permeant Revolution.

So they’ll never become popular among workers.

Dengists with a gay flag

Whcih will never happen because Burger elections are rigged. The only useful part of electoralism is exposing election fraud to commiepill fellow prols

If your going to advocate for permeant Revolution at least know what it means. It advocates for a World War and Invasion of non-scialist countries by socialist states. It isn’t a inherently bad doctrine, in certain circumstances it’s just what we need. But don’t think it’s peaceful. It’s far from it.

Attached: TrotskyCivilWar.jpg (600x828, 198.8K)

I'm more of a Niekisch/Sorel/Feder kind of guy the original Nazbol.

So you’re just a fascist

no, and if so a very communistic one.

You know, apart from the Americans who had an enormous army and damn-near unlimited industrial capacity, not to mention atomic bombs and aircraft that were a decade ahead of anything that the Soviets had. Also a pair of huge fleets full of state-of-the-art ships. And completely untouched factories that could be staffed by women and Mexicans forever and fueled by locally-produced oil and coal. No, the Soviet Union absolutely did not need that noise right then.

What is the problem you have with this exactly?

Sheepdogs for liberalism and cooperation with a bourgeoisie organ.

Gonna need you to substantiate this one. Sawant is no liberal, she attacks capitalism every interview she gets a chance to.

Throwing support behind Bernie Sanders.
Attacking capitalism in the abstract is easy and is done by everyone from the aut-right to liberals, what Sawant doesn't do is move beyond participation in liberal democracy.

America troops required huge supply lines from there country thousands of miles away. These could be sunk by subs. Also Americas had way less troops that the Soviets in Europe in 1945. And the Soviets could’ve pushed them out before major reinforcements could arrive. Also America Bombers didn’t have the range required to bomb Moscow and return in 1945. Plus America already used all there Nukes in Japan.

Did that actually happen? I don't remember that. She was there at the Democratic National Convention in 2016 to tell people there's an alternative at least.

It's not like anyone knew that though. The whole point of their nukes was to intimidate the USSR.

Yeah, #movement4bernie was adopted by a lot of the SA folks. The problem with it isn't the goals themselves, but the reinforcement of the idea it would happen through a presidential campaign rather than worker action through strikes and such.

Kek. Where are these diesel-powered U-boats going to sortie out of? Vladivostok? Arkangelsk? Leningrad? There is no warm water port in Russia apart from the Crimea, and that is choked off at both the Bosphorus and the Straight of Gibralter. Hell, the Germans, who actually had warm water ports, tried to do just that, and convoys and B-24s rendered that ineffective.

You think that they were going to roll right through three armies that enjoyed air supremacy and P-47s? Quantity may have a quality all its own, but be realistic. The Soviets needed time to rebuild their industry (the third Five-Year Pan had been interrupted) and get new weapons like the Mig-15 and the AK-47 into service. Stalin knew what he was doing.

I think it's more that while Trotsky may have been right regarding the big picture, he was a terrible politician which is what leading the Soviet Union required. Stalin – while an ugly and disagreeable person in many ways – was a much better politician.

They had half of Germany in there hands.

The Soviets had twice the number of men and twice the number of Tanks in Europe in 1945 than the WAllies. Also the terrain was flat, and it’d be very easy to Blitz through WAllied lines. Also most resistance orgs were Communist and they were still active in 1945.

yeah not like you know the soviets bled its army in a war that war fought mainly on its soil lol

No. Liberalism has failed tbh, socialism is the future.

1) How would have them gotten themselves into such a war?
2) Why would they have lost? (after all, they won the Civil war, in which the main foreign powers took part)
3) What's so bad about losing a war, if it hastens the revolution? Wasn't it, for example, the whole point of Brest-Litovsk?

Attached: chaddialectic.png (1200x626, 203.59K)

but he didn't

...

1) How?
2) So? No one said the revolution would be a walk in the park.
3) It seemed ideal to Lenin in Brest-Litovsk though, didn't it?

>We, however, say that while the loss of the Ukraine was a grave national sacrifice, it helped to steel and strengthen the workers and poor peasants of the Ukraine as revolutionary fighters for the world workers’ revolution. The Ukraine’s suffering was the world revolution’s gain, for the German troops were corrupted, German imperialism was weakened, and the German, Ukrainian and Russian revolutionary workers were drawn closer together.
>It would of course he “nicer” if we could overthrow both Wilhelm and Wilson simply by war. But that is utter nonsense. We cannot overthrow them by a war from without. But we can speed up their internal disintegration. We have achieved that on an immense scale by the Soviet, proletarian revolution.
>The German workers would do it even more successfully if they began a revolution disregarding national sacrifices (that alone is internationalism), if they said (and backed their word by actions) that they prize the interests of the world workers’ revolution higher than the integrity, security and peace of any national state, and of their own in particular.

I miss internationalism

Are guys forgetting that they did lose a war in the 20s? Poland.

Laid much of the groundwork for the Western anti-Soviet left which proved to be an immense catastrophe. Most self-styled socialists to this day still have a great deal of blind faith in US and NATO governments despite their long history of tyranny and repression. Though it is certainly worth noting Trotsky himself personally wasn't as much of a revisionist turncoat as his followers turned out to be.

Calling yourself a Trotskyist today is a certificate of brain damage.

Is this some new level of irony, plain ignorance, or both?

Many of his works like "Terrorism and communism" are pretty good and the Left Opposition's victory would be probably the best option for USSR given their internationalism and often the most correct analysis of the situations that arose(like in China). However, his electoral manoeuvring in the 30s was just embarrassing and laid some groundwork for his followers being utterly retarded
6.5/10, could be better, but still pretty decent

if your ideology revolves around spreading the revolution abroad then eventually you will eventually get into a war. I'm not making an argument here, I'm just explaining to you what the other user said.

If they could barely win the civil war then what makes you think they could win a war with other countries? Again, not even making an argument here; I'm just trying to get you to understand what the other user was saying.

What part of Brest-Litovsk can be considered "ideal"? Brest-Litovsk has go nothing to do with what the other guy was saying anyway.

What is it about Trotsky's writings that has a tendency to eventually morph his followers into neocons?

It had more to do with opposition to the USSR in the cold war than to theory, arguably the theory isn't radically different from ML and the methods of organization are extremely similar.

Attached: 121413.png (447x716, 348.9K)