Someone plz explain the Lenin and Totsky thing

[Unrelenting Steve]

What was the diff between the two? I dont know, I would like it explinaed with perhaps some cool insights on the matter, like who u think was right. thanx

[sliverchrist]

don't know too much on it myself, but i have an insight.

lenin wanted trotsky dead. the only thing that i would ever want someone dead is if they were dangerous, and the only thing that is really dangerous to a movement is the truth ( so long as the movemetn is not the truth of course.)

why would lenin fear truth?

fyi, i know next to nothing on the whole lenin trotsky scuffle, but from the bare events this was the first thing that came into my head.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

did you ever consider that Leninism might be the truth. I personaly agree with neither leninism, trostkyism, or stalinism, at least not now. I'm going through an anarchist phase. A short while ago I was going through a Leninist phase. I think I might be entiring another leninist phase again very soon.

I don't think that Trotsky ever chalenged Lenin, the tension was mostly between Trostky and Stalin.

[commie kg]

Trotsky advocated the continued use of the NEP in Soviet Russia, I believe. Stalin made his policies clear, "forward, to socialism." The NEP was a "limited capitalism" program, that allowed some free enterprise.

What do you mean the "Lenin and Trotsky thing?" do you mean a view from the Stalinist camp, like "why did lenin hate trotsky" or something?

There are alot of Trotsky threads.

[elijahcraig]

I don't think that Trotsky ever chalenged Lenin, the tension was mostly between Trostky and Stalin.

He was a menshevik all the way right up to the revolution. Read “On Our Political Tasks”. It is a vulgar attack on Lenin.


Trotsky advocated the continued use of the NEP in Soviet Russia, I believe. Stalin made his policies clear, "forward, to socialism." The NEP was a "limited capitalism" program, that allowed some free enterprise.

You don’t even know what you are talking about Trot.



Response to original question:

Lenin and Stalin were very close all the way up to his death. Trotsky was Lenin’s enemy all the way up to his last years. Stalin enforced Marxism, as opposed to Trotskyism, and Trot got mad. Trot was a factionalist, one-stage revolution, idealist. Period.

[commie kg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 12:46 PM

Trotsky advocated the continued use of the NEP in Soviet Russia, I believe. Stalin made his policies clear, "forward, to socialism." The NEP was a "limited capitalism" program, that allowed some free enterprise.

You don’t even know what you are talking about Trot.

Yes, I do, and I'm not a Trotskyist.

Trotsky did advocate the continued use of the NEP. Go read some history. Or is it all bourgeois lies?

[Scottish_Militant]

Again more absolute bullshit from that whining little ***** :lol: Trotsky was never a Menshevik you uneducated little gimp :P

[Dyst]

Anyone got a link to some site/thread explaining the different views of the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks?

[chamo]

I can tell you off the top of my head that basically the Mensheviks were commited to the more natural evolution of socilaism whilst the Bolsheviks wanted to "give it a little shove" using a political party.
The Bolshevik party is for committed and disciplined revolutionaries.

The Russian Social Democratic party split in two at the London Congress 1902(?).

And, in Russian, Bolshevik="Majority" Menshevik="Minority", such as was the state when the party split in two.

[elijahcraig]

Denying Trot was a Menshevik is like you saying your a 60 year old communist, it's just pathetically false.

[Iron Star]

Originally posted by commie kg+Sep 13 2003, 09:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (commie kg @ Sep 13 2003, 09:51 PM)
[email protected] 13 2003, 12:46 PM

Trotsky advocated the continued use of the NEP in Soviet Russia, I believe. Stalin made his policies clear, "forward, to socialism." The NEP was a "limited capitalism" program, that allowed some free enterprise.

You don’t even know what you are talking about Trot.

Yes, I do [/b]
No you don&#39;t.

Trotsky was one of the first people to propose the abandonment of the NEP and the implementation of collectivisation. It was not until the left opposition (Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev) were eliminated that Stalin took up their position on Russia&#39;s economic future.

[commie kg]

Originally posted by Iron Star+Sep 13 2003, 06:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Iron Star @ Sep 13 2003, 06:51 PM)
Originally posted by commie [email protected] 13 2003, 09:51 PM

[email protected] 13 2003, 12:46 PM

Trotsky advocated the continued use of the NEP in Soviet Russia, I believe. Stalin made his policies clear, "forward, to socialism." The NEP was a "limited capitalism" program, that allowed some free enterprise.

You don’t even know what you are talking about Trot.

Yes, I do
No you don&#39;t.

Trotsky was one of the first people to propose the abandonment of the NEP and the implementation of collectivisation. It was not until the left opposition (Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev) were eliminated that Stalin took up their position on Russia&#39;s economic future. [/b]
That&#39;s not the way I&#39;ve read it...

[Unrelenting Steve]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 07:46 PM


Response to original question:

Lenin and Stalin were very close all the way up to his death. Trotsky was Lenin’s enemy all the way up to his last years. Stalin enforced Marxism, as opposed to Trotskyism, and Trot got mad. Trot was a factionalist, one-stage revolution, idealist. Period.
Very helpful thank u

[YKTMX]

I would advise you to read up on the thing yourself comrade. Most things on this board will be rubbish, see below.


Lenin and Stalin were very close all the way up to his death. Trotsky was Lenin’s enemy all the way up to his last years. Stalin enforced Marxism, as opposed to Trotskyism, and Trot got mad. Trot was a factionalist, one-stage revolution, idealist. Period

:lol: Yes, the man who he agreed to let lead the military defense of the revolution, the man who he let agree the peace treaty which saved the revolution and the man he wanted to lead after his death. Bitter enemies&#33; The fact is, Lenin and Trostky were comrades, which mean not only did they show unity, they had discussions and disagreements like any great intellectuals do. Not like Stalin, he was a fucking lapdog that Lenin never took seriously until it was too late.

[elijahcraig]

"THE USSR WAS A DEFORMED WORKERS STATE&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; IT WAS STATE CAPITALIST&#33;&#33;&#33; STALIN WAS A BUTCHER WHO MURDERED 20 MILLION OF HIS OWN COUNTRY MEN&#33;&#33;&#33; HE INTENTIONALLY STARVED UKRANIANS&#33;&#33;&#33; ummm.....ummmmm.....HE WAS A PARANOID PSYCHOPATH THAT MURDERED ANYONE THAT THOUGHT DIFFERENT THAN HIM&#33;&#33; um........HE.....ummmmmmm......HE......MURDERED HIS PSYCHIATRIST...YEAH&#33;&#33;&#33; KILLED HIM FOR PRONOUNCING HIM PARANOID....uhhhhhh.........TROTSKY WAS LENIN&#39;S NUMBER ONE MAN&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; HIS NATURAL SUCCESSOR...LENIN HATED STALIN&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; HE WAS CALLED HIM "RUDE"&#33;&#33;&#33; THAT&#39;S ALL THE PROOF WE NEED&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


TROTSKY&#39;S NUMBER 1&#33;&#33;&#33; WHOO-HOOO&#33;&#33;

Thats that.&#39;

[YKTMX]

That is your most coherent post yet Elijah. Congrats.

[elijahcraig]

My post didn’t post in entirety for some reason, that was RAF’s summary of the Trots’ case against Stalin.


Yes, the man who he agreed to let lead the military defense of the revolution, the man who he let agree the peace treaty which saved the revolution and the man he wanted to lead after his death. Bitter enemies&#33;

What the fuck are you talking about? Trot was a horrible military leader, would not sign the treaty, and Lenin NEVER said he wanted Trot to “lead after his death.” You are insane.


The fact is, Lenin and Trostky were comrades, which mean not only did they show unity, they had discussions and disagreements like any great intellectuals do.

He was a Menshevik for 15 years (you do know what that means right?), attacked Lenin the whole time. He later joined the revolution as a Bolshevik AS IT WAS HAPPENING&#33; IF that is not opportunism, then nothing is.


Not like Stalin, he was a fucking lapdog that Lenin never took seriously until it was too late.

Show some proof of this you little *****?

[YKTMX]

What the fuck are you talking about? Trot was a horrible military leader, would not sign the treaty, and Lenin NEVER said he wanted Trot to “lead after his death.” You are insane.

Hahaha. Have you got this stuff written down. CR has given you several lectures on Brest-Litovsk and still your ignorance persists. Tell me, who won the civil war? It is a known fact he suggested the removal of Stalin. You can bury your head in the sand if you wish (hey, why stop now) that is a fact.


Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post

You can read, yes?


He was a Menshevik for 15 years (you do know what that means right?), attacked Lenin the whole time. He later joined the revolution as a Bolshevik AS IT WAS HAPPENING&#33; IF that is not opportunism, then nothing is.

Haha. Oppurtunism eh&#33; How about the 300,000 Russian who joined the Bolsheviks in the build up to October. Bloody oppurtunists eh&#33; Pathetic.


Show some proof of this you little *****?

The reason he made the "man of steel" secretary general was because it was a relatively powerless role. It was to pacify Stalin, yet realising that he was too stupid to be given any real responsobility.

[elijahcraig]

Hahaha. Have you got this stuff written down. CR has given you several lectures on Brest-Litovsk and still your ignorance persists. Tell me, who won the civil war? It is a known fact he suggested the removal of Stalin. You can bury your head in the sand if you wish (hey, why stop now) that is a fact.

Trot stormed out of the negotiations, this is admitted even by Trots.

Let’s see that proof. And then analyze it in its context.


Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post

Post the whole MEMO. Which only his secretary and one other knew of.


Haha. Oppurtunism eh&#33; How about the 300,000 Russian who joined the Bolsheviks in the build up to October. Bloody oppurtunists eh&#33; Pathetic.

So now you’re comparing peasants and workers to the, in Lenin’s words, “the patriarch of all bureacrats”?


The reason he made the "man of steel" secretary general was because it was a relatively powerless role. It was to pacify Stalin, yet realising that he was too stupid to be given any real responsobility.

Wow, you’ve “prooved” it now.

Do you even know what a general secretary does?

[YKTMX]

Trot stormed out of the negotiations, this is admitted even by Trots.

For someone committed to a man who&#39;s whole life was creating mythology, your obcession with "proof" is funny. I know he stormed out, and I know why. He stalled on the treaty in the hope of sparking revolution in Germany, everyone know&#39;s this.


I think that from this standpoint the prime factors in the question of stability are such members of the C.C. as Stalin and Trotsky. I think relations between them make up the greater part of the danger of a split, which could be avoided, and this purpose, in my opinion, would be served, among other things, by increasing the number of C.C. members to 50 or 100.

Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People&#39;s Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.

These two qualities of the two outstanding leaders of the present C.C. can inadvertently lead to a split, and if our Party does not take steps to avert this, the split may come unexpectedly.

I shall not give any further appraisals of the personal qualities of other members of the C.C. I shall just recall that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev [See Vol. 26, pp. 216-19] was, of course, no accident, but neither can the blame for it be laid upon them personally, any more than non-Bolshevism can upon Trotsky only elijahcraig can do this :lol:


So now you’re comparing peasants and workers to the, in Lenin’s words, “the patriarch of all bureacrats”?


I see you have mastered the Stalinist force of quoting Lenin out of context. RAF has taught you well, young one.


Do you even know what a general secretary does

Kills comrades and war heroes and sends people to the gulag presumably.

[elijahcraig]

For someone committed to a man who&#39;s whole life was creating mythology, your obcession with "proof" is funny. I know he stormed out, and I know why. He stalled on the treaty in the hope of sparking revolution in Germany, everyone know&#39;s this.

Stalin never created a “mythology” around himself. Prove that he did you moron.

On the treaty, you’re not to keen on FACTS are you?


I think that from this standpoint the prime factors in the question of stability are such members of the C.C. as Stalin and Trotsky. I think relations between them make up the greater part of the danger of a split, which could be avoided, and this purpose, in my opinion, would be served, among other things, by increasing the number of C.C. members to 50 or 100.

Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People&#39;s Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.

These two qualities of the two outstanding leaders of the present C.C. can inadvertently lead to a split, and if our Party does not take steps to avert this, the split may come unexpectedly.

I shall not give any further appraisals of the personal qualities of other members of the C.C. I shall just recall that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev [See Vol. 26, pp. 216-19] was, of course, no accident, but neither can the blame for it be laid upon them personally, any more than non-Bolshevism can upon Trotsky only elijahcraig can do this

That shows criticism of the party, a KEY point to democratic centralism (something Trot opposed). Unfortunately, it proves nowhere in that that Trot was somehow Lenin’s “chosen successor”.

Here is a quote from the memo:


Comrade Trotsky, as was proved by his struggle against the Central Committee in connection with the question of the People’s Commissariat of Railroads, is distinguished not only by his exceptional abilities—personally to be sure, he is perhaps the most able man in the present Central Committee—but also by his exceptional self-assurance and exceptional enthusiasm for the purely administrative aspect of his work.

I’ll use a PLP pamphlet analysis of these statements, a pamphlet I was mailed by Jedihitch only a few days ago.


This polite sarcasm referred to events which were well-known to the members of the Central Committee that it was unnecessary to spell them out. Lenin is giving examples of serious faults which must be considered along with Stalin’s faults. Trotsky had angered the railway workers and their communist leaders by his high-handed policies, which almost led to an armed clash; he wanted to send the army against the union. (The pamphlet is critiquing a book by Robert Payne on Stalin, which uses this memo in the same way you do, you are a trot he is a right-wing capitalist) Payne knows this, and knows that most of his readers won’t know it—by why should our fair-minded scholar give an explanation or a footnote here? If you don’t know the background to understand Lenin is being sarcastic, a quick scan makes the quote look like a rave review of Trotsky.

…


He says [Lenin] that Stalin has personal ways—impatience, crudity—which might alienate wider circles who didn’t know him as well as those at the top. (As a matter of fact, Stalin was the only one of this inner circle who came from a working-class background, and the charge of “crudity” contained some prejudice.) Lenin says (with intellectual sarcasm) that the record shows that Trotsky is a brilliant egoist who is always sure he alone is in the right, and tends to forget the real working people when carrying out some of his technically-brilliant plans. Lenin probably thinks Bukharin should be the next General Secretary—a post he evidently thought best-suited to a well-liked compromiser. Certainly Lenin’s description of a replacement for Stalin in this post does not resemble Trotsky. Also, after describing the shortcomings of both men, he certainly doesn’t say that Trotsky should become more empowered.


I see you have mastered the Stalinist force of quoting Lenin out of context. RAF has taught you well, young one.

Let’s see how you view it in context then. Show me this one.


Kills comrades and war heroes and sends people to the gulag presumably.

Wow, you don’t even know what the General Secretary does. That is just pathetic.

[YKTMX]

Stalin never created a “mythology” around himself. Prove that he did you moron.

Well, things like doctoring Trotsky out of photographs spring to mind. Along with his incessant memorials and pageants.


I’ll use a PLP pamphlet analysis of these statements

Haha, don&#39;t bother.


Wow, you don’t even know what the General Secretary does. That is just pathetic.

I told you, kills people and sends tanks into countries. Would you like to offer an alternative?

[elijahcraig]

Wow, nice response.

You have abdicated like a true Trot. Pathetic really.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 09:25 PM

You have abdicated like a true Trot. Pathetic really.
You know what I think. I think you are some spolit little rich kid who knows nothing about socialism. I think you have never met a real live Marixst in your entire life never mind a real "trot". I reckon you supporting Stalin is some kind of statement of ultra leftism, and I reckon everything you think you know about socialism you read from websites dedicated to lies. I reckon you have never been at any meetings, never been at any protests or demostrations. I reckon you&#39;ve never met, spoken to any working class people who weren&#39;t working in a shop. I reckon you know nothing about the real world and I reckon you are a fucking idiot. Am I right?

[elijahcraig]

You know what I think.

Let’s see.


I think you are some spolit little rich kid who knows nothing about socialism.

Wrong. Coming from someone who wants to have a society with laziness and people using rage against the machine names as usernames, hahahahahaha.


I think you have never met a real live Marixst in your entire life never mind a real "trot".

Wrong.


I reckon you supporting Stalin is some kind of statement of ultra leftism, and I reckon everything you think you know about socialism you read from websites dedicated to lies.

What does this mean?


I reckon you have never been at any meetings, never been at any protests or demostrations.

Wrong.


I reckon you&#39;ve never met, spoken to any working class people who weren&#39;t working in a shop.

Does my family count?


I reckon you know nothing about the real world and I reckon you are a fucking idiot. Am I right?

Nope.


Isn’t it lovely to see a Trot squirm when he’s been beaten?

[YKTMX]

rage against the machine names as usernames, hahahahahaha.

Names? No it is a lyric, idiot.


Isn’t it lovely to see a Trot squirm when he’s been beaten

Your delusions of granduer are emberassing. As far as I can see you have said "wow" lots of times, "trot" lots of times and dragged out tired arguments that were discredited in the 50&#39;s. Oh, I feel so defeated.

[Urban Rubble]

Elijah, you habit of calling everyone that disagrees with you a Trot is getting fucking old. You debate like a 10 year old little kid. You are pathetic.

I don&#39;t get why you continue to flout the fact that Trotsky wasn&#39;t a Bolshevik until 1917. Lenin himself (in a letter to Stalin) said to not hold that against Trotsky, this was shortly before he died. Also, how can you deny that Lenin recomended Stalin&#39;s removal ? He did, it is a recorded fact. Lenin was critical of Stalin and Trotsky, but above all he wanted them to put aside their personal differences and work together.

I have always maintained that History has been overly critical of Stalin, but your revisionism is sickening. Especially considering how you always spout bullshit about OTHER peoples revisionism. These are the facts, deny them if you will.

[elijahcraig]

Names? No it is a lyric, idiot.

Yes, I understand that. You used a rage against the machine lyric as your user NAME.


Your delusions of granduer are emberassing. As far as I can see you have said "wow" lots of times, "trot" lots of times and dragged out tired arguments that were discredited in the 50&#39;s. Oh, I feel so defeated.

Not to mention the critique I used against the memo from Lenin, which you dodged on quite Trotlike.


Elijah, you habit of calling everyone that disagrees with you a Trot is getting fucking old. You debate like a 10 year old little kid. You are pathetic.

Considering this person is actually a self-proclaimed trotskyist, that is hwy I called him that.


I don&#39;t get why you continue to flout the fact that Trotsky wasn&#39;t a Bolshevik until 1917. Lenin himself (in a letter to Stalin) said to not hold that against Trotsky, this was shortly before he died. Also, how can you deny that Lenin recomended Stalin&#39;s removal ? He did, it is a recorded fact. Lenin was critical of Stalin and Trotsky, but above all he wanted them to put aside their personal differences and work together.

And? So did Stalin, but Trot had to factionalize, so.

Opportunism in historical analysis is a key point to look at.


I have always maintained that History has been overly critical of Stalin, but your revisionism is sickening. Especially considering how you always spout bullshit about OTHER peoples revisionism. These are the facts, deny them if you will.

What facts?

[Urban Rubble]

The facts that Lenin suggested Stalin&#39;s removal and that he didn&#39;t intend Trotky&#39;s late entry into the party to be held against him.

[elijahcraig]

That is one memo, Stalin worked with Lenin all through the years, including 6 years directly under Lenin during the revolution. He wanted Stalin replaced by Bukharin, why? Because Bukharin was more friendly with people. Stalin had more “crudity”. AKA, Bukharin was a better PR man.

BTW, do you think that forgiving Trotsky’s 15 year Menshevism, including his attacks on Lenin, being forgiven, don’t you think that Stalin’s calling Lenin’s wife “rude” also would have been forgiven? I do, and any logical person would as well. As Anne Louise Strong said, “Stalin’s sins seemed of little matter when viewed in this context.”

You must also remember, Lenin wrote a whole book against Trotsky’s and Bukharin’s factionalism, and said it could be overcome; he was very forgiving, unfortunately, after he died, Trot once again factionalized like a madman.

[Urban Rubble]

"That is one memo, Stalin worked with Lenin all through the years, including 6 years directly under Lenin during the revolution. He wanted Stalin replaced by Bukharin, why? Because Bukharin was more friendly with people. Stalin had more “crudity”. AKA, Bukharin was a better PR man."

Who cares if it is only one memo ? The point still stands. Lenin didn&#39;t want Bukharin because he was a better "PR" man. He felt that Stalin was too un-feeling, too "rude. Like it or not, this was a big deal. Lenin did not feel that Stalin was fit to rule, how can one look after the interests of people if he is so incompassionate ? Lenin repected Stalin, but he did not feel he had what it takes to be a leader. It is more than just PR, he felt it was a issue of whether he was fit to lead.

"BTW, do you think that forgiving Trotsky’s 15 year Menshevism, including his attacks on Lenin, being forgiven, don’t you think that Stalin’s calling Lenin’s wife “rude” also would have been forgiven?"

Eli, I suggest you go pick up a book. You seem to have you facts mixed up. Stalin never called Lenin&#39;s wife "rude". What happened is that Lenin, on his deathbed, was having his wife dictate letters for him. Stalin found out about this and proceeded to verbally attack Lenin&#39;s wife for allowing him to partake in such a strenuous excersize. Lenin wrote a letter telling him that he was completely out of line and that if he did not take it back their contact would cease. I&#39;m sure he did forgive him for this, that does not mean he changed his opinion of whether Stalin should be General Secretary or not.

[elijahcraig]

Who cares if it is only one memo ?

Anyone who doesn’t have their head up their ass. He wrote a whole book against Bukharin and Trotsky.


The point still stands. Lenin didn&#39;t want Bukharin because he was a better "PR" man. He felt that Stalin was too un-feeling, too "rude. Like it or not, this was a big deal. Lenin did not feel that Stalin was fit to rule, how can one look after the interests of people if he is so incompassionate ?

Rule? The general secretary is not a ruler you moron, a general secretary is an organizer. That is having the PR job of being cooperative and easily friendly. Stalin was more coarse than Bukharin, who was personable, and Lenin thought Stalin was better off in inner party affairs.


Lenin repected Stalin, but he did not feel he had what it takes to be a leader. It is more than just PR, he felt it was a issue of whether he was fit to lead.

Above reply^


Eli, I suggest you go pick up a book. You seem to have you facts mixed up. Stalin never called Lenin&#39;s wife "rude". What happened is that Lenin, on his deathbed, was having his wife dictate letters for him. Stalin found out about this and proceeded to verbally attack Lenin&#39;s wife for allowing him to partake in such a strenuous excersize. Lenin wrote a letter telling him that he was completely out of line and that if he did not take it back their contact would cease.

I’m sorry, you are correct. I wasn’t writing to fast and got mixed up.


I&#39;m sure he did forgive him for this, that does not mean he changed his opinion of whether Stalin should be General Secretary or not.

That is true, he thought Stalin should be moved to inner party position, and Bukharin (most probably) to General Secretary.

[Urban Rubble]

Why in the fuck do you have to call names like a little fucking baby ? Seriously, your age shows so much when you do that. Every fucking time someone disagrees with you, you act like a little *****. Grow the fuck up.

Yes, the General Secretary was not the absolute leader. Yes, Lenin thought Stalin to be too brash for for General Secretary. I did not intend it to sound as if I thought that was a position of absolute power. I shouldn&#39;t say that Lenin did not want Stalin to be a leader, that was a bit too forward of me. See, I can admit when I was wrong you little ****, take a note. Reading the things Lenin wrote in his last years, it gives one the impression that he had a bit of a falling out with Stalin. The reason Lenin never actually warned against having Stalin as absolute leader, is because Lenin did not believe in such a leader within the party. Also, if you really wanted to have at least a chance of an argument, all you would have had to bring up is that Stalin offered to resign twice, but we all know you&#39;ve never actually read Soviet history, you just regurgitate what others feed you. Again, unlike yourself I can give credit where it is due, even with someone who I do not admire.

Just so you know, I don&#39;t think Trotsky would have been any better. Actually, I think it would have been worse. He was an egotistical little prick who craved power, probably more than Stalin. Same with Zinoviev and Kamenev. Stop trying to make it sound like I am taking their side, I am giving you the facts as I have read them, I have no biases on this issue.

"I’m sorry, you are correct. I wasn’t writing to fast and got mixed up. "

You have a problem with admitting you are wrong. How come is it, both you and Felicia use that argument when I have proven you wrong "Oh, I knew that, I just forgot because of my incredibly fast typing".

Eat a bowl of dicks Eli, you need to learn to calm down and respect people.

[elijahcraig]

Why in the fuck do you have to call names like a little fucking baby ? Seriously, your age shows so much when you do that. Every fucking time someone disagrees with you, you act like a little *****. Grow the fuck up.

Considering you call me a sheep every other post I wouldn’t spew this nonsense. Shows my age? What? One year less than Master Rubble?


Yes, the General Secretary was not the absolute leader. Yes, Lenin thought Stalin to be too brash for for General Secretary. I did not intend it to sound as if I thought that was a position of absolute power. I shouldn&#39;t say that Lenin did not want Stalin to be a leader, that was a bit too forward of me. See, I can admit when I was wrong you little ****, take a note. Reading the things Lenin wrote in his last years, it gives one the impression that he had a bit of a falling out with Stalin. The reason Lenin never actually warned against having Stalin as absolute leader, is because Lenin did not believe in such a leader within the party. Also, if you really wanted to have at least a chance of an argument, all you would have had to bring up is that Stalin offered to resign twice, but we all know you&#39;ve never actually read Soviet history, you just regurgitate what others feed you. Again, unlike yourself I can give credit where it is due, even with someone who I do not admire.

Stalin was never absolute ruler so there would be no reason, and no way, Lenin should have warned this.

I actually knew of the resignation offers, I don’t know why you act like such an asshole about that. Read MIM, they teach you a lot.


Just so you know, I don&#39;t think Trotsky would have been any better. Actually, I think it would have been worse. He was an egotistical little prick who craved power, probably more than Stalin. Same with Zinoviev and Kamenev. Stop trying to make it sound like I am taking their side, I am giving you the facts as I have read them, I have no biases on this issue.

Facts that someone told you? You sheep&#33;


"I’m sorry, you are correct. I wasn’t writing to fast and got mixed up. "


You have a problem with admitting you are wrong. How come is it, both you and Felicia use that argument when I have proven you wrong "Oh, I knew that, I just forgot because of my incredibly fast typing".

This mistake was obvious, you are a prick.

[Urban Rubble]

"Considering you call me a sheep every other post I wouldn’t spew this nonsense. Shows my age? What? One year less than Master Rubble?"

You&#39;re 20 ? I could have sworn you said you were 17. Regardless, you&#39;re fucking immature. Yes, I did call you a sheep repeatedly awhile back. If you would pay attention, you&#39;d see that I haven&#39;t gone after you in awhile. For a while you seemed to have calmed down, I was actually going to PM you and compliment you, if you kept it up I was going to recommend that you be un-caged. But the fact remains that you are a little prick incapable of having a conversation without flaming, unless that person agrees with you of course. You need to chill out, so do I.

"Stalin was never absolute ruler so there would be no reason, and no way, Lenin should have warned this."

That is such bullshit. Ya, neither is Kim Jong Il. Techincally, Stalin was never absolute leader, but we all know who held the power. We all know who was in charge.

" I actually knew of the resignation offers, I don’t know why you act like such an asshole about that. Read MIM, they teach you a lot."

I wasn&#39;t really acting like and asshole, I was just showing you a way that you could have beaten my argument. I was helping out actually =). Anyway, fuck MIM, I have read alot of their material, I don&#39;t enjoy blatant propaganda. Plus, mimcomrade on ISF destroys any credibility they had. I mean, these guys are Shining Path supporters. They will support any group that waves the Hammer and Sickle, simply because they are Marxists. Nevermind the fact that they are blatant terrorists. Perhaps not as bad as the government they are fighting, but bad nontheless.

"Facts that someone told you? You sheep&#33;"

There is a difference between reading book after book and being told something by people on a message board you&#39;ve never met. I have studied this shit, not just inherited second hand info.

"This mistake was obvious, you are a prick. "

Yes, I can admit that I am being an asshole, but so are you. See, I can admit my faults. Again, take a note. I am only being a dick because you called me a moron simply because our opinions difer. Honestly, I think you are more educated than most people on here, just a little too easily won over. I think you should a bit more before making a decision. I think we could be cool with each other if you would just chill the fuck out a bit. I am unlike most members of this board, I am not on a Stalinist witch hunt.

[elijahcraig]

You&#39;re 20 ? I could have sworn you said you were 17. Regardless, you&#39;re fucking immature. Yes, I did call you a sheep repeatedly awhile back. If you would pay attention, you&#39;d see that I haven&#39;t gone after you in awhile. For a while you seemed to have calmed down, I was actually going to PM you and compliment you, if you kept it up I was going to recommend that you be un-caged. But the fact remains that you are a little prick incapable of having a conversation without flaming, unless that person agrees with you of course. You need to chill out, so do I.

Immature? You should meet some of my “student acquantances”.


That is such bullshit. Ya, neither is Kim Jong Il. Techincally, Stalin was never absolute leader, but we all know who held the power. We all know who was in charge.

See Comrade Cassius’s thread, “Uncle Joe and Authoritarianism”. It proves you wrong.


I wasn&#39;t really acting like and asshole, I was just showing you a way that you could have beaten my argument. I was helping out actually =). Anyway, fuck MIM, I have read alot of their material, I don&#39;t enjoy blatant propaganda. Plus, mimcomrade on ISF destroys any credibility they had. I mean, these guys are Shining Path supporters. They will support any group that waves the Hammer and Sickle, simply because they are Marxists. Nevermind the fact that they are blatant terrorists. Perhaps not as bad as the government they are fighting, but bad nontheless.

I am a member of RAIL and an Honorary Comrade of MIM. I also support the Shining Path. Nice “insult” rubble.


There is a difference between reading book after book and being told something by people on a message board you&#39;ve never met. I have studied this shit, not just inherited second hand info.

I recommend the book “The Stalin Era” by Anne Louise Strong if you want a book on Stalin’s time.


Yes, I can admit that I am being an asshole, but so are you. See, I can admit my faults. Again, take a note. I am only being a dick because you called me a moron simply because our opinions difer. Honestly, I think you are more educated than most people on here, just a little too easily won over. I think you should a bit more before making a decision. I think we could be cool with each other if you would just chill the fuck out a bit. I am unlike most members of this board, I am not on a Stalinist witch hunt.

I am an asshole, but you have been hounding me for becoming a Stalinist since day one. It gets tiring.

[Urban Rubble]

"See Comrade Cassius’s thread, “Uncle Joe and Authoritarianism”. It proves you wrong."

Well, %90 of written history would "prove" Cassius wrong.

"I am a member of RAIL and an Honorary Comrade of MIM. I also support the Shining Path. Nice “insult” rubble."

See, this is your problem. You look at everything as an insult. I wasn&#39;t trying to insult MiM, I gave my opinion on it. I would like to talk to you about the Shining Path. How much have you looked into them ? Have you looked at both sides ? Try to keep in mind, there is alot of propaganda in these types of issues, on both sides. I&#39;ve read alot from both sides about these guys, as well as things from non-political journalists. These guys are nothing to look up to. Seriously, I&#39;d like to hear what you have to say about them.

"I recommend the book “The Stalin Era” by Anne Louise Strong if you want a book on Stalin’s time."

Again, you need to look at more than one source for things. I have read about 6 different books on Stalin, countless ones on the early days of the Union. I&#39;ve seen both sides of the argument. Read Dmitri Volkogonov&#39;s "Stalin, Triumph and Tragedy". I don&#39;t know much about the guy who wrote it, other than he was a general in the Red Army and after that was a historian. Admittedly, he worked in Boris Yeltsin&#39;s administration, but he is one of the few to have access to the Kremlin files.

"I am an asshole, but you have been hounding me for becoming a Stalinist since day one. It gets tiring."

I have never gone at you for being a Stalinist. Look at me and RAF, he&#39;s one of my favorite people on the board. I give you shit because I think you made your decision a little too quick. When I see you comparing him to Hitler, and then 5 days later you consider him one of your political heroes, I don&#39;t think that is right. I can understand agreeing with what someone told you, I just think before you make a decision, you should read up on it, and again, not just one thing.

[elijahcraig]

Well, %90 of written history would "prove" Cassius wrong.

Then go to the post and “prove” the post wrong. No one did. Why? Because they can’t back up “Stalin was a fascist”. It’s not true.


See, this is your problem. You look at everything as an insult. I wasn&#39;t trying to insult MiM, I gave my opinion on it.

Saying “Fuck MIM” is an insult.


I would like to talk to you about the Shining Path. How much have you looked into them ? Have you looked at both sides ? Try to keep in mind, there is alot of propaganda in these types of issues, on both sides. I&#39;ve read alot from both sides about these guys, as well as things from non-political journalists. These guys are nothing to look up to. Seriously, I&#39;d like to hear what you have to say about them.

I have talked to a girl I know in Peru, plus MIM, and some RCP members. Also, argued with many a right-winger on this subject on Axis of Justice. You should go to the thread in ISF and post more on this if you would like to debate further. Mimcomrade is very knowledgeable on the subject.


Again, you need to look at more than one source for things. I have read about 6 different books on Stalin, countless ones on the early days of the Union. I&#39;ve seen both sides of the argument. Read Dmitri Volkogonov&#39;s "Stalin, Triumph and Tragedy". I don&#39;t know much about the guy who wrote it, other than he was a general in the Red Army and after that was a historian. Admittedly, he worked in Boris Yeltsin&#39;s administration, but he is one of the few to have access to the Kremlin files.

Well, he’s SO credible. Strong was an American journalist who lived in the USSR for a long while. And who said I only read “one source” rubble? You are so arrogant towards me its disgusting.


I have never gone at you for being a Stalinist. Look at me and RAF, he&#39;s one of my favorite people on the board. I give you shit because I think you made your decision a little too quick. When I see you comparing him to Hitler, and then 5 days later you consider him one of your political heroes, I don&#39;t think that is right. I can understand agreeing with what someone told you, I just think before you make a decision, you should read up on it, and again, not just one thing.

We’ve been over this. I made numerous threads on ISF on this subject, Pmed RAF many times, read Stalin, read pro-Stalin articles and work vs. the typical foundationless Trot drivel that I used to read. You know what? The Trot’s side has NO proof of anything&#33; Foundationless assertions&#33; I don’t need a spiritual awakening that lasts three years to discover this RUB-BLE.

[Urban Rubble]

Why do you keep saying RUB-BLE ? Do you think you&#39;re being cute ? Witty maybe ?

"Then go to the post and “prove” the post wrong. No one did. Why? Because they can’t back up “Stalin was a fascist”. It’s not true."

Show me where I said Stalin was a fascist ? Do you have any perception of reality at all ? Where do you get this argument from ?

"Saying “Fuck MIM” is an insult."

Wow, if you&#39;re that devoted to a website, you need to get out more. Perhaps you shoudl start every post with "ElijahCraig responds for MIM".

"I have talked to a girl I know in Peru, plus MIM, and some RCP members. Also, argued with many a right-winger on this subject on Axis of Justice. You should go to the thread in ISF and post more on this if you would like to debate further. Mimcomrade is very knowledgeable on the subject."

I started that thread on ISF, no one had a bit of information to add. mimcomrade had NO facts to back anything up. Much like the right wingers who say Stalin was all bad, he had nothing to back his shit up. When I mentioned that they have been overtaking Ashaninca villages and forcing males to join or be killed, he didn&#39;t even acknowledge it. Not one person knew SHIT about this subject, including mimcomarde. Which is why I said he supports any group calling themselves Marxist. Regardless of whether they are 2 bit terrorists or not. I agree with their goals and motives, but their tactics are sickening. And like I pointed out at ISF, they have hardly any support in Peru. People support their goal, but not them specifically.

[elijahcraig]

Why do you keep saying RUB-BLE ? Do you think you&#39;re being cute ? Witty maybe ?

A little of both, I am.


Show me where I said Stalin was a fascist ? Do you have any perception of reality at all ? Where do you get this argument from ?

Hence the term “they” as opposed to “you”.




Wow, if you&#39;re that devoted to a website, you need to get out more. Perhaps you shoudl start every post with

"ElijahCraig responds for MIM".

It is an organization I am a member of you fucking piece of shit.


I started that thread on ISF, no one had a bit of information to add. mimcomrade had NO facts to back anything up. Much like the right wingers who say Stalin was all bad, he had nothing to back his shit up. When I mentioned that they have been overtaking Ashaninca villages and forcing males to join or be killed, he didn&#39;t even acknowledge it. Not one person knew SHIT about this subject, including mimcomarde. Which is why I said he supports any group calling themselves Marxist. Regardless of whether they are 2 bit terrorists or not. I agree with their goals and motives, but their tactics are sickening. And like I pointed out at ISF, they have hardly any support in Peru. People support their goal, but not them specifically.

Do you know anyone who lives in Peru?

[Vinny Rafarino]

I see you have mastered the Stalinist force of quoting Lenin out of context. RAF has taught you well, young one.



The force is strong in this one, yes.



EDIT:

He does however still have trouble snatching the pebble from my hand.

[Urban Rubble]

Actually, I skate with a kid damn near everyday who lived in Peru for 18 years, he&#39;s been in the states for 5. I have also met friends of his that his family flew out.

What is your point ? Do you have any facts to add ? Then add them. Not one fucking person had anything factual or even relevant to say in that thread, especially mimcomrade. The guy is a joke, and so are you. He is defending them because they fly the Marxist flag. Seriously, if you support them so much, why not add something ? You are amazing.

Again, if you are offended by me saying fuck your mim "organization" ( I use the term loosely) then you are pathetic.

Bring a point or shut the fuck up. With this Shining Path thing you are defending a group you know nothing about. I am sure you think that everything people say negative about them is "western propaganda". Fucking fool.

[elijahcraig]

I’ve never seen any facts from you RUBBLE. Post them on ISF.

[elijahcraig]

Here is a reply to Rubble which MIM has given me to post:

[email protected] replies to Urban Rubble:

We did not take your thread on the PCP seriously for a number of
reasons. 1) You did not say who you are FOR in Peru and
hence seemed like another weed-smoking idealist to us, not
likely to amount to anything anytime soon. Sorry if that
was our misjudgement.
2) You started the thread yet didn&#39;t provide any sources
for what you were talking about. 3) There are over 100
articles on our website on the "Shining Path" and you
did not take apart even one of them concretely.

We also gave Urban Rubble too much credit in believing
he was referring to recent discussions in Peru. If he
was serious about the Ashaninca, he would referred to that
recent report or he would have read MIM Notes 90. We don&#39;t
feel obliged to respond to people who criticize vaguely
without detail and do not respond to our articles on the
subject existing already.

There is no party in Peru history calling itself "Marxist"
that was ever composed of as many indigenous people percentage-wise
(reported at 40 to 50%) as the PCP.

At this point, we have also withdrawn from the ISF forum for
reasons of its moderators&#39; tolerance of racism and national
chauvinism, so we will not be able to follow up there.

[Urban Rubble]

Ahhh, the time honored Elijah Craig tactic of having someone else answer for him, nice one dumbass.

"1) You did not say who you are FOR in Peru and
hence seemed like another weed-smoking idealist to us, not
likely to amount to anything anytime soon. Sorry if that
was our misjudgement."

I didn&#39;t say who I was for because that was not the intent of the post. I don&#39;t think there are any sides to be proud of. You have the government, who is much worse that the terrorists, but that does not mean the PCP is worthy of our respect.

"2) You started the thread yet didn&#39;t provide any sources
for what you were talking about."

That&#39;s because I was speaking generally. I have read alot of material on them. Would you like me to post each individual article and book I&#39;ve read ?

"3) There are over 100
articles on our website on the "Shining Path" and you
did not take apart even one of them concretely."

Oh I see, my point isn&#39;t valid because I didn&#39;t come find articles on the MIM iste and take them apart. You&#39;re a fucking douche bag.

I don&#39;t have time for your bullshit. If you want to discuss, come with some fucking facts instead of insults. You say I didn&#39;t discredit your articles, but you didn&#39;t discredit my posts.

[elijahcraig]

I had no one answer for me, this person emailed me and said he saw the thread. He asked me to post this for him. Is he banned?

I suggest you talk to him about his points. ISF?

Or email him.

[Urban Rubble]

He can E-mail me if he wants to talk about it. Like I said, he had no information at all on it in the other thread.

I have no idea if he&#39;s banned.

[elijahcraig]

I’ll tell him the message the next time I’m in the same forum as he is.

Also, I think his point was that you never posted any facts to dispute, just assertions without foundation. MIM has loads of articles on the PCP, maybe you should look at their opinions, and stop being so angry.

[Urban Rubble]

I am not angry about anything. You&#39;re the one getting all upset. It&#39;s a message board. Relax.

If you think what I said about PCP has no foundation, then you have not studied them. I have read so much shit about them, and just about the only good thing comes from members of the PCP. Most people who have studied and observed them come away with the feeling that they are rutheless terrorists. They attack civilians far more than they attack the army or anything worth attacking.

Call that "assertions without foundation" if you want, but I can show you books written by people that have seen these things happen.

[elijahcraig]

Yes, we all know about “people who’ve seen things”. Who? Ex-CIA agents? Let’s unmask this. I was waiting on ISF for the book you were going to unveil. I would like to debate this, but you never responded on that thread to my post.

[Urban Rubble]

I haven&#39;t been to ISF in awhile, plus, I thought the thread was dead.

Read "In the Forests of the Night" by John Simpson.

It was written in the early 90&#39;s I think, around the time Abimael Guzman was captured. The guy was a British journalist. The book is about him and a few other people who go to Peru with the intent of filming a documentary. It&#39;s basically just him cruising around the country checking things out. He isn&#39;t a Marxist, but I&#39;ve read other things by him and he&#39;s actually quite sensible. He isn&#39;t one of those people who single out all Marxists as idiots and all Marxist groups as terrorists. He is as objective as they come.

Most of it is about the corrupt government in Peru, he is far more critical of them than he is of the PCP. He even interviewed President Fujimori and asked him questions about Montesinos. Fujimori was really pissed.

Like I said, he is totally objective. He interviews alot of common people. It does not reflect well on the Shining Path. It reflects far worse on the government of Peru.

I can&#39;t remember the name of them, but there is another Marxist guerilla group in Peru. I can&#39;t remember what their name is unfortunately, but they base themselves on the teachings of Che Guevara. They are FAR more humane than the Shining Path. These are men to be proud of.

[elijahcraig]

The Tupac Amari? I think that’s what they are called.

I’ll read the book.

[Scottish_Militant]

Ive been offline for a few days as my hard drive packed in, however its nice to see worm boy is still tying himself in knots over things he knows nothing about.

&#39;Trotsky was a Menshevik&#39; you cry, sad really, firstly this is not true - you are repeating slogans that your god RAF brainwashed you with. Secondly you don&#39;t even know what the Mensheviks stood for and what their differences with the Bolsheviks were anyway.

Ive denounced the Trotsky-Menshevik argument many times, go here and read my post, stop making a fool of yourself by talking about things you dont know shit about

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...5&t=16078&st=20 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=16078&st=20)

[Scottish_Militant]

btw nice RAF cut and paste, you really are wedged firmly up his ass arent you...

Lets try one of them for Stalin (only i&#39;ll write it myself)

&#39;USSR WAS SOCIALIST......BECAUSE SOCIALISM CAN EXIST IN ONE COUNTRY....EVEN THOUGH CAPITALISM IS GLOBAL.....but...but....if you say otherwise.....YOUR A COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY TRAITOR...A JUDAS.....em...EVEN THOUGH LENIN SAID SO.....BUT...emm.....HE CHANGED HIS MIND.....because.....because.....TROTSKY WAS A NAZI....YEAH, A TOTAL NAZI.....HE WANTED TO PUT JEWS IN GAS CHAMBERS.....OH YEAH AND SHOOT WORKERS FOR BEING LATE.......AND STALIN.....HE WAS A GREAT MAN.....ITS ALL WESTERN PROPOGANDA, ALL OF IT.....ALL OF IT.......EVERY LAST SHRED.....AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHHH YOU EVIL TROT BASSSSSSTARDS.........&#39;

[elijahcraig]

Trot was a menshevik, even Trotskyist parties admit this.

15 year old masquerading as a 60 year old. Simply stunning.

[commie kg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 10:24 AM
15 year old masquerading as a 60 year old. Simply stunning.
What does that matter? Who cares how old he is. Just a convenient excuse for you not to refute his arguments, I guess.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 02:39 PM
:lol: Yes, the man who he agreed to let lead the military defense of the revolution, the man who he let agree the peace treaty which saved the revolution and the man he wanted to lead after his death. Bitter enemies&#33; The fact is, Lenin and Trostky were comrades, which mean not only did they show unity, they had discussions and disagreements like any great intellectuals do. Not like Stalin, he was a fucking lapdog that Lenin never took seriously until it was too late.
That is what I have heard from the most credible sources on Lenin and Trotsky. I do not know much about the relationship between Lenin and Stalin. I have heard the story about the famous photograph of the two, and of it being a fake Stalin had made after Lenin&#39;s death.

[Scottish_Militant]

HAHA&#33;&#33; Trotsky was a Menshevik &#39;because most trotskyist parties admit it&#39;

LOL&#33;&#33;&#33;

Give us a break man, can you refute my case here? No&#33; Was Trotsky ever a Menshevik? No - fact

You are defeated, simple. You cannot refute my argument, goodnight

btw, im not 15 im 20, which is 5 years older than you judging by your posts :lol:

[elijahcraig]

What does that matter? Who cares how old he is. Just a convenient excuse for you not to refute his arguments, I guess.

It matters to me if this person is outright lying in order to gain credibility as a long-standing communist party. When he is like anything but that.

He told us he had read the manifesto in 1967 and been in the party for 30 years. Turns out his 20 fucking years old&#33;

http://www.kat.gr/kat/history/Mod/Leaders/...TrotskyLeon.htm (http://www.kat.gr/kat/history/Mod/Leaders/TrotskyLeon.htm)

That Trot source will help you learn the history of your grand and noble hero’s Menshevism.

[elijahcraig]

Also, Marxist in Nebraska, what “credible sources”? Trot.com and Trot.org? Trot.net and Menshevikopportunism.org?

[Urban Rubble]

I&#39;m not really getting into this one, but I do think it&#39;s funny how Elijah considers andy website that isn&#39;t Stalinist, to be Trotskyist.

I for one don&#39;t think Trotsky would have been any better. I mean, it&#39;s pretty obvious that most of his actions after Lenin&#39;s death were done soley to become leader.

[elijahcraig]

Did I say that Rubble? Did he provide a link to “credible” sources? No, he did not.

[Urban Rubble]

No, but I&#39;ve seen you do it before. Seriously man, when someone disagrees with you it&#39;s always "Fucking Trot" or "stinking liberal". Fuck, in the other thread you called someone a RedStarist, what the fuck is that ? Are you a "Comrade RAFist ?

Like I said, Lenin himself wrote a letter telling people not to condem Trotsky for joining the party so late. I&#39;m not defending the guy, I&#39;m not a huge fan of Trotsky, but if you&#39;re going to bring up the bad things Trotsky did, you could do alot better than that.

[elijahcraig]

Redstarist is called sarcasm, bud.

[Urban Rubble]

Didn&#39;t seem like sarcasm, bud.

In fact, that in no way resembles sarcasm. But hey, I can&#39;t argue if you say so.

[elijahcraig]

Numbed skulls are not prone to understanding Rubble, that explains your “condition”.

[Scottish_Militant]

You really are amusing, &#39;look this website says so - that means its true&#39; :rolleyes:

Please read...

Firstly, the split at the London Congress of 1903 did not take place on the question of a ‘stable, centralised and disciplined Marxist Party’ as it has been put many times before, but on the question of the composition of the central bodies of the Party and on one clause in the Party Rules. The differences only emerged during the twenty-second session. Prior to that, on every single political and tactical question, there was no disagreement between Lenin and Martov&#39;s ‘minority’.

The presentation of the differences as a clear cut split between Bolshevik ‘centralisers’ and Menshevik ‘anti-centralisers’ is a sheer fabrication, which has its origin in the slanders directed against the Bolsheviks by the Mensheviks after the Congress. On the famous clause on the Party Rules, Lenin himself remarked: "I would willingly respond to this appeal [i.e. for an agreement with the "Mensheviks"] for I by no means consider our differences so vital as to be a matter of life or death to the Party. We shall certainly not perish because of an unfortunate clause in the Rules&#33;”

After the Congress, when Martov and his supporters refused to participate in the work of the Iskra editorial board, Lenin wrote:

"Examining the behaviour of the Martovites since the Congress, their refusal to collaborate on the Central Organ…their refusal to work on the Central Committee, add their propaganda of a boycott - all I can say is that this is an insensate attempt, unworthy of Party members, to disrupt the Party - and why? Only because they are dissatisfied with the composition of the central bodies; for speaking objectively, it was only over this that our ways parted…" (Lenin, Works, vol. 7, page 34)

Time after time Lenin emphasised that between himself and the Martovite ‘minority’ there were no differences of principle, no differences so important as to cause a split. Thus, when Plekhanov went over to Martov, Lenin wrote:

"Let me say, first, of all, that I think the author of the article [Plekhanov] is a thousand times right when he insists that it is essential to safeguard the unity of the Party and avoid new splits - especially over differences which cannot be considered to be important. To appeal to peaceableness, mildness and readiness to make concessions is highly praiseworthy in a leader at all times, and at the present moment in particular." (ibid, page 115)

And Lenin goes on to oppose expulsions of groups from the Party, advocates the opening of the Party press, for the airing of differences "to enable these grouplets to speak out and give the whole Party the opportunity to weigh the importance or unimportance of these differences and determine just where, how and on whose part inconsistency is shown". (ibid, page 116)

In reality, the differences between Bolshevism and Menshevism were not at all clear in 1903, although the discussion revealed certain tendencies of conciliationism among the Mensheviks, or ‘softs’ as they were known. The two tendencies only crystallised subsequently, under the impact of events, and even then did not reach the point of a final break until 1912.

It is true that at the 1903 Congress, Trotsky found himself in the camp of Lenin&#39;s opponents. It is also true that Plekhanov, the future social-patriot, stood together with Lenin. The fact was - that the differences caught everyone by surprise, including Lenin himself, who at first did not grasp their significance. The real point at issue at the Second Congress was the transition from a small propaganda sect to a real Party, and on this question Lenin undoubtedly held a correct position. In later years Trotsky, who was always honest in relation to his mistakes, admitted his error without reservation, and stated that Lenin had always been right on this question&#33;

[elijahcraig]

?

I never held up the historical views of a Trotskyist party, I was showing that EVEN the Trots admit he was a Menshevik. They merely attempt to explain his opportunism away.

[kylie]

I never held up the historical views of a Trotskyist party, I was showing that EVEN the Trots admit he was a Menshevik. They merely attempt to explain his opportunism away.
Trotsky never was a Menshevik. Just because he opposed the Bolsheviks at one time does not automatically mean he was a member of the common opposition. He criticised both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. And how is accepting that Lenin was correct, and joining the Bolsheviks oppertunist? I would think the majority of the Bolsheviks, including Stalin, joined the Bolsheviks because they agreed with Lenin. Are they too oppertunists?

[Scottish_Militant]

You cannot admit something that isnt true, this particular group seem to be uneducated. It is worth pointing out that the CPGB &#39;admit&#39; Stalin was bad for communism, what say you on this?

[Scottish_Militant]

You hate Trotsky so bitterly but on your profile under intrests you wrote Trotsky, whats with this?? Was that before RAF gave you a lobotomy?

[Urban Rubble]

Elijah, you must not have a very good concept of sarcasm. Calling someone a "RedStarist" would be a joke, but it wouldn&#39;t be sarcasm. Seriously, do you have any idea what sarcasm is ? It would have been sarcasm if you said "Ya, you&#39;re a real RedStarist. If I call you a dickface that is not sarcasm, just an insult.

If you think I have a "numbed skull" because I understand what sarcasm is, then you&#39;re worse off than I thought.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 02:43 PM
You cannot admit something that isnt true, this particular group seem to be uneducated. It is worth pointing out that the CPGB &#39;admit&#39; Stalin was bad for communism, what say you on this?
The CPGB? You Trots have more in common with the CPGB. They are revisionists. Although they do have one or two Stalinist members simply because they are popular... relatively.

[elijahcraig]

Trotsky interests me, as all things relating to communism do.

Sarcasm? Yes I know what it is, Rubble, and my JOKE was sarcastic.

Trot was a Menshevik. Period.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Sep 19 2003, 05:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chairman Mao @ Sep 19 2003, 05:51 PM)
[email protected] 19 2003, 02:43 PM
You cannot admit something that isnt true, this particular group seem to be uneducated. It is worth pointing out that the CPGB &#39;admit&#39; Stalin was bad for communism, what say you on this?
The CPGB? You Trots have more in common with the CPGB. They are revisionists. Although they do have one or two Stalinist members simply because they are popular... relatively. [/b]
The CPGB are a joke. Their entire publication is dedicated to slagging the SWP. And what do you mean by popular? My understanding that their membership was about 50,000, with at least 1 percent of that number still alive. They probably do have a few Stalinists in their midst, no crazy sect can survive without a few.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 01:06 AM

The CPGB are a joke. Their entire publication is dedicated to slagging the SWP. And what do you mean by popular? My understanding that their membership was about 50,000, with at least 1 percent of that number still alive. They probably do have a few Stalinists in their midst, no crazy sect can survive without a few.
I might have to retract my statements if their entire publication is dedicated to &#39;slagging&#39; the SWP, unfortunately it is not. I heard their membership was at 10,000 now, I do not know however.

I know a couple of Stalinist members. Their views are hardly representative of the majority CPGB view though.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 20 2003, 04:28 PM

I might have to retract my statements if their entire publication is dedicated to &#39;slagging&#39; the SWP, unfortunately it is not.
Maybe their "entire publication" is an exaggeration but especially the week of Marxism, some of the stuff coming from the WW and CPGB leaflets were downright secterian. The SWP are the biggest far left party in the UK and they have about 8,000 members. I would judge the CPGB membershop at 3,000 tops.

[chamo]

He was a Menshevik for 15 years (you do know what that means right?), attacked Lenin the whole time. He later joined the revolution as a Bolshevik AS IT WAS HAPPENING&#33; IF that is not opportunism, then nothing is.

Trotsky became a Bolshevik after the February/March revolution, he worked very hard up to and including October/November. Notice how he shouted at Mensheviks "Go where you belong, to the dustbin of history" as they left the Second Congress of the Soviet.

And about opportunism, this is perhaps the fundamental most part of Marxist-Leninism and Lenin during the October revolution. Lenin was one of the most pragmatic leaders in history:

1) He was prepared to give up the "natural" evolution of Marx for his pursued revolution of Leninism.
2) He used the war as a weapon to attack the Provisional Government.
3) He used the economic situation to attack the Provisional Government.
4) He held onto the weapons given to the Petrograd Soviet and the Bolsheviks during the Kornilov revolt.
5) He struck at exactly the right time in October.
6) The phrase "Peace, Land and Bread" was created due to pragmatic reasons as the Russia people desperately wanted all three at the time.

There was a short lesson in history and the pragmatism of Marxism-Leninism, my question to you elijahcraig is this: Are you a Leninist, or are you a Menshevik or a Zinoviev/Kamenev counter-revolutionary type?

[Lardlad95]

Elijah, you are just like Lenin.

And by this i mean you put people into two categories, comrades and enemies.

Now being like Lenin can be an admirable quality...i mean I hold Lenin (for the most part) in the highest regard

However Lenin acted like everyone who wasn&#39;t with him was against, him, even if they differed slightly, even minutely.

This quality is less admirable, yes you should be able to tell your friends and enemies apart, but you put too many in that enemy category.

Of course this is just after viewing how you interact with different people on the forum.

Any second now I expect you to say

Elijah: Mr. Redstar is either a moron or an enemy...and we know he&#39;s not a moron

and then go off into a firey Leninesque speech in which you blast everyone by exxagerating small ideological differences that are irrelevant to the conversion of capitalism to socialism(to communism)

[elijahcraig]

I don’t feel like arguing about this anymore.

Did you get the link I sent you?

[Vinny Rafarino]

From 1903 to 1905 Trotsky was a Menshevik. Period. There is no disputing that fact. The proof has been posted for the people in this thread so many times on MULTIPLE forums it&#39;s amazing they will still deny the facts over and over again.

They are like children who will continue to deny stealing the lollipop in no matter what the evidence. Evidence means nothing to the pedomorphic and undeveloped mind.

I once had a mate who had a Great Dane that would hide his head behing the furniture when he was bad thinking that if he could not see us, we could not see him. The fact his entire enormous body was in plain sight made no difference to him. You&#39;ve been a very bad boy Bolshevik1917. Go hide your head behind the Lazy Boy.

[Scottish_Militant]

The &#39;Mensheviks&#39; were not even a party in 1903 - 1905, just a wing of the party, and as I&#39;ve shown the differences between the two at this point were minute. I also pointed out that at this time Plekhanov was a &#39;Bolshevik&#39; so that just about sums up your pathetic slandering.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 01:32 AM
I don’t feel like arguing about this anymore.

Did you get the link I sent you?
yes i did, thank you by the way.

And what I said about you being like Lenin was by no means an insult..persay. Simply an observation on how you two were similar in regards to other "leftists"

[Vinny Rafarino]

So by that absurd rational "bolshevik1917", if one developed a political doctrine and years later found that it coincided completely with marxism, would that mean that they were only a marxist from the point that name was given to it? Don&#39;t be an idiot.

Just because the name "menshevik" was applied to it later. Here is the definition of "Menshevik" from Marxist.org. A TROT organisation.

Menshevik Party


Meaning "minority" in Russian, the party was formed in 1903 from a split in the The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (R.S.D.L.P), which created the Bolsheviki and Mensheviki parties.

During the 1905-07 revolution the Mensheviks opposed the working class and peasantry who were in open revolt. They believed that Socialism should only be achieved firstly through a bourgeois revolution (via reformism); following this revolution, they felt the working class and peasantry would then be able to revolt against the bourgeois, and establish Socialism.

After the successful bourgeois revolution of February 1917, most Mensheviks joined the provisional government, though as a party they had no power. After the October Revolution the Mensheviks opposed the Soviet government, primarily through bureaucratic lobbying, though some members later joined the white armies.

Stop arguing about it kid and accept the facts.

[Scottish_Militant]

Selective debating, I shouldn&#39;t expect anymore from this turnip :rolleyes:

The Mensheviks did not split in 1903 despite what any &#39;trot&#39; website claims. Ive taken most of my facts from Lenin btw, you should read my posts.

"I would willingly respond to this appeal [i.e. for an agreement with the "Mensheviks"] for I by no means consider our differences so vital as to be a matter of life or death to the Party. We shall certainly not perish because of an unfortunate clause in the Rules&#33;”

The Mensheviks became independant in 1912, Trotsky was never a formal member, before then or after then, simple and factual.

[Urban Rubble]

I am almost positive that Trotsky was never a formal member. He may have been associated with them, even supportive and sympathetic, but I don&#39;t think he was a full member. Remember that memo from Stalin saying something to the effect of "figuring out how involved Trotsky was in the Mensheviks, and just how far left or right".

I don&#39;t know, it&#39;s pretty clear he was associated, but I don&#39;t think he was a member.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Comrade Rubble,

If you let your membership to a communist party expire, are you then no longer a communist?




The real question is this;

Are you ready for the sex girls, the fine, fine, super special real sex girls?




"Their action tonight demands an immediate retaliation. And, if we don&#39;t, we&#39;re nothing but the nerds they say we are" -Gilbert Lowe 1984


"All our lives, we&#39;ve been laughed at and made to feel inferior. Why? Because we&#39;re smart. Because we look different. Well... I&#39;m a nerd, and I&#39;m pretty proud of it.
No one&#39;s really gonna be free until nerd persecution ends" - Gilbert Lowe, 1984


Dudley "Booger" Dawson: "Did you get in her pants?"

Gilbert Lowe: "She&#39;s not that kind of a girl, Booger."

Dudley "Booger" Dawson: "Why, does she have a penis?"




Gilbert Lowe, nerd revolutionary.

[chamo]

And Stalin was in training to be a priest, so did he ever leave the priesthood?

And Lenin was a Social Democrat, as were all Bolsheviks and all Mensheviks. :gasp:

Yes, it is rhetorical, but fuck.

[Vinny Rafarino]

If stalin still proceeded to become a priest after being expelled from the seminary then yes, he still would be considered a "priest in training"

You realise this is a poor example right? It does not fit the scenario.

[chamo]

Yes, I know. I was fucked squire.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Squire?


Have you been worsipping the hack again without our knowledge?

[Urban Rubble]

Whatever RAF, I was more of a Louis Skullnick (or however the fuck you spell his name) fan.

And yes, I am ready for the sex girls, the fine, fine, super special real sex girls.

As for Trotsky, fuck him. I don&#39;t really care what he did. I&#39;m over it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I agree. The trot just aint to hot.


Do remember the name of that group that did that song in Revenge of the nerds...I can only remember that line too...The song was at the party scene right before Booger broke out the wonder joints....the prelude into Michael Jackson&#39;s thriller.


Man I dig that film.

[Urban Rubble]

I don&#39;t remember. If I watched it I&#39;d probably know.

That is seriously one of the funniest movies ever. I was really young when it came out, but I watch it all the time now.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I can&#39;t get that song out of my head now...I keep singing Are you ready for the sex girls...the fine fine super special real sex girls over and over again.


I&#39;m hittin the soundtrack sites man...this is driving me nutty
.

I struck gold...It&#39;s a band called "the gleaming spires"

Never heard of &#39;em.

[Hampton]

No one is ready for the sex girls.

Yeah (http://www.trouserpress.com/entry.php?a=gleaming_spires)

[Urban Rubble]

I take it back, I would NOT have known who they are.