Lets be real trotskyists

[727Goon]

Every criticism you have of stalin and mao could also be applied to the Bolsheviks. Suppression of workers democracy? Check. Dictatorship of the party rather than dictatorship of the proletariat? Check. Class colaborationism? Check. Stifling revolutionary groups that didn't adhere to the party line? Check. Secret police? Check. Concentration camps? Check. Sorry guys, you don't have a leg to stand on, Trotsky was just another politician like Stalin or Mao and when he was in power he followed the same course of action. If he had ever been in charge of Russia instead of Stalin he might not have been as brutal but ultimately he would enforce the same kind of state capitalism.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

You have to look at Stalin and Trotsky not as individuals but in their historical context and as embodiments of class forces. Okay, I know this sounds like goblegook-what I'mn saying is...Stalin represented the interests of the bureaucracy which took power over the workers after the defeat of the revolution in Germany and elsewhere and the fayal isolation of the SU. Trotsky represented some of the working class and the Old Bolsheviks, that is the original Bolshevik Party before Stalin packed it w/his ironically named "Lenin levy"

Having said this I do have questions on Trotsky's early activity, not Kronstadt, not the "militarization of labor" but things like suppressing Lenin's Last Testament, not breaking w/the Party earlier, etc/

I think a debate between Trotskyists and left coms would be a lot interesting than the usual Trot/Stalin slugfest.

[727Goon]

So basically what you're saying is that Trotsky represented the interested of the old bureaucracy while Stalin represented the interests of the new one.

Oh btw I'm not a left com I'm an anarchist-nationalist-libertarian-communist-something but yeah I agree with that.


Having said this I do have questions on Trotsky's early activity, not Kronstadt, not the "militarization of labor" but things like suppressing Lenin's Last Testament, not breaking w/the Party earlier, etc/

The answer is: he was a politician.
Just because it will come up sooner or later, why did Kronstadt need to be crushed? Which of the sailors demands do you think was so counterrevolutionary it was worth massacring them for? The right to form unions? To form soviets that represented the people? Freedom of speech and political freedom for leftists? The abolition of party guards in factories? I think that's the tip off that you might not be a workers state, when armed guards have to enforce the will of the ruling class on the workers and literally force them at gunpoint to go to work and not strike. What kind of workers democracy is that?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Trotsky had flaws and he made some mjor blunders but he repressented the revolutionary left against the bureaucracy

You ought to check out "Memoirs of a Revolutionist" by Victor Serge, an anarchist who joined the Bolsheviks anbd was an ally of Trotsky. Its a fascinating account of the early degeneration of the Revolution..

[727Goon]

Trotsky had flaws and he made some mjor blunders but he repressented the revolutionary left against the bureaucracy

What about when he was part of the bureaucracy? I mean of course he had flaws one of the good things about Trotskyists is that they dont have this quasi religious glorious leader approach to communism so you guys have that going for you.




You ought to check out "Memoirs of a Revolutionist" by Victor Serge, an anarchist who joined the Bolsheviks anbd was an ally of Trotsky. Its a fascinating account of the early degeneration of the Revolution..

Sounds interesting, but I don't know how an anarchist could have a favorable opinion of Trotsky since he was probably responsible for more anarchist deaths than even Stalin. Sounds like a good read though.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Let's be real, Mao-era China was off da chain.

[727Goon]

Nothin like some good old fashioned anti-intellectualism and homophobic laws.

http://memegenerator.net/instance/8435110

[MarxSchmarx]

I'm an anarchist-nationalist-libertarian-communist-something

http://lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg

whatever the hell else you are, no one is both a nationalist and an anarchist (or a communist for that matter)

[727Goon]

Black power and black nationalism are used pretty interchangably. I'm a black nationalist in that I believe in the emancipation and self determination of the black working class, but I dont believe in creating a nation state or anything. Regardless there is already like a 50 page thread on this full of idiots with no reading comprehension, please dont be like them.

edit: Someones also never heard of the Zapatistas

[Hiero]

You have to look at Stalin and Trotsky not as individuals but in their historical context and as embodiments of class forces. Okay, I know this sounds like goblegook-what I'mn saying is...Stalin represented the interests of the bureaucracy which took power over the workers after the defeat of the revolution in Germany and elsewhere and the fayal isolation of the SU. Trotsky represented some of the working class and the Old Bolsheviks, that is the original Bolshevik Party before Stalin packed it w/his ironically named "Lenin levy"


A bureaucracy is not a class or an independent entity. You make it sound like a bureacracy is an independent entity with independent interest, that Stalin represented "the bureaucracy" which had it's own interests. Bureaucracy's are created as aparty of the political super-structure. Stalin consolidated power of certian classes into a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies can go either way, Mao believed that the bureaucracy would come to represent reactionary classes and promote reforms in the socialists struggle.

That has been the problem I have always found with Trotskyist (at least from this website, I do not study in depth the Stalin-Trotsky conflict) that this bureaucracy is a figment. On they one hand you propose a Marxist analysis that things (people included) have material reality, class positions. Yet in the next step you link something in the superstructre (Stalin) to something again in the superstructure (bureaucracy). You don't make that connection to a concrete basis. And I am not sure if Trotsky does this.

It is fair to say Stalin consolidated a bureaucracy, rather then the he represented the bureaucracy. Stalin consolidated power in a bureaucracy that did things in regards to the economy that can be considered either socialist or reactionary on the side of class war (which is still reductionist).

[727Goon]

A bureaucracy is not a class or an independent entity. You make it sound like a bureacracy is an independent entity with independent interest, that Stalin represented "the bureaucracy" which had it's own interests. Bureaucracy's are created as aparty of the political super-structure. Stalin consolidated power of certian classes into a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies can go either way, Mao believed that the bureaucracy would come to represent reactionary classes and promote reforms in the socialists struggle.

That has been the problem I have always found with Trotskyist (at least from this website, I do not study in depth the Stalin-Trotsky conflict) that this bureaucracy is a figment. On they one hand you propose a Marxist analysis that things (people included) have material reality, class positions. Yet in the next step you link something in the superstructre (Stalin) to something again in the superstructure (bureaucracy). You don't make that connection to a concrete basis. And I am not sure if Trotsky does this.

It is fair to say Stalin consolidated a bureaucracy, rather then the he represented the bureaucracy. Stalin consolidated power in a bureaucracy that did things in regards to the economy that can be considered either socialist or reactionary on the side of class war (which is still reductionist).

thanks for your opinion and everything but this has nothing to do with the op. if you want to rehash the same old tired ass stalin-trotsky debate youve got like every other thread on here to do that. hell us elections are coming up pretty soon, that's probably a more relevant and interesting contest between bourgeois politicians if your into that kind of thing. basically gtfo.

[Hiero]

thanks for your opinion and everything but this has nothing to do with the op. if you want to rehash the same old tired ass stalin-trotsky debate youve got like every other thread on here to do that. hell us elections are coming up pretty soon, that's probably a more relevant and interesting contest between bourgeois politicians if your into that kind of thing. basically gtfo.

Well I think you believe that because of your lack of insight. You are the one who said "Trotsky is not better then Stalin". Well then people are going to start to distinguish between the two.

Secondly, I have not posted something from the Stalin-Trotksy debate. The Stalin Trotksy debate occured in the 20th century and continues you on this website by people who are Stalin/Trotksy and 20th centuary enthusiast. Thoose who either defend Stalin totally, for instance still propagating Stalinist lies, like the purges and trials were good revolutionary behaviour, collectivisation worked really well and thoose who state Stalin was capitalist.

If you read my post again you will see my point is about the nature of the bureaucracy, which leads into discussion on the uses of Marxist theory around political structures and classes.

Honestly, I don't know why people think they "own" threads on revleft. You don't own anything on a collective forum. If you start something and it goes beyond your own depth or intention you don't have the right to say stop. I don't know what your intention really is, the original post is vague and not very thought provoking. If you're a weird eclectic anarchist-nationalist-libertarian-communist-something, why would you even care about Trotsky, how in your daily activism does any opinion about Trotsky really matter?

[Revy]

Not being pedantic, but this shows the importance of punctuation. Your title makes it sound like you're asking people to become Trotskyists.:lol:

[727Goon]

Well I think you believe that because of your lack of insight. You are the one who said "Trotsky is not better then Stalin". Well then people are going to start to distinguish between the two.

Secondly, I have not posted something from the Stalin-Trotksy debate. The Stalin Trotksy debate occured in the 20th century and continues you on this website by people who are Stalin/Trotksy and 20th centuary enthusiast. Thoose who either defend Stalin totally, for instance still propagating Stalinist lies, like the purges and trials were good revolutionary behaviour, collectivisation worked really well and thoose who state Stalin was capitalist.

If you read my post again you will see my point is about the nature of the bureaucracy, which leads into discussion on the uses of Marxist theory around political structures and classes.

Your post had nothing to do with the hypocrisy of Trots criticizing Stalins bureaucracy while "upholding" the Bolshevik one that basically did the same shit they talk about Stalin doing just on a smaller scale.


Honestly, I don't know why people think they "own" threads on revleft. You don't own anything on a collective forum. If you start something and it goes beyond your own depth or intention you don't have the right to say stop. I don't know what your intention really is, the original post is vague and not very thought provoking.

Hey I'm sorry it's not a post about one of Mao's obscure policies or something, if you think it's vague than dont fucking post. I mean the op is actually really fucking straightforward, maybe if it was written in Maos terrible prose youd have a better time understanding it? Regardless talking about of topic shit in this thread is just dumb.


If you're a weird eclectic anarchist-nationalist-libertarian-communist-something, why would you even care about Trotsky, how in your daily activism does any opinion about Trotsky really matter?

What activism? Nigga I'm an armchair intellectual.

[727Goon]

Not being pedantic, but this shows the importance of punctuation. Your title makes it sound like you're asking people to become Trotskyists.:lol:

Punctuation is bourgeois.

[Hiero]

What activism? Nigga I'm an armchair intellectual.

You're hilarious.

[L.A.P.]

no one is both a nationalist and an anarchist (or a communist for that matter)

Ho Chi Minh
Huey P. Newton
James Connolly

[ZeroNowhere]

Not being pedantic, but this shows the importance of punctuation.Yes, I thought that this thread was going to be about splitting.

I was disappointed.

[Octavian]

1.Every criticism you have of stalin and mao could also be applied to the Bolsheviks. 2.Suppression of workers democracy? Check. Dictatorship of the party rather than dictatorship of the proletariat? Check. 3.Class colaborationism? Check. 4.Stifling revolutionary groups that didn't adhere to the party line? Check. 5.Secret police? Check. 6.Concentration camps? Check.
1. Sure, if you put it in a vacuum and take it out of context.
2. They were managing a Post-Revolutionary country that jumped from what was practically feudalism to socialism. They also had poor communication and organization making this almost impossible at the current time.
3. Could you provide an example?
4. Revolutionary groups that were acting in a counter-revolutionary manner.
5. The Cheka were set up to secure the revolution not to root out anyone who would stand against you if you were conforming to capitalism.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Bureaucracies can go either way, Mao believed that the bureaucracy would come to represent reactionary classes and promote reforms in the socialists struggle.

Isn't this contradictory? If bureaucracies are apolitical institutions which are a part of the superstructure of society, then why would they have an a priori (prior to their interaction with the world) tendency to represent one class over another?

[graymouser]

Trotsky believed his actions were justified because the Bolsheviks were defending the revolution. He had no illusion that, if only he could have run Russia in 1924, things would have been perfect on the domestic front. The Bolsheviks had no illusions about this, they were only trying to keep the workers' state alive as a beacon and rallying point for the world socialist revolution.

Before the adoption of "Socialism in One Country" the Comintern was unambiguously organizing to create the world revolution - which would have made the sacrifices and yes, substitutionism during a very difficult period of civil war all worthwhile. He would have put it all on the line for the world revolution, but lost out to maneuvering by the Stalinists. He stressed that this, not his personal approach to Russian domestic politics, was the key difference. Yet everyone trying to be "real" about Trotskyism totally overlooks this and plays the idiotic historic what-if game that the Stalinists used to justify their own brutality and repression.

[Queercommie Girl]

Every criticism you have of stalin and mao could also be applied to the Bolsheviks. Suppression of workers democracy? Check. Dictatorship of the party rather than dictatorship of the proletariat? Check. Class colaborationism? Check. Stifling revolutionary groups that didn't adhere to the party line? Check. Secret police? Check. Concentration camps? Check. Sorry guys, you don't have a leg to stand on, Trotsky was just another politician like Stalin or Mao and when he was in power he followed the same course of action. If he had ever been in charge of Russia instead of Stalin he might not have been as brutal but ultimately he would enforce the same kind of state capitalism.

I don't completely disagree with you, but then I'm a semi-Maoist who doesn't completely reject Stalinism, so...:lol:

For me, things like secret police and gulags aren't always bad, it depends on what they are used for, and how they are used...

Long live pan-Leninist solidarity! LOL

[ComradeMan]

I don't completely disagree with you, but then I'm a semi-Maoist who doesn't completely reject Stalinism, so...:lol:

For me, things like secret police and gulags aren't always bad, it depends on what they are used for, and how they are used...

Long live pan-Leninist solidarity! LOL

Secret police?
Gulags?
Not always bad.... :rolleyes:

I suppose it's a bit like that thread in which that nutcase was talking about deporting most of America etc....

If the left has to resort to things like secret police and gulags (again) then there is something seriously wrong.

[Blackscare]

Wait, OP is an anarchist-nationalist? lawl

[Queercommie Girl]

I suppose it's a bit like that thread in which that nutcase was talking about deporting most of America etc....


Nope, you are completely mistaken. It has nothing to do with it at all. His mistake was not in the method, but in the target - labelling working masses of the West as the "class enemy". This is something I mentioned already in that other thread in the members subforum.

Do you have a problem with using violent means against real class enemies and counter-revolutionaries?



If the left has to resort to things like secret police and gulags (again) then there is something seriously wrong.The original purpose of re-education centres is to reform genuine criminals in a civilised manner so that they can become good citizens again. It's actually a much more enlightened penal system than the bourgeois justice system which relies on a large number of executions and brutal prison conditions. It has nothing to do with the later degeneration under Stalinist bureaucratism.

BTW, didn't you thank Octavian's post which was defending Leninism earlier in this thread? That's essentially what I'm talking about here as well. Or are you just trying to annoy me?

[Queercommie Girl]

Isn't this contradictory? If bureaucracies are apolitical institutions which are a part of the superstructure of society, then why would they have an a priori (prior to their interaction with the world) tendency to represent one class over another?

Politics is always based on economics, or as Lenin puts it, politics is just concentrated economics.

There is simply no such thing as an "abstract political force". Every political force reflects the interests of a certain economic class in society due to wealth level and relation to the means of production.

[The Idler]

There's long been socialists critical of the Bolsheviks. A good example is the SPGB's pamphlet Russia 1917 to 1967
Russia 1917-67: A socialist analysis (1967) (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/etheory/Russia1917to67/index.html)

I hope you weren't restricted for criticising the Bolsheviks.

[Hiero]

Isn't this contradictory? If bureaucracies are apolitical institutions which are a part of the superstructure of society, then why would they have an a priori (prior to their interaction with the world) tendency to represent one class over another?

True, it is either my mistakes or Mao. I haven't read the revelant documents for a long time. Either bureaucracies are apolitical or not, however I still stand by that they are not classes as in the arguement presented by some Trotskyist on this website. I agree bureaucracies are bad, there is a level of alienation that develops a rift between the class whose power they stand on, which is created by the ongoing class struggle and the bureaucracies attempt to deal with that class struggle. Such as in the case of Stalin's purges and trials or even the capitalist bureaucracies attempts at the welfare state.

[Geiseric]

The differences between what Lenin and Stalin were forced to do are confined to how much power they believed was needed to rebuild after the hell of a civil war they just had. Lenin's actions after the war weren't part of orthodox leninist theory, they had to be done or else everything they fought for was for nothing. Hell, having the revolution in backwards russia at the start wasn't part of Leninist theory. What he did was to make sure that there was a stable russia to cope with the international counter revolution. If the sailors at kronstadt were honestly devoted to the cause of the revolution, they should have hunkered down and dealt with the temporary situation that was Leninist doctrine. Almost none of their demands were at the time attainable with the current conditions, the workers state needed more time to recuperate the country, and build the inftastructure and modernise the country's industry so that their demands are able to be met with success.

[RGacky3]

You have to look at Stalin and Trotsky not as individuals but in their historical context and as embodiments of class forces. Okay, I know this sounds like goblegook-what I'mn saying is...Stalin represented the interests of the bureaucracy which took power over the workers after the defeat of the revolution in Germany and elsewhere and the fayal isolation of the SU. Trotsky represented some of the working class and the Old Bolsheviks, that is the original Bolshevik Party before Stalin packed it w/his ironically named "Lenin levy"

Having said this I do have questions on Trotsky's early activity, not Kronstadt, not the "militarization of labor" but things like suppressing Lenin's Last Testament, not breaking w/the Party earlier, etc/

I think a debate between Trotskyists and left coms would be a lot interesting than the usual Trot/Stalin slugfest.


Look at specific policies and actions, vague psudo-marxist hogwash does'nt mean anything unless its combined with actual policies and actions and if these were either positive or negative.

[727Goon]

Trotsky believed his actions were justified because the Bolsheviks were defending the revolution. He had no illusion that, if only he could have run Russia in 1924, things would have been perfect on the domestic front. The Bolsheviks had no illusions about this, they were only trying to keep the workers' state alive as a beacon and rallying point for the world socialist revolution.

Before the adoption of "Socialism in One Country" the Comintern was unambiguously organizing to create the world revolution - which would have made the sacrifices and yes, substitutionism during a very difficult period of civil war all worthwhile. He would have put it all on the line for the world revolution, but lost out to maneuvering by the Stalinists. He stressed that this, not his personal approach to Russian domestic politics, was the key difference. Yet everyone trying to be "real" about Trotskyism totally overlooks this and plays the idiotic historic what-if game that the Stalinists used to justify their own brutality and repression.

Russia would have been perfect and a better beacon for world revolution if the workers had run the country, not some benevolent dictator. How is forcing workers to work at gunpoint and suppressing their political freedoms and right to strike defending a workers state? Seriously if any trot wants to go ahead and try and tell me how armed party guards forcing workers to work at gunpoint is representative of any sort of workers state be my guest.

[727Goon]

I hope you weren't restricted for criticising the Bolsheviks.

No, I was first restricted because of a misunderstanding on my position on Afghanistan and I'm still restricted because I'm an asshole and the mods don't like me.

[727Goon]

Wait, OP is an anarchist-nationalist? lawl

Good thing a nation isnt the same thing as a state or you might have an argument there.

[727Goon]

1. Sure, if you put it in a vacuum and take it out of context.
2. They were managing a Post-Revolutionary country that jumped from what was practically feudalism to socialism. They also had poor communication and organization making this almost impossible at the current time.
3. Could you provide an example?
4. Revolutionary groups that were acting in a counter-revolutionary manner.
5. The Cheka were set up to secure the revolution not to root out anyone who would stand against you if you were conforming to capitalism.

1) Actually the historical context (and excuses their fanboys make for the betrayal of the revolution) are very similar. Both were facing a war and had to defend party hegemony against both foreign reaction and actual working class progressive resistance.
2) They jumped from feudalism to capitalism, but nice try.
3) Actually maybe class colaborationism was the wrong term, since most of the Bolsheviks came from bourgie ass backgrounds and were simply defending their class interests. Although I guess since they made alliances with some factions of the working class you could call that class colaborationism.
4) Yeah nothing more counterrevolutionary that asking that armed party guards were removed from the factories and for workers to have the right to strike. Straight up reactionaries right there.
5) And good thing they were too, otherwise huge threats to the revolution like Bim Bom the clown would have been left unchecked. Next time try to use a different excuse than Stalinists use for the KGB.

[Octavian]

1) Actually the historical context (and excuses their fanboys make for the betrayal of the revolution) are very similar. Both were facing a war and had to defend party hegemony against both foreign reaction and actual working class progressive resistance.
2) They jumped from feudalism to capitalism, but nice try.
3) Actually maybe class colaborationism was the wrong term, since most of the Bolsheviks came from bourgie ass backgrounds and were simply defending their class interests. Although I guess since they made alliances with some factions of the working class you could call that class colaborationism.
4) Yeah nothing more counterrevolutionary that asking that armed party guards were removed from the factories and for workers to have the right to strike. Straight up reactionaries right there.
5) And good thing they were too, otherwise huge threats to the revolution like Bim Bom the clown would have been left unchecked. Next time try to use a different excuse than Stalinists use for the KGB.
1) The USSR didn't enter WWII until 1941 giving him 19 years to sort out the country
2) If they jumped to capitalism then they wouldn't have communalized everything
3) Of course they came from rich backgrounds because in Russia only people with money would have access to education. And only the educated would be able to manage a revolution when you have people that uneducated among the general population. Who's suggesting that some of them weren't in it for their class interests?(Like Stalin)
4) That is counter revolutionary considering you just had a revolution and the white army was still fighting and you're in the middle of a civil war
5) You do know they were still fighting a civil war and people were trying to assassinate Lenin?

[727Goon]

1) The USSR didn't enter WWII until 1941 giving him 19 years to sort out the country
2) If they jumped to capitalism then they wouldn't have communalized everything
3) Of course they came from rich backgrounds because in Russia only people with money would have access to education. And only the educated would be able to manage a revolution when you have people that uneducated among the general population. Who's suggesting that some of them weren't in it for their class interests?(Like Stalin)
4) That is counter revolutionary considering you just had a revolution and the white army was still fighting and you're in the middle of a civil war
5) You do know they were still fighting a civil war and people were trying to assassinate Lenin?

1) There was still considerable left wing resistance, although I'll give you trots that you guys didnt collaborate with fascists to I guess thats another point for you guys for what its worth. Although your attitude is pretty anti-socialist, that it's up to some dictator to "sort out" the country rather than the working class.
2) You and I must have different definitions of socialism. I mean I guess Isreal is socialist because they have kibbutzs and shit. Did the workers own the means of production? Judging from the fucking party guards that forced them to work at gunpoint, I'd say no.
3) It's not really a workers revolution if the workers themselves dont manage it. In fact I'd say that that's the main difference between real socialists and you, is that we don't believe in upper class managers.
4) Um actually most of the progressive resistance waited until after the Whites had been defeated to seriously oppose the government. Anyways I supposed you adhere to the neo con doctrine that criticising your country during war is treason?
5) Like Bim Bom the fucking clown am I right? And since he was an upper class dictator I'd imagine a lot of working people werent too satisfied with him, especially after he crushed both bourgeois and soviet democracy in favor of Bolshevik hegemony after promising to bring about socialism.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Black power and black nationalism are used pretty interchangably. I'm a black nationalist in that I believe in the emancipation and self determination of the black working class, but I dont believe in creating a nation state or anything. Regardless there is already like a 50 page thread on this full of idiots with no reading comprehension, please dont be like them.

edit: Someones also never heard of the Zapatistas

Actually Trotsky had an interesting discussion of black nationalism with CLR James and US Trotskyists when he was in Mexico City. Trotsky advocated not black nationalism but a seperate struggle for black people in America., CLR James and the others interestingly argued the "orthodox Trotskyist" view against Trotsky.Trotsky also said the struggle of African-Americans would play a leading role for other struggles in the US and that's exactly what happened in the 1960s.

Trotsky was wrong about a view things in this discussion but his overall direction was interesting.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1940/negro1.htm

[727Goon]

Actually Trotsky had an interesting discussion of black nationalism with CLR James and US Trotskyists when he was in Mexico City. Trotsky advocated not black nationalism but a seperate struggle for black people in America., CLR James and the others interestingly argued the "orthodox Trotskyist" view against Trotsky.Trotsky also said the struggle of African-Americans would play a leading role for other struggles in the US and that's exactly what happened in the 1960s.

Trotsky was wrong about a view things in this discussion but his overall direction was interesting.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1940/negro1.htm

I mean for a Leninist his politics werent half bad, but his actions were pretty hypocritical for someone who is ostensibly trying to create a workers democracy. When it comes down to it I'm pretty suspicious of groups that describe their views as "guys name"-ism, the only people I've seen do that are Marxists and religious people.

[Octavian]

1) There was still considerable left wing resistance, although I'll give you trots that you guys didnt collaborate with fascists to I guess thats another point for you guys for what its worth. Although your attitude is pretty anti-socialist, that it's up to some dictator to "sort out" the country rather than the working class.
2) You and I must have different definitions of socialism. I mean I guess Isreal is socialist because they have kibbutzs and shit. Did the workers own the means of production? Judging from the fucking party guards that forced them to work at gunpoint, I'd say no.
3) It's not really a workers revolution if the workers themselves dont manage it. In fact I'd say that that's the main difference between real socialists and you, is that we don't believe in upper class managers.
4) Um actually most of the progressive resistance waited until after the Whites had been defeated to seriously oppose the government. Anyways I supposed you adhere to the neo con doctrine that criticising your country during war is treason?
5) Like Bim Bom the fucking clown am I right? And since he was an upper class dictator I'd imagine a lot of working people werent too satisfied with him, especially after he crushed both bourgeois and soviet democracy in favor of Bolshevik hegemony after promising to bring about socialism.
1) How can the working class organize themselves if they aren't mentally capable
2) The workers did own means of production but it isn't much use to them if they don't know how to organize. Who says they were forcing them?
3)I don't advocate upper class managers but in the case of a country like post-revolutionary Russia it was advantages because the workers had been under serfdom for so long that they almost couldn't function with out someone to guide them. But hey, what ever makes you feel better real socialist
4) The Russian civil war ended around 1923 and Lenin died the following year. So they would have gone up against Stalin's government.
5) If people weren't satisfied with him why would they follow him?

[727Goon]

1) How can the working class organize themselves if they aren't mentally capable
2) The workers did own means of production but it isn't much use to them if they don't know how to organize. Who says they were forcing them?
3)I don't advocate upper class managers but in the case of a country like post-revolutionary Russia it was advantages because the workers had been under serfdom for so long that they almost couldn't function with out someone to guide them. But hey, what ever makes you feel better real socialist
4) The Russian civil war ended around 1923 and Lenin died the following year. So they would have gone up against Stalin's government.
5) If people weren't satisfied with him why would they follow him?

1) Hey guess what not having an education doesnt mean you're mentally retarded. It's called a working class revolution, not an intelligensia revolution. "Our comrades had not read Marx and were scarcely familiar with all of Proudhon's theories, but common sense was their guide." And motherfucker I'm a high school dropout, are you saying I'm mentally incapable to take part in a revolution? Shit, tell that to Huey P Newton the man was illiterate until he went to college.
2) Some more condescending bullshit. Uh the facts tell us that they werent allowed to organize because they were forced to work at gunpoint.
3) Basically your politics are based on condescending anti-working class bullshit. Is this the position all trots take?
4) The kronstadt sailors both fought against the Whites and the Bolsheviks as did the Ukrainian anarchists.
5) If he had so much popular approval why was a secret police apparatus necessary to protect him from his own people?

[Octavian]

1) Hey guess what not having an education doesnt mean you're mentally retarded. It's called a working class revolution, not an intelligensia revolution. "Our comrades had not read Marx and were scarcely familiar with all of Proudhon's theories, but common sense was their guide." And motherfucker I'm a high school dropout, are you saying I'm mentally incapable to take part in a revolution? Shit, tell that to Huey P Newton the man was illiterate until he went to college.
2) Some more condescending bullshit. Uh the facts tell us that they werent allowed to organize because they were forced to work at gunpoint.
3) Basically your politics are based on condescending anti-working class bullshit. Is this the position all trots take?
4) The kronstadt sailors both fought against the Whites and the Bolsheviks as did the Ukrainian anarchists.
5) If he had so much popular approval why was a secret police apparatus necessary to protect him from his own people?
1) I'm not saying it makes you retarded. But you have to understand how far down these people were. They had been practically slaves there whole lives and never known freedom where as you and I have. So it would be a lot easier for us to organize a workers revolution here because we have better level of communication and a better of standard of living/education.
2) What facts and if they were why were they forced to work.
3) I'm not a Trotskyist nor anti-working class. I'm simply laying out for you why the Bolsheviks took the actions they did.
4) I'm well aware and they were both counter revolutionary against spreading socialism.
5) Oh I don't know, why do they both having a special agency protecting any political leader. I mean it's not like anybody has ever assassinated the president of USA OH wait...

[727Goon]

1) I'm not saying it makes you retarded. But you have to understand how far down these people were. They had been practically slaves there whole lives and never known freedom where as you and I have. So it would be a lot easier for us to organize a workers revolution here because we have better level of communication and a better of standard of living/education.
2) What facts and if they were why were they forced to work.
3) I'm not a Trotskyist nor anti-working class. I'm simply laying out for you why the Bolsheviks took the actions they did.
4) I'm well aware and they were both counter revolutionary against spreading socialism.
5) Oh I don't know, why do they both having a special agency protecting any political leader. I mean it's not like anybody has ever assassinated the president of USA OH wait...

Look dude obviously we have very different ideas of socialism. As we saw during the Spanish revolution you don't need a college degree to pull off a revolution. Hell, most of them were illiterate but they would have succeeded had they not been crushed by the Stalinists. Obviously you see socialism as something that the working class cant achieve on their own judging from how you defend the Bolsheviks. And the fact is, workers were forced to work at gunpoint, and to be honest with you I can't think of anything more anti-socialist than that. Why were they forced to work? Because if they struck they would have posed a threat to Bolshevik party hegemony. The left wing opposition was not "counterrevolutionary against spreading socialism" whatever that means, they fought the whites alongside the Bolsheviks and also fought the Bolsheviks to preserve soviet power. And you're right, all bourgeois states have an apparatus to protect their leaders against their people, but your making a pretty shitty case for it being a workers state.

edit: i thought left coms were supposed to be to the left of lenin

[Octavian]

My position is left of Lenin but I sympathize somewhat with the Bolsheviks prior to Stalin. Most of the Anarchists and socialists in the Spanish civil war were a lot more educated and better off than Tsarist Russia serfs. "counterrevolutionary against spreading socialism" This refers to, since you are attacking Trotskyists that Trotsky thought socialism should be a world wide phenomena thus the anarchists groups would have been counter revolutionary.

[Franz Fanonipants]

this thread is objectively terrible and we should all be

tl;dr - http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/41787_214277156210_9019_n.jpg

[JerryBiscoTrey]

no one is both a nationalist and an anarchist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_anarchism

:D

[Steve_j]

This thread fails because it refuses to acknowledge the fundamental difference between Trotsky and stalin, mao and co.

An ice pick :laugh: