What am i? Communist,Trotzkyst,Marxist?

[rolfwar]

as i say in the title,i am not sure of what my "label" is.
I do believe in Marxism,and therefore i am a marxist,as the best way to build a better world,without discrimination nor oppression.
I reject the label of Stalinist,because i think that Stalin was unable to stick to the marxist ideology and that he did a lot of harm to Socialism,and therefore increasing the power of antisocialists,capitalists,fascists and imperialists.
I do have something in common with Trotzkysm,like the Theory of the Global Revolution,but i accept the Building of the Socialism Theory aswell!
Shall i just define myself as a communist,or what else?

[Q]

First off: Welcome to the forum.

Second, don't worry yourself too much with labels. Educate yourself first and foremost, don't be afraid to ask and develop your own ideas by debating with others. Characteristics such as thinking for yourself are necessary for any communist and working class leader. Defining yourself too much with a "label" constrains your horizon, closes your mind and makes communist politics into dogma. So "question everything", as Marx already advised.

As a response to the points you make:
- Marxism is not a religion, but a scientific method. It is really the science of social change. Therefore no faith is required, but instead the thoroughest critical mind.
- The problem with Stalinism is not that Stalin "deviated from the path" or any such thing. Actually, the Stalinists themselves follow such a logic, whereas everyone after Stalin is a "revisionist". This is a non-Marxist analysis however. Stalinism, the specific counterrevolutionary expression of 1917, was a result of several historic factors, crucially I think the isolation of the 1917 revolution into Russia, something that would today be classified as a third world country. Other then that, I agree that Stalinism and its legacy has seriously weakened the far left, both politically and organisationally.
- Trotsky proposed a theory of Permanent Revolution, but the basic conclusions of this (international revolution, even and uneven development, etc) were pretty broadly shared up until 1924.
- What is this "building of socialism" theory you speak about? If you're referring to "socialism in one country" (that was proposed by Stalin in 1924), then there are some serious issues with it. In fact, it formed a theoretical justification of the counterrevolution.

I hope it helped to trigger some crystallisation of your thinking and look forward to your responses :)

[Caj]

Don't worry about branding yourself with an "ism". Remember that the best ism is skepticism. If you someday begin to identify with a certain tendency, subscribe to that tendency, but don't ask others how you should define yourself. Besides, most of the tendencies revolve around furiously masturbating to some dead, forgotten revolutionary anyway.

And welcome to the forum.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I agree with the others not to worry about labels. Decide your own politics for yourself, see which theories line up with them most, and then say you are somewhat that.

For example, I would claim I am a council communist, but I have Marxist-Deleonist tendencies as well. I have views that are shared by neither ideology, but to describe my beliefs to people I have found that these are the closest ones I agree with.

Also, remember that there is more than just Stalinism or Trotskyism.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Well, welcome! Before you attempt to label yourself or even start reading other stuff on this website, I would suggest reading the works of Marxist thinkers and leaders first. It is always best to start with the originals before you begin reading the critiques or opinions of said originals on this website. We can get pretty biased here, especially against Marxism-Leninism. For example, do not come here to learn about Stalin. Read his books first before you read the opinions on him. If you have any questions, do not feel ashamed to ask anyone that might be of knowledge. But as I said before, it is best to rely on the originals at first. They are your basics and you need them before you add anything else to your edifice of Marxism.

[Rooster]

I don't understand this preoccupation with identifying with certain leaders of communist movements. I don't think it's healthy. Sometimes, you need to step back a little and try to get some perspective on things. If you're new to communism then there's plenty of Marx to go through (and plenty of Engels) before hand. I think it might be worth reading some modern Marxists such as David Harvey and Paresh Chattopadhyay though.

[l'Enfermé]

First off: Welcome to the forum.

Second, don't worry yourself too much with labels. Educate yourself first and foremost, don't be afraid to ask and develop your own ideas by debating with others. Characteristics such as thinking for yourself are necessary for any communist and working class leader. Defining yourself too much with a "label" constrains your horizon, closes your mind and makes communist politics into dogma. So "question everything", as Marx already advised.

As a response to the points you make:
- Marxism is not a religion, but a scientific method. It is really the science of social change. Therefore no faith is required, but instead the thoroughest critical mind.
- The problem with Stalinism is not that Stalin "deviated from the path" or any such thing. Actually, the Stalinists themselves follow such a logic, whereas everyone after Stalin is a "revisionist". This is a non-Marxist analysis however. Stalinism, the specific counterrevolutionary expression of 1917, was a result of several historic factors, crucially I think the isolation of the 1917 revolution into Russia, something that would today be classified as a third world country. Other then that, I agree that Stalinism and its legacy has seriously weakened the far left, both politically and organisationally.
- Trotsky proposed a theory of Permanent Revolution, but the basic conclusions of this (international revolution, even and uneven development, etc) were pretty broadly shared up until 1924.
- What is this "building of socialism" theory you speak about? If you're referring to "socialism in one country" (that was proposed by Stalin in 1924), then there are some serious issues with it. In fact, it formed a theoretical justification of the counterrevolution.

I hope it helped to trigger some crystallisation of your thinking and look forward to your responses :)
Exactly this.

[rolfwar]

First off: Welcome to the forum.


- What is this "building of socialism" theory you speak about?

I think that building of socialism comes right after the "socialism in one state",it means that the first country which became socialist should help revolutionaries and communists all over the world .

I have been "communist" for 3 years now,but i have never really read anything so umm.....is it too much if i ask anyone to MP me some easily-findable books?

anyway thank you all for the welcome!

[Q]

I think that building of socialism comes right after the "socialism in one state",it means that the first country which became socialist should help revolutionaries and communists all over the world .

I have been "communist" for 3 years now,but i have never really read anything so umm.....is it too much if i ask anyone to MP me some easily-findable books?

anyway thank you all for the welcome!

Depends on what you want to read really. Some startup suggestions:
Basic Marxist programmatic thinking:
- The Communist Manifesto (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm).
- Critique of the Gotha Program (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm).
The Erfurt foundation:
- The Erfurt Program (http://marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/1891/erfurt-program.htm).
- The Class Struggle (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/index.htm) (Commentary on the Erfurt Program).
- A Critique of the Draft of the Erfurt Program (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891/06/29.htm).
And on a more contemporary note:
- Revolutionary Strategy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=205) (read a review here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1001677), click here if you want a more readable PDF copy or perhaps a hardcopy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-strategy-marxism-t168571/index.html)).
- Against Keynesian politics (http://vimeo.com/36874394), a critique against the "common sense" of the contemporary far left.
About being human:
- The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/)
- In what way is Engels' Origins still valid today? (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004710) (If you prefer a video, click here (http://vimeo.com/30016524)).
- Origins of religion and the human revolution - Part 1 (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1002142) and Part 2 (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1002151).
- When all the crap began - Part 1 (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004288) and Part 2 (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004297).
- On matriarchy and primitive communism (http://vimeo.com/29767554) (video)
- Primitive communism and the matriarchal family: are they Marxist myths? (http://vimeo.com/15023785) (video)
- Radical Anthropology Group (http://www.radicalanthropologygroup.org/new/RAG.html)
On economy:
- Wage labour & Capital (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm).
- Value, price and profit (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm).
- The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1903/economic/index.htm) (while I haven't read them yet, they are reportedly more easy to follow than Capital volume I (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm), volume II (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/index.htm) and volume III (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/index.htm)).
- Problems with Marx's labour theory of value (http://vimeo.com/35878144) (video)
- The role of power and money (http://vimeo.com/36009350) (video)
- Where is the capitalist crisis going? (videos) Part 1 (http://vimeo.com/29272377) and Part 2 (http://vimeo.com/29327821).
On the state:
- A lecture of Werner Bonefeld on the political nature of the capitalist state (http://vimeo.com/36451059) (video)
- The state and revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/)
On the Soviet Union:
- The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm).
- What about Russia? Theories of the Soviet Union (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russiai-theories-soviet-t168685/index.html) (video and discussion).
On Marxism as a science:
- Marxism and science (http://vimeo.com/15032076) (video)
- On democracy (http://vimeo.com/12209953) (video)
- Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm)
- My own comments about "gaining true knowledge" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1464).

While this is my own take on a "startup", I hope this is a good start and of course there is many more to learn. Always keep your mind open and question everything, because if things stay unquestioned, they become stale dogma :)

[daft punk]

Just read some basic Trotsky, eg

In Defence of October - a short speech to students explaining the revolution

Platform of the Opposition (at least the Intro)

read some bits from Revolution Betrayed
or
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1935/02/ws-therm-bon.htm

also Communist Manifesto obviously.

I also rate Lenin's 1922 speech to congress as a crucial text.

For current stuff go to Socialist World, link in my sig.

you can google all that easliy


For Socialism In One Country see the thread I did
http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-one-country-t168025/index.html?t=168025

[rolfwar]

thank you all!

[The Idler]

Work out your tendency then whittle it down to more specific.

[ColonelCossack]

Just read some basic Trotsky, eg

In Defence of October - a short speech to students explaining the revolution

Platform of the Opposition (at least the Intro)

read some bits from Revolution Betrayed
or
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1935/02/ws-therm-bon.htm

also Communist Manifesto obviously.

I also rate Lenin's 1922 speech to congress as a crucial text.

For current stuff go to Socialist World, link in my sig.

you can google all that easliy


For Socialism In One Country see the thread I did
http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-one-country-t168025/index.html?t=168025

you forgot the other tendencies.

[Rafiq]

You can't discover what you "are", you develop what you are. So for now, I'd say you aren't anything, you're a learner. Which is good. It's just if you rely too much on people on the Internet, you'll be harshly demoralised outside of it.

[Rafiq]

Work out your tendency then whittle it down to more specific.

Awful suggestion. Tendency's aren't important to the slightest, they're chosen by Newcomers on the basis of what's the most shiny and what's the most "good sounding". Perhaps why it isn't a coincidence that you'd be the one to suggest this, after all, Chomskyanism is Neo Menshevism.

[Ostrinski]

I forgot who said it, but about a year ago someone made the comparison between revleft tendencies and prison gangs. Newcomers join one so that if they say something really dumb, someone from their tendency/gang will come in to back them up.

Anyway yeah tendencies are awful

[Lanky Wanker]

I'd say you were probably a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Trotskyist-Stalinist-Hoxhaist-Kropotkonist-Ultra-Left-Wing-Socialist-Libertarian-Left-Right-Up-Down-Chomskyist-Engelsist-Almostbutnotquite-Anarchist communist.

I'm not too good with tendencies though so someone correct me if I'm wrong.



But seriously, as everyone else has said, don't bother with tendencies. The idea is supposed to be that upon reading a bunch of works by whoever, you get a hardon and suddenly realise which writer you can associate with the most. However, due to the obsession people seem to have with creating new tendencies and putting cool names together and adding adjectives and colours before 'Marx', 'Lenin' etc., people feel the need to identify with a tendency as soon as they realise communism isn't evil. Heck, I even called myself an anarcho-communist at first just because it sounded cool and the flag colours look sexy. Just remember: non-tendency is the new tendency.

[The Idler]

Yeah, I know there are spectrum and tendency-haters, but it avoids the phenomenon of people calling themselves Hoxhaists one week becoming Insurrectionary Anarchists the next, then Guevarists the following week (maybe they just got a Che shirt or did the Spanish Civil War in History Class). If anything, figuring out your tendency, makes you less tribal than just reading your first book State and Revolution then calling yourself a Leninist.
To state the obvious, there are fewer tendencies than ideologies so it should take less time to compare the differences between Anarchism and Marxism than between Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho-Communism for example.

P.S. I loled at your "tendencies aren't important ... [but] Chomskyanism is Neo-Menshevism"

[Brosip Tito]

You are the only person who can figure out what you are. You have to read as much as you can, and ask as many questions as possible. Learning is key!

I would suggest starting off with Marx and Engels, and reading everything you can. From there, move on to Lenin and Luxemburg. From there, try Trotsky and maybe Bordiga. Whatever you choose to read, be critical, and ask questions.

Don't just read their works, read about them!

You may, after study, agree mostly with Trotsky and identify as a Trotskyist, or identify with Luxemburg and call yourself a Luxemburgist. However, you may end up like me, and have no tendency (of your own choice. Others may label you something).

[daft punk]

you forgot the other tendencies.

No, I left them out deliberately. The Stalinists dont count as they are worse than useless, an anti-socialist ideology.

Left coms in theory I can take semi-seriously, but most of the ones on here are appalling, even worse than the Stalinists in their blind repetition of slogans they dont understand and wont discuss seriously.

[Art Vandelay]

No, I left them out deliberately. The Stalinists dont count as they are worse than useless, an anti-socialist ideology.

Left coms in theory I can take semi-seriously, but most of the ones on here are appalling, even worse than the Stalinists in their blind repetition of slogans they dont understand and wont discuss seriously.

Honestly man I think you just need to ignore the stalinists. Most of them on here are high school kids who just think its cool and alot of them eventually move on from m-l to more serious ideologies. It seems every thread you post on eventually delves back into the same old arguments. That horse is dead man.

Plus this is the internet, who gives a fuck what some tosser says? All the debates which rage on this forum are completely irrelevant to the actual world or bringing about communism (thank god for that).

[Ostrinski]

No, I left them out deliberately. The Stalinists dont count as they are worse than useless, an anti-socialist ideology.

Left coms in theory I can take semi-seriously, but most of the ones on here are appalling, even worse than the Stalinists in their blind repetition of slogans they dont understand and wont discuss seriously.Don't worry, no one takes you seriously either.

[Omsk]

You are very arrogant Brospierre.

[Ostrinski]

You are very arrogant Brospierre.Aren't we all, to a degree? To be a radical is to be audacious, and there is a fine line between audacity and arrogance.

[Omsk]

Aren't we all, to a degree? To be a radical is to be audacious, and there is a fine line between audacity and arrogance.


Arrogance is pointless without excellence.

[Ostrinski]

Arrogance is pointless without excellence.im gd amazing

[Brosip Tito]

Don't forget to read Luxemburg. Right of Left Comms, and left of Lenin.

[Ostrinski]

How is she right of leftcoms? She believed in the mass strike. She also died before left communism became a visible force.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Honestly man I think you just need to ignore the stalinists. Most of them on here are high school kids who just think its cool and alot of them eventually move on from m-l to more serious ideologies. It seems every thread you post on eventually delves back into the same old arguments. That horse is dead man.

Plus this is the internet, who gives a fuck what some tosser says? All the debates which rage on this forum are completely irrelevant to the actual world or bringing about communism (thank god for that).

That's cool, but what the fuck does your stupidity have to do with the OP's question? This is where the hate on RevLeft comes from: from ultra-leftists like you that make stupid comments. I may be an asshole against ultra-leftists like you, but you guys are the true instigators. I should compose a list of all the comments you guys make to start shit. It would be long, trust me.

[Rooster]

That's cool, but what the fuck does your stupidity have to do with the OP's question? This is where the hate on RevLeft comes from: from ultra-leftists like you that make stupid comments. I may be an asshole against ultra-leftists like you, but you guys are the true instigators. I should compose a list of all the comments you guys make to start shit. It would be long, trust me.

So it's fine for mls to say that people are stupid but not anyone else?

[Ostrinski]

It is not our job to take into consideration the feelings of those that we don't consider allies.

[Ted Lawrence]

To be honest, most of what I've seen on here in the way of sectarian fighting has been between Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists. Sorry, for butting in. That's just what I've noticed the most, and maybe it's just a recent thing and all the Left Comm's were fighting with the Leninists non-stop before I arrived. Not trying to make any enemies here, by saying this. I'm just pointing it out.

[Caj]

I should compose a list of all the comments you guys make to start shit. It would be long, trust me.

No one is stopping you, and I'm sure we'd all be thrilled to see it once you're done. Frankly, it would probably be a better use of your time than calling "ultra-leftists" "stupid" and then crying about how persecuted M-Ls are by the Trotskyite-capitalist-ultra-leftist conspiracy.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

No one is stopping you, and I'm sure we'd all be thrilled to see it once you're done. Frankly, it would probably be a better use of your time than calling "ultra-leftists" "stupid" and then crying about how persecuted M-Ls are by the Trotskyite-capitalist-ultra-leftist conspiracy.

Quote one time that I called ultra leftists stupid. In my previous post, I called an individual's actions "stupidity" and talked about stupid comments, not "stupid ultra-leftists." You guys are not stupid and I honestly believe that, but you do start shit that I end up getting involved in.

[Yazman]

Comrade Commistar, I've just about had it with people fucking flaming other users. Don't do it! It's not allowed, and I don't want to see you doing it again. One more time and you're getting an infraction.

This post constitutes a warning to Comrade Commistar.

[Ostrinski]

To be honest, most of what I've seen on here in the way of sectarian fighting has been between Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists. Sorry, for butting in. That's just what I've noticed the most, and maybe it's just a recent thing and all the Left Comm's were fighting with the Leninists non-stop before I arrived. Not trying to make any enemies here, by saying this. I'm just pointing it out.That's the essence of revleft, quite unfortunately. Those of us that exist within the twentieth century must pay the price for those that haven't.

[∞]

Whats your stance on proletarian ownership of equestrian forms of transportation?

You might be an ∞ist.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Comrade Commistar, I've just about had it with people fucking flaming other users. Don't do it! It's not allowed, and I don't want to see you doing it again. One more time and you're getting an infraction.

This post constitutes a warning to Comrade Commistar.

Stop picking and choosing who to threaten. Did you even read 9mm's post, or did you just not care because you agreed. He literally said that Marxist-Leninists are just high schoolers who need to be ignored. That, Mr.Mod, is flaming.

[daft punk]

To be honest, most of what I've seen on here in the way of sectarian fighting has been between Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists. Sorry, for butting in. That's just what I've noticed the most, and maybe it's just a recent thing and all the Left Comm's were fighting with the Leninists non-stop before I arrived. Not trying to make any enemies here, by saying this. I'm just pointing it out.

It is not sectarian, it is socialism against anti-socialism. Stalinism evolved into outright anti-socialism in the 1930s. It also evolved some very dangerous ideas. It is fake socialism and that is the worst kind of anti-socialism. For instance on the PSL thread I was writing about Iran, and the role of the Stalinists in bringing Iran to be where it is today. Their motto is 'say no to revolution'.

Sectarian is when you divide the workers unnecessarily. Well Trots generally support workers struggles and revolutions. But the goal of Stalinism was to make sure no revolutions happened. So it was not so much sectarian as counter-revolutionary. The Stalinists were sectarian in Germany when they had the theory of social fascism in the Third period, allowing the Nazis to take power. Their views in the Third Period were different from before 1928 and after 1934.


Honestly man I think you just need to ignore the stalinists. Most of them on here are high school kids who just think its cool and alot of them eventually move on from m-l to more serious ideologies. It seems every thread you post on eventually delves back into the same old arguments. That horse is dead man.

Plus this is the internet, who gives a fuck what some tosser says? All the debates which rage on this forum are completely irrelevant to the actual world or bringing about communism (thank god for that).

Well, I like history. And I am old, so not so much involved in current stuff. Plus, the crisis of the working class has always been leadership, and Stalinist ideas have always been part of the problem not the solution.

It is possible to work with some Stalinists on the ground, in trade union activity, even electoral alliances. Depends how hard core they are I guess. Anyway, revleft may be a waste of time but posting the truth to oppose falsehoods is never a complete waste. Even if I just stop one youth going down the wrong road that would be something.

The lessons are still important, the same situations still crop up.

[ColonelCossack]

No, I left them out deliberately. The Stalinists dont count as they are worse than useless, an anti-socialist ideology.

Left coms in theory I can take semi-seriously, but most of the ones on here are appalling, even worse than the Stalinists in their blind repetition of slogans they dont understand and wont discuss seriously.

But then you're not being balanced are you


The OP wanted some balanced sources.

[ColonelCossack]

Honestly man I think you just need to ignore the stalinists. Most of them on here are high school kids

I hope you're not being ageist.

[daft punk]

Of course I am not balanced. I promote Trotskyism. Why would I want to balance that in any way? Does everything always have to be balanced? Do serial killers deserve the same treatment as the families of their victims? I favour promoting Marxism, and I see Stalinism as a dangerous fake-Marxism. I say what I see. In 30 years no Stalinist has ever convinced me otherwise. They churn out the same arguments over and over, and when I put up a thread on the Moscow Trials or China you cant see them for dust. Not one reply. I have had long debates with one or two older Stalinists on other forums, but they never produce anything of substance. They always duck the key issues.

[dodger]

Of course I am not balanced. I promote Trotskyism. Why would I want to balance that in any way? Does everything always have to be balanced? Do serial killers deserve the same treatment as the families of their victims? I favour promoting Marxism, and I see Stalinism as a dangerous fake-Marxism. I say what I see. In 30 years no Stalinist has ever convinced me otherwise. They churn out the same arguments over and over, and when I put up a thread on the Moscow Trials or China you cant see them for dust. Not one reply. I have had long debates with one or two older Stalinists on other forums, but they never produce anything of substance. They always duck the key issues.

daft punk......serial killers! I've met them too....worked in various unions and workplaces. Good heaven one of them is a near neighbour. She even called asking for a cutting from my fig tree. Sold me a subscription to her party magazine. It seems I had a narrow escape..........

[daft punk]

any serial killers should be reported to the police

[Kyu Six]

Well Trots generally support workers struggles and revolutions. But the goal of Stalinism was to make sure no revolutions happened. So it was not so much sectarian as counter-revolutionary.

You're completely ignoring Eastern Europe. And Trots support seems to end when it's a personal beef with Stalin. Way to go trying to sabotage the Soviet Union!

[Lanky Wanker]

I hope you're not being ageist.

Ageism! :scared:

[Grenzer]

Of course I am not balanced. I promote Trotskyism. Why would I want to balance that in any way? Does everything always have to be balanced? Do serial killers deserve the same treatment as the families of their victims? I favour promoting Marxism, and I see Stalinism as a dangerous fake-Marxism. I say what I see. In 30 years no Stalinist has ever convinced me otherwise. They churn out the same arguments over and over, and when I put up a thread on the Moscow Trials or China you cant see them for dust. Not one reply. I have had long debates with one or two older Stalinists on other forums, but they never produce anything of substance. They always duck the key issues.

Few problems with this.

First of all, what the hell is your problem with suggesting that people investigate things on their own and come to their own conclusion? We all have our own political views, but I don't see what good can come of just saying "here, this is the only true path!" and foisting it on someone who really has no idea what the fuck is going on. The most sensible suggestion is to put out a list of basic materials by Marx and Engels, and suggest the person observe before leaping into a tendency.

Secondly, you don't so much "promote" Trotskyism as just spam the party line with little to no elaboration. Again, you should try to make your own analysis and describe things in your own word; if people wanted the official opinion of the CWI, they could find it quite easily themselves. When you're even pissing off your fellow Trotskyists like Kassad, you know it's a problem with your presentation.

Thirdly, why obsess about the Moscow Trials? It's all well and good to talk about the bankruptcy of the Stalinist regimes in these regards and establish the lack of revolutionary cred Stalinism has if it comes up in a conversation, but why focus on it? The basis for demolishing Stalinism should not be the fact that Stalin was a bourgeois scumbug, or even that the Soviet Union was a shit hole where the value of human life was worth even less than a rotten cabbage; but that it wasn't socialist or on the road to socialism. This last point is all that should really matter to Marxists. To do otherwise seems to be making more of an emotional appeal than anything else, which is exactly what you do most of the time.

Ted, unfortunately most of the users here are stuck emotionally in 1917(Russian Revolution), 1940(assassination of Trotsky), 1941(Operation Barbarossa and the massive amounts of Russian nationalism that come with it) and 1945(extension of the Soviet Empire to Eastern Europe and its establishment as an imperialist superpower); and in the field of theory, most are even further back than that. It is annoying, but it beats having those third-world chauvinist fucks from Kasama and LLCO with their talk of forced immigration and massed deportation around by a long shot. I don't think being part of Kasama is bannable here, but in essence they are third-worldists lite. Besides, despite their huge flaws I still think you can learn a few interesting things from Trotsky, hell, maybe even Mao and Hoxha. I read a bit from all sources, even Stalin(though he tends to be the most boring and least skilled writer).

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2401748#post2401748)
Well Trots generally support workers struggles and revolutions. But the goal of Stalinism was to make sure no revolutions happened. So it was not so much sectarian as counter-revolutionary.



You're completely ignoring Eastern Europe.

Why do you think I am ignoring Eastern Europe?




And Trots support seems to end when it's a personal beef with Stalin.

What does this mean?




Way to go trying to sabotage the Soviet Union!
What sabotage?

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2401793#post2401793)
"Of course I am not balanced. I promote Trotskyism. Why would I want to balance that in any way? Does everything always have to be balanced? Do serial killers deserve the same treatment as the families of their victims? I favour promoting Marxism, and I see Stalinism as a dangerous fake-Marxism. I say what I see. In 30 years no Stalinist has ever convinced me otherwise. They churn out the same arguments over and over, and when I put up a thread on the Moscow Trials or China you cant see them for dust. Not one reply. I have had long debates with one or two older Stalinists on other forums, but they never produce anything of substance. They always duck the key issues. "



Few problems with this.

First of all, what the hell is your problem with suggesting that people investigate things on their own and come to their own conclusion? We all have our own political views, but I don't see what good can come of just saying "here, this is the only true path!" and foisting it on someone who really has no idea what the fuck is going on. The most sensible suggestion is to put out a list of basic materials by Marx and Engels, and suggest the person observe before leaping into a tendency.

I certainly have no problem with people reading stuff by Stalinists, if they want to waste their time reading nonstop lies, or left com/anarchist stuff. However I'm not gonna bullshit a newbie. The best stuff is Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg.

I am trained in geology. If a kid asks a question, do I tell them how the rocks were formed, or do I tell them to read some Young Earth bullshit as well and make up their mind? The Stalinists are a bit like Young Earth creationists and I'm not gonna waste people's time advising them to read their nonsense. Geology is not a simple subject, you cant stick a rock under a microscope and get a 100% definitive history of it like you can with a chunk of steel. But it is a fact that this rock was formed at the bottom of an warm sea 350 million years ago, not conjured up by god 10,000 years ago. I am never gonna tell a kid that creationism is a valid alternative. It is bullshit.
Stalinism is based on lies, I can prove it, I have proved it. You are quoting me above and then talking about something else, you are not addressing what I have said.





Secondly, you don't so much "promote" Trotskyism as just spam the party line with little to no elaboration. Again, you should try to make your own analysis and describe things in your own word; if people wanted the official opinion of the CWI, they could find it quite easily themselves. When you're even pissing off your fellow Trotskyists like Kassad, you know it's a problem with your presentation.

I proved this 'party line' thing Kassad came out with was bullshit on that thread, by quoting two other major Trotskist organisations saying the same thing. You did not address that post. Dont bring up lies from one thread and sprinkle them onto others, like a fly spreading shit onto people food. I occasionally quote CWI on here. I also quote other Trotskyist organisations. I often quote Lenin and Trotsky. I sometimes even quote Uncle Joe. I also quote a lot of stuff I get from general research off the net, from mainstream historians to school history sites like Spartacus or basic stuff like wiki. I also quote from all over the MIA, the Marxists encyclopedia, Socialist review, the IMT site, you name it. In fact the CWI does not do a huge amount of history articles.



Thirdly, why obsess about the Moscow Trials? It's all well and good to talk about the bankruptcy of the Stalinist regimes in these regards and establish the lack of revolutionary cred Stalinism has if it comes up in a conversation, but why focus on it? The basis for demolishing Stalinism should not be the fact that Stalin was a bourgeois scumbug, or even that the Soviet Union was a shit hole where the value of human life was worth even less than a rotten cabbage; but that it wasn't socialist or on the road to socialism. This last point is all that should really matter to Marxists. To do otherwise seems to be making more of an emotional appeal than anything else, which is exactly what you do most of the time.


Why obsess? I dunno about obsessing. However it's better than pretending they never happened, or repeating the ludicrous accusations Stalin made up.
You think I reduce it all down to Stalin being a nasty man? In that case you have not bothered to read my stuff properly, or have not managed to understand it. I have said a thousand times that the revolution degenerated because of it's isolation in a backward country. The material conditions essentially demanded someone who was prepared to lead the degeneration, and Stalin was the right man for the job of political counter-revolution.





Besides, despite their huge flaws I still think you can learn a few interesting things from Trotsky

Please tell us what huge flaws you think Trotsky had.

Let me summarise where you go wrong. You dont understand the politics and the history. You dont understand why I discuss it all. So you flap around going on about party lines and nasty men.

The theory is what counts and I dont think you have any. You certainly haven't bothered trying to understand what Trotskyism is all about. I keep telling you.

The Moscow Trials are important because they represent a political counter-revolution, and that was the result of the isolation of the revolution in a backward country. This fits perfectly with the theories of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg. They represent the time when Stalinism became openly counter-revolutionary. After that we had Stagism and Popular Frontism to deal with, and those ideas held back revolotion after revolution, including Iran 1953-79 as I described in the post on the other thread, which you misrepresented on here, repeating kassad's stupid accusation as if it's your new favourite mantra.

[Omsk]

I occasionally quote CWI on here. I also quote other Trotskyist organisations. I often quote Lenin and Trotsky. I sometimes even quote Uncle Joe. I also quote a lot of stuff I get from general research off the net, from mainstream historians to school history sites like Spartacus or basic stuff like wiki. I also quote from all over the MIA, the Marxists encyclopedia, Socialist review, the IMT site, you name it. In fact the CWI does not do a huge amount of history articles.




You do realize that Trotsky,the CWI (This made me laugh) the IMT,the "Socialist review",wikipedia,do not count as adequate historical sources,and that no person really interested and knowledgeable in history would take all of this seriously?

[daft punk]

You do realize that Trotsky,the CWI (This made me laugh) the IMT,the "Socialist review",wikipedia,do not count as adequate historical sources,and that no person really interested and knowledgeable in history would take all of this seriously?

No, I didnt know, thanks for putting me straight.

[Geiseric]

Is it any more reliable than your local Stalinist newspaper? Like the ones who said we should of supported Ghadaffi? That was a menshevik stance.

Anyways, I like to quote Marx and other people i'd consider more empirically accepted. However, if you attack the quoter and not the quote or message itself, that's just ad hominem and totally pointless.

[Omsk]

Is it any more reliable than your local Stalinist newspaper? Like the ones who said we should of supported Ghadaffi? That was a menshevik stance.




"Your local Stalinist newspaper"? No,sorry,most of my quotes come from various professional historians,some of which are completely against Stalin.

Sorry,but this "Stalinist" newspaper that said that "we should support Gaddafi" is obviously not Marxist-Leninist,if it even exists,which i doubt.And this stance is not accepted by any serious Marxist-Leninist.Nice try though.

[Kassad]

My stupid accusations? Damn, Daft Punk. I've been back on this forum for less than a month and I've already managed to get under your skin. Do you cry like this at demonstrations when workers tell you they disagree with you?

[Art Vandelay]

That's cool, but what the fuck does your stupidity have to do with the OP's question? This is where the hate on RevLeft comes from: from ultra-leftists like you that make stupid comments. I may be an asshole against ultra-leftists like you, but you guys are the true instigators. I should compose a list of all the comments you guys make to start shit. It would be long, trust me.

You need to calm down and stop treating the internet like its serious business. My post was only intended to try and stop the mud slinging and endless tendency wars on revleft. Daft Punk has some important and interesting things to say but a lot can get lost in his presentation style. As far as my stupidity and the accusations of ageism, I think it should be stated that I am a teenager as well, so my point of the majority of M-L's being teenagers was not ageist; I just think that if you actually took a poll, the majority of them would be.

Also, stop using the word ultra-leftist like its some slander to whoever the hell you do not like. How the fuck do you even know my politics? I have posted on here, sporadically, for like a week and have hardly discussed anything. I also have not set my tendency. So one, no I am not on here "making comments to start shit" and two, you have no idea what you talking about.

[rolfwar]

May i ask you people to stick to the starting post?
Moreover,i'd advise you all to stop argueing about what i ought to read.
It's not that if i read the Bible,i convince myself of what is in it written.I look at facts.
Stalin may have written great things,but he did not follow Marxism in facts.

Just take this post laughing,because i am new to studying Marx and whoever,and have really few knowledge of this world,which is unbelievably various.

And remember to take it easy,because you will not change people's opinions by argueing on the internet,which it makes it pointless.

[daft punk]

you forgot the other tendencies.
what makes you think that?

[daft punk]

May i ask you people to stick to the starting post?
Moreover,i'd advise you all to stop argueing about what i ought to read.
It's not that if i read the Bible,i convince myself of what is in it written.I look at facts.
Stalin may have written great things,but he did not follow Marxism in facts.

Just take this post laughing,because i am new to studying Marx and whoever,and have really few knowledge of this world,which is unbelievably various.

And remember to take it easy,because you will not change people's opinions by argueing on the internet,which it makes it pointless.

exactly. Just ignore them.

[daft punk]

Daft Punk has some important and interesting things to say but a lot can get lost in his presentation style.
Cheers for that. So, you think I should condense more?

[daft punk]

My stupid accusations? Damn, Daft Punk. I've been back on this forum for less than a month and I've already managed to get under your skin. Do you cry like this at demonstrations when workers tell you they disagree with you?


Your one and only contribution to the thread.

Well done.

Whatever you do Kassad, don't mention politics ever, cos then you will be in trouble, just stick to slander, personal insults, useless oneliners and lies.

[Kassad]

Your one and only contribution to the thread.

Well done.

Whatever you do Kassad, don't mention politics ever, cos then you will be in trouble, just stick to slander, personal insults, useless oneliners and lies.

Sorry, I do this thing called going to school and working two jobs and I frankly don't have time for people who just stopped politically breastfeeding.

[daft punk]

I finished school in 1977 myself. The Iranian revolution hadnt happened, the Russians hasnt invaded Afghanistan, and I had left home and gone to uni. I learned about politics in the 1980s. There was a lot going on, the miners strike, Liverpool, you learned quickly. In the 70s I was getting warmed up though, on the anti-fascist demos.

Anyway, enough about me, but I though I would give you that as you are so fascinated in me.

Now, another useless shit post from you. It's all I've seen from you. Why not post some politics? Can you do that or do you just do personal attacks and lies?

[∞]

You are a human being. Fuck politics believe what you think is right.