Stalinism

[Fuser]

Whenever we are in a discussion regarding communism we typically encounter the argument that Stalin (the devil) killed nearly 2 million people in his "reign", that he was a despotic ruler who ruled like Nero or Changez Khan, and he was responsible for purging the man who was the brain of the Russian revolution:Trotsky. When asked "Why did the Soviet Union collapse?” we hear the response: "because of the Stalinist bureaucracy". When asked why socialism cannot survive in one country we get the response: "because a Stalinist bureaucracy develops and betrays the revolution". What on earth then is Stalinism?

[Yehuda Stern]

Devil worship.





Seriously though, Stalinism, in Trotskyist terminology, describes the sort of bureaucratic counterrevolutionary political dictatorship which took shape under the reign of Stalin in the USSR in the late 1920s and culminated in the 1930s. While most Trotskyist groups describe Stalinism as a deformed regime ruling under a workers' states, some Trotskyist groups hold that somewhere in either the 1920s (British SWP) or the 1930s (my group, among others) Stalinism managed to turn the USSR into a capitalist state, and that consequent Stalinist movements set up capitalist state following the political model of the USSR.

[Fuser]

As casual observers of the international Trotskyist movement we find that the Trotskyists have opposed:

1- Soviet economic, political and social achievements
2- The Chinese revolution and Chairman Mao
3- The Albanian revolution and Comrade Enver Hoxha
4- The Vietnamese revolution and Ho Chi Minh
6- The Korean revolution, DPRK and Kim Il Sung
7- The revolutionary governments in Eastern Europe (Stalinist bureaucracies?)
8- The Cuban revolution
9- The Afghan revolutionaries and the PDPA
10- The revolutionary movements in Africa

The Trotskyist movement has engaged in supporting:

1- The counter revolutionary movement in Hungary, 1956
2- CIA sponsored Prague Springs in Checkoslovakia
3- Poland- Solidarity
4- CIA sponsored Afghan mujahideen
5- Yeltsin who is responsible for the impoverishment of 120 million people in Russia
6- Counter revolutionary movements in Eastern Europe, and the bloody counter revolution in Romania

Why is that? :confused:

[black magick hustla]

there are a billion trotskyist tendencies and not all of them supported those movements.

[Yehuda Stern]

Trotskyists oppose all sorts of oppression and counterrevolutionary movements, whether under the mask of democracy or of communism. We also support all struggles against dictatorships and for national liberation, even if their leaderships have pro-imperialist ideas. That explains most of what you have asked. To claim today that the Stalinist states made any great achievements flies in the face of reality.

[Hit The North]

When the smoke of revolution cleared and the forces of reaction were wiped from the battlefields of Russia, the iron laws of capitalist development reasserted themselves. We call this Stalinism.

Stalinism proved that the essential class basis for capitalism is not a bourgeoisie based on private ownership and control of the means of production; but a modern proletariat, free from ownership or control of the means of production.

The bureaucracy acted as a proxy bourgeoisie, driving accumulation and modernizing social relations of production until it finally encumbered that development and thence transformed itself into a real bourgeoisie.

[Sam_b]

As casual observers of the international Trotskyist movement we find that the Trotskyists have opposed:


2- The Chinese revolution and Chairman Mao
3- The Albanian revolution and Comrade Enver Hoxha
4- The Vietnamese revolution and Ho Chi Minh
6- The Korean revolution, DPRK and Kim Il Sung
7- The revolutionary governments in Eastern Europe (Stalinist bureaucracies?)
8- The Cuban revolution
9- The Afghan revolutionaries and the PDPA
10- The revolutionary movements in Africa


Good! Who did you copy and paste that from then?

The idea of Trotskyism being one massive solid bloc is very incorrect.

[Hiero]

As casual observers of the international Trotskyist movement we find that the Trotskyists have opposed:

1- Soviet economic, political and social achievements
2- The Chinese revolution and Chairman Mao
3- The Albanian revolution and Comrade Enver Hoxha
4- The Vietnamese revolution and Ho Chi Minh
6- The Korean revolution, DPRK and Kim Il Sung
7- The revolutionary governments in Eastern Europe (Stalinist bureaucracies?)
8- The Cuban revolution
9- The Afghan revolutionaries and the PDPA
10- The revolutionary movements in Africa

The Trotskyist movement has engaged in supporting:

1- The counter revolutionary movement in Hungary, 1956
2- CIA sponsored Prague Springs in Checkoslovakia
3- Poland- Solidarity
4- CIA sponsored Afghan mujahideen
5- Yeltsin who is responsible for the impoverishment of 120 million people in Russia
6- Counter revolutionary movements in Eastern Europe, and the bloody counter revolution in Romania

Why is that? :confused:
Yep. I have also been told that they oppose the Greek Communist in the civil war after World War 2 and supported the imperialists.

When we look at Trotskyism as a historical movement it's greatest significance is opposing revolutionary movements. Trotskyist who took this to the extreme thought it was progressive to support US imperialism, and today some of the neo-conservatives in the US were Trotskysist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


I have also been told that they oppose the Greek Communist in the civil war after World War 2

And I have been 'told' that the 'mass line' is 'from the masses to the masses'. Guess we can't believe all we are 'told', can we?


When we look at Trotskyism as a historical movement it's greatest significance is opposing revolutionary movements. Trotskyist who took this to the extreme thought it was progressive to support US imperialism, and today some of the neo-conservatives in the US were Trotskysist.

Proof please.

Oh, I forgot, you Maoists don't do proof.

[Hiero]

And I have been 'told' that the 'mass line' is 'from the masses to the masses'. Guess we can't believe all we are 'told', can we?

You are so stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_Trotskyists

If you look through their profiles you find the occasional Trot who works for the neo-cons.

I am trying to think of that famous one, the guy who said "I hope the contra's kill all the fucking sandanistas".

It does make sense during the cold war. Some Trotskyist took up a militant stacne against the USSR, even labeling it worse then the US. They eventually got drawn into neoconservatism's active role in defeating the USSR.

[manic expression]

It does make sense during the cold war. Some Trotskyist took up a militant stacne against the USSR, even labeling it worse then the US. They eventually got drawn into neoconservatism's active role in defeating the USSR.

That's incorrect. Trotsky always defended the Soviet Union from capitalist attacks, and pinpointed the progressive nature of the USSR. Maoists were the ones who supported reactionaries around the world just because they were against the "revisionist" USSR. So, as far as Trotsky's ideas, you're mistaken.

The Trotskyist movement post-1940 is very complicated and on most issues there is a wide amount of disagreement within it, so let's stop looking at Trotskyism as some monolithic program, because it isn't. In fact, it's interesting, as many people who criticize Trotskyism accuse it of splitting too much, but when it's convenient, they spin around and say Trotskyism is united on everything! It's simply illogical.

Anyway, I don't think you refuted what Rosa said at all.

[black magick hustla]

Not anyone taking a militant stance against a state capitalist state "jumps sides". I don remember hearing anything about left communist militants becoming neocons.

[BobKKKindle$]

Stalinism refers mainly to the nature of the regime which existed in the Soviet Union under Stalin in the late 1920s although the term can also be used to describe other regimes which exhibited the same problems of bureaucratic degeneration and a lack of democratic control over production, such as the governments which were imposed by the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe following WW2, as well as several governments which came into existence in Asia, often with the assistance of the USSR, such as the DPRK. Trotsky argued that the bureaucratic degeneration of the revolution would eventually lead to the restoration of capitalism, as the bureacracy would attempt to convert itself into a new ruling class to solidify its material privileges. Trotsky's hypothesis has been affirmed by recent historical events such as the 1991 coup in Russia, and the ongoing process of market reforms in China.


When asked why socialism cannot survive in one country we get the response

Socialism can only exist under conditions of material abundance, and so given that no single country contains all the resources necessary to achieve this set of conditions, and given that revolution is most likely to occur in countries which suffer from a lack of economic development due to their position in the world economy, it should be obvious that socialism cannot be developed in isolation from the rest of the world within the borders of one country, but only on an international scale. The failure of revolution to spread abroad was one of the factors which led to the bureaucratic degeneration of the revolution and the subsequent crimes of the Stalinist regime.


1- Soviet economic, political and social achievements...The Trotskyist movement is not a homogeneous bloc but is instead composed of a wide range of different groups and tendencies, and so your list of allegedly flawed positions does not apply to all, or even most Trotskyists. Orthodox Trotskyists would actually call for the unconditional defense of many of the states you mentioned, because they recognized that military defeat would lead to the elimination of many of the important gains which had been made possible through the creation of a collectivized economy.


Yep. I have also been told that they oppose the Greek Communist in the civil war after World War 2 and supported the imperialists.Stalin refused to give material support to the Greek Communists when they were fighting against the monarchy and trying to gain political power, because he wanted to maintain the 'percentages agreement' he had arranged with Churchill, whereby both leaders reached a consensus on which power bloc should be able to exercise political influence in each European country. In the case of Greece, Britain was supposed to have a ninety percent share of influence.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


You are so stupid.

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not, but one thing I'm not is stupid enough to swallow the mass lie, unlike you lot.


If you look through their profiles you find the occasional Trot who works for the neo-cons.

I am trying to think of that famous one, the guy who said "I hope the contra's kill all the fucking sandanistas".

It does make sense during the cold war. Some Trotskyist took up a militant stacne against the USSR, even labeling it worse then the US. They eventually got drawn into neoconservatism's active role in defeating the USSR.

The key thing here is the word "ex-Troskyists". There are indeed ex-Maoists who are pro-imperialists. But do we malign Maoism for their lapsed members? Well, we are not that stupid.

If anything, this makes you even more stupid than you think I am!:lol:

[BobKKKindle$]

Maoists were the ones who supported reactionaries around the world just because they were against the "revisionist" USSR

This is correct, the PRC was one of the first states to recognize the government of Pinochet following the murder of Salvador Allende in Chile (1973) and Maoist parties throughout the world also gave support to the Mujahideen, who fought against the USSR in Afghanistan and received extensive training and financial support from the USA (1978-1989)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In fact, here is a greatly shortened list of ex-Maoists who have sold out to imperialism or other right-wing nostrums:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard-Henri_L%C3%A9vy#Biography

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/08/bhl-bears-witness.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/books/review/Hitchens-t.html?_r=2&em&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://www.eubusiness.com/Portugal/041120174623.23892act/

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/exch-j15.shtml

http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2002/2002-January/000583.html

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_6.3/williams.htm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/benny-leacutevy-730400.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-greens-see-red-at-exmaoist-candidate-671011.html

But, only an idiot of Hieroic proportions would blame Maoism for this.

[Random Precision]

Rosa is correct here. In fact I would go so far as to say that most prominent American Maoists from the sixties and seventies (for example many of the Black Panthers) took a Great Leap Rightward during the eighties with causes like Jesse Jackson's presidential campaign.

Disillusionment is nothing unique to Trotskyism- it has been present throughout all the history of the anti-capitalist movement, and all tendencies have their share of renegades. The "trots are neocons!!!1" line of bull comes straight from the liberal western press in an attempt to discredit the latter, and modern day Stalinists have seized on it in an attempt to discredit the former.

[Sam_b]

When we look at Trotskyism as a historical movement it's greatest significance is opposing revolutionary movements

Thats only true if you label the 'progressive' butchering in the name of Stalin and Mao revolutionary.

[Led Zeppelin]

Trotskyist who took this to the extreme thought it was progressive to support US imperialism, and today some of the neo-conservatives in the US were Trotskysist.

While of course a lot of high-ranking Stalinists from the former USSR and China are now billionaires.

[Fuser]

I think both Trotskyists and Stalinists are idiots caught in their struggle that has now become an official ritual.

When you talk to Trotskyists they provide you with literature that proves Saint Trotsky a hero and the second most competent person of October reovlution. In their literature Saint Stalin looks like a devil with his gang playing dirty politics against an innocent but most competent candidate for being the successor to Saint Lenin. He fought for the true values of Bolshevik revolution till his death. He warned Saint Stalin and the Stalinists on the bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet Union.

On the other hand Stalinists provide you with books and references that prove Saint Trotsky a villain. According to them, Saint Trotsky played a very negative role in the Marxist-Leninist movement. His bankrupt theories, primarily of his incorrect analysis of the character of peasantry in the socialist movement, only helped in degeneration of revolutionary struggle and promoted defeatism.

Who is to be given credit for the idea that socialism can exist in one country? There is no disagreement between the Trotskyists and the Stalinists on the question of the necessity and inevitability of a "world socialist revolution". A world socialist revolution is considered the permanent and final victory of socialism. However, the disagreement lies concerning the question whether or not it is possible for socialism to be created in one or several countries first and then for a movement towards world socialism. Saint Trotsky and his disciples believe that socialism is impossible without a world revolution.

Let us see what Saint Lenin said on the question. In an article published in 1915 called "On the slogan for a united states of Europe" Lenin says:



Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states.Interestingly, there is a beautiful remark on the above analysis by Saint Trotsky. Trotsky said:


The only more or less concrete historical argument advanced against the slogan of a United States of Europe was formulated in the Swiss Sotsial-Demokrat in the following sentence: "Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism." From this the Sotsial-Demokrat draws the conclusion that the victory of socialism is possible in one country, and that therefore there is no reason to make the dictatorship of the proletariat in each separate country contingent upon the establishment of a United States of Europe. That capitalist development in different countries is uneven is an absolutely incontrovertible argument. But this unevenness is itself extremely uneven. The capitalist level of Britain, Austria, Germany or France is not identical. But in comparison with Africa and Asia all these countries represent capitalist "Europe", which has grown ripe for the social revolution. That no country in its struggle must "wait" for others, is an elementary thought which it is useful and necessary to reiterate in order that the idea of concurrent international action may not be replaced by the idea of temporising international inaction. Without waiting for the others, we begin and continue the struggle nationally, in the full confidence that our initiative will give an impetus to the struggle in other countries; but if this should not occur, it would be hopeless to think -- as historical experience and theoretical considerations testify -- that, for example, a revolutionary Russia could hold out in the face of a conservative Europe, or that a socialist Germany could exist in isolation in a capitalist world. Therefore, the theory of socialism in one country is a Saint Lenin's (not Saint Stalin the devil's) theory.

Trotskyism is the theory of permanent revolution. What is permanent revolution in its Trotskyist interpretation? It is revolution that does not take into account peasantry as a revolutionary force. Saint Trotsky held the position that the peasantry was reactionary. It is as Lenin said "skipping" the peasant movement, "playing at the seizure of power". This position completely underestimates the role of the poor peasantry.

Trotskyists held the view that socialism cannot exist in one coutnry. However, we have seen that Saint Lenin held the view that socialism could exist in one country; this would be a partial victory of socialism.

Saint Lenin's defination of socialism is state capitalism. Yes, he admitted it himself. Just read Saint Lenin's What Is To Be Done. A state capitalist country can and will practice capitalism (with other countries). Thus we will have no problem having a "socialist" country amid a shitload of capitalist countries. (whereas, it is not quite possible to have a communist country in a capitalist world).

As for permenent revolution--So far we have seen none, to state the obvious. But that may be because all the revolutions we have seen so far (that succeeded) are "socialist revolutions" (state capitalist) that have, quite literally, nothing to do with communism.

Frankly, instead of venerating or belittling figures like religious guys revolutionaries should come out of this personality worship. As much as Trotskyists bemoan about Saint Stalin's persecution of their martyr Saint Leon Trotsky, we know that Saint Trotsky was, in fact, as cruel as Saint Stalin was in his persecution against the Workers Opposition of the Soviet.

To understand historical materialism we must abolish whatever fantasies we have for Leninism (either Stalinism or Trotskyism). If there is one thing that Historical Materialism taught us, it is that material conditions always beat up idealism.

[BobKKKindle$]

It is revolution that does not take into account peasantry as a revolutionary force

Trotsky explicitly argued that the socialist revolution would not be able to succeed in peripheral countries unless the proletariat formed an alliance with the peasantry, because the proletariat is too weak to carry out the revolution on its own, and the cooperation of the peasantry is needed to carry out tasks associated with the bourgeois-democratic revolution, including land reform and national emancipation. However, Trotsky also recognized that the proletariat would have to take the leading role in this alliance, as the only class capable of overthrowing capitalism and developing socialism.


3. Not only the agrarian, but also the national question assigns to the peasantry – the overwhelming majority of the population in backward countries – an exceptional place in the democratic revolution. Without an alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry the tasks of the democratic revolution cannot be solved, nor even seriously posed. But the alliance of these two classes can be realized in no other way than through an irreconcilable struggle against the influence of the national-liberal bourgeoisie.

10. What is the Permanent Revolution? Basic Postulates, The Permanent Revolution (1929) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/pr10.htm)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fuser:


Therefore, the theory of socialism in one country is a Saint Lenin's (not Saint Stalin the devil's) theory.

This does not follow from what Trotsky said. The fight for socialism is not the same as creating socialism. The former is possible in one country, especially an advanced European one, but the latter, the final victory of socialism, is still only possible internationally.

Indeed, history has already refuted the Stalinist mantra.

You should read 'The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/)' on this, and hence Lenin's actual views in this regard.

[Led Zeppelin]

Let us see what Saint Lenin said on the question. In an article published in 1915 called "On the slogan for a united states of Europe" Lenin says:

Yes, let's see what Lenin said on the question, after that quote (which has been deformed beyond recognition) which you just posted:


Russia is a peasant country, one of the most backward countries of Europe. Socialism cannot be immediately triumphant there but the peasant character of the country with the huge tracts of land in the hands of the feudal aristocracy and landowners, can, on the basis of the experience of 1905, give a tremendous sweep to the bourgeois democratic revolution in Russia and make our revolution a prelude to the world socialist revolution, a step towards it ... The Russian proletariat cannot by its own forces victoriously complete the socialist revolution. But it can give the Russian revolution dimensions such as will create the most favorable conditions for it, such as will in a certain sense begin it. It can facilitate matters for the entrance into a decisive battle on the part of its main and most reliable ally, the European and American socialist proletariat.” [22] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#n22)

We have emphasized in many of our works; in all our speeches, and in our entire press that the situation in Russia is not the same as in the advanced capitalist countries, that we have in Russia a minority of industrial workers and an overwhelming majority of small agrarians. The social revolution in such a country can be finally successful only on two conditions: first, on the condition that it is given timely support by the social revolution in one or more advanced countries ... second, that there be an agreement between the proletariat which establishes the dictatorship or holds state power in its hands and the majority of the peasant population ...

“We know that only an agreement with the peasantry can save the socialist revolution in Russia so long as the revolution in other countries has not arrived.” [26] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#n26)



Therefore, the theory of socialism in one country is a Saint Lenin's (not Saint Stalin the devil's) theory

The above has proven that you are clueless on this issue.


Interestingly, there is a beautiful remark on the above analysis by Saint Trotsky. Trotsky said:

Why don't you quote what Trotsky wrote about that quote of Lenin itself?

Would it be because you didn't know he wrote anything about it, or because you didn't want your ignorance of Lenin's position to be exposed?

Luckily I have no problem with either of those, so allow me:



At the Seventh Plenum of the ECCI, Stalin declared (not for the first time): “The question of the construction of a socialist economy in one country was for the first time advanced in the party by Lenin back in 1915.” [15] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#n15)

...

What did Lenin have in mind? Only that the victory of socialism in the sense of the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat is possible at first in one country, which because of this very fact, will be counterposed to the capitalist world. The proletarian state, in order to be able to resist an attack and to assume a revolutionary offensive of its own, will first have to “organize socialist production at home,” i.e., it will have to organize the operation of the factories taken from the capitalists. That is all. Such a “victory of socialism” was, as is shown, first achieved in Russia, and the first workers’ state, in order to defend itself against world intervention, had first of all to “organize socialist production at home,” or to create trusts of “a consistently socialist type.” By the victory of socialism in one country, Lenin consequently did not cherish the fantasy of a self-sufficient socialist society, and in a backward country at that, but something much more realistic, namely, what the October Revolution had achieved in our country during the first period of its existence.

Does this, perhaps, require proof? So many proofs can be adduced that the only difficulty lies in making the best choice.
In his theses on war and peace (January 7, 1918) Lenin spoke of the “necessity of a certain period of time, at least several months, for the victory of socialism in Russia ...” [17] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#n17)

At the beginning of the same year, i.e., 1918, Lenin, in his article entitled “On Left Wing Childishness and Petty Bourgeois Tendencies,” directed against Bukharin, wrote the following: “ If, let us say, state capitalism could be established in our country within six months, that would be a tremendous achievement and the surest guarantee that within a year socialism will be definitely established and will have become invincible.” [18] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#n18)

How could Lenin have set so short a period for the “definite establishment of socialism”? What material-productive and social content did he put into these words?

This question will at once appear in a different light if we recall that on April 29, 1918, Lenin said in his report to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviet government: “It is hardly to be expected that our next generation, which will be more highly developed, will effect a complete transition to socialism.” [19] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#n19)

On December 3, 1919, at the Congress of Communes and Artels, Lenin spoke even more bluntly, saying: “We know that we cannot establish a socialist order at the present time. It will be well if our children and perhaps our grandchildren will be able to establish it.” [20] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#n20)

In which of these two cases was Lenin right? Was it when he spoke of the “definite establishment of socialism” within twelve months, or when he left it not for our children but our grandchildren to “establish the socialist order”?

Lenin was right in both cases, for he had in mind two entirely different and incommensurable stages of socialist construction.

By the “definite establishment of socialism” in the first case, Lenin meant not the building of a socialist society within a year’s time or even “several months,” that is, he did not mean that the classes will be done away with, that the contradictions between city and country will be eliminated; he meant the restoration of production in mills and factories in the hands of the proletarian state, and thus the assuring of the possibility to exchange products between city and country. The very shortness of the term is in itself a sure key to an understanding of the whole perspective.

Is it not clear that in his article of 1915, Lenin meant by the organization of “socialist production,” not the creation of a socialist society but an immeasurably more elementary task which has already been realized by us in the USSR? Otherwise, one would have to arrive at the absurd conclusion that, according to Lenin, the proletarian party, having captured power, “postpones” the revolutionary war until the third generation.

Such is the sorry position of the main stronghold of the new theory in so far as the 1915 quotation is concerned. However, what is sadder still is the fact that Lenin wrote this passage not in application to Russia. He was speaking of Europe in contrast to Russia. This follows not only from the content of the quoted article devoted to the question of the United States of Europe, but also from Lenin’s entire position at the time.

If Lenin believed in 1915, in time of war and reaction, as they try to convince us now, that the proletariat of Russia can build socialism by itself so as to be able to declare war on the bourgeois states, after it will have accomplished this work, how could Lenin, at the beginning of 1917, after the February revolution, speak so categorically about the impossibility for backward peasant Russia to build socialism with its own forces? One must at least be somewhat logical and, to put it baldly, have some respect for Lenin.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm)

Anyway, the point is, for a person who whines so much about "both Stalinists and Trotskyists being idiots" and about us playing history games, you sure like to indulge in such games yourself frequently. Look above for example.

Also, lay off the "saint" stuff, it's not witty or cool, just redundant.

[Black Sheep]

I could'nt agree more, the whole paintball fight between Trotskyists and Stalinists tends to resemble thechicken fight of bourgeoisie parties.:cursing:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Not so. The Stalinists murder or imprison us Trots. So, the very real bullets fly only one way, here.

[Black Sheep]

That is because Trots never were in power.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

But, even when not 'in power', the Stalinists regularly physically attacked us Trots, whereas we never attacked them.

[Black Sheep]

But, even when not 'in power', the Stalinists regularly physically attacked us Trots, whereas we never attacked them.


Sources please?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Memoires of Trots.

Look it up yourself.

[Black Sheep]

Look it up yourself.How polite and warm-hearted :D
i can't find it though.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

M:


How polite and warm-hearted
i can't find it though.

My apologies, I thought you were being aggressive.

If you read the memoires of Trotskyists who 'engaged' with Stalinists in the 'west' in, say, the 1930's you will see what I mean.

If you do not know what these are, let me know.

[Valeofruin]

Not so. The Stalinists murder or imprison us Trots. So, the very real bullets fly only one way, here.

Perhaps if you didnt support facists and counter revolutionaries, and weren't so radically "anti- Stalin", to the point where it jeapordizes the proletariat parties, we wouldn't have to settle this discussion with the ice pick.

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3981/trotqd7.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/trotqd7.png/1/w308.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img134/trotqd7.png/1/)

The Bullets dont just fly one way, your leaders all get exiled or killed for a very good reason, you're constantly attempting to stir VIOLENT counter revolution of EVERY communist state you set your sights on.

From china, to The Soviet Union, to Yugoslavia. You'll do whatever it takes to bring down the so called "unjust" leadership, if that means tearing the party in 2, so be it, if that means plotting a counter revolution, so be it, if that means selling out your people to imperialists and facists, so be it.

[chegitz guevara]

Perhaps if you didnt support facists and counter revolutionaries,

Can you provide some actual evidence of this assertion? The show trials don't count.