lost your bottle little boy? can't debate?
No, Trotsky wasn't a Stalinist, because he accepted the Marxist principle that the emancipation of the working class can only be the act of the working class itself. You have failed to respond to any of the arguments I've raised. If you can debate the history of the Chinese Revolution, you'll continue posting in the thread. But you can't. Because you're ignorant.
I guess Trotsky himself was a 'Stalinist' by your ridiculous definition then lol. I am neither a Trotskyist nor a Stalinist, I instead study and respect that contributions of all the major revolutionary traditions. You, by contrast, believe that the only way that the working class can be liberated is by engaging in a literal re-enactment of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, and writing long pompous polemics explaining why. Enjoy your irrelevancy and sectarianism.
Also, read up on the history of Trotskyism, Shachtman preceded 1949, that period was marked by the emergence of analyses that fell neither into the stale orthodoxy of people like Pablo nor the pro-imperialism, of Shachtman, the history of Trotskyism is more complex than just those two sets of ideas. You are a Stalinist because you think that a socialist revolution can be carried out without the working class having a consciousness of its mission and a leadership role.
Prove that the revolution was carried out by the working class (whether alone or in alliance with some other class force) in any meaningful sense. Prove how the revolution was led by the peasantry when the struggles of the poor peasants were restrained by the CPC leadership (as detailed in my post in the thread, which you haven't responded to) and show how the idea of a revolution being led by the peasantry can be reconciled with Trotsky's detailed analysis of why the peasantry cannot be an independent political actor - that is, his claim that "historical experience shows that the peasantry are absolutely incapable of taking up an independent political role".
The Chinese Revolution was carried out by the peasantry in alliance with the working class, but given that the overwhelming peasant composition of China and the massacre of the Communist workers in Shanghai in 1927 due to disastrous Comintern interference, it was lead by the peasants. And yes, it is the orthodox Trotskyist position that China was a deformed workers state, its the Sachtmanites who made a break by coming up with their ultra-left 'state-capitalism' theory. It's fine, continue with your Eurocentric bs about how if a revolution is not a literal re-enactment of the 1917 Russian revolution, it isn't a 'real' revolution. Furthermore, I am not a 'Stalinist'. That's not a word that you just throw around at anyone who disagrees with you.
Now, reply, if you have the guts, you ignorant Stalinist shit.
lol, what "classic Trotskyist analysis"? Even if we accept that viewing China as a deformed workers' state is in some way the orthodox position - which is pretty nonsensical, because the Trotskyist tradition was beginning to fragment by 1949 - anyone who has the most basic understanding of Trotsky's Theory of Permanent Revolution would never argue as you do that China having a small working class made a socialist revolution impossible and a peasant guerilla war inevitable. One of the most fundamental conclusions of the theory is that the possibility of socialist revolution does not depend on the numerical size of the proletariat but on the conditions of combined and uneven development. You clearly don't know this.
Neg-rep me again you silly child. I happened to be making the classic Trotskyist analysis while you spin third-rate Cliffite revisionist bullshit.
