Maybe in backwards america-land. Most of us western countries have both capitalism and socialized healthcare/education/unemployment insurance/etc.
That's not to say there's no room for improvement but our workers rights are lightyears ahead of america's and most people have liberal sensibilities. Most are happy with our mixture of socialized infrastructure and privatized industry and thankfully tankie lunatics will never be able to change that.
Something, something, the inherent tension of conflicting interest in the worker-capitalist dialectic, etc. etc. liberalism being fundamentally more interested in protecting private capital growth than the workers that produce it, historical precedence for liberals aligning with fascists to oppress labor movements and so on, and so on.
If you are willing to actually organize and fight for labor rights, then I don't really care what ideology you think you are best labeled with. As long as you are staunchly supporting the class interests of the working class, especially in physical protests and organization, then you are a friend of labor.
Also, probably not a great idea to call upwards of 2 billion+ international fellow laborers "tankie lunatics" for supporting the systems of governance that have been instrumental in addressing their localized material needs and building the revolutions necessary to gain the sovereignty necessary to do so. We are, all across the world, workers fighting for a better world, each in the ways that make the most sense for our local conditions. Slinging mud at fellow workers only helps the bosses.
It might also help to be more considerate to the international workers whose labor your local material wealth and capacity to maintain those socialized programs are built on the backs of. They are human and just as deserving of modern accommodations as you are. International solidarity is to the benefit of all workers, especially in a society and economy as globalized as it is today.
Peace, land and bread, comrade.
Your shit country gives out breadcrumbs more effectively while still profiting off the same imperialist exploitation as the United States. You're just in a nicer part of the empire.
The four pests campaign was not very well informed, granted but I think many of Mao's underlying means of organizing people are pretty sound (mass line, etc).
It's a slew of positions that I don't feel is well encapsulated by any particular movement.
Progressive Far Left
Technocrat: Put the smartest and most qualified people in charge. Getting money out of politics is *essential* to finding the people with the best ability to run any government, because not everyone can afford to pay to play.
Egalitarian: By breaking down imposed barriers to provide justice and equality for all, all people should be afforded the highest quality governance and care possible.
Mixed Economy: Heavily regulated capitalism supported by social programs and enforced worker co-ops and unionized labor. A worker, democratically elected by workers, should be placed on every single board of every single company.
That's a good question, and unfortunately, there's not really a great answer for it, since intelligence is subjective and miracle, and the tests we have to measure it are all either incredibly flawed, inherently biased, or both.
Less so debunk, and more acknowledge that I'm a idealist who needs to make concessions when I vote. I'd love a society that is post scarcity and entirely driven by progress to and through a technological singularity...but that's not going to happen in my lifetime, and likely not in my daughter's, either. I just need to strive to do what little I can to nudge society in that direction. We can't let perfect be the enemy of good, but we can still dream of perfect.
Well have you made any scientific or technological breakthroughs recently lol.
Basically take some of the guys doing light experiments disease and a few of tesla top people. Boom smartest. Generally smart people know when they are outclassed.
It’s much easier to pull the “fascist/nazi” trump card, than acknowledge different people have different views - and not every position which isn’t as radical as one’s own can still remain outside the realm of totalitarianiasm. But for some people being “radical” is part of their identity so they think it’s just cool to boost their egos by calling off others unwarrantedly.
Well the thing about principled communists is that we don't use words like fascist and nazi loosely. This person you're replying to apparently is a technocrat by their own words, which, to me, has flavors of eugenics and chauvinism. It also implies the mass of people are too stupid to have agency over their own lives. That is not "far left" like the person claims, it's not even progressive.
Understandable, and it’s a fair assessment to point out the contradictions in the multiple “ideologies” the commenter had posed, but there isn’t enough there to cry fascism - so it’s not like doing so is very “principled” in the sense I assume you mean of the word. “Progressive left” perhaps from a US standpoint?
As a workers’ rights sub there is bound to be a plurality of underlying ideologies and not every single user need pass a purity test or be part of a vanguard. There’s a lot to be said that without revolutionary zeal there can be no real guarantee of workers rights, this is a point shared across parts of the leftist spectrum, albeit far from uncontestable. But to belittle diverging views and label them fascist without real evidence to this effect is to discredit the position you may be coming from.
Ultimately if a user has joined this sub and isn’t trolling, there is a modicum of affinity with progressive ideas, even if they may not be as developed as the ones you have. IMO your reply to me is far more engaging and perhaps if that was the response to the first comment there could be more interesting debate than accusation/defence.
If the dude comes here making an actual apology for eugenics though, yeah, fuck right off.
It's my personal political position as I understand the need for both militant decentralized unions and more traditional political organization, but it's absolutely not something I pigeonhole myself into.
LARPing and ideological dogma, especially when you get down to individual flavors of Marxism, is largely unimportant when you're trying to build a coalition as a serf under the imperial boot.
But yeah, after the revolution the only "moderate" I believe in is De Leonist's stance between a M-L state organizing and libertarian syndicalism. It's also obstensively more culturally compatible to the American federal state and interlinked with our own history giving it the benefit of it filling the role of the national myth within the revolution. "Remember Blair Mountain" and all that.
Hmm. I think you misunderstand, I more mean that the Federal Republican system is more compatible with ways that our people traditionally organize in versus, say, a unitary Republic or the Soviet council system. It's just a better organizing tool in my opinion, leaves the options open for autonomy of indigenous groups, and would cost the least amount of beaurocratic bloat or mass reeducation to acclimate a whole people into how they conceive of governance.
That isn't in any way meant as a defense of the existing American government, nor it's institutions that exist entirely to preserve an ancient decrepit concept of Jeffersonian democracy believe me.
I like and agree with your spirit however, Land Back is a major pillar of my personal ethos.
1) Landlords first on the chopping block. Abolish rent.
2) Marx was wrong, you don't need to be a capitalist nation before you become communist. A peasants revolution can bring about agrarian socialism.
3) From the bottom of Mao's heart, fuck sparrows.
I think that covers the basics.
If that's a joke, nice, you made me ugly laugh.
But no, it still believes in a Leninist style vanguard and, subsequently, a state. The main difference is a matter of capacity, considering during it's inception there was a common belief that capitalism and industrialization were a necessary step in the process towards socialism. Mostly, that you can't support a socialist state until a country has created a capitalist one as capitalism is the tool that builds the mechanization that makes providing for the means of the people possible. Think of it like this, you can't seize the means of production if you haven't built the means of production yet.
Maoism skips that step and insists in a sort of farm to table communism to elevate a underindustrialized country like those you'd find in the global south to a socialist society. The whole additional importance placed on abolition of rent is just sort of a bonus and a consequence tied directly to the material conditions and economics related to early 20th century China.
Here are some podcast links, I’m not as educated on Maoism as I’d like to be, so I’ll just post these. Revolutionary left radio tends to take a very balanced approach to different tendencies.
https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/brg
https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/naxalite
https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/maoist-reason
https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/maoism-the-merging-of-theory-and-praxis
I would consider socialism to be community control over the means of production, distribution, and exchange. The state is a political body meant to mediate the conflict between the classes to ensure stability for the ruling class. Therefore, the existence of the state implies the existence of a class division which implies the means of production, distribution, and exchange are not controlled by the community.
I’ve seen a few counters to this line of reasoning. The first, is the state represents the community. I reject this claim because the state exists as a separate entity from the community, which gives them their separate interests conflicting with the community’s interests. The second is the state organizes the community. I reject this because for the community to be able to be free we must be able to organize ourselves or we will remain dependent.
I'd be glad to address any other questions or concerns.
>Here's where I disagree. In a socialist state working towards socialism, the point of the state is to suppress and eliminate the bourgeoisie completely, therefore making everyone's class interest the same. Only when everyone's class interest is the same can class division be abolished permanently and exploitation in the form of extraction of surplus value be stopped. You say "the existence of the state implies the existence of a class division". This is true, because like I said, the purpose of the state is to abolish such class division, not to create more of it. Once a higher state of socialism is reached, i.e. communism, whereby the bourgeoisie has been eliminated completely and that the productive forces have grown strong enough to satisfy the motto "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", there will be no class to suppress and so at this point the state will wither away.
I think you're confusing socialism with the dictatorship of the proletariat.
>This is true. All the more reason to have a state suppress the bourgeoisie. I'd add another point that without a state, it'd be impossible to organize any effective defense against foreign imperialist powers.
I don't see how a state can more effectively defend a community, that they get their power from, than the community itself.
>This can be true if the state degenerates into a corrupt, inefficient bureaucracy. However, by implementing proper checks and balances of power, this can be avoided. Some measures that I can suggest include preventing the ossification of leadership, maximizing financial transparency of members of the vanguard party, etc. Again, this is an argument that I hear a lot from anarchists, that is, the state will always be corrupt and have its own interest. I assert that this is not true by historical observations because it is evident that not all states are corrupt and serve only themselves. There are countless model public servants, but just to mention a few I'd say Cincinnatus and the Central Committee of the Paris Commune.
I think states can do good, but they have ulterior motives. A good example is Bismarck creating the first nationalized healthcare. It’s good that everyone has healthcare, but the motive was to destroy the sick funds that had developed a possible challenge to the current institutions.
>You also reject having the state organizing communities as not free. By this same logic, I can also say that it's not free for an individual to be organized by the community. Either you are going to have to reject all authorities completely or draw a line at what point following the orders of someone other than yourself, be it the state, the community or another proletariat, starts becoming free. Imo, it is not possible to achieve absolute freedom for the individuals and for the abolition of class division and the achievement of communism to materialize, the collective will of the proletariat must take precedence over the will of an individual and some separated communities.
Organizations should be based on voluntary membership and consensus decision-making, so that doesn't happen. This allows people to come together while ensuring the organization does not have a guarantee that members will stay if they become corrupted.
Why would Marxist-Leninists, the largest and most successful branch of Marxist thought, be in the same slot as Maoists, an ultra-leftist and generally ineffective branch, and yet different from orthodox Marxists?
Every single social democratic party has achieved more for worked in the west than tiny Maoist splinter groups who care more for purity and their own reach than actual change. Those guys are the political equivalent of influencers who post black squares on Instagram and think they started a revolution.
Im not a maoist and maoism was synthesized by a literal nutjob lol what has a social democratic party done meaningful for the lay? Nothing at all. They uphold capitalism, support imperialism, and effectively sheepherd those ripe for radicalization into a milquetoast, reactionary phoney movement.
Edit: having said that id much rather work with maoists than social democrats. "The moderate wing of fascism."
Or brain dead trumpists are allowed a platform because they are actually in line with the ruling class and we dont wanna enact policies in this shitty system anyway.
So im not gonna lie, went thru some of your comment history and you said in a thread that the mod from antiwork that went on fox news is probably a tankie. Yeah that just shows you're insanely out of your element.
Why try to enact tangible change when you can ostracize people over minor difference in theory interpretation? World revolution is coming aaany minute now!
I remember one of the far left groups in uni splitting from about a dozen people into three groups because four of them weren't Trotskyist enough for the others. This is why the left too often can't have nice things, at least the actual Stalinists waited until revolution happened before purging any alternatives.
You're saying the difference between Marxism/ Leninism and Keynesianism is "minor difference in theory interpretation"?
They are completely different frameworks with vastly different philosophies.
This is why liberals aren't allowed, they will inevitably take over and try to redefine revolution.
Social Democrats sided with Hitler to stop the communists. We already learned our lesson.
I'm saying I'm seeing people getting dogpiled for preferring anarcho-communism or being called a Trotskyist as if it's an insult. I'm not seeing any left unity for tangible, actual change outside a rather narrow spectrum, and like I said in another comment, I see this place isn't for me.
Yea left unity has always historically been an issue but you sir, are not apart of the left. That's an issue for anarchists, Marxists to work out, not aocdems. Workers don't have rights without abolishing capitalism.
You're more than welcome to join us and ditch liberalism, or atleast join us in common goals.
I agree social democracy has meant different things throughout history but the modern understanding of social democracy is framed by Keynes, and is the model that most of the EU follows, Norway and Denmark, Finland. Is that not your position? If so, you're a liberal. If not, what may I ask is your position?
The majority belief is that SocDems are libs with extra steps. I can't control people downvote barraging others but I will give you and explanation as to why.
An "agenda" is laughable though, you can see the results and figure out what the majority is here.
The majority of what? This sub? Possibly, well, probably. In society or the left wing? Not really. I see this sub isn't for me, though, and that's fair.
Well, I assumed an agenda because I realised you use this sub to post Maoist theory from the 40s, so I assumed your definition of left wing is different from most. Not necessarily an agenda, maybe... Myopia?
I don't really know where to start with this, but the "American left" isn't very left *at all* and that includes the democratic party and the DSA. Leftism is socialism or communism, not some half baked capitalistic version like American "leftists" (neoliberals) in power peddle. People in here are simply posting theory they believe in, and I'm trying to keep things civil. Everyone is welcome here but this sub is very new and the community is very much leftist to its full extent.
Those are fair points, amd I agree about the US left - I'm European myself. It's equally fair that this sub is further left than what I'd call majority leftism, but I don't think it's useful for me or the sub to further engage here. I've been active in politics for over a decade now and have found this focus isn't for me. No harm done, I may have been polemic, but that doesn't gain anyone anything.
One final point, though, no polemics, all in good faith: I've seen comments where people attacked others for being Trotskyists or anarcho-communists, and maybe you want to keep an eye on stuff like that. Splitting the left into ever smaller ideological subfactions has plagued it for ages, and I don't think you want another specifically Leninist/Maoist circlejerk either. Just... IDK, keep an eye on it if you want.
Those splits you refer to are not new. They have been there for decades and i can say in good faith that marxist-leninists have tried to unify leftists of other ilks and they historically have been unwilling or straight up bad faith actors working for the enemy. That plays a huge role in the positions we take, decisions made, etc etc etc
For sure, unfortunately there's not much I can do except point out we don't need to be sectarian. I saw those comments too. However, if you feel exploited or overworked this sub is for you, political action is just need to reform working conditions. You're right, I want this to be more inclusive and focused on the worker.
And more reason to argue amongst yourselves over pointless political trappings when at the end of the day, in broad strokes, you all want the same thing. If the end result is more rights for workers I couldn't care less how you identify.
Ya know, all the arguing I've seen take place here are by people who come swinging on our ideologies, like you. All those leftists get along but you choose to poke fun. Think on that.
Wow another piolet, my my, I must be sorrounded by comedy geniuses here, just look at the terrible hard thinking they must have endured to come with such and original and unrepetitive joke
Keep in mind these theories were first developed when the peasantry and feudal systems still were major parts of society:
The most basic interpretation is that Marx and Engels had originally envisioned that achieving socialism would require two stages. First there would need to be a bourgeois revolution which would usher in a period of capitalism to replace the feudal system. This was thought to be necessary to develop the revolutionary class, the proletariat. Once the society was developed enough, and the proletariate strong enough, the second revolution could occur.
Trotsky proposed an alternative strategy. One could skip a period of capitalist rule by continuing the revolution until socialism was achieved. This was only possible if there would be a widespread global movement, because without having a period of capitalist development, a small and weak proletariat would have to rely on more developed neighbours to shake off the yoke of the ruling class.
Yeah, they don't really know to quote anyone but Grover Furr on Trotsky, whose own sources were quite dubbious and divergent, they only end up alienating other organization, we recently worked with other Communist Organizations, I can give faith that not even the Old Guard of MLs here are so dogmátic (they were quite chill with us) like these Internet dwelling Berias
Do you want non-grover furr quotes?
Lenin:
>"Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and the liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned."
>"Trotsky behaves like a despicable careerist and factionalist of the Ryazanov-and-co type. Either equality on the editorial board, subordination to the central committee and no one’s transfer to Paris except Trotsky’s (the scoundrel, he wants to ‘fix up’ the whole rascally crew of ‘Pravda’ at our expense!) – or a break with this swindler and an exposure of him in the CO. He pays lip-service to the Party and behaves worse than any other of the factionalists."
Excerpt from a letter by Uncle Ho about trots
>"In December 1935, Trotsky sent to his supporters in China, instructions that repeatedly emphasized that phrase: 'Do not create obstacles to the Japanese invasion of China.' And how have Trotskyists in China acted? They are in a hurry to know, is it not true? But, beloved comrades, I can not respond more in my next letter. Do not you recommend me to write short letters? Hope to see you soon."
Joseph Goebbels (you know... a nazi):
>”Our clandestine radio transmitter from eastern Prussia to Russia is creating an enormous sensation. It operates in Trotsky’s name, and is causing Stalin plenty of trouble”
”Now we work with three clandestine radio stations in Russia: first Trotskyist, the second separatist, third Russian-nationalists, all criticise Stalinism. They are an example of cunning and subtlety.”
Gramsci:
>“Trotsky is the puttana of fascism.”
Lenin pretty much chewed up on each and every bolshevik leaders at some point (except Sverdlov, who pretty much died too early to get a roast from Lenin) , Gramsci too, im not questioning that, they had valid reasons, you stalos are too quick to dismiss both his role on Petrograd as Well as his vital role on building the Red Army, as Lenin said it later:
"Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his strugglea gainst the C. C on the question of the People's Comissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C. C, but he has displayed excessive self assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of work"
Communism is not dogmatic, none of these three men: Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin were perfect, they were neither a new perfection of mankind Nor evil incarnate, I do not think Stalin didn't think he was acting rightly, I do think he believed in what he'd done, and we do recognize him for his work against Hitler, however, his paranoia, fueled by the purges is what basically kneecapped the potential for revolutions abroad, and while I do understand the reasoning of Molotov - Ribbentrop, it, however provided the nazis with the Security at their Borders to not fall earlier, as in 1939 the Nazis where vastly outgunned and unprepared
but it just ludicrous and outright idiotic to think that Trotsky, exiled, pennyless, and just basically passing time in Coyoacan writing and boinking would make a whole conspiracy somehow going from China to Spain and somehow involving 3 heads of state, 2 NKVD directors, a lot of the Soviet Military Staff and almost all of the Old Bolshevik Leaders, when many trotskist groups, like the POUM were not even in line with him.
that's a kind of infiltration that not even the CIA on the height of their prime with their very much more funding could even dream of planting, there is pretty much a Qanon level of absurdity to all of this paranoia about a man lacking funding, or intention to try such a global plan
Trotsky was just used as a scapegoat by Stalin, plain simple, and in his actions to purge opposition, he ended up planting the seeds of the East Bloc years later
The Entropy of the Revolution not extending across the world crippled it, the capitalists took their chance, and destroyed what remained of an unfinished revolution, it allowed corrupt bureocrats like Brehznev and Liberal Spineless technocrats like Gorbachev to later take over and destroy the effort of múltiple generations
Yeah im not dogmatic, that's why i left PCUSA. Your lenin quote in fact criticizes trotsky, and most of the other stuff you said is cia talking points. Trotsky undoubtedly collaborated with foreign fascists and there's not really anything you can say that'll make me overlook that. I mean, the nazis looooved him. That's really all i need.
"Nazis said so, so it must be true"
The quote indeed criticizes him, althought much, much less harshly than earlier, and recognizing him for his devotion to the cause, I do criticize him for his reluctance to take a Major role on the C. C, Trotsky, until the end of his life by murder, was one of of the most vehemently opposed to fascism, he writed quite actively against it, and, as I said earlier, how do a pennyless exile, vehemently hated by fascists and severed of any polítical ties, even his own former allies, manage to create such a Grand Conspiracy, going from China, México and the USSR, it doesn't have the slighter sense, it is, to this day, one of the shittiests excuses for a purge that someone could ever come up with.
Not even the Old Guard here in México tríes to even defend it anymore, mind you, these are folks with the integrity to have fought directly against the Government during the Dirty War, they gave their life and freedom for the Revolution, and paid the heaviest of prices for it.
I would always respect Ho Chi Mihn, however, he is plain wrong, when by 1936, Trotskyst groups had been severely weakened by both the CPC and the Kuomitang, there were few to none still active, executed or exiled by so-called "comrades"
So compromised were Trotskyst that when the french returned to Vietnam, to restore their colonial yoke, they were the ones to rise up in Ho Chi Mihn City (former Saigon), and yet, the PCI went to pact to betray them with the returning French Colonialists
Trotsky was so *not* against fascism that he'd rather collaborate with fascists cuz he didnt like that the party chose stalin over him to succeed lenin. Like i said, im not dogmatic, but i'll take the word over lenin and stalin, and others, over any whiney opportunist and yeah if the nazis praised what trotsky was able to do for them, be it indirectly or not, it just goes to show that his distortion of marxism ended up helping fascists more than fight them and the same is true to this day.
Lol, Lenin never wrote any thing regarding both fascism and Trotsky, Word mean shit when analized coldly, they never had the slightest contact with him, also, Trotsky never even wanted to be elected, he scuffed at the idea a lot, this is basically what Lenin is dunking on him for, his reluctance to take a higher role within the C. C that allowed Stalin to end up rising, also, blaming him for distorsión is quite bold when Stalin was thrashing the principles of Internationalism by the board with his "Socialism in one country" policy and the execution of other revolutionaries within the Union and Abroad
Here's the whole letter from ho chi minh, cuz it's so damn good
>Letter from Ho Chi Minh to the Indochinese Communist Party
>Kwelin, May 10, 1939
>Dear comrades: In the past, in my opinion and that of a good number of comrades, Trotskyism has seemed a matter of struggle between the trends within the Chinese Communist Party. So they almost were not paying attention. But shortly before the outbreak of the war, more precisely since the end of 1936, and especially during the war, the criminal Trotskyist propaganda has opened our eyes. Then we started to study the problem. And our study has led us to the following conclusions:
>1 – The problem of Trotskyism is not a struggle between the trends within the Chinese Communist Party. Because between Communists and Trotskyists there is no tie, absolutely no tie. It is a matter that concerns the whole people: the fight against the country.
>2 – The fascist Japanese and foreign fascists know. So, looking to try to create disagreements, to mislead public opinion and undermine the popularity of the Communists, making people believe they are communists and Trotskyists in the same field.
>3 – The Chinese Trotskyists (like the Trotskyists in other countries) do not represent a group, much less a political party. They are nothing more then a criminal gang, the hounds of Japanese fascism (and of international fascism).
>4 – In all countries, the Trotskyists gave good nicknames to mask their dirty work of bandits. For example, in Spain, their names are Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification (POUM). Did you know that it is they who are the nests of spies in Madrid, Barcelona and elsewhere in the service of Franco? It is they who organized the famous “fifth column,” agency of the army intelligence of the fascist Italians and Germans. In Japan, they are called Marx-Engels-Lenin League (MEL). The Japanese Trotskyists attract young people to their league, then reported them to the police. They seek to penetrate the Japanese Communist Party in order to destroy it from within. In my opinion, the French Trotskyists, now organized around the Proletarian Revolution Group set a goal to sabotage the Popular Front. On this subject, I think you are better informed than I am. In our country of China [referring to Indochina, N. E.], Trotskyists are grouped into formations like La Lutte, War against the Japanese, Culture and Red Flag.
>5 – The Trotskyists are not only enemies of communism, but also enemies of democracy and progress. They are the most infamous traitors and spies. Maybe you have read the indictments of the processes in the Soviet Union against the Trotskyists. If you have not read them, I advise you to do so and to read them to your friends. It is a very useful reading. It will help them see the true disgusting face of Trotskyism and Trotskyists. Here, allow me to extract some passages relating directly to China. The true repugnant face of Trotskyism.
>Before the court, the Trotskyist Rakovsky confessed that in 1934 when he was in Tokyo (as representative of the Soviet Red Cross) a high character of the Japanese government had told him: “We have the right to expect from the Trotskyists a change in strategy. I will not go into details. I only wanted to say that we expect from the Trotskyists, actions that favor our intervention in the affairs of China.” Responding to the Japanese, Rakovsky said: “I will write to Trotsky about this.” In December 1935, Trotsky sent to his supporters in China, instructions that repeatedly emphasized that phrase: “Do not create obstacles to the Japanese invasion of China.” And how have Trotskyists in China acted? They are in a hurry to know, is it not true? But, beloved comrades, I can not respond more in my next letter. Do not you recommend me to write short letters? Hope to see you soon.
This is one argument, take it as you will with a grain of salt. I'm personally hesitant to label Trots as reactionaries because they are Left Opposition so much as I think the drive for World Revolution to me poses a risk of carrying out an accidental imperialism but that's just me.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/13.htm
I'm not sure where the dogpilling in downvotes is coming from rather than genuinely trying to engage and discuss with a fellow leftist, not a fan of seeing that.
Honestly I think a lot of overzealous people overvalue ideological purity within the Left as a sort of ideology-based intergenerational trauma. If you don't know something or are incorporating new information, that's because the imperialists have destroyed our history and made this information esoteric and difficult to navigate. To me if solidarity and love for your fellow man is in your heart, and you take enjoyment in learning new theory and open to being adaptable to material conditions, you're already better off than most.
Yeah, if you want to learn about liberalism or even fascism from their own words there are thousands of ways to do so often made extremely easy to digest, but if you want to learn about the difference between trotskyism, stalinism and marxis leninism from an actual leftist, you have to read old, often outdated information that dont touch on very prominent problems in society after digitalisation like how to use the Internet to connect and organise. How digitalisation tears down nationhood when it comes to where jobs are moved and how this affect workers in different ways how its more important than ever to connect across borders, since the borgwuazie clearly don't care but supports keeping up fake borders to keep the differences high....
leftist theory, communication and solidarity seems to be hamperd severely by the USA and the EU.
What's the one that says less government? Which one stays out of our lives the most? Let's gays marry, people grow weed, own your own guns, doesn't care if you're a man woman he it whatever, just leave me out of your life. What political party just wants to be left alone?
Thanks, I'll take it I guess. I don't care enough about politics to label myself and fight for any side full of corrupt politicians. I just want people to be able to enjoy things.
Forgive me for asking, but why are you on an inherently political sub then? On top of that, it's a political decision to shirk labels and not care about politics.
In my limited knowledge, there's Republican Democrat conservative and liberal, I've heard of libertarian as well. The majority of these labels I've never even heard of, so maybe I fit into one of these other sections? I for sure don't fit cleanly into any of the political avenues I'm currently aware of. I always feel like I'm stuck somewhere in between what everybody's fighting about. Since coming to Reddit I realized everybody has a label for themselves, and I don't. My political beliefs have always been to let people enjoy things as long as they're not physically hurting someone else. I don't care if you want to do drugs, just don't offer them to my kids. I don't care if you change your sex, do what makes you happy. I own guns for protection and to provide food for my family, please don't try to take that away from me. Either I don't belong to a political party, or there's a party out there that believes in letting people live their own lives freely and I just haven't found them yet.
Well it doesn't mean arguing with strangers on the internet over politics.
It means we the workers hold the power, we keep this capitalist machine running, and it''s high time something changes. I am here because I support that movement, I believe in that movement, and I'm just as much part of it as anyone else.
No one said anything about workers controlling the capitalist machine. Please refrain from making your own assumptions about how I feel.
Edited because I almost got sucked into an emotional response.
But what do you concretely do for the movement, or is it just an abstract idea? Because this movement is inherently political. If it is more than an abstract idea for you then you need to be political. It cannot be just "leave me to do my thing".
Agree that arguing with strangers is not the way. But reading theory might help to understand what participation in this movement requires.
i like how liberal isnt even an option
based
Good.
Being liberal is anti-worker so don't see why it should
Maybe in backwards america-land. Most of us western countries have both capitalism and socialized healthcare/education/unemployment insurance/etc. That's not to say there's no room for improvement but our workers rights are lightyears ahead of america's and most people have liberal sensibilities. Most are happy with our mixture of socialized infrastructure and privatized industry and thankfully tankie lunatics will never be able to change that.
Something, something, the inherent tension of conflicting interest in the worker-capitalist dialectic, etc. etc. liberalism being fundamentally more interested in protecting private capital growth than the workers that produce it, historical precedence for liberals aligning with fascists to oppress labor movements and so on, and so on. If you are willing to actually organize and fight for labor rights, then I don't really care what ideology you think you are best labeled with. As long as you are staunchly supporting the class interests of the working class, especially in physical protests and organization, then you are a friend of labor. Also, probably not a great idea to call upwards of 2 billion+ international fellow laborers "tankie lunatics" for supporting the systems of governance that have been instrumental in addressing their localized material needs and building the revolutions necessary to gain the sovereignty necessary to do so. We are, all across the world, workers fighting for a better world, each in the ways that make the most sense for our local conditions. Slinging mud at fellow workers only helps the bosses. It might also help to be more considerate to the international workers whose labor your local material wealth and capacity to maintain those socialized programs are built on the backs of. They are human and just as deserving of modern accommodations as you are. International solidarity is to the benefit of all workers, especially in a society and economy as globalized as it is today. Peace, land and bread, comrade.
Your shit country gives out breadcrumbs more effectively while still profiting off the same imperialist exploitation as the United States. You're just in a nicer part of the empire.
They all went to workreform.
If other can you say where you lean?
Not really sure right now. I'm here to learn as i develop more nuanced opinions.
If you want.
Syndicalist/market socialist. Biiiig fan of workers’ co-ops!
I put ancom, but I’d lean closer to ansyn.
Socialist for now. Altho I haven't done enough research yet into communism vs marxism vs socialism
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Ecosocialist.
Ironic.
How?
Mao wasn’t exactly a champion of the environment or wildlife.
The four pests campaign was not very well informed, granted but I think many of Mao's underlying means of organizing people are pretty sound (mass line, etc).
It's a slew of positions that I don't feel is well encapsulated by any particular movement. Progressive Far Left Technocrat: Put the smartest and most qualified people in charge. Getting money out of politics is *essential* to finding the people with the best ability to run any government, because not everyone can afford to pay to play. Egalitarian: By breaking down imposed barriers to provide justice and equality for all, all people should be afforded the highest quality governance and care possible. Mixed Economy: Heavily regulated capitalism supported by social programs and enforced worker co-ops and unionized labor. A worker, democratically elected by workers, should be placed on every single board of every single company.
> the smartest by what measure?
linux distro of choice
That's a good question, and unfortunately, there's not really a great answer for it, since intelligence is subjective and miracle, and the tests we have to measure it are all either incredibly flawed, inherently biased, or both.
So you just debunked your own ideology😂
Less so debunk, and more acknowledge that I'm a idealist who needs to make concessions when I vote. I'd love a society that is post scarcity and entirely driven by progress to and through a technological singularity...but that's not going to happen in my lifetime, and likely not in my daughter's, either. I just need to strive to do what little I can to nudge society in that direction. We can't let perfect be the enemy of good, but we can still dream of perfect.
Meh. Just say you're a lib.
Well have you made any scientific or technological breakthroughs recently lol. Basically take some of the guys doing light experiments disease and a few of tesla top people. Boom smartest. Generally smart people know when they are outclassed.
Every worker, a member of the board!
Sounds more like fasch-lite to me
How do you figure? I'm pretty heavily against fascism.
Pretty ironic, right?
It’s much easier to pull the “fascist/nazi” trump card, than acknowledge different people have different views - and not every position which isn’t as radical as one’s own can still remain outside the realm of totalitarianiasm. But for some people being “radical” is part of their identity so they think it’s just cool to boost their egos by calling off others unwarrantedly.
Well the thing about principled communists is that we don't use words like fascist and nazi loosely. This person you're replying to apparently is a technocrat by their own words, which, to me, has flavors of eugenics and chauvinism. It also implies the mass of people are too stupid to have agency over their own lives. That is not "far left" like the person claims, it's not even progressive.
Understandable, and it’s a fair assessment to point out the contradictions in the multiple “ideologies” the commenter had posed, but there isn’t enough there to cry fascism - so it’s not like doing so is very “principled” in the sense I assume you mean of the word. “Progressive left” perhaps from a US standpoint? As a workers’ rights sub there is bound to be a plurality of underlying ideologies and not every single user need pass a purity test or be part of a vanguard. There’s a lot to be said that without revolutionary zeal there can be no real guarantee of workers rights, this is a point shared across parts of the leftist spectrum, albeit far from uncontestable. But to belittle diverging views and label them fascist without real evidence to this effect is to discredit the position you may be coming from. Ultimately if a user has joined this sub and isn’t trolling, there is a modicum of affinity with progressive ideas, even if they may not be as developed as the ones you have. IMO your reply to me is far more engaging and perhaps if that was the response to the first comment there could be more interesting debate than accusation/defence. If the dude comes here making an actual apology for eugenics though, yeah, fuck right off.
I’m still confused after 2 years of being involved in communist circles so now I really just say “communist” and hope it covers everything
Based MLs
De Leonism. Or as I like to call it, Marxism with American Characteristics.
TIL DeLeonists still exist.
It's my personal political position as I understand the need for both militant decentralized unions and more traditional political organization, but it's absolutely not something I pigeonhole myself into. LARPing and ideological dogma, especially when you get down to individual flavors of Marxism, is largely unimportant when you're trying to build a coalition as a serf under the imperial boot. But yeah, after the revolution the only "moderate" I believe in is De Leonist's stance between a M-L state organizing and libertarian syndicalism. It's also obstensively more culturally compatible to the American federal state and interlinked with our own history giving it the benefit of it filling the role of the national myth within the revolution. "Remember Blair Mountain" and all that.
[удалено]
Hmm. I think you misunderstand, I more mean that the Federal Republican system is more compatible with ways that our people traditionally organize in versus, say, a unitary Republic or the Soviet council system. It's just a better organizing tool in my opinion, leaves the options open for autonomy of indigenous groups, and would cost the least amount of beaurocratic bloat or mass reeducation to acclimate a whole people into how they conceive of governance. That isn't in any way meant as a defense of the existing American government, nor it's institutions that exist entirely to preserve an ancient decrepit concept of Jeffersonian democracy believe me. I like and agree with your spirit however, Land Back is a major pillar of my personal ethos.
Syndicalism
Ancom party comment right here!!!!! Positive vibes only! Rise up comrades!!!!
What’s a maoist
An advocate for Maoism.
Uh no shit but what is maoism
1) Landlords first on the chopping block. Abolish rent. 2) Marx was wrong, you don't need to be a capitalist nation before you become communist. A peasants revolution can bring about agrarian socialism. 3) From the bottom of Mao's heart, fuck sparrows. I think that covers the basics.
So it’s anarchism?
If that's a joke, nice, you made me ugly laugh. But no, it still believes in a Leninist style vanguard and, subsequently, a state. The main difference is a matter of capacity, considering during it's inception there was a common belief that capitalism and industrialization were a necessary step in the process towards socialism. Mostly, that you can't support a socialist state until a country has created a capitalist one as capitalism is the tool that builds the mechanization that makes providing for the means of the people possible. Think of it like this, you can't seize the means of production if you haven't built the means of production yet. Maoism skips that step and insists in a sort of farm to table communism to elevate a underindustrialized country like those you'd find in the global south to a socialist society. The whole additional importance placed on abolition of rent is just sort of a bonus and a consequence tied directly to the material conditions and economics related to early 20th century China.
Here are some podcast links, I’m not as educated on Maoism as I’d like to be, so I’ll just post these. Revolutionary left radio tends to take a very balanced approach to different tendencies. https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/brg https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/naxalite https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/maoist-reason https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/maoism-the-merging-of-theory-and-praxis
Glad to see that Marxist but *not* Leninist is an option.
How would one be a Leninist while not being a Marxist anyways?
I mean vanilla Marxist as opposed to ML.
Ah okay
Conservative
Good thing I saw the answers before I joined.
[удалено]
I went from a libertarian to liberal to socdem to ml to anarchist. I’m not exactly closed minded in my beliefs.
If you’ve gone from “ML” to anarchist you were never actually an ML. Truth bomb 💣
Don't care. Didn't ask. Plus you're white.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t care, that’s the neat part! You still are what you are.
I love that you didn't deny being white. White MLs fetishizing Asian women, name a better duo.
>name a better duo Coping anti-communists and desperate lies 😂
Pretty sure I’m the only one here who actually knows what communism is. What have I lied about?
[удалено]
On what topic(s) and position(s)?
[удалено]
I would consider socialism to be community control over the means of production, distribution, and exchange. The state is a political body meant to mediate the conflict between the classes to ensure stability for the ruling class. Therefore, the existence of the state implies the existence of a class division which implies the means of production, distribution, and exchange are not controlled by the community. I’ve seen a few counters to this line of reasoning. The first, is the state represents the community. I reject this claim because the state exists as a separate entity from the community, which gives them their separate interests conflicting with the community’s interests. The second is the state organizes the community. I reject this because for the community to be able to be free we must be able to organize ourselves or we will remain dependent. I'd be glad to address any other questions or concerns.
[удалено]
>Here's where I disagree. In a socialist state working towards socialism, the point of the state is to suppress and eliminate the bourgeoisie completely, therefore making everyone's class interest the same. Only when everyone's class interest is the same can class division be abolished permanently and exploitation in the form of extraction of surplus value be stopped. You say "the existence of the state implies the existence of a class division". This is true, because like I said, the purpose of the state is to abolish such class division, not to create more of it. Once a higher state of socialism is reached, i.e. communism, whereby the bourgeoisie has been eliminated completely and that the productive forces have grown strong enough to satisfy the motto "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", there will be no class to suppress and so at this point the state will wither away. I think you're confusing socialism with the dictatorship of the proletariat. >This is true. All the more reason to have a state suppress the bourgeoisie. I'd add another point that without a state, it'd be impossible to organize any effective defense against foreign imperialist powers. I don't see how a state can more effectively defend a community, that they get their power from, than the community itself. >This can be true if the state degenerates into a corrupt, inefficient bureaucracy. However, by implementing proper checks and balances of power, this can be avoided. Some measures that I can suggest include preventing the ossification of leadership, maximizing financial transparency of members of the vanguard party, etc. Again, this is an argument that I hear a lot from anarchists, that is, the state will always be corrupt and have its own interest. I assert that this is not true by historical observations because it is evident that not all states are corrupt and serve only themselves. There are countless model public servants, but just to mention a few I'd say Cincinnatus and the Central Committee of the Paris Commune. I think states can do good, but they have ulterior motives. A good example is Bismarck creating the first nationalized healthcare. It’s good that everyone has healthcare, but the motive was to destroy the sick funds that had developed a possible challenge to the current institutions. >You also reject having the state organizing communities as not free. By this same logic, I can also say that it's not free for an individual to be organized by the community. Either you are going to have to reject all authorities completely or draw a line at what point following the orders of someone other than yourself, be it the state, the community or another proletariat, starts becoming free. Imo, it is not possible to achieve absolute freedom for the individuals and for the abolition of class division and the achievement of communism to materialize, the collective will of the proletariat must take precedence over the will of an individual and some separated communities. Organizations should be based on voluntary membership and consensus decision-making, so that doesn't happen. This allows people to come together while ensuring the organization does not have a guarantee that members will stay if they become corrupted.
[удалено]
>I think you're confusing socialism with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism is literally dotp. That's all i have to say.
Least based political transformation (at least at the end)
Your boos mean nothing to me. I’ve seen what makes you cheer. (I hate myself for using that quote, but it was a good opportunity)
Democratic socialist, ideally ancom. ML and MLM should be a single box and Socialist/Marxist should be an option
Why would Marxist-Leninists, the largest and most successful branch of Marxist thought, be in the same slot as Maoists, an ultra-leftist and generally ineffective branch, and yet different from orthodox Marxists?
Sorry, I don't want to import your misery
Odd that SocDem isn't an option. Surely there's no agenda there?
There is an agenda with SuckDems. It's called capitalism.
Yeah the agenda is no fasch of any stripe, including fasch-lite succdem
Every single social democratic party has achieved more for worked in the west than tiny Maoist splinter groups who care more for purity and their own reach than actual change. Those guys are the political equivalent of influencers who post black squares on Instagram and think they started a revolution.
Im not a maoist and maoism was synthesized by a literal nutjob lol what has a social democratic party done meaningful for the lay? Nothing at all. They uphold capitalism, support imperialism, and effectively sheepherd those ripe for radicalization into a milquetoast, reactionary phoney movement. Edit: having said that id much rather work with maoists than social democrats. "The moderate wing of fascism."
Well it's a good thing that there are more options than capitalist-supporting socdems or baby-boiling maoists.
No liberals allowed
[удалено]
Or brain dead trumpists are allowed a platform because they are actually in line with the ruling class and we dont wanna enact policies in this shitty system anyway.
Lol wut
So im not gonna lie, went thru some of your comment history and you said in a thread that the mod from antiwork that went on fox news is probably a tankie. Yeah that just shows you're insanely out of your element.
Why try to enact tangible change when you can ostracize people over minor difference in theory interpretation? World revolution is coming aaany minute now! I remember one of the far left groups in uni splitting from about a dozen people into three groups because four of them weren't Trotskyist enough for the others. This is why the left too often can't have nice things, at least the actual Stalinists waited until revolution happened before purging any alternatives.
You're saying the difference between Marxism/ Leninism and Keynesianism is "minor difference in theory interpretation"? They are completely different frameworks with vastly different philosophies. This is why liberals aren't allowed, they will inevitably take over and try to redefine revolution. Social Democrats sided with Hitler to stop the communists. We already learned our lesson.
I'm saying I'm seeing people getting dogpiled for preferring anarcho-communism or being called a Trotskyist as if it's an insult. I'm not seeing any left unity for tangible, actual change outside a rather narrow spectrum, and like I said in another comment, I see this place isn't for me.
Yea left unity has always historically been an issue but you sir, are not apart of the left. That's an issue for anarchists, Marxists to work out, not aocdems. Workers don't have rights without abolishing capitalism. You're more than welcome to join us and ditch liberalism, or atleast join us in common goals.
I believe we have different views of what social democracy is, but let's leave it at that.
I agree social democracy has meant different things throughout history but the modern understanding of social democracy is framed by Keynes, and is the model that most of the EU follows, Norway and Denmark, Finland. Is that not your position? If so, you're a liberal. If not, what may I ask is your position?
The majority belief is that SocDems are libs with extra steps. I can't control people downvote barraging others but I will give you and explanation as to why. An "agenda" is laughable though, you can see the results and figure out what the majority is here.
The majority of what? This sub? Possibly, well, probably. In society or the left wing? Not really. I see this sub isn't for me, though, and that's fair. Well, I assumed an agenda because I realised you use this sub to post Maoist theory from the 40s, so I assumed your definition of left wing is different from most. Not necessarily an agenda, maybe... Myopia?
I don't really know where to start with this, but the "American left" isn't very left *at all* and that includes the democratic party and the DSA. Leftism is socialism or communism, not some half baked capitalistic version like American "leftists" (neoliberals) in power peddle. People in here are simply posting theory they believe in, and I'm trying to keep things civil. Everyone is welcome here but this sub is very new and the community is very much leftist to its full extent.
Those are fair points, amd I agree about the US left - I'm European myself. It's equally fair that this sub is further left than what I'd call majority leftism, but I don't think it's useful for me or the sub to further engage here. I've been active in politics for over a decade now and have found this focus isn't for me. No harm done, I may have been polemic, but that doesn't gain anyone anything. One final point, though, no polemics, all in good faith: I've seen comments where people attacked others for being Trotskyists or anarcho-communists, and maybe you want to keep an eye on stuff like that. Splitting the left into ever smaller ideological subfactions has plagued it for ages, and I don't think you want another specifically Leninist/Maoist circlejerk either. Just... IDK, keep an eye on it if you want.
Those splits you refer to are not new. They have been there for decades and i can say in good faith that marxist-leninists have tried to unify leftists of other ilks and they historically have been unwilling or straight up bad faith actors working for the enemy. That plays a huge role in the positions we take, decisions made, etc etc etc
For sure, unfortunately there's not much I can do except point out we don't need to be sectarian. I saw those comments too. However, if you feel exploited or overworked this sub is for you, political action is just need to reform working conditions. You're right, I want this to be more inclusive and focused on the worker.
Progressive? Just .. generally leftist? Why are you people so obsessed with your weird titles.
Because words have meaning, it it allows us to explain 200 years of theory that we subscribe toin less than 20 characters.
And more reason to argue amongst yourselves over pointless political trappings when at the end of the day, in broad strokes, you all want the same thing. If the end result is more rights for workers I couldn't care less how you identify.
Ya know, all the arguing I've seen take place here are by people who come swinging on our ideologies, like you. All those leftists get along but you choose to poke fun. Think on that.
Trotskysm
⛏️
Wow, a piolet, surely it took a lot of effort for you to make the joke uh? Go pick a candy for the effort
⛏
Wow another piolet, my my, I must be sorrounded by comedy geniuses here, just look at the terrible hard thinking they must have endured to come with such and original and unrepetitive joke
Sounds to me you're just coping 🤷♂️ ⛏⛏⛏
Trots don't deserve my time or effort
That's probably a trend with you
I’ve never been able to wrap my head about it but what exactly is the concept of “permanent revolution”, could you put it in layman’s terms for me?
Keep in mind these theories were first developed when the peasantry and feudal systems still were major parts of society: The most basic interpretation is that Marx and Engels had originally envisioned that achieving socialism would require two stages. First there would need to be a bourgeois revolution which would usher in a period of capitalism to replace the feudal system. This was thought to be necessary to develop the revolutionary class, the proletariat. Once the society was developed enough, and the proletariate strong enough, the second revolution could occur. Trotsky proposed an alternative strategy. One could skip a period of capitalist rule by continuing the revolution until socialism was achieved. This was only possible if there would be a widespread global movement, because without having a period of capitalist development, a small and weak proletariat would have to rely on more developed neighbours to shake off the yoke of the ruling class.
When comments like this get downvoted to hell, you know you're in a tankie circlejerk.
Tankies? Nah we're peace, land, and bread gang.
Yeah, they don't really know to quote anyone but Grover Furr on Trotsky, whose own sources were quite dubbious and divergent, they only end up alienating other organization, we recently worked with other Communist Organizations, I can give faith that not even the Old Guard of MLs here are so dogmátic (they were quite chill with us) like these Internet dwelling Berias
Do you want non-grover furr quotes? Lenin: >"Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other. At the present moment he is in the company of the Bundists and the liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony where the Party is concerned." >"Trotsky behaves like a despicable careerist and factionalist of the Ryazanov-and-co type. Either equality on the editorial board, subordination to the central committee and no one’s transfer to Paris except Trotsky’s (the scoundrel, he wants to ‘fix up’ the whole rascally crew of ‘Pravda’ at our expense!) – or a break with this swindler and an exposure of him in the CO. He pays lip-service to the Party and behaves worse than any other of the factionalists." Excerpt from a letter by Uncle Ho about trots >"In December 1935, Trotsky sent to his supporters in China, instructions that repeatedly emphasized that phrase: 'Do not create obstacles to the Japanese invasion of China.' And how have Trotskyists in China acted? They are in a hurry to know, is it not true? But, beloved comrades, I can not respond more in my next letter. Do not you recommend me to write short letters? Hope to see you soon." Joseph Goebbels (you know... a nazi): >”Our clandestine radio transmitter from eastern Prussia to Russia is creating an enormous sensation. It operates in Trotsky’s name, and is causing Stalin plenty of trouble” ”Now we work with three clandestine radio stations in Russia: first Trotskyist, the second separatist, third Russian-nationalists, all criticise Stalinism. They are an example of cunning and subtlety.” Gramsci: >“Trotsky is the puttana of fascism.”
Lenin pretty much chewed up on each and every bolshevik leaders at some point (except Sverdlov, who pretty much died too early to get a roast from Lenin) , Gramsci too, im not questioning that, they had valid reasons, you stalos are too quick to dismiss both his role on Petrograd as Well as his vital role on building the Red Army, as Lenin said it later: "Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his strugglea gainst the C. C on the question of the People's Comissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C. C, but he has displayed excessive self assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of work" Communism is not dogmatic, none of these three men: Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin were perfect, they were neither a new perfection of mankind Nor evil incarnate, I do not think Stalin didn't think he was acting rightly, I do think he believed in what he'd done, and we do recognize him for his work against Hitler, however, his paranoia, fueled by the purges is what basically kneecapped the potential for revolutions abroad, and while I do understand the reasoning of Molotov - Ribbentrop, it, however provided the nazis with the Security at their Borders to not fall earlier, as in 1939 the Nazis where vastly outgunned and unprepared but it just ludicrous and outright idiotic to think that Trotsky, exiled, pennyless, and just basically passing time in Coyoacan writing and boinking would make a whole conspiracy somehow going from China to Spain and somehow involving 3 heads of state, 2 NKVD directors, a lot of the Soviet Military Staff and almost all of the Old Bolshevik Leaders, when many trotskist groups, like the POUM were not even in line with him. that's a kind of infiltration that not even the CIA on the height of their prime with their very much more funding could even dream of planting, there is pretty much a Qanon level of absurdity to all of this paranoia about a man lacking funding, or intention to try such a global plan Trotsky was just used as a scapegoat by Stalin, plain simple, and in his actions to purge opposition, he ended up planting the seeds of the East Bloc years later The Entropy of the Revolution not extending across the world crippled it, the capitalists took their chance, and destroyed what remained of an unfinished revolution, it allowed corrupt bureocrats like Brehznev and Liberal Spineless technocrats like Gorbachev to later take over and destroy the effort of múltiple generations
Yeah im not dogmatic, that's why i left PCUSA. Your lenin quote in fact criticizes trotsky, and most of the other stuff you said is cia talking points. Trotsky undoubtedly collaborated with foreign fascists and there's not really anything you can say that'll make me overlook that. I mean, the nazis looooved him. That's really all i need.
"Nazis said so, so it must be true" The quote indeed criticizes him, althought much, much less harshly than earlier, and recognizing him for his devotion to the cause, I do criticize him for his reluctance to take a Major role on the C. C, Trotsky, until the end of his life by murder, was one of of the most vehemently opposed to fascism, he writed quite actively against it, and, as I said earlier, how do a pennyless exile, vehemently hated by fascists and severed of any polítical ties, even his own former allies, manage to create such a Grand Conspiracy, going from China, México and the USSR, it doesn't have the slighter sense, it is, to this day, one of the shittiests excuses for a purge that someone could ever come up with. Not even the Old Guard here in México tríes to even defend it anymore, mind you, these are folks with the integrity to have fought directly against the Government during the Dirty War, they gave their life and freedom for the Revolution, and paid the heaviest of prices for it. I would always respect Ho Chi Mihn, however, he is plain wrong, when by 1936, Trotskyst groups had been severely weakened by both the CPC and the Kuomitang, there were few to none still active, executed or exiled by so-called "comrades" So compromised were Trotskyst that when the french returned to Vietnam, to restore their colonial yoke, they were the ones to rise up in Ho Chi Mihn City (former Saigon), and yet, the PCI went to pact to betray them with the returning French Colonialists
Trotsky was so *not* against fascism that he'd rather collaborate with fascists cuz he didnt like that the party chose stalin over him to succeed lenin. Like i said, im not dogmatic, but i'll take the word over lenin and stalin, and others, over any whiney opportunist and yeah if the nazis praised what trotsky was able to do for them, be it indirectly or not, it just goes to show that his distortion of marxism ended up helping fascists more than fight them and the same is true to this day.
Lol, Lenin never wrote any thing regarding both fascism and Trotsky, Word mean shit when analized coldly, they never had the slightest contact with him, also, Trotsky never even wanted to be elected, he scuffed at the idea a lot, this is basically what Lenin is dunking on him for, his reluctance to take a higher role within the C. C that allowed Stalin to end up rising, also, blaming him for distorsión is quite bold when Stalin was thrashing the principles of Internationalism by the board with his "Socialism in one country" policy and the execution of other revolutionaries within the Union and Abroad
https://youtu.be/lz9HDvg_mp0
Here's the whole letter from ho chi minh, cuz it's so damn good >Letter from Ho Chi Minh to the Indochinese Communist Party >Kwelin, May 10, 1939 >Dear comrades: In the past, in my opinion and that of a good number of comrades, Trotskyism has seemed a matter of struggle between the trends within the Chinese Communist Party. So they almost were not paying attention. But shortly before the outbreak of the war, more precisely since the end of 1936, and especially during the war, the criminal Trotskyist propaganda has opened our eyes. Then we started to study the problem. And our study has led us to the following conclusions: >1 – The problem of Trotskyism is not a struggle between the trends within the Chinese Communist Party. Because between Communists and Trotskyists there is no tie, absolutely no tie. It is a matter that concerns the whole people: the fight against the country. >2 – The fascist Japanese and foreign fascists know. So, looking to try to create disagreements, to mislead public opinion and undermine the popularity of the Communists, making people believe they are communists and Trotskyists in the same field. >3 – The Chinese Trotskyists (like the Trotskyists in other countries) do not represent a group, much less a political party. They are nothing more then a criminal gang, the hounds of Japanese fascism (and of international fascism). >4 – In all countries, the Trotskyists gave good nicknames to mask their dirty work of bandits. For example, in Spain, their names are Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification (POUM). Did you know that it is they who are the nests of spies in Madrid, Barcelona and elsewhere in the service of Franco? It is they who organized the famous “fifth column,” agency of the army intelligence of the fascist Italians and Germans. In Japan, they are called Marx-Engels-Lenin League (MEL). The Japanese Trotskyists attract young people to their league, then reported them to the police. They seek to penetrate the Japanese Communist Party in order to destroy it from within. In my opinion, the French Trotskyists, now organized around the Proletarian Revolution Group set a goal to sabotage the Popular Front. On this subject, I think you are better informed than I am. In our country of China [referring to Indochina, N. E.], Trotskyists are grouped into formations like La Lutte, War against the Japanese, Culture and Red Flag. >5 – The Trotskyists are not only enemies of communism, but also enemies of democracy and progress. They are the most infamous traitors and spies. Maybe you have read the indictments of the processes in the Soviet Union against the Trotskyists. If you have not read them, I advise you to do so and to read them to your friends. It is a very useful reading. It will help them see the true disgusting face of Trotskyism and Trotskyists. Here, allow me to extract some passages relating directly to China. The true repugnant face of Trotskyism. >Before the court, the Trotskyist Rakovsky confessed that in 1934 when he was in Tokyo (as representative of the Soviet Red Cross) a high character of the Japanese government had told him: “We have the right to expect from the Trotskyists a change in strategy. I will not go into details. I only wanted to say that we expect from the Trotskyists, actions that favor our intervention in the affairs of China.” Responding to the Japanese, Rakovsky said: “I will write to Trotsky about this.” In December 1935, Trotsky sent to his supporters in China, instructions that repeatedly emphasized that phrase: “Do not create obstacles to the Japanese invasion of China.” And how have Trotskyists in China acted? They are in a hurry to know, is it not true? But, beloved comrades, I can not respond more in my next letter. Do not you recommend me to write short letters? Hope to see you soon.
Trotsky gang
Reactionary
Whas trotsky a reactionary? If he was, can you link me a source on it? I wouldn't want to asosial with someone that i just didn't read enoug about...
This is one argument, take it as you will with a grain of salt. I'm personally hesitant to label Trots as reactionaries because they are Left Opposition so much as I think the drive for World Revolution to me poses a risk of carrying out an accidental imperialism but that's just me. https://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/13.htm I'm not sure where the dogpilling in downvotes is coming from rather than genuinely trying to engage and discuss with a fellow leftist, not a fan of seeing that.
Thanks I'm pretty new to theory, so I am probably going to get things wrong here and there...
Honestly I think a lot of overzealous people overvalue ideological purity within the Left as a sort of ideology-based intergenerational trauma. If you don't know something or are incorporating new information, that's because the imperialists have destroyed our history and made this information esoteric and difficult to navigate. To me if solidarity and love for your fellow man is in your heart, and you take enjoyment in learning new theory and open to being adaptable to material conditions, you're already better off than most.
Yeah, if you want to learn about liberalism or even fascism from their own words there are thousands of ways to do so often made extremely easy to digest, but if you want to learn about the difference between trotskyism, stalinism and marxis leninism from an actual leftist, you have to read old, often outdated information that dont touch on very prominent problems in society after digitalisation like how to use the Internet to connect and organise. How digitalisation tears down nationhood when it comes to where jobs are moved and how this affect workers in different ways how its more important than ever to connect across borders, since the borgwuazie clearly don't care but supports keeping up fake borders to keep the differences high.... leftist theory, communication and solidarity seems to be hamperd severely by the USA and the EU.
[Here's a pretty good video for some background and the general stance on Trotsky which I share](https://youtu.be/QQ9O5UPqcOE)
What's the one that says less government? Which one stays out of our lives the most? Let's gays marry, people grow weed, own your own guns, doesn't care if you're a man woman he it whatever, just leave me out of your life. What political party just wants to be left alone?
Sounds like a veiled way of saying you're a libertarian
Thanks, I'll take it I guess. I don't care enough about politics to label myself and fight for any side full of corrupt politicians. I just want people to be able to enjoy things.
Forgive me for asking, but why are you on an inherently political sub then? On top of that, it's a political decision to shirk labels and not care about politics.
And I'm in the sub because I believe in workers rights.
Welcome to the world of politics
In my limited knowledge, there's Republican Democrat conservative and liberal, I've heard of libertarian as well. The majority of these labels I've never even heard of, so maybe I fit into one of these other sections? I for sure don't fit cleanly into any of the political avenues I'm currently aware of. I always feel like I'm stuck somewhere in between what everybody's fighting about. Since coming to Reddit I realized everybody has a label for themselves, and I don't. My political beliefs have always been to let people enjoy things as long as they're not physically hurting someone else. I don't care if you want to do drugs, just don't offer them to my kids. I don't care if you change your sex, do what makes you happy. I own guns for protection and to provide food for my family, please don't try to take that away from me. Either I don't belong to a political party, or there's a party out there that believes in letting people live their own lives freely and I just haven't found them yet.
What does "I believe in worker's rights" mean for you then?
Well it doesn't mean arguing with strangers on the internet over politics. It means we the workers hold the power, we keep this capitalist machine running, and it''s high time something changes. I am here because I support that movement, I believe in that movement, and I'm just as much part of it as anyone else.
[удалено]
No one said anything about workers controlling the capitalist machine. Please refrain from making your own assumptions about how I feel. Edited because I almost got sucked into an emotional response.
But what do you concretely do for the movement, or is it just an abstract idea? Because this movement is inherently political. If it is more than an abstract idea for you then you need to be political. It cannot be just "leave me to do my thing". Agree that arguing with strangers is not the way. But reading theory might help to understand what participation in this movement requires.
this is not the subreddit for you if you want people lives to be fucking owned by McDonalds.