Have you read any books by this man? I'm thinking of picking up "The History of the Russian Revolution" because I was reading Capital and its starting to become and absolute slog. What did you think of his writings?
Bonus question: Why do Marxist-Leninists aka Stalinists consider him a counter-revolutionary?
Other urls found in this thread:
twitter.com
twitter.com
his ideology evolved into neoconservatism nuff said, turn zyklon levels up to 11
I've read that his history is kind of propagandistic for him and his camp.
No. Bonus answer: i dont care
apply DIRECTLY to the head!
could you go more in-depth? It really doesn't make sense to me how could one of the most orthodox marxists degenerate into neoconservatism
It's like 1984. They were for the same stuff but once they were in power, only big brother prevailed, and everyone else was counterrevolutionary
Why do Marxist-Leninists aka Stalinists consider him a counter-revolutionary?
Why can't you fucking use google?
"Trotsky argued that his tendency, the Left Opposition, represented the internationalist traditions of the working class. The tendency led by Joseph Stalin was described as being in the centre, based on the state and party bureaucracy, tending to shift alliances between the left and the right. The right tendency was identified with the supporters of [Nikolai Bukharin, Alexei Rykov, Mikhail Tomsky]. It was asserted that they represented the influence of the peasantry and the danger of capitalist restoration."
tl;dr he was a jew who couldn't take a hint, even when it was Stalin doing the hinting - you don't fucking purity-spiral Stalin.
>he was a jew who couldn't take a hint
Like a pigeon in New York
Trosky was for eternal revolution capable of being progressed by you and me (everybody). Stalin's approach to socialist revolution was different in the way I portayed the individual in this struggle. Stalin rewrote history, by claiming that the the October revolution of was organised plan by prominent and knowledgeable communist party members. This is not the case but Stalin wanted the idea of revolution to change so that socialists from the rest of the world would make more thorough plans and be more patient in their struggles against imperialism. Pre-Stalin revolutions elswhere mostly failed because the socialist actors were disorgined and naive.
I have read a few pieces. He’s an ass.
I hear he changed his writing after the revolution, so maybe you’d prefer his older work
I recommend Volin’s The Unknown Revolution
neoconservatism & neoliberalism turned out to be a better vehicle for achieving trotsky's vision of internationalist deterritorialization than communism was. neoconservatism is the most egregious outgrowth of the frankfurt school project.
little fucking cunt was just a sore loser, his only issue with the Soviet Union was the fact that he wasn't General Secretary of it. Stalin implemented mass industrialization and agricultural collectivization (thus class was on the kulaks), which were Trotsky's two pet projects in the 20s with his left opposition. With the Third Period, Stalin also finally adopted Trotsky's ultra-left approach to fomenting international revolution. Then, after Trotsky got on his united front kick, Stalin copied his crap again with the popular front. And if you want to talk about the bureaucracy and how it betrayed the revolution, it's hard to ignore the fact that Stalin's favorite fucking hobby in the 1930s was literally purging party bureaucrats just to keep shit interesting. Trotsky's only problem with 'the bureaucracy' is that it wasn't his, and the only reason the revolution was betrayed was because it betrayed him.
tl;dr trotsky was just a petty power-hungry hypocrite who was jealous about not making it big
this
>trotsky's vision of internationalist deterritorialization
source?
As far as im aware Trotsky was for international socialist revolution, not just propagation of international capital
Trotsky was probably the most articulate of all the Bolsheviks so of course he gained a pompous following.
Pretty much this. Trotsky supported the same brutal forced industrialization policy Stalin ended up putting into practice, Stalin was to the right originally before flip flopping.
It's largly a meme since neoconservatism is a form of "permanent revolution"... but a lot of the anti-Stalinist left throughout the 1930s later abandoned communism and became militant promoters for an American foreign policy to overthrow the USSR and promote "democracy" globally. Most of them also happened to be Jews and rediscovered this all of a sudden and became deeply concerned about Israel after the Six-Day War.
Irving Kristol (Bill Kristols father) is a good example.
twitter.com
capital is deterritorializing, afaik the reverse isn't implied, but i'm using terms that didn't exist while trotsky was alive to describe him which might be an error but whatever fuck this guy
Was he kind? These political types tend not to be. Are there any /kind/ political figures? They all seem, from the outside, like bloodthirsty hounds who were itching to kill their ideological rivals and replace them.
His writing are great. But trotsky is a bitch boy and an awful politician
>Too brainlet to even read Volume 1 of Capital so he decides to pick up fucking TROTSKY
This is how all Trots are created. They don't read any actual Marx, Engels, or Lenin, let alone god forbid Stalin or Mao, call themselves "Marxists," and then base their whole ideology on Trotsky's Mary Sue stories and fucking kid's books like Animal Farm.
no he was an asshole
>dude fuck stalin lol
Trotsky would have been a worse leader than stalin, just as merciless but dumber
Only start reading bitch boy trotsky after you firmly dislike because of his political actions against the USSR
doubt
even Lenin knew Stalin was a retard
so any of you have any arguments, or are we just regurgitating old soviet propaganda?
After the Red and Black armies defeated the Whites and the invaders, Trotsky turned the Reds on the Blacks, killing actual socialism, continuing imperialist policies by killing people from another country who fought FOR them and the cause they thought Lenin and his gang stood for.
I get this from smuggled out truth
What I read from him was two-faced drivel.
stating that Stalin stole the left opposition program for industrialization and agricultural collectivization isn't what I'd call old soviet propaganda. Same for saying that purging bureaucrats was one of Uncle Joe's more beloved hobbies.
get off Yea Forums and sell some more papers trot faggot
>soviet union would have succeeded in building real communism if only trotsky
>soviet union failed to build real communism because trotsky
You communist retards are worse than Eva waifu warriors. You've been at this for 100 years.
No, because that was their plans from the start. The authoritarian-socialists, headed by Lenin, killed their rival socialists.
"Been at it"? I'm telling you what happened. No that was never full socialism, that was an authoritarian state built on paranoia. Centralization accomplished some wonders, but they never established proper socialism.
>The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism starts from the proposition that ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’. This postulate is accepted as an axiom for a multitude of practical human actions and elementary generalisations. But in reality ‘A’ is not equal to ‘A’. This is easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens—they are quite different from each other. But, one can object, the question is not of the size or the form of the letters, since they are only symbols for equal quantities, for instance, a pound of sugar. The objection is beside the point; in reality a pound of sugar is never equal to a pound of sugar—a more delicate scale always discloses a difference. Again one can object: but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is this true—all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour, etc. They are never equal to themselves. A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself “at any given moment”.
>Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of this “axiom”, it does not withstand theoretical criticism either. How should we really conceive the word “moment”? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that “moment” to inevitable changes. Or is the “moment” a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’ signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist.
FUCK me if this dude doesn't look like colonel Sanders.
Aren't those Das Kapital quotes?
no
Where are the kind political figures, who I can follow and identify with? I don't want to be a politiclet, but I also find everyone in politics to be somewhere on the spectrum of sociopathy.
>A sophist
No, John, you are the sophist
Marx, lenin, sankara, MLK, Malcolm X, George habbash, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Einstein, che, castro, eugene debs, rosa luxemburg, chomsky, kropotkin, mao, grandpa bernie, zizek, emma goldman, mandela, mohammed darwish, Engels.
Who am I missing?
Read Das Kapital first. Also unironily read his biographie. That guys Life was one hell of a trip.
He said kind, non sociopaths
Take Lenin and Mao out
Add Bookchin
theres this show on Netflix by the name of Trotsky, created by national russian television for centenary of the bolshevik revolution, also highly recommend
Malatesta
Was emma goldman kind? She seems pretty stern in her photos
I read his pamphlet on Fascism and it’s retarded. Even back when I was a commie I thought this dude was gay.
what is your ideology now?
I'll look into them. Sankara seems very kind. Poor guy. Just as Africa tries to uplift itself, certain devils prevent it from doing so. Kindness is key for our present world. It's needed now more than ever.
She seems to have been. Tough, but kind enough.
>can only speak in anime references
yuck
I thoroughly enjoyed Russian revolution. It's rare you get a step-by-step of the arrest and overthrow of a popular revolution by a minority force, as written by the overthrower. It's a very valuable book, politically speaking.
deleuzian trotskyism is the way
Colonel Sanders didn't write a book you idiot