Back

@johnwilsonwsws

I'm not trusting a Trotskyist. I'll stick to actual Marxism-Leninism, not Trotsky's anti-Leninist creation of an ideology.

@Radical_EgoCom Please post a link to what you think is the best analysis of fascism.

The claim that Trotskyism is anti-Leninist doesn’t withstand scrutiny. Lenin himself said on Nov 1 (14), 1917 (a week after the insurrection)

“As for conciliation [with the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionists] I cannot even speak about that seriously. Trotsky long ago said that unification is impossible. Trotsky understood this and from that time on there has been no better Bolshevik.”

@Radical_EgoCom Lenin had such confidence in Trotsky during the civil war that he gave Trotsky a blank sheet of paper except for Lenin’s signature so Trotsky could write any order he felt necessary.

You are obviously welcome to explain where the arguments or evidence in the video are wrong. Workers, students and youth being drawn into politics by the crisis need to be educated.

Conscious critique is how this will happen.

@johnwilsonwsws

I wasn't referring to David North's analysis of Fascism or criticizing it. I was only critiquing his Trotskyism. In Lenin's "Testament," written in late 1922 and early 1923, he advised against Trotsky’s consolidation of power, stating, "Comrade Trotsky is too much of a person of the bureaucratic type... He has a tendency to be dictatorial." 1/5

@johnwilsonwsws

Also, in Lenin's "The New Economic Policy" (1921), while he doesn't specifically mention Trotsky by name, Lenin's advocacy for the NEP was a reaction to the more rigid beliefs held by party members, Trotsky being one of them, such as, for instance, Trotsky's opposition to the NEP, advocating instead for immediate and full-scale socialism and a continuation of state control over the economy. 2/5

@johnwilsonwsws

Lenin, on the other hand, supported the NEP because he saw it as a more pragmatic approach that would restore Russia's economy. This is just one example of how Trotsky was ideologically opposed to Lenin. Lenin's "The Ongoing Crisis of the Soviet Economy" (1922) also displays the ideological disconnect between Lenin and Trotsky, such as, once again, Lenin's critique of Trotsky's opposition against the NEP, such as this quote where Lenin shows support for the NEP,... 3/5

@johnwilsonwsws

..."The NEP is a way to rally the peasants around the Soviet Power, to help and support the poor and middle peasant...". This quote also shows how Lenin viewed the peasantry as a necessary part of the revolution and how an alliance between them and the proletariat was crucial for the revolutions success, a viewpoint which Trotsky also opposed, believing that they were too "backward" and "individualistic" to be able to support the revolution, even though... 4/5

@johnwilsonwsws

...Russia was a mostly peasant country where the peasants outnumbered the proletariat, making an alliance with the peasantry absolutely necessary for any kind of revolution to be successful. This further shows how Trotsky's beliefs were very much against Lenin's. 5/5

@Radical_EgoCom Lenin's testament is freely available online.

You are obviously free to invent new paragraphs but we can check.

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol02/no01/lenin.htm

Here are the references to Trotsky:

"I think that the fundamental factor in the matter of stability – from this point of view – as such members of the Central Committee as Stalin and Trotsky.
..."
1/3

@Radical_EgoCom
Lenin: "On the other hand, comrade Trotsky, as was proved by his struggle against the Central Committee in connection with the question of the People’s Commissariat of Ways and Communications, is distinguished not only by his exceptional ability – personally, he is, to be sure, the most able man in the present Central Committee – but also by his too far-reaching self-confidence and a disposition to be far too much attracted by the purely administrative side of affairs.
..."
2/3

@Radical_EgoCom Lenin "I will only remind you that the October episode of Zinoviev and Kamenev was not, of course, accidental, but that it ought as little to be used against them as the non-Bolshevism of Trotsky."

3/3

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol02/no01/lenin.htm

@Radical_EgoCom
you say "[Trotsky advocated] instead for immediate and full-scale socialism"

Really? Are you sure? Check your references and post them please.
--
Even Stalin in April 1924 said it was "impossible" for "final victory of socialism be gained, in one country alone"

By the end of 1924 Stalin shifted to say “Having consolidated its power, and taking the lead of the peasantry, the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society."

@johnwilsonwsws

The main book that I know of where Trotsky opposed a capitalist phase and advocated for an immediate transition into socialism is "The Permanent Revolution." The linked chapter from the book, "6. On the Skipping of Historical Stages," displays Trotsky's opposition to the idea that revolutions must strictly adhere to a linear progression of stages (feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism), as proposed by Stalin and his followers.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/pr06.htm

1/3

@johnwilsonwsws

This is opposed to Lenin's position on historical stages. The very first paragraph of the chapter "The Present-Day Economy of Russia (Extract from the 1918 Pamphlet)" from Lenin's document "The Tax in Kind" has Lenin saying, "State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time, state capitalism became established in our Republic,... 2/3

@johnwilsonwsws

...this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm

3/3

@johnwilsonwsws

"If the working class takes power, how is it supposed to implement the "capitalist stage" of development?"

"The Tax in Kind," the article that I linked above, already answers the question of how the capitalist phase, in the form of state capitalism, will be implemented once the working class takes power. It's been 8 days since I posted it, more than enough time for you to have read it. In short, the answer is that... 1/4

@johnwilsonwsws

...the NEP (New Economic Policy), a form of state capitalism, would allow for some forms of private enterprise and market mechanisms under state control to help revive the economy and allow for Russia to transition into socialism. The longer answer is "Read the Article." Also, Trotsky's idea of Permanent Revolution was an idealistic pipedream. He thought that socialism could only be achieved through the support of multiple socialist states, but... 2/4

@johnwilsonwsws

...there were no other socialist states, and Russia was only just strong enough to defend itself and nowhere near as powerful to initiate revolutions in other countries. They needed to build a strong socialist state in their country first before initiating revolutions in other countries, which is exactly what happened under Stalin's leadership when he officially ended the NEP in 1928 and began the transition to socialism and... 3/4

@johnwilsonwsws

...eventually aided in socialist revolutions in multiple other countries (China, Vietnam, Hungary, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia). 4/4

@Radical_EgoCom The contradiction is "state capitalism" is NOT production for profit for the benefit of a capitalist class, so how is it capitalism?

Later he says "Exchange is freedom of trade; it is capitalism."

Do you think this sums up Lenin's absorption of Marx's analysis of Das Kapital?

Stalin ended the NEP after denying its contradictions and the danger of the Kulaks. These problems culminated in the refusal of peasants to supply grain in 1927.

/1

@Radical_EgoCom In the first edition of "Foundations of Leninism" (April 1924) Stalin wrote

“The chief task, the organization of socialist production, still lies ahead. Can this task be performed, can the final victory of socialism be gained, in one country alone, and without the joint efforts of the proletarians in several of the most advanced countries? No, this is out of the question."

This was Leninism.

/2

@Radical_EgoCom In the second edition of "The Foundations of Leninism" from later in 1924 Stalin amend the above to instead say:

“Having consolidated its power, and taking the lead of the peasantry, the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society.”

--
" final victory of socialism, ... the efforts of one country ... out of the question"
was replaced by
"the victorious country can and must build a socialist society".

/3

@Radical_EgoCom In 1927 the contradictions of the NEP became undeniable as the peasants withheld grain. The "market" of the NEP was not providing any goods for which the peasants wanted to exchange their grain.

The crisis and swings in Stalin's political and economic policies that resulted are thoroughly documented in:

Bolsheviks against Stalinism 1928–1933: Leon Trotsky and the Left Opposition (Rogovin, 2019)

REVIEW:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/21/rogo-d21.html

4/4

@Radical_EgoCom Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution is based on the simple fact that capitalism had developed by the end of the 19th century, as anticipated by Marx, the world economy.

This world economy is in contradiction with the capitalist developed nation-state system.

This contradiction has three solutions
- regular war and world war for redivision of the globe.
- denial of the problem and the fanciful utopia of peaceful coexistence (Kautsky, Stalin)
- world socialist revolution

@johnwilsonwsws

Okay, in 1924, Stalin said that socialism in one country was impossible. So what? He clearly changed his stance on the matter once he realized that he was wrong. Marxism-Leninism isn't a static dogmatic ideology. According to dialectical materialism, the foundation of Marxism, nothing in the world is static, and everything in the world is constantly changing through a process of contradictions, so... 1/6

@johnwilsonwsws

...any ideology that is based on this must also be open to change as the world around it and the understanding of people changes. Maybe it was believed by many Marxist-Leninists that socialism in one country was impossible, but then they studied the socio-economic and political landscape of their country and the world and realized that it wasn't impossible, and so their stance on the topic changed to fit reality, and they were clearly right... 2/6

@johnwilsonwsws

...to change their stance because the Soviet Union did achieve socialism in one country.

"The contradiction is "state capitalism" is NOT production for profit for the benefit of a capitalist class, so how is it capitalism?"

There was a capitalist class in the Soviet Union during the NEP state capitalism phase, and while the ultimate goal of the NEP was to transition into socialism, the capitalist class did benefit temporarily from... 3/6

@johnwilsonwsws

...the NEP by being allowed to sell their surplus produce on the open market and earn capital, so if capitalism is "production for profit for the benefit of a capitalist class," then it was capitalism. I don't deny the contradictions that arose from the NEP with the rich peasants. Of course, there were contradictions. There are always contradictions in any system, and... 4/6

@johnwilsonwsws

...it would be expected that there would develop contradictions between the rich peasants and the Bolshevik state. This doesn't change the fact that the NEP was necessary to revive the economy after the turmoil of War Communism. 5/6

@johnwilsonwsws

"- denial of the problem and the fanciful utopia of peaceful coexistence (Kautsky, Stalin)"

You can fuck right off with that. "Peaceful coexistence?" Stalin and advocates of socialism in one country did not believe in "peaceful coexistence" with capitalism, and I'm not giving this dumbass accusation any more attention. Debate honestly, or fuck off. 6/6

@Radical_EgoCom

Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?

Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions.

H: You appreciate, no doubt, Mr. Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression.

Stalin : This is the product of a misunderstanding.

H: A tragic misunderstanding?

Stalin : No, a comical one. Or, perhaps, tragicomic.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm

@johnwilsonwsws

Stalin was clearly lying because he went on to help China, North Korea, Vietnam, Hungary, and many other countries have socialist revolutions after World War II. Do you think that if someone were planning multiple socialist revolutions in multiple countries that they would openly admit it to every capitalist country, or do you think they would just lie and say that they have nothing planned while planning in secret?

@Radical_EgoCom Three months after the Soviet victory at Stalingrad and a week after German and Italian forces in Tunisia surrendered to the Allies, Stalin dissolved the Third International (Comintern) on May 22, 1943.

Nominally justified to "concentrate their [communist members] energies" on the defeat of the Nazis, in reality it was because the Comintern was a barrier to negotiations with imperialism for the post war "settlement".

SEE: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/21/twih-m21.html

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/joseph-stalin-and-dissolution-comintern

@johnwilsonwsws

The dissolving of the Comintermn was done to unite the anti-fascists forces against the Nazis. The Cominterm served its purpose of promoting communism internationally before the war, but once World War II happened, the immediate priority shifted to stopping the Nazis from taking over Europe. Once again, a Trotskyist falsely interpreting a pragmatic decision as a "betrayal of communism" due to their counterproductive ideological purity.

@Radical_EgoCom Please post a link to your best evidence.

I am yet to see anyone defending Stalin cite a single source to back up their claims. It is assumed they must be taken as given.

Here is a timeline for others to consider

1923 Clara Zetkin, in the USSR, writes on fascism [1]

1924 (January) Lenin dies.

1926 (October) Fascist dictatorship established in Italy under Mussolini.[2]

/1