0:07 "so I thought I'm gonna make a short video on trotskism" Proceeds to make a 42 min long vid

@mohinderkumar7298

4 ай бұрын

😃

@EvanWells1

4 ай бұрын

42 mins is very short in my book

@latenightlogic

2 ай бұрын

lol just what I thought. I won’t get through it but we’ll see how far I get.

This is the first time someone explains to me what specifically is wrong with Trotskyism. Everybody ridicules them but rarely anyone explains. Thank you.

@mk3c

9 ай бұрын

Makes sense. How can they explain something that is wrong? Of course, by misrepresentating it!

@kimobrien.

8 ай бұрын

@@mk3c Become another political opportunist and join Workers World Party LMAO!!!

@mk3c

8 ай бұрын

@@kimobrien. Why should I become a stalinist???

@kimobrien.

8 ай бұрын

@@mk3c Okay it was confusing from me reading the back and forth reponse.. I'm not sure how to explain why its confusing except that the maker of the video recommends the politics of the Worker World Party. Since it was confusing I figured I'd mock you to see if I could get a response. Now that I have what do you think about the situation in Ukraine and Israel? After all Ukraine and Israel as nations have a right to exist. Putin has no right to swallow Ukraine and Hamas has no right to a Jew free world from the river to the sea.

@mk3c

8 ай бұрын

@@kimobrien. For a detailed analysis, you should read the positions of the International Marxist Tendency (IMT) (that I'm a member of). The summary would be that you're confusing two quite different conflicts and you're also not approaching them in a class-based manner. In brief: The war in Ukraine is a proxy war for the western (mainly US) imperialism against Russia - neither side is progressive and in reality the only way forward is the independent movement of the masses in both countries. In Israel-Palestine, we have a more clear picture of a decades long oppressor (Israel) against the people of Palestine (who, to be clear, is wrong to arbitrarily identify all of them with Hamas). In our opinion, the only progressive and lasting outcome would be an "intifada until victory", i.e. a socialist movement in Palestine and the nearby countries that would create a unified state on a socialist basis.

5.00 bureauticration (or bourgeoisement in French) is not created under Stalin's time, it is revisionist and created under Khrushov's time and continues and contributes to the collapse of the USSR. Stalin attempted to decentralised the Party's role but the internal opposition and the WWII prevents this to happen. See Grover Furr's and Vladimir Bobrov's

Maybe it's because you recieved mostly trotskyist version of this debate but you skipped one of the main theses of Lenin on the peasant question. A very important one, in fact. It was the analysis of the peasantry as a whole. Lenin showed that they weren't a single class and in fact were already started to divide among themself into capitalist and proletariat, though a significant amount of petit bourg peasants still existed. Lenin talked about accumulation of land in the hands of few peasants (kulaks) and a significant portion of peasantry becoming landless workers on the fields of kulaks or having to pay rent/debt big enough to kulaks that they were practically landless workers too. That was the biggest argument of Lenin against both Plekhanov and Trotsky - that the peasantry contains a significant amount of proletariat already, even if agrarian proletariat is not as revolutionary and progressive as industrial one. And he was proven right. Didn't stop Trotsky from lying after Lenin's death that somehow Lenin agreed with Trotsky on the peasant question right before dying.

@nonono4160

Жыл бұрын

Ah, you talked about this closer to the end.

@A.R.8755

Жыл бұрын

Well, trot needed supporters, so... He copied the presitge of Lenin like Stalin did whilest critisising him for it. Ironic.

@kimobrien.

11 ай бұрын

@@A.R.8755 Trotsky and Lenin didn't engage in secret factionalism as Stalin did. Nor did Lenin set up and operate a murder machines against political opposition. .

The SWP split from Trotskyism in the ‘80s & formally left the 4th Internationale in 1990

It is all about the continious struggle in true homage to Marx’s quest for humanity to realise the full potential of its conscious existence. Thank you so much Dr. Rahman for this amazing video!

@kimobrien.

8 ай бұрын

He became a supporter of a opportunistic stalinist political sect the Workers World Party.

@darbyheavey406

4 ай бұрын

Marx destroyed more in death than he ever built in life. He proves the power of bad ideas.

I totally agree with what you are saying about the Eurocentric perspective! Spot on! This is extremly important and must be stressed.

@kimobrien.

8 ай бұрын

Yep he left for the opportunists at Workers World Party who jump on and off every bandwagon rolling by.

incredibly informative and clear analysis, thank you

The SWP broke with Trotskyism in 1963 and finally left the pabloite United Secretariat in 1990 to form the Pathfinder Tendency.

Thank you. I've wondered so many times about this issue

Thank you for making this 28:23 "Let me explain here what Lenin means." THANK YOU, that's one reason why I'm a bad reader, if I read something and I don't understand it and I can't quickly look up an explanation/clarification I get frustrated and give up on understanding/reading it at all. Vids like yours are so essential to thoroughly study this stuff, a thousand times thank you.

Thanks for this video. I watched it over a year ago but I thought about it again and enjoyed another listen. I tried to get my Pakistani father to check out your channel but I don’t think he has.

Thank-you comrade for your detailed analysis ❤

Great video! However, weren’t the peasant support bases of a Chinese, Vietnamese, and even Cuban revolutions based on the prospect of national revolution and bourgeois land reforms, rather than the struggle for socialism?

@jiggareactmilitant

Жыл бұрын

The Chinese revolution was based on land reforms and socialism. If you read any documents leading up to the great leap forward, the peasants were beyond enthusiastic for socialism, and moved towards advance levels of cooperation faster than anticipated ( the speed of reorganization turned out be a mistake but it still doesn't discount the support for socialism).

@kimobrien.

9 ай бұрын

@@jiggareactmilitant Unfortunately the CCP like Stalin's parties did not have the same enthusiasm.

@georgesoap1733

Ай бұрын

The chinese communist revolution adapted marxism leninism to the conditions of china where there is very little industry and the vast majority are farmers .. marxism leninism talked about the alliance between workers and peasants the workers guide the peasants to the revolution and change while in marxism leninism maoism the farmers are the ones who were guided by the vanguard party there , and as china was poorly equipped with productive forces the chinese communist party had to make an contemporary alliance with the national bourgiosie to let them develope the productive forces then nationalise the industry and heading to collectivisation as a transitional stage from small and medium land property to public property in later time . Marxism leninism maoism continued marxism and adapted it to the material conditions of each country and this is why trotsky is a stupid pseudo communist who treats marxism as a dogma without considering the material conditions affecting the path to socialism , trotsky was so idealistic when it came to the idea of permanant revolution also when he stood against the peace agreements between the soviets and germany and called for adventurist wars to spread the revolution while the people in the soviet union suffered horrifically from the aftermath of class struggle that the agriculture and industry suffered alot also the peasants and workers had enough with wars , the masses already joined the communist party as it fought against the tsarist regime imperialism wars and poverty that the peasants suffered ... The revolution slogan was peace land bread

@georgesoap1733

Ай бұрын

Trotsky also changed the meaning of permanent revolution in the Marxism context to turn it into a peasant question .. marx and engles spoke about the revolution of the workers must be permanent means that the workers continue their class struggle till they overthrow the capitalists and reach political and economic authority thus they achieve the dictatorahip of the proletariate ... Trotsky on the other hand changed the meaning of Marxism's permanent revolution to be a refer for the revolution occurrence in several countries gradually !!! Vladimir lenin spoke about imperialism and the unequal political and economic development and why this stage of capitalism will lead to the victory of socialism in several or even one country then the proletariat in other countries will be inspired to follow their fellow workers ... Trotsky even stood against the reality that the revolutions in germany and western europe failed because of the treason of social democrats deviations inside the communist parties there supporting the imperialist wars and local bourgisoie classes .. this revolution defeat led to the isolation of the russian revolution beside the previous aftermath of class struggle horrific conditions that made the soviet union head to concentrate on empowering itself and building socialism in one country first beside supporting the revolutions and liberation movements internationally . Trotskyism has nothing to do with marxism at all , Trotsky has always demonised stalin that he is the one responsible for the rise of bureaucrats inside the party while in reality the Stalin era showed more participation of workers and peasants i the party than lenin era plus that stalin and the other loyal true communist bolsheviks worked on the new constitution that aimed to transfer the administration and planning of economy and the state functions to the masses gradually , this meant that the surrounding careerists who seeked personal interests against socialism and the communist party principles will lose their positions to the masses .. and from this moment stalin was planned to be assassinated and this happened by the hands of khruchev and his loyals .... Note that when trotsky lost the debates inside the communist party after lenin death and the party chose stalin to be the new leader he started to perform factional activities that portrayed itself as commemorating the revolution anniversary while at the same time trotsky was gathering supporters and causing factionalism which went against the party princible that is democratic centralism .. trotsky was expelled from the soviet union .. in his exile trotsky started to write and denounce the soviet leadership with lots of lies to his followers later these lies were used by khruchev to demonise stalin to use these false accusations to frame himself as someone came to fix what stalin made against marxism leninism .. and from this delusional word manipulations khruchev started to make market reforms that gave rise to the black market and second economy inside the soviet union .. this is the starting point of the soviet union collapse .. At this moment the second economy started to rise gradually and these new parasitical classes got support from the careerists and traitors inside the communist party in exchange for wealth .. the rise of second economy and private production led to the rise and empowerment of the bourgiosie mentality .. combined with the rise of administrative and financial corruption inside the party after stalin's death gorbachev came and portrayed himself as another reformists that will fix teh problems that khruchev did but in reality gorbachev manipukated everyone by playing with the words and making different actions from what these words supposedly mean Gorbachev talked about glasnost and perestroika speaking about opening the freedom for political opposition but in reality he wanted to empower the bourgiosie parties counter revolution forces again manipulating the people that he fights the beurocracy emerged after stalins death Then after implementing so called market disasters ( reforms ) the soviet union economy started to collapse then yeltsin came into power and he was a pure anto communist that signed the dissolution of the USSR and dissolving the united nationalities territories into separate nationalities .. the bourgisoie nationalism and competition against eachothers to divide markets labour forces and resources led to the rise of national snd ethic wars inside the societ union . Exactly as what happened in yugoslavia as the bourgiosie worked on destroying the working class unity between different nationalities through ethnic wars .. it is the same policy of divide and conqouer

@HCl431

Ай бұрын

@@georgesoap1733 The problem is that Marxism-Leninism had already given up on socialism and advocated for a dictatorship of bureaucracy instead of dictatorship of the proletariat lol giving up on the workers controlling the means of production is not "considering the material conditions". The revolution must be internationalist, Marx, Engels and Lenin believed this. Marx and Engels believed that socialism must follow capitalism and therefor could only happen in industrialized countries which the USSR was not. In 1882 they asked themselves wether a russian revolution could skip capitalism and lead to socialism right away and the answer they came up with was YES but ONLY if the russian revolution acted as a starting call for revolution in industrialized countries like germany. Trotsky knew this. He knew the revolution was doomed to fail if it only succeeded in russia alone and not also germany and/or italy or such so of course he wanted to keep fighting germany and support a revolution there. AND HISTORY PROVED HIM RIGHT. The USSR (and also China) reinstalled capitalism instead of achieving socialism. An internationalist revolution was the only chance but Marxist-Leninists refuse to understand that and cling to nationalism instead.

2:45 : "Theory of Permanent Revolution" explained and identified as the "Centerpiece" of Trotskyism

@johnwilsonwsws

2 ай бұрын

The problem is he doesn't explain Permanent Revolution at all. He says it consists of three main ideas "1.Criticism of the two-stage theory of revolution 2.Criticism of socialism in one country 3.Criticism of Stalinism". Trotsky developed the theory of Permanent Revolution after the experiences of the 1905 revolution in Russia and is based on the premise that "capitalism has converted the whole world into a single economic and political organism". (Marx had anticipated capitalism would do this but it still in development in his lifetime.) Trotsky wrote in June 1905: Binding all countries together with its mode of production and its commerce, capitalism has converted the whole world into a single economic and political organism...This immediately gives the events now unfolding an international character, and opens up a wide horizon. The political emancipation of Russia led by the working class will raise that class to a height as yet unknown in history, will transfer to it colossal power and resources, and make it the initiator of the liquidation of world capitalism, for which history has created all the objective conditions.[Leon Trotsky, The Permanent Revolution (London: New Park, 1971), p. 239-40] Listen again to what Taimur Rahman says at 2:45 and compare. --- You should also watch the following: The Workers League's Defense of Theory of Permanent Revolution Against the Opportunism of the WRP kzread.info/dash/bejne/ioOBrrmDnKvHYso.html

That was excellent! Thank you!

Great discussion ❤

You know to think about Trotsky that makes Trosky so powerful is that Trosky very much had to deal with reality. There is a reality to deal with when we are struggling against people of power but for people that OK well we’re going to reach some sort of utopia without any real struggle, prove that otherwise

Solidarity comrade 💯

Would you able to make a transcript of this? Thanks anyway!

@CripplingDuality

5 ай бұрын

You can use whisper for that

Very interesting. Thanks.

“The temporary political situation which may even last a long time is nevertheless a much more profound social economic reality, for even if the proletarian revolution triumphs in the West, we shall have to base ourselves in large measure, in the construction of socialism, upon the middle peasant and to draw him into the socialist economy.” Trotsky, 1919

In other words: history has proven Trotskyism wrong, especially his Eurocentric views.

@jack04091

Ай бұрын

If anything history has proven Trotsky right. The ussr fell to revisionism. Everywhere sioc has been attempted it has felled to revisionism.

Great stuff

Thanks for this video professor, I am from England and see lots of Trotskyite organisations. I wonder and I am hoping you could teach us why there are so many? How do they differ ideologically? Why do they all disagree to the extent they feel they must split from one another? Surely this just weakens their cause. Thanks again.

@lyleevans5921

6 ай бұрын

The easiest explanation is the legacy of the cold war. The Marxist-Leninist organizations and parties were put down via coercive measures in civil society and the state. Britain and the US were the most thoroughly affected by this phenomenon.

@robertsimpson8292

6 ай бұрын

That's the nature of Trotskisum, blustering, arrogant and unbelievable unscientific

Professor you are an incredible teacher!!

Amazing Dr Taimur about Trotskyist

The problem here is that the view that the success of the Russian revolution relied on the European revolution was held by all Bolshevik leaders especially Lenin. You can find innumerable quotes from Lenin. I still think there is a Eurocentricism to Trotskyism that even Trotsky fought against ( i can go into depth on this if need be). But Stalins failure was his provincialism, the sought after European revolution can be more suitably called the German revolution. And Trotsky had a better grasp of KPD / SPD / Nazi politics than Stalin. I think theres an artificial disagreement that goes on about the disagreement between Stalinism and trotskyism sometimes and a reductionism.

Ownership of land by farmers (call not them peasants = tenants) is so meagre and cost of production is so high that these conditions render the farmer no less than proletariat. Rural Proletariat is "son-of-the-soil"! But if sufficient state support is available (as under State's Green Revolution) the same Rural Proletariat can gain any form of Capitalist --petty, middle or big or with a semblance of capitalists. Our current agriculture (state sponsored GR technology) is based on such dormant, stagnent (AMoP) yet dynamic farmer-capitalists! It appears a complicated structure.

Fabulous explanation

Um what this is like some of the best educational socialist content I've seen in months

im kind of on the fence about this u mention at the end that there are even more problematic aspects of trotzkiyism but sadly u dont mention them where would i be able to find the video about those

I don't think your description of the theory of permanent revolution around the 18' mark is a fair representation. The key point is that Trotsky's position on the peasantry didn't have any of the schematism of the Mensheviks and it was more thoroughly dialectical even than Lenin. Like Lenin, Trotsky saw the possibility of an alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry as events moved in a revolutionary direction. Clearly they were both right on that. But Trotsky's theory was born out (and Lenin reached the same conclusions) in 1917, which proved that the only way to 'win' bourgeois democratic rights in a country that has been economically dominated is to move straight on to socialism. This has also been shown in Cuba, where the Castro leadership was forced by events to go all the way to socialism, as well as in several African countries. This theory is simply a consistent development of Marxism, which takes into account the balance of forces that we actually see under imperialism. Marx and Engels themselves saw that in all bourgeois democratic revolutions, the revolution had been carried out not by the big bourgeoisie, but by the petty bourgeoisie (which, like the peasantry, is heterogeneous and never wholly revolutionary or wholly reactionary) and later by the industrial proletariat. What Trotsky added was an understanding that under imperialism, it would simply be impossible for a revolution to result in the establishment of a liberal democracy in Russia. Again, the later history of decolonisation bears this out. Instead, the workers and peasants had to take matters into their own hands, and also call on their counterparts in Western Europe to rise up. That is also a direct application of Marxism, as we understand that socialism will be built on the basis of capitalism, which is an international system, and that this is especially important when a socialist state is established in a country that is dominated by foreign capital. I apologise if this is a bit rambling, but I think overall you don't completely do justice to Trotsky's ideas here. I would strongly recommend reading the literature of the IMT (soon to be Revolutionary Communist International) on these questions, as I think we have developed Trotsky's ideas in a much deeper way than the American SWP. I hope you don't mind if I also take a second to explain the relationship of the IMT in relation to the Trotskyist movement, as I think our ideas are very different from other Trotskyist groups, and they are what has convinced me that this organisation has the potential to play the role the Bolsheviks did in 1917. The IMT was initially a part of Trotsky's fourth international, but after Trotsky's death, while the American and French sections fell into prestige politics and continued to repeat whatever Trotsky had said, like parrots, the group that later became the IMT had an unflinching attitude to using the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky as a living method. That is what set them aside from all the so-called Trotskyists that fell into sectarianism or even gave up the defense of the russian revolution and started calling Russia 'state capitalist'. On that basis, the IMT frankly acknowledged that the immediate post-war period was not the period of revolution that Trotsky had expected (for good reason), and on the same basis, now that the conditions on the ground have changed again and capitalism is in its deepest ever crisis, the IMT is revolutionising its methods and building the core of revolutionary leadership that will be necessary to bring the working class to power.

@jack04091

Ай бұрын

THE RCP is my favourite org in the UK so glad to be a member and so glad our leading members are getting national news coverage

Greetings from Russia. Thank you professor, only you could explain Trotskism in the simplest way. Here are a lot of Marxist organisations in Russia which accuse each other as trotskists organisation, but none of them can explain the reason for that accusations. Thank you so much.

I also think that the European and western capitalists are harder to get rid of even after a socialist revolution they might re-emerge

I'm not a Trotskyist but to be fair, the SWP is not representative of Trotstyites. Maybe at the time they were better, but now they are a bizarre little bunch.

Perhaps the real question is whether you can achieve socialism if you have to begin in a country in which most of the population were peasants. If you develop revolutionary worker/peasant alliance, would the poverty of the society with its limited productive forces defeat efforts to build socialism even if you successfully achieve a revolutionary overthrow of the established order?

I left a party that was several splits off of the Socialist Workers Party about a year ago, and was involved for almost 3 years. I'd agree with you theres definitively more numbers in Europe and US, but I also dont consider political cults to be legitimate movements and it seems to be that Trotskyism exhibits cultic groups that split off from each other. I wouldnt frame that as successful. But otherwise, an insightful video based on my personal experiences in Trotskyism 😊

I’m wondering if he has ever explained why he is/is not a Stalinist

@CripplingDuality

5 ай бұрын

No one self identifies as a Stalinist, it's just a dumb pejorative and a straw man.

@EroUsagiSama

4 ай бұрын

Stalin died 70 years ago, so he can't be a Stalinist. To me, he seems to be a Marxist-Leninist.

33:15 For a while this was my only understanding of "permanent revolution." Socialist revolutions NEED to occur in every country b/c (this is the context in my life's "rearview") capitalism does not tolerate competition, capitalist US sees communism as something that must be "contained" and snuffed out. Knowing that there's more to it than that (the Eurocentrism of it especially) helps understand its flaws.

Theodor Shanin : Farmers are not a class. They're a "sack of potatoes"!

@KozelPraiseGOELRO

2 ай бұрын

And now I feel offended by sonething that was not directed towards me.

You don't mention the main argument of Trotsky against "socialism in one country", that is, that the economy is now integrated as a world system (so your examples about the agricultural revolution on Asia are anachronic and not applicable) and that (I don't have the exact quote) the cheaper commodities of the more advanced capitalist world were a greater danger to the revolutionary country than his armies (prophetic, look at he USSR demise). Also, on that quote you cite, Lenin was against waiting for world revolution to start a revolution in your our country, not against the idea of the need of revolution in the more advanced countries. This matches Trotsky conception.

Thank you, Taimur, for your thoughts and analysis. I am a Trotskyist, but I understand your views and concerns and I certainly see your point of view. It's important to remember that Lenin DID finally convince Trotsky about the support of the peasantry; that's why Trotsky left the Mensheviks. So it's NOT right to say that modern Trotskyists currently deny the possibility of socialist revolution in developing countries. Years after the revolution, when Trotsky was in exile, he considered this possibility under his new theory of "uneven and combined development". I sincerely hope that Socialist revolution WILL be successful in the nations of the developing world. Thankfully, given recent economic developments, the imperialist powers of the West may no longer be able to prevent it! Trotsky WAS right about Russia though; Stalin's "socialism in one country" idea DID eventually FAIL. The oligarchs stole the people's wealth in 1991...and now NATO is risking NUCLEAR WAR to try and steal it from them. Capitalist madness!!!

@A.R.8755

Жыл бұрын

The new theory of the permanent revolution includes the peasentry then? I've seen new critiques of SioC which are more dependend of capitalism being a global system.

@hansfrankfurter2903

Жыл бұрын

USSR didnt fail it was betrayed

@hansfrankfurter2903

Жыл бұрын

Id like a citation for that. Also there’s a difference between what Trotsky wrote and what organized trots think he said. Finally id like to see where he repudiated this euro centric “international “ revolution rhetoric.

@nicholascharles9625

Жыл бұрын

I think if stalin had adopted permanent revolution ussr would have collapsed long before 1991.

@kimobrien.

11 ай бұрын

@@hansfrankfurter2903 Trotsky died in 1940 before the end of WW2. How is he suppose to repudiate a claim of a "bad" post mortem tendency? Trotsky wrote on China I can't asy that I've read it and Pathfinder Press has all theses books by Cuban revolutionaries.

Interesting.

I present a different paradigm in my “Popular Capitalism” which applies to political economies, regardless of historical or cultural context. Rather than depend on a revolutionary movement, it proves that the failure of a political economy to pay the cost of its own sovereignty ensures its own demise. We are seeing just such an outcome here in the formerly United States of America.

@kimobrien.

9 ай бұрын

What your seeing in the US is the inevitable decline of private profit driven capitalism based in a nation state trying to control the world economy in its favor.

muito bom ! um abraço do brasil!

@littlecommie27

3 ай бұрын

boraaa

Is this guy's party illegal in Pakistan or something?

As an American Marxist-Leninist, I agree with your assessment of Trotskyism and it’s euro centrism. As it claims that The Europeans are the most advanced and revolutionary, if we look at the countries which have had successful socialist revolutions, none have been in Western Europe or the US for that matter. Most of those in Eastern Europe required the assistance of The Soviet Union. The rest, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, all required the peasantry and are not, of course European. Trotskyism has been at this point, thoroughly discredited. The final nail in Trotskyism’s coffin will be when the Asian, African, and Latin American nations have to come assist the European, American, Canadian, and Australian proletariat and peasantry. In any case, great presentation, comrade.

@kimobrien.

9 ай бұрын

Fidel Castro began the driving of nails into Stalin's coffin with the Cuban revolution. Stalin sealed his fate as a betrayer of revolution with his murder of the Spanish revolution by his NKVD. The murder of Maurice Bishop by the Stalinist Benard Cord is another example of betrayal.

@geekyradical4985

8 ай бұрын

I don't see why you've got a problem with Trotsky. My boy crushed the White Army and successfully protected the Soviet state in its infancy from annihilation. I think I can confidently say the guy achieved more for the working class than either of us! So what's your beef with him? What's the point in ranting about him online? Wouldn't it be more productive to learn from his achievements and theories to help us in the fight against capitalism?

@kimobrien.

8 ай бұрын

@@geekyradical4985 You notice that according to what he says at his youtube channel he is against disputes because he says he intends to solve them latter. Like any bureaucrat his lack of ideas is his greatest political strength since one can not criticise the ceneterist fool. The problem is that all the followers of Stalin who lead the workers states died and then they reverted back to capitalism. Only Cuba continues and Fidel would tell the truth about Stalin's regime to the Cuban people. Stalin never wrote anything of significance about Trotsky but slanders like he did of all the old Bolsheviks. Stalin had his agents providing him with Trotsky's latest criticism but never responded outside of angry slanders and eventually ordering the murder of Trotsky. The opponents of Trotsky need to erase the leeson's of the Great Oct revolution since Stalin and those who followed him reverted to those bankrupt class collaborationist theories of the second international. The popular fronts against fascism lead directly to fascist victories and Mao's New Democracy is nothing more than Edward Bernstein's revisionism on full display.

@CripplingDuality

5 ай бұрын

​@@geekyradical4985you're conflating the tendency with its namesake. If politics is, for you, an exercise in analyzing personalities, your problem is more remedial.

@geekyradical4985

5 ай бұрын

@CripplingDuality I'm conflating them because to be a Trotskyist means adhering to Leon Trotsky's ideology and theories. And as a communist, I'd say it's sensible to take influence from the guy who led the Red Army to victory over White counter-revolution.

The irony is going from the 3rd world to the UK and then spending his time debating and learning about a failed ideology. Rich.

It is a matter of complex and physical labour -= mental and physical labour. Withourt teh unification of this division of labour ba classless society and a socialist society cannot be built.

Dear Mr Rahman, do you consider yourself a Maoist?

My thanks for the sleuth of presentations in English, including this one. I hope Rahman will do English presentations that unpack the Soviet Union from the 1920s through to the dissolution. In the English speaking world, we have nothing more than anti-propaganda about the USSR, laced with unhinged Gonzo-porn style rabid anti-communism, and other rubbish.

Ούτε ένα λεπτό δεν πέρασε στο βίντεο και λέει ο μπρο ότι μπήκε στο ΣΕΚ. Ε προφανώς και μετά δεν θα ήταν τροτσκιστης 🤣

By rectionary you mean they had very good brains. And by proletariat, you mean middle class. Anyone who wants to elliminate the middle class is insane.

Except that every communist party that has come to power Asia has instituted Stalinist repressive regimes, with human rights abuses, repression of ethnic minorities, liquidation of those deemed enemies, economic poverty. The only limited exception is the Cambodian People's Party which was imposed after Vietnam Cambodia invaded and overthrew the Khmer Rouge in 1979, and has allowed private property and a market economy. The Communist Party of Kampuchea, aka the Khmer Rouge, which seized over all of Cambodia in 1975 showed what can happen when Marxist-Leninist take control over a people.

I think its a bit of a misrepresentation of the internationalist argument to say it was eurocentric, its just being applied to a material situation where capitalism was strongest in these countries, these were the countries with the most influence on and ability to impede a russian proletariat. It was eurocentric as it was a theory applied to a 1900s europe. I think its inarguable that outside influence has made existing socialist states less stable and revolution more difficult. Its harder to throw off imperialist shackles and have a socialist revolution without the usa or france or the uk coming in and assassinating your new leaders etc. The cold war also clearly had a disstablising effect on the ussr. I dont know much about the revolutionary conditions in pakistan but my understanding of trotskys writings is that for a pakistani revolution to be stable in the long run it would need to be surrounded by socialist states, so replacing europe with revolution in india and the middle east. And that as this spreads it inspires working class in other countries and undermines their bourgeois systems further precipitating the spread of socialism.

@waynetables6414

9 ай бұрын

Wide adherence to that ideology ultimately serves to benefit the imperialists. Trotsky sets the bar of success at world revolution, creating what amounts to an impossible task, and inevitably falls short of it to the shock of no one.. In doing this, he's also literally declaring war on virtually every government in the entire world and incentivizing the capitalists to actively intervene in burgeoning Marxist states to crush them. Putting that aside, from this logic comes inevitable INACTION AND WAITING AROUND WHILE STATUS QUO PERSISTS, sitting around waiting around for others is a ridiculous undertaking, equally as ridiculous would be foreign interventions in other countries to spread marxist ideology. This is why the neocons love Trotsky. It should never be the policy of a Marxist-Leninist government to be invading and infiltrating other countries to forcefully push forward revolt and revolution, regardless of the character of the ideology. It is it's own form of imperialism and Trotsky is declaring his own little Cold War. The Americans and the British were able to convince the masses that their imperialism was necessary precisely because people like Leon Trotsky existed and made overthrowing governments like theirs his stated objective. Revolution will come from within, not from the foreign intellectual Leon Trotsky's of the world. Trotsky's idealistic internationalism will continue to fail and materialist nationalism will continue to be the template for every successful left wing revolution. To be a Trotskyist is to lose and lose and lose, because you play a game that can't ever be won, your ideology amounts to people sitting around and waiting, and dare I say, many of you never wanted to win in the first place... To this day, much of the left fetishizes perpetual victimhood and weakness and demonizes every successful nationalist anti-imperial revolution that has ever taken place. It is a purity fetish that ultimately has become an effective weapon of the very forces Trotsky nominally opposes.

@geekyradical4985

5 ай бұрын

​@@waynetables6414What's your big problem with Leon Trotsky? Say what you will about the guy but at least he actually achieved a revolution! I dunno about you but I think it's pretty safe to say he accomplished more for Marxism than either of us. But hey! That's just me!

Comparing the peasant class of Napoléon's epoch with the peasant class of today doesn't take into account that the goal of peasant revolution, land to the tiller, has by and large been met. The peasant question of today has to do with the exploitation of that class by the FIRE sector: in a word with its indebtedness to the rentier segment of the capitalist class. You're right to see Plekhanov's work as central to the Russian proletarian revolution; Lenin thought so. The point of Trotsky's Theory of the Permanent Revolution (which can be found in embryo in Lenin's work) is that, in the Imperialist Epoch of the rule of financial capitalism, the national bourgeoisies are unenable to carry out the democratic tasks (destruction of feudalism et al.). This would be true even if the importance of the world revolution weren't said to be of utmost weight. Trotsky continually stressed the importance of dialogue with the middle peasants, who were for the most part rural proletarians. The Red Army, which Trotsky created and led, was predominantly a peasant army. . The revolutions that you mentioned were led by Stalinist parties, so naturally their tactic was to put the peasant class into the leadership. As for China, MILLIONS of lives would have been saved if the Maoist faction hadn't rejected arming the urban workers and depended, instead, on the Chinese peasantry. Read Chen Duxiu www.marxists.org/archive/chen-duxiu/index.htm Lenin didn't believe that the proletarian revolution in Russia could survive on its own as an alliance of workers and peasants: Re-read his April Theses", contained within his Tasks of the Proletarian Party on the Eve of the Revolution", which is a not-so-clear but at the same time decisive expression of the Theory of the Permanent Revolution and a refutation of the Two-Stage Revolution and Socialism in One Country. . Trotsky was perfectly right in foreseeing that the implementation of the Theory of Socialism in One Country would lead to "the idea of temporizing international inaction". Trotsky was right in principle but didn't have a crystal ball, so couldn't foresee that the Social Democrats would sabotage the German Revolution and even to the point of aiding in the organization and utilization of the Freikorps, which served as the embryo of Nazism, the distinction of which vis-à-vis the other fascist movements was the creation and maintenance of global fascist networks (which takes us up to today). The re-introduction of capitalism in Russia and the concomitant rise of global fascist networks (despite the military defeat of the Anti-Comintern Pact) was the proof that Trotsky was right when he said that revolutionary Russia or a socialist Germany could not hold out in isolation in the face of a capitalist world. Lenin was not always correct in his theoretical views; but what you gave as the "rebuttal" of Lenin to Trotsky was a rebuttal of Kautsky and the Old Mensheviks, with whom Trotsky had still associated himself only because he believed he could win them over to Bolshevism (Trotsky couldn't have done that as a Bolshevik). When Trotsky finally joined the Bolsheviks, Lenin said, "There could not be a better communist than Trotsky." Theories can't create revolutionary reality, but have to be corrected by the latter. , Judging by the histories of the revolutions that were under the leadership or inspiration of Stalinist parties and the Theory of Socialism in One Country, for example in Cuba, there's an impasse that will never be overcome without a monumental upsurge in the international revolution. Whether this will be effectuated by armed struggle or by economic means, as seems to be the program of the Communist Party of China, is yet to be seen. But one thing is certain: The global fascist networks that were tutored by Nazi Germany, for example the pan Latin American network known as Operation Condor or the Ukrainian insurgency of Bandera, Shukhevych, and Lebed or the Revisionist Zionist movement of Jabotinsky which is currently self-destructing in the Levant, are finally being dealt a death blow by delayed anti-colonialist uprisings throughout the globe. Since the ostensible Trotskyist parties have been negligent in developing further Trotsky's theory of fascism in Whither France (1935), they've not only been unable to develop a theoretical basis for confronting "long" Nazism, but have been even unable to see them at work. At the same time, Stalinism has been utterly discredited, even in China. . It doesn't surprise me that you've received a distorted picture of Trotskyism from the U.S. SWP, which I resigned from in 1976 at its National Convention in Oberlin, Ohio, after the Party had caved in to Fidelismo. The British parties haven't fared much better, if at all. I was watching the Stalinist George Galloway one day when he stated that all the Trotskyist parties he knew are merely liberal groups, and I had grudgingly to concur. Since resigning from the SWP, I haven't ceased to be active, although, a year short of 80 now, my activism is almost entirely through social media. I follow Western expats in China and am of the opinion that Deng Xiaoping took the idea of the New Economic Policy (NEP) and made a success of it. What's more, China has started to turn a cold shoulder to Mao, and some in the leadership have even suggested that the portrait of Mao Zedong be removed from Tiananmen Square. Every chance I get, I'm agitating for Chen Duxiu, the founder of Chinese Trotskyism, to be rehabilitated. There are some aspects of Chinese Communism that appeal to me: (1) Capitalist rule, not capitalism itself, is regarded as deadly to the proletarian revolution, (2) Religions of most kinds (not cults such as Falun Gong, of course) are regarded as harmless and even as cultural assets, and (3) An expansive membership in the CPC is encouraged throughout the country to encourage decentralization and to answer to the needs of local communities. Since I grew up under the influence of Russian history, I'm glad that Russia and China are now finally staunch allies. If I weren't so old now and living on the government dole, I'd be seeking to emigrate to China. My knowledge of Russian and other European languages would be an asset to the Party and society, surely. I firmly believe that what the CPC calls "Confucianism" has merits comparable to the best practices of Democratic Centralism and that Communist China is the best model for the future.

Take the example of Burkina Faso, successful revolution, which imensely increased the living standards of its population, what happened to it? Sankara was assasinated with great French and US imperialist aid. Trotskyists do not argue that a revolution in an emerging country will turn into a stalinist, bureaucratic state, but rather, contrary to what professor said at 38:06, that it will in fact fall back into imperialist hands as it lacks the support, not the capacity to do so. Revolution is most likely to begin in a 3rd world country due to the clearer contradictions and the larger disparity of wealth, however, without stopping imperialism from its roots within itself, it becomes fruitless.

@kimobrien.

5 ай бұрын

Sankara, Bishop and Lumumba were assassinated but Fidel was not and Che only later in Bolliva. So it is not true that revolutions can not occur first in the colonial world. Bernard Cord the assassin of Bishop was trained by the British Communist Party.

@georgesoap1733

Ай бұрын

Yes there is something true about it , but this also depends on the material conditions of the political , economic conditions .. take the soviet union as an example ..back then after the civil war lenin proposed the need for peace treaty to find peaceful time for the soviet union to rebuild itself from the burdens of civil war this is what was called NEP which is working on developing the productive forces with a period of capitalism but under the rule of the proletariate and peasants theough the vanguard party leadership . Then the soviet union headed to rapid industrialisation to build heavy and military industries to defend the soviet union from nazism invasion . The soviet union found the suitable time to build itself and establish socialism but other countries didn't find that but at the same time the soviet union and china were the backbones of the socialist countries world wide , they were the sources for technologies military economic support for the freedom and revolution movements against capitalism imperialism in africa asia and south america europe too . As you said the existence of the counter revolution forces in the imperialist countries means they will not leave any revolution in peace so that is why every socialist country in previous times concentrated on the military industries as the soviet union thus there became a problem which was the reduction of light industries . Yes the revolutions will always be from the neo colonized imperialised countries , and yes we must focus on the heavy and military industries first due to facing continuous capitalism terrorism .. but at the same time after a while as we deprived the imperialist countries from super exploitation of our countries the salaries of the workers there will drop down as they are based on the super exploitation of the workers and peasants in the global south .. thus this will be ignition moments for the revolutions there and class struggles . Actually the revolutions will not happen in the imperialist countries because of many reasons

0:23 The ideals of Karl Marx have never improved any social class in any country besides the elite ruling class which always falls due to the sheer disconnection from reality and reason.

I have recently joined a Trotskyist organization and was on the hunt for some good arguments against Trotskyism, to challenge my views. I'm glad to have found a learned Marxist laying out a cohesive argument against Trotskyism, but did not find any reason to abandon Trotskyism in this video. Your main argument is that Trotsky's opposition to socialism in one country is "Eurocentric" and pacifies revolutions in third world countries? Or somehow expresses that there's no point in third world countries carrying out communist revolutions, lest there be a European proletariat spearheading/aiding the process. I'd say this is a completely distorted interpretation of the theory of permanent revolution. I sense almost a post-modern / identity politics based critique, implying that Trotsky was blinded by his subjective experience as a European, which led him to unscientific Eurocentric conclusions that disregarded third world countries. This is a completely unserious critique - the basis for Trotsky's theory is a dialectical materialist one. It says that an isolated revolution in a backward country cannot create socialism and is dependent on the spread of revolution to more developed countries. I get that this on first glance has a pessimistic undertone, for any revolutionaries wanting to fight for socialism/communism in their third world country - and as you rightly point out, this is probably the reason why Trotskyism is more popular in the most developed countries than elsewhere. But that doesn't take away from the correctness of the assessment Trotsky makes here. And it also does not, once you factor in all elements that convenently are left out in this video, that there's no reason for f.ex. Pakistan to fight for revolution even if the West is currently not revolutionary. It's a theory that expresses, that if Pakistan were to succeed in a revolution, that it must be their utmost priority to fight for the spread of that revolution if they wish to gain the material conditions to protect their victories and create socialism in their country. Trotsky is not Eurocentric; he is basing his analysis off of the material circumstances that needs to be in place for a revolution not to degenerate. Socialism needs to have a material basis, and an isolated third world country cannot alone provide this material basis for socialism. It doesn't matter whether the revolution spreads to Europe, or China, or Russia: it just needs to spread to a substantial sphere of developed capitalist countries, so that there can be an industry and trade relation to build socialism upon. But I see from the Wikipedia of "World Anti-Imperialist Platform", which you are part of, that you don't deem Russia or China to be imperialist and thus not capitalist either, I assume. Which is blatantly wrong, and tells me that I don't need to look any further into your material - but thanks anyway for this video, which has only solidified my view that I am on the right path.

@Taimur_Laal

14 күн бұрын

You have neglected the main point of my criticism. Which is Trotsky's position on the peasantry.

Talk about half an understanding. Trotsky explained, that what dominate, was the global system of capitalism. Trotsky explained that the workers would have to resolve the bourgeois democratic tasks.

@stuartwray6175

11 ай бұрын

Illegible

@ppazpppaz8618

11 ай бұрын

@@stuartwray6175 Did you need further clarification?

@DownWithTheImperialists

8 ай бұрын

... and?

@ppazpppaz8618

8 ай бұрын

@@DownWithTheImperialists You'll have to provide a bit more than "and" Or would you like to add something?

@DownWithTheImperialists

8 ай бұрын

@@ppazpppaz8618 i just dont understand this comment at all

Trotsky was too idealistic for me.

@bouji_

Жыл бұрын

They were all ideologues though. By definition, they were all idealistic.

@manuellanthaler2001

10 ай бұрын

I get these strong notions of my local trotskyists aswell... but idk if im already inclined to form an opinion. They also claim that they are materialist and try to sell that to me aswell.

China?

@KozelPraiseGOELRO

2 ай бұрын

Mexico?

I feel like this is very misleading in some ways, especially when you talk about the theory of permanent revolution. You do realize the theory was first brought up by Marx and Engels first in 1850... Trotskiy was the only one who expanded on it in 1905, way before the term "stalinism" was even invented. "While the democratic petty bourgeois want to bring the revolution to an end as quickly as possible, achieving at most the aims already mentioned, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far - not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world - that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers." -Karl Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League. March, 1850. A lot of people like to call themselves "trotskyists" but literally only repeat what people say about him, and never actually read any of his books. Like did you read his autobiography? Or "The Woman and the Family" ? Based on this video, I guess not.

"Even if the Soviet Union, as a result of internal difficulties, external blows and the mistakes of leadership, were to collapse - which we firmly hope will not happen - there would remain an earnest of the future this indestructible fact, that thanks solely to a proletarian revolution, a backwards country has achieved in less than ten years successes unexampled in history." -Leon Trotsky, Revolution Betrayed. Such a complete legend.

@MK-jc6us

6 ай бұрын

Exactly, a legend, we have a whole mythology around Trotsky not backed up by hard facts / evidence.

@morningstararun6278

2 ай бұрын

"a backwards country has achieved in less than ten years successes unexampled in history." 😂😂Traitorsky was crediting the success of the Soviet industrialization that was directly the result of Stalin's first two 5 year plans.

@morningstararun6278

2 ай бұрын

@@MK-jc6us Whole mythology around Trotsky not backed up by hard facts? That heinous idiot in 1917 thought that the Red Army must continue the fight to West Europe and join hands with the proletariat in the west. It is hard for anyone to be a bigger idiot than Traitorsky. This "Red Army must continue the fight to west Europe" would have been the end of the USSR. This would have spread the Red Army thin, and it would have been brutally crushed to oblivion by the armies in the West. Red Army was barely able to survive and win the civil war against the onslaught of 14 capitalist countries, because defense is much easier than offense(until blitzkrieg was introduced in WW2). Also thanks to the natural factors 1) huge land area of the Russian empire 2) the harsh climatic conditions at that time. If Red Army wouldn't not have been able to cross Poland in the case of an offense. So good luck fighting the most advanced and much wealthier countries. Who in their right focking mind would support an ultra idiot like Traitorsky?

Who cares, and I am not a stalinist.

And why are you stalinist?

Silence, trotskyite.

Why am I not a Trotskyist? Because Trotskyists are revolutionaries and I'm an academic.

@theswagman1263

2 ай бұрын

Genuinely curious, if Trotskyists are revolutionaries, why haven't there been any Trotskyist revolutions?

@geekyradical4985

2 ай бұрын

​@theswagman1263 Forgive my ignorance, but isn't that largely due to the role of the Soviet Union, which was led by rabid anti-Trotskyists? I mean, that seems like a very significant factor in why the Chinese Revolution, Cuban Revolution, etc weren't led by Trotskyists. The Communist Party and China was originally co-founded and led by Chen Duxiu, a Trotskyist, but he ended up being marginalised due to Trotsky's ideology being completely demonised by the Kremlin. Not a big point, but it seems a little weird to bash Trotskyists for not leading those revolutions, while ignoring the anti-Trotskyist influence of the USSR.

This video is a deliberate falsification of Trotsky's ideas. The speaker takes a moralistic point of view on the question of the peasantry, revolution in Europe, and tries to separate Lenin as holding different ideas from Trotsky. Some short clarifications for genuine revolutionaries who've listened to this: 1. The theory of the permanent revolution outlines that the peasantry has never played an independent role because of their heterogeneous nature. Trotsky's theory was that they would either follow the working class or the bourgeoisie, but they could not play an independent role. Trotsky never said that they couldn't play a revolutionary role. This was proved in practice in the Russian Revolution where they did play a revolutionary role by following the leadership of the proletariat in the soviets - led by Trotsky himself ! 2. Trotsky did not fetishise Europe. Europe at that time was the most advanced area of the world in terms of having the centres of world production and capital, alongside having revolutionary uprisings where workers could have taken power, and in some cases did. They live, as we do now, in a world dominated by imperialism. Tsarist Russia was a backward country where only 10-15% of the population were working class, and most of the people were peasants. This was not the material base to develop socialism through material abundance. Stalinism and the bureaucracy which politically expropriated the workers was a product of this isolation and backwardness. That is not a moral question - but a political and economic one. 3. In a world dominated by imperialism, of course the imperialist and most advanced capitalist countries are the most important to have revolutions in! Socialism inherently should be a higher mode of production and level - relative to that of capitalism. No workers state has yet achieved this in the course of the 20th century. Imperialist countries hold the key levers of power. They hold the material basis to develop socialism and bring the whole world along with them. That did not mean Trotsky and Lenin didn't want or fight for revolution in backward countries! But for that to be successful, to not be invaded or constantly harassed like Cuba is today by US imperialism, their guarantee of victory requires revolution in the main imperialist countries. To put it another way, imagine if the USA today had a socialist revolution. It would completely upend the whole world, and countries across the whole world would easily fall to socialism, potentially without even a fight because of the leverage the USA has through its financial and military means. 4. This quote used by the speaker is from Lenin is from Jan 1918: "I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense." This is NOT directed against Trotsky, but against Mensheviks, Right SRs, those still in the second international, and even some in Bolshevik Party - but NOT Trotsky who literally carried out all the operations of the October Revolution itself (a few months ago)! Lenin says in so many different passages that this is only the beginning of the world revolution, and internationalism is at the heart of everything he wrote and spoke of. He had no illusion that socialism could be built isolated in Russia alone. 5. Even Stalin in his Foundations of Leninism wrote in Feb 1924 just after Lenin died said that socialism required the efforts of the advanced capitalist countries: “The main task of socialism - the organisation of socialist production - remains ahead. Can this be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible…For the final victory of socialism, for organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient.” In November 1924, Stalin had a revised edition which said the complete opposite! Socialism in one country is the real revisionism of Marxism - not Trotskyism. If you want to know more about this topic, I would encourage you to read the Permanent Revolution for yourself, and this is also very good to clarify slanders and outright falsifications like the speaker has in this video: www.marxist.com/lenin-trotsky-stalinism-johnstone.htm

@kiloton4

7 күн бұрын

Great comment!

Many strawman arguments - please read Trotsky's own works, if you want to find out about Trotsky and his thought.

@w3b436

9 ай бұрын

what strawman arguments? his arguments were based on quotes from trotsky.

@mk3c

9 ай бұрын

@@w3b436 Can't remember now - will re-check and let you know. Quoting is not enough - it can be selective & context also matters.

@mk3c

9 ай бұрын

@@w3b436 Ok, I did a quick rewatch today. So: 1) He claims that some arguments specific to trotskyism is the disagreement against 2-stage theory and the emphasis of internationalism (against socialism in 1-country): This is simply wrong. These arguments are deeply present in the whole tradition of marxism. The people who actually applied these were reformists (like the stalinists), and with their popular fronts lead to the defeat of numerous revolutions. Even Stalin himself was writing in the early editions (while Lenin was alive) of "Foundations on Leninism" that socialism in 1-country is impossible. 2) He quickly says that Trotsky was a Menshevik and then tries to downplay that by saying that the different trends were quite fluid. Actually, this is a classic stalinist argument against Trotsky - Trotsky only sided with the Mensheviks, at specific organisational questions of the 2nd congress of the Russian Social democratic party (RSDP). But then quickly broke with them, staying mostly an independent marxist within the RSDP, but politically very close to the Bolsheviks. Trotksy himself had recognised his mistakes on the organisation questions raised at that congress later in his life.

@mk3c

9 ай бұрын

@@w3b436 Finally, the point that Trotsky was against the revolution in 3rd world countries, of being eurocentric, of hating the peasants, is just unbiased! It's actually totally arbitrary. For one, he was in favour and a major protagonist of the Russian revolution (a revolution in a semi-feudal country at the time)! Lol - how could that be possible, if he didn't believe that at all? Additionally, he was one of the main protagonists of the communist international, which passed clear positions on the national and colonial question. Moreover, if you read some of his most basic documents, like the transitional programme, which is the closest to a political programme and one of his latest writings, he very clearly mentions the importance of peasants and colonial revolution (devoting 2 chapters on those). Hence, to conclude, Trotsky's ideas largely have no resemblance with the one-sided, erroneous presentation of the video, so at least give the man a chance and read this actual works to find out more about Trotsky's positions.

@w3b436

9 ай бұрын

@@mk3c thanks for taking time to respond to me like that 😭 i'll look into it :)

Europeans were NOT fascist. Only the Germans and Italian regimes were.

@manuellanthaler2001

10 ай бұрын

It was materialistically necessary for Germany to go fascist. Idk about Italy. But Germany would have a revolution if they didnt go Fascist.

@waynetables6414

9 ай бұрын

The distinction is not meaningful in this context. Who funded the the Germans? Who financed for H-man's highways? Who profited from the camps? Who saw the H man as a bulwark against marxism? The answer is of course, the western liberals. Dupont, Henry Ford, Brown Brotherers Herriman, Rockefeller and Standard Oil, Prescott Bush, Herbert Walker, the list is endless. If the Industrialists in the capitalist west had a tinge of patriotism or morality, of if they were compelled to do so, they could have halted the German war machine any time they wanted. The H man was entirely reliant on foreign capital from the so-called western democracies. This network continued to operate after the war all throughout Europe committing false flag terror attacks as a way to undermine and frame the Communists. This was Operation g - l- a - d - i - o. Not only did this network exist and thrive, it was done in collaboration with the western intelligence agencies. When a network of international finance capital exists above the strata of the civic society that western children are taught about in school, it amounts to a fascist wolf in democracy clothing. The German tanks that broke the French lines were powered by Ford engines. The west didn't open up a second front until Germany's defeat was inevitable. The Soviets didn't even receive a dime of assistance from the west until they put the Germans on their heels and pushed them back. Make no mistake, the capitalists were not cheering on the communists at the outset of barbarrosa, quite the opposite. They were watching their rabid dog they had propped up for the previous decade to spite the communists seek to fulfill a goal he had already outlined in his book he wrote in prison in which they had all obviously read. The liberal capitalists were hoping for the destruction of the entire Eurasian landmass so they could swoop in, carve it all up and privatize it. They wanted the two armies to destroy each other. These same liberals had already tried invading and toppling the Soviet Union through color revolutions and failed, Germany gave it another go, funded by the exact same people.

@kimobrien.

8 ай бұрын

@@manuellanthaler2001 No it was Stalin's ultra left period policies that lead to the defeat of German workers.

@manuellanthaler2001

8 ай бұрын

@@kimobrien. that doesnt even say anything you are just being anti stalin for the sake of it... just like liberal ideology driven media... thats why trotzkys are liberals imo

@morningstararun6278

2 ай бұрын

@@manuellanthaler2001 Trots are just the other side of same coin that the western Liberals belong to. For these imbeciles, any Anti-Imperialist/Socialist movements in the third word is undemocratic and authoritarian by nature. These are in no way different from the Neo Nazis.

Anyway at the end Soviet union collapsed

@morningstararun6278

2 ай бұрын

Yes, after transforming a country from the poor feudal backwater of Europe to becoming the second largest manufacturing powerhouse in just a matter of 30 years, and that too without exploiting any global south colonies, and also having fought a devastating civil war(that had 10 million casualties before the country was even formed), and also defeating Nazis WW2 with over 27 million casualties. And then the country the went on to win the space race. So it just collapsed, right?

@YaMustafa

2 ай бұрын

@@morningstararun6278 With great development, the country could not timely repair a loop hole which was in its communism system. That was built-in dictatorship or one man decision in major fields. So Gorbachev became secret agent of CIA and broke great country. Now Russia learnt the lesson and abandoned the dictatorship system also known as communism where people are made govt slaves.

@morningstararun6278

2 ай бұрын

@@YaMustafa 😂😂 By your logic, only dictatorship countries break away eventually. Then why hasn't DPRK collapsed yet? Why hasn't China collapsed? And why did Salvadaor AIIande's Chile collapse, despite they were being democratic? USSR collapsed because it has never gotten rid of the Trotskyites within the system. When Stalin died, Nikita Krushchev who was a Trotskyite himself, couped the parliament in secrecy and took power. This can pretty much happen in any of the so called liberal democracies today. The collapse of the USSR came not with Gorbachev, but with Nikita Krushchev. Any true Marxist who knows the real history would know this real we'll. But I usually don't expect Trots to know this.

@KozelPraiseGOELRO

2 ай бұрын

We can learn from it, so... Scientific socialism won anyway.

What about Stalin who killed entire bolshevik leadership in the name of trial?Stalinism is totally degradation,working class can win in a country but can't achieve socialism and it is proved in 1989-91,people overthrew the Stalinist burocracy within a week,in 80's Stalinist East Europe faced labour strikes throughout the country and they crushed it,no one can achieve socialism by giving a wall,in each and every Stalinist country had burocracy and no power with working class,they didn't rule and that's the reason they fall,a working class run state can't fall against the conspiracy of 5% capitalist who defeated in revolution against the will of 95 percent,Stalinism has no base

@CrazyforCruiser

Жыл бұрын

He isn't talking about Stalin nor Stalin was the philosopher that introduced communism. He is comparing Lenin with Trotsky. Stalin was a psychopath a narcissist who implemented Marxist and Leninist policies in a way to solidify his own position.

@anuraglamichhane1733

Жыл бұрын

You're right!

@arindambanerjee3326

Жыл бұрын

@@anuraglamichhane1733 In socialism there will be no barrier or border of country,it is the question of international solidarity of working class,in contrary Stalinism tried to create so called Artificial Socialism by giving a wall! by dividing a nation of same people by signing pact with imperialists only for maintaining power!they divided and created own sphere of influence jone and satellite states similar to imperialists and gave birth so called cold war rather than spreading revolution and assisting revolutionary working class in other countries,they divided the world with imperialists in the name of "peaceful coexistence" to rule the world in a imperialist way.

@anuraglamichhane1733

Жыл бұрын

@@arindambanerjee3326 I agree with you. I was in the Stalinist hang during the first two years of my introduction to communism, luckily Trotsky showed me the way out in my 3rd year. Stalin committed the biggest crime in history. Not only did his primitive political understanding and Menshevik line resulted in millions of Communists dead in places where there should have been October '17 type revolution__China 1927massacare for example, but his active role in destroying everything that was Bolshevik and the erasing of Lenin's actual ideas and legacy, misguided many communists in the wrong line, away from what Marx and Engels originally taught. Stalin's "Dialectical and historical materialism" and Mao's "On contradiction" are the most vulgar and gross examples of distortions of Marx's ideas.

@arindambanerjee3326

Жыл бұрын

@@anuraglamichhane1733 U r right comrade

Never ever has a socialist revolution brought anything good to the rural agricultural population (I refuse to call them peasants, because this is a discriminatory elitist term in itself). The result of all socialist revolutions was the rule of a bureaucratic party elite exploiting the farmers even more than any previous system. Many socialist countries even formalized this by issuing internal passports, that would forbid the rural population to move to the industrial centers or to even shop there. They even exluded them to profit from basic social achievements. Kolkhos workers didn't get any pension in the beginning, while retired factory workers did. Or take China: the whole system is based on exploiting the rural population in peripherical regions to create economic growth in the urban centers on the coast. And even if they move to the urban centers and work there illegally, they are excluded from all right, because they have not a Shanghai or Beijing internal passport. Or take East Germany. The rural population was the first to flee to West Germany, leaving their farms and livestock behind. The socialist government could offer them nothing than repression. Or take Cuba: Cuban agriculture is a joke. How can such a fertile island with not a very high population density not be able to feed its own population without importing food from outside? Do you really think that would be any different in a communist Bengal or Pakistan?

The greatest mistake of Trotsky was that he became a leninist. Leninism and it's dogmatic and authoritarian nature, is the root cause for the failure of socialism in the 20th century. Rosa Luxembourg was right with her harsh critic on bolshevism.

@hazelwray4184

3 ай бұрын

She was a revolutiinary socialist. She backed the Bokshevik revolution.

@gracchusbabeuf9868

3 ай бұрын

@@hazelwray4184 Read the book of Rosa "The russian revolution". Of course she supported the revolution but she criticised the authoritarian tendencies present from the beginning. Socialism without democracy is impossible.

@morningstararun6278

2 ай бұрын

@@gracchusbabeuf9868 😂😂 Hey troll, USSR was attacked by 14 capitalist countries immediately after the October revolution. You want the red army to jeerk off and talk about building democracy, when their country was literally invaded by 14 countries? You want the Soviets to be weak when they were surrounded by enemies all the time, and were sanctioned by the wealthy advanced countries with all their might? These 14 countries included US, UK, Poland, France, Japan and others. These so called civilized west Europe had killed hundreds of millions in the global south colonies. USSR was a really tough place to live during the initial years(but exponentially better than Tsarist era), but it was far less authoritarian than these so called civilized west European countries. And these so called civilized people would go on to reject Stalin's proposal to form an Anti-Hitler alliance months before WW2.

@gracchusbabeuf9868

2 ай бұрын

@@morningstararun6278 With socialist democracy you can defeat imperialism more easily and without becoming an autocratic and bureaucratic dictatorship where everybody wants to get out. Socialism is not a concentration camp nor a bunch of bureaucrats. Unfortunately people like you made the majority of people despising socialism.

Wrong and misleading interpretation of trotskyism.

@DownWithTheImperialists

8 ай бұрын

take that up with quotes from trotsky

Dumb

Not a Trotskyist but an apologist of State Socialism.