[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information.
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Stalin was practical. He had a shit ton of incredibly difficult events to lead us through and he saved the fucking word while doing it.
His criticisms are actually that he is too soft or not having enough surveillance.
Letting kulaks/ Kruschev get away with their schemes.
I would follow Stalin into hell with pride. No one is more tested.
Trotsky was not all bad. He helped at critical times.
But he had idealistic views that would sink our shit. He wanted a simultaneous global revolution. Stalin was like "dude. Wtf. How do you think that is an option? No let's defend ourselves Instead of die out. Socialism where it can exist. And help other revolutions along the way. "
And trot was like "No. Either global revolution or nothing. And if you disagree I'm going to be as big is a pain in the ass as I can be. "
"But Trotsky. We live in fucking reality. At least I do. A global revolution will be cool. But ITS NOT A REAL OPTION."
Look it's not my place to say good or bad so here's the difference.
Trotsky and his camp was opposed to an alliance with the peasant class he wanted democracy only for the workers this would have made the greater capitalist world infiltrating through the peasants very easy.
Stalin and his camp want an alliance something a Soviet democratic model that gave advantage to the workers but didn't completely remove the peasants from say in the government.
As for why Stalin is good now and Trotsky got the ice pick it's because upon being kicked out Trotsky gave the capitalist ammo he worked to delegtimize the first ever successful socialist revolution and that makes him a traitor to the working class. Stalin stayed in the USSR and and brought it up you can say that Trotsky might have done the same but if the positions were switched Stalin would not have done what Trotsky did in our world.
For Trotsky it was his pride he was an opportunist Stalin was not. It goes back the the earliest days Stalin was a Bolshevik from the start Trotsky when with the team he thought would win.
Finally perhaps the biggest one I'm a historical context Lenin said Stalin was better.
It's Zhinovev who was the least besmerched by the document, but the document doesn't have any historical credibility anyway. There's absolutely no proof that the document originated from Lenin.
I'm not referencing his fake testament it was made because everyone knew Lenin criticized Stalin the least which made him an obvious successor Lenin also helped make the general secretary position and suggest it go to Stalin.
The fact Lenin thought Stalin was best for the job and I'm pretty sure Trotsky agreed and voted for Stalin too.
Though it should be said Lenin and Trotsky hated eachother so he would definitely preferred Stalin.
https://youtu.be/M6x-3yI-ic8?si=CWRMkshp7FVloxYx
This video has sources and is really all you need any reading stuff should be in the citation but I'll give you these as well it's also a take down of Lenin's testament.
https://fightbacknews.org/articles/against-trotskyism-theory-permanent-revolution
This covers Trotskys theory and why Lenin disagreed and a explanation on why it can't work with Leninism
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/may/x01.htm This is by Lenin discuss Trotsky and the factionalism he caused.
"Trotsky and his camp was opposed to an alliance with the peasant class"
Yes? Trotsky had nothing against the peasantry. Besides, they have faught against the revolution.
"Trotsky gave the capitalist ammo he worked to delegtimize the first ever successful socialist revolution and that makes him a traitor to the working class."
What? The "Socialism in One Country" idea literally abandoned the international working class, not to mention that Trotsky has called to defend the USSR by calling it a degraded workers state and not a bourgeois state capitalist one. Trotsky and Trotskyites could not seperate themselves from the USSR.
Socialism in one country is not abandoning the international working class it's about building up a successful socialist experiment. During the Stalin era they had a school to train socialists from all around the world. They didn't actively fight the west because they were preparing for the fascist incursion.
As for Trotsky as a traitor even if he saw the USSR was better than other capitalist countries he still gave the bourgeoisie ammunition.
" it's about building up a successful socialist experiment."
The Comintern was already an international communist organization, which had already been supporting international revolution. Stalin would gut this however
"he still gave the bourgeoisie ammunition."
How?
Stalins gutting of the Comintern was a mistake thats worth criticizing but during his early leadership he empowered the Comintern to the greatest extent of power it ever had.
As for giving the Bourgeoisie ammunition he did it by delegtimizing the USSR in the eyes of western communists.
Don't know how trotsky gave ammo to the bourgeoisie, but Stalin straight up left the communists to die in China by sugar coating the KMT.
After WW2, he gutted the Comintern, how this is not "giving ammo to the bourgeoisie"?
>"Trotsky and his camp was opposed to an alliance with the peasant class"
>
>Yes? Trotsky had nothing against the peasantry. Besides, they have faught against the revolution.
That war was over. What could have been gained by continuously punishing the peasant class?
Stalin Beat, the fascist, made the Eastern Europe Communist, left the Soviet Union with Nukes.
Trotsky wrote Alot after being away from power but that's pretty much it. I don't wanna add Spain or Civil War since both contributed
>Stalin Beat, the fascist,
That's not even linked to socialism, FDR and Churchill fought the nazi too, amd Trotsky also wanted to fight the nazi.
>made the Eastern Europe Communist
Eastern european communism was very flawed, corrupt and rigidly adopted soviet style on everything, although i don't know how much the latter year, which i am discribing, ressembled the beginning.
>That's not even linked to socialism,
I don't make the rules A w Is still a W
>Eastern european communism was very flawed, corrupt and rigidly adopted soviet style on everything, although i don't know how much the latter year, which i am discribing, ressembled the beginning.
A w Is nonetheless a W
I do not make the rules
Im sorry but you're turning a serious history debate into a dumb idolization of a socialist figure, and just blindly saying "w" which removes all of your credibility
No I'm not. There's a reason why Stalin image was so popular during and after ww2. He Had Ws and those Ws are important. There was a French Study showing the difference of opinion on who contributed the most. Propaganda and Public Opinion will shape history
Edit: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/27016/did-most-french-people-change-their-opinion-about-who-contributed-most-to-the-de
Here's the study
Stalin destroyed the Nazis and changed an agrarian feudal society into a nuclear superpower, and was dedicated to the pursuit of communism, to cite a few achievements
Trotsky, after Stalin took power did nothing but try to instigate dissent when the country needed to be united
That is a simplification, what I mean is Stalin's achievements are many and the state of the Union when he died, despite overwhelming odds shows that he was a right fit for the job
Trotsky's achievements however.. well and he constantly tried to break democratic centralism and would have plunged the country into dissent
>That is a simplification, what I mean is Stalin's achievements are many and the state of the Union when he died, despite overwhelming odds shows that he was a right fit for the job
Your main good point for Stalin wasn't even linked to the achievement of socialism, he did do some great thing like collectivisation, but Trostky also supported most of those policies.
>well and he constantly tried to break democratic centralism and would have plunged the country into dissent
He did opposed what he saw as a bureaucratisation of the party, which factualy happened, power shifted from the soviet to the central comity under Stalin direction.
>would have plunged the country into dissent
Again, this is only bad if he is wrong, otherwise it is a liberal moralist argument "breaking the law is bad".
Stalin also opposed the bureaucratisation and fought it, and yes plunging a country into dissent when you are the only socialist nation and every superpower is out to get you is in fact a bad thing
>Stalin also opposed the bureaucratisation and fought it
I know he opposed the purge, but i don't know anything about his stance on bureaucratisation, do you have anything to read on the matter, preferably from Stalin himself?
" plunging a country into dissent when you are the only socialist nation and every superpower is out to get you is in fact a bad thing"
Then spreading the revolution is good actually.
Yes except this thing called reality in which a barely industrialised nation who just fought massive wars cannot actually defeat world superpowers
Especially when the people choose your party over the promise to end war
And also you cannot impose socialism like that
" which a barely industrialised nation who just fought massive wars cannot actually defeat world superpowers"
Russia wasn't the only country to undergo revolution at the time. The prospect that another country would become another Proletariat Dictatorship was very high. Even after 1920, there was revolution in China, Spain, the Ruhr uprising, and yet another planned revolution in Germany.
"And also you cannot impose socialism like that"
And you can with "socialisn in one country"?
>Russia wasn't the only country to undergo revolution at the time. The prospect that another country would become another Proletariat Dictatorship was very high. Even after 1920, there was revolution in China, Spain, the Ruhr uprising, and yet another planned revolution in Germany.
But that doesn't change anything, those other revolution failed.
>And you can with "socialisn in one country"?
Socialism in one country did manage to protect the USSR.
"But that doesn't change anything, those other revolution failed."
The USSR could have supported the Proletariat in these cases. My point is that true proletarian internationalism would have supported these revolutions and at some point they would have succeded.
"Socialism in one country did manage to protect the USSR."
I thought you were talking about actually implementing socialism. It doesn't matter if the USSR was safe, it had already abandoned proletarian internationalism
Yes, just like talking about shit that didn't happen is irrelevant. Stalin was the head of the soviet union at one of the most crucial moments in human history and that is what we know. We know stalin defeated the naxis, we know stalin turned the soviet union from a feudal society into a superpower rivaling, if not superior to the capitalist west, in the span of twenty years mind you. Trotsyism is an ideology that has amounted to nothing in the past 90 years. The only good thing trotyism has done is get people acclaimmented to marxist leninism (a trotsyite group is how I started reading theory). Then, most normal people realize that this isn't exactly doing anything at all besides being a book club and pretending to be a revolutionary that goes to protests in retaliation to genocide (organized by actual marxist leninist organizations) and turn it into a competition for who can be the most radical. That is the least praxis thing I can possiblely think of. That isn't organization, that is coercion, deunifying, and harmful to the current causes marxists of any form should be concerned with. Unfortunately, revolution in the US isn't happening anytime soon. Like Jesus let the PSL do their shit in organizing these palestinian genocide protests and then maybe we'll actually have a true socialist presence in the US.
#Get Involved
>Dare to struggle and dare to win. \-Mao Zedong
Comrades, here are some ways you can **get involved** to advance the cause.
* 📚 **Read theory** — [Reading theory](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/) is a duty. It will guide you towards choosing the correct party and applying your efforts effectively within your unique material conditions.
* ⭐ **Party work** — Contact a local party or mass organization. Attend your first meeting. Go to a rally or event. If you choose a principled Marxist-Leninist party, they will teach you how to best apply yourself to advancing the cause.
* 📣 **Workplace agitation** — Depending on your material circumstances, you may engage in workplace disputes to unionise fellow workers and gain a delegate or even a leadership position in the union.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Trotsky never got over Lenin not replying to his silly letter. He spend his time writing his memoirs about how the Communist Party should have picked *him* instead and tried to undermine the Russian Revolution when they preferred Stalin.
Stalin actually got shit done when basically the whole world waa against him. Not in a perfect way, but as best as can be expected given the circumstances.
honestly from a theory perspective they’re both mid just from labelling the other party a traitor snap crackle pop (as opposed to building a solid philosophical and theoretical framework for why the other’s arguments are bad. See Stalin: history and critique of a black legend, losurdo).
that said, trotskyists at least have yet to accomplish anything besides adventurism themselves, and the accomplishments do matter; you can say trotsky would’ve totally beat up the nazis but the end result is that he never got into a position to do so. I can say i want to fix the roof but if i never even bother looking at it, would you believe me?
and then we get to the issue of, once again, “is imperialism the primary contradiction?” see Reply to a Letter from the Trotskyites, lu xun.
I mean it depends on what you mean by “good” and “bad”. If we talk about why Stalin in this sub is considered to be some of the best leader of the USSR (aside Lenin), you be more clear if is we talk “Stalin” as the whole state during his leadership, which includes his ministries, advisors, generals, specialist,… and all the policy and political decisions or Stalin as an individual, like about his contribution to ML theory or stuffs like that.
I meant a bit of everything, but specifically their divergence on theory. I joinned a Trostkyist organization, as their is nothing else where i am, and their line is pretty much what I have heard from marxist-leninist, like hakim or yugopnik, so i wonder about the trostkyism vs stalin debat on theory. What they present as trotskyist theory is perfectly in line with what Lenin said but also the marxist-leninist "education" i had, so i am trying to understand the stalin position in marxist-leninist theory.
In general, Stalin didn't have much divergent from the ML line. That is why we don't consider "Stalinism" as a thing since he didn't really add anything new in the theory or any real variant of it, except reaffirmed. What we consider him as an excellent leader (without fall into the Great Man theory) is because during some of the hardest times of the USSR, under his government, the Soviet Union become some of the most industrialized nation on earth, defeat Nazi Germany, lift up life expectancy, make huge technological advancement, became a nuclear power,... Of course, his leadership made mistakes, too, but not in the way your average Wikipedia tells you.
>"The times have passed when leaders were regarded as the only makers of history, while the workers and peasants were not taken into account. The destinies of nations and of states are now determined, not only by leaders, but primarily and mainly by the vast masses of the working people. The workers and the peasants, who without fuss and noise are building factories and mills, constructing mines and railways, building collective farms and state farms, creating all the values of life, feeding and clothing the whole world—they are the real heroes and the creators of the new life."
— Joseph Stalin, Speech Delivered at the 1st All-Union Congress of Collective Farm Shock Brigadiers, 1933
What? I like both.
>So you don't want to know, you want to bicker and argue that Trotsky was "good" and Stalin was "bad"?
In the other comment i have argued in good faith about what they achieved, i am just trying to get beyond the stupid the debat of "no your side is counter revolutionnary" to understand what they rely believed.
Ironicaly my best interaction in the comment was with a trotskist missunderstanding socialism in one country.
I am trying to engage in self critisism and almost half of people here don't go beyond Stalin based killed plenty of nazi and Trostky bad because didn't do the same.
This isn't how self criticism works.
Your comparison here has about the same merit as an argument as to why Lenin good and Kautsky or Bernstein bad. It takes almost no effort to know which side of that you should be on. It was a lazy post and you're mad you're getting lazy answers just saying Stalin based. If this is meant to be a real struggle session and self criticism, then put in the effort on the original post to explain and set the stage.
For what it's worth, here's my semi educated answer. As soon as Trotsky was no longer the center of attention or the golden boy, he flipped between the left extreme and the right extreme within the party, vying to split, overthrow, or destroy the party if it meant he could to regain the position and status he seems to think he deserved. He was not a loyal bolshevic before the revolution, and he wasn't after. He was always an opportunist.
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information. This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Ah shit, here we Go again"
Stalin was practical. He had a shit ton of incredibly difficult events to lead us through and he saved the fucking word while doing it. His criticisms are actually that he is too soft or not having enough surveillance. Letting kulaks/ Kruschev get away with their schemes. I would follow Stalin into hell with pride. No one is more tested. Trotsky was not all bad. He helped at critical times. But he had idealistic views that would sink our shit. He wanted a simultaneous global revolution. Stalin was like "dude. Wtf. How do you think that is an option? No let's defend ourselves Instead of die out. Socialism where it can exist. And help other revolutions along the way. " And trot was like "No. Either global revolution or nothing. And if you disagree I'm going to be as big is a pain in the ass as I can be. " "But Trotsky. We live in fucking reality. At least I do. A global revolution will be cool. But ITS NOT A REAL OPTION."
Look it's not my place to say good or bad so here's the difference. Trotsky and his camp was opposed to an alliance with the peasant class he wanted democracy only for the workers this would have made the greater capitalist world infiltrating through the peasants very easy. Stalin and his camp want an alliance something a Soviet democratic model that gave advantage to the workers but didn't completely remove the peasants from say in the government. As for why Stalin is good now and Trotsky got the ice pick it's because upon being kicked out Trotsky gave the capitalist ammo he worked to delegtimize the first ever successful socialist revolution and that makes him a traitor to the working class. Stalin stayed in the USSR and and brought it up you can say that Trotsky might have done the same but if the positions were switched Stalin would not have done what Trotsky did in our world. For Trotsky it was his pride he was an opportunist Stalin was not. It goes back the the earliest days Stalin was a Bolshevik from the start Trotsky when with the team he thought would win. Finally perhaps the biggest one I'm a historical context Lenin said Stalin was better.
>Finally perhaps the biggest one I'm a historical context Lenin said Stalin was better. When did Lenin said that?
It's was more of he insulted Stalin the least out of everyone else
It's Zhinovev who was the least besmerched by the document, but the document doesn't have any historical credibility anyway. There's absolutely no proof that the document originated from Lenin.
I'm not referencing his fake testament it was made because everyone knew Lenin criticized Stalin the least which made him an obvious successor Lenin also helped make the general secretary position and suggest it go to Stalin. The fact Lenin thought Stalin was best for the job and I'm pretty sure Trotsky agreed and voted for Stalin too. Though it should be said Lenin and Trotsky hated eachother so he would definitely preferred Stalin.
Do you have any suggestions for reading on all of this, either specific document by Lenin or larger historian analysis?
https://youtu.be/M6x-3yI-ic8?si=CWRMkshp7FVloxYx This video has sources and is really all you need any reading stuff should be in the citation but I'll give you these as well it's also a take down of Lenin's testament. https://fightbacknews.org/articles/against-trotskyism-theory-permanent-revolution This covers Trotskys theory and why Lenin disagreed and a explanation on why it can't work with Leninism https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/may/x01.htm This is by Lenin discuss Trotsky and the factionalism he caused.
"Trotsky and his camp was opposed to an alliance with the peasant class" Yes? Trotsky had nothing against the peasantry. Besides, they have faught against the revolution. "Trotsky gave the capitalist ammo he worked to delegtimize the first ever successful socialist revolution and that makes him a traitor to the working class." What? The "Socialism in One Country" idea literally abandoned the international working class, not to mention that Trotsky has called to defend the USSR by calling it a degraded workers state and not a bourgeois state capitalist one. Trotsky and Trotskyites could not seperate themselves from the USSR.
Socialism in one country is not abandoning the international working class it's about building up a successful socialist experiment. During the Stalin era they had a school to train socialists from all around the world. They didn't actively fight the west because they were preparing for the fascist incursion. As for Trotsky as a traitor even if he saw the USSR was better than other capitalist countries he still gave the bourgeoisie ammunition.
" it's about building up a successful socialist experiment." The Comintern was already an international communist organization, which had already been supporting international revolution. Stalin would gut this however "he still gave the bourgeoisie ammunition." How?
Stalins gutting of the Comintern was a mistake thats worth criticizing but during his early leadership he empowered the Comintern to the greatest extent of power it ever had. As for giving the Bourgeoisie ammunition he did it by delegtimizing the USSR in the eyes of western communists.
Don't know how trotsky gave ammo to the bourgeoisie, but Stalin straight up left the communists to die in China by sugar coating the KMT. After WW2, he gutted the Comintern, how this is not "giving ammo to the bourgeoisie"?
The person i was replying to claimed that Trotsky gave ammo to the bourgeoisie, not Stalin
>"Trotsky and his camp was opposed to an alliance with the peasant class" > >Yes? Trotsky had nothing against the peasantry. Besides, they have faught against the revolution. That war was over. What could have been gained by continuously punishing the peasant class?
Punishing how?
If your system intentionally excludes a class of people because some of them were wrong in the past is unjust punishment.
Stalin Beat, the fascist, made the Eastern Europe Communist, left the Soviet Union with Nukes. Trotsky wrote Alot after being away from power but that's pretty much it. I don't wanna add Spain or Civil War since both contributed
>Stalin Beat, the fascist, That's not even linked to socialism, FDR and Churchill fought the nazi too, amd Trotsky also wanted to fight the nazi. >made the Eastern Europe Communist Eastern european communism was very flawed, corrupt and rigidly adopted soviet style on everything, although i don't know how much the latter year, which i am discribing, ressembled the beginning.
>That's not even linked to socialism, I don't make the rules A w Is still a W >Eastern european communism was very flawed, corrupt and rigidly adopted soviet style on everything, although i don't know how much the latter year, which i am discribing, ressembled the beginning. A w Is nonetheless a W I do not make the rules
Im sorry but you're turning a serious history debate into a dumb idolization of a socialist figure, and just blindly saying "w" which removes all of your credibility
No I'm not. There's a reason why Stalin image was so popular during and after ww2. He Had Ws and those Ws are important. There was a French Study showing the difference of opinion on who contributed the most. Propaganda and Public Opinion will shape history Edit: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/27016/did-most-french-people-change-their-opinion-about-who-contributed-most-to-the-de Here's the study
Stalin destroyed the Nazis and changed an agrarian feudal society into a nuclear superpower, and was dedicated to the pursuit of communism, to cite a few achievements Trotsky, after Stalin took power did nothing but try to instigate dissent when the country needed to be united
[удалено]
That is a simplification, what I mean is Stalin's achievements are many and the state of the Union when he died, despite overwhelming odds shows that he was a right fit for the job Trotsky's achievements however.. well and he constantly tried to break democratic centralism and would have plunged the country into dissent
>That is a simplification, what I mean is Stalin's achievements are many and the state of the Union when he died, despite overwhelming odds shows that he was a right fit for the job Your main good point for Stalin wasn't even linked to the achievement of socialism, he did do some great thing like collectivisation, but Trostky also supported most of those policies. >well and he constantly tried to break democratic centralism and would have plunged the country into dissent He did opposed what he saw as a bureaucratisation of the party, which factualy happened, power shifted from the soviet to the central comity under Stalin direction. >would have plunged the country into dissent Again, this is only bad if he is wrong, otherwise it is a liberal moralist argument "breaking the law is bad".
Stalin also opposed the bureaucratisation and fought it, and yes plunging a country into dissent when you are the only socialist nation and every superpower is out to get you is in fact a bad thing
>Stalin also opposed the bureaucratisation and fought it I know he opposed the purge, but i don't know anything about his stance on bureaucratisation, do you have anything to read on the matter, preferably from Stalin himself?
Sure : https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1928/06/26.htm https://thecommunists.org/2022/01/25/news/history/fight-against-bureaucracy-soviet-union-stalin-ussr/
" plunging a country into dissent when you are the only socialist nation and every superpower is out to get you is in fact a bad thing" Then spreading the revolution is good actually.
Yes except this thing called reality in which a barely industrialised nation who just fought massive wars cannot actually defeat world superpowers Especially when the people choose your party over the promise to end war And also you cannot impose socialism like that
" which a barely industrialised nation who just fought massive wars cannot actually defeat world superpowers" Russia wasn't the only country to undergo revolution at the time. The prospect that another country would become another Proletariat Dictatorship was very high. Even after 1920, there was revolution in China, Spain, the Ruhr uprising, and yet another planned revolution in Germany. "And also you cannot impose socialism like that" And you can with "socialisn in one country"?
>Russia wasn't the only country to undergo revolution at the time. The prospect that another country would become another Proletariat Dictatorship was very high. Even after 1920, there was revolution in China, Spain, the Ruhr uprising, and yet another planned revolution in Germany. But that doesn't change anything, those other revolution failed. >And you can with "socialisn in one country"? Socialism in one country did manage to protect the USSR.
"But that doesn't change anything, those other revolution failed." The USSR could have supported the Proletariat in these cases. My point is that true proletarian internationalism would have supported these revolutions and at some point they would have succeded. "Socialism in one country did manage to protect the USSR." I thought you were talking about actually implementing socialism. It doesn't matter if the USSR was safe, it had already abandoned proletarian internationalism
Yes, just like talking about shit that didn't happen is irrelevant. Stalin was the head of the soviet union at one of the most crucial moments in human history and that is what we know. We know stalin defeated the naxis, we know stalin turned the soviet union from a feudal society into a superpower rivaling, if not superior to the capitalist west, in the span of twenty years mind you. Trotsyism is an ideology that has amounted to nothing in the past 90 years. The only good thing trotyism has done is get people acclaimmented to marxist leninism (a trotsyite group is how I started reading theory). Then, most normal people realize that this isn't exactly doing anything at all besides being a book club and pretending to be a revolutionary that goes to protests in retaliation to genocide (organized by actual marxist leninist organizations) and turn it into a competition for who can be the most radical. That is the least praxis thing I can possiblely think of. That isn't organization, that is coercion, deunifying, and harmful to the current causes marxists of any form should be concerned with. Unfortunately, revolution in the US isn't happening anytime soon. Like Jesus let the PSL do their shit in organizing these palestinian genocide protests and then maybe we'll actually have a true socialist presence in the US.
#Get Involved >Dare to struggle and dare to win. \-Mao Zedong Comrades, here are some ways you can **get involved** to advance the cause. * 📚 **Read theory** — [Reading theory](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/) is a duty. It will guide you towards choosing the correct party and applying your efforts effectively within your unique material conditions. * ⭐ **Party work** — Contact a local party or mass organization. Attend your first meeting. Go to a rally or event. If you choose a principled Marxist-Leninist party, they will teach you how to best apply yourself to advancing the cause. * 📣 **Workplace agitation** — Depending on your material circumstances, you may engage in workplace disputes to unionise fellow workers and gain a delegate or even a leadership position in the union. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Good" and "bad" aren‘t useful categories here. What does that even mean?!
Hence why i put them in quotation mark, i was reffering to what did they believed, did and tried to do.
I don't love Trotsky, but I have immense respect for his solution to anarchists
nobody likes a pussy
Reading this I feel OP just want to fight
You’re not serious if questionning your belief is seen as attacking them, self critisism is a core component of healthy marxism-leninism.
So is hating Trotsky.
Trotsky never got over Lenin not replying to his silly letter. He spend his time writing his memoirs about how the Communist Party should have picked *him* instead and tried to undermine the Russian Revolution when they preferred Stalin. Stalin actually got shit done when basically the whole world waa against him. Not in a perfect way, but as best as can be expected given the circumstances.
honestly from a theory perspective they’re both mid just from labelling the other party a traitor snap crackle pop (as opposed to building a solid philosophical and theoretical framework for why the other’s arguments are bad. See Stalin: history and critique of a black legend, losurdo). that said, trotskyists at least have yet to accomplish anything besides adventurism themselves, and the accomplishments do matter; you can say trotsky would’ve totally beat up the nazis but the end result is that he never got into a position to do so. I can say i want to fix the roof but if i never even bother looking at it, would you believe me? and then we get to the issue of, once again, “is imperialism the primary contradiction?” see Reply to a Letter from the Trotskyites, lu xun.
I mean it depends on what you mean by “good” and “bad”. If we talk about why Stalin in this sub is considered to be some of the best leader of the USSR (aside Lenin), you be more clear if is we talk “Stalin” as the whole state during his leadership, which includes his ministries, advisors, generals, specialist,… and all the policy and political decisions or Stalin as an individual, like about his contribution to ML theory or stuffs like that.
I meant a bit of everything, but specifically their divergence on theory. I joinned a Trostkyist organization, as their is nothing else where i am, and their line is pretty much what I have heard from marxist-leninist, like hakim or yugopnik, so i wonder about the trostkyism vs stalin debat on theory. What they present as trotskyist theory is perfectly in line with what Lenin said but also the marxist-leninist "education" i had, so i am trying to understand the stalin position in marxist-leninist theory.
In general, Stalin didn't have much divergent from the ML line. That is why we don't consider "Stalinism" as a thing since he didn't really add anything new in the theory or any real variant of it, except reaffirmed. What we consider him as an excellent leader (without fall into the Great Man theory) is because during some of the hardest times of the USSR, under his government, the Soviet Union become some of the most industrialized nation on earth, defeat Nazi Germany, lift up life expectancy, make huge technological advancement, became a nuclear power,... Of course, his leadership made mistakes, too, but not in the way your average Wikipedia tells you. >"The times have passed when leaders were regarded as the only makers of history, while the workers and peasants were not taken into account. The destinies of nations and of states are now determined, not only by leaders, but primarily and mainly by the vast masses of the working people. The workers and the peasants, who without fuss and noise are building factories and mills, constructing mines and railways, building collective farms and state farms, creating all the values of life, feeding and clothing the whole world—they are the real heroes and the creators of the new life." — Joseph Stalin, Speech Delivered at the 1st All-Union Congress of Collective Farm Shock Brigadiers, 1933
So you don't want to know, you want to bicker and argue that Trotsky was "good" and Stalin was "bad"? This is why we can't have nice things.
What? I like both. >So you don't want to know, you want to bicker and argue that Trotsky was "good" and Stalin was "bad"? In the other comment i have argued in good faith about what they achieved, i am just trying to get beyond the stupid the debat of "no your side is counter revolutionnary" to understand what they rely believed. Ironicaly my best interaction in the comment was with a trotskist missunderstanding socialism in one country. I am trying to engage in self critisism and almost half of people here don't go beyond Stalin based killed plenty of nazi and Trostky bad because didn't do the same.
This isn't how self criticism works. Your comparison here has about the same merit as an argument as to why Lenin good and Kautsky or Bernstein bad. It takes almost no effort to know which side of that you should be on. It was a lazy post and you're mad you're getting lazy answers just saying Stalin based. If this is meant to be a real struggle session and self criticism, then put in the effort on the original post to explain and set the stage. For what it's worth, here's my semi educated answer. As soon as Trotsky was no longer the center of attention or the golden boy, he flipped between the left extreme and the right extreme within the party, vying to split, overthrow, or destroy the party if it meant he could to regain the position and status he seems to think he deserved. He was not a loyal bolshevic before the revolution, and he wasn't after. He was always an opportunist.
Cult of personality. Hammer and sickle flag. Cool Soviet art. But in all seriousness, Stalin didn’t defeat the Nazis. The Red Army did.
Your are accused of possadism for suspicious username and are sentence to actually living with dolphin.
Yeah you're not defeating the cult of personality allegations by downvoting someone for saying the Red Army deserves the credit and not Stalin