ckkomel wrote:Trotsky on the other hand, as I can see, is presented as a likable figure, by the western propaganda, of the "true and original revolutionary" who got smashed by "the communist beasts" Reasonable.. He wasn't dangerous, and he he was useful in the effort of presenting the existing socialism as a nightmare.
Dagoth Ur wrote:When Stalin had Trotsky killed he was hailed throughout the west as a hero for taking down the rabid dog Trotsky.
Quote:Trotsky's extreme militancy has been downplayed by western liberals because they want to de-tooth his legacy and make him out as some champion of (liberal) democracy.
Quote:Stalin used to be a weapon for the working class
Quote:and now he is a weapon for our enemies (in western capitalist countries) because we abandoned our own history.
Quote:They speak about Katyn and the 1933 famine, but we have the proof that it was a lie.
Dagoth Ur wrote:I know several. That many Internet trots and college trots are just liberals masquerading as communists doesn't give you any reason to demean the efforts of active communists. That's the worst type of sectarianism.
Quote:Also no I'm not speculating there were several articles praising the murder of Trotsky across the west. Most had the tone of "see that's what communists do to their own".
Quote:I know for a fact that several hearst publishing articles had that tone. You seem to want to forget that Trotsky was the radical all the way up until his death. The man can be called nothing less than a hardliner unless one is completely ignorant of his stance or witings. You don't have to agree with him to notice this.
Also I hope you're not using people like Grover Furr for your analysis of Trotsky. Hatchet-job doesn't even begin to descibe this sectarian rants.
OP-Bagration wrote:You say that workers "realize they have no material interest in 'Marxism-Leninism'". But the USSR was strong when Stalin was alive. The French Communist Party, which was "stalinist", was also the strongest party of France at that time. Nowadays the Communist Party of Greece is strong, and most active communist movements in the world, such as the communists in India, the Naxalite rebels, the communists in Nepal and Russia and in South Africa, are still marxist-leninists. Where are their critics? What have they accomplished?
Das_ALoveStory wrote:They all make important contributions to Communism and consequently are deserving of the respect of Communists. Like RQ I'd agree that blindly following them is bad idea.But, as a communist, whether publicized or not, should I personally respect Trotsky, Stalin and Mao?
Shigalyov wrote:It depends on your reasons for being a Communist then: for some it's almost a religion with it's icons, symbols and scriptures; while for others it's simply about wanting the world to be a better place for the people who live in it.
Reverence to former leaders is secondary to the pursuit of social justice for the oppressed of the world.
Quote:I agree, what have they accomplished? You say they were strong, what qualifies as strong? Soviet support? An army of peasants? Plenty of votes?
Quote:French communists led the government in a popular front for a short period of time, awesome.
Quote:The KKE isn't very different. It, like the french stalinists, actually has a sizable voting population. What does this mean? There are communists trying to exercise power over the bourgeois state, within the state. That leaves it struggling with anti-government revolutionaries, splitting workers and creating infighting (blocking parliament comes to mind). Having a stalinist vanguard in the workers' movement can create a dangerous parallelism and conflict of interest, IMO.
Quote:Is it...a tank fetish?
Quote:But, as a communist, whether publicized or not, should I personally respect Trotsky, Stalin and Mao? I don't need to be told to make up my own mind, I don't have enough time/info to make a clear decision. Do you respect them? Should I?
Quote:That's not really fair OPB. Trotsky's only other option was to be reduced to nothing and quietly exterminated (as history prove their conflict at this point would only end in the ruination of the other).
Quote:Although I am curious as to the meaning of those rallies, could you explain?