Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

Can Somebody explain 'Socialism in One Country'?

POST REPLY
Log-in to remove advertisement.
Loz
Post 20 Feb 2012, 15:28
Quote:
I am not in the SWP

It doesn't matter,they're Trotskists.
Although to be fair,there are some Trotskites who still haven't sided with the reaction,who are still revolutionary Marxists albeit somewhat deviant and then there are types like you.

Quote:
I cant see anything here about collaboration

That the Trotskites have objectively stood on the side of fascism is clear even from this Trotskite article.

Quote:
No, you provide it or retract

Here you go mate:
viewtopic.php?f=134&t=49942

Quote:
You never read stuff in context do you? Trotsky follows that by saying that workers should be provided with proper training before going to battle! Does that sound like collaboration? He rejects pacifism and tells workers to go to war. What he is trying to do is point out that the war is caused by the bourgeois in the west as well as by the Nazis themselves. He is calling for revolution. He is pointing out that the ordinary German soldier is just a worker forced to go to war by the ruling class, same as for an English one, and their interests are class interests. I think this is similar to what Lenin said in WW1.

Nope,spare us this Trotskite demaguguery please.
Trotsky clearly wrote,in 1940(!),that "...the victory of the imperialists of Great Britain and France would not be less frightful for the ultimate fate of mankind."
Sickening.

Quote:
Fraternisation is not collaboration, it is the exact opposite, it is a form of sabotage, to mentally prise German soldiers away from crap they have been told.

Haha.

No.While Communists engaged in armed struggle against the fascists,the Trotskites "frathernized" with German soldiers.
Only an extreme philistine could defend this,but i'm somehow not even surprised anymore that you're defending this disgusting collaboration with fascism.
The fact that these Trotskites continued with such "fraternalization" even in mid-1944 with furnaces of Auschwitz working in three shifts should be enough proof for people to judge this "sabotage".


Quote:
Why dont you just completely misinterpret everything he wrote? Saying that the Nazis would have a hard job occupying is not saying he wanted them to win, he is saying what might happen if they won, or if they occupied territories for long, and he was right, in most occupied territories there was a resistance.

He's clearly saying that the Soviet Union is more dangerous than Hitler's Germany.Enough said.

Quote:
Unlike Trotskyism and Marxism, Stalinism was an ideology.

So again we got back to the beginning.





Quote:
lern yer werds, k?

I'm not sure i understood you Fitzy?
DP's main argument is that Stalin wasn't a Marxist or Leninist but something else.
Post 20 Feb 2012, 17:04
Loz wrote:
"I am not in the SWP"
It doesn't matter,they're Trotskists.
Although to be fair,there are some Trotskites who still haven't sided with the reaction,who are still revolutionary Marxists albeit somewhat deviant and then there are types like you.

stupid thing to say.

Loz wrote:
"I cant see anything here about collaboration"
That the Trotskites have objectively stood on the side of fascism is clear even from this Trotskite article.

Not remotely. Trotsky demanded better training for workers going to fight the fascists, and he also agreed with conscription and opposed pacifism. You have it all wrong.

Loz wrote:
"No, you provide it or retract"
Here you go mate:
viewtopic.php?f=134&t=49942

what is this supposed to show?

Loz wrote:
"You never read stuff in context do you? Trotsky follows that by saying that workers should be provided with proper training before going to battle! Does that sound like collaboration? He rejects pacifism and tells workers to go to war. What he is trying to do is point out that the war is caused by the bourgeois in the west as well as by the Nazis themselves. He is calling for revolution. He is pointing out that the ordinary German soldier is just a worker forced to go to war by the ruling class, same as for an English one, and their interests are class interests. I think this is similar to what Lenin said in WW1. "
Nope,spare us this Trotskite demaguguery please.
Trotsky clearly wrote,in 1940(!),that "...the victory of the imperialists of Great Britain and France would not be less frightful for the ultimate fate of mankind."
Sickening.

As I said, this is immediately followed by a statement against fascism, a call for better training in combat.
"Revolutionists no more separate themselves from the people during war than in peace. A Bolshevik strives to become not only the best trade unionist but also the best soldier."
His point, if you bother to listen, is that a win for the allies is not gonna mean everything is rosy, and that, being honest, a win for the fascists might actually increase the chance of world revolution. That is not to say collaborate, you still have to go to war and fight the fascists. Stop misinterpreting this. Trotsky was not being defeatist, as Lenin was in WW1. He was just weighing up what either outcome could mean. There is no way he advocated any collaboration with the fascists. As I said, fraternisation is actually sabotage and the Bolsheviks did it all the time.

Trotsky said

"Defeatism is not a mere practical slogan, around which we can mobilise the masses during the war. The defeat of one’s own national army can be an aim only in a single case, that is when we have a capitalist army fighting against a workers’ state or marching against a developing revolution. But in the case of a war between two capitalist powers, the proletariat of neither of them can set itself the defeat of its own national army as a task."

It's a pretty complex subject tbh, and Trotsky was arguing with other Trots. Lenin changed his position as time went on in WW1 for example.

Trotsky:

"Every Trotskyist in Spain must be a good soldier, on the side of the Left. Naturally, it is so elementary a question – it is not a question worth discussing. A leader … of the working class cannot enter the bourgeois government. We did not enter the government of Kerensky in Russia. While we defended Kerensky against Kornilov. we did not enter his government. As I declared, I am ready to enter into an alliance with Stalin against the Fascists or an alliance with Jouhaux against the French Fascists. It is an elementary question."

"Trotsky’s statement to the Commission of Enquiry (Dewey Commission), in reply to a question from Stolberg about what he would advocate in the event of a war in which the USSR would be allied with France, occasioned new discussions … and new conflicts. This is what Trotsky replied to Stolberg:

In France I would remain in opposition to the government. and would systematically develop this opposition. In Germany I would do anything I could to sabotage the war machinery. They are two different things. In Germany and in Japan, I would apply military methods, as far as I am able, to fight, oppose and injure the military machinery of Japan, to disorganise it, both in Germany and Japan. In France it is political opposition to the bourgeoisie and the preparation of the proletarian revolution. Both are revolutionary methods. But in Germany and Japan I have as my immediate aim the disorganisation of the whole machinery. In France I have the aim of the proletarian revolution."

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/re ... vdeft.html

see, not so simple now, is it?

"What was new in Trotsky’s answers to the Dewey Commission (Commission of Enquiry) was that the struggle for the victory of the camp of the oppressed must be completed by the use of military sabotage within the camp of their enemies. For example, the workers of Germany or Japan would sabotage the military machine of Germany to defend the USSR, and that of Japan to defend China. In that case, the masses would understand that this activity, and the defeat of their own country, far from being a ‘lesser evil’, could become an objective. "

"Finally, the essence of the contribution of Trotsky and Klement to the 1937-38 polemic is to be explained by their conviction that the coming war would be world-wide and that the USSR would necessarily be involved as an ally of one of the imperialist camps."

"In these conditions the formula of ‘revolutionary defeatism’ did not suffice. It did not answer precisely the crucial question. Moreover, it was precisely on the question of the ‘defence of the USSR’ that the crisis broke out after the conclusion of the German-Soviet Pact. Under the pressure of public opinion, an important section of the Socialist Workers Party in the USA, led by James Burnham, and Max Shachtman, began to argue that the event was important enough to justify questioning the traditional analysis of the ‘nature of the USSR’ and, consequently, its defence. Trotsky regarded the Pact as an unprincipled manoeuvre, which revealed the weakness of the Soviet bureaucracy and its hope of avoiding involvement in the war. He did not think, however, that this cynical agreement – for which there was no lack of precedent in Stalin’s policies – was such as to call into question the social basis of the USSR. He continued to think that the Fourth International must defend the progressive social regime of the USSR, the ‘conquests of October’, by the methods of the class struggle, while at the same time it must wage a pitiless struggle to prepare the overthrow of the Kremlin oligarchy by the Soviet workers and peasants, through all the variations of alliances and military fronts. The subject of the debate is so well known, and documents so accessible, that we need not return to it here.[30]
"







Loz wrote:
Fraternisation is not collaboration, it is the exact opposite, it is a form of sabotage, to mentally prise German soldiers away from crap they have been told."
Haha.

No.While Communists engaged in armed struggle against the fascists,the Trotskites "frathernized" with German soldiers.
Only an extreme philistine could defend this,but i'm somehow not even surprised anymore that you're defending this disgusting collaboration with fascism.
The fact that these Trotskites continued with such "fraternalization" even in mid-1944 with furnaces of Auschwitz working in three shifts should be enough proof for people to judge this "sabotage".


You really should do your homework

V. I. Lenin
The Significance of Fraternisation


"The capitalists either sneer at the fraternisation of the soldiers at the front or savagely attack it. By lies and slander they try to make out that the whole thing is “deception” of the Russians by the Germans, and threaten—through their generals and officers—punishment for fraternisation. "

"Long live fraternisation! Long live the rising world-wide socialist revolution of the proletariat!

In order that fraternisation achieve the goal we set it more easily, surely and rapidly, we must see to it that it is well organised and has a clear political programme. "


Loz wrote:
"Why dont you just completely misinterpret everything he wrote? Saying that the Nazis would have a hard job occupying is not saying he wanted them to win, he is saying what might happen if they won, or if they occupied territories for long, and he was right, in most occupied territories there was a resistance.
"
He's clearly saying that the Soviet Union is more dangerous than Hitler's Germany.Enough said.


see above ffs.

Loz wrote:
Unlike Trotskyism and Marxism, Stalinism was an ideology."
So again we got back to the beginning.


http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/d.htm#ideology
Loz
Post 20 Feb 2012, 17:16
Quote:
stupid thing to say.

No.
Besides,it's a Trotskite article,so you can't write it off as "Stalinist propaganda" or what not.

Quote:
Not remotely. Trotsky demanded better training for workers going to fight the fascists, and he also agreed with conscription and opposed pacifism. You have it all wrong.

Shut up.
It clearly says that the USSR is a greater danger than Nazi Germany.Stop avoiding the main point.
What fragging "better training" in 1940 when there was full mobilization on all sides?

Quote:
what is this supposed to show?

That Trotskites directly collaborated with German-Fascist occupators,obviously.

Quote:
As I said, this is immediately followed by a statement against fascism, a call for better training in combat.

Sure.

Anyway,everyone here can judge for himself,these are Mr.Bronshtein's own words.

Quote:
Long live fraternisation! Long live the rising world-wide socialist revolution of the proletariat!

Haha,your fascism clearly shows. You're obviously too infested to see that there can be no "fraternalization" with fascists,the sworn enemies of the working masses. Everyone except (right) Trotskites thinks this way.

Shame on you.


Glory to the Hero of the Soviet Union,Ramon Ivanovich Lopez!
Post 20 Feb 2012, 18:48
Distributing communist propaganda to German soldiers really is not a fascist move. The Red Army did that too. It's just extremely stupid when it would make more sense to kill them (and I'm pretty sure it would have, in the situation of the French communists).

Also wasn't he called Mercader?
Loz
Post 20 Feb 2012, 19:09
Quote:
Distributing communist propaganda to German soldiers really is not a fascist move. The Red Army did that too. It's just extremely stupid when it would make more sense to kill them (and I'm pretty sure it would have, in the situation of the French communists).

It's not the same.Soviets of course distributed propaganda however that didn't have much effect, and therefore the Soviet slogan wasn't "fraternize with German workers in uniforms" but "Kill the German-Fascist invader".
Besides,what sense did "fraternazing" with German soldiers make in June 1944? Anyway,Trotsky said that the Allieds were actually more dangerous in 1940!


Quote:
Also wasn't he called Mercader?

Yes although that's how he's known as in the USSR.
Post 20 Feb 2012, 19:16
hmm, point taken. those french trotskyists must have been really stupid.

also ulbricht himself was in the USSR at the time, at the front lines, reading propaganda messages for german soldiers into huge speakers. like a boss.
Loz
Post 20 Feb 2012, 19:24
Quote:
those french trotskyists must have been really stupid.

It perfectly corresponded to their boss' politics ("...the victory of the imperialists of Great Britain and France would not be less frightful for the ultimate fate of mankind...)
Of course,some Trotskites came to their senses and returned to the anti-fascist camp.

Quote:
also ulbricht himself was in the USSR at the time, at the front lines, reading propaganda messages for german soldiers into huge speakers. like a boss.

Yes but that achieved very little.German soldiers fought stubbornly even in surrounded Stalingrad,on -20 C temperatures with little food and ammo...but they fought on. Workers in uniform my ass. They killed more than 10 million Soviet civilians too.
Post 21 Feb 2012, 15:47
Loz wrote:
"stupid thing to say."
No.
Besides,it's a Trotskite article,so you can't write it off as "Stalinist propaganda" or what not.

There were arguments between Trots as I have shown.

Loz wrote:
"Not remotely. Trotsky demanded better training for workers going to fight the fascists, and he also agreed with conscription and opposed pacifism. You have it all wrong. "
Shut up.
It clearly says that the USSR is a greater danger than Nazi Germany.Stop avoiding the main point.
What fragging "better training" in 1940 when there was full mobilization on all sides?

Where did he say that? Post quote and link or retract!

"Defence of the Soviet Union from the blows of the capitalist enemies, irrespective of the circumstances and immediate causes of the conflict, is the elementary and imperative duty of every honest labor organization."
(Trotsky's emphasis)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... /warfi.htm
To answer your question Trotsky says:

"Workers must learn military arts

The militarization of the masses is further intensified every day. We reject the grotesque pretension of doing away with this militarization through empty pacifist protests. All the great questions will be decided in the next epoch arms in hand. The workers should not fear arms; on the contrary they should learn to use them. Revolutionists no more separate themselves from the people during war than in peace. A Bolshevik strives to become not only the best trade unionist but also the best soldier.

We do not wish to permit the bourgeoisie to drive untrained or hall trained soldiers at the last hour onto the battlefield. We demand that the state immediately provide the workers and the unemployed with the possibility of learning how to handle the rifle, the hand grenade, the machine gun, the cannon, the airplane, the submarine, and the other tools of war. Special military schools are necessary in close connec tion with the trade unions so that the workers can become skilled specialists of the military art, able to hold posts as commanders."
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/do ... merg02.htm

Seeing as how he built an led the Red Army I guess he has a fair idea about war, or are you a secret military expert?

"While waging a tireless struggle against the Moscow oligarchy, the Fourth International decisively rejects any policy that would aid imperialism against the USSR."

Is that clear enough?



Loz wrote:
"what is this supposed to show?"

That Trotskites directly collaborated with German-Fascist occupators,obviously.

Where does it show that?

Support or retract!

Loz wrote:
"As I said, this is immediately followed by a statement against fascism, a call for better training in combat. "
Sure.

Anyway,everyone here can judge for himself,these are Mr.Bronshtein's own words.

"Long live fraternisation! Long live the rising world-wide socialist revolution of the proletariat!"

Haha,your fascism clearly shows. You're obviously too infested to see that there can be no "fraternalization" with fascists,the sworn enemies of the working masses. Everyone except (right) Trotskites thinks this way.


Well I hope you don't mind me saying, but you are starting to sound a bit, er, best not say.

You have ignored the fact that Lenin advocated fraternisation with the enemy in WW1 and the civil war. So what's the difference? That the German soldiers were fascists?

Well how do you know they were all fascists? I doubt every one was, and if they are, even more reason to fraternise.

Fraternisation means telling them that fascism is a load of bollocks, designed to help the rich against the poor, that they are being conned. It is an essential part of Marxist strategy in revolutions. How do you think Trotsky led the Russian revolution? He fraternised with the troops, that's how, split them away from the generals and won them to the side of the revolution.

Now, take this seriously, support you claims properly or I'm off. And if you are gonna make outlandish claims you had better have support.

Otherwise, zero credibility, even for a Stalinist, I'm afraid.

Now, you keep repeating your mantra "ultimate fate"

Well, since WW2 we have had how many million die from hunger? Even in the non-"communist" third world we are looking at several hundred million.

Trotsky clearly believed that if the fascists won, there would be revolution against that. He also believed that if the allies won their system would be just as bad overall. He was trying to agitate for world socialist revolution, remember that? The original plan of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky?

Now you can argue with his views, but to say he supported Germany is pathetic, he called on German workers to sabotage Germany's war effort.

"The fraternization between soldiers of the warring countries, at the front, must be encouraged; it is good and indispensable."

Lenin 1917
Post 21 Feb 2012, 16:15
Trotskyism is the advanced detachment of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie.

That is why liberalism in the attitude towards Trotskyism, even though the latter is shattered and camouflaged, is blockheadedness bordering on crime, on treason to the working class.

That is why the attempts of certain "writers" and "historians" to smuggle disguised Trotskyist rubbish into our literature must meet with a determined rebuff from Bolsheviks.

That is why we cannot permit a literary discussion with the Trotskyist smugglers.


STALIN

So, what part didn't you understand, DP?
Loz
Post 21 Feb 2012, 16:41
Quote:
There were arguments between Trots as I have shown.

I don't care,what's important is that you aren't even trying to deny the facts brought out in that aricle.


Quote:
Where did he say that? Post quote and link or retract!

I've already posted the link,what's your problem?
Look at the last posts in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=134&t=49942

( I don't want to unnceccessarily post walls of text,which is your favorite tactic
)


Quote:
As I said, this is immediately followed by a statement against fascism, a call for better training in combat.

Do you,or do you not,admit that Trotsky said that "the victory of the imperialists of Great Britain and France would not be less frightful for the ultimate fate of mankind."?


Quote:
You really should do your homework

Are you crazy? Lenin wrote that in the context of an imperialist war,not an anti-fascist one.
There's not a single leftist current today (nor was there one,except for the Trotskite one of course),which advocates "fraternization" with fascists.
But even more absurd are Trotskite endeavours at "fraternization" with German occupiers in mid-1944, for Frag sake.

Therefore you only confirmed the accussations brought against Trotsky as an agent of fascism.
Post 21 Feb 2012, 19:40
Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:
Trotskyism is the advanced detachment of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie.

That is why liberalism in the attitude towards Trotskyism, even though the latter is shattered and camouflaged, is blockheadedness bordering on crime, on treason to the working class.

That is why the attempts of certain "writers" and "historians" to smuggle disguised Trotskyist rubbish into our literature must meet with a determined rebuff from Bolsheviks.

That is why we cannot permit a literary discussion with the Trotskyist smugglers.


STALIN

So, what part didn't you understand, DP?


I cant understand why you would post such retarded shite.

Loz wrote:
"There were arguments between Trots as I have shown. "
I don't care,what's important is that you aren't even trying to deny the facts brought out in that aricle

what facts? You just posted a link, that is not debating.

Loz wrote:
Where did he say that? Post quote and link or retract!"
I've already posted the link,what's your problem?
Look at the last posts in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=134&t=49942

( I don't want to unnceccessarily post walls of text,which is your favorite tactic
)

No. If you wanna debate, post stuff on here dont just give me links to other threads. Quote, with a link, to proper sources.
I put it to you that you are talking bollocks. Quote some chunks of your so-called support. But why not check it out first, do some research? Directing me to an un-sourced post is meaningless.

Support or retract!


Loz wrote:
"As I said, this is immediately followed by a statement against fascism, a call for better training in combat. "
Do you,or do you not,admit that Trotsky said that "the victory of the imperialists of Great Britain and France would not be less frightful for the ultimate fate of mankind."?

You know that is a verified source. Actually I dunno if Trotsky wrote it, but he presumably knew it was there. And I explained it fragging over and over. Read the context and his other stuff, he also calls for German workers to sabotage Hitler's war effort, but you don't keep banging on about that do you? He supports conscription in America but you dont mention that. he says the most important thing is the defence of the USSR but you keep quiet about that. He is simply saying that if the allies win, the workers are still stuck with capitalism. Of course it was capitalism that helped Hitler into power and built his war machine. Fascism is just capitalism in a particular crisis form.

And stop with your nonsense about collaboration. If you believe some French Tot or other did that, prove it or retract.


Loz wrote:
"You really should do your homework"
Are you crazy? Lenin wrote that in the context of an imperialist war,not an anti-fascist one.
There's not a single leftist current today (nor was there one,except for the Trotskite one of course),which advocates "fraternization" with fascists.
But even more absurd are Trotskite endeavours at "fraternization" with German occupiers in mid-1944, for Frag sake.

wrong as usual. The point of fraternisation is sabotage of the other side. It is just as important if the other side is fascist. The Bolsheviks did it because they had something to say. The Stalinists, not. What would they say?

Lets imagine....

"oh, dont shoot us, we are workers like you. Admittedly we are ruled over by a brutal socialist-murdering dictatorship just like you are, but ours is a better socialist-murdering dictatorship. No, no no, we arent calling for socialist revolution, you can get that right out of your heads. We think you should just have capitalism, oh, you do, with an evil dictatorship, like what we have, oh well, er, ran out of things to say, might as well shoot each other before our regimes shoot us eh?'


Loz wrote:
Therefore you only confirmed the accussations brought against Trotsky as an agent of fascism.




So, your evidence is the fraternisation, as advocated by Lenin for sabotaging the enemy with Bolshevik propaganda (something impossible for the anti-socialist Stalinist regime), Trotsky saying that a win for the allies is just as bad long term, even though he calls for conscription in the west and sabotage in Germany, and world socialist revolution, and a thread that has some vague reference to a Trot who allegedly joined a right wing party.

Admit defeat.
Post 21 Feb 2012, 20:32
so I am almost afraid to interrupt this but... if the USSR was capitalist, what exactly was Perestroika for, and why did standards of living disintegrate so rapidly after 1991?
Post 21 Feb 2012, 20:40
Loz wrote:
Do you,or do you not,admit that Trotsky said that "the victory of the imperialists of Great Britain and France would not be less frightful for the ultimate fate of mankind."?

Do you really disagree with this line of logic loz? Is the imperialist world we live in so much better? Notice it doesn't say that imperialist victory is worse than fascist victory but that it's no better. I think you're grasping at straws to try to paint Trotsky as, at least, a crypto-fascist and in turn legitimize Stalin's murder of him and his sons. Come on bro I know you're a better Marxist than this.
Loz
Post 21 Feb 2012, 20:46
Quote:
Is the imperialist world we live in so much better? Notice it doesn't say that imperialist victory is worse than fascist victory but that it's no better.

That's not even the question.Trotsky clearly said that "the victory of the imperialists of Great Britain and France would not be less frightful for the ultimate fate of mankind."
Now if you think that Holocaust x 500 and a Nazi Euroasia "wouldn't be less frightful for the fate of mankind"...then i don't know what more to say.

It's simply perverse to say that the Nazi-fascist victory would have been better for peoples of the earth than the victory of anti-fascist and democratic forces.
Post 21 Feb 2012, 21:03
Loz wrote:
That's not even the question.

But it is:
Loz wrote:
Trotsky clearly said that "the victory of the imperialists of Great Britain and France would not be less frightful for the ultimate fate of mankind."


Loz wrote:
Now if you think that Holocaust x 500 and a Nazi Euroasia "wouldn't be less frightful for the fate of mankind"...then i don't know what more to say.

You place far too much faith in the nazi war machine. Two fronts had effectively destroyed German ability to hold on to even what they'd already aquired. Partisan movements alone were massively detrimental to the German machine. The nazis directly led to the empowerment of socialism in nearly every place they were beaten back from that's why the imperialists agreed to help the USSR contain them and that's why America landed in Normandy. Notice he saying that the imperialists are as bad as the nazis not that the nazis are indistinguishable from the imperialists.

Loz wrote:
It's simply perverse to say that the Nazi-fascist victory would have been better for peoples of the earth than the victory of anti-fascist and democratic forces.

That's clearly not what's being said loz. It's saying that defeat of the nazis isn't enough and we cannot forget that the imperialists cynically used the heroic struggle against fascism to encamp themselves against the USSR and all self-liberating workers across Europe. Also I notice you call the imperialists "democratic forces", which is to completely ignore the role they played against fascism. They may have helped the world against fascism once it struck against them but remember they directly enabled the Nazis when all their rhetoric was anti-soviet. This feeds back into Trotsky's statement because the victory of the imperialists means the continued chance for a Jew nazism and a new holocaust.
Post 21 Feb 2012, 21:08
runequester wrote:
so I am almost afraid to interrupt this but... if the USSR was capitalist, what exactly was Perestroika for, and why did standards of living disintegrate so rapidly after 1991?


The USSR was not capitalist

Loz wrote:
"Is the imperialist world we live in so much better? Notice it doesn't say that imperialist victory is worse than fascist victory but that it's no better."
That's not even the question.Trotsky clearly said that "the victory of the imperialists of Great Britain and France [b]would not be less frightful for the ultimate fate of mankind.[/b]"
Now if you think that Holocaust x 500 and a Nazi Euroasia "wouldn't be less frightful for the fate of mankind"...then i don't know what more to say.

It's simply perverse to say that the Nazi-fascist victory would have been better for peoples of the earth than the victory of anti-fascist and democratic forces.


dear god
Loz
Post 21 Feb 2012, 21:12
Lapsus calami,change my last sentence to "would not be less frightful" and my point stays the same.
Your pedantry is useless with such incriminating evidence.
Post 21 Feb 2012, 21:19
YOU DO NOT TALK TO FASCISTS. YOU KILL FASCISTS.

ffs

Quote:
The USSR was not capitalist


But it wasn't socialist, either, huh?

This talk of "degenerated workers' states" is completely incompatible with any sane interpretation of histomat, but you're not gonna let that bother you, are you?
Loz
Post 21 Feb 2012, 21:20
Quote:
YOU DO NOT TALK TO FASCISTS. YOU KILL FASCISTS.

No,you have to fraternize with fellow workers in uniforms.
Which part of DP's post did you not understand?
Post 21 Feb 2012, 21:23
i think i understood all of it. otherwise i wouldn't be able to criticize it, would i?
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron
[ Top ]