Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59 Party Bureaucrat Red Rebel wrote: Comandante is Spanish for "Major", as far as I know. Josh wrote: Because Che is saying right there that he thinks Stalin's works should be emphasized, and that Trotsky is a revisionist. The year is 1965 - 2 years before his death. Josh wrote: Well, speaking for myself, your evidence is not so much biased as it is nonexistent. Josh wrote: Uh... no. Are we even on the same page here? The one where Che is affirming Stalin and calling Trotsky "in the category of the great revisionists"? How is the man's own word equivalent to J. Random Trotter's unsubstantiated claims? Face the facts, bro... Josh wrote: Duh. Josh wrote: Well, at least your being honest. But I don't see how you can show that Che became influenced by Trotsky. You haven't shown us anything to back up your claim. I can claim that the 1969 moon landing was faked, but nobody will take me serious unless I show some convincing evidence. ![]() "To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
Soviet cogitations: 218
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jun 2006, 00:25 Pioneer
Well, both Che and Cuba show the Ideas that Trotsky has put forward towards being fully international. That they have pushed for permanent revolution.
![]()
Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59 Party Bureaucrat
Are you trying to make me bang my head against a wall? You are aren't you!
![]() "To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
Cuba hasn't pushed for permenant revolution; they have just tried to support working of the world, including supporting revolutions that have the support of the populace. This isn't permenant revolution.
Soviet cogitations: 218
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jun 2006, 00:25 Pioneer Quote: Well, Cuba has always been international they’ve kept sturring up revolutions and helping nations worldwide. They depend on socialism to arise in other countries in order to further the nation. Well in a nation who is the Populace… the proletariat, you don’t just pick and choose what revolutions to support and not support. ![]()
Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59 Party Bureaucrat
Backtrack alert!
![]() "To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
Greggers, could you explain yourself a bit more than these one line posts?
Quote: Imperialism is the extraction of super-profits from poor countries. Please explain how the Soviet Union was imperialist when the Eastern European Socialist countries universally enjoyed higher living standards than were to be found in USSR proper. The USSR carried out an Imperial projection of Socialism outside its own borders, not an imperialist extraction of profits from other nations. The USSR had a class imperative to as Lenin said, "probe Europe with the bayonets of the Red Army!" The buffoonery of Khrushchev's anti-Stalinism, was ice water poured upon the sizzling glass stove of the proletariat. Not only did it turn down the heat on the capitalists, it spider cracked our once unified movement. These fissures remain today and in them flow all kinds of deviations, not only Trotskyites, but their inverse-image: the Nazbols. Not until we have another Stalin - a new faction against factionalism - can we ever achieve the unity and ferocity we had under his leadership.
deleted
Last edited by DylanF on 19 May 2007, 02:12, edited 1 time in total.
Soviet cogitations: 3314
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Jan 2007, 06:03 Party Bureaucrat
Explain to me how millions of workers loved Stalin immediately after WWII, before the Americans started using Nazi lies.
His "mass murders" never exceeded two to four millions. And that's if you consider the Holodomor as intentional. His "mass murders" removed all defeatist lines within the party, to help with war preprations in the oncoming war with Germany. And on your last phrase, Stalin was always known for his austerity. He would never partake in such fancy things as caviar, Rolls-Royces. And there are no accounts of him drinking vodka at all either.
deleted
Last edited by DylanF on 19 May 2007, 02:13, edited 1 time in total.
Soviet cogitations: 3314
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Jan 2007, 06:03 Party Bureaucrat
Interesting, from all statistics, the people were generally happy with the amount of food they recieved before and after the war.
The gulag deaths, though around 1 million, is justifiable due to the fact that there was a real consipracy in overthrowing the soviet leadership. The Baltic States were traditionally part of the Russian Empire. He was just getting back what the Soviets lost in Brest-Litovsk. The Holodomor was not intentional: http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam1.html http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam2.html http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam3.html http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node68. ... 0000000000 Any work by Stephen Wheatcroft Bullshit on the setting up of troops: http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node130 ... 0000000000 There was nothing directed against ethnic minorities. Example: ANTI-SEMITISM. Reply to an Inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States. In answer to your inquiry: National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism. Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them of the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism. In the USSR anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under USSR law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty. J.V. Stalin January 12, 1930 Source:J.V. Stalin Works, volume 13, page 30 (1950's English edition from the FLPH, Moscow) There was very little collaboration with the Nazis on the Soviet part. Most of the collaboration was done by people who were once kulaks. Dyland Figueiredo wrote: The first sentence has nothing valid. There is absolutely no source that even states anything close to this. There was no hopeless suicide charges. Read order #227. http://www.stalingrad-info.com/order227.htm Dylan Figuieredo wrote: The party's leadership was critical to the war, especially Stalin's leadership. http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node135 ... 0000000000 And you don't care about his austerity? Well, guess what then? You lied about the vodka, the caviar, the rolls-royce. http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm
Soviet cogitations: 3314
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Jan 2007, 06:03 Party Bureaucrat
Hmm, interesting, I was under the impression, that besides equality, communism is also about the liberation of the proleteriat and productivity?
You have not in any ways disproved any of the sources. Therefore, all your posts stand invalid as they are, lacking in sight and lacking in any purpose. You have made no serious conter argument to any of my posts. You stand, not even as a Trotskyist, but a hinderance to the analysis of the first socialist attempt. [url=http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=28616] Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union[/url]
Chaz171-the last few comments were removed for their flaming intentions.
Dylan, you're wasting a lot of my time.. Quote: Incorrect. Permanent revolution is a revisionism of Marxism-Leninism as it claims the peasantry (its differing strata) is not an ally of the proletariat during the bourgeois or socialist revolutions.
Soviet cogitations: 4394
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jun 2004, 17:30 Politburo Quote: False. Quote: Source. -TIG Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh Ar La; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
Trotsky wrote:
Quote: Trotsky makes the claim that the bourgeois revolutions rests upon the proletariat solely! Trotsky wrote this: Quote:
Trotsky does not have a perspective of carrying out the democratic revolution under the dictatorship of the workers and peasantry. Trotsky sees only the following options:
a) Conditions for socialist revolution don't exist, and for as long as they don't, the democratic revolution is lead by the bourgeoisie. b) The conditions for socialist revolution do exist and a dictatorship of the proletariat is formed, which means the launch of the socialist revolution (during which the tasks democratic revolution are completed, if there remain unfinished tasks). So, democratic and socialist revolution for Trotsky are distinct stages only in as much the first is lead by the bourgeoisie and the latter by the proletariat. This is what differentiates Trotsky's version of 'permanent revolution' from Marxism-Leninism. ![]()
Soviet cogitations: 4394
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jun 2004, 17:30 Politburo Quote: First, I can't think of an example where Trotsky said that a socialist revolution wasn't possible in his day and age. Now, that doesn't mean that it's not there, of course, but while leaving the possibility open he said: Quote: Source He further hints at this when going over his prerequisites for a socialist revolution (I hope I'll be pardoned for cutting out everything but the conclusions he draws for brevity's sake): Quote: In essence, everything seems to have been met it seems to me. And secondly on point "a", I have yet to see anywhere that Trotsky advocates the bourgeoisie as a progressive force in the modern epoch. Trotsky again implies the same saying: Quote: Further, and this is something I'm not going to bother getting too deep in as it's something of a side-track issue, Trotsky actively accused Stalin of the same reliance on the bourgeoisie when criticizing the Popular Front instead of the United Front. Quote: I have no real issues with point "b". But here we run in to trouble again: Quote: This is simplistic and not exactly accurate. Trotsky lays out: Quote: Source (Edited to remove Trotsky's trolling) This, clearly, has some rather implications that are missing. Some conclusions on my own part: 1. If you do have a piece where Trotsky is saying that a socialist revolution is impossible in some area, I'd be curious to see it if you have a chance. 2. In general, for people reading this and not necessarily the user I'm responding to, Trotsky's Permanent Revolution is to Marxists (of all stripes) as Uncle Tom's Cabin is to American university students; everyone has an opinion on what it means and why or why not it's important, but hardly anyone has ever actually bothered to read it. The problem that develops, then, is that when someone - on either side - wants to support a point, it's an obvious place to do it. There was a poll here a few months back in which people gave their thoughts about the work. It had everything from Permanent Revolution being about weapon distribution to slavish pandering in its defence. Few responses on either side actually had anything to do with the theory. While I'm not singling J. out in particular, as you may well have read it and I always think you have a good head on your shoulders even if there are times I disagree with it - people in general should at the very least read the last chapter where he bullet points things out and lists his main points. There's flame-baiting on his part, sure, but I have trouble seeing how one can see the less Stalin-oriented points as not being legitimate. ...And I was going to say something else but I forget what it is and this post is long enough anyway. -TIG Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh Ar La; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
Quote: Revisionism =/= deviationism. Trotskyism is not a form of Revisionism, it is 'merely' a deviation from Marxism-Leninism. This may seem like semantic nit-picking, but it is actually quite important. "Comrade Lenin left us a great legacy, and we fucкed it up." - Josef Stalin
![]() |
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||