/edu/ - Education

>>7277
I mean historically yes, Trotskyism amounted to little more than complaining about Stalin. Some people claim there were some parallels between Trotskyism and what ever Muammar Qaddafi did, i'm not really knowledgeable enough to comment on that.

I think the defining theoretical feature of Trotskyism is "permanent revolution". Which might seem very appealing to the kind of professional revolutionary types, but most people only want a revolution because the old ruling class causes to much uncertainty, precariousness and chaos in their lives.

>but if not a statist bureaucracy then who?

You have to understand that in Marxist theory there is a difference between a state and a government.
The state is basically the power to uphold class society.
The government is what organizes the maintenance of infrastructure, and so on.

So complaining about a Soviet Statist bureaucracy is a underhanded way of accusing them of being a class society, and not really a complaint about bureaucracy.

Trotsky argued for the 'militarization' (i.e., conscription) of labor. He literally wanted to march citizens into factories at bayonet point. Recasting him as some democratic alternative to Stalin was probably the biggest leftoid fantasy of all.

>>7280
>Le jewkike judas Trotzky wanted to throw le roozkie peepull into the boiler of militarization!11
>All in all he was basically Stalin but an ultra and mad!
>Daddy Stalin and his mafioso bratva in the state propaganda told me so!

You asstarded miserably inbred bitchbrainfuck. The Really Existing Trotsky was the first bolshevik partyboyo who, as any so-called marxist, knowing what a toll any militarization of labor lands onto the ones who has to endure it, & as a motherfucking commander of the WPRA, who was seeing with his own eyes the extent of this toll, started to propose a change of the politique of the so-called "War Communism" into a "War Tax". But his fellow jewkike judas Blank rejected that proposal, supposedly to throw le innocent roozke peepull into the boiler of the World Revolution! Ah, if only the good friend of Mister Henry Ford, our dear Mister Stalin have shot him before this!


There truly aren't more reckless antichrists than the "Christians".
& there truly aren't more reckless antisocialists, anticommunists & antimarxists, than the retards who call themselves "marxists", and who to this day are parrotting chauvinistic propaganda of some fucking bueraucratic/managerial state that was notorious for crushing any proletarian dissent under its yoke. It degenerated in its' thermidore so hard that the proletarians (le true "'marxists'-'leninists'", of course, won't see any contradiction here) have started to support even fucking neocons over these bastards! Except that these neocons were the same bueraucrats who have finally got a chance at tearing apart the state property into their private one, playing on the people's alienation from the property they have always worked on under the supposed "socialism", & their subsequent interest in free market capitalism for its' innate means for acquiring @ least SOME kind of own property: having a 0,2% chance @ getting definetily your own means of production are still better than being a hopeless wageslave to your managers' state which owns everything & won't ever part anything with you, you shitty retarded proles.

I wonder if "marxists" are in any way able to get any idea from that same Blank guy's quote on the politeconomical essence of USSR ‒ "Capitalism without the bourgeoisie [‒ a contradiction of the absence of the leading class in a class-based system, which WILL find a politically strong substitute on this role ‒ in this case, it will be the state management/bueraucracy, which was realising its' interests even when the siege of the socialist revolution has nearly crushed the red rebellion for good]".

But of course they won't ‒ a red-painted reichcuck will always find an apology for his masters and their ordnung.


>>7278
This is a surprisingly good understanding of the Trot's critique of the United States of the Soviet Rus'.
If only colonel Sanders didn't catch the massive dogmatic retard in his theory box after the expulsion, along with the trottards who are even more fucked up in their dogmaticism on par with red faschizos, claiming literally the same crap while forgetting their take about the impossibility of socialism in one cuntree.
Like, if you are so adamant about this impossibility, & you supposedly know about the massive shortage of educated people in this agrarian (= petite-borg) hellhole, then why are you even pissed off @ what happened if Mister Stalin has ringed the deathbell for socialism not in 1927, but back at Lviv in the Soviet-Polish war by giving comrade Pilsudski his Miracle at the Vistula (+ tens of thousands dead Red Army soldiers), which will lead to the total failure @ the socialist revolution & will trap the remaining communists in just one territory filled with their same grave enemies ‒ the bueraucrats, the managers, the cryptofascistic petite bourgerie/"middle class", the retarded reactionary peasantry ("middle class" but poor) & the army filled with nationalists (for whom "bolshevik" means a [Great-]Russian national-socialist in its og sense). All counteracted by just a tiny bit of industrial proletariat, which is mostly still guessing that in these tough times you have to follow the further orders from the party which is surely getting filled up with people who totally represent your anti-capitalist interests!



Holy fuck am I pissed off now. Just one quote from the w*kipedia:
>orthodox Trotskyists argue that the loss of democracy in the Soviet Union was caused by the failure of the revolution to spread internationally and the consequent wars, isolation, and imperialist intervention, not the Bolshevik style of organisation.
Oh! So, the "Bolshevik style of organisation" (= dictatorship of the political party) is somehow was in no way gradually instated in order to survive the constant attacks from within & without due to the failure of all of the other rebellions!
& this USSR-style scholastery is written by a trottard, who supposedly is a follower of that Trotsky dude ‒ the same fucking Trotsky, who, along with some other marxoids of the time, criticized our saint comrade Lenin for his party-harding, so to speak, & even outlined precisely how the next tyrant will come to power through this same "Bolshevik-style" organisation! Trotsky the "Leninist" & "Trotskyists-Leninists" vs. Trotsky the Trotsky! What a fucking load of shit!

Trotclubs are the same circlejerks but for decadents who want to feel & appear progressive while @ the same time not gaining any theory: doing literally the same thing their redfash peers do ‒ fapping over the officially approved politically correct literature (but no more than that!) & showing the others what a good know-it-all boyo they are.

*split*

>>7277
stalin's collectivization plan was the one initially proposed by trotsky (that stalin pretended to oppose in order to kneecap trotsky's political power). stalin then pretended he came up with the idea after trotsky's fall from power.

and lenin's program of dragging a feudal country straight to socialism was aped from trotsky's permanent revolution theory.

the ussr effectively WAS trotsky's vision, just implemented by other people.

it's not out of character for him to hypocritically complain about it though, he defended the Party's crackdowns on civil liberties and political disenfranchisements right up until the moment he fell victim to them.

>>7305
>stalin's collectivization plan was the one initially proposed by trotsky
Keep in mind the material reality that early 20th century Russia was in dire need to mechanize it's agriculture. The Kulak big landlord class wasn't going to do it because they were still in the feudal game, they wanted to lord over hordes of peasants not administer machine capital like tractors and fertilizer chemical plants, they didn't have any industrial production and probably didn't know how to use it even if they had. The feudal elites were often barely literate. So the state taking over big parts of agriculture for industrializing the agrarian sector probably wasn't a very unique idea at that time.

With hindsight it would probably have been better to make a giant state run tractor factory and diesel fuel refinery as the public sector, and then give worker owned farm cooperatives access to those resources in a bartering exchange for grain. The coops would basically have gotten a massive industrial subsidy, enabling them to take over all the Kulak farms by out-competing them economically. They also should have send out communist cadres to subsistence farmers (ie famly farms ) to teach them how to combine into a cooperative to get access to industrial farming tools they could share.

Eventually the coops would have reproduced the same monopolization dynamics as exist in capitalist markets and once big coops starts doing monopoly-capital tricks or rent-seaking, they can be fully collectivized into a public industry. This would have produced no chaotic political drama because the only opposition would have been a narrow slice of coop managers that were seeking to convert coops into private capital. That's much easier to deal with than a legacy ruling class with a deeply entrenched political network.

Why is Trotsky and Trostkites hates agian?