Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Thursday, 19-Dec-2024 13:52:59 JST John Wilson WSWS

   #Fascism and #Reaction versus #Trotskyism #Revolution #Socialism

   What is fascism? with Trotskyist David North, Socialist Equality Party
   (2019, 8.5 mins)
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCSodSijB_o

   "...if the objective conditions are acted upon not only can fascism be defeated but we can establish a socialist society. That is our perspective and history proves that is correct.

   Fascism doesn't just waltz into power. It's a punishment, to be blunt, for the failure of the working class to create that leadership."

   • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 19-Dec-2024 13:52:58 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     I'm not trusting a Trotskyist. I'll stick to actual Marxism-Leninism, not Trotsky's anti-Leninist creation of an ideology.

   • Embed this notice
     Steffen White (bureaucracybuster@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 19-Dec-2024 17:38:11 JST Steffen White

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom @johnwilsonwsws And why not? Marxist-Leninism has worked SO WELL in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam and everywhere else it's been tried. That's why the East Germans built a wall--to keep out all those West Germans invading to live under Communist rule.

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 19-Dec-2024 20:36:59 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     • Steffen White

     @Bureaucracybuster

     East Germany wasn't horrible specifically because it was Marxist-Leninist. That's an oversimplification of the country and its dynamics. From what I know of the country, one of the main reason why the country was suffering was a combination of poor leadership and management from the people running the state and sabotage from the West in the form of sanctions and trade barriers, and the Western sabotage is something that the other countries you mentioned also suffered from.

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 19-Dec-2024 21:17:59 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     I wasn't referring to David North's analysis of Fascism or criticizing it. I was only critiquing his Trotskyism. In Lenin's "Testament," written in late 1922 and early 1923, he advised against Trotsky’s consolidation of power, stating, "Comrade Trotsky is too much of a person of the bureaucratic type... He has a tendency to be dictatorial." 1/

   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Thursday, 19-Dec-2024 21:18:00 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom Lenin had such confidence in Trotsky during the civil war that he gave Trotsky a blank sheet of paper except for Lenin’s signature so Trotsky could write any order he felt necessary.

     You are obviously welcome to explain where the arguments or evidence in the video are wrong. Workers, students and youth being drawn into politics by the crisis need to be educated.

     Conscious critique is how this will happen.

     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Thursday, 19-Dec-2024 21:18:01 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom Please post a link to what you think is the best analysis of fascism.

     The claim that Trotskyism is anti-Leninist doesn’t withstand scrutiny. Lenin himself said on Nov 1 (14), 1917 (a week after the insurrection)

     “As for conciliation [with the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionists] I cannot even speak about that seriously. Trotsky long ago said that unification is impossible. Trotsky understood this and from that time on there has been no better Bolshevik.”

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 19-Dec-2024 21:18:16 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     Also, in Lenin's "The New Economic Policy" (1921), while he doesn't specifically mention Trotsky by name, Lenin's advocacy for the NEP was a reaction to the more rigid beliefs held by party members, Trotsky being one of them, such as, for instance, Trotsky's opposition to the NEP, advocating instead for immediate and full-scale socialism and a continuation of state control over the economy. 2/

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 19-Dec-2024 21:19:17 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     Lenin, on the other hand, supported the NEP because he saw it as a more pragmatic approach that would restore Russia's economy. This is just one example of how Trotsky was ideologically opposed to Lenin. Lenin's "The Ongoing Crisis of the Soviet Economy" (1922) also displays the ideological disconnect between Lenin and Trotsky, such as, once again, Lenin's critique of Trotsky's opposition against the NEP, such as this quote where Lenin shows support for the NEP,... 3/

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 19-Dec-2024 21:20:01 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     ..."The NEP is a way to rally the peasants around the Soviet Power, to help and support the poor and middle peasant...". This quote also shows how Lenin viewed the peasantry as a necessary part of the revolutionary and how an alliance between them and the proletariat was crucial for the revolutions success, a viewpoint which Trotsky also opposed, believing that they were too "backward" and "individualistic" to be able to support the revolution, even though... 4/5

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 19-Dec-2024 21:20:22 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     ...Russia was a mostly peasant country where the peasants outnumbered the proletariat, making an alliance with the peasantry absolutely necessary for any kind of revolution to be successful. This further shows how Trotsky's beliefs were very much against Lenin's. 5/5

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 21-Dec-2024 10:22:55 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     That is my mistake. The quote that I attributed to Lenin's "Testament" was actually from Stalin in 1924. I apologize for the misinformation, and thank you for the correction.

   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Saturday, 21-Dec-2024 10:22:56 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom Lenin "I will only remind you that the October episode of Zinoviev and Kamenev was not, of course, accidental, but that it ought as little to be used against them as the non-Bolshevism of Trotsky."

     3/3

     https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol02/no01/lenin.htm

   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Saturday, 21-Dec-2024 10:22:57 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom
     Lenin: "On the other hand, comrade Trotsky, as was proved by his struggle against the Central Committee in connection with the question of the People’s Commissariat of Ways and Communications, is distinguished not only by his exceptional ability – personally, he is, to be sure, the most able man in the present Central Committee – but also by his too far-reaching self-confidence and a disposition to be far too much attracted by the purely administrative side of affairs.
     ..."
     2/3

   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Saturday, 21-Dec-2024 10:22:58 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom Lenin's testament is freely available online.

     You are obviously free to invent new paragraphs but we can check.

     https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol02/no01/lenin.htm

     Here are the references to Trotsky:

     "I think that the fundamental factor in the matter of stability – from this point of view – as such members of the Central Committee as Stalin and Trotsky.
     ..."
     1/3

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 21-Dec-2024 10:23:23 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     The main book that I know of where Trotsky opposed a capitalist phase and advocated for an immediate transition into socialism is "The Permanent Revolution." The linked chapter from the book, "6. On the Skipping of Historical Stages," displays Trotsky's opposition to the idea that revolutions must strictly adhere to a linear progression of stages (feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism), as proposed by Stalin and his followers.
     https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/pr06.htm

     1/

   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Saturday, 21-Dec-2024 10:23:24 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom
     you say "[Trotsky advocated] instead for immediate and full-scale socialism"

     Really? Are you sure? Check your references and post them please.
     --
     Even Stalin in April 1924 said it was "impossible" for "final victory of socialism be gained, in one country alone"

     By the end of 1924 Stalin shifted to say “Having consolidated its power, and taking the lead of the peasantry, the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society."

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 21-Dec-2024 10:24:34 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     This is opposed to Lenin's position on historical stages. The very first paragraph of the chapter "The Present-Day Economy of Russia (Extract from the 1918 Pamphlet)" from Lenin's document "The Tax in Kind" has Lenin saying, "State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time, state capitalism became established in our Republic,... 2/3

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 21-Dec-2024 10:24:53 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     ...this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country."

     https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm

     3/3

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 30-Dec-2024 03:31:11 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     "If the working class takes power, how is it supposed to implement the "capitalist stage" of development?"

     "The Tax in Kind," the article that I linked above, already answers the question of how the capitalist phase, in the form of state capitalism, will be implemented once the working class takes power. It's been 8 days since I posted it, more than enough time for you to have read it. In short, the answer is that... 1/

   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Monday, 30-Dec-2024 03:31:13 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom If the working class takes power, how is it supposed to implement the "capitalist stage" of development? This is the contradiction Trotsky was pointing out.

     Socialist TASKS begin but full socialist construction depends on a high productivity of labor. The solution to this was the world socialist revolution.

     The whole of Lenin's statement points to the tensions and contradictions facing the first workers' state.

     It is essential reading.

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 30-Dec-2024 03:31:41 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     ...the NEP (New Economic Policy), a form of state capitalism, would allow for some forms of private enterprise and market mechanisms under state control to help revive the economy and allow for Russia to transition into socialism. The longer answer is "Read the Article." Also, Trotsky's idea of Permanent Revolution was an idealistic pipedream. He thought that socialism could only be achieved through the support of multiple socialist states, but... 2/

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 30-Dec-2024 03:32:15 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     ...there were no other socialist states, and Russia was only just strong enough to defend itself and nowhere near as powerful to initiate revolutions in other countries. They needed to build a strong socialist state in their country first before initiating revolutions in other countries, which is exactly what happened under Stalin's leadership when he officially ended the NEP in 1928 and began the transition to socialism and... 3/4

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 30-Dec-2024 03:32:26 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     ...eventually aided in socialist revolutions in multiple other countries (China, Vietnam, Hungary, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia). 4/4

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 30-Dec-2024 04:40:21 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     Okay, in 1924, Stalin said that socialism in one country was impossible. So what? He clearly changed his stance on the matter once he realized that he was wrong. Marxism-Leninism isn't a static dogmatic ideology. According to dialectical materialism, the foundation of Marxism, nothing in the world is static, and everything in the world is constantly changing through a process of contradictions, so... 1/

   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Monday, 30-Dec-2024 04:40:22 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution is based on the simple fact that capitalism had developed by the end of the 19th century, as anticipated by Marx, the world economy.

     This world economy is in contradiction with the capitalist developed nation-state system.

     This contradiction has three solutions
     - regular war and world war for redivision of the globe.
     - denial of the problem and the fanciful utopia of peaceful coexistence (Kautsky, Stalin)
     - world socialist revolution

   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Monday, 30-Dec-2024 04:40:24 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom In 1927 the contradictions of the NEP became undeniable as the peasants withheld grain. The "market" of the NEP was not providing any goods for which the peasants wanted to exchange their grain.

     The crisis and swings in Stalin's political and economic policies that resulted are thoroughly documented in:

     Bolsheviks against Stalinism 1928–1933: Leon Trotsky and the Left Opposition (Rogovin, 2019)

     REVIEW:
     https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/21/rogo-d21.html

     4/4

   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Monday, 30-Dec-2024 04:40:25 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom In the second edition of "The Foundations of Leninism" from later in 1924 Stalin amend the above to instead say:

     “Having consolidated its power, and taking the lead of the peasantry, the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society.”

     --
     " final victory of socialism, ... the efforts of one country ... out of the question"
     was replaced by
     "the victorious country can and must build a socialist society".

     /3

   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Monday, 30-Dec-2024 04:40:26 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom In the first edition of "Foundations of Leninism" (April 1924) Stalin wrote

     “The chief task, the organization of socialist production, still lies ahead. Can this task be performed, can the final victory of socialism be gained, in one country alone, and without the joint efforts of the proletarians in several of the most advanced countries? No, this is out of the question."

     This was Leninism.

     /2

   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Monday, 30-Dec-2024 04:40:27 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom The contradiction is "state capitalism" is NOT production for profit for the benefit of a capitalist class, so how is it capitalism?

     Later he says "Exchange is freedom of trade; it is capitalism."

     Do you think this sums up Lenin's absorption of Marx's analysis of Das Kapital?

     Stalin ended the NEP after denying its contradictions and the danger of the Kulaks. These problems culminated in the refusal of peasants to supply grain in 1927.

     /1

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 30-Dec-2024 04:40:56 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     ...any ideology that is based on this must also be open to change as the world around it and the understanding of people changes. Maybe it was believed by many Marxist-Leninists that socialism in one country was impossible, but then they studied the socio-economic and political landscape of their country and the world and realized that it wasn't impossible, and so their stance on the topic changed to fit reality, and they were clearly right... 2/

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 30-Dec-2024 04:41:33 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     ...to change their stance because the Soviet Union did achieve socialism in one country.

     "The contradiction is "state capitalism" is NOT production for profit for the benefit of a capitalist class, so how is it capitalism?"

     There was a capitalist class in the Soviet Union during the NEP state capitalism phase, and while the ultimate goal of the NEP was to transition into socialism, the capitalist class did benefit temporarily from... 3/

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 30-Dec-2024 04:42:04 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     ...the NEP by being allowed to sell their surplus produce on the open market and earn capital, so if capitalism is "production for profit for the benefit of a capitalist class," then it was capitalism. I don't deny the contradictions that arose from the NEP with the rich peasants. Of course, there were contradictions. There are always contradictions in any system, and... 4/

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 30-Dec-2024 04:42:32 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     ...it would be expected that there would develop contradictions between the rich peasants and the Bolshevik state. This doesn't change the fact that the NEP was necessary to revive the economy after the turmoil of War Communism. 5/6

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 30-Dec-2024 04:42:47 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     "- denial of the problem and the fanciful utopia of peaceful coexistence (Kautsky, Stalin)"

     You can fuck right off with that. "Peaceful coexistence?" Stalin and advocates of socialism in one country did not believe in "peaceful coexistence" with capitalism, and I'm not giving this dumbass accusation any more attention. Debate honestly, or fuck off. 6/6

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 30-Dec-2024 05:01:41 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     Stalin was clearly lying because he went on to help China, North Korea, Vietnam, Hungary, and many other countries have socialist revolutions after World War II. Do you think that if someone were planning multiple socialist revolutions in multiple countries that they would openly admit it to every capitalist country, or do you think they would just lie and say that they have nothing planned while planning in secret?

   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Monday, 30-Dec-2024 05:01:43 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom

     Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?

     Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions.

     H: You appreciate, no doubt, Mr. Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression.

     Stalin : This is the product of a misunderstanding.

     H: A tragic misunderstanding?

     Stalin : No, a comical one. Or, perhaps, tragicomic.

     https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm

   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Jan-2025 11:27:03 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom Three months after the Soviet victory at Stalingrad and a week after German and Italian forces in Tunisia surrendered to the Allies, Stalin dissolved the Third International (Comintern) on May 22, 1943.

     Nominally justified to "concentrate their [communist members] energies" on the defeat of the Nazis, in reality it was because the Comintern was a barrier to negotiations with imperialism for the post war "settlement".

     SEE: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/21/twih-m21.html

     https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/joseph-stalin-and-dissolution-comintern

     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Jan-2025 11:27:03 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     The dissolving of the Comintermn was done to unite the anti-fascists forces against the Nazis. The Cominterm served its purpose of promoting communism internationally before the war, but once World War II happened, the immediate priority shifted to stopping the Nazis from taking over Europe. Once again, a Trotskyist falsely interpreting a pragmatic decision as a "betrayal of communism" due to their counterproductive ideological purity.

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Jan-2025 20:58:47 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     Stalin himself was asked by Harold King, a Moscow correspondent of Reuter’s Agency, about why the Cominterm was abolished, and Stalin responded with the same explanation I gave to you, that the Cominterm was abolished in order to strengthen support against the biggest threat at the time: fascism, i.e., the Nazis.

     https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1943/05/28.htm

   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Jan-2025 20:58:48 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom Please post a link to your best evidence.

     I am yet to see anyone defending Stalin cite a single source to back up their claims. It is assumed they must be taken as given.

     Here is a timeline for others to consider

     1923 Clara Zetkin, in the USSR, writes on fascism [1]

     1924 (January) Lenin dies.

     1926 (October) Fascist dictatorship established in Italy under Mussolini.[2]

     /1

     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Jan-2025 21:44:40 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     • Ember

     @facsimile_willows

     I can't help it if that's how you view my comments and if you dislike my transition from Anarcho-Communism to Marxism-Leninism. The political choices have been based on studying political theory and aren't based on others' perceptions of them.

   • Embed this notice
     Ember (facsimile_willows@veganism.social)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Jan-2025 21:44:42 JST Ember

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom It is good to have multiple angles of leftist analyses out there. It is good to have discourse about those perspectives so we can hone our ideas against each other's--even if a single agreed upon conclusion is not met, that discourse is mutually beneficial. Your comments here don't come across as thoughtful or constructive, they just feel overly petty and obsessive.

     I won't act as if I know you, but as someone who has followed your account for a while, seeing your recent shift into the likes of Stalin apologia and support for Russia have been very concerning to see as an observer. It feels like the "I am the arbiter of rationality" debate lord attitudes from the new atheist movement applied to leftism.

   • Embed this notice
     Ember (facsimile_willows@veganism.social)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Jan-2025 23:41:59 JST Ember

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom I met you after you'd already moved away from anarcho-communist positions, and I don't have any inherent issues with marxism-leninism.

     If you can't see how your comments here aren't constructive, and just come off as petty, then I can't help you either. You'll have to figure things out yourself.

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Jan-2025 23:41:59 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     • Ember

     @facsimile_willows

     What do you even mean by "not constructive" and "petty"? You keep saying these words to describe my comments, but using these undescriptive words doesn't say anything about what you find unconstructive and petty about my comments.

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 02:50:26 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     • 1946: Bulgaria becomes a communist state with Soviet backing.

     • 1948: Communist takeovers in Czechoslovakia and North Korea, establishment of East Germany, all with Soviet backing.

     • 1949: Establishment of People's Republic of China; Hungary becomes communist, both with Soviet backing.

     All of these events were aided by the USSR under Stalin's leadership. What the hell are you talking about, "he and the bureaucracy never had plans for world socialist revolution?"

   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 02:50:28 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom Stalin May 28, 1943
     “(a) It exposes the lie of the Hitlerites to the effect that “Moscow” allegedly intends to intervene in the life of other nations and to “Bolshevize” them. From now on an end is put to this lie.”

     This is the point.

     Stalin is reaffirming what he said to Roy Howard in 1936, he and the bureaucracy never had plans for world socialist revolution, they opposed the purpose on which the Third internationals was called for and founded by Lenin.

     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 03:32:45 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     I have no idea why you aren't understanding that Stalin was clearly lying to the capitalist states when he said he wouldn't initiate socialist revolutions in other countries, not just because there's no reason why he would tell them the truth and allow for them to crush the revolutions before they happened, but also because he literally supported socialist revolutions in other countries immediately after World War II.

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 06:35:50 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     I'm not continuing this pointless conversation any further. You, like most Trotskyists I've had the displeasure of engaging with, don't have a single clue about pragmatic decision-making. You have such a childlike and naive perception of the world. You insist that a worldwide revolution is the only way to achieve socialism even if it isn't possible. You promote a strict policy of no compromises with the enemy even if doing so would lead to disaster. 1/2

   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 06:35:52 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom It's the lies Stalin told to the working class that are the concern.

     Just because Stalin and the bureaucracy were not trying to foment world socialist revolution doesn't exclude them from backing things that served their interests.

     The greatest threat to the USSR was always Nazi Germany. Hitler had made their plans plain.

     What did Stalin etc try to do in 1930-1933 to stop the Nazis?

     Why did they say the KPD, which followed the Comintern line, had done everything right?

     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 06:36:14 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     It's idealistic nonsense, and the Soviet Union was lucky to exile Trotsky and his followers and deal with him before his nonsense spread to the rest of the party. 2/2

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 08:15:15 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     If you're not responding to me, leave my @ out of your comments so I don't have to see your Trotskyist nonsense.

   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 08:15:17 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom
     I am yet to come across a Stalinist who will go beyond ludicrous excuses defend the Stalinist Comintern policy in Germany 1930-1933. "Stalin was busy" and "Hitler's dictatorship was inevitable" are the two that I have seen.

     Normally the issue is denied or avoided
     entirely and a diversion is attempted. [see example above]

     FWIW: I was not replying for the benefit of @Radical_EgoCom, (he exposes himself) but for anyone else reading the thread.

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 08:38:06 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     @johnwilsonwsws

     In case I didn't make myself clear before,

     FUCK OFF! I DON'T WANT TO TALK TO YOU ANYMORE. IF YOU WANT TO TALK TO PEOPLE IN THE COMMENTS, THEN YOU'RE FREE TO, BUT LEAVE ME THE FUCK OUT OF IT.

     Is your absolute inability to understand obvious social cues a Trotskyist things, or is it unique to just you. (In case you're too stupid to understand this as well, this is a rhetorical question. I don't want you to respond to it. I want you to leave me the fuck alone)

   • Embed this notice
     John Wilson WSWS (johnwilsonwsws@mastodon.world)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 08:38:08 JST John Wilson WSWS

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     @Radical_EgoCom I’m responding to your comments for the benefit of others. Discussing the issues. You have made your position clear.

     Please post a link to your best defence of the Comintern and KPD policy in Germany 1930-33 so others can read it to judge for themselves.