trot [he/him]

RCP can’t stop winning just because CPB keeps embarrassing themselves on their own

Yes, but this is just the Canadian section.

That’s the point. “Unrealistic” demands that everyone agrees with yet which cannot be achieved under capitalism are good and should be made more often.

Because unlike the dumb trots, MLs and MLMs definitely always have the correct party line on everything, especially the less members they have and the more generally obscure they are, am I right?

In fact, this is why you can just choose any ML or MLM party you want, no matter how small, and engage with just that one party’s line, because they are actually all equally correct! For example, let’s say the Italian PMLI, who… support sending weapons to Ukraine?

Uh-oh, not a good look for the Stalinists!

For context - Trotsky’s own position on the Sino-Japanese War was far more reasonable:

We do not and never have put all wars on the same plane. Marx and Engels supported the revolutionary struggle of the Irish against Great Britain, of the Poles against the tsar, even though in these two nationalist wars the leaders were, for the most part, members of the bourgeoisie and even at times of the feudal aristocracy…In the Far East we have a classic example. China is a semicolonial country which Japan is transforming, under our very eyes, into a colonial country. Japan’s struggle is imperialist and reactionary. China’s struggle is emancipatory and progressive…

But Chiang Kai-shek? We need have no illusions about Chiang Kai-shek, his party, or the whole ruling class of China, just as Marx and Engels had no illusions about the ruling classes of Ireland and Poland. Chiang Kai-shek is the executioner of the Chinese workers and peasants. But today he is forced, despite himself, to struggle against Japan for the remainder of the independence of China. Tomorrow he may again betray. It is possible. It is probable. It is even inevitable. But today he is struggling…

But can Chiang Kai-shek assure the victory? I do not believe so. It is he, however, who began the war and who today directs it. To be able to replace him it is necessary to gain decisive influence among the proletariat and in the army, and to do this it is necessary not to remain suspended in the air but to place oneself in the midst of the struggle. We must win influence and prestige in the military struggle against the foreign invasion and in the political struggle against the weaknesses, the deficiencies, and the internal betrayal."

(Leon Trotsky, On the Sino-Japanese War, 1937)

Note the conclusion of “We must win influence and prestige in the military struggle against the foreign invasion and the political struggle against the weaknesses, the deficiencies, and the internal betrayal” - even if skeptical in the KMT being a reliable ally, completely the opposite of “never collaborating with the bourgeois KMT government”, and definitely not advocating for taking up arms against the KMT yet.

So, why did the Chinese Trotskyists have a different, incorrect position? Because they were already getting violently purged for years with the help of the KMT out of reasons initially completely unrelated to the Sino-Japanese war. They were already a fringe, beheaded tendency in China, their leaders imprisoned or dead, which is why their positions deformed in this way, and not because they were dirty Trots who just want defeat for all communism. But they sure did make a convenient bogeyman nevertheless.

half of Russian communists do too, guess the Western propaganda got them as well

Also The Moscow Times despite claiming to be Russian is online published from the Netherlands. Yeah that is about as legitimate as Putin launching a Russian version of NYT lol.

Here is a Russian source if that is a problem, saying more or less the same thing: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6480674

Maybe via the rest of lemmy?

when the cat sells you a newspaper

quit job as gulag supervisor to become pit supervisor

first day on the job, go down to the pit

it’s a gulag

∫ ex dx

sloppy notation smh

I thought the trots were supposed to be the splitters?

CPB, Communist Party of Canada, CPUSA etc. openly support stopping at a “two-state solution” according to the 1967 borders (note: only the last article is older than a month)

I sleep

Canadian branch of the IMT posts cringe 14 years ago, said cringe being hardly representative of the rest of the IMT’s articles on Palestine

Kill all trots immediately

:konstantin-syomin-shining:

This is what I came up with:

Suppose we have a train with a light on each end. The lights flash simultaneously when they are both at an equal distance from some stationary observer. From the reference frame of the train, the flashes of light must reach the observer at different times, so from the reference frame of the observer the flashes of light must occur at different times.

“Fascism: what it is and how to fight it” - where Trotsky says the complete opposite to what you are implying? From where are you getting that he called the USSR “red fascist”, when he instead demanded for its leadership to not equate everyone else with fascists in order to form a united front against actual fascism (a completely valid criticism given any amount of historical hindsight whatsoever)? Surely, if Trotsky were to believe the USSR was “red fascist”, he would instead argue for a united front against the USSR and not alongside it - but he did not.

When I meet a Trot that supports AES, even critically, ill let you know.

You could meet more than exactly 2 trots then, instead of getting all your information on Trotskyism from Grover Furr. Or are we defining “critical support” as being without the “critical” part again?

https://www.marxist.com/60-years-of-the-criminal-us-imperialist-blockade-against-the-cuban-revolution.htm

It is the duty of all revolutionaries, but also all consistent democrats, to wage a consistent struggle against this criminal imperialist blockade and unconditionally defend the Cuban Revolution.

https://www.marxist.com/50-anniversary-sputnik-soviet-science.htm

We must remember what we are speaking about. We are speaking about a country, Russia, which in 1917 was one of the most backward, underdeveloped countries in the world. Within the span of 30 years, the Soviet Union was able to achieve what took the advanced capitalist countries hundreds of years to do and what many countries have as yet been unable to do. By the end of the Second World War the Soviet Union had gone from a backward, semi-feudal, illiterate country with little to no infrastructure to become a modern, industrialized, developed economy. By the end of World War II, the Soviet Union had become one of the world’s superpowers, militarily and economically, second only to the United States. A quarter of the world’s scientists were found in the Soviet Union, which also had a health and educational system equal or superior to anything found in the West - to the extent that she was able to launch the first space satellite and put the first man into space.

Excerpt from a 1940 SWP article:

Socialist Appeal, Vol IV No 11, March 16 1940, page 3, literally titled “Why We Should Defend the Soviet Union”

THE SOVIET UNION REPRESENTS THE FUTURE

But do not the Finnish workers live under better conditions than the workers in the Soviet Union? Do they not have a higher standard of living and greater "freedom”? They leave the ground of Marxism who present such arguments.

One thing that every worker must understand is that capital ism is in a stage of decay and with it capitalist democracy. Whether in Finland or in any other part of the capitalist world, the workers face a choice between fascist slavery or the proletarian revolution. Capitalist democracy is doomed and whether it is this year or in ten or twenty years it will be destroyed by the fascists — or by the proletarian revolution establishing a higher form of democracy.

Finland is part of the decaying capitalist world. The foundation of the Soviet “Union, nationalized property, represents part of that future world of planned economy and the production of goods for the welfare of the people. In the last analysis the existence of the Stalinist regime is to be explained by the fact that the capitalist world still exists.

Let the workers destroy the capitalist world and Stalinism will have no base whatever. It will disappear from the Soviet Union like the scab on a sore from which the pus has been drained. The advanced Finnish workers, considering the historic interests of their class have no alternative but to defend the Soviet Union from the capitalist world.

Another quote from the same article:

History knows no example of a union defeated by the bosses in a serious struggle coming under the control of revolutionary workers as a result of the de feat. A defeat of the union by the bosses means the destruction of the union. To be for revolutionary defeatism within the Soviet Union is like being for the defeat of a union in a struggle against the boss. All the crimes of a reactionary trade union leadership would not make it any less of a crime on the part of a worker to follow a policy of defeatism in a struggle between the union and a boss.

Do you think the authors of anything in the above actually believed the USSR was the same as Nazi Germany?

The position of a majority of Trotskyist organisations is that the existence of socialist/workers’ states is objectively good for the world and they must be critically supported, even though their bureaucracies are steering them towards capitalist restoration. A minority believes that they are already “state capitalists” and therefore equivalent to the USA. But absolutely no-one sincerely conflates them with fascism.

What point is there to make?

This applies equally little to “modern Trotskyists”, and claiming anything to the contrary betrays a distinct lack of investigation with an overabundance of speaking.

Verification is trivial: pick your favourite trot website and look up “red fascism”.

Cherrypicking the most obscure text by Trotsky imaginable, even then proceeding to ignore all context of and exaggerate what was said, and then claiming modern Trotskyists say the Soviet Union was “red fascist” because they took their ideas from the above obscure text (neither is true). Magnificient.

The full paragraph, without anything omitted “for the convenience of the reader” (machine translated from French, because there seems to be no full English translation after a brief search - does that tell you anything about the text’s importance?):

Fedor Butenko took the plunge to fascism. Did he have to deny himself a lot? To fight against himself? We do not think so. A considerable – and increasingly important – part of the Soviet apparatus is made up of fascists who have not yet recognized themselves as such. The identification between the Soviet regime as a whole and fascism is a historical error to which ultra-leftist dilettantes are inclined, who ignore what fundamentally differentiates the social bases of these two regimes. But the symmetry of political superstructures, the similarity of totalitarian methods and psychological types is striking. Butenko is a symptom of great importance: he shows us what the careerists of the Stalinist school are in their natural state.

The context is that Butenko, the Soviet envoy to Romania about whom this paragraph speaks about, had actually renounced communism and defected from the USSR to fascist Italy earlier in 1938. To remark on the bureaucracy producing such people is completely different from shouting “red fascism” because a CIA-funded radio station told you to.

casually making up a “trotskyist” to get mad at

they always cry about “red fascism”

No, in fact Trotsky condemned the abuse of the term “fascism” (see: “social fascism”)

and are staunchly anti authoritarianism

Trotskyists have read Engels.

This is an interesting case because it seems it will be sold 100% to the city of St. Petersburg, I guess the local government?

Which begs the question of why the formality was necessary. I predict the local government-owned shares are eventually going to be quietly sold off.