Why would the Commissar of Military and Naval affairs under Lenin, who was instrumental in founding the red army and oversaw the purging of Mahknovists and other anarchist elements in the early USSR be less authoritarian than Stalin?
If you spent more time explaining things rather than "dunking on libs" maybe your movement would be less on the fringe. I don't have an opinion on who is more authoritarian, which is why it was obnoxious that you matter-of-factly made your point without any substance.
Genuine question, if you don't have a stance on Trotsky, and you don't know fuck all about him, why are you wading into this comment chain in the first place?
You see, the comment sections of divisive posts are a place that you can learn about opinions different than your own or to learn new things. If you want, I can go back to the neoliberal echo chambers where people are actually engaged in discussing things in good faith.
If you want to know something you merely have to ask. Maybe explain that you don't know much about a subject matter.
My initial comment was to someone who has an opinion on Trotsky and thus probably knows who he was, so I didn't feel like typing up a whole-ass essay on the guy. Y'know?
This post is the natural reaction to a failed dunk. Perhaps if you want to counter a controversial point without explaining it, don't bother posting otherwise it's the intellectual equivalent of "no, u".
Why would you defend a guy who ordered deaths alongside Lenin then immediately left and cozied up to 1920s American fascism to make books about "The Betrayed Revolution" because he didnt get his share?
Trotsky was a socialist. After his defection, he did next to nothing to advance socialism, only to passively denounce the closest thing the world had then to a Socialist Order. And he did this by going to their enemies, objectively the least socialist-tolerant bloc on Earth. Archetypal example of a self-centered "leftist" who folds inward and exclusively talks about their own life/'persecution' after one falling-out with the organized left. Look at Trotskyists nowadays and tell me they aren't walking parodies who talk like Broadway characters. It says a lot abt how off-kilter you have to be to throw yourself behind Trotsky's weirdo 'cause'
EDIT: To be clear, while I havent seen much of his work, I respect parts of his legacy. I'm sure there's a lot of insight in his writing - reading criticism from a seasoned former Bolshevik is interesting, and the perspective is useful for making sense of the wider movement. I also understand he was under a lot of personal pressure at the time he fled the USSR. Despite any merit Stalin showed in WW2 or the Union's massive industrialization effort, it must've seemed unfair to many party members that he was chosen to succeed Lenin (not sure of specifics on that event). I'd even say his assassination wasn't necessary, and the graphic details aren't something I take pride in. However, at the end of the day Trotsky's decision to defect was a net negative for socialism in the early 20th century. He should've tried to be a different kind of conscientious objector, not a voice of anti-Soviet dissent.
Wow. I guess someone has never actually read Trotsky or anything from Trotskyist. Try some Tony Cliff. Also, how you think Trotskyist sound today is not an indictment of Trotsky. Being critical of a revolution that has failed and the leaders and politics that followed is not the crime you think it is.
Jesus fucking Christ this is not the revolutionary left we need. Grow the fuck up.
edit: That's funny, either you posted your edit while i was typing my response or I didn't see it some how. either way. I'm sorry for being such a dick. I'm just so fed up with folks online regarding, what i would call state capitalist countries as genuine socialism, and rejecting any criticism of said states, as capitalist loving trash. Somehow Marxism has become a ridged dogma for these people. With the campist and the tankies distorting revolutionary socialism so much i fell like i live in upside down world. again sorry comrade. I would suggest "the two souls of socialism". side note Trotsky was Lenin's pick as leader not Stalin. Had he not "defected" he would likely have been killed by Stalin much earlier, like many of the seasoned former Bolsheviks who lead and then tried to defend the revolution against Stalin.
In none of this exchange did you demonstrate a fraction of the knowledge as the person you're berating. You just genuinely don't seem to know anything except how to sound confident in an online argument. So I'm sorry but listening to you lament all the wayward academics and telling people to grow the fuck up just doesn't land. I think you're just full of shit.
What kind of revolutionary left do you want? Regardless, wanting to hard-reboot an existing radical movement over its perceived "failure" - while it's still gaining traction - is what Trotsky did, and it just threw a wrench into things.
And not to be that guy, but the negativity isn't doing you favors. I made an effort to be reasonable and objective (except the Modern Trotskyites bit, since they honestly feel too sus and self-destructive to take seriously). If you're feeling threatened by that, idk what to tell you. This is just what we believe. No one pays us for it.
Tankies forget that Trotsky existed.
The fact that you think Trotsky would've been less authoritarian than Stalin betrays that you don't know shit about him yourself.
Even alternatehistoryhub, infamous youtuber known for his weird conservative takes, came to this conclusion
Even a stupid person known for their insane takes would agree with your conclusion?
Damn, that sounds like bullet proof reasoning. Sorry for doubting you.
I'm saying it's a very obvious conclusion to make for anyone who does research on him
trotsky literally is of no use to anyone, how is this controversial
Ok
I'm glad you could enlighten us with a post that doesn't bother to explain anything.
Why would the Commissar of Military and Naval affairs under Lenin, who was instrumental in founding the red army and oversaw the purging of Mahknovists and other anarchist elements in the early USSR be less authoritarian than Stalin?
Why post statements in the form of a question?
Because I wanted to know, why do you think Trotsky was less authoritarian than Stalin?
If you spent more time explaining things rather than "dunking on libs" maybe your movement would be less on the fringe. I don't have an opinion on who is more authoritarian, which is why it was obnoxious that you matter-of-factly made your point without any substance.
I took it for granted that people who had a stance on Trotsky would know who he is.
I don't have a stance on Trotsky. Maybe you should check who you are responding to before you automatically start "dunking on libs".
Genuine question, if you don't have a stance on Trotsky, and you don't know fuck all about him, why are you wading into this comment chain in the first place?
You see, the comment sections of divisive posts are a place that you can learn about opinions different than your own or to learn new things. If you want, I can go back to the neoliberal echo chambers where people are actually engaged in discussing things in good faith.
If you want to know something you merely have to ask. Maybe explain that you don't know much about a subject matter.
My initial comment was to someone who has an opinion on Trotsky and thus probably knows who he was, so I didn't feel like typing up a whole-ass essay on the guy. Y'know?
This post is the natural reaction to a failed dunk. Perhaps if you want to counter a controversial point without explaining it, don't bother posting otherwise it's the intellectual equivalent of "no, u".
The comment I'm replying to also didn't explain their stance either. Is there any particular reason you wanna only whinge at me?
It's a meme sub
The original commenter you responded to was making a toungue-in-cheek meme post that was directed ambiguously.
You turned it into a serious post (which is fine) by unambiguously saying the OP "doesn't know shit" without further elaboration.
Your only excuse that you didn't want to waste time is invalidated by the numerous attempts to dunk on me in this comment thread.
Is somehow also not saying that people don't know shit.
Where did I say that. All I said was that I didn't feel like writing a lot about Trotsky when I figured we both had some knowledge of him.
I really gotta wonder why you're still doing this since you obviously think it's a waste of time.
I never said it was a waste of time, it's pretty funny dunking on dunkers.
Complaining my shitposty reply to a shitposty comment doesn't fit your personal formal debate rules isn't dunking, it's pissing yourself in public.
It's a shit posting sub, comrade.
That you seem to take the comments on deadly seriously.
you seem to have not drunk your coffee today
Why would you defend a guy who ordered deaths alongside Lenin then immediately left and cozied up to 1920s American fascism to make books about "The Betrayed Revolution" because he didnt get his share?
Trotsky was a socialist. After his defection, he did next to nothing to advance socialism, only to passively denounce the closest thing the world had then to a Socialist Order. And he did this by going to their enemies, objectively the least socialist-tolerant bloc on Earth. Archetypal example of a self-centered "leftist" who folds inward and exclusively talks about their own life/'persecution' after one falling-out with the organized left. Look at Trotskyists nowadays and tell me they aren't walking parodies who talk like Broadway characters. It says a lot abt how off-kilter you have to be to throw yourself behind Trotsky's weirdo 'cause'
EDIT: To be clear, while I havent seen much of his work, I respect parts of his legacy. I'm sure there's a lot of insight in his writing - reading criticism from a seasoned former Bolshevik is interesting, and the perspective is useful for making sense of the wider movement. I also understand he was under a lot of personal pressure at the time he fled the USSR. Despite any merit Stalin showed in WW2 or the Union's massive industrialization effort, it must've seemed unfair to many party members that he was chosen to succeed Lenin (not sure of specifics on that event). I'd even say his assassination wasn't necessary, and the graphic details aren't something I take pride in. However, at the end of the day Trotsky's decision to defect was a net negative for socialism in the early 20th century. He should've tried to be a different kind of conscientious objector, not a voice of anti-Soviet dissent.
Wow. I guess someone has never actually read Trotsky or anything from Trotskyist. Try some Tony Cliff. Also, how you think Trotskyist sound today is not an indictment of Trotsky. Being critical of a revolution that has failed and the leaders and politics that followed is not the crime you think it is.
Jesus fucking Christ this is not the revolutionary left we need. Grow the fuck up.
edit: That's funny, either you posted your edit while i was typing my response or I didn't see it some how. either way. I'm sorry for being such a dick. I'm just so fed up with folks online regarding, what i would call state capitalist countries as genuine socialism, and rejecting any criticism of said states, as capitalist loving trash. Somehow Marxism has become a ridged dogma for these people. With the campist and the tankies distorting revolutionary socialism so much i fell like i live in upside down world. again sorry comrade. I would suggest "the two souls of socialism". side note Trotsky was Lenin's pick as leader not Stalin. Had he not "defected" he would likely have been killed by Stalin much earlier, like many of the seasoned former Bolsheviks who lead and then tried to defend the revolution against Stalin.
In none of this exchange did you demonstrate a fraction of the knowledge as the person you're berating. You just genuinely don't seem to know anything except how to sound confident in an online argument. So I'm sorry but listening to you lament all the wayward academics and telling people to grow the fuck up just doesn't land. I think you're just full of shit.
What kind of revolutionary left do you want? Regardless, wanting to hard-reboot an existing radical movement over its perceived "failure" - while it's still gaining traction - is what Trotsky did, and it just threw a wrench into things.
And not to be that guy, but the negativity isn't doing you favors. I made an effort to be reasonable and objective (except the Modern Trotskyites bit, since they honestly feel too sus and self-destructive to take seriously). If you're feeling threatened by that, idk what to tell you. This is just what we believe. No one pays us for it.
go read my edit
I’m not gonna engage with you about Trotsky but holy fucking shit you’re the mythical “state capitalist” sayer who actually is a self aware cliffite.
It’s a pleasure to meet you!
E:
I see what you did there!
deleted by creator
I think there are more Ultras than Trots these days, this is like seeing a unicorn.
Tankies forget that anything that isn't stalinism is also considered socialist
Just FYI no "tankies" use "stalinism" as a descriptor because it's not a thing, the man was simply a Marxist-Leninist
Why yes, I will forget something so useless to the world as trotskyism. Long live Stalin. :Stalin-chad:
If trots manage to start up a successful revolution I will drop everything and support them
honestly same but i think we would be waiting forever
I'm a trotskyist, you are wrong.
comrade what-