• 0 Posts
  • 37 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: May 8th, 2022
  • RedFieldstoGenZedong•*Permanently Deleted*
    3·
    2 years ago

    Just out of curiosity what secondary sources are you using to come to this assessment of the situation?

    The only secondary source that I’ve gone through on Ancient Greece was “Ancient Greece: From Prehistoric to Hellenistic Times” by Thomas R. Martin.

    From memory what your saying is basically ahistorical at least considering how you’re framing the entire thing. Athenian democracy was limited to all male citizens leaving out women, foreigners, and slaves(yes Athens and their allies had slaves as well). Also, the Peloponnesian League had existed prior to the Peloponnesian War. The Delian League( led by Athens) had its own problems with Athens ruling over the league with many of its members becoming nothing more than tributaries(One city-state attempted to leave the league and was forcibly brought back in. Their walls were torn down and they had to continue paying tribute). They weren’t a proto-socialist democracy which would mean a worker’s democracy ( In this case the proletariat which wasn’t really the moving force of the world. These were slave societies after all) prior to any socialist thought utopian or scientific.

    If you could provide some sources I can look through I would appreciate it, comrade.

  • RedFieldstoCommunism•Have you ever read Trotsky?
    22·
    2 years ago
    1. Go read Trotsky’s works not alone but in conjunction with other Marxist contemporaries (to get an understanding of the movement at the time)
    2. You can hate someone while still understanding their place in history (Can we hate George Washington and still understand his role in the American Revolution of course) These two are not contradictory statements and attempting to make them as such is a pointless endeavor only for academics to pursue.
    3. Does the fact that Trotsky was a part of the Russian Revolution excuse his actions after the fact. Trotsky was an opportunist anyone could see this by looking at his oscillations under Lenin and then under Stalin. That’s all he was at the end of the day and because of this he eventually turned to smearing the USSR and attempting to take power for himself(As the theoretical leader of the Opposition block).
    4. Comrade if you truly want to understand who Trotsky was as a historical figure then you have to see history as a history of class struggle, not of individuals(who yes play their part).
    5. With all that being said you don’t have to do this by yourself(it’s best that you don’t) just ask questions and someone whose more informed will respond. We are a community an online one, yes, but nevertheless, we are here to help everyone improve their understanding of Marxism.

    Have a good night comrade.

  • RedFieldstoCommunism•Have you ever read Trotsky?
    41·
    2 years ago

    I hope you can forgive me, comrade, but I don’t want to extend this conversion for too long considering that my reading list only grows(adding the works you cited) and that I feel as if this response is mostly a tangent to the main comment.

    “Much like Stalin, Trotsky is a very contradictory figure, so it’s very hard to simplify them by picking a side and denying the usefulness of the other” this is what I was railing against comrade in my comparison of course this was a small point and as such, I gave a short reply. This came at the end; why would I not assume you were drawing a comparison as it seems that what you’re trying to do is rehabilitate Trotsky. I can see from your reply that this is not the case(Of course you could have just backpedaled) and as such, this really isn’t a problem.

    Yes, my ignorance has been shown because I have not read everything under the sun to do with the USSR(From before 1991). Again I was speaking in general comrade, but let’s say that all you said was true then they should be compared to modern works on the subjects and see if they correlate. Better yet we should actually look at the primary documents themselves and see what they actually say. Remember comrade academics are not unbiased sources they are literally the defenders of capitalism(most of them are. there are a few that break with the capitalist line). It seems that my reading list has only grown. Thank you for that comrade.

    “Inferior work” Comrade this was a generalization of the work that was produced by western historians during the cold war(Yes I will be reading through the works you cited).

    “”This post isn’t about Trotsky, it’s about how metaphysical dogmatism prevents anyone from reaching a further historical understanding” then why call the post “Have you ever read Trotsky? “ and then go on about Trotsky in specific for the whole post while only bringing up the sources you’re citing to back up Trotsky’s work. Comrade please for the sake of everyone here try to be coherent. If you want to talk about how dogmatism prevents us from understanding history then make that post. This was not what you were actually stating and please go through the links I provided; for your sake comrade.

    “f you ever read a few excerpts of Marx’s Grundrisse, you’ll notice how Marx draws from Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Sir James Steuart, and inumerous other bourgeois economists to critique them in a scientific manner.” I have read through volumes 1 and 2 of Capital and have been going through volume 3 and have seen the notes comrade. I am not blind. Also from my original comment “Does this mean that we should not read their work? No, you would have to be stupid to not read them what better way to understand your enemy” this was in relation to the theoretical(and historical for Trotsky) works of the three traitors Trotsky, Bukharin, and Khrushchev. We should apply this thoroughly to the modern bourgeois (historians, politicians, economists, etc). We align on this point so why blow it up?

    Thank you for the rant about Trots and Maoists, but it’s not really applicable to our discussion since we weren’t talking about making critiques of Marxists in general (This is something we should all do).

    I love your twisting of history to suit your needs, but why did Stalin and Lenin(he wasn’t dead yet so why push him to the wayside ? Right because it doesn’t suit your needs) saw Bukharin’s idea as applicable in the situation? I forgot you didn’t give a good answer. What was the situation again ? oh yeah, the civil war just ended(why wouldn’t they agree ?). Bukharin did not become a traitor because he opposed collectivization; it was because of the measures he took in his opposition. He formed an illegal block in cohorts with Trotsky and was planning to overthrow the USSR(Stalin and his allies) because he disagreed with the policy. What a great idea.

    If you want to talk about the rise of Khrushchev we can, but not under this post it’s not about him. The same goes for the party apparatus. We can send messages back and forth, but please make it clear what you want to discuss. Our comrade goes further, but it’s mostly out of the realm of our discussion so I will drop it here.(like Bukharin Khrushchev didn’t get much real estate in my original comment so I think going on this rant is pointless but here we are )

    Why are you going all over the place comrade? This was only about Trotsky as your title and your original post make it clear. I do fear that all you’re doing here is backpedaling to the point of obscuring what we were discussing and as such I won’t be replying to another public comment. If you want to continue this just send me a private message I am sure we can break bread at some point.

    TLDR: Go through the links I’ve provided in my original reply, read through Forte’s source, compare them with modern work, and lastly Have a good day comrades.

  • RedFieldstoCommunism•Have you ever read Trotsky?
    161·
    2 years ago

    Trotsky is not simply a Marxist shunted off to the wayside for no reason; we only have to dig deeper to see what he was made off. He was a traitor and there’s no way to defend him unless you take everything he ever said at face value. Which you can’t, he had a hand in the development of an “opposition” block whose whole goal was to remove Stalin from power(there is more, but this was getting long). What kind of third-rate Marxist oscillates from one opposition block to the next first against Lenin then against Stalin. There’s a reason that the most prominent Marxists of the day were against Trotsky: why would we not be. Especially now when the fog has disappeared and we can witness him for who he was from the Russian revolution to his death, we can now say that he was nothing but an opportunist willing to overthrow a socialist country for him to take power.

    I do love how you compare Stalin to Trotsky. Yes, very alike indeed one was the general secretary of the USSR who left it as a superpower and the other well he did create the red army.

    You don’t have to be dogmatic about it, read through his works if you’d like, that’s fine, but remember who wrote it.

    Most literature(Western) on the USSR prior to the opening of the archives is useless generally speaking, and we have newer work that actually uses the files from the archives so there’s no need to read inferior work.

    Finally a comparison worth making Trotsky, Bukharin, and Kruschev I would throw Gorbachev in there as well just for completion. So what we have here is four traitors, two were executed(assassinated for Trotsky) the other two were able to take power. Bukharin, what a figure right; directly participated in the attempted overthrow of the USSR, a fantastic choice to make. Khrushchev, what a great choice throwing a god into hell, praised Stalin to the stars and then threw him into the mud placing all the blame onto Stalin’s shoulders even when he heavily participated in many of the errors that were made. During the great purge, Krushchev was let’s say very liberal when it came to accusing innocent people, but that’s all in the past we must hold up this liar and traitor as someone worth reading. Does this mean that we should not read their work? No, you would have to be stupid to not read them what better way to understand your enemy. Though since we have a lot of work to do I would suggest throwing them on the back burner as there are more relevant Marxists to read in comparison to this band of traitors.

    A series of quotes and links (They can all be found here (and a lot more). Great page, by the way, https://espressostalinist.com/marxism-leninism-versus-revisionism/trotskyism/ )

    I found these to be the most important. Who was Trotsky? “At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i.e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that ‘between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf’. In 1904-05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left ‘permanent revolution’ theory.”

    V.I. Lenin. Collected Works Vol. 20. Moscow: Progress Publishers. 1977. p. 346.

    Permanent revolution? “You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take place in other countries. But it will take place only when the revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution. For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society.

    But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is untrue, and what we have never advocated.”

    Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard. March 1, 1936. Works, Vol. 14. Red Star Press Ltd., London, 1978.

    “a) proceeding from the law of uneven development under imperialism, Lenin, in his fundamental article, ‘The United States of Europe Slogan,’ drew the conclusion that the victory of socialism in individual capitalist countries is possible;

    b) by the victory of socialism in individual countries, Lenin means the seizure of power by the proletariat, the expropriation of the capitalists, and the organisation of socialist production; moreover, all these tasks are not an end in themselves, but a means of standing up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, and helping the proletarians of all countries in their struggle against capitalism;”

    J.V. Stalin. The Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I., November 22-December 16, 1926.

    CIA and Trotsky https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n2/trotsky.htm

    Against Trotsky https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/pamphlets/1925/trotskyism/index.htm

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/haywood/black-bolshevik/ch06.htm

    http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/OT73i.html

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/olgin/1935/trotskyism/index.htm

    From Stalin https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/11/23.htm

    https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm

    From Lenin https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm

    Sorry for the ramble, but this time it was necessary considering the topic. TLDR: Go through the links. Have a good day comrades.

  • RedFieldstoGenZedong•Starting to read Das Kapital
    3·
    2 years ago

    Marx Madness(podcast)(Have finished volume 1 I think) is a nice companion piece if you would like to hear what they got from various chapters. Someone here already mentioned starting with other Marxists, but to be truthful if this is your first time you should read through the shorter works of Marx and Engles. A good one is “The Principles of Communism” which is probably the best place to start. As well as Stalin’s "Foundations of Leninism " for the sake of understanding the base of ML practice and theory; and just to counter balance Mao’s works read Enver Hoxha’s works and for a general understanding read “Imperialism and the revolution” it’s a longer work but it does a great job tearing the entire Socialist world a new one (Very needed considering what was happening at the time). Also as a side note remember to keep the historical context of all this in mind as this will greatly help your understanding of how this theory was put into practice. Pickaxe and Rifle: The Story of the Albanian People and History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) (Marxist-Leninist Theory on youtube has an audio version of this ) should be a good place to start if you haven’t already read through these. Sorry for the long reply comrade, but I felt it was necessary for anyone starting out to not fall into the pit of simply let’s say reading Mao and no one else (It’s best to keep your mind fresh). Anyway have a goodnight Comrade, I hope this helps in some way.

  • RedFieldstoGenZedong•What are some good talking points for swaying nazbols realize the validity of trans identities?
    7·
    2 years ago

    So I found a general overview condescending the past 25 years of research as of 2020(2 years ago) its this one https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/nf-2020-0007/html The research is not conclusive, but there is a trend to what I said prior. I do apologize for my wording in the previous comment it was written during a lunch break. This paper is free for the public and can be downloaded as a pdf. I would advise you to read through the whole thing and take some notes. Considering it was published in 2020 it is possible that new studies have come out supporting one hypothesis or the other. There is the problem of just not enough research being done, but again there is a trend among the research to show that transgender people exist. This paper cites the studies I was remembering so look through them to see what they actually say as well. Sorry for the ramble comrades I hope this helps in some way.

  • RedFieldstoGenZedong•*Permanently Deleted*
    8·
    2 years ago

    It seems to me that your way of thinking about this is rather unhealthy. We live in a captalist system in which you will have to buy something food, transportation, clothes, and so on. This is not a betrayal to the soviet soldiers that lost their lives fighting the facist dogs. We must do what we can to survive because a dead revolutionary is a non-factor in this struggle. You are merely another worker act like one instead of trying to separate yourself from them. Because right now what I am seeing is a flacid revolutionary sitting on high while the workers struggle on. Theory is useless without putting it into practice and as such you must join a vanguard party. This is going to be your school in which victory and defeat will come to teach you a million lessons. Remember comrade we are racing aganist the clock now as ecological collapse looms over us. We are running out of time comrade and we need as many as people as possible to bring this machine down. Less talk more work comrade day in, day out.

  • RedFieldstoGenZedong•*Permanently Deleted*
    1·
    2 years ago

    So like I said in another comment we must support the causes that weaken imperialism not those that strengthen it. Revolutionary defeatism is employed when the imperialists go to war. I previously yielded the point on Russia being Imperialist, but Preston Maness’ comment and having watched the portion of the video dealing with this question forced me to change my opinion as it seems that Russia is Imperialist by the definition that you use. I do not support the USA’s invasion or attempted coups to make the countries colonies or semi-colonies. I can accept that the byproduct of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine weakens Nato, but in turn it Strengthens Russia. I do not dismiss that the USA is the leading member of the imperialist block, but that does not make Russia anti-imperialist, it’s a rising imperialist power that cooperates with developing countries for its benefit. Remember the game that is being played is one of power politics. We are not players in this game, but we can wreck their game. That is our job whether you accept it or deny it. We are communists and as such we stand with the working class of all countries against Capitalism in all its forms. Picking a side in this imperialist conflict is nothing but campism and attempting to equate this imperialist struggle with the struggle of colonized countries for their self-determination from the largest imperialist power is not the same thing. Comrade, it’s really time for some self-criticism; analyze and go over Lenin, Stalin, and others who have dealt with this topic before. I do not claim to know everything, but I don’t think continuing this comment thread will be of help to anyone. If you wish to continue this even after all I’ve said, make a substantial criticism of my position. If you are correct I will change my opinion if not I will not reply. Have a good one comrade.

  • RedFieldstoGenZedong•*Permanently Deleted*
    5·
    2 years ago

    I concede the point of Russia being imperialist, but does that really change the main thrust of my position. Does changing it from Imperialist war to Capitalist war change what I am talking about? If not then it’s a moot point. We still shouldn’t support either because we are communists we don’t support capitalist countries throwing the working class at one another for their ploys.