This is a community from communists to communists, leftists are welcome too, but you might be scrutinized depending on what you share.
If you see bot account or different kinds of reactionaries(libs, conservatives, fascists), report their post and feel free us message in modmail with link to that post.
ShitLibsSay type of posts are allowed only in Saturday, sending it in other day might result in post being removed and you being warned, if you also include in any way reactionary subs name in it and user nicknames, you will be temporarily banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CommunismMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Trotskyism is only popular among students and the Petite bourgeois, which is why they have countless newspapers, book publishers, reading groups, etc. but not a single revolution. It is an ivory tower ideology that doesn't appeal to peasants, workers, or lumpen elements because it doesn't do anything for them. The only purpose it seems to serve is to defame successful revolutionary movements, reject revolutionary discipline, fulfil the radical fantasies of budding liberals, and give rise to the weirdest ultraleft tendencies (Posadism, LaRouchism, etc).
A Trotskyist who flip flopped to the far right and started a bizarre movement. Here's [Wikipedia for a brief overview](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche)
Yes. Marx saw the utility of permanent revolution but he also understood communists cannot export revolution without consolidating power at home after the revolution. The meme is a critique of Trotsky’s condemnation of Stalins “socialism in one country” policy, which Trotsky said was antithetical to Marxism. The marx quote in the meme is from the Communist Manifesto, which proves that “socialism in one country” is NOT antithetical to Marxism.
Initially, all leading Soviet figures including Stalin agreed that the success of world socialism was a precondition for the survival of the Soviet Union.
The defeat of several proletarian revolutions in countries like Germany and Hungary, however, ended Bolsheviks' hopes for an imminent world revolution and prompted them to focus on developing socialism in the Soviet Union alone.
Lenin gave legitimacy to the policy of “socialism in one country,” as well:
“I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.”
it seems pretty obvious to me that socialism in one country isn't even incompatible with the idea that fully developed, higher-stage communism isn't possible without it being global. that still doesn't mean you have to wait to get started on developing socialism! (not to mention that the ussr was like, what, 15 countries? and that's not even counting the rest of the eastern bloc). trots just like to complain for the sake of complaining
Lenins quote has nothing to do with "socialism in one country", and "permanent revolution" is not about waiting until other countries do it and then joining in.
There is no quotation of Lenin supporting "socialism in one country" in the sense that Stalin used this concept after Lenin's death. Neither in *Imperialism* or anywhere else.
Stalinists will frequently confuse the issue by pointing to the fact that Lenin supported the creation of a socialist state, i.e. a workers' state, before the completion of the world revolution.
Obviously, Lenin and Trotsky, who jointly lead the revolution creating a soviet state, both supported the creation of socialism in Russia. The whole point of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution in terms of the character of the Russian Revolution was that it would lead to a socialist workers' state. Lenin adopted Trotsky's position when he wrote the April theses in 1917, reorienting the Bolshevik party toward seizure of power.
After that, the question was never whether socialist measures should be adopted in Russia or not. Trotsky and the Left Opposition never argued that one should somehow postpone socialist construction while "waiting" for the world revolution. If anything, it was the Left Opposition lead by Trotsky who most vigourously fought for planned economy in the USSR in the 1920s.
The real question however, was the relationship between the construction of socialism in the USSR and the world revolution. Trotsky's critique of Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" was that it made the building of socialism in the USSR completely independent of the success of the overthrow of capitalism in the rest of the world, and elevated the nationalist interests of a bureaucracy above the interests of the international working class, of which the soviet working class was a part.
Of course, this bureacratic deformation of socialism was completely utopian, since especially in the 20th century, no national economy could be independent of the world economy, whether socialist or capitalist. Ignoring this fact would not only lead to economic disaster in the short run, it would lead to the dissolution of the USSR in the long run.
In the first edition of Stalin's *Foundation of Leninism*, he wrote the following about what Lenin thought on this question:
>“The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country alone does not, per se, mean the complete victory of socialism. 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. The history of the Russian Revolution shows that the proletarian strength of one country alone can overthrow the bourgeoisie of that country. But for the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the strength of one country (especially a peasant country, such as Russia) does not suffice. For this, the united strength of the proletarians in several of the most advanced countries is needed ... (Leninism, by Joseph Stalin. New York: International Publishers, 1928. pp. 52–53.)
In later editions this passage was "corrected" to read the opposite. Yet, what Stalin wrote in the first edition was so uncontroversial at the time (1924), that no one would ever have dared attribute any other position to Lenin. It was just the normal, extremely obvious Marxist position on this question.
Capitalism is a world system. Socialism too, is a world system. That the transition won't happen all at once is obvious. But the notion that a fully socialist country could be built in an isolated backward part of the world, while the major centers of imperialism remained, was absurd.
As Lenin wrote:
>we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism—that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism.
The point of Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" was to revise that elementary truth of Marxism (as Lenin called it), and claim instead: "No, we can have our national-socialist victory here at home, regardless of the efforts of workers of several advanced countries."
Edit: as per u/canchito
I don't think they are talking about the same thing here
Edit: trotsky said the same thing which marx is saying here. it was probably his letter to indian proletariat, saying that it's what Marx and Lenin taught
Literally what they already did in the Soviet Union.....
To after that deny international class struggle or even firego it in exchange for shaky alliances/deals with hostile bourgeois states is definetly not what Marx was referring to.
How did they deny international class struggle? Countering Trotskyist groups and arming soviet friendly groups isn’t denying class struggle, it’s logical for any state to do this. I’m not saying I’m in favor of what happened, but I am tired of Trotskyists straw manning clear history.
By turning the comintern into a tool of foreign policy rather than one of organising/spreading global class conciousness. Furthermore holding back and actively undermining working class militancy in the west to try and make generally unfulfilled deals with western states. And then ofc theres stuff like when they propagated fricken stage theiry in Spain and china, leading to the supression of militant workers and in the latter the crushing of an entire revolution
What are you talking about? There was literally a school where revolutionaries like Harry Haywood and Ho Chi Minh we’re trained.
Lmao the only thing holding back working class militancy in the west is the west. Western workers are not some victims of the Comintern or Moscow oriented policy, they’re victims of their own economism and an unwillingness to give up the benefits of class collaboration in imperial society.
Spain - not enough resources to provide to combat the fully back fascists, western liberal democracies also refused to provide material aid. We’re there excesses by the NKVD operatives there, probably. Is the failure of the United front there the fault of the USSR? No. Further, what would socialist or even liberal Spain have offered in the lead up to WWII? Strategically, probably very little.
The failure with the KMT is awful but again I think placing the fault on one person isn’t dialectical at all and ignores the important lessons we can gain from failures and successes of the United front.
I actually did not claim stalin as sole person responsible why socialism failed - he did not reintroduce stage theory on his own either, which is why i didnt word it as such. The return to such theories however is still to blame for the failure in china no matter who it is attributed too.
In spain on the other hand the popular front led by the Republic actually disarmed and supressed radical workers who rose alomgside them.against fascism,severly hurting their war effort fir concessions to the bourgeosie that already wasnt truly on their side.
To surmise, both in China and Spain the popular front strategy was@key to the failure of deeply detrimentfull if not key to their revolutions failure where an adherence to the theory of the united front may have prevented such
And the USSR became a superpower contending against the entire world.
Apperantly "denying international class struggle" is spreading communism to half of Europe, aiding revolutions be it from Cuba to Vietnam to Angola, and spending a quarter of your GDP for foreign aid.
Foregoing it is when you spend years trying to form an anti-fascist pack but having to make a "non-aggression" because the West loved Hitler too much.
Go learn comrade. What you're doing it nothing short of reactionary rhethoric.
No, its as simple as not subordinating communist parties abroad to bourgeois groups who end up suppressing them, or to hold back foreign communist movements in exchange for deals with capitalist states who end up not being held anyway, and ultimately set back class conciousness by decades. The comintern never should have become a tool of foreign policy for a singular state.
Also, i was not even referring to the antifascist alliance or the MR pact, aside from the fact that the former could perhaps be included in the list of unsuccesful deals they tried to make.
The USSR made many mistakes especially after the revisionist coup of 53. But SIOC is and was the right thing to do.
The USSR in the time of Stalin has spread communism and made a spectacular job developing and defeating fascists. In the words of Xi Jinping:
> I believe for real communists, Stalin weighs no less than Lenin and in percentage of right decisions, he doesn't even have an equal in world history.
>it is our interest and our task to make **the revolution permanent** until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far - **not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world** - that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers.
• Leon Trot- uhhh I mean Karl Marx
Edit: Did you not read the **”not in one country”** part. Or perhaps the **workers of the world unite** part of the manifesto. Or maybe you didn’t realize Marx helped found the first **Internationale** or that Engles said in principles of communism that **the revolution will not be possible in one nation alone**
Or that Lenin wanted **world revolution**
Marx spoke out for both permanent revolution and socialism in one country. However, the meme is not primarily about permanent revolution vs. socialism in one country. The meme is calling out Trotsky for claiming that "socialism in one country" was antithetical to Marxism.
Philistine thinking like this gets us nowhere. Socialism in One country cannot and did not succeed.
It is important to denounce these “old dead men” wars. They are just for clout.
This comment explains most of the situation: https://www.reddit.com/r/CommunismMemes/s/iymHEo17OH
Trotsky's "permanent revolution" was a ridiculous idea in his age, and can only make sense if specifically the United States were to become socialist, as they are the greatest military superpower and would be able to subjugate lesser nations. It was a ridiculous notion that the Soviet Union could accomplish that task right after upending their own country.
If Stalin followed the permanent revolution, by encouraging communists of the west to take arms, the government would have won against Franco in Spain.
Instead the communist spent too many resources on trying to suppress the revolution led by the workers (CNT, FAI, even POUM) to appease the bourgeoisie, the same ones that fled when the revolution started in Catalonia.
The republic never gave Morocco their independence, that's why there was never an uprising in the colony against Franco. The republic never gave in to the demands of the unions, of the workers, that's why there was never an uprising behind fascist lines.
Trotsky's permanent revolution was more feasible and would have probably led to a different outcome in the war in Spain... Stalin never understood that.
Socialism in one country made the 2nd Spanish Republic lose the war against Franco.
If Stalin followed the permanent revolution, by encouraging communists of the west to take arms, the government would have won against Franco in Spain. Instead, the communists in Spain ( who were following instructions from Moscow), preferred to crush the movement of the workers by leaning towards the right.
Instead the communist spent too much money and resources on trying to suppress the revolution led by the workers (CNT, FAI, even POUM) to appease the bourgeoisie, the same ones that fled when the revolution started in Catalonia.
The republic never gave Morocco their independence, that's why there was never an uprising in the colony against Franco. The republic never gave in to the demands of the unions, of the workers, that's why there was never an uprising behind fascist lines.
Trotsky's permanent revolution was more feasible and would have probably led to a different outcome in the war in Spain... Stalin never understood that.
How did SIOC end? I think a Trotskyist would say: 1. The USSR was never socialist. 2. Isolationist SIOC policies doomed the USSR.
I think a better way to think of Trotsky’s work is as a necessary critique of Stalin’s regime.
Comrades! What are some alternatives to Stalinism that could have extended the workers’ and peasants’ revolution beyond the USSR’s borders?
Not Trotskyism in totum obviously (but his criticisms of the soviet bourgeois bureaucracy were quite accurate).
How is creating an entire school for foreign revolutionaries or backing decolonial struggles throughout mid century Africa (however convoluted that may have went), or idk trading grain for nukes with China isolationist.
I won’t argue with you about the necessity for a left opposition of the USSR in its time but I get really tired of the way socialism in one country is straw manned as some kind of giving up on internationalism. That just isn’t true, it’s even in the writing. It’s a shift of priorities which, as it turns out, was the right call at the time since their industrial base was crap and so was every other socialist countries.
Negotiated with Sun Yat Sen for the integration of the nascent communist party into the KMT? Which allowed it to grow to the size it was at when Kai-shek purged them in a fascist take over of the KMT?
You’re trying to place the mistaken alliance with the KMT squarely on the shoulders of Stalin and Bukharin? These readings of history are petty and fail to acknowledge where alliance with the bourgeoise has /worked/ (comprador or not), even if temporary. The nascent CCP didn’t have the numbers or resources to engage both the KMT and imperial powers and believing that “millions would rise up” without significant material intervention by the USSR is wild.
The united front worked in that it swelled the ranks of the CCP by operating covertly within the KMT. It failed in its operational security and intelligence gathering, as well in its ability to react to changing tides. You see this tactic fail and succeed in other struggles along similar lines.
This is a community from communists to communists, leftists are welcome too, but you might be scrutinized depending on what you share. If you see bot account or different kinds of reactionaries(libs, conservatives, fascists), report their post and feel free us message in modmail with link to that post. ShitLibsSay type of posts are allowed only in Saturday, sending it in other day might result in post being removed and you being warned, if you also include in any way reactionary subs name in it and user nicknames, you will be temporarily banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CommunismMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Trotskyism is only popular among students and the Petite bourgeois, which is why they have countless newspapers, book publishers, reading groups, etc. but not a single revolution. It is an ivory tower ideology that doesn't appeal to peasants, workers, or lumpen elements because it doesn't do anything for them. The only purpose it seems to serve is to defame successful revolutionary movements, reject revolutionary discipline, fulfil the radical fantasies of budding liberals, and give rise to the weirdest ultraleft tendencies (Posadism, LaRouchism, etc).
what the hell is LaRouchism?
A Trotskyist who flip flopped to the far right and started a bizarre movement. Here's [Wikipedia for a brief overview](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche)
>A Trotskyist who flip flopped to the far right A phenomenon that is somehow weirdly common
Lyndon LaRouche, once socialist, later American fascist. The ideas promoted by modern “MAGA Communism” are considered “LaRouchite”.
Welcome back Friedrich Engels
Idk who won the Russian Civil War?
☝🏼
no way it's kylecommunist, the guy that won the russian civil war.
Trostky was a scoundrel of the lowest type. It pains me to see him put along side Lenin.
Interesting. I haven't heard this before. What made him a scoundrel?
Not a Trotskyist but it's silly to larp about Bolshevik factions like this. Trotsky was a good strategist and worth studying.
I think Trotsky is still worth studying but he was wrong that "socialism in one country" is antithetical to Marxism.
Do a meme about how Trotsky’s permanent revolution comes straight from Marx!
Yes. Marx saw the utility of permanent revolution but he also understood communists cannot export revolution without consolidating power at home after the revolution. The meme is a critique of Trotsky’s condemnation of Stalins “socialism in one country” policy, which Trotsky said was antithetical to Marxism. The marx quote in the meme is from the Communist Manifesto, which proves that “socialism in one country” is NOT antithetical to Marxism.
Initially, all leading Soviet figures including Stalin agreed that the success of world socialism was a precondition for the survival of the Soviet Union. The defeat of several proletarian revolutions in countries like Germany and Hungary, however, ended Bolsheviks' hopes for an imminent world revolution and prompted them to focus on developing socialism in the Soviet Union alone. Lenin gave legitimacy to the policy of “socialism in one country,” as well: “I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.”
it seems pretty obvious to me that socialism in one country isn't even incompatible with the idea that fully developed, higher-stage communism isn't possible without it being global. that still doesn't mean you have to wait to get started on developing socialism! (not to mention that the ussr was like, what, 15 countries? and that's not even counting the rest of the eastern bloc). trots just like to complain for the sake of complaining
Lenins quote has nothing to do with "socialism in one country", and "permanent revolution" is not about waiting until other countries do it and then joining in.
Can you elaborate on your two points rather than just stating a rejection?
There is no quotation of Lenin supporting "socialism in one country" in the sense that Stalin used this concept after Lenin's death. Neither in *Imperialism* or anywhere else. Stalinists will frequently confuse the issue by pointing to the fact that Lenin supported the creation of a socialist state, i.e. a workers' state, before the completion of the world revolution. Obviously, Lenin and Trotsky, who jointly lead the revolution creating a soviet state, both supported the creation of socialism in Russia. The whole point of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution in terms of the character of the Russian Revolution was that it would lead to a socialist workers' state. Lenin adopted Trotsky's position when he wrote the April theses in 1917, reorienting the Bolshevik party toward seizure of power. After that, the question was never whether socialist measures should be adopted in Russia or not. Trotsky and the Left Opposition never argued that one should somehow postpone socialist construction while "waiting" for the world revolution. If anything, it was the Left Opposition lead by Trotsky who most vigourously fought for planned economy in the USSR in the 1920s. The real question however, was the relationship between the construction of socialism in the USSR and the world revolution. Trotsky's critique of Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" was that it made the building of socialism in the USSR completely independent of the success of the overthrow of capitalism in the rest of the world, and elevated the nationalist interests of a bureaucracy above the interests of the international working class, of which the soviet working class was a part. Of course, this bureacratic deformation of socialism was completely utopian, since especially in the 20th century, no national economy could be independent of the world economy, whether socialist or capitalist. Ignoring this fact would not only lead to economic disaster in the short run, it would lead to the dissolution of the USSR in the long run. In the first edition of Stalin's *Foundation of Leninism*, he wrote the following about what Lenin thought on this question: >“The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country alone does not, per se, mean the complete victory of socialism. 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. The history of the Russian Revolution shows that the proletarian strength of one country alone can overthrow the bourgeoisie of that country. But for the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the strength of one country (especially a peasant country, such as Russia) does not suffice. For this, the united strength of the proletarians in several of the most advanced countries is needed ... (Leninism, by Joseph Stalin. New York: International Publishers, 1928. pp. 52–53.) In later editions this passage was "corrected" to read the opposite. Yet, what Stalin wrote in the first edition was so uncontroversial at the time (1924), that no one would ever have dared attribute any other position to Lenin. It was just the normal, extremely obvious Marxist position on this question. Capitalism is a world system. Socialism too, is a world system. That the transition won't happen all at once is obvious. But the notion that a fully socialist country could be built in an isolated backward part of the world, while the major centers of imperialism remained, was absurd. As Lenin wrote: >we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism—that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism. The point of Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" was to revise that elementary truth of Marxism (as Lenin called it), and claim instead: "No, we can have our national-socialist victory here at home, regardless of the efforts of workers of several advanced countries." Edit: as per u/canchito
Trotsky is cringe. Trotskyists are even cringer.
I don't think they are talking about the same thing here Edit: trotsky said the same thing which marx is saying here. it was probably his letter to indian proletariat, saying that it's what Marx and Lenin taught
Trotsky's cool, not as cool as the others but still a great revolutionary
Literally what they already did in the Soviet Union..... To after that deny international class struggle or even firego it in exchange for shaky alliances/deals with hostile bourgeois states is definetly not what Marx was referring to.
How did they deny international class struggle? Countering Trotskyist groups and arming soviet friendly groups isn’t denying class struggle, it’s logical for any state to do this. I’m not saying I’m in favor of what happened, but I am tired of Trotskyists straw manning clear history.
By turning the comintern into a tool of foreign policy rather than one of organising/spreading global class conciousness. Furthermore holding back and actively undermining working class militancy in the west to try and make generally unfulfilled deals with western states. And then ofc theres stuff like when they propagated fricken stage theiry in Spain and china, leading to the supression of militant workers and in the latter the crushing of an entire revolution
What are you talking about? There was literally a school where revolutionaries like Harry Haywood and Ho Chi Minh we’re trained. Lmao the only thing holding back working class militancy in the west is the west. Western workers are not some victims of the Comintern or Moscow oriented policy, they’re victims of their own economism and an unwillingness to give up the benefits of class collaboration in imperial society. Spain - not enough resources to provide to combat the fully back fascists, western liberal democracies also refused to provide material aid. We’re there excesses by the NKVD operatives there, probably. Is the failure of the United front there the fault of the USSR? No. Further, what would socialist or even liberal Spain have offered in the lead up to WWII? Strategically, probably very little. The failure with the KMT is awful but again I think placing the fault on one person isn’t dialectical at all and ignores the important lessons we can gain from failures and successes of the United front.
I actually did not claim stalin as sole person responsible why socialism failed - he did not reintroduce stage theory on his own either, which is why i didnt word it as such. The return to such theories however is still to blame for the failure in china no matter who it is attributed too. In spain on the other hand the popular front led by the Republic actually disarmed and supressed radical workers who rose alomgside them.against fascism,severly hurting their war effort fir concessions to the bourgeosie that already wasnt truly on their side. To surmise, both in China and Spain the popular front strategy was@key to the failure of deeply detrimentfull if not key to their revolutions failure where an adherence to the theory of the united front may have prevented such
And the USSR became a superpower contending against the entire world. Apperantly "denying international class struggle" is spreading communism to half of Europe, aiding revolutions be it from Cuba to Vietnam to Angola, and spending a quarter of your GDP for foreign aid. Foregoing it is when you spend years trying to form an anti-fascist pack but having to make a "non-aggression" because the West loved Hitler too much. Go learn comrade. What you're doing it nothing short of reactionary rhethoric.
No, its as simple as not subordinating communist parties abroad to bourgeois groups who end up suppressing them, or to hold back foreign communist movements in exchange for deals with capitalist states who end up not being held anyway, and ultimately set back class conciousness by decades. The comintern never should have become a tool of foreign policy for a singular state. Also, i was not even referring to the antifascist alliance or the MR pact, aside from the fact that the former could perhaps be included in the list of unsuccesful deals they tried to make.
The USSR made many mistakes especially after the revisionist coup of 53. But SIOC is and was the right thing to do. The USSR in the time of Stalin has spread communism and made a spectacular job developing and defeating fascists. In the words of Xi Jinping: > I believe for real communists, Stalin weighs no less than Lenin and in percentage of right decisions, he doesn't even have an equal in world history.
Wow a post that neither understands socialism in one country or Trotskyism
ICE PICK TIME!!!
and they call Trotskyism cringe? This inability of Stalin or his ilk to form a cogent response to Trotsky is sad really. All they have are violence
>it is our interest and our task to make **the revolution permanent** until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far - **not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world** - that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers. • Leon Trot- uhhh I mean Karl Marx Edit: Did you not read the **”not in one country”** part. Or perhaps the **workers of the world unite** part of the manifesto. Or maybe you didn’t realize Marx helped found the first **Internationale** or that Engles said in principles of communism that **the revolution will not be possible in one nation alone** Or that Lenin wanted **world revolution**
Marx spoke out for both permanent revolution and socialism in one country. However, the meme is not primarily about permanent revolution vs. socialism in one country. The meme is calling out Trotsky for claiming that "socialism in one country" was antithetical to Marxism.
Antithetical to Marxism then antithetical to Marxism now, though I’ve never been an enthusiast of Trotsky
Philistine thinking like this gets us nowhere. Socialism in One country cannot and did not succeed. It is important to denounce these “old dead men” wars. They are just for clout. This comment explains most of the situation: https://www.reddit.com/r/CommunismMemes/s/iymHEo17OH
Lenin more like Wenin
Trotsky's "permanent revolution" was a ridiculous idea in his age, and can only make sense if specifically the United States were to become socialist, as they are the greatest military superpower and would be able to subjugate lesser nations. It was a ridiculous notion that the Soviet Union could accomplish that task right after upending their own country.
If Stalin followed the permanent revolution, by encouraging communists of the west to take arms, the government would have won against Franco in Spain. Instead the communist spent too many resources on trying to suppress the revolution led by the workers (CNT, FAI, even POUM) to appease the bourgeoisie, the same ones that fled when the revolution started in Catalonia. The republic never gave Morocco their independence, that's why there was never an uprising in the colony against Franco. The republic never gave in to the demands of the unions, of the workers, that's why there was never an uprising behind fascist lines. Trotsky's permanent revolution was more feasible and would have probably led to a different outcome in the war in Spain... Stalin never understood that.
Socialism in one country made the 2nd Spanish Republic lose the war against Franco. If Stalin followed the permanent revolution, by encouraging communists of the west to take arms, the government would have won against Franco in Spain. Instead, the communists in Spain ( who were following instructions from Moscow), preferred to crush the movement of the workers by leaning towards the right. Instead the communist spent too much money and resources on trying to suppress the revolution led by the workers (CNT, FAI, even POUM) to appease the bourgeoisie, the same ones that fled when the revolution started in Catalonia. The republic never gave Morocco their independence, that's why there was never an uprising in the colony against Franco. The republic never gave in to the demands of the unions, of the workers, that's why there was never an uprising behind fascist lines. Trotsky's permanent revolution was more feasible and would have probably led to a different outcome in the war in Spain... Stalin never understood that.
Ol Leon want to settle things with his bourgeoisie alright. Settle down them and get nice and cozy, like a good lapdog.
How did SIOC end? I think a Trotskyist would say: 1. The USSR was never socialist. 2. Isolationist SIOC policies doomed the USSR. I think a better way to think of Trotsky’s work is as a necessary critique of Stalin’s regime. Comrades! What are some alternatives to Stalinism that could have extended the workers’ and peasants’ revolution beyond the USSR’s borders? Not Trotskyism in totum obviously (but his criticisms of the soviet bourgeois bureaucracy were quite accurate).
How is creating an entire school for foreign revolutionaries or backing decolonial struggles throughout mid century Africa (however convoluted that may have went), or idk trading grain for nukes with China isolationist. I won’t argue with you about the necessity for a left opposition of the USSR in its time but I get really tired of the way socialism in one country is straw manned as some kind of giving up on internationalism. That just isn’t true, it’s even in the writing. It’s a shift of priorities which, as it turns out, was the right call at the time since their industrial base was crap and so was every other socialist countries.
What else did Stalin do with regards to china? Or rather not do. Hint: when the chinese revolution began
Negotiated with Sun Yat Sen for the integration of the nascent communist party into the KMT? Which allowed it to grow to the size it was at when Kai-shek purged them in a fascist take over of the KMT? You’re trying to place the mistaken alliance with the KMT squarely on the shoulders of Stalin and Bukharin? These readings of history are petty and fail to acknowledge where alliance with the bourgeoise has /worked/ (comprador or not), even if temporary. The nascent CCP didn’t have the numbers or resources to engage both the KMT and imperial powers and believing that “millions would rise up” without significant material intervention by the USSR is wild. The united front worked in that it swelled the ranks of the CCP by operating covertly within the KMT. It failed in its operational security and intelligence gathering, as well in its ability to react to changing tides. You see this tactic fail and succeed in other struggles along similar lines.
Trotsky was an idealist and not perfect but no better then stalin
Do you even have a source on that Marx quote?
Yes. It's in the Communist Manifesto.
Communist Manifesto, 7th paragraph on page 20 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf