"To come to the main subject, I must say that Comrade Trotsky has completely misunderstood Comrade Plekhanov’s fundamental idea, and his arguments have therefore evaded the gist of the matter. He has spoken of intellectuals and workers, of the class point of view and of the mass movement, but he has failed to notice a basic question: does my formulation narrow or expand the concept of a Party member? If he had asked himself that question, he would have easily have seen that my formulation narrows this concept, while Martov’s expands it, for (to use Martov’s own correct expression) what distinguishes his concept is its ‘elasticity.’ And in the period of Party life that we are now passing through it is just this ‘elasticity’ that undoubtedly opens the door to all elements of confusion, vacillation, and opportunism. To refute this simple and obvious conclusion it has to be proved that there are no such elements; but it has not even occurred to Comrade Trotsky to do that."

"Nor can that be proved, for everyone knows that such elements exist in plenty, and they are to be found in the working class too…. Comrade Trotsky completely misinterpreted the main idea of my book, What Is To Be Done? when he spoke about the Party not being a conspiratorial organization. He forgot that in my book I propose a number of various types of organizations, from the most secret and most exclusive to comparatively broad and ‘loose’ organizations. He forgot that the Party must be only the vanguard, the leader of the vast masses of the working class, the whole (or nearly the whole) of which works ‘under the control and direction’ of the Party organizations, but the whole of which does not and should not belong to a ‘party.’ Now let us see what conclusions Comrade Trotsky arrives at in consequence of his fundamental mistake. He had told us here that if rank after rank of workers were arrested, and all the workers were to declare that they did not belong to the Party, our Party would be a strange one indeed! Is it not the other way round? Is it not Comrade Trotsky’s argument that is strange? He regards as something sad that which a revolutionary with any experience at all would only rejoice at. If hundreds and thousands of workers who were arrested for taking part in strikes and demonstrations did not prove to be members of Party organizations, it would only show that we have good organizations, and that we are fulfilling our task of keeping a more or less limited circle of leaders secret and drawing the broadest possible masses into the movement.”

Lenin^

Non of these are related to commodity production

Lmao quit trying to change the subject

Tr*tsky was a Menshevik opportunist

And you can't deny that

***Yes I'm changing the subject even though we were talking about Marxism Leninisms revisionism***

And Lenin disliked him

We're talking about Trotskyist opportunism

Worse than Kautskyism

Okay revisionist, hide from the fact that you're no Marxist

Says the tr*t

>when you haven't read any marx

What are you gonna do? Butcher some more anarchists like you did at Kronstadt?

🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡

Remember makhnovia, trot?

How does it feel to be both hated by anarchists and Marxists?

... You're not a Marxist

Dumbass moment when the ML calls himself a Marxist 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡

>getting social democrats to take over the government
>hur hey guys I'm a Marxist I swear

**Commodity production**

"Trotsky’s major mistake is that he ignores the bourgeois character of the revolution and has no clear conception of the transition from this revolution to the socialist revolution. This major mistake leads to those mistakes on side issues which Comrade Martov repeats when he quotes a couple of them with sympathy and approval. Not to leave matters in the confused state to which Comrade Martov has reduced them by his exposition, we shall at least expose the fallacy of those arguments of Trotsky which have won approval of Comrade Martov.”
Lenin

***Commodity production***

Inb4 Trotsky comes out with a letter in poorly traced handwriting on Lenin's "hurr hey guys Lenin says I'm good, no it's not faked I swear"

When has a Trotskyist state ever existed?

`Commodity production`

Perhaps it's such a useless ideology that it never gets any popularity

>when your ideology can be disassembled with 2 words yet you call Trotskyism useless

**Dictatorship of the proletariat**

Debunked in 4 words

Dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean bureaucracy you fucking revisionist

>implying tr*tsky didn't want bureaucracy

Honestly your revisionism of Marxism would only destroy the economy, and also return the country to the feudal stage

Trotsky literally refused to take the USSR in a military coup because it would be inherently bureaucratic

Anyway later revisionist, the true Marxist is going to plane land

Ok bye tr*t

Try not to get icepicked

And as for the commodity production, you can read this later

Socialism is a period of transition where you have some leftover relations from the capitalist mode of production co-existing with an emerging communist mode. Nobody, not even Stalin, denied that there was commodity production in the USSR and that as long as it existed it would be an obstacle to achieving communism. However, Stalin still considered the USSR distinct from a capitalist society in that:

The most important means of production were no longer produced as commodities (that is, they were not produced to be bought and sold but were instead allocated based on the needs of the workers)

The proletariat planned production through the state

There was no longer production of surplus value, in the sense that the social surplus was no longer appropriated by a class standing above the proletariat.

There can be a debate about to what extent these things were actually true. I'm of the opinion that they were true for the most part during the Stalin years, but that all of those things were eroded significantly from the mid-50's onward, culminating in the outright collapse of the USSR. But even if one wishes to make an argument that the USSR was never distinct from capitalism, i think you have to tackle the points that Stalin and others actually made. The mere existence of commodity production doesn't prove the USSR was simply capitalist.

With that said, you are right that commodity production even in socialism provides an economic basis for the return of capitalism. But Marxist-Leninists and Maoists have always believed that the goal is obviously to eliminate commodity production. In past socialist projects, the maintenance of a sphere of commodity production was considered at the time a temporarily necessary evil. In today's world, it will probably be easier to eliminate commodity production more quickly than it would have been in the 20th century.

"And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.

In fact, when a learned professor, followed by the philistine, followed in turn by the Tseretelis and Chernovs, talks of wild utopias, of the demagogic promises of the Bolsheviks, of the impossibility of “introducing” socialism, it is the higher stage, or phase, of communism he has in mind

But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word “communism” is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism"

-The State and Revolution, Lenin V.I.