Fascist sympathisers have no place in Marxism

"Trotsky long ago said that unification is impossible. Trotsky understood this and from that time on there has been no better Bolshevik" - V.I Lenin

>When you call Trotsky a fascist sympathiser when the founder of your ideology literally made peace with ***the fucking nazis***

South Korea and the DPRK also have a non aggression pact that means they're best friends LMAO

Also I never said Trotsky was an heir to Lenin, Trots actually care about the analysis of theory, not squabbles over heirs nearly a hundred years ago

Stalin won the election anyway

Trots will split over anything

'Guys it's okay when Stalin sympathises with fascists!'

Ask a group of them what permanent revolution is and there'll be 5 groups the next day

Permanent revolution is the revolutionary model proposed by Marx, of a global proletarian revolution

Wanna hold my icepick?

Dumbass moment when you haven't read the holy family

Dumbass moment when you haven't read state and Revolution

Make all the Icepick jokes you want, but Trotsky took an Icepick 3 inches into his brain, turned round, spat in the guys face and wrestled him to the ground

Stalin died in a pool of his own piss and shit and cum

More like trotsky died the next day

While spurring out whatever revisionism he can think of

Marxism Leninism is revisionist

Lmao

Commodity production

Marx + Lenin = revisionism

Right buddy

Maybe if you actually read Marx you'd understand Marxist theory

What are you, a bordigan tr*t

That's about maximum revisionism

'The wealth of societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails appears as an "immense collection of Commodities"; the individual commodity appears as its elementary form'

Or alternatively

'no fucking Commodities you god damn fucking idiot'

At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P in 1903 Lenin said in the Third Speech in the Discussion on the Agrarian Programme, “Therein lies the fundamental difference between us and the liberals, whose talk about changes and reforms ‘pollutes’ the minds of the people. If we were to set forth in detail all the demands for the abolition of serf-ownership, we should fill whole volumes. That is why we mention only the more important forms and varieties of serfdom, and leave it to our committees in the various localities to draw up and advance their particular demands in development of the general programme. Trotsky’s remark to the effect that we cannot concern ourselves with local demand is wrong, for the question…is not only a local one.”

"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