Trotskyism is what we call "International Communism" and promotes an ideology of "permanent revolution"--that is to say, continuous disruption, conflict, and war for "as long as it takes", which basically means forever. Any rational person could recognize that that is literal insanity, which is why Stalinism prevailed in the USSR. Stalin--who favored a nationalist version of communism--was a vicious brute, but at least he understood that the Trotskyites had to be either eradicated, or driven out. Consequently, the Trotskyists fled to America
Agree. Something like that, but more complicated. Trotskists nearly wanted destroy Russia / newborn USSR with creating starvation, destroying religion, traditions, industry all that stuff. The idea was to create a population that "owns nothing" that could be thrown into the fire of World Communist Revolution. Stalin had another plans so in 30s he began to exterminate Trotskists and their shills massively. That is why they so hate Stalin telling wet stories about gulags and trying to equal Stalin with Hitler for that. Do you see that fascinating acknowledgement from their own mouths - Stalin bad because he opressed trotskists and Hitler is bad because he opress jews. Stalin and Hitler are equally bad for that. Ergo, jews and trotskists are same group in the eyes of that public. As usual, they project casualities they inflicted to Russian population during years of Civil War, Wartime Communism, Collectivisation and all that stuff in 20s - ealy 30s to the Stalin regime who in reality stop that shit in mid 30s and exterminated most of trotskists as soon as he obtained some real power in country. And suddenly population become grow, industry rised and so on. Immidiately after their complete defeat in USSR, suddenly, WWII began to unwind. What a fascinating coincidence!
You could also notice interesting thing - only actual Soviet (Stalin) type of communism ideology was shamed and anticipated in the West, while all that Trotskists who evaded Stalin repressions was kind of untouchable and I never heard about any kind of Western prosecution of any of that gulag victims to be.
Today, many surnames in Western politics that floats on the top of political foam are the same as surnames of those who was declared Stalins victims. Seriously, reading Western news, many associations with History of Revolution come to mind. Like "Wait, that ***berg isn't a relative for revolutioner ***berg?".
Also, many top Russian emigrants of later times, who tried to continue life of intelectual elite in the West was forced to blame only Stalin for all the shit Bolsheviks did in Russia. If they began to talk about those who really did that, naming surnames and everything, they quickly was kicked out of Western establishment for, you know - antisemitic views.
When you see somebody talking about bloody tyrant Stalin, check what he say about much worse bastards like Trotsky (Bronshtein), Zinoviev (Apfelbaum), Kamenev (Rosenfeld), Kaganovich and so on, who perpetuated real extermination of Russian population in 20-s and early 30-s. You will be amased, I assure you.
IDK, most in Russian, may be you could find books of somebody like Klimov translated. Also you could take the most hateful authors who worte a lot about "Evil USSR Empire", open the part about tyrant Stalin and carefully look what exact crimes Stalin did to be named a tyrant. Surnames of his victims and their profession, ideology and all that stuff will tell you everything.
Stalin was definitely an authoritarian ruler with his own idea of Soviet Empire. He obviously didn't care about human lives if necessary, but accounted people as an only available resource that could be used to build his Empire. And unlike his political rivals from trotskists side he perfectly understand that population is not a cattle and have to be cared and treated with respect to be effective for his plans. All in all his rivals, who see USSR population only as a cannon fodder for their World Revolution, was unimaginably worse for regular people than tyrant Stalin. Trotskists didn't care about education, industry, science, health care, food supplies, anything, they hated Russians religiously and cared only about their ideology.
It wasn't just the Trotskyists that helped create the neoconservative movement in America, although figures like Max Shachtman certainly played a significant role. There were also a bunch of cold war liberals involved in the early neoconservative movement, most of whom left the Democratic party in the 1960's after becoming disillusioned with the Dems hard shift to the left and their unsympathetic foreign policy towards Israel.
Do you mean how the school long served as a bastion of the academic left and advanced the communist agenda, all while being dominated by jewish intellectuals? Because I hate to break it to you, that's not a narrative, that's reality.
But regardless there is always war. There won't stop being war. Because human nature is conflict. If it isn't there is tyranny. A police state of dystopia. Conflict innovates. The biggest advances made by our species were from conflict.
We are all uniquely different. If we are not we are enslaved. Robots.
Nukes didn't stop war they simply created an arms race.
Can this species stop war? Talk to every Empire crumbled. Some have lasted longer and had periods of peace. But there is no peace without war.
put ten communists in a room and you'll get eleven answers about what communism is...
a) an -ist represents one who consented to a suggested -ism.
b) only those who suggest -isms can define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) it, while those who consent can only reason against each other about what it means.
communism is a very broad brush...
Nature sets itself apart, hence from whole (perceivable) into each partial (perceiving)....others tempt one to ignore this for suggested togetherness aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) or tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) or united states; united nations; league of nations; european union, uniformity etc. or equality (same) through diversity (difference) or COM (with; together) -ISM (one consenting to the suggestion of another, hence partial submitting to other partial).
In short...common (process of dying) generates private (living); private needs to resist common, others tempt private to follow common (communism), while ignoring to resist.
smaller part vs bigger part
Tempts one to ignore being one (partial) within oneness (whole)...hence struggling for apartheid (living) within wholeness (process of dying).
weren't unified
UNITY (Latin unitas) - "the state of being one (perceiving) within oneness (perceivable)"...not suggested togetherness.
international communism
IN (within) NATION (a people) COM (with; together) -ISM (ignorance of perceivable for suggested)... the few suggest nation (plural) to tempt one to ignore NATION; noun - "a people", hence each singular one of them. Ones consent to suggested nationalism tempts the consenting ones together under the suggested umbrella "nation", which gives the suggesting few the power (mass consent) to define; redefine and contradict what "nation" means.
permanent revolution
a) suggested PER (forward; through) MANERE (to remain) represents the inversion of being that which struggles to sustain (life) while being moved forwards (inception towards death).
b) RE (response to) VOLVO (turn) tempts one to ignore being the resistance (living) within velocity (process of dying). Turning from resisting velocity implies going with it without resisting...
all at once
All (each partial) represents one (whole) in EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power" aka temporary resistance (growth) within ongoing velocity (loss)...
Agree. Something like that, but more complicated. Trotskists nearly wanted destroy Russia / newborn USSR with creating starvation, destroying religion, traditions, industry all that stuff. The idea was to create a population that "owns nothing" that could be thrown into the fire of World Communist Revolution. Stalin had another plans so in 30s he began to exterminate Trotskists and their shills massively. That is why they so hate Stalin telling wet stories about gulags and trying to equal Stalin with Hitler for that. Do you see that fascinating acknowledgement from their own mouths - Stalin bad because he opressed trotskists and Hitler is bad because he opress jews. Stalin and Hitler are equally bad for that. Ergo, jews and trotskists are same group in the eyes of that public. As usual, they project casualities they inflicted to Russian population during years of Civil War, Wartime Communism, Collectivisation and all that stuff in 20s - ealy 30s to the Stalin regime who in reality stop that shit in mid 30s and exterminated most of trotskists as soon as he obtained some real power in country. And suddenly population become grow, industry rised and so on. Immidiately after their complete defeat in USSR, suddenly, WWII began to unwind. What a fascinating coincidence!
You could also notice interesting thing - only actual Soviet (Stalin) type of communism ideology was shamed and anticipated in the West, while all that Trotskists who evaded Stalin repressions was kind of untouchable and I never heard about any kind of Western prosecution of any of that gulag victims to be.
Today, many surnames in Western politics that floats on the top of political foam are the same as surnames of those who was declared Stalins victims. Seriously, reading Western news, many associations with History of Revolution come to mind. Like "Wait, that ***berg isn't a relative for revolutioner ***berg?".
Also, many top Russian emigrants of later times, who tried to continue life of intelectual elite in the West was forced to blame only Stalin for all the shit Bolsheviks did in Russia. If they began to talk about those who really did that, naming surnames and everything, they quickly was kicked out of Western establishment for, you know - antisemitic views.
When you see somebody talking about bloody tyrant Stalin, check what he say about much worse bastards like Trotsky (Bronshtein), Zinoviev (Apfelbaum), Kamenev (Rosenfeld), Kaganovich and so on, who perpetuated real extermination of Russian population in 20-s and early 30-s. You will be amased, I assure you.
Thanks for the insight, now for some research. Got any links you recommend?
IDK, most in Russian, may be you could find books of somebody like Klimov translated. Also you could take the most hateful authors who worte a lot about "Evil USSR Empire", open the part about tyrant Stalin and carefully look what exact crimes Stalin did to be named a tyrant. Surnames of his victims and their profession, ideology and all that stuff will tell you everything.
Stalin was definitely an authoritarian ruler with his own idea of Soviet Empire. He obviously didn't care about human lives if necessary, but accounted people as an only available resource that could be used to build his Empire. And unlike his political rivals from trotskists side he perfectly understand that population is not a cattle and have to be cared and treated with respect to be effective for his plans. All in all his rivals, who see USSR population only as a cannon fodder for their World Revolution, was unimaginably worse for regular people than tyrant Stalin. Trotskists didn't care about education, industry, science, health care, food supplies, anything, they hated Russians religiously and cared only about their ideology.
Thank you for some direction, I appreciate your input anon!
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/catherine-austin-fitts-exposes-central-bank-digital-currency-prison
It wasn't just the Trotskyists that helped create the neoconservative movement in America, although figures like Max Shachtman certainly played a significant role. There were also a bunch of cold war liberals involved in the early neoconservative movement, most of whom left the Democratic party in the 1960's after becoming disillusioned with the Dems hard shift to the left and their unsympathetic foreign policy towards Israel.
This is an excellent concise summary of the parties at action.
How many Trotskyites made it to America, and name a prominent few?
This is another variation of the Frankfurt School narrative.
"The Frankfurt school narrative?"
Do you mean how the school long served as a bastion of the academic left and advanced the communist agenda, all while being dominated by jewish intellectuals? Because I hate to break it to you, that's not a narrative, that's reality.
So which is true, the Frankfurt School Narrative (the Germans) or the Trotskyists (the Russians). Or, make the case for a synthesis of the two.
Yawn. Endless war is actually a Nazi concept.
But regardless there is always war. There won't stop being war. Because human nature is conflict. If it isn't there is tyranny. A police state of dystopia. Conflict innovates. The biggest advances made by our species were from conflict.
We are all uniquely different. If we are not we are enslaved. Robots.
Nukes didn't stop war they simply created an arms race.
Can this species stop war? Talk to every Empire crumbled. Some have lasted longer and had periods of peace. But there is no peace without war.
a) an -ist represents one who consented to a suggested -ism.
b) only those who suggest -isms can define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) it, while those who consent can only reason against each other about what it means.
Nature sets itself apart, hence from whole (perceivable) into each partial (perceiving)....others tempt one to ignore this for suggested togetherness aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) or tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) or united states; united nations; league of nations; european union, uniformity etc. or equality (same) through diversity (difference) or COM (with; together) -ISM (one consenting to the suggestion of another, hence partial submitting to other partial).
In short...common (process of dying) generates private (living); private needs to resist common, others tempt private to follow common (communism), while ignoring to resist.
Tempts one to ignore being one (partial) within oneness (whole)...hence struggling for apartheid (living) within wholeness (process of dying).
UNITY (Latin unitas) - "the state of being one (perceiving) within oneness (perceivable)"...not suggested togetherness.
IN (within) NATION (a people) COM (with; together) -ISM (ignorance of perceivable for suggested)... the few suggest nation (plural) to tempt one to ignore NATION; noun - "a people", hence each singular one of them. Ones consent to suggested nationalism tempts the consenting ones together under the suggested umbrella "nation", which gives the suggesting few the power (mass consent) to define; redefine and contradict what "nation" means.
a) suggested PER (forward; through) MANERE (to remain) represents the inversion of being that which struggles to sustain (life) while being moved forwards (inception towards death).
b) RE (response to) VOLVO (turn) tempts one to ignore being the resistance (living) within velocity (process of dying). Turning from resisting velocity implies going with it without resisting...
All (each partial) represents one (whole) in EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power" aka temporary resistance (growth) within ongoing velocity (loss)...