Q:Sorry for the stupid question but i guess you are a 'pro' so haha, what is the diffrence between Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky? There all communists right..?
It isn’t a stupid question at all!
I should start this off by stating, clearly as possible, that bias will exist in all theoretical arguments. It is a natural thing to do, and objectivity — especially on a question such as this — is near enough impossible in many political arguments. I will try to remain as such as long as it is possible, though.
There are many differences between Stalin and Trotsky, the core one being the ideological differences between Stalin’s Socialism in One Country and Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution.
Now, from my personal standpoint, I dislike both Stalin and the theory of Socialism in One Country for various reasons.
The main reason for disliking Socialism in One Country is, purely and simply, the betrayal of the inherent international nature of communism; it bred amongst the Russian people a sense of nationalism, and the dismissal of the vital importance of bringing aid to international revolutionary movements. Personally, I attribute the development of the Russian economy — industrialisation and agricultural changes — to the brilliance of a planned economy, not necessarily through the policies of Stalin. A planned economy would’ve done brilliantly for Russia even if Stalin wasn’t the leader.
Now, I dislike Stalin for a couple of reasons. The main reason is because of the bureaucracy that developed, with the Russia political sphere becoming very top-down and centralised. Now, in Lenin’s continuation of Marxism, he developed democratic centralism, a theory that I wholeheartedly agree with; Stalinist or Trotskyist, it is generally agreed upon. The problem comes with the fact that, under Stalin, it concentrated more to centralised, bureaucratic power as opposed to democratic power, with many of the Soviets (councils) becoming “rubber stamps” for the administration’s policies.
Aside from that, I also disagree with the Moscow frame-up trials, which were the result of a very messy situation. It ended with the annihilation of the original Bolsheviks, many of whom Lenin was fond of and worked with tirelessly. Now, on the face of it, the Moscow trials were reported to be “fair” by a few of the journalists that sat at the back of the room during the trials. What wasn’t seen, however, is what happened behind the scenes; an OGPU official, named Orlov, wrote, confessing to the fact that torture had in fact been used against the defendants — and in various forms. As far as I am aware, the most common was sleep deprivation and threats aimed at the families, the latter is something that would make any sane man confess to crimes, legitimate or not. In fact, Trotsky was a defendant, as the trials were centred around his apparent attempts at terrorist activities.
As far as I am aware, Trotsky was an advocate of political revolution — to skim the top-down bureaucracy and reinstate an administration that adheres to both the central side (when in times of necessity, e.g. national disasters such as the civil war of 1918-1922) and democracy during peacetime, with Soviets (councils) being utilised to their fullest potential with democracy at all levels, not just a rubber stamp for policies made at the top. Despite being an advocate of political revolution, this does not, in any way, mean that Trotsky wanted to reinstate the Tsar, capitalism, or was an aid to Nazism. It was, in fact, the opposite.
Now, regarding Trotsky, I favour his theoretical position of the Permanent revolution, as I feel it is a direct continuation of international socialism and not a betrayal of this inherent nature of socialism, i.e., it doesn’t confine it to national barriers. The problem is that, straight after a revolution, the proponents of capitalism will still have strong allies outside of the country — we will, in fact, be surrounded by hostile capitalist powers. That is natural. Thus, in standing alone, it would make us incredibly vulnerable in our attempts to restructure the economy towards a socialist one; in changing the military’s structure; in the social change that is inevitable; in organising the new, workers’ and farmers’ government. I think you get the point.
That is why we need socialist allies in other countries: to come to our side, to trade with us, to help us in our development. Imagine it as a country being on wooden stilts when alone, but on concrete ones when with allies — it is a reinforcement that is needed to avoid downfall.
At face-value, you’re correct in saying that they’re all communists. However, scrape beneath the surface and you find a world of theoretical differences, which has, ashamedly, acted as a very divisive factor within the Communist movement. I, like the organisation to which I belong, are keen to open up a United Front whenever it’s necessary, i.e., to unite with all tendencies on the left (social-democrats, trade unions, etc.) to help stop an event which would be dire for the workers (more explained in footnote 2).
As a close comrade of mine told me, “Flexible in action, firm in principle”.
1. I would highly advise that you research the Shanghai Massacre of 1927, which was a detrimental result of the foolishness of the Comintern’s position on China, suggesting that they form an alliance with the so-called “progressive bourgeoisie”, or the KMT, which in fact ended up butchering the proletariat and almost liquidating the Communist Party. Any attempts by Communists after this massacre to regain a solid ground, including fight backs, failed, and thus the Comintern’s policy of a proletarian-bourgeois alliance became bankrupt.
2. In equal measure, I would also recommend you research the situation in Germany just before the rise of Hitler regarding the Communists and Social-democrats. Trotsky advocated a United Front (as explained briefly in the last paragraph above) to, at all costs, stop Hitler gaining power. He was also an advocate of sending in the Red Army to aid the proletariat should revolution break out and peaceful measures fail (for more reading, I’d suggest Ted Grant’s Defend the Soviet Union — Fascism Can Only Be Defeated By International Socialism). However, the German Communists, following the line of the Comintern at the time, declared anybody slightly different from their tendency (mainly Social-democrats) to be “social fascists”, and thus too became hostile towards the very people that they could have allied with to stop Hitler’s rise to power.
3. The core principle of democratic centralism is that of flexibility. A sensible proposal is put forth, be it by someone not working within a government institution, a local council, provincial assembly, or people within the national parliament, and it is to be debated thoroughly and rigorously, with freedom of speech on the matter being allowed; after the debate, a vote is to be taken (at a local level, provincial level, national level), and, whatever the majority is, those who voted (local and provincial councillors and those a part of the national assembly) are to stick to whatever the majority decision is in public and act professional about it.
The flexibility comes in with the fact that, in times of national crisis, it is to lean towards centralised authority, — war, huge famine, collapse, etc., — and in the likes of peacetime it is to remain thoroughly democratic, but with some central influence (as ever is the case with governments).
4. I’d recommend reading I Stake My Life! by Leon Trotsky. It addresses the matter completely, and it is only a short pamphlet.
5. I’d recommend reading What is the permanent revolution? — Basic postulates by Leon Trotsky. It sums up the theory of permanent revolution in 14 points, and is no longer than 6 pages, I believe.
Ayn Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking. In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, despite her initial objections, was persuaded to allow Evva Pryor, a consultant from her attorney’s office, to sign her up for Social Security and Medicare.
Rand died of heart failure on March 6, 1982. Rand’s funeral was attended by some of her prominent followers, including Alan Greenspan. A six-foot floral arrangement in the shape of a dollar sign was placed near her casket.
Not only does Ayn Rand’s Objectivism make me instinctively grimace, like that induced by a bad smell, but it’s philosophically weak as hell too.
That depends on what you find weak about it, just as one would find the same “philosophically weak ass” foundations of your philosophy as well. Many, if not all philosophies, have some weaknesses and some strengths, or at least some offering of knowledge that can help strengthen one’s own philosophy.
Top-notch liberal apologia from Tumblr dot com user the-capitalist.
Essentials of Marxism Reading List
I’ve tried to keep this list as pure a possible (qahqaha described it as “Marxist Salafi” when I showed it to him). Marxist theory deals with a massive variety of topics, and I tried to steer clear in order to keep this list about communism, more so than anything else. This is still, and will always be, a work in progress.
- Early Writings (1843-1844)
- Wage-Labor and Capital (1847)
- Grundrisse (1857-61)
- Economic Manuscripts: Value, Price and Profit (1865)
- The Paris Commune (1871)
- Capital Volume I, Capital Volume II and Capital Volume III (Maybe read Volume I first, leave the other two for later. These took 20 years to write, they will take you maybe half that time to read) Since Capital can be a hassle, this series of lectures can be extremely useful and I highly recommend it: Reading Marx’s Capital with David Harvey
- Principles of Communism (1847)
- Anti-Duhring (1877)
- Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1880)
- The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State(1884)
- Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch With an Exposition of Marxism (1914)
- What Is To Be Done? (1902)
- Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (1908)
- The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913)
- The Right of Nations to Self-Determination (1914)
- Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916)
- The State and Revolution (1917)
- Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder (1920)
- The Lenin Anthology
- The Essential Rosa Luxemburg: Reform or Revolution and the Mass Strike (1900/1906)
- Theory & Practice (1910)
- The National Question (1909)
- Theory & Practice (1910)
- The Accumulation of Capital (1913)
- The Junius Pamphlet (1915)
- Results and Prospects (1906)
- Terrorism and Communism (1920)
- The Revolution Betrayed (1936)
- In Defense of Marxism (1940)
- The Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings (1916-1935)
What follows are all very short pieces by Gramsci:
- The Price of History (1919)
- Workers’ Democracy (1919)
- The Conquest of the State (1919)
- Revolutionaries and Elections (1919)
- The Problem of Power (1919)
- The Communists and the Elections (1921)
- Neither Fascism nor Liberalism: Sovietism (1924)
- The Role of Morality in Communist Production (1919)
- The Moral Mission of the Communist Party (1920)
- History & Class Consciousness (1919-1923)
- Lenin – Theoretician of Practice(1924)
- Lenin: A Study in the Unity of his Thought (1924)
- Be Concerned With the Well-Being of the Masses, Pay Attention to Methods of Work (1934)
- On Practice (1937)
- On Contradiction (1937)
- Combat Liberalism (1937)
- Serve the People (1944)
- Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung (1966)
- Early Writings - Walter Benjamin (1910-1917)
- The Foundation of Historical Materialism - Herbert Marcuse (1932)
- The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction - Walter Benjamin (1936)
- Theses on the Philosophy of History - Walter Benjamin (1940)
- Reason & Revolution - Herbert Marcuse (1941)
- Dialectic of Enlightenment - Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno (1944)
- The Authoritarian Personality - Theodor Adorno et al. (1950)
- Trotzky’s Diary in Exile - Erich Fromm (1958)
- Marx’s Concept of Man - Erich Fromm (1961)
- One-Dimensional Man - Herbert Marcuse (1964)
- For Marx - (1965)
- Reading Capital (1968)
- Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (1970)
- Essays in Self-Criticism (1974)
- Philosophy of the Encounter: Later Writings (1978-1987)
- Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value - Isaak Illich Rubin (1924)
- Pedagogy of the Oppressed - Paulo Freire (1968)
- The Limits of Capital - David Harvey (1982)
- The Condition of Postmodernity - David Harvey (1989)
- The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation - Jacques Rancière (1991)
- Postmodernism Or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism - Frederic Jameson (1991)
- The Production of Space - Henri Lefebvre (1991)
- Ideology: An Introduction - Terry Eagleton (1991)
- Labor Of Dionysus: A Critique of the State-Form Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri (1994)
- The Illusions of Postmodernism - Terry Eagleton (1996)
- Empire - Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri (2000)
- Ten Theses on Politics - Jacques Rancière (2001)
- Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography - David Harvey (2001)
- The New Imperialism - David Harvey (2003)
- Metapolitics - Alain Badiou (2005)
- A Critical Reader - David Harvey (2006)
- The Enigma of Capital - David Harvey (2010)
- A Companion to Marx’s Capital - David Harvey (2010)
- The Making of Indebted Man - Maurizio Lazzarato (2011)
- Althusser’s Lesson - Jacques Rancière (2011)
- Rebel Cities from the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution - David Harvey (2012)
"I think that what’s important now is to mobilize hysteria as a quasi-revolutionary force. Hélène Cixous insists it is an inherently revolutionary power: it intervenes, breaks up continuities, produces gaps and creates horror—refusing conformity with what is. Feminism could benefit from an affirmation of hysteria; hysteria as a response to what is unacceptable and intolerable in life… as a response to emergency.”
Q:Hello brother in islam .. I will give u an advice that will help u to be in jannah♥ After every prayer say ayat el kursi in sorat el baqra ♥ our prophet mohhamad said that ♥ Sorry my english Is not that good :(
As salaamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu. Jazak’Allah kheir wa rahma. ^_^
The cyborg is resolutely committed to partiality, irony, intimacy, and perversity. It is oppositional, utopian, and completely without innocence. No longer structured by the polarity of public and private, the cyborg defines a technological polls based partly on a revolution of social relations in the oikos, the household. Nature and culture are reworked; the one can no longer be the resource for appropriation or incorporation by the other. The relationships for forming wholes from parts, including those of polarity and hierarchical domination, are at issue in the cyborg world. Unlike the hopes of Frankenstein’s monster, the cyborg does not expect its father to save it through a restoration of the garden; that is, through the fabrication of a heterosexual mate, through its completion in a finished whole, a city and cosmos. The cyborg does not dream of community on the model of the organic family, this time without the oedipal project. The cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden; it is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust. Perhaps that is why I want to see if cyborgs can subvert the apocalypse of returning to nuclear dust in the manic compulsion to name the Enemy. Cyborgs are not reverent; they do not re-member the cosmos. They are wary of holism, but needy for connection- they seem to have a natural feel for united front politics, but without the vanguard party. The main trouble with cyborgs, of course, is that they are the illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism, not to mention state socialism. But illegitimate offspring are often exceedingly unfaithful to their origins. Their fathers, after all, are inessential.