Has he been vindicated by history?
>>18419441Stalin was the realist while Trotsky was the idealist. Stalin understood that the policies the State uses are a means to sustain it's organization model rather then it being ideological. This is the case because States (as organizations existing in material reality) need to perform certain actions to exist. If it doesn't or can't perform these means; the State would dissolve. So, the rationale behind the State's policies are a cost benefit analysis on the maintenance of it's organization to stay operational. A policy which isn't organizationally required wouldn't be enacted since it would be a waste of resources and would have the organization compromised. Stalin understood that the Economic, Social and Foreign policy that Trotsky wanted to implement would have destroyed the USSR. And another batch of elites would've taken the State apparatus over and benefited.
STALIN, TROTSKY: BOTH, COMMUNISTIC INFRAHUMAN SCUM.
>>18419445زنجي
>>18419450meant for>>18419445
Whether Leon Trotsky's position was vindicated by history remains a matter of debate, but to answer frankly, in many ways, yes, his predictions and warnings proved remarkably accurate. Trotsky criticized
>>18419445>they don't actually want the state to wither awaymask status: slipping!
>>18419441Imagine the Kino if it was arch Noticer Hitler himself vs a literal international jewish bolshevik Bronstein.instead we got Hitler vs like Supermario slung res by mutt and drunk.
>>18420787>international Jewish Bolshevik TrotskyTrotsky actually changed his tune later in life when he saw the state of the USSR and realized ‘perpetual revolution’ was a fantasy. He decided that anti-western, strongman Fascist dictatorships were the best form of government to support against Imperialism rather than hoping and wishing for a perpetual revolution which would never come.> In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!-Leon Trotsky, Interview with Mateo Fossa, 1938
>>18420787Trotskyites are unironically Nazi and Mussolini/ Franco fascist aligned. They viewed USSR as a “deformed worker’s state” and opposed British and US imperialism while hoping for outright Fascist dictators in Latin America to destroy them. Trotsky and Hitler should have just been friends instead of fighting.
