trot [he/him]

Mao, being a true adherent of Socialism in One Country, knew: there can only be one.

In contrast, I love Maoists and MLs so much, they never ever ever ever fail at any of the above.

the new user has sent a nonsense, probably accidental report on a post! All gather in the town square for the public execution

Because unlike the dumb trots, MLs and MLMs definitely always have the correct party line on everything, especially the less members they have and the more generally obscure they are, am I right?

In fact, this is why you can just choose any ML or MLM party you want, no matter how small, and engage with just that one party’s line, because they are actually all equally correct! For example, let’s say the Italian PMLI, who… support sending weapons to Ukraine?

Uh-oh, not a good look for the Stalinists!

For context - Trotsky’s own position on the Sino-Japanese War was far more reasonable:

We do not and never have put all wars on the same plane. Marx and Engels supported the revolutionary struggle of the Irish against Great Britain, of the Poles against the tsar, even though in these two nationalist wars the leaders were, for the most part, members of the bourgeoisie and even at times of the feudal aristocracy…In the Far East we have a classic example. China is a semicolonial country which Japan is transforming, under our very eyes, into a colonial country. Japan’s struggle is imperialist and reactionary. China’s struggle is emancipatory and progressive…

But Chiang Kai-shek? We need have no illusions about Chiang Kai-shek, his party, or the whole ruling class of China, just as Marx and Engels had no illusions about the ruling classes of Ireland and Poland. Chiang Kai-shek is the executioner of the Chinese workers and peasants. But today he is forced, despite himself, to struggle against Japan for the remainder of the independence of China. Tomorrow he may again betray. It is possible. It is probable. It is even inevitable. But today he is struggling…

But can Chiang Kai-shek assure the victory? I do not believe so. It is he, however, who began the war and who today directs it. To be able to replace him it is necessary to gain decisive influence among the proletariat and in the army, and to do this it is necessary not to remain suspended in the air but to place oneself in the midst of the struggle. We must win influence and prestige in the military struggle against the foreign invasion and in the political struggle against the weaknesses, the deficiencies, and the internal betrayal."

(Leon Trotsky, On the Sino-Japanese War, 1937)

Note the conclusion of “We must win influence and prestige in the military struggle against the foreign invasion and the political struggle against the weaknesses, the deficiencies, and the internal betrayal” - even if skeptical in the KMT being a reliable ally, completely the opposite of “never collaborating with the bourgeois KMT government”, and definitely not advocating for taking up arms against the KMT yet.

So, why did the Chinese Trotskyists have a different, incorrect position? Because they were already getting violently purged for years with the help of the KMT out of reasons initially completely unrelated to the Sino-Japanese war. They were already a fringe, beheaded tendency in China, their leaders imprisoned or dead, which is why their positions deformed in this way, and not because they were dirty Trots who just want defeat for all communism. But they sure did make a convenient bogeyman nevertheless.

half of Russian communists do too, guess the Western propaganda got them as well

when the cat sells you a newspaper

quit job as gulag supervisor to become pit supervisor

first day on the job, go down to the pit

it’s a gulag

They did quite well in WW1.

Speaking of that, was the Entente was completely justified in sending millions to die in the war? After all, previously you said:

I’m sorry, but when it involves one imperialist bloc invading a smaller country, then it does matter.

Not even one, but two smaller countries! Think of little Belgium and Serbia!

No, just as it would be unable to resist NATO in being turned into a far-right paramilitary-led banana republic if Russia were to suddenly withdraw without any decrease in NATO involvement.

But the beauty of the neat little trick above is that if the working classes of both sides correctly oppose their respective ruling classes’ interests, we can end up with a scenario where both sides lose - objectively the best outcome for the Ukrainian people, as well as everyone else.

The Russian anti-war activists are clearly holding up their end of the bargain. Why are you not holding up yours?

I literally said that

Russian anti-war activists have a correct position.

Are you aware that it’s possible to want neither NATO tanks nor Russian tanks in Ukraine?

You can even make sure you are consistent with both things in action 100% of the time - it’s a neat little trick called “opposing the position of your own government”.

Russian pacifists want Russia to stop invading Ukraine.

Western “pacifists” want to send NATO tanks to Ukraine.

They are not the same.

Russian anti-war activists have a correct position.

But an important consideration should be whether one’s actions actually contribute to Russia withdrawing sooner, or if they instead help justify further, equally self-interested NATO involvement in the war.

Unless you are Russian, it’s most likely the latter.

There are two imperialist blocs involved in the conflict, and it doesn’t matter which one of them technically started it.