liberals comparing trump to hitler sounds like some weird holocaust denial to me, or am i wrong for thinking that?

No I don’t think it’s Holocaust denial but it is pretty stupid

it’s just libs being libs over exaggerating and doing nothing about but some symbolic action to make it look like they actually taking measures against it

its funny that they'd do that and not organize armed resistance

he idolizes hitler fr his ex wife said he kept mein kampf by the bedside

but that being said US government overall don’t really care that much about combatting white supremacists, they elect one pretty much everytime

How do you respond to people who say “in socialism you get paid the same so there’s no incentives to be a doctor or a physician everyone will just want to be a taxi driver”

You’re paid in the same totality for your work, not “you’re paid the same as everyone else” in terms of sheer income. And even then, basic amenities (work, school, utilities, shelter, infrastructure, social services) are provided to each person so a lower income doesn’t mean a lower standard of living

Implying trump can read

there are incentives to do whatever needs to be done whether thats a construction worker lawyer doctor or taxi driver.

Cuba has more doctors per capita than any other country in the world.

and the only reason the pay is so high for doctors is because doctors are a monopolized resource in the US becuz people NEED to have healthcare in order to LIVE, which means it's a great resource for greedy capitalists to monopolize.

They have a point you can’t achieve full communism in a place surrounded by capitalist countries because unless you’re infinitely more powerful than capitalist countries you’re at constant risk of sabotage, invasion or containment

Stalin’s policy of socialism in one country was new at the time when marxists wanted worldwide socialism but it doesn’t mean the ussr was against worldwide revolution, it meant they would stop actively supporting revolutions abroad to focus on developing socialism in their own country, probably when they realized europe revolutions were not leading to anything

good point there

Never read any academic historians full books on USSR tbh so I wouldn't know.

But I know J. Arch Getty is actually taken serious nowadays among historians in academia as opposed to Robert Conquest.

For example J. Arch Getty rejects the notion of the USSR being a totalitarian state and doesn't consider the "holodomor" to be intentional and thus not a genocide (most other mainstream Soviet historians share this view btw).

Michael Parenti cited him a bunch in Blackshirts & Reds.

Just liberal hysteria.

It's pretty funny because Trump is LITTERALLY Hitler, but they don't do s*** to actually fight his actual policies. In fact Biden is doing a pretty good job carrying on his legacy

Imo socialism in one country vs permanent revot is just a question of pragmatism. Like yeah spreading revolution is in itself not something anybody should be opposed to, but maybe that's not such a good idea when the country just had their own revolution and is still recovering from a devastating civil war.

I don't think it's really that significant of a disagreement on a theoretical level to create an entirely seperate Marxist tendency, Trotskyism is just useless leftist infighting.

Like Cuba had significant disagreements with the USSR too when it came to spreading revolution but mfs don't walk around calling themselves "Castroites" lmao...

yeah that’s how i interpreted as well what should the ussr focus on at that time period, and most trots group and “stalinist” groups tend to have the same line on like everything now a days.

Though i don’t think the Castro comparison is adequate did Castro attempt at any theoretical developments like Stalin or Trotsky other than Focoism.

I hate the tendency of leftists to hold on to grudges of the past and divide themselves on past historical events.

Like how tf is the debate on socialism in one country vs permanent revolution in any way even relevant to current organizing lmao.

The fixation on things like that just shows how unsuccessful leftist organizing has been sadly, because who would even be talking about permanent revolution if we had those same pressing questions with regards to our organizing and wielding of political power today.

Eh it depends on the line tbh.

The permanent revolution and socialism in one country I do agree with being one of the useless one but that doesnt mean we shouldn't struggle with each other to find the correct lines.

Just like a communist group of 7 splitting isn't gonna make a difference whether they stayed together or split, same thing with a group of 4 and 3 communist putting away their differences and joining together.

Some lines are worth struggling over and splitting like the strategy of focoism (small group of guerrillas inspiring the people to join them) or PPW (building the mass base first then conducting the fighting) is gonna be the difference between winning or losing a revolution.

Yeah I agree that it depends on the line, not all disagreements are insignificant. But even when it comes to foco and PPW, in the present moment we're far from the stage where those differences are even really all that relevant in organizing in any practical. I don't really see the use in dividing over methods of achieving class power when there isn't even really any class consciousness in the first place.

People aren't gonna understand or be interested in debates about PPW vs foco when they're not even yet on board with revolution in the first place.

Yeah that example isn't the best for the current situation I guess elections are better are example, if a communist party should participate or not.

You can argue that communist party should participate for the increased exposure at the risk of being an easier infiltration for any secret agency compared to a clandestine party.

In my country the CPC (communist party of canada) despite its long history hasn't done s***, I dont think they even get the extra exposure that you should get from participating in elections (not being invited to debates, or any time on the news), at all the risk of having an increased chance of being infiltrated. Also only seem to be active during election times and dont even organise in the poor neighbourhoods like mine but upper middle neighbourhoods. At some point whether it be the election line or another line I wouldn't blame a split from happening cause what does unity for the sake of unity do when all ur lines are wrong. After all ur actions are determined by what ur line is, and having an incorrect line will be detrimental no matter how big or small u are.

Having lines about focoism or ppw or if a cultural revolution is still important we can just say we'll think about them later, and just delay it till u need to have a line about it. If u can't get unity when that questions becomes a need cause u delayed it for so long, ur gonna get f***ed, of course most masses aren't gonna care but they are still important questions.

Yeah I agree, elections have actual practical implications for organizing and isn't just a hypothetical or historical question like other things (although I don't think the reason for those failures of the CPC is their stance of electoralism).

And yeah it is good to have a line on things even before they're practically relevant, but you can have different factions in a party, until of course those differences become irreconcilable

Pushin P (Proletariat organization)

Obama's legacy

Crine

And yet the earth rotates another day