The great purge was in many ways a tragedy and a great crime, both for the loss of life involved but also for the loss of talent within the soviet political and bureaucratic sphere. That said I have a hard time crying many tears for the old bolsheviks who were so willing to go along with power plays, purges and clique/factionalism bullshit but then ended up on the wrong end of it themselves.
it was perceived as such a fuck up critics of stalin started airing the rumor he’d lost on purpose. It’s simply fact that it was a stain on his reputation and one he cared about.
As for your wish for clarification. One of Trotsky’s biggest problem with Trotskyites was first campism or calls for supporting the enemies of the USSR.
Here he goes in against the trotskyist accusations of bureaucratic collectivism against the USSR and argues for support of the USSR against its political and military enemies: (Theres actually a bunch of this. This is just very succinct) https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/11/ussr.htm
Here is his statement on the huac thing: https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/12/dies2.html He argues that banning “extremist” groups is stupid because the state never actually goes against fascists and power is always deployed against the working class (And also because he believes it lends the commubist party of america credibility it does not have). And while he has numerous critiques (Many unfair) of the soviet union he argues both against banning the communist party and against kicking "stalinist " out of socialist organizations and trade unions
No. We are not in agreement. Trotsky did not need to be agitating for the overthrow of the soviet union to be a threat. Trotsky was not an effective political organiser in exile, he spent the majority of his time seething at Stalin and when he wasn’t doing that he was seething at Trotskyists for disliking Stalin the wrong way. Trotsky needed to exist as a symbol of an alternative to Stalin to be a threat. It doesn’t matter if he “mogged him” (Although Trotskys role as a revolutionary hero and Stalin’s failure in Poland during the civil war was a tool used by the opposition to him until ww2) or what kind of person Trotsky actually was, but as long as he was around there would always he a lingering “what if” question. It is the same reason why Stalin’s official second in command was never a strong political contender.
And as a I said, I think his “Wrecking”, “Willingness to work with rightists” et al. wasn’t the point of why he had to go. He had to go because he had the potential of destablising the soviet union, not because he was a dipshit who said stupid shit. Trotsky could have toed the line utterly once he had gone into exile and he would still have needed to go.
I don’t actually think Stalin disliked them as much on a personal level as he did Trotsky. His sidelining of Kamanev and Zinoviev was a power play and a consolidation of power but until the Ryutin affair it doesn’t seem like he wanted to do much more than marginalize them as political rivals
I am not going to get into a debate on trotsky’s merits, because what I wanted to point out was that his merits or lack of same weren’t and aren’t the point. Trotsky had to go because of what he he was and the potential damage that could cause to the soviet union, not because his beliefs were wrong or because he said stupid shit. Plenty of people said stupid shit and plenty of people had dumb beliefs. He had to go because he was perceived to be a threat to the stability of the state.
Trotsky is a horrible example. The policies for which he was condemned were for being on the left side of the party and advocating positions that would later be adopted by Stalin. His biggest falling out with the rest of the party was the trade union debate, and Stalin copied his homework on that one 100%.
The issue with Trotsky was personal, and that he would always exist as a possible rallying figure for opposition, not that he was insufficiently revolutionary or did not follow the party program. And trying to turn him into a fascist figure or a fascist supporting figure is honestly cope trying to pretend Stalinist wasn’t a pragmatist but did things purely out of ideological purity, which is absurd.
Edit: Stalin killed trotsky because he perceived trotsky as a threat to the soviet union, a view that was in part informed by personal distaste but also massively informed by the fact that he was seen as valid counter figure for any communist opposition to Stalin, not because one of the guys who helped arranged his transport was a White or because he held a talk in front of social democrats or that he told the American government that even if he didn’t like stalin the soviet union was still better than capitalism, because if that was his motivation Stalin would have been a fucking idiot.
Stalin: Trotsky
Soviet nostalgia and ostalgie are both popular with people who could be nostalgic for that era, which is people who were at least young adults more than 30 years ago. This is a demographic that the European right has very much bought off. It’s something to play on, but it’s not something you rely on.
Nice argument. However I’ve already depicted you as the seething Jordan Peterson and me as the smug Piers Morgan
Oregon WILL be deeply red 
They sold out to Disney, they can’t be comrades
It would be cool to see some anti colonialist solidarity in the region again. Although it being theoretically aligned and spearheaded by an organisation created in part to destroy anti colonialist unity is iffy.
Yeah. I mean 
but I think this post is vastly overestimating how many people follow the WHO’s advice on anything, let alone basic hygiene.
Edit: Actual Americans are giving advice, so actually the stuff I’ve heard on a law podcast might not be as useful.
Yes you can. Not believing yourself is a form of liberalism
No you didn’t and saying you did is revisionism.
I’m waiting for this to get bigger so I can see what the contrarian opinion would be, so I can take that and fan the struggle We need this, we are having withdrawals.
Oh you should totally start a NEW struggle session in another thread. I’m totally up for that.
Np. It’s worth reading trotsky as a marxist leninist imho, even if you don’t agree with him and even if you will probably come away with a quite poor view of the man, just for all his arguments against trots.