All currency is flawed as it has no value. We have at present a State of Global Currency Slavery that will soon end. No communst country can exist with currency and still call itself Communist. Soon there will be no more banks or currency of any kind. The next Global Economy will be based entirely upon Human Labour as that has always and will always have value. An electronic Universal Human Labour Value system will replace all currency and along with this will be the end of all personal wealth.
The audio is terrible here, so much so that it makes it almost impossible to listen to. The speaker can barely be made out at times, he sounds like he's talking into a tin-can, while the baby in the audience can be heard loud and clear above everything throughout the talk. It's really annoying and I was only to make out about half of what was said.
Thanks 4 posting this video. I think Stalinists do not stand well in this argument coz of the killing of the original members of the party. Secondly, stalin, ho chin, mao pretty much discouraged socialism by the horrors carried out in their regime. It is easy for capitalists to outlaw the majority of people as they can find many other to replace the slaves, hence it is important for revolution to be carried out where there is highest concentration of capital. Read Marx & Engels is very Important
@kaushiksaysHi kaushik. It's really not true to say that "all the original members of the party were killed". How did the Soviet union survive if this was so? Over a period of time the social composition of any group will change. As the revolution developed, groups were attracted to it, and other individuals left / were jettisoned. Very few "were killed". And only those who in conditions of class war went over to active opposition and criminal activity. This is well documented.
Thanks for clearing it out, I would read more about it. However I wanted to ask if it is possible to reconcile between leninism and trotskyism ? Finally we need to move forward and objectively weigh pro's and cons of each, both of whom I would say may not be infallible i.e just humans with great intentions. Again thanks for making this video.
@kaushiksays places with higher councentration of capital also have the most bourgeoisified workers so it's a safe bet there will be no clamouring for Revolution in the countries you speak of.
@ComradeFlorian31 Lenin himself believed that if a revolution had to happen it must happen in the cities. Also it's a marxist principle as in "The origin of family....state" chapter "Rise of the athenian state". There would be major class differences at places of highest concentration of capital. I also thought the same initially but I understood better after studying various peasant movements...heck today whole of countries are being raided by the imperialist looters.
@ComradeFlorian31 Well well, the opposite argument to Trotskyism, but the same bottom line: "There can be no revolution"! Time will tell, comrade, time will tell. But for these incitements to apathy, History will NOT absolve you!
@ProletarianCPGBML so how do you think a Revolution can start in for example Great Britain before it starts in Nepal? This is nonsense, British workers are mostly bourgeoisified, their standard of living has skyrocketed in the past 100 years at the expense of Third World workers ie real proletarians. The most revolutionary thing you can do in Britain today is donate to Third World revolutionary movements, whether Maoist as in Nepal or even Islamist
Not to mention Nazi spies were said to have joined the party to infiltrate it, and Hoxha pointed out that Stalin was not the only one to do the purging, Khrushchev, and other party members were quite purge happy.
@AtheismCentral And there really isn't a lot of evidence that Stalin was directly responsible for much of the repression in the 1930s. Rather, most of the repression was committed by over-eager First Secretaries, with the assistance of corrupt NKVD officials like Ezhov, many of whom were later tried (under Stalin) for their actions. The purges are undeniable, but there is some compelling evidence that conspiracies actually were underway. Read Khruschev Lied by Dr. Grover Furr
Not to mention Nazi spies were said to have joined the party to infiltrate it, and Hoxha pointed out that Stalin was not the only one to do the purging, Khrushchev, and other party members were quite purge happy.
Just assertions, truthslap. "Designated Trotsky as his successor" ? You are dealing with myths while this presentation cites facts. Lenin did not "designate" "successors", the Communist Party elects its leaders and Trotsky did not have support in the Bolshevik party, of which he was not a long time member, either for his personality and especially not for his policies. Hence, he was badly outvoted and over many years of debates became a marginal and sad figure.
Lenin would not have marched along side, praised and promoted, and designated Trotsky as his successor if Trotsky were not Leninist. without Trotsky there would have been no oct. revolution, and there could have been no Bolshevik victory. you Stalinists go too far with your accusations and it makes you look like fools.
@truthslap Trotsky would go on colliding with Lenin even after the October Revolution in which he allegedly played a decisive role. Look up Brest Litovsk talks in early 1918, the Trade-Union debate of 1920 in which he openly called for militarization of labour etc. His opposition to Socialism In One Country also hurt the World Revolution since Trotskyism, as opposed to Stalinism, never managed to spread any Revolution beyond USSR's borders
@ComradeFlorian31 allegedly played a decisive role? where would the oct revolution have gone without his organization and stewardship of the red army? no red army, no victory in petrograd. you are quite right about trotsky's supporting militarization of labor, but compulsory labor was a reality of development which nobody exploited worse than Stalin, and weren't the trade unions already subordinated to the state anyway? also, why would the Stalinists oppose that?
The people in this video reject Marxism and Leninism and support idiotic cult of personalities and murder of communists.
Why did Lenin appoint Trotsky head of the red army?
MrReco12 2 weeks ago
@MrReco12 this is answered in the next video
bobagopaa 1 week ago
Has the sound been removed?
Gronken85 3 weeks ago
@Gronken85 No... perhaps you are listening with the "mute" button switched on??
ProletarianCPGBML 2 weeks ago
No Marxism without Engels, No Marxism-Leninism without Stalin. Glory to Stalin who showed the people how to achieve socialism on their own.
AnarchoCommunist1 3 weeks ago
Of course Marxism-Leninism! I'm a follower of Marx, Engels, Lenin AND Stalin, Trotzky was a fool!
marxleninstalin 3 weeks ago
Leninism.... no contest!
matteopisa100 3 weeks ago
All currency is flawed as it has no value. We have at present a State of Global Currency Slavery that will soon end. No communst country can exist with currency and still call itself Communist. Soon there will be no more banks or currency of any kind. The next Global Economy will be based entirely upon Human Labour as that has always and will always have value. An electronic Universal Human Labour Value system will replace all currency and along with this will be the end of all personal wealth.
ViamundtheRake 4 weeks ago
@ViamundtheRake But it won't be because certain things will still be deemed to be valuable.
theredraven 3 weeks ago
Trotskyism is a proven revisionism and treachery and also Trotskyists have nothing to do with Marxism/Leninism!
1917NATURETV2017 1 month ago
At 43:00, Yeltsin was trash!
dallaskenn 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The audio is terrible here, so much so that it makes it almost impossible to listen to. The speaker can barely be made out at times, he sounds like he's talking into a tin-can, while the baby in the audience can be heard loud and clear above everything throughout the talk. It's really annoying and I was only to make out about half of what was said.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
Thanks 4 posting this video. I think Stalinists do not stand well in this argument coz of the killing of the original members of the party. Secondly, stalin, ho chin, mao pretty much discouraged socialism by the horrors carried out in their regime. It is easy for capitalists to outlaw the majority of people as they can find many other to replace the slaves, hence it is important for revolution to be carried out where there is highest concentration of capital. Read Marx & Engels is very Important
kaushiksays 1 month ago
@kaushiksaysHi kaushik. It's really not true to say that "all the original members of the party were killed". How did the Soviet union survive if this was so? Over a period of time the social composition of any group will change. As the revolution developed, groups were attracted to it, and other individuals left / were jettisoned. Very few "were killed". And only those who in conditions of class war went over to active opposition and criminal activity. This is well documented.
ProletarianCPGBML 1 month ago 8
Thanks for clearing it out, I would read more about it. However I wanted to ask if it is possible to reconcile between leninism and trotskyism ? Finally we need to move forward and objectively weigh pro's and cons of each, both of whom I would say may not be infallible i.e just humans with great intentions. Again thanks for making this video.
kaushiksays 1 month ago
@kaushiksays places with higher councentration of capital also have the most bourgeoisified workers so it's a safe bet there will be no clamouring for Revolution in the countries you speak of.
ComradeFlorian31 1 month ago
@ComradeFlorian31 Lenin himself believed that if a revolution had to happen it must happen in the cities. Also it's a marxist principle as in "The origin of family....state" chapter "Rise of the athenian state". There would be major class differences at places of highest concentration of capital. I also thought the same initially but I understood better after studying various peasant movements...heck today whole of countries are being raided by the imperialist looters.
kaushiksays 1 month ago
@ComradeFlorian31 Well well, the opposite argument to Trotskyism, but the same bottom line: "There can be no revolution"! Time will tell, comrade, time will tell. But for these incitements to apathy, History will NOT absolve you!
ProletarianCPGBML 3 weeks ago
@ProletarianCPGBML so how do you think a Revolution can start in for example Great Britain before it starts in Nepal? This is nonsense, British workers are mostly bourgeoisified, their standard of living has skyrocketed in the past 100 years at the expense of Third World workers ie real proletarians. The most revolutionary thing you can do in Britain today is donate to Third World revolutionary movements, whether Maoist as in Nepal or even Islamist
ComradeFlorian31 3 weeks ago
@kaushiksays
Not to mention Nazi spies were said to have joined the party to infiltrate it, and Hoxha pointed out that Stalin was not the only one to do the purging, Khrushchev, and other party members were quite purge happy.
AtheismCentral 3 weeks ago
@AtheismCentral And there really isn't a lot of evidence that Stalin was directly responsible for much of the repression in the 1930s. Rather, most of the repression was committed by over-eager First Secretaries, with the assistance of corrupt NKVD officials like Ezhov, many of whom were later tried (under Stalin) for their actions. The purges are undeniable, but there is some compelling evidence that conspiracies actually were underway. Read Khruschev Lied by Dr. Grover Furr
MisanthropicMarxist 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kaushiksays
Not to mention Nazi spies were said to have joined the party to infiltrate it, and Hoxha pointed out that Stalin was not the only one to do the purging, Khrushchev, and other party members were quite purge happy.
AtheismCentral 3 weeks ago
You botched up the sound. It's a pity coz I'm very interested in this topic ;)...
r0ll0t0masi 1 month ago
By the way, thank you for another excellent presentation! I hope the Q and A session will also be uploaded.
anondrogys 1 month ago
Just assertions, truthslap. "Designated Trotsky as his successor" ? You are dealing with myths while this presentation cites facts. Lenin did not "designate" "successors", the Communist Party elects its leaders and Trotsky did not have support in the Bolshevik party, of which he was not a long time member, either for his personality and especially not for his policies. Hence, he was badly outvoted and over many years of debates became a marginal and sad figure.
anondrogys 1 month ago
Lenin would not have marched along side, praised and promoted, and designated Trotsky as his successor if Trotsky were not Leninist. without Trotsky there would have been no oct. revolution, and there could have been no Bolshevik victory. you Stalinists go too far with your accusations and it makes you look like fools.
truthslap 1 month ago
@truthslap Trotsky would go on colliding with Lenin even after the October Revolution in which he allegedly played a decisive role. Look up Brest Litovsk talks in early 1918, the Trade-Union debate of 1920 in which he openly called for militarization of labour etc. His opposition to Socialism In One Country also hurt the World Revolution since Trotskyism, as opposed to Stalinism, never managed to spread any Revolution beyond USSR's borders
ComradeFlorian31 1 month ago
@ComradeFlorian31 allegedly played a decisive role? where would the oct revolution have gone without his organization and stewardship of the red army? no red army, no victory in petrograd. you are quite right about trotsky's supporting militarization of labor, but compulsory labor was a reality of development which nobody exploited worse than Stalin, and weren't the trade unions already subordinated to the state anyway? also, why would the Stalinists oppose that?
truthslap 1 month ago
@truthslap
I have to agree.
MrReco12 2 weeks ago 2
fuck trotsky, long live communism
KGBsovietpride 1 month ago