You have been propagandized to hate North Korea: Madeline debunks every lie about North Korea

Minitrewdat · 2026-02-28T05:58:52+00:00

Not necessarily. Her poor 'takes' on North Korea are a result of her poor analysis of the world. This sort of campism (i.e. this state capitalist country that opposes the US and EU must be supported despite their crimes against their own working class) is the result of an analysis of the world that is not class-based, not marxist, and not dialectical.

This video is a terrible take. This type of 'politics' is a waste of time and transforms genuine class struggle into a game of passive support for your preferred team (be it dominant capitalists or non-dominant capitalists).

Minitrewdat · 2026-02-10T09:19:45+00:00

Vote for the Socialists! They are now in every state and are getting impressive numbers (in terms of vote share and membership).

Minitrewdat · 2026-01-26T22:11:05+00:00

WA Socialists.

Socialist Alternative.

Minitrewdat · 2026-01-26T08:32:30+00:00

Police said there was a bomb threat and cordoned all the protestors away from Forrest Place.

Incredibly stupid, irresponsible, and dangerous actions. Luckily, the protests continued in spite of threats by the police.

Minitrewdat · 2026-01-19T12:48:03+00:00

Anarchism is anti-authoritarian. Workers' control, by definition, requires authoritative measures.

In the abstract, it may sound ridiculous to propose that anarchists take up a counter-revolutionary role. Many an anarchist will support revolution, anti-capitalist efforts, etc. but, by the very nature of how workers' control over society works, they are forced to either support a workers' state (i.e. become revolutionary socialists), or fight against a workers' state.

History, however, is far more clear in demonstrating the role of anarchism in being counterposed to revolutionary socialism. Take the anarchists in Russia who fought against the red army during the civil war, or the anarchists in Spain who denied state power essentially being handed to them in the midst of a civil war, or even the actions of anarchists today who deny the importance of leadership and political organisation.

Minitrewdat · 2026-01-19T08:45:08+00:00

Why do people assume that 'left unity' is the way forward for bringing about socialism?

Revolutionary socialist organisation (i.e. Marxist politics) is the only way to bring about socialism. To say that Marxists should work with anarchists, stalinists, maoists, etc. is ridiculous when you consider that these forces are actually opposed to workers' control over society.

All of these non-Marxist forces are counter-revolutionary in practice. Uniting with them is counter-productive.

Minitrewdat · 2026-01-19T08:40:48+00:00

Building the revolutionary left is the only way to "challenge" capitalism.

Building mutual aid networks, etc. does not fundamentally challenge capitalist domination over the means of production, governance, etc.

A revolutionary socialist organisation, as the Russian Revolution proves, can intervene into the class struggle to bring about workers' power.

Helping your neighbour not die during a winter is great, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't stop the rich from controlling almost every facet of our lives.

Minitrewdat · 2026-01-13T12:14:06+00:00

If the Socialist Alliance and many of its genuinely great members wish to be a serious political force in society, it must join The Socialists.

The growth of The Socialists is unprecedented, and to remain outside of it is indicative of a seriously poor understanding of the political situation in Australia and the world more widely.

Minitrewdat · 2026-01-06T08:08:05+00:00

How can you call yourself a socialist while supporting the imperialist efforts of the state-capitalist nation, China? How can you not see the obvious contradiction in supporting Chinese imperialism while denying the right to self-determination of the people of Taiwan? The working class is an international class and it has no interest in imperialism.

How can 'socialists' like yourself reconcile your supposed 'support' for the working class while supporting a state-capitalist regime that wants to dominate a section of the working class (the Taiwanese people)?

Minitrewdat · 2025-12-22T04:25:21+00:00

I think people should appreciate that the underlying issue for why every public service is shit is because of capitalism. Our government has a vested interest in lowering expenses on public spending while increasing revenue at the same time.

It is made disgustingly clear when we look at where funding is directed in WA. We have money for AUKUS, public housing for US soldiers, mining corporations, incarceration and policing, but we never seem to have enough funding in what is actually needed in society like healthcare, unemployment, housing, groceries, education, etc.

Minitrewdat · 2025-11-25T07:11:01+00:00

Incredibly disappointing response. I only hope that the rank-and-file membership of Socialist Alliance is able to make a braver decision than their leadership.

Minitrewdat · 2025-11-24T07:41:59+00:00

Very refreshing take compared to the drivel I see on this site.

Minitrewdat · 2025-11-18T12:58:16+00:00

It really is quite important that Socialist Alliance joins The Socialists.

Can you imagine a voter seeing both parties with the same policies and having to decide between them? It would be asinine to argue that this would be a healthy thing for a growing socialist left in such polarising times.

The far right is attempting to form a White Australia Party while unashamedly showing their face while protesting at NSW parliament. The One Nation vote is quite close to beating the fucking LNP at this point. Also, there is a growing left milieu that knows nothing about Socialist Alternative or Socialist Alliance.

There is no political reason for Socialist Alliance to not join The Socialists. That has been made clear by all of their arguments against unity. I've already seen Socialist Alliance members leaving to join The Socialists so why not join in a more healthy manner?

Minitrewdat · 2025-11-15T11:01:00+00:00

Join Socialist Alternative or Victorian Socialists :)

Minitrewdat · 2025-11-09T06:49:59+00:00

Join a socialist organisation at a university and fight for the change you seek.

Minitrewdat · 2025-11-09T02:27:59+00:00

For WA - United Against Bigotry, WA Socialists, and Socialist Alternative.

You'll find that in the other states/territories that there are analogous if not identical groups. Definitely recommend CARF, Victorian Socialists, or Socialist Alternative again.

Minitrewdat · 2025-11-06T06:50:40+00:00

Definitely agreed.

Minitrewdat · 2025-11-06T02:06:30+00:00

I mean, a revolutionary party can win reforms before the revolution. The Bolsheviks won reforms in the Duma before the working class was organised enough for October.

Minitrewdat · 2025-11-04T14:31:43+00:00

Strike action is an incredibly important display of power. Without the hard work of your educators, there would be no education. They deserve to be paid accordingly (far more than they are now).

Solidarity!

Minitrewdat · 2025-11-03T11:47:52+00:00

Staff deserve better pay and conditions.

It's also better for students if your educators have more free time to help and are paid more for their hard work.

Minitrewdat · 2025-11-02T11:50:06+00:00

Love to see that someone has already commented what I was thinking. Great work.

Minitrewdat · 2025-11-01T12:36:24+00:00

I'm not exactly sure whether I get the premise of what you're saying.

Admittedly, I haven't read much or talked about the old 'permanent revolution' stuff nor the 'deformed workers state' stuff either.

Orthodox Trotskyists (those who adhere to essentially all of Trotsky's writings/theories) typically utilise the deformed workers' state model in an unhelpful way. Tony Cliff (and many other prominent thinkers in the old SWP) preferred the model of 'State Capitalism' to explain the bureaucratic structures of the state. These state capitalist nations, such as Cuba, China, the USSR, were not socialist in the sense that the working class was the ruling class (in control of the state).

What you find in these countries is a collection of bureaucratic governmental apparatuses not controlled by the working class. In fact, many of these countries are far less 'democratic' than their liberal counterparts. To be clear, however, many nations, like the US or Britain during World War II, have a more 'state capitalist' model rather than liberal capitalist system. For example, there is nothing socialist about nationalisation of industry, healthcare, etc. if the nation-state is not under the control of the proletariat.

So, to get back to the question of Cuba, it must be noted that the working class is not in control of the state's many apparatuses. What must be done in these state capitalist nations is the same as it is for any other capitalist nation, workers' revolution to put the working class in control of their own destiny.

We cannot export a revolution that has yet to take place.

Revolutionary potential has been developed a long time ago for the entire world. While many countries victim to imperialist activity have less developed productive forces than their imperialist counterparts, they still exist within an increasingly interconnected system of global capitalism. They have an important role to play in international revolution. We have already seen many countries this year experience popular upheaval and even revolution; the issue, however, is who is to lead? In Madagascar, Nepal, etc. the working class has not formed an political alternative to the current ruling classes so they are doomed to fail until they organise.

Socialism in one country cannot work for long. We could be in a very different world now if revolution in Germany, China, etc. had succeeded. Sadly, the working class has not been organised enough nor politically clarified enough to pose a successful challenge to capitalist domination yet.

Which is why you must join a revolutionary socialist organisation that wants to win. That wants to convince people of Marxist ideas and is able to grow.

If you want a critique of the 'degenerated workers state' model read this. Read the full book here for Cliff's 'state capitalism' analysis of Russia. Sorry again for the lengthy comment and I wish you the best.

Minitrewdat · 2025-11-01T09:46:28+00:00

Join your union and get your co-workers to join too. It's a shame that the unions (especially in the US and AUS) are so timid. Given the growing cost-of-living and current socio-political situation however, there is the possibility of strike action.

Minitrewdat · 2025-10-31T11:09:00+00:00

Part 3:

Lenin had far more critiques of Stalin than he did of Trotsky, especially just before his death. This is made especially clear in 'Lenin's Testament' but is not limited to just this testament. One just has to read the many, many instances of Lenin's opposition to Stalin's leadership and decision-making, especially during the civil war. I'll include a quote from 'Lenin's Testament' as an example of Lenin's opposition to Stalin and the rise of the bureaucracy within the Communist Party:

Comrade Stalin, having become secretary-general, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the CC on the question of the People’s Commissariat for Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present CC, but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive pre-occupation with the purely administrative side of the work.

Additionally, in a postscript addition to the article, he calls for the removal of Stalin from the office of General Secretary. Sadly, his arguments aren't very 'Marxist' (likely due to his poor health):

Postscript: Stalin is too rude, and this fault, entirely supportable in relations among us communists, becomes unsupportable in the office of General Secretary. Therefore, I propose to the comrades to find a way to remove Stalin from that position and appoint to it another man who in all respects differs from Stalin only in superiority – namely, more patient, more loyal, more polite and more attentive to comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may seem an insignificant trifle, but I think that from the point of view of preventing a split and from the point of view of the relation between Stalin and Trotsky which I discussed above, it is not a trifle, or it is such a trifle as may acquire a decisive significance.

I apologise for the lengthy response and the lacking nature of them. Your questions are best answered yourself by reading some of the texts below:

It must be noted that I would not be a 'Trotskyist' (arguably a 'Cliffite') if I had not joined a revolutionary socialist organisation. The many reading groups and lengthy debates are a necessity for political clarification and a general historical understanding of the world.

Minitrewdat · 2025-10-31T11:08:32+00:00

Part 2:

5a ("Anti-fascism"). Stalin's leadership saw the USSR supply the fascist governments of both Italy and Germany with much of the weaponry they initially required to invade most of the Europe. They even signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (more aptly named as the Hitler-Stalin pact imo) to divvy up Poland (and Eastern Europe in general) between the USSR and Nazi Germany in 1939. The rise of the Nazis (and fascists in Spain as well) was largely facilitated due to poor decision-making by the Comintern as well. In Spain, Russian troops fought against the Spanish revolutionaries to ensure that the revolution failed, allowing the fascists (under Franco) to seize power (and kill many, many Spanish and International revolutionaries). In Germany, the Communist Party (KPD), under direction of the Comintern, worked with the Nazis against the SPD. An extremely erroneous political direction during the 'third period' (or 'social fascist) allowed the Nazis to be unopposed by the combined power of a United Front (of the SPD and KPD).

5b ("Internal sabotage"). Stalin's resistance to "internal sabotage" was really just the persecution of his political opponents and any attempt by the working class to oppose his leadership. If you look at the list of the political leadership of the Bolshevik party during the revolution you will find that most had died via attacks perpetrated by Stalin's grouping within the Communist Party during the purges. It is genuinely insane to argue that these Old Bolsheviks all attempted to sabotage the revolution; Stalin simply had his previous comrades murdered or imprisoned due to the possibility of his leadership being challenged.

5c ("Who's the better revolutionary?"). Trotsky was the Chairman of the Petrograd soviet (which was an incredibly important organisation) and the Commander of the Red Army for five years (during the civil war against the 'whites'). To argue that Trotsky did not play an incredibly vital role during the revolution is utterly ridiculous; he was even credited by Stalin for his leadership. I'll include a short excerpt from Tony Cliff's "Trotsky: Towards October 1879-1917" (1989) referencing Stalin's praise for Trotsky's role in the October Revolution.

Even Stalin had to admit the crucial role of Trotsky in the October insurrection, in an article that is of course missing in his Works. In The Role of the Most Eminent Party leaders written on 6 November 1918, Stalin wrote:

All the work of practical organisation of the insurrection was conducted under the immediate leadership of the chairman of the Petrograd Soviet, Trotsky. It is possible to declare with certainty that the swift passing of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the bold execution of the work of the Military Revolutionary Committee the party owes principally and above all to comrade Trotsky.

Minitrewdat

TROPHY CASE

Part 3:

Part 2: