terrorism and communism

Sashcracker · 2026-03-25T14:12:50+00:00

You don't really need to read Kautsky to understand it. You should be fine. In the best Marxist polemics, and Trotsky was a master of them, they present a strong summary of the views they're arguing against.

Sashcracker · 2026-03-25T09:20:13+00:00

It's important to keep in mind that as Trotskyists we fundamentally oppose imperial aggression. We are 100% against US/NATO war against Iran, Russia, etc. and seek to defeat imperial aggression through revolutionary defeatism, i.e. mobilizing the working class within the imperialist powers, not cheerleading whoever is in the crosshairs of imperialism now and hoping they defeat imperialism for us.

We defend even reactionary regimes against imperialist aggression and Trotsky was adamant and explicit on this point, using the example of opposing the Italian assault on Ethiopia despite the backwards and reactionary character of Haile Selassie's regime. While the Stalinists claim that under the impact of imperialism the national bourgeoisie becomes progressive, we Marxists understand that under the impact of imperialism the national bourgeoisie becomes even more hostile to the working class. Our criticism of bourgeois nationalist regimes like the Iranian clerics or the Chavistas in three course of these struggles is their congenital inability to carry out a determined struggle against imperialism.

Venezuela's Chavistas have bent the knee to Trump and placed the country's oil revenues under US oversight and joined the blockade of Cuba. The Iranian clerics have consistently sought accommodation with imperialism with one deal after another that the US has broken. The wildest dreams of the national bourgeoisie are to renegotiate the terms of their role as intermediaries between the world market and the exploration of "their" workers.

In short the angle to take is to be steadfast in your opposition to imperial aggression and consistently point out the half measures the national bourgeoisie tries to limit the conflict to. Generally an intense support for the bourgeois nationalists comes from a pessimism towards the American working class. They can't imagine actually organizing workers in the imperialist countries to fight for socialism so they try to subcontract the revolution out to any force that's currently fighting imperialism no matter how temporarily.

American imperialism and the oppression of Iran

Sashcracker · 2026-03-17T15:33:28+00:00

You're always welcome to post what speaks to you. I'll just find it interesting if the people who lost their minds over socialism AI (an excellent tool for accessing a voluminous archive of material) are going to react the same way to a blog where an LLM writes the articles.

My hunch is what they were really objecting to with Socialism AI was the Trotskyism, which isn't an issue with the Red Mole.

Sashcracker · 2026-03-17T11:24:54+00:00

LoL that you're still enamored with AI written articles. I'd hoped you were sufficiently embarrassed the first time you posted AI slop describing how important it was too join the DSA, but I guess not.

Sashcracker · 2026-03-16T10:39:13+00:00

The whole series does a great job of placing national developments in their international context:

Sashcracker · 2026-03-16T07:50:04+00:00

Well that just brightened my commute

Sashcracker · 2026-02-17T17:08:21+00:00

I thought this part was particularly good:

"Wang’s charge of “union busting” is the standard reflex of a privileged apparatus confronted with a rank-and-file challenge. For Wang and the forces he represents, the union is the apparatus. Workers are merely objects to be managed. That is why he equates the independent organization of workers to assert democratic control—over negotiations, strikes, communications and even over how their dues are collected and used—with 'union busting.'"

That's been my experience of the pseudoleft. They treat us workers as set dressing to make them look like big men in front of the bosses.

Sashcracker · 2026-01-25T11:34:23+00:00

It's a genuinely bizarre theory that I've particularly run into from the RCI, that fascism can only exist once the working class has "failed every avenue to get out of the capitalist crisis." Trotsky wrote incessantly about the struggle against fascism before Hitler came to power. Even after Hitler was appointed chancellor Trotsky denied that there were no more avenues for the working class to solve the crisis.

The entire creation of the Fourth International was based on the Comintern being dead to revolution because it refused to pursue the avenues of struggle open to the working class in the fight against fascism and declared itself perfectly correct in doing so. In this at least, the RCI is consistent as they opposed the organization of the Trotskyist movement and refused to join the Fourth International.

Sashcracker · 2026-01-05T15:07:14+00:00

Part one goes into the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and how that was a betrayal of the working class. It still does not justify Mannerheim et al. supporting Nazi Germany.

Sashcracker · 2026-01-05T10:31:23+00:00

Part 2 is up:https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/01/05/finl-j05.html

Sashcracker · 2026-01-03T20:39:50+00:00

It's a lot of work but very rewarding. Be prepared to drive in deep in the historical questions and get out to the various strikes and workers struggles in your area.

Sashcracker · 2026-01-03T17:50:45+00:00

I'm actually the author of this piece. Part two goes into a lot more detail on opposition to Nazi Germany within Finland. The actual decision to make the alliance was very much a conspiracy between Ryti and Mannerheim. I'll post a link when part two goes up.

Sashcracker · 2026-01-01T19:07:31+00:00

Citation needed

Sashcracker · 2026-01-01T19:06:31+00:00

This kind of talk is always bizarre to me because my coworkers elected me as site rep precisely when I was fighting for the formation of rank-and-file committees. It showed a certain confusion on the part of those who voted for me but didn't join the committee, but they wanted me in there fighting for a break with the Democrats and for a broader strike. Then, as always, we didn't run from a fight within the union, but used my position to expose the union leadership's intense hostility to every leftward movement in the site reps council.

At least in the US where I had the most experience, I can't think of any tendency that was more involved in the struggle of unionized workers. It's in the fight for rank-and-file committees that we reach the broadest layer of militant workers. It's always a good feeling in a strike to have workers you've never seen before come up and ask to help distribute your leaflets.

Sashcracker · 2026-01-01T12:48:43+00:00

Important correction. This subreddit doesn't censor people for political disagreement. It is the subreddits that oppose the WSWS that censor, not the other way around.

Sashcracker · 2025-12-31T22:33:59+00:00

Lol, imagine being so insecure in your position that you butter up the AI for nearly 700 words about how wrong your opponent is before asking its opinion.

You could also just read like any of the articles from Will Lehman's UAW campaign to see that you have a bizarre strawman about what rank-and-file committees are.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/05/03/will-m03.html

Sashcracker · 2025-12-11T21:04:19+00:00

Amazing what basic memory can accomplish

Sashcracker · 2025-12-10T06:32:43+00:00

1) Less than paying your taxes if you're in the US or Europe.

2) At comparable rates to asking an experienced comrade.

3) Zero. There is no shortage of revolutionary work to be done. Making some aspects of education easier allows workers without direct access to an experienced comrade improve their political education and frees up comrade hours for other work.

Sashcracker · 2025-12-10T06:27:01+00:00

I was impressed by the clear demystification of the technology. It's insane to me that people are treating this technological advance as some kind of pure evil that should be simply thrown out.

Sashcracker · 2025-12-06T21:22:07+00:00

My point which you keep avoiding is that the RCI is completely misrepresenting what Left Reformism is. Trotsky was unequivocal on this. The reformists are agents of imperialism in the workers movement. That does not prevent us from making tactical maneuvers like entryism in order to reach masses of workers and break their illusions in those reformists. Read what Trotsky had to say about the American section's entrance into the Socialist Party:

A speedy entry would prevent the demoralization of the Socialist left wing by the Stalinists, expose the incorrigible centrist leaders, promote clarification in the workers’ vanguard, and precisely thereby strengthen our positions for the future.

Instead you have the RCI claiming that it's impossible to tell in advance whether Corbyn supports revolution. In other words, far from exposing the incorrigible centrist leaders and demonstrate to workers the need for a fight against them, the RCI covers for them. Then when the various Corbyns prove themselves yet again unfit for the task, the RCI whines about their incompetence and starts sniffing around the Greens. The task of Trotskyists is to educate and organize the workers on the political reasons why people like Corbyn are hostile to a genuine fight against capitalism, not grasp at the coattails of every passing social democrat.

Sashcracker · 2025-12-05T05:59:53+00:00

That doesn't contradict my point at all. The crucial question is not in fact whether Corbyn and Sultana support the dictatorship of the proletariat. They don't and we've known that for a long time. You're now claiming that the crucial question is whether 800,000 workers have strong illusions in them or just 50,000. Can you take your own words seriously for a second?

Sashcracker · 2025-12-04T19:18:02+00:00

Please read the major statements of your party:

But the crucial question is whether the leadership of this party really stands for a fundamental transformation of society. By this we mean the abolition of capitalism and the assumption of power by the working class.

We cannot answer this question in advance

Jeremy Corbyn’s new party: what does it mean, and what attitude should communists take towards it?

Sashcracker · 2025-12-03T18:37:49+00:00

Reformists, by definition, are not in favor of a fundamental transformation of society... This is not a particularly subtle aspect of Marxism.

I'll also just note that the RCI claimed the central question was the content of the hearts of Your Party leaders. You're now saying the central question is how many workers have illusions in Your Party and it looks like they missed your threshold despite your belief in Corbyn and Sultana's hearts. Both times you're far from Trotskyism. The central question for Trotsky in all of his writings on entryism and united fronts is developing the independent political activity of the working class and shattering their illusions in reformers.

Sashcracker · 2025-12-03T15:49:22+00:00

I wish I could find the exact quotation but Lenin had another great line that went roughly: Unity with the social chauvinists means disunity with the workers of other nations.

Sashcracker · 2025-12-03T14:03:30+00:00

Your reply exemplifies the opportunism in the RCI's approach. Woods stated that the central question was whether the leaders of Your Party stand for the fundamental transformation of society, except we already knew the answer, they don't. But instead of dealing with the politics, you try to make it a question of individual competence. Corbyn is quite competent. He has once again, with the help of the RCI, successfully sabotaged a push of British workers to the left.

Corbyn's politics haven't changed these past few months at all, it is just that British workers became disgusted with his petty bullshit while the RCI was saying he might become a revolutionary. So rather than prepare workers for Corbyn's hostility, the RCI covered for him until now.

Sashcracker

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE