When I was in college, I was influenced by Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution. I even joined a Trotskyist party. But overtime, I came to reject these views. Here is why.
Helpful for Indian viewers Nuqta e nazar - drishtikoon Doston-mitron Buniyadi-aadharrbhoot Azad-savtantre Wahid-ekmatre Danishwar-buddhijivi Tabqa-pakshye Inqalaab-kranti Ittihad-ekta Sawaal-prashne Sarmayadaar-punjipati Jamhuriyat-looktantra Ikhtilaaf-matbhed Muqtalif-alag Qayal-vichaar Mulk-desh Muraad-ashyye
This is helpful for Hindi readers; not for "Indian viewers". There are about six crores Urdu users in India. There are other linguistic groups too who are not comfortable with Hindi/Sanskritised terms.
@@danishjuyan1341 Forget about India's Urdu speakers. Teaching them Urdu is like an English teacher of Germany teaching English to Londoners. 😂 "Aj humne Urdu bolni hai". 😂
7مارچ 1918ء کو بریسٹ لٹووسک امن معاہدے پر بات کرتے ہوئے لینن نے کہا: ”یہ ہمارے لئے ایک سبق ہے کیونکہ مطلق حقیقت یہ ہے کہ جرمنی میں انقلاب کے بغیر ہم فنا ہو جائیں گے۔“ (لینن، مجموعہ تصانیف، پرانا روسی ایڈیشن، جلد15، صفحہ132)
Bohat aala lecture tha, suna aor bra lutf aaya, mera khiyal hey Trotskyism aor Leninism k comparison ko Urdu main kitabi shakal main publish krna bohat zroori hey. Again thanks for this lecture.
بین الاقوامی منڈی کا جنم اور وسیع پیمانے پر صنعتی ارتکاز کے باعث کرہ ارض پر آباد تمام انسان ایک دوسرے سے باہم منسلک ہیں اورخاص کر ترقی یافتہ ممالک میں سماجی ترقی کے باہمی ربط نے سماج کو اس نہج پر پہنچا دیا ہے جہاں عوام بورژوا اور پرولتاریہ دوواضح اور فیصلہ کن طبقات میں بٹ چکے ہیں۔ اوران دونوں کے درمیان تضاد‘ جاری کشمکش اور جدوجہد ہی درحقیقت آج کے دور یا اس عہد کی جدوجہد ہے لہذا کمیونسٹ انقلاب کو محض ایک ملک یا قوم کے اندر محدود کر کے بروئے کار نہیں لایا جا سکتا۔ اس کی نوعیت کا انحصار کسی بھی ملک کی صنعت سازی کے عمل میں تیزی ‘سرمائے کا ارتقاء اور دوسرے عوامل پر ہوتا ہے۔ مثلاً اگر یہ کسی نسبتاً کم ترقی یافتہ ممالک میں مشکل سے رونما ہوگا تو ترقی یافتہ ملک میں تیزی سے رونما ہوگا۔جس کے اثرات بہت ہی تیزی سے دوسرے ممالک پر پوری طاقت اور تمام تر توانائی سے پڑیں گے۔ یہ انقلاب ان کے ترقی کے عمل کو تیز تر کر دے گا۔ یہ عالمگیر انقلاب ہے اور اس کی نوعیت بھی عالمی ہے‘اس کا دائرہ کار بھی عالمی ہے۔ یہ درست ہے کہ پوری دنیا میں ایک وقت میں عالمی انقلاب برپا نہیں ہوگا۔ لازمی طورپریہ کسی ایک قومی ریاست میں برپا ہو گا۔ لیکن یہاں طویل عرصے تک قائم نہیں رہ سکتا۔ اس لئے ا س کو پھیلانا ہو گا ورنہ ایک ملک میں اس کا زوال پزیر ہونا ناگزیر ہوتا ہے۔ لیکن کسی ایک سماج میں ابھرنے والا انقلاب عالمی انقلاب کا انتظار نہیں کر سکتا بلکہ اس ملک میں برپا ہوکر دوسرے ممالک میں انقلابی عمل کو تیز کرنے اور تقویت بخشنے کا موجب بنے گا۔ درحقیقت کسی بھی ملک میں کامیاب انقلاب کا آغاز دوسرے ممالک اور باقی دنیا پر ایک فیصلہ کن اثر چھوڑے گا۔ یہ دنیا ماضی کی نسبت کہیں زیادہ ایک دوسرے سے جڑی ہوئی ہے‘گلوبلائزڈ ہے۔
Comrade Trotsky has already replied to that in his “ Letter to the Middle Peasants”, which appeared in Izvestia of February 7. In this letter Comrade Trotsky says that the rumours of differences between him and myself are the most monstrous and shameless lie, spread by the landowners and capitalists, or by their witting and unwitting accomplices. For my part, I entirely confirm Comrade Trotsky’s statement. There are no differences between us, and as regards the middle peasants there are no differences either between Trotsky and myself, or in general in the Communist Party, of which we are both members. First published in Pravda No. 35, February 15, 1919. Printed from the original. Lenin....
One more thing you are ignoring trotsky all struggle against capitalism just due to just one disagreement with Lenin for limited time but his permanent revolution theory was right and has right
سر لیننسٹ قومی سوال کو کتنی اہمیت دیتے ہین اور پاکستان کے اندر قومی سوال کا مسئلا ہے چھوٹی قومون کے ساتھ قومی اصتحسال کیا جا رہا ہے ؟ قومپرستی اور جدید قمومپرستی میں کیا فرق ہے ؟
On your order sir,I am reminding you of the questions extracted from the study of different books that criticized Marxism. 1 It's a common stance in Pakistan that Mr. Bhutto's nationalization policy adversely affected country's economy then how socialism differs from Bhutto's policy as its whole building stands on the nationalization of resources. 2 According to Marx, after the era of feudalism there will be captalism and after which world would enjoy the era of socialism then how did Russian revolution jumped directly from feudalism to socialism.Molana Wahiddudin khan in his book writes that as "Lenin created a temporary capitalistic state for 8 months" it's more or less like a parent's restriction for a child to play cricket after the completion of his homework. 3)According to Marx,In socialism the control of resources will be in the hand of masses.But as the communist party ever came into power in past the resources were in the hand of the communist party leaders.As they came in the hands of stallin it led to a worst dictatorship. 4)Capitalism is in full swing in Europe then why did the world wide socialist revolution not progressed there till the date as anticipated by Marx. 5)How communism ensures freedom of speech?In case of communist government how Marxism ensures that any criticism on Marxism or communist party will be accepted.As in past(For instance China) such examples are very rare. 6)Dictatorship and democracy are the opposite terms then what is meant by socialist democratic dictatorship(Lenin used this term very often). 7)Soviet union has came to its end...China has paved its way from socialism.So,what is the future of socialism?
I will answer you. "On your .....Marxism" Well can't really answer that can I? "According to ....his homework." Well I don't know about the author your talking about but what you are saying is wrong. Marx's historical materialism never set this chain command. All what historical materialism says that it is more importantly the material conditions which shape us. Read German Ideology. Then the question arises, what did Marx say when he talked about this sequence? He was referring only to Europe and Europe alone. He said that this is what happened in Europe. Primitive communism-> Slave society -> feudalism -> Capitalism. In most other countries that's not what happened. Many societies immediately became capitalist from clans mostly because of external influence. Many jumped from clan societies to advanced Communist nations and then Capitalist. Class struggle is like that. If you want a good explanation of class struggle then look no further than a bunch of street dogs fighting for rotis. Let each dogs be different people withing the community. Our community is divided on the basis of means of production into two classes- Capitalists who own means of production and Proleterian who are exploited by Capitalists, who work in the means of production and transform natural resources into commodities. There is also the petty bourgeoisie (small farmers, individual workshops, shopkeepers) and lumpen Proleterian or labor aristocrats (board directors, workers with very high demand etc) All these fight each other as well as themselves for control over the output of the means of production. Class struggle can be won by anybody. We have incidents where peasant societies developed communism by overthrow of feudal lords. "According to.... dictatorship" USSR was a democracy from 1917 to 1991 that is if you consider Pakistan and India and USA as democratic. This is one thing Capitalists always lie about. We are living in Capitalist nations our academia, news, state etc will never be honest on this issue. We have countless evidences from eyewitness reports of people like Pat Sloan, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Trainin, Anna Louise Strong and several others as well as the recently opened primary source archives. Why were there no parties? There was multi parti system in GDR, DPRK, Cuba, Czechoslovakia etc. But even though there was only one party in Hungary, Bulgaria and USSR and Albania and Yugoslavia these countries were still democracies. How come? Because democracy does not mean multi party system, it means power to the people which really did happen in USSR between 1917 and 1956 (and yes even under Stalin). The people could elect which party member they want to represent them or organise them. And if they didn't like any party member they could pick an independent. Also they could remove their candidates through recall votes. If that's not enough, between 1917-1956 through party cleansing the people even had control over who becomes a party member (something which didn't happen after Nikita Kruschev and his reactionary lackeys overthrew communism in USSR in 1956 through a counter revolutionary military coup and started to make it more and more Capitalist slowly. "Capitalism....Marx." Read imperialism the highest stage of capitalism by Vladimir Ulyanov Ilyich Lenin. "How....very rare." Absolute freedom of speech is a Utopia. No society in history has survived with absolute freedom of speech. All countries in present and before have had laws against hate speech. Suppression of free speech in USSR is overrated. People in communist nations always cracked jokes and spreaded rumours about their leaders as well as their country and their system and nobody did anything. My all time favourite is the joke on Brezhnev. Q- if you call Brezhnev an idiot then what crime will you be punished for? A- treason for releasing a state secret. Capitalist China is a pathetic nation. Never think of it as anything Communist. The only time it was Communist was under Mao Tse Tung. "Dictatorship...often)" Because the two are not opposite. Here dictatorship means rule. Under capitalism you don't have a democracy. No matter whom do you elect Capitalists are always in charge. In Pakistan you must have noticed the influence of feudal lords in politics and economic decisions of the government. All people have the right to vote.....for the ruling class' butler. Under a people's democratic dictatorship there won't be anyone with that much wealth and influence to hold power. So there will be what you can call a true democracy. "Soviet .... Socialism?" Create mass line, gain support, organise, read and study Marxists, study economics through Marxian lens as well, understand deep politics, agitate, organise and if necessary, rebel!
@@someesingh2827 Wonderful. Thanks for your valuable time... I agree with most of your answers but one question is still pondering in my mind about the practical approach of Marxism .)Neil Faulkner who is a marxist historian narrates in his book"A peoples history of the Russian revolution" that between 1918-1922 about 12 MILLION civilians lost their lives to protect revolution. .)Stallin developed BEUROCRATIC DISTATORSHIP. Old revolutionaries were tortured to death by Stalin's secret police.In 1927,two million people starved to death under his dictatorship. (quoting exact words of Marxist historian without going into interpretation or detail). Didn't the greatest practical experience of Marxism failed badly?Failed badly to give paradise to humanity on earth...
@@zainulabideen2682 "I agree....Marxism." Marxism is THE practical approach. Marx advocated to look at the world as it is. With regards to his advocacy of communism, he had scientifically analysed the Paris commune (one of the first communist nation) as well as the tribal communism of Africa, Latin America and elsewhere. "Neil Faulkner.... revolution." See this is where you go wrong. It doesn't matter who is saying it. What matters is the evidences they give to support their claims. Most of these things have been debunked. The figures the author gives are not correct. If you want to get a hold over correct figures then read Robert Thurston's Life and terror in Stalin's Russia or stalinist Terror new perspectives by Arch Getty. Thurston and Getty have spent years researching through Soviet archival material and neither are communist by the way. The best you can argue is that Soviet incarceration rate was very high in times Stalin's premiereship. But that's when you overlook the fact that the USSR has had it's industrial revolution (industrialization leads to increased crime rates), history's biggest invasion (Nazis), several other invasions (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War even anti communist Wikipedia agrees on this), a civil war(Russian civil war), court martial prisoners (wwII was going on and many soldiers were saying that "we could just retreat as our country is very big" imagine that) and several others. So having highest incarceration rate in 20th century does make sense if you think that way. "Stallin...police." I too believed these lies all my life. But they are false. I would recommend the author Grover Furr who too has studied the archives. These people were not tortured. The world authority on Bukharin- Stephen Cohen (a diehard anti Communist) too agreed that Bukharin wasn't tortured. The US ambassador to USSR J.E.Davies an eyewitness observed the trials and concluded that the accused people were guilty of their crimes and Davies was earlier a lawyer. Most importantly the Soviet archives speak for themselves. Grover Furr mentions translated material from archives to support his claims. Read his books like Kruschev lied, Blood Lies, evidence of trotsky's collaboration with Nazi Germany, Yezhov vs Stalin etc. "In 1927.... detail)." Firstly Stalin became the Premier of USSR from 1941 to 1953. Alexei Rykhov was the premeire in 1927. Second, poverty.com/ The USSR was not able to feed people when there wasn't enough food. Under capitalism there is sufficient for everybody but people still die of starvation. So tell me, what is worse. "Didn't...earth..." The point of communism was never to create a Utopia or paradise. It was to be better. And better it was. Ask the people who have lived under communism. www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-politics-sovietunion-idUSKBN1OI20Q www.rferl.org/a/russian-regret-at-soviet-collapse-stands-at-14-year-high-poll-shows/29664759.html www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html www.reuters.com/article/us-communism-nostalgia-idUSTRE5A701320091108 m.novinite.com/articles/185237/Almost+Half+of+Bulgarians+Want+a+Return+to+Socialist+Political+System www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2010/04/28/hungary-better-off-under-communism/
1) Socialism is not nationalization of industry by the state, It is the worker/communal ownership of industries/means of production 2) Soviet union never became socialist it became state capitalist so marx was right 3) Yes that is why the soviet union wasn't socialist it was state capitalist 4) it isn't Europe has several problems and Europe today is rich because of imperialism 6) Socialism is bringing democracy to the economy 7) One day capitalism will fall and socialism will come
Trotsky was absolutely right as we saw Russia revolution and 2nd thing trotsky was agreed with v. Lenin later. Today due to globalization interrelated and interdependent economies revolution in one country will be not sustainable
Sir I am a Indian apse request has ki Please sir aap political science me western thinkirs me video upload kiya kriye Hindi ya Urdu me Please sir I request you 🙏🙏🙏🙏
@@aneebkhan2969 nhe muja pata hai wo jahail hai ma to ap jasa bandu ko clear krna k leya comment krta jo comment read krta hain Baqi ya to liberal hai aur chutya b🤣
@@Taimur_Laal they didn't all of them were destroyed during the civil war before they could be re-established, stalin came into power and turned the USSR into a dictatorship
Every time Trotsykism cannot b pitted against Stalinist. There was third force in these countries i.e. AMoP. Kerala or West Bengal or China or Vietnam etc., these were AMoP against which farmers revolted. No question of Stalinism. Stalinism is characterised by collectivization. None of these had big state collective farms. Stalinism is myth in East Asia.
دوسری جنگ عظیم کے نتیجے میں جن ملکوں انقلابات آئے وہ مزدور طبقے کی قیادت میں برپا ھونے والے سوشلسٹ انقلابات نہ تھے بلکہ یہی وجہ ھے آج ان ۔مالک میں انقلاب کا کہیں نام و نشان نہیں خود روس میں سٹالن کی سرکردگی میں سوشلزم کاگلہ گھونٹ کر بیوروکریسی نے قبضہ جمالیا تھا یہی بیوروکریٹک نظام روسی فوج کے زریعے مشرقی یورپی ممالک میں سوشلزم کے نام پہ قائم کیا گیا تھا اور یہی نام نہاد سوشلسٹ ریاستیں نوے کی دہائی کے ابتداء میں سرمایہ دارانہ گلوبلائزیشن کے سامنے ریت کی دیوار کی طرح زمین بوس ھوئے تھے۔ Adv Ehsan Ali
"Exactly Comrade !Socialism in coutry was actually a flawed idea which led to bureacratic degredation under Stalin..The analysis of Trosky was materialized in the form of USSR disintegration.. The Stalinist even left no stone unturned to unjustly accuse Trosky ;who was one of the pioneer of October revolution.
It's not a question of success. Trotsky was right. He knew Europeans were clever. They obstructed revolution in Europe n didn't support Russian revolutionaries either. 1990 proved Trotsky right.
Lekin inquilab aa hi nahi sakta tha. Kyuki alag alag countries me capitalism different phase of development me tha. Therefore the class struggle was in different phase in each of them.
Dear Taimur, Please do an English version of these Soviet Union presentations for the ignorant Western viewer: There are too many histrionic exaggerations about the 'evil Soviet Union in the West, as you well know.
"mazdooron ke paas saari duniya hai jeetne ke liye" , but once the revolution is over ,soon these "mazdoors" who now are activists/ revolutionaries end up creating similar hierarchies and suffocating systems which they opposed in the first place. sad but it cant be avoided. Any prefix to democracy is not a true democracy.
مین اج کل روس میں انقلاب اور رد انقلاب ایلن وڈز اور ٹیڈ گرانٹ نے لکھی ہے۔ہمارے شہر کوہٹہ میں IMT کے نام سے یہ سٹڈی سرکل بھی چلاتے ہیں۔ کتاب مین یہ ٹراٹسکی کو لینن کا دوست یا جانشین بتاتے ہیں۔ مگر سرکل مین لینن کو کریمینل بتاتے ہیں۔ مین ان کے سرکلز میں نہیں گیا ہوں میرا ایک قریبی ہے وہ مجھے بتا رہا تھا
Bhai m IMT ka member hn from Kashmir koi ap ko misguide kr raha hai.khud yeh sochn k asa k se o skta hai kitab m dost bta rahy hn r circle m criminal. Ap ko ak br visit kr k khud dekhna chaia simple.
میں یہ سوچ رہا ہوں کہ انیسویں صدی میں یہ تمام کردار گھاس پھوس والے علاقے کے بجائے عرب کے صحرا میں پیدا ہو جاتے تو ان تمام خیالات کا کیا بنتا یعنی درحقیقت آپ کے خیالات گردونواح کے حالات سے ماخوذ ہوتے ہیں۔
Hum logo ne kbhi b un ki jadojahed ki tareef ki liken sciency tajziya krtey huwe bataya hai Q? Ye nakam huwe...nazriyaty tnkeed krtey hai... Stalinst se b nzriyaty hai.. Mao ki jadojahed o ya ho chi mann ki un ko tsleem krtey hai lekin nzriyat se iktilaap hai...
Muhammadharis Not at all. The context is absolutely clear. Trotsky was opposing Lenin on the question of the peasantry and socialism in one country. I’ve provided the evidence.
@@Taimur_Laal respectable sir! As duniya ma jhan production soccial divisions of labour ky nateejy ma paida hotie ha whn ak country ma socialist system qaim nhi ho sakta, aur ye bat lenin ny b accept ki thi ky socilism ka start ak mulk sy ho sakta ha lakin asky expansion ma hi aska survive possible ha, dosra aj tak Stalinist parties ki position b apky samny hi ha , as capitalist system ko ak revolution sy hi break kiya jasakta ha na ky reform mindset st
Muhammadharis Haris all Production in all of history occurs with a social division of labour. Capitalism develops unevenly. And classes develop unevenly. That’s why socialism also develops unevenly. First in one country and slowly in other countries. From this it logically follows that socialism will first be established and was established in one country.
@@Taimur_Laal sir! Ma b yahi bat ker raha hn lakin ye sub revolution ky thorough possible ha na ky capitalist democracy ky through hum ye ker sakty han, as social democritcal mindset ny hindustan ma left ka sherza bhakher ker rekh diya ha
@@Taimur_Laal mazeed ye ky sir ma ny apky lecture sun ker hi left politics ki tarf maiel hua lakin aj emerging problem ka solution sirf international Marxist tendency ky agenda ky pas ha na ky mazdoor kisan party ky pas, sir ap kis taraha ak Marxist hoty hua china imperialism ko defend ker sakty, aur ye ky jb duniya ma capitalist world order break ho raha ho to kis taraha capitalism 3rd world ma ak revolution role play ker sakta ha , ye mindset to formal logic ka ha jhan part ka analysis whole sy cut ker ky represent kiya jata ha , yani ap as mumly ma dielectric approach b use nhi ker rahy
Ye to pagal pan hai....keet it simple thik vaise hi jase islam me kisu though ko alag alag logo ne alag alag explain kiya aur khud ko pure nd dusre ko rivisionist bol diya Lol haan enjoy to kiya thanks sir Log pagla gye h bs or kuch nhi,
بین الاقوامی منڈی کا جنم اور وسیع پیمانے پر صنعتی ارتکاز کے باعث کرہ ارض پر آباد تمام انسان ایک دوسرے سے باہم منسلک ہیں اورخاص کر ترقی یافتہ ممالک میں سماجی ترقی کے باہمی ربط نے سماج کو اس نہج پر پہنچا دیا ہے جہاں عوام بورژوا اور پرولتاریہ دوواضح اور فیصلہ کن طبقات میں بٹ چکے ہیں۔ اوران دونوں کے درمیان تضاد‘ جاری کشمکش اور جدوجہد ہی درحقیقت آج کے دور یا اس عہد کی جدوجہد ہے لہذا کمیونسٹ انقلاب کو محض ایک ملک یا قوم کے اندر محدود کر کے بروئے کار نہیں لایا جا سکتا۔ اس کی نوعیت کا انحصار کسی بھی ملک کی صنعت سازی کے عمل میں تیزی ‘سرمائے کا ارتقاء اور دوسرے عوامل پر ہوتا ہے۔ مثلاً اگر یہ کسی نسبتاً کم ترقی یافتہ ممالک میں مشکل سے رونما ہوگا تو ترقی یافتہ ملک میں تیزی سے رونما ہوگا۔جس کے اثرات بہت ہی تیزی سے دوسرے ممالک پر پوری طاقت اور تمام تر توانائی سے پڑیں گے۔ یہ انقلاب ان کے ترقی کے عمل کو تیز تر کر دے گا۔ یہ عالمگیر انقلاب ہے اور اس کی نوعیت بھی عالمی ہے‘اس کا دائرہ کار بھی عالمی ہے۔ یہ درست ہے کہ پوری دنیا میں ایک وقت میں عالمی انقلاب برپا نہیں ہوگا۔ لازمی طورپریہ کسی ایک قومی ریاست میں برپا ہو گا۔ لیکن یہاں طویل عرصے تک قائم نہیں رہ سکتا۔ اس لئے ا س کو پھیلانا ہو گا ورنہ ایک ملک میں اس کا زوال پزیر ہونا ناگزیر ہوتا ہے۔ لیکن کسی ایک سماج میں ابھرنے والا انقلاب عالمی انقلاب کا انتظار نہیں کر سکتا بلکہ اس ملک میں برپا ہوکر دوسرے ممالک میں انقلابی عمل کو تیز کرنے اور تقویت بخشنے کا موجب بنے گا۔ درحقیقت کسی بھی ملک میں کامیاب انقلاب کا آغاز دوسرے ممالک اور باقی دنیا پر ایک فیصلہ کن اثر چھوڑے گا۔ یہ دنیا ماضی کی نسبت کہیں زیادہ ایک دوسرے سے جڑی ہوئی ہے‘گلوبلائزڈ ہے۔
It seems like you are reciting your holy scripture. Marxism failed miserable, and only succeeded in spreading horrendous amounts of misery and shedding of blood
![Why I am not a Trotskyist [Eng]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QQ9O5UPqcOE/mqdefault.jpg)
![Why I am not a Trotskyist [Eng]](/img/tr.png)
Helpful for Indian viewers
Nuqta e nazar - drishtikoon
Doston-mitron
Buniyadi-aadharrbhoot
Azad-savtantre
Wahid-ekmatre
Danishwar-buddhijivi
Tabqa-pakshye
Inqalaab-kranti
Ittihad-ekta
Sawaal-prashne
Sarmayadaar-punjipati
Jamhuriyat-looktantra
Ikhtilaaf-matbhed
Muqtalif-alag
Qayal-vichaar
Mulk-desh
Muraad-ashyye
This is helpful for Hindi readers; not for "Indian viewers". There are about six crores Urdu users in India. There are other linguistic groups too who are not comfortable with Hindi/Sanskritised terms.
@@danishjuyan1341
Forget about India's Urdu speakers. Teaching them Urdu is like an English teacher of Germany teaching English to Londoners. 😂
"Aj humne Urdu bolni hai". 😂
Thank you for sharing!🥰
7مارچ 1918ء کو بریسٹ لٹووسک امن معاہدے پر بات کرتے ہوئے لینن نے کہا:
”یہ ہمارے لئے ایک سبق ہے کیونکہ مطلق حقیقت یہ ہے کہ جرمنی میں انقلاب کے بغیر ہم فنا ہو جائیں گے۔“ (لینن، مجموعہ تصانیف، پرانا روسی ایڈیشن، جلد15، صفحہ132)
❤️❤️❤️ Great lecture! Packed with great info!
You are my virtual teacher♥️ i respect you a lot!
Thanks for presenting the differences between Trotskism and ML-ism with great clarity.
Nice sir, amazing description
Bohat aala lecture tha, suna aor bra lutf aaya, mera khiyal hey Trotskyism aor Leninism k comparison ko Urdu main kitabi shakal main publish krna bohat zroori hey. Again thanks for this lecture.
بین الاقوامی منڈی کا جنم اور وسیع پیمانے پر صنعتی ارتکاز کے باعث کرہ ارض پر آباد تمام انسان ایک دوسرے سے باہم منسلک ہیں اورخاص کر ترقی یافتہ ممالک میں سماجی ترقی کے باہمی ربط نے سماج کو اس نہج پر پہنچا دیا ہے جہاں عوام بورژوا اور پرولتاریہ دوواضح اور فیصلہ کن طبقات میں بٹ چکے ہیں۔ اوران دونوں کے درمیان تضاد‘ جاری کشمکش اور جدوجہد ہی درحقیقت آج کے دور یا اس عہد کی جدوجہد ہے لہذا کمیونسٹ انقلاب کو محض ایک ملک یا قوم کے اندر محدود کر کے بروئے کار نہیں لایا جا سکتا۔ اس کی نوعیت کا انحصار کسی بھی ملک کی صنعت سازی کے عمل میں تیزی ‘سرمائے کا ارتقاء اور دوسرے عوامل پر ہوتا ہے۔ مثلاً اگر یہ کسی نسبتاً کم ترقی یافتہ ممالک میں مشکل سے رونما ہوگا تو ترقی یافتہ ملک میں تیزی سے رونما ہوگا۔جس کے اثرات بہت ہی تیزی سے دوسرے ممالک پر پوری طاقت اور تمام تر توانائی سے پڑیں گے۔ یہ انقلاب ان کے ترقی کے عمل کو تیز تر کر دے گا۔ یہ عالمگیر انقلاب ہے اور اس کی نوعیت بھی عالمی ہے‘اس کا دائرہ کار بھی عالمی ہے۔
یہ درست ہے کہ پوری دنیا میں ایک وقت میں عالمی انقلاب برپا نہیں ہوگا۔ لازمی طورپریہ کسی ایک قومی ریاست میں برپا ہو گا۔ لیکن یہاں طویل عرصے تک قائم نہیں رہ سکتا۔ اس لئے ا س کو پھیلانا ہو گا ورنہ ایک ملک میں اس کا زوال پزیر ہونا ناگزیر ہوتا ہے۔ لیکن کسی ایک سماج میں ابھرنے والا انقلاب عالمی انقلاب کا انتظار نہیں کر سکتا بلکہ اس ملک میں برپا ہوکر دوسرے ممالک میں انقلابی عمل کو تیز کرنے اور تقویت بخشنے کا موجب بنے گا۔
درحقیقت کسی بھی ملک میں کامیاب انقلاب کا آغاز دوسرے ممالک اور باقی دنیا پر ایک فیصلہ کن اثر چھوڑے گا۔ یہ دنیا ماضی کی نسبت کہیں زیادہ ایک دوسرے سے جڑی ہوئی ہے‘گلوبلائزڈ ہے۔
Comrade Trotsky has already replied to that in his “ Letter to the Middle Peasants”, which appeared in Izvestia of February 7. In this letter Comrade Trotsky says that the rumours of differences between him and myself are the most monstrous and shameless lie, spread by the landowners and capitalists, or by their witting and unwitting accomplices. For my part, I entirely confirm Comrade Trotsky’s statement. There are no differences between us, and as regards the middle peasants there are no differences either between Trotsky and myself, or in general in the Communist Party, of which we are both members. First published in Pravda No. 35, February 15, 1919. Printed from the original. Lenin....
good for you comrade
Great sir...
Sir m from India and your huge fan...sir please tell me if you have made any video on Lenin only
shachi sharma not yet.
We can not afford to be non internationalist and discontinuous revolutionary.
Kindly make a video on Libertarian Socialism.. I would be grateful to you.!!
Sir muji en k books chahyn Urdu main,kia provide kr sakty hain ap?? Plz plz plz
I just know one thing! Knowledge without implementation is worse than ignorance.
One more thing you are ignoring trotsky all struggle against capitalism just due to just one disagreement with Lenin for limited time but his permanent revolution theory was right and has right
Does anyone know of any good “Why I’m not a Trotskyist” videos in English?
Here is link below of english czcams.com/video/QQ9O5UPqcOE/video.html
lenin ki wo tehreer bi btaa den jisme lenin ne kaha tha ke russian revolution bchaa ne k liye hme germany me inqlab krna prega
سر لیننسٹ قومی سوال کو کتنی اہمیت دیتے ہین اور پاکستان کے اندر قومی سوال کا مسئلا ہے چھوٹی قومون کے ساتھ قومی اصتحسال کیا جا رہا ہے ؟
قومپرستی اور جدید قمومپرستی میں کیا فرق ہے ؟
Dr. Sahib Pakistan main jagirdar ki history or phir laanat nizam ki boraaee par urdu main lecture farmaain mamnun honga in.
Theory of permanent revolution will be translated in urdu as نظریہ مستقل انقلاب and not as نظریہ مسلسل انقلاب
Peasants v. Proletariat (workers) : both have similar sim : protecting and gaining private property.
Sir start lecture at wealth of Nation
Sir! if Trotskey reprimand was wrong then why did Russian revolution went in vein??? what were the causes of its failure???
Sir blanquism pr b banaiye ek video
❤
On your order sir,I am reminding you of the questions extracted from the study of different books that criticized Marxism.
1 It's a common stance in Pakistan that Mr. Bhutto's nationalization policy adversely affected country's economy then how socialism differs from Bhutto's policy as its whole building stands on the nationalization of resources.
2 According to Marx, after the era of feudalism there will be captalism and after which world would enjoy the era of socialism then how did Russian revolution jumped directly from feudalism to socialism.Molana Wahiddudin khan in his book writes that as "Lenin created a temporary capitalistic state for 8 months" it's more or less like a parent's restriction for a child to play cricket after the completion of his homework.
3)According to Marx,In socialism the control of resources will be in the hand of masses.But as the communist party ever came into power in past the resources were in the hand of the communist party leaders.As they came in the hands of stallin it led to a worst dictatorship.
4)Capitalism is in full swing in Europe then why did the world wide socialist revolution not progressed there till the date as anticipated by Marx.
5)How communism ensures freedom of speech?In case of communist government how Marxism ensures that any criticism on Marxism or communist party will be accepted.As in past(For instance China) such examples are very rare.
6)Dictatorship and democracy are the opposite terms then what is meant by socialist democratic dictatorship(Lenin used this term very often).
7)Soviet union has came to its end...China has paved its way from socialism.So,what is the future of socialism?
I will answer you.
"On your .....Marxism"
Well can't really answer that can I?
"According to ....his homework."
Well I don't know about the author your talking about but what you are saying is wrong. Marx's historical materialism never set this chain command. All what historical materialism says that it is more importantly the material conditions which shape us. Read German Ideology. Then the question arises, what did Marx say when he talked about this sequence?
He was referring only to Europe and Europe alone. He said that this is what happened in Europe.
Primitive communism-> Slave society -> feudalism -> Capitalism.
In most other countries that's not what happened. Many societies immediately became capitalist from clans mostly because of external influence. Many jumped from clan societies to advanced Communist nations and then Capitalist.
Class struggle is like that. If you want a good explanation of class struggle then look no further than a bunch of street dogs fighting for rotis. Let each dogs be different people withing the community. Our community is divided on the basis of means of production into two classes- Capitalists who own means of production and Proleterian who are exploited by Capitalists, who work in the means of production and transform natural resources into commodities. There is also the petty bourgeoisie (small farmers, individual workshops, shopkeepers) and lumpen Proleterian or labor aristocrats (board directors, workers with very high demand etc)
All these fight each other as well as themselves for control over the output of the means of production.
Class struggle can be won by anybody. We have incidents where peasant societies developed communism by overthrow of feudal lords.
"According to.... dictatorship"
USSR was a democracy from 1917 to 1991 that is if you consider Pakistan and India and USA as democratic. This is one thing Capitalists always lie about. We are living in Capitalist nations our academia, news, state etc will never be honest on this issue. We have countless evidences from eyewitness reports of people like Pat Sloan, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Trainin, Anna Louise Strong and several others as well as the recently opened primary source archives.
Why were there no parties? There was multi parti system in GDR, DPRK, Cuba, Czechoslovakia etc. But even though there was only one party in Hungary, Bulgaria and USSR and Albania and Yugoslavia these countries were still democracies. How come? Because democracy does not mean multi party system, it means power to the people which really did happen in USSR between 1917 and 1956 (and yes even under Stalin). The people could elect which party member they want to represent them or organise them. And if they didn't like any party member they could pick an independent. Also they could remove their candidates through recall votes. If that's not enough, between 1917-1956 through party cleansing the people even had control over who becomes a party member (something which didn't happen after Nikita Kruschev and his reactionary lackeys overthrew communism in USSR in 1956 through a counter revolutionary military coup and started to make it more and more Capitalist slowly.
"Capitalism....Marx."
Read imperialism the highest stage of capitalism by Vladimir Ulyanov Ilyich Lenin.
"How....very rare."
Absolute freedom of speech is a Utopia. No society in history has survived with absolute freedom of speech. All countries in present and before have had laws against hate speech. Suppression of free speech in USSR is overrated. People in communist nations always cracked jokes and spreaded rumours about their leaders as well as their country and their system and nobody did anything. My all time favourite is the joke on Brezhnev.
Q- if you call Brezhnev an idiot then what crime will you be punished for?
A- treason for releasing a state secret.
Capitalist China is a pathetic nation. Never think of it as anything Communist. The only time it was Communist was under Mao Tse Tung.
"Dictatorship...often)"
Because the two are not opposite. Here dictatorship means rule. Under capitalism you don't have a democracy. No matter whom do you elect Capitalists are always in charge. In Pakistan you must have noticed the influence of feudal lords in politics and economic decisions of the government. All people have the right to vote.....for the ruling class' butler.
Under a people's democratic dictatorship there won't be anyone with that much wealth and influence to hold power. So there will be what you can call a true democracy.
"Soviet .... Socialism?"
Create mass line, gain support, organise, read and study Marxists, study economics through Marxian lens as well, understand deep politics, agitate, organise and if necessary, rebel!
@@someesingh2827
Wonderful.
Thanks for your valuable time...
I agree with most of your answers but one question is still pondering in my mind about the practical approach of Marxism
.)Neil Faulkner who is a marxist historian narrates in his book"A peoples history of the Russian revolution" that between 1918-1922 about 12 MILLION civilians lost their lives to protect revolution.
.)Stallin developed BEUROCRATIC DISTATORSHIP. Old revolutionaries were tortured to death by Stalin's secret police.In 1927,two million people starved to death under his dictatorship. (quoting exact words of Marxist historian without going into interpretation or detail).
Didn't the greatest practical experience of Marxism failed badly?Failed badly to give paradise to humanity on earth...
@@zainulabideen2682
"I agree....Marxism."
Marxism is THE practical approach. Marx advocated to look at the world as it is. With regards to his advocacy of communism, he had scientifically analysed the Paris commune (one of the first communist nation) as well as the tribal communism of Africa, Latin America and elsewhere.
"Neil Faulkner.... revolution."
See this is where you go wrong. It doesn't matter who is saying it. What matters is the evidences they give to support their claims. Most of these things have been debunked.
The figures the author gives are not correct. If you want to get a hold over correct figures then read Robert Thurston's Life and terror in Stalin's Russia or stalinist Terror new perspectives by Arch Getty. Thurston and Getty have spent years researching through Soviet archival material and neither are communist by the way. The best you can argue is that Soviet incarceration rate was very high in times Stalin's premiereship. But that's when you overlook the fact that the USSR has had it's industrial revolution (industrialization leads to increased crime rates), history's biggest invasion (Nazis), several other invasions (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War even anti communist Wikipedia agrees on this), a civil war(Russian civil war), court martial prisoners (wwII was going on and many soldiers were saying that "we could just retreat as our country is very big" imagine that) and several others. So having highest incarceration rate in 20th century does make sense if you think that way.
"Stallin...police."
I too believed these lies all my life. But they are false. I would recommend the author Grover Furr who too has studied the archives. These people were not tortured. The world authority on Bukharin- Stephen Cohen (a diehard anti Communist) too agreed that Bukharin wasn't tortured.
The US ambassador to USSR J.E.Davies an eyewitness observed the trials and concluded that the accused people were guilty of their crimes and Davies was earlier a lawyer. Most importantly the Soviet archives speak for themselves. Grover Furr mentions translated material from archives to support his claims. Read his books like Kruschev lied, Blood Lies, evidence of trotsky's collaboration with Nazi Germany, Yezhov vs Stalin etc.
"In 1927.... detail)."
Firstly Stalin became the Premier of USSR from 1941 to 1953. Alexei Rykhov was the premeire in 1927.
Second, poverty.com/
The USSR was not able to feed people when there wasn't enough food. Under capitalism there is sufficient for everybody but people still die of starvation. So tell me, what is worse.
"Didn't...earth..."
The point of communism was never to create a Utopia or paradise. It was to be better.
And better it was. Ask the people who have lived under communism.
www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-politics-sovietunion-idUSKBN1OI20Q
www.rferl.org/a/russian-regret-at-soviet-collapse-stands-at-14-year-high-poll-shows/29664759.html
www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html
www.reuters.com/article/us-communism-nostalgia-idUSTRE5A701320091108
m.novinite.com/articles/185237/Almost+Half+of+Bulgarians+Want+a+Return+to+Socialist+Political+System
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2010/04/28/hungary-better-off-under-communism/
Also I will suggest to read Michael Parenti as well. He is brilliant
1) Socialism is not nationalization of industry by the state, It is the worker/communal ownership of industries/means of production
2) Soviet union never became socialist it became state capitalist so marx was right
3) Yes that is why the soviet union wasn't socialist it was state capitalist
4) it isn't Europe has several problems and Europe today is rich because of imperialism
6) Socialism is bringing democracy to the economy
7) One day capitalism will fall and socialism will come
Done well intelligently
Than, how Trotsky became commander of Red Army ?
Sir,
What was the power in Afghanistan that PDPA got weak by.?
WHAT ABOUT IN VATNAM
Pls make a video on moscow trials
Good
Comrade, please upload a lecture on comrade Stalin.
sir please make a video on joseph stalin
Trotsky was absolutely right as we saw Russia revolution and 2nd thing trotsky was agreed with v. Lenin later.
Today due to globalization interrelated and interdependent economies revolution in one country will be not sustainable
Utopian
Watching from kerala
Plz recommend a book for political ideologies
State and Revolution (lenin)
Permanent Revolution (Trotsky)
💕💕💕
Sir aap kya krte hain main aapko sun ne ke liye intazar krta hun
Sir I am a Indian apse request has ki Please sir aap political science me western thinkirs me video upload kiya kriye Hindi ya Urdu me
Please sir I request you 🙏🙏🙏🙏
Please read Trotsky again without any bias
👍
My advice to you read trotsky again carefully without any bias
Khud b padah lo sai se narrate ni krr pa rahy ho... " Lenin agree krta ta"😂😂😂 zabardasti yeh ni many ga.
@@aneebkhan2969 Ao khud sa question aur khudi amswer 🤣🤣
@@afaqahmed5393 sir ap usko zabardasti q manwa rahay ho. Mar mar k us se agree krwao gy k trotsky sai ta🤣🤣🤣
@@aneebkhan2969 nhe muja pata hai wo jahail hai ma to ap jasa bandu ko clear krna k leya comment krta jo comment read krta hain
Baqi ya to liberal hai aur chutya b🤣
میں نے آج آپ سے یہ سیکھا کہ زیادہ دماغ کا استعمال نہیں کرنا چاہئے۔
In East Asia, including China, farmers associated n revolted against AMoP, not capitalism.
"Soviets" were local workers' councils.
What happened to these "soviets"?
They became the governing bodies of USSR>
@@Taimur_Laal they didn't
all of them were destroyed during the civil war before they could be re-established, stalin came into power and turned the USSR into a dictatorship
@@Comrade_Zaz 😅😅😅
@@Comrade_Zaz chutiya, bhonke se pehle parh bhi liya karo
V.nice.👍🇮🇳 v.nive.
Every time Trotsykism cannot b pitted against Stalinist. There was third force in these countries i.e. AMoP. Kerala or West Bengal or China or Vietnam etc., these were AMoP against which farmers revolted. No question of Stalinism. Stalinism is characterised by collectivization. None of these had big state collective farms. Stalinism is myth in East Asia.
دوسری جنگ عظیم کے نتیجے میں جن ملکوں انقلابات آئے وہ مزدور طبقے کی قیادت میں برپا ھونے والے سوشلسٹ انقلابات نہ تھے بلکہ یہی وجہ ھے آج ان ۔مالک میں انقلاب کا کہیں نام و نشان نہیں خود روس میں سٹالن کی سرکردگی میں سوشلزم کاگلہ گھونٹ کر بیوروکریسی نے قبضہ جمالیا تھا یہی بیوروکریٹک نظام روسی فوج کے زریعے مشرقی یورپی ممالک میں سوشلزم کے نام پہ قائم کیا گیا تھا اور یہی نام نہاد سوشلسٹ ریاستیں نوے کی دہائی کے ابتداء میں سرمایہ دارانہ گلوبلائزیشن کے سامنے ریت کی دیوار کی طرح زمین بوس ھوئے تھے۔
Adv Ehsan Ali
"Exactly Comrade !Socialism in coutry was actually a flawed idea which led to bureacratic degredation under Stalin..The analysis of Trosky was materialized in the form of USSR disintegration..
The Stalinist even left no stone unturned to unjustly accuse Trosky ;who was one of the pioneer of October revolution.
It's not a question of success.
Trotsky was right. He knew Europeans were clever. They obstructed revolution in Europe n didn't support Russian revolutionaries either. 1990 proved Trotsky right.
1990 did prove Trotsky Wrong, since Krushchevian Soviet Union followed the Trotsky way and USSR went downhill
@@rinkiakepapa5625 😂😂nhi bhai krushev hates trotsky
Sir agar europe me inquilab aa jaata toh fascism ka rise nahi hota. Iss maamle me trotsky sahi saabit hua hai.
Lekin inquilab aa hi nahi sakta tha. Kyuki alag alag countries me capitalism different phase of development me tha. Therefore the class struggle was in different phase in each of them.
Dear Taimur, Please do an English version of these Soviet Union presentations for the ignorant Western viewer: There are too many histrionic exaggerations about the 'evil Soviet Union in the West, as you well know.
Peasants tend to nestle in the capitalists.
"mazdooron ke paas saari duniya hai jeetne ke liye" , but once the revolution is over ,soon these "mazdoors" who now are activists/ revolutionaries end up creating similar hierarchies and suffocating systems which they opposed in the first place. sad but it cant be avoided. Any prefix to democracy is not a true democracy.
Ruzati means koi bta do yaar
reactionary
revisionist
comrade apne b selective view hi rkha hy
But his critics about Stalin ???
Can you do an English version please! 🙏
English version is also on my channel. czcams.com/video/QQ9O5UPqcOE/video.html
مین اج کل روس میں انقلاب اور رد انقلاب ایلن وڈز اور ٹیڈ گرانٹ نے لکھی ہے۔ہمارے شہر کوہٹہ میں IMT کے نام سے یہ سٹڈی سرکل بھی چلاتے ہیں۔ کتاب مین یہ ٹراٹسکی کو لینن کا دوست یا جانشین بتاتے ہیں۔ مگر سرکل مین لینن کو کریمینل بتاتے ہیں۔ مین ان کے سرکلز میں نہیں گیا ہوں میرا ایک قریبی ہے وہ مجھے بتا رہا تھا
Bhai m IMT ka member hn from Kashmir koi ap ko misguide kr raha hai.khud yeh sochn k asa k se o skta hai kitab m dost bta rahy hn r circle m criminal. Ap ko ak br visit kr k khud dekhna chaia simple.
کیوبا کے انقلاب کے بعد چی گویرا اور فیڈل کاسترو میں اختلاف کیوں پیدا ہوا ! سر اس پر تبصرہ کریں بہت نوازش ہوگی !
Jawad Wahag it’s a myth.
@@Taimur_Laal how ? Can u please describe that !
میں یہ سوچ رہا ہوں کہ انیسویں صدی میں یہ تمام کردار گھاس پھوس والے علاقے کے بجائے عرب کے صحرا میں پیدا ہو جاتے تو ان تمام خیالات کا کیا بنتا یعنی درحقیقت آپ کے خیالات گردونواح کے حالات سے ماخوذ ہوتے ہیں۔
Hum logo ne kbhi b un ki jadojahed ki tareef ki liken sciency tajziya krtey huwe bataya hai Q? Ye nakam huwe...nazriyaty tnkeed krtey hai... Stalinst se b nzriyaty hai.. Mao ki jadojahed o ya ho chi mann ki un ko tsleem krtey hai lekin nzriyat se iktilaap hai...
21 mulko ke kilap lrne wala trotsky kud tha red army ko smbalne wala kud tha...!!
Islamic forces in Afghanistan defeated two superpowers
How can atheists Soviets be "shaheed"
Ap ny trostkie ko out of context pash kiya
Muhammadharis Not at all. The context is absolutely clear. Trotsky was opposing Lenin on the question of the peasantry and socialism in one country. I’ve provided the evidence.
@@Taimur_Laal respectable sir! As duniya ma jhan production soccial divisions of labour ky nateejy ma paida hotie ha whn ak country ma socialist system qaim nhi ho sakta, aur ye bat lenin ny b accept ki thi ky socilism ka start ak mulk sy ho sakta ha lakin asky expansion ma hi aska survive possible ha, dosra aj tak Stalinist parties ki position b apky samny hi ha , as capitalist system ko ak revolution sy hi break kiya jasakta ha na ky reform mindset st
Baqi ye mujy mazeed study kerna chea shaied abi meri study incomplete ho,
Muhammadharis Haris all Production in all of history occurs with a social division of labour. Capitalism develops unevenly. And classes develop unevenly. That’s why socialism also develops unevenly. First in one country and slowly in other countries. From this it logically follows that socialism will first be established and was established in one country.
@@Taimur_Laal sir! Ma b yahi bat ker raha hn lakin ye sub revolution ky thorough possible ha na ky capitalist democracy ky through hum ye ker sakty han, as social democritcal mindset ny hindustan ma left ka sherza bhakher ker rekh diya ha
اگر آپ میرے سامنے ہوتے تو میں آپ کے عامیانہ مطالعے اور ایک ایک تنقیدی پوائنٹ کا خوب جواب دیتا.
M not capitalist niether socialist only Quranist
Ap stalinsm ko defends kerny ki nakam koish ker rahy ha, national question per ap logo ki approach international marxist ideology sy rehy farar ha
Muhammadharis Haris I think you have not heard the lecture. Please comment after listening to the lecture. Thanks.
@@Taimur_Laal mazeed ye ky sir ma ny apky lecture sun ker hi left politics ki tarf maiel hua lakin aj emerging problem ka solution sirf international Marxist tendency ky agenda ky pas ha na ky mazdoor kisan party ky pas, sir ap kis taraha ak Marxist hoty hua china imperialism ko defend ker sakty, aur ye ky jb duniya ma capitalist world order break ho raha ho to kis taraha capitalism 3rd world ma ak revolution role play ker sakta ha , ye mindset to formal logic ka ha jhan part ka analysis whole sy cut ker ky represent kiya jata ha , yani ap as mumly ma dielectric approach b use nhi ker rahy
Pls make a vedio on comrade stalin the greatest leader of proletariat
Ye to pagal pan hai....keet it simple thik vaise hi jase islam me kisu though ko alag alag logo ne alag alag explain kiya aur khud ko pure nd dusre ko rivisionist bol diya
Lol haan enjoy to kiya thanks sir
Log pagla gye h bs or kuch nhi,
ایک ملک میں سوشلزم ہوگا تو باقی سرمایہ دارانہ طاقتیں اسے جینے ہی نہیں دے گی۔
Azhar Ali Comrade socialism is stronger.
بین الاقوامی منڈی کا جنم اور وسیع پیمانے پر صنعتی ارتکاز کے باعث کرہ ارض پر آباد تمام انسان ایک دوسرے سے باہم منسلک ہیں اورخاص کر ترقی یافتہ ممالک میں سماجی ترقی کے باہمی ربط نے سماج کو اس نہج پر پہنچا دیا ہے جہاں عوام بورژوا اور پرولتاریہ دوواضح اور فیصلہ کن طبقات میں بٹ چکے ہیں۔ اوران دونوں کے درمیان تضاد‘ جاری کشمکش اور جدوجہد ہی درحقیقت آج کے دور یا اس عہد کی جدوجہد ہے لہذا کمیونسٹ انقلاب کو محض ایک ملک یا قوم کے اندر محدود کر کے بروئے کار نہیں لایا جا سکتا۔ اس کی نوعیت کا انحصار کسی بھی ملک کی صنعت سازی کے عمل میں تیزی ‘سرمائے کا ارتقاء اور دوسرے عوامل پر ہوتا ہے۔ مثلاً اگر یہ کسی نسبتاً کم ترقی یافتہ ممالک میں مشکل سے رونما ہوگا تو ترقی یافتہ ملک میں تیزی سے رونما ہوگا۔جس کے اثرات بہت ہی تیزی سے دوسرے ممالک پر پوری طاقت اور تمام تر توانائی سے پڑیں گے۔ یہ انقلاب ان کے ترقی کے عمل کو تیز تر کر دے گا۔ یہ عالمگیر انقلاب ہے اور اس کی نوعیت بھی عالمی ہے‘اس کا دائرہ کار بھی عالمی ہے۔
یہ درست ہے کہ پوری دنیا میں ایک وقت میں عالمی انقلاب برپا نہیں ہوگا۔ لازمی طورپریہ کسی ایک قومی ریاست میں برپا ہو گا۔ لیکن یہاں طویل عرصے تک قائم نہیں رہ سکتا۔ اس لئے ا س کو پھیلانا ہو گا ورنہ ایک ملک میں اس کا زوال پزیر ہونا ناگزیر ہوتا ہے۔ لیکن کسی ایک سماج میں ابھرنے والا انقلاب عالمی انقلاب کا انتظار نہیں کر سکتا بلکہ اس ملک میں برپا ہوکر دوسرے ممالک میں انقلابی عمل کو تیز کرنے اور تقویت بخشنے کا موجب بنے گا۔
درحقیقت کسی بھی ملک میں کامیاب انقلاب کا آغاز دوسرے ممالک اور باقی دنیا پر ایک فیصلہ کن اثر چھوڑے گا۔ یہ دنیا ماضی کی نسبت کہیں زیادہ ایک دوسرے سے جڑی ہوئی ہے‘گلوبلائزڈ ہے۔
Sir stalin 1 dacte
trotsky lenin sy khein bartar tha
otheraspect.org/2020/02/20/trotskys-support-for-fascism/
stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1495&context=prism
It seems like you are reciting your holy scripture. Marxism failed miserable, and only succeeded in spreading horrendous amounts of misery and shedding of blood
Sir muji en k books chahyn Urdu main,kia provide kr sakty hain ap?? Plz plz plz