stalin/trotsky

[debase89]

Okay I've been reading on here about stalin and trotsky these guys so what's teh difference? who are they

-debase

[revolt4thewin]

That I would like to know my self.

[NecroCommie]

Well, Stalin you propaby know already, so to put it simply Trotsky was his rival as a follower of Lenin at the "helm of the USSR". Needless to say, Stalin won that competition and hunted down Trotsky. Nowadays however followers of Trotskys ideals still exist, and so do some "stalinists" as some people call them.

Differences between tese ideologies are minor in my personal oppinion, but the most important is the question of centralized versus non-centralized state. Stalin being a father of the surpreme soviet and thus centralized authority, whereas Trotsky supporting more uncentralized models. I have no time right now to go into more intricate detail. If no one else has answered tomorrow morning I will elaborate further.

[debase89]

which one do you agree with? i'm interested to know what his supporters think and who was the "good guy" so to speak. like who was really for the working class i mean

-debase

[bailey_187]

which one do you agree with? i'm interested to know what his supporters think and who was the "good guy" so to speak. like who was really for the working class i mean

-debase

Stalin.

During Stalin's era in the USSR, the soviet working class raised the standards of their living on unparalleled scales, threw of years of superstition, learned to read and write, took massive advances in science and did away with exploitation of man by man in the process.

Trotsky threatened all this by his advocacy of overthrowing the dictatorship of the proletariat on the eve the invasion by the fascist hordes.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Trotsky was a traitorous dog who would have destroyed socialism in the Soviet Union given half the chance, he had to be taken out. As far as I can tell most people on this forum would disagree.

[NecroCommie]

You ain't getting unbiased opinion that way. Both had exactly the same goal (communism), but they disagreed on how to get there. (socialism)

Generally taken those who identify with marxism-leninism support Stalin, and Trotskys followers identify themselves as Trotskyites. Both however have their roots in Leninism, and both claim to be the true follower of Lenin's ideals. One does not have to support either one, I'd rather suggest you consider these matter through both perspectives and then make up your own mind.

[Olerud]

Stalin.

During Stalin's era in the USSR, the soviet working class raised the standards of their living on unparalleled scales, threw of years of superstition, learned to read and write, took massive advances in science and did away with exploitation of man by man in the process.

Trotsky threatened all this by his advocacy of overthrowing the dictatorship of the proletariat on the eve the invasion by the fascist hordes.

There's your answer. I also see you avatar is from animal farm. This is not a very good book to get an opinion of Stalin from since most of its bullshit:p.It's a good book just take it with a pinch of salt.

[revolt4thewin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJIdXL_wPHw
????? What do you guys think of him? Was he any good for the working class?

[debase89]

i'm not wanting an unbiased opinion those are almost always worthless. i want to see a debate of opinions because opinions and what people really think nowadays is what counts

[Искра]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJIdXL_wPHw
????? What do you guys think of him? Was he any good for the working class?
No, neither Stalin.
They should be aborted.

[revolt4thewin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S69s8YyJMlM
Stalin didn't get much of a great review maybe Trotsky would have been better what do you guys think please trying I am to learn.

[debase89]

yeah guys i think this would be a good debate to have. We are trying to decide what path to follow in the communist world, help us out

-debase

[NecroCommie]

Well, personally I disagree with the implementation of the surpreme soviet, it is fundamentally undemocratic idea. Then again trotskyist organizations tend to be sectarian to the core. Generally taken, I try not to classify myself within stalin/trotsky axis. I'd rather be anti-sectarian, and work with anyone who just happens to be in on toppling capitalism. If this is possible within Leninist party, I'm all for it, if not, apathy and sectarianism are not an answer. If I reeeally had to place myself on the Stalin/Trotsky axis however, I'd say I land pretty accurately in the middle.

[cb9's_unity]

9 times out of 10 when stalinist's and trotskyites are disagreeing it is about Stalin and Trotsky. Other than that they are both Leninist's who have minor disagreements here or there.

Not everyone here is a troskyite or a stalinist (aka anti revisionst, "marxist-leninist"). There are many anarchists, left communists, marxists, and even some leninists who wouldn't identify with either of them.

[NecroCommie]

9 times out of 10 when stalinist's and trotskyites are disagreeing it is about Stalin and Trotsky. Other than that they are both Leninist's who have minor disagreements here or there.

Not everyone here is a troskyite or a stalinist (aka anti revisionst, "marxist-leninist"). There are many anarchists, left communists, marxists, and even some leninists who wouldn't identify with either of them.
This.

[Q]

Use the search function, I'm pretty sure the majority of all threads on revleft deal with Stalin vs Trotsky in one way or another.

There is a big archive on Trotsky (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/index.htm) on MIA. Check it out. Also, there are still many Trotskyist organisations around today, the CWI being an example.

Two issues Trotsky defended in his fight against Stalinism:
- Internationalism: the socialist revolution can only be successful when it is international. Indeed, the failure of the Soviet Union was fundamentally caused by its isolation into a backward peasant society, as opposed to spreading to the west, most notably Germany.
- Democracy: while compromising on this issue himself during the civil war, Trotsky defended the soviets (workers councils) and a particular phrase of him is "democracy is to socialism, as oxygen is to the human body; without it, the system will choke".

[revolt4thewin]

Use the search function, I'm pretty sure the majority of all threads on revleft deal with Stalin vs Trotsky in one way or another.

There is a big archive on Trotsky (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/index.htm) on MIA. Check it out. Also, there are still many Trotskyist organisations around today, the CWI being an example.

Two issues Trotsky defended in his fight against Stalinism:
- Internationalism: the socialist revolution can only be successful when it is international. Indeed, the failure of the Soviet Union was fundamentally caused by its isolation into a backward peasant society, as opposed to spreading to the west, most notably Germany.
- Democracy: while compromising on this issue himself during the civil war, Trotsky defended the soviets (workers councils) and a particular phrase of him is "democracy is to socialism, as oxygen is to the human body; without it, the system will choke".

OKthat was useful. Whats is every ones take on the two? At least Trotsky was not crazed like Stalin who nearly destroyed the future of the state.

[FSL]

Both could and did in fact act in an authoritarian manner (not saying that that is by itself a wrong thing, you don't overthrow a class after getting its permission), Trotsky as the head of the Soviet army and Stalin as the general secretary of the party.

The difference between them is in the way they wanted Soviet Union to carry on after ~1925, Socialism in one country or International Revolution.

At that point in time a revolution in Germany wasn't coming, nor was the working class strong enough in any other of the advanced western countries. Suggesting the revolution will either be global or won't be a revolution at all sounds very nice but at a time when there aren't going to be revolutions in other places?
Effectively, Trotsky was suggesting that the workers and peasants of the Soviet Union should learn to live in a NEP economy (with private ownership that is) and only advance to socialism when that can be achieved globally.
Stalin thought that Soviet Union could advance to socialism on its own not depending on another country for getting capital or the "know-how".

Since the Soviet Union's economy didn't stagnate the next years but instead went through a massive industrialization, while at the same time the living standards of the working class rose (unlike what happened in the industrialization of western Europe), I can't see any reason why he was wrong.

[RotStern]

I suggest you look at the Trot group and the ML group and figure it out for yourself.

[blake 3:17]

This board is the only place I come across people calling themselves Stalinist. I know Stalinists, had tea and played Scrabble with them (they're pretty old) and they are very reluctant to identify themselves as such.

You could check out Tariq Ali's Trotsky For Beginners. It's an illustrated short biography, history and explanation.

I can't speak to a similar work on Stalin. I learnt a lot from Isaac Deutscher's biography of Stalin. It's both a bio and a history of modern Russia.


Worth considering are the Moscow show trials. Here's the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Trials Isaac Deutscher's analysis of them, and the only that makes any sense, is that Stalin wanted to completely physically destroy any possible leaderships, collective or individual, that could rival him. We could also debate what exact strategy would've been best during the Spanish Civil War. The Russian advisors to the Spanish CP were all there for short whiles before being sent home and shot. I think the show trials were when the revolution really had degenerated in an irreversible way.


I suggest you look at the Trot group and the ML group and figure it out for yourself.

I was attracted to Trotskyism because I was around Trotskyists who did really effective political work in the anti-racist movement. In other situations one would meet CPers, Maoists, social democrats, left liberals, anarchists doing just as good work.

[spiltteeth]

Isaac Deutscher was kinda a biased researcher.

Basically, I think it's silly to argue Stalin or Trotsky.
Trotsky was a great theorist, and had very important things to say on fascism.
Stalin was incredibly practical with the nuts and bolts.

Take from each what is best. Revolutions happen in wildly different circumstances, so one must not be rigid or dogmatic.

Oh, and Mao is better than either.

[bailey_187]

I can't speak to a similar work on Stalin. I learnt a lot from Isaac Deutscher's biography of Stalin. It's both a bio and a history of modern Russia.

If you want to learn that Stalin was not as cultured as he came from the "lower classes" then read this. Apparently the 'Bolsheviks' of higher class origin were better as they were more cultured. :confused:

Read Harpal brar's Trotskyism or Leninism?, i think it is on the internet somewhere, if not hit up the Stalin Society

[Radical]

Trotsky was an Anti-Leninist Counter-Revolutionary that betrayed the basic principles of the Bolshevik party. Freedom of Discussion, Unity on Action. He couldent hack it.

However dont take my word for it, or anyone elses here as you wont find an accurate account.


I recommend you read -

Stalin, Man of History - Ian Grey

The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks,

Harpal Brar: Trotskyism or Leninism?

http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/lies

[Q]

The amount of idiots on this topic that can't seem to go beyond "Trotsky was a traitor! He deserved to die!" never ceases to amaze me :rolleyes:

[Spawn of Stalin]

Trotsky was a power hungry hooligan! He deserved to die! The traitor!

[Crux]

9 times out of 10 when stalinist's and trotskyites are disagreeing it is about Stalin and Trotsky. Other than that they are both Leninist's who have minor disagreements here or there.
The fuck.

Stalinism, being the political trend backed by the beuracracy in the USSR. Flowing from this they adopted a more "national" approach (enshrined in the theory of Socialism In One Country). Initially this came about because the revolutions in western europe failed, leading some leading member of the bolsheviks, in the main Stalin and Bukharin, to abandon the internationalist approach. This also corealated with a fierce struggle within the party, eliminating the democratic rights in the party and finally physically eliminating all opposing trends, as can be seen in the murders of Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev and so on. This clique benefitted from eliminating worker's democracy and all internal democracy in the party. In a way this also created the more nationalist approach, when looking to serve th beuracracy foremost rather than the international workingclass. Indeed they began to play a reactionary role in regards to the world revolution. I would argue that this was not so much a conscious move but a case of incompetence and inability. Simply put the new theories of Socialism In One Country and the idea that the revolution must be split in two, one where you should raise bourguise demands and one where you should raise revolutionary, were absolutly disastrous as guidelines for a worldrevolution.

The most consistent oppnents to these policies were the Bolshevik-Leninists, named trotskyists by their opponents. As you may have guessed this group was led by Leon Trotsky. They defended both the democratic rights and the ideals of revolutionary marxism and the october revolution.
In opposition to the beurocratic stranglehold they called for worker's democracy, in opposition to Socialism In One Country they fought for world revolution, the same ideals they had fought for during the october revolution. through having this approach they quickly gained many international supporters, for example the founder of the chinese communist party Chen Duxiu. Indeed the first Chinese revolution gave a perfect example of the impotence of stalinist leadership and theory, where the line from the stalinists where for the communists to join with the nationalists to carry through a bourguise-democratic revolution. This ended with the chinese comunists being massacred by the nationalists.

The alternative is called Permanent revolution, meaning to carry through both the democratic and the socialist revolution at the same time, just as had happened in russia.

Also, it must be remembered, and Trotsky also notes this in his book The Revolution Betrayed, the soviet union did have some sucess, on basis of the planned economy and the impetus given by the revolution. However given the undemocratic nature of the stalinist system many fatal mistakes were made. Eventually, as we all know, the beurocracy could not, indeed were no longer interested in, upholding the planned economy and the system collapsed.

This is just a general outline of course. If you have any more specific questions just ask. Oh and ignore the stalinist trolls.

[red cat]

One small question.

Why do Trots get beaten by Stalinists in every revolution? Is the all-powerful Trot theory that weak?

[Spawn of Stalin]

I believe Stalin already answered that question (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm).

[red cat]

Oh yes! Me and my poor memory...


Thank you.


P.S.:Hey Q! Don't start deducting scores of points from Stalin now!:D

[Crux]

I believe Stalin already answered that question (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm).
"As regards repressive measures, I am emphatically opposed to them. What we need now is not repressive measures, but an extensive ideological struggle against renascent Trotskyism."
Given this is written by the man who oversaww the murder of thousand oppositionals within the bolsheviks, including most mentioned in the text, like Bukharin, Zinoviev and Trotsky, this has a particularly bad ring to it.