Could Trotsky have won the Spanish Civil War?

[Kléber]

Well, since the opinion seemed to be that Trotsky could have won WWII, and I didn't think there was any doubt about that to begin with, I decided to put Trotsky in an even harder alternate-history scenario: what if the Old Man had been a little bit less principled, accepted invitations to come to Catalonia, and caroused his way to the top of the Republican High Command? Maybe Soviet aid would have dried up, maybe Morocco would have gotten its independence, who knows. I guess my question really is, since the Republican generals always get trashed for their WWI-style tactics, and Trotsky was known for winning civil wars by the seat of his pants, could the Republican war effort have succeeded with better leadership? Discuss!

[RGacky3]

A more relevant question, if Alexander the great was the Kaizer of Germany, could he have one WWI? Or a better one, if Darth Vader ran the Taliban, could they have held out against the AMericans?

The real answer to this question, is who gives a shit.

[Weezer]

I think Trotsky would've sent more support, or at least not kill off fellow revolutionaries. I think at least the Barcelona May Days (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_May_Days) would've never happened. Another forgotten atrocity of Stalinism.

EDIT: Opposing Ideologies? Que?

[Richard Nixon]

What? Whose opinion is that?

Stalin was an idiot in the months before Operation Barbarossa when he refused to consider the possibility of a German invasion and previous to that he made the Molotov-Ribbentop Pact yet he still won. Indeed any industrialized Soviet Union could have won World War 2 simply because they outproduced and outnumbered the Germans.

[A.R.Amistad]

For the record, I would like to say that the independent pro-Trotskyist army in Spain, the POUM, had an armed force of 40,000 well disciplined and uniformed fighters. The Comintern affiliated Communist Party of Spain only had 20,000, half the force the POUM. There were also Trotskyists scattered in the left wing of the PSOE and smaller organizations. As for the thought of Trotsky being the leader of the RSFSR instead of Stalin, well, I think his military record speaks for itself. He was able to defeat the White Armies and quickly build up the Red Army from a few thousand to nearly 10 million soldiers in a matter of months. His leadership won the war and paved the way for the RSFSR to exist unapposed by reactionary violence. Despite his affinity for uniforms, Stalin was not a great military leader by any means. He spent much of WWII depressed and hopeless when the Nazis invaded while more skilled military leaders drove the Axis out and into oblivion. Trotsky's internationalism would have also contributed to more support against fascism in Spain, as well as his United Front tactic, which would have created a broad anti-fascist force against Franco, Hitler and Moussolini with anarchists, social democrats, regionalists, sydicalists, etc. Of course, Stalins "social fascism" policy divided the anti-fascist opposition and contributed to fascisms victory. Going back to the POUM, the were probably one of the greatest examples of a revolutionary vanguard in action. Not only were they helpful in the actual war, but they were also responsible for setting up all sorts of Spanish soviets to prepare for a workers' democracy after the war. This was especially the case in the Catalonia region, and had they won, they could have created a great workers' state in Spain. In conclusion, yes. I believe Trotsky's leadership would have definatley helped defeat fascism not only in Spain, but a lot quicker throughout the world.

[Comrade Gwydion]

I can't imagine the effects of Trotsky being the leader of Republican Spain.
However, Trotsky being the leader of the USSR during the spanish civil war, would change a lot.

[Bud Struggle]

I think a more relevant question would be--if the Communists and Anarchists worked together could they have overcome the Nationalists and won the war?

[Искра]

I think Trotsky would've sent more support, or at least not kill off fellow revolutionaries. I think at least the Barcelona May Days (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_May_Days) would've never happened. Another forgotten atrocity of Stalinism.

EDIT: Opposing Ideologies? Que?
Really?
Have you ever heard for Kronstadt?

[hugsandmarxism]

Trotsky would have won it hands down, but he chose to sacrifice himself for the sins of the communist movement. That's why we take communion. :lol:

[Zanthorus]

For the record, I would like to say that the independent pro-Trotskyist army in Spain, the POUM, had an armed force of 40,000 well disciplined and uniformed fighters

And the CNT had roughly one and a half million. Adding Trotsky to the equation wouldn't have made much difference, centralised armies which need to wait for the leaders say so before engaging in action are never very effective.


However, Trotsky being the leader of the USSR during the spanish civil war, would change a lot.

Perhaps, although there's no gaurantee Trotsky wouldn't have acted similarly to Stalin, things would probably have been marginally better

[ComradeOm]

For the record, I would like to say that the independent pro-Trotskyist army in Spain, the POUM, had an armed force of 40,000 well disciplined and uniformed fighters"Well disciplined and uniformed"? Clearly you've not read Homage to Catalonia. More to the point however, and ironically given the OP's premise, Andrés Nin had broken with Trotsky before the founding of the POUM


The Comintern affiliated Communist Party of Spain only had 20,000, half the force the POUMSomewhat misleading given the PCE's emphasis on building a support/power base within Republican institutions. By the end of the war they effectively controlled the Popular Army

[RGacky3]

I think a more relevant question would be--if the Communists and Anarchists worked together could they have overcome the Nationalists and won the war?


That would have required the "communists" to accept Catelonia to be free, which would have been unacceptable. Just the same way the United States views any independant latin american country unacceptable. Reason being it would be a successfull, free, model that other people would want to follow.

How long do you think Spain would stay under leninist control, if an anarchist catelonia was there? Not long.

The fact is Leninist never would allow any competition, especially anarchist or syndicalist competition.

Trotsky would not work with the Anarchists, no way.

[Bud Struggle]

That would have required the "communists" to accept Catelonia to be free, which would have been unacceptable. Just the same way the United States views any independant latin american country unacceptable. Reason being it would be a successfull, free, model that other people would want to follow.

How long do you think Spain would stay under leninist control, if an anarchist catelonia was there? Not long.

(Being what I am) I tend to see Anarchists and Communists as being two sides of the same coin--and I think they are here on RevLeft, but in Spain--I guess they were as opposed to each other as much as they were to Franco.

If indeed there ever is a Revolution I wonder if it won't play out the same way Spain did.

Good post Gack.

[Hit The North]

This is a very bourgeois discussion.

[Bud Struggle]

This is a very bourgeois discussion.

No, it's a discussion of power.

It is interesting to see how things play out in the real world as opposed to the theoretical world of RevLeft.

When REAL power and control are involved--things play out differently. Also when REAL power in involved you'll tend to get different players than the people that post on this board. People with a harder edge, so to speak. There'll be lots of idealists--but also lots of opportunists and until years later you won't be able to tell the difference.

[Bankotsu]

(Being what I am) I tend to see Anarchists and Communists as being two sides of the same coin

The basic division within the Socialist movement after 1848 was between those who wished to abolish or reduce the functions of the state and those who wished to increase these functions by giving economic activities to the state. The former division came in time to include the anarchists and the syndicalists, while the latter division came to include the Socialists and the Communists.

The second group of radical social theorists was fundamentally opposed to the anarcho-syndicalists, although this fact was recognized only gradually. This second group wished to widen the power and scope of governments by giving them a dominant role in economic life. In the course of time, the confusions within this second group began to sort themselves out, and the group divided into two chief schools: the Socialists and the Communists.

This tendency toward rising standards of living also revealed another Marxist error. Marx had missed the real essence of the Industrial Revolution. He tended to find this in the complete separation of labor from ownership of tools and the reduction of labor to nothing but a commodity in the market. The real essence of industrialism was to be found in the application of nonhuman energy, such as that from coal, oil, or waterpower, to production. This process increased man's ability to make goods, and did so to an amazing degree. But mass production could exist only if it were followed by mass consumption and rising standards of living. Moreover, it must lead, in the long run, to a decreasing demand for hand labor and an increasing demand for highly trained technicians who are managers rather than laborers. And, in the longer run, this process would give rise to a productive system of such a high level of technical complexity that it could no longer be run by the owners but would have to be run by technically trained managers. Moreover, the use of the corporate form of industrial organization as a means for bringing the savings of the many into the control of a few by sales of securities to wider and wider groups of investors (including both managerial and laboring groups) would lead to a separation of management from ownership and to a great increase in the number of owners.


http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/08.html

[Led Zeppelin]

No, it's a discussion of power.

It is interesting to see how things play out in the real world as opposed to the theoretical world of RevLeft.

No, Gumby.

He said it was bourgeois because Marxists don't ascribe to the bourgeois Great Man theory of history, which is true.

EDIT: Well now that you changed your avatar my Gumby reference makes no sense anymore.

[Bud Struggle]

^^^^Thank you!

[#FF0000]

(Being what I am) I tend to see Anarchists and Communists as being two sides of the same coin--and I think they are here on RevLeft, but in Spain--I guess they were as opposed to each other as much as they were to Franco.

If indeed there ever is a Revolution I wonder if it won't play out the same way Spain did.

Good post Gack.

Anarchists and Communists have generally been at each other's throats throughout history. Happened in Russia, too. See; the Black Guards, Kronstadt etc etc..

[Random Precision]

Anarchists and Communists have generally been at each other's throats throughout history. Happened in Russia, too. See; the Black Guards, Kronstadt etc etc..

I swear I will ban the next person who says that Kronstadt was started by anarchists. :)

[RGacky3]

This is a very bourgeois discussion.

How the hell can a discussion be bourgeois? Unless we are talking about a corporate takeover, or how to maximise profits in our companies.


No, Gumby.

He said it was bourgeois because Marxists don't ascribe to the bourgeois Great Man theory of history, which is true.

EDIT: Well now that you changed your avatar my Gumby reference makes no sense anymore.

If its not from a Marxist point of view, that does'nt mean its from a "bourgeois" point of view, bourgeois is only the name of a class, its not an ideology or anything, stop saying things you don't like are bourgeous, its rediculous.


I swear I will ban the next person who says that Kronstadt was started by anarchists.

It was started by anti-bolshevik socialists, who were for free speach, soviet autonomy, and so on, and many of those included Anarchists.

[Kléber]

Have you ever heard for Kronstadt? That was a mutiny.


It was started by anti-bolshevik socialists, who were for free speach, soviet autonomy, and so onTheir demand to ban and wipeout the Bolshevik Party meant the end of free speech for those Russian workers who were still willing to fight against the whites and interventionists. Their "Bolshevik-free Soviets" demand was just one step away from abolishing the Soviets altogether.


Somewhat misleading given the PCE's emphasis on building a support/power base within Republican institutions. By the end of the war they effectively controlled the Popular ArmyTheir control of the People's Army at the end was not that great since the Army at Madrid betrayed them (Casado-Besteiro junta), killed the local PCE leaders, and basically handed the city to Franco.

Actually the Communist control of the People's Army was an illusion. If anything, PCE influence was decreasing towards the end.

Negrín only started to fill the top ranks with Communists at the very end of the war, when he was worried about an anti-Communist coup, but it was too late, the Army of the Center was staffed by traitors. Aside from that only parts of the army, like the Fifth Regiment and the Army of the Ebro, were totally Communist-controlled.

Remember everyone, the Anarchists, Trotskyists and PCE did not want to kill each other at first. The liberals, who wanted to surrender all along, tricked us into killing each other! Prieto and his buddies forced the PCE to do their dirty work in crushing the "shame of the country," workers' power in Barcelona, in 1937. Then the liberals convinced the embittered CNT/FAI of Madrid to help them kill the Communists in 1939. Franco famously applauded the government for "saving him the trouble" of crushing the workers' organizations.


centralised armies which need to wait for the leaders say so before engaging in action are never very effective.Actually, those centralized armies have kicked the asses of heroic militias, time and time again! In Spain the militias learned the hard way that digging trenches is not cowardly, it's just part of warfare. And a central command structure is necessary to can keep the front intact, not get encircled, and do maneuvers on a theater-wide level.

[Bud Struggle]

No, Gumby.

He said it was bourgeois because Marxists don't ascribe to the bourgeois Great Man theory of history, which is true. But all Marxism has ever done is produce "great men." It is one of the defining charisms of Marxism--IN THE REAL WORLD.


EDIT: Well now that you changed your avatar my Gumby reference makes no sense anymore. I try to mimic the mercurial essence of Capitalism, in my small way.

[RGacky3]

Their demand to ban and wipeout the Bolshevik Party meant the end of free speech for those Russian workers who were still willing to fight against the whites and interventionists. Their "Bolshevik-free Soviets" demand was just one step away from abolishing the Soviets altogether.

THey did not demand to ban the Bolshevik Party, they demanded to ban the military wings of ALL political parties, because the military wing of the Bolsheviks was terrorising the people, and political party influence over the military, you don't know what your talking about.

You want to know what their demands were?

http://libcom.org/library/kronstadt-izvestiia-1

Get your facts right.

They wanted secret ballots in the soviets, free association of ANY trade unions, to give the land to the peasants (as opposed to the state), freedom of speach for everyone. THIS is socialism. They wanted to make the soviets actually democratic and socialistic rather than just tools for Bolshevik domination.

[Richard Nixon]

No, Gumby.

He said it was bourgeois because Marxists don't ascribe to the bourgeois Great Man theory of history, which is true.

EDIT: Well now that you changed your avatar my Gumby reference makes no sense anymore.

Are you saying that all great men and women in history were determined by socioeconomic patterns rather than on their own genius and effort? For instance wouldn't the Soviet Union have been different had say Trotsky led it?

[Vendetta]

I think Trotsky would've sent more support, or at least not kill off fellow revolutionaries.

Sure about that? ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion

[ls]

This almost makes out that Trotskism is an opposing ideology. :p


..Trotsky kicked ass at Kronstadt

Yep yep, we've heard it all before it gets so boring.


centralised armies kick ass too

Same old same old, there is a long discussion about this in a bunch of other threads, your position is not as strong as you think it is.

The same thing about handing Madrid to the fascists too, right sure I guess the anarchists should have gone to Trotsky for help instead to guide them in the right direction.

My main question is why on earth you posted this and what you hoped would come out of such a pointless and boring question.

[Led Zeppelin]

If its not from a Marxist point of view, that does'nt mean its from a "bourgeois" point of view, bourgeois is only the name of a class, its not an ideology or anything, stop saying things you don't like are bourgeous, its rediculous.

No, you're wrong, and your fault lies in the premise.

The bourgeoisie is not simply "a class" and that's it. You can't draw the line there, unless you completely misunderstand what class actually means in Marxist theory. A class is not just an economic category, it extends its influence throughout society through a host of means. It is not for nothing that Marx said; "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas".

So what is meant then by "ideas" in this context? Simply what some individuals are thinking? No, of course not. Unless you know nothing about philosophy in general to boot, as well as knowing nothing about Marxist theory. Ideas in this context refers to consciousness and how it manifests itself in society. A certain reading of history, done with a certain type of consciousness, brings with it a bourgeois narrative. If historians say that the reason the North won the American Civil War was because Abraham Lincoln was the president, and he was such a great and powerful man, they are selling an untruth. A lie.

It is not just a matter of opinion that the North won the Civil War due to one person, or that there were other factors at play as well. That's like saying that it's simply a matter of opinion that Jesus is the Son of God, and also that he wasn't. No; one is based on a fundamental truth, which is empirically and scientifically verifiable, while the other is based on nostalgic chauvinist garbage.

If you want to believe that one man, Lincoln in this case, was able to win a war simply due to the awesomeness of his personality, you're quite frankly an idiot. And you're also propagating the general bourgeois narrative of history, which is that Great Men produce it instead of the masses, conforming to material conditions (yes, so not the absurd reductionism of "socio-economic conditions lol" as someone else said).


But all Marxism has ever done is produce "great men." It is one of the defining charisms of Marxism--IN THE REAL WORLD.

Erm, no, that's how you, with your a priori type of consciousness choose to view those people, that is, as "great men".

I certainly don't view them as "great man" being "produced by Marxism". You know why? Because I'm no longer a 12 year old whose only knowledge of history is what he's been taught in primary school.


Are you saying that all great men and women in history were determined by socioeconomic patterns rather than on their own genius and effort?

Their "own genius and effort" would be pointless if it wasn't for the material conditions they were born in, which allowed them to develop it and reach the potential which they eventually ended up reaching.

This argument is not a very good one. A better one would be to say that individuals can affect history, i.e., change their material conditions as well as being produced by them (to a certain extent of course, giving room to their own abilities as well).

That argument has been answered as well though; of course individuals can affect history, and individuals with more power in their hands can affect it more than others. This means that entire classes, that is, the masses of people, can affect it the most. A person like Napoleon can also do so however. So what is the difference then between this and the "Great Man" theory? Well, quite simple; we don't believe that Napoleon could have done whatever the hell he liked simply for being Napoleon. He was tied to the material conditions and had to act within them, as well as being produced by them, which is interrelated to the previous two points. This is common sense of course.

So it is not "Great Men" who push history forward, but rather the material conditions, or rather, the means of production which determines the level of material conditions. This was the "missing link" in philosophical understanding of history which Marx and Engels found. You can read more about it here in this great work on the subject: The Development of the Monist View of History (http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1895/monist/index.htm)

And on the role of the individual in history: On the Role of the Individual in History (http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1898/xx/individual.html)

Though it has to be said that the article on the role of the individual in history is a bit deterministic at parts. I would personally attribute greater freedom to the role than he does.

Oh, and to answer that ridiculous alternative history question of yours; there's a reason Stalin "led" the Soviet Union and Trotsky didn't. It wasn't just plain luck. You should ask; "What if material conditions were different, could Trotksy have "led" the Soviet Union then?", since that's actually a question worth asking.

[Bud Struggle]

Erm, no, that's how you, with your a priori type of consciousness choose to view those people, that is, as "great men".

I certainly don't view them as "great man" being "produced by Marxism". You know why? Because I'm no longer a 12 year old whose only knowledge of history is what he's been taught in primary school.


You're right, in no real enlightened view could Stalin or Trotsky or Mao or Ho or Lenin or Che or Fidel or any of the other Iron Curtain totalitarian autocrats be called a "great man."

I stand corrected.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Trotsly was against all practiccally achievable forms of Communism, and therefore he would have backstabbed the Republic and joined with the capitalist scum, as he has always done since he was banished.

[Red Icepick]

Trotskyites are the reason the war was lost in the first place.

[ls]

Trotskyites are the reason the war was lost in the first place.

I'm no lover of Trots but seriously, take your name and use it on yourself.

[Red Icepick]

I'm no lover of Trots but seriously, take your name and use it on yourself.

Wow, that would have passed as a good dis on a third grade playground. Not.

[RGacky3]

The bourgeoisie is not simply "a class" and that's it. You can't draw the line there, unless you completely misunderstand what class actually means in Marxist theory. A class is not just an economic category, it extends its influence throughout society through a host of means. It is not for nothing that Marx said; "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas".

There are some ideologies or points of view that are more prominent amung the bourgeoisie class, and some that are more prominent amung the proletariate class, there are some that are solely in the bourgeoisie class and vise versa, concepts that are 100% class based can be called bourgeoisie ideas.

But ideas that are simply more prominent or influenced by class cannot. The point is many Marxists just say certain ideas are "bourgeoisie" or "proletariate" without these concepts being directly attributed to the class. For example, the idea of free speach is NOT based on class, the idea of syndicalism is based on class. You understand the difference? Now the idea of free speach may have come from a certain class or been influenced by class, but that does'nt make it a "certain class" idea.


If you want to believe that one man, Lincoln in this case, was able to win a war simply due to the awesomeness of his personality, you're quite frankly an idiot. And you're also propagating the general bourgeois narrative of history, which is that Great Man produce it instead of the masses, conforming to material conditions (yes, so not the absurd reductionism of "socio-economic conditions lol" as someone else said).


I don't know what that has to do with what I said.

But to talk about that, yes, I agree, the background of the civil war and the cause and end of it cannot be due to Lincoln at all, however specific desicions made by him can be attributed to him, now the reason he was able to make those desicions or how he got the authority is different. Its as simple as that.

[Richard Nixon]

Trotskyites are the reason the war was lost in the first place.

Please stop repeating your 1930s Soviet propaganda which no one but the more crazier leftists (like you) believe.

[Delenda Carthago]

Really?
Have you ever heard for Kronstadt?

Or Makhno...