difference between trotskyism and stalinism

[Ballyfornia]

what exactly are the difference's betweens trotskyism and stalinism, a quick explanation of there theories. Permanent Revolution, Socialism in one country. and there other ideas?

[Rooster]

What can be said about Trotsky? War hero, a man loved by the soviets, a great speaker, writer, fundamental to the revolution and he boned Frida Kahlo. Both Trotsky and Lenin felt that the revolution in Russia could only survive if other revolutions occurred in more developed countries. Stalin felt that socialism could be built in one country alone. But yeah, pretty much in a dry discourse, that's the fundamental difference. And we all know what happened in the end!

[Obs]

What can be said about Trotsky? War hero, a man loved by the soviets, a great speaker, writer, fundamental to the revolution and he boned Frida Kahlo. Both Trotsky and Lenin felt that the revolution in Russia could only survive if other revolutions occurred in more developed countries. Stalin felt that socialism could be built in one country alone. But yeah, pretty much in a dry discourse, that's the fundamental difference. And we all know what happened in the end!
Dude we can see your boner.

[Rooster]

Dude we can see your boner.

:cool:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Yes but don't you think the fact that Trotsky betrayed and sold out the Great Soviet Motherland, as proven by the fact that he willingly lied about the existence of the Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen and made a deal with fascism, might raise a few eyebrows? This has all been proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, by Grover Furry himself

How do you think his relations with Frida made Diego Rivera feel? Have you no empathy for this great artist of the people?

Also-just how inspired could Trotsky's leadership have been if , after he had died,the US SWP couldn't find anyone to replace James Cannon when he was imprisoned and hence wasn't all that effective during the war, and the fact that the FI later degenerated, viewing Tito, Mao and Castro as "unconscious Trotskyists" and was all too ready to compromise with Stalinism? Huh?

[psgchisolm]

Yes but don't you think the fact that Trotsky betrayed and sold out the Great Soviet Motherland, as proven by the fact that he willingly lied about the existence of the Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen and made a deal with fascism, might raise a few eyebrows? This has all been proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, by Grover Furry himself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
Given that it probably saved the Soviet Union. You have to give blame where blame is due.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

In a somewhat more serious vein..

Stalin often gets credit for "saving the SU". I think its somewhat more complicated than that.

Policies different from that of the insane "Third Period" could have gone far to block the rise of Hitler. As I remember the SDP Lander government of Prussia was illegally over thown by the Nazis without the workers firing a shot, so weakened and demoralized they had become. Equally damaging were the Popular Front movements, of which the working got scraps off the table in return for supporting bourgeois governments in France and elsewhere.

With the failure of worker's revolutions in the 1918=9-23 period possibly a second war was inevitable but the struggle could have gone in different directions.

After Stalin had given up on the European working class perhaps a deal with Ribbentrop was inevitable.

Stalin and German Communism by Ruth Fisher has some interesting obsersations in this regard.

[Robespierre Richard]

Trotskyism is basically just a repeat of all the times when Trotsky had any political power (Petrograd Soviet and War Communism) and basically seeks a repeat of the October Revolution followed by permanent War Communism in every country.

Marxism-Leninism is more complicated. It can't really be called "Stalinism" because Stalin didn't start a fuss and undermine other people in his party when things didn't go his way but rather dealt with the consequences. It's defined more by ideological flow (right-to-left) from revisionism like the USSR starting with Khrushchev to anti-revisionism like Hoxha's Albania to leftist "anarcho-Stalinist" variants from Maoism to the Red Brigades in Italy and the Baader-Meinhof group in Germany. Meanwhile, Trotskyist currents are more defined by "international affiliation." According to Wikipedia, there are over 40 (documented) Trotskyist internationals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trotskyist_internationals) each of which is a group that tries to be closer to Trotskyist ideals than the other.

[Rooster]

It can't really be called "Stalinism" because Stalin didn't start a fuss and undermine other people in his party when things didn't go his way

Hmm?

[Robespierre Richard]

Hmm?

All of this basically. (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1921/jan/05.htm)

[NGNM85]

I like Trotskyist condemnations of Stalin, however, I have yet to see evidence that they have better ideas.

[Robespierre Richard]

I like Trotskyist condemnations of Stalin, however, I have yet to see evidence that they have better ideas.

Really? All the anarchists in IRC basically told me today that they see Trotskyism as a cancer. I mean the guy basically killed thousands of anarchists in Kronstadt, Ukraine, and Tambov because of nothing but ideological hatred and would have done the same in Spain had the faction he was in favor of succeeded.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Hmm?

Kiroff's statement makes no sense whatsoever. Yeah Stalin made no fuss, no muss when he couldn't get what he wanted. What about the 1937 Congress of Victors? What happened to them? What about the Bolshevik Central Committee of 1917?

What about Bukharin, Radek, Preobrazhensky, Rykov, Kamenev, Zinoviev,Pyatokov, and countless others? I guess Uncle Joe was having a bad hair day.

Stalinists call themselves "Marxist-Leninists" or "anti-revisionists". All other tendencies on the left-Trotskyists, anarchists, left communists, call them Stalinists. Stalinists are those who uphold the bureaucratic military/ party/state model created by Stalin and at least some of his class collaborationist methodology.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Really? All the anarchists in IRC basically told me today that they see Trotskyism as a cancer. I mean the guy basically killed thousands of anarchists in Kronstadt, Ukraine, and Tambov because of nothing but ideological hatred and would have done the same in Spain had the faction he was in favor of succeeded.

I think Stalin killed a few more. In fact he killed whole nations.

Some anarchists may see Trotskyism as a "cancer", I bet a whole lot more see Stalinism as end-stage cancer.

[Robespierre Richard]

Kiroff's statement makes no sense whatsoever. Yeah Stalin made no fuss, no muss when he couldn't get what he wanted. What about the 1937 Congress of Victors? What happened to them? What about the Bolshevik Central Committee of 1917?

What about Bukharin, Radek, Preobrazhensky, Rykov, Kamenev, Zinoviev,Pyatokov, and countless others? I guess Uncle Joe was having a bad hair day.

What about them? Why should I worry about them? I never met any of these people.


Stalinists call themselves "Marxist-Leninists" or "anti-revisionists". All other tendencies on the left-Trotskyists, anarchists, left communists, call them Stalinists. Stalinists are those who uphold the bureaucratic military/ party/state model created by Stalin and at least some of his class collaborationist methodology.

That's just unsubstantiated crap.


I think Stalin killed a few more. In fact he killed whole nations.

Some anarchists may see Trotskyism as a "cancer", I bet a whole lot more see Stalinism as end-stage cancer.

Yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk.

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m149/Demonac/quiz_jim_carrey.jpg

[Rooster]

I like Trotskyist condemnations of Stalin, however, I have yet to see evidence that they have better ideas.

Better ideas? Better ideas regarding what exactly?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Ideas associated with Trotsky, although developed as a continuation of revolutionary Marxism are the Theory of Permanent Revolution, the Law of Combined and Uneven Development and an explanation of the rise of Nazism and how this could have been prevented. Trotsky also had an interesting discussion of the uses of the dialectic, the African-American struggle,morality and a critique of pragmatism in Our Morals and Theirs and many other issues.

I don't fetishize anybody (unless its somebody I'm dating) but this is certainly worth a read

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/

The Trotskyist tradition has produced devastating critiques of the degeneration of the Comintern and of the Soviet Union. See The Revolution Betrayed by Trotsky and World Revolution by CLR James. These are both masterpieces, IMHO.

Trotskyist organizations around the world today are contiuing the best traditions of revolutionary Marxism in Pakistan, India, the UK, Ireland,south Africa,Nigeria, Israel, the US,Russia, Canada, and many other places.

[NGNM85]

Really? All the anarchists in IRC basically told me today that they see Trotskyism as a cancer. I mean the guy basically killed thousands of anarchists in Kronstadt, Ukraine, and Tambov because of nothing but ideological hatred and would have done the same in Spain had the faction he was in favor of succeeded.

Those are all excellent points. Again, all I said was I like it when Trotskyists go off on Stalin, (As opposed to a number of characters around these parts who will trip over eachother to praise him.) however, like I said, they don't have anything more to offer.


Better ideas? Better ideas regarding what exactly?

Regarding anything.

[Rooster]

Regarding anything.

Eh? No wait. Give me an answer, I'd like to know what you think.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

NGNM85 ,Not to toot my own horn, but I'd like to refer you to post no. 17. It deals with ideas coming from Trotsky and the Trotskyist tradition. You have engaged w/Trotsky's critique of Stalinism but there is much more than that.On a previous thread several months ago, if I remember, you were discussing John Rawl's theory of distributive justice. Trotsky's Our Morals and Theirs is an interesting critique of American pragmatism.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Really? All the anarchists in IRC basically told me today that they see Trotskyism as a cancer. I mean the guy basically killed thousands of anarchists in Kronstadt, Ukraine, and Tambov because of nothing but ideological hatred and would have done the same in Spain had the faction he was in favor of succeeded.

A Stalinist siding with anarchists in the cases of Kronstadt and Makhno is a bit odd, to say the least. Anarchists and Trots may have their historical differences, but they have much more in common with each other than they do with Stalinists. Another book-Memoirs of a Revolutionist by Victor Serge, is wortn reading in this regard. Serge was an anachist who joined the Bilsheviks and was allied with Trotsky. Its a brilliant history of the degeneration of the Revolution and the rise of Stalinism.

[Zanthorus]

Kronstadt was not an Anarchist movement.

[Robespierre Richard]

A Stalinist siding with anarchists in the cases of Kronstadt and Makhno is a bit odd, to say the least. Anarchists and Trots may have their historical differences, but they have much more in common with each other than they do with Stalinists. Another book-Memoirs of a Revolutionist by Victor Serge, is wortn reading in this regard. Serge was an anachist who joined the Bilsheviks and was allied with Trotsky. Its a brilliant history of the degeneration of the Revolution and the rise of Stalinism.

Not really siding with them, just exploring the implications of the Marxist-Leninist defenses of Trotsky which were almost always political, and what happens when those defenses are removed.

While Anarchists hating Marxism-Leninism is a phenomenon akin in nature to hipsters hating dubstep, mainly because they don't like people who listen to dubstep, Trotskyism is a different phenomenon that's funny in its own right.

[Rjevan]

Both Trotsky and Lenin felt that the revolution in Russia could only survive if other revolutions occurred in more developed countries. Stalin felt that socialism could be built in one country alone.
If that's the case I'd like to see the differences between the two quotes below pointed out because I fail to see them. Nobody, including Stalin, ever denied that the USSR would not have greatly benefited from successful revolutions in Europe. It is out of question that, let's say, a successful German revolution would have massively helped socialist construction in the USSR and probably even resulted in more successful revolutions. But obviously that didn't happen so the peoples of the USSR were on their own. What should they have done in this situation if "socialism in one country is impossible"? "Go home and nevermind"? Building full-fledged capitalism first so that the Mensheviks have their will? It should also speak for itself that Lenin still carried on after it became clear that the European revolutions were failures. Why would he promote projects like the elecrification if he believed that the USSR was inevitably doomed anyway?

Just compare these quotes:


Thirdly, the victory of socialism in one country does not at one stroke eliminate all wars in general. On the contrary, it presupposes wars. The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in different countries. It cannot be otherwise under commodity production. From this it follows irrefutably that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois. This is bound to create not only friction, but a direct attempt on the part of the bourgeoisie of other countries to crush the socialist state’s victorious proletariat.
[...]
Engels was perfectly right when, in his letter to Kautsky of September 12, 1882, he clearly stated that it was possible for already victorious socialism to wage “defensive wars”. What he had in mind was defense of the victorious proletariat against the bourgeoisie of other countries.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/i.htm


Formerly, the victory of the revolution in one country was considered impossible, on the assumption that it would require the combined action of the proletarians of all or at least of a majority of the advanced countries to achieve victory over the bourgeoisie. Now this point of view no longer fits in with the facts. Now we must proceed from the possibility of such a victory, for the uneven and spasmodic character of the development of the various capitalist countries under the conditions of imperialism, the development within imperialism of catastrophic contradictions leading to inevitable wars, the growth of the revolutionary movement in all countries of the world-all this leads, not only to the possibility, but also to the necessity of the victory of the proletariat in individual countries. The history of the revolution in Russia is direct proof of this.
[...]
But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of the revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch03.htm


I think Stalin killed a few more. In fact he killed whole nations.
Why stop there, I think he killed whole continents!!!

Seriously, any examples for Stalin "killing whole nations"? Or does this completely refer to not-at-all-simplistic "analyses" like "Spanish Civil War lost - Stalin's fault!", "Hitler appointed Reichskanzler - Stalin's fault!" and the like?


Policies different from that of the insane "Third Period" could have gone far to block the rise of Hitler.
Sure, the policy of the third period was largly a failure. But let's get concrete, what different policies do you suggest could have blocked the rise of Hitler? You'll hardly support a popular front policy and it would always imply that the SPD would have been willing to work together with the KPD before they finally saw no other chance to safe themselves anymore. This was not the case.


As I remember the SDP Lander government of Prussia was illegally over thown by the Nazis without the workers firing a shot, so weakened and demoralized they had become.
What do you mean? After some initial resistance the Prussian Landtag voted for dissolving itself and elections were held on March 33, winning the Nazis the absolute majority and Göring became PM. But there was no SA putsch or something like that.

[Obs]

Seriously, any examples for Stalin "killing whole nations"? Or does this completely refer to not-at-all-simplistic "analyses" like "Spanish Civil War lost - Stalin's fault!", "Hitler appointed Reichskanzler - Stalin's fault!" and the like?
Be prepared to wait until the heat death of the universe for an example of just one of these nations supposedly killed (single-handedly) by Stalin.

[Robespierre Richard]

Be prepared to wait until the heat death of the universe for an example of just one of these nations supposedly killed (single-handedly) by Stalin.

What about using both of his hands? Surely that was more effective.

[Lunatic Concept]

But, rather than squabbling over these differences, if we actually look at the POLICIES stalinist and trotskyist parties set forth, there really isnt a huge amount of difference between them apart from historical disagreements.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Why wait till the heat death of the universe when a little Googling can do the trick?

http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Terror-1937-1938-Political-Genocide/dp/1893638049

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

deportation of the Chenchens

deportation of Korean population, dumping them at Kazakhstan with no provision for work, housing, etc.

deportation and murder of Ainu people in Sakhalin

[Rooster]

Trotsky, The Program of the International Revolution or a Program of Socialism in One Country?:

Then follow those words of mine which Stalin presented at the Seventh Plenum of the ECCI as the most vicious expression of “Trotskyism,” i.e., as “lack of faith” in the inner forces of the revolution and the hope for aid from without. “And if this [the development of the revolution in other countries – L.T.] were not to occur, it would be hopeless to think (this is borne out both by historical experience and by theoretical considerations) that a revolutionary Russia, for instance, could hold out in face of conservative Europe, or that a socialist Germany could remain isolated in a capitalist world.”

On the basis of this and two or three similar quotations is founded the condemnation pronounced against “Trotskyism” by the Seventh Plenum as having allegedly held on this “fundamental question” a position “which has nothing in common with Leninism.” Let us, therefore, pause for a moment and listen to Lenin himself.Pauses!


On March 7, 1918, he said a propos of the Brest-Litovsk peace: “This is a lesson to us because the absolute truth is that without a revolution in Germany, we shall perish.” [7] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti01.htm#n7)

A week later he said: “World imperialism cannot live side by side with a victorious advancing social revolution.” [8] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti01.htm#n8)

A few weeks later, on April 23, Lenin said: “Our backwardness has thrust us forward and we will perish if we are unable to hold out until we meet with the mighty support of the insurrectionary workers of other countries.” (Our emphasis) [9] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti01.htm#n9)

But perhaps this was all said under the special influence of the Brest-Litovsk crisis? No ! In March 1919, Lenin again repeated: “We do not live merely in a state but in a system of states and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states for any length of time is inconceivable. In the end one or the other must triumph.” [10] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti01.htm#n10)

A year later, on April 7, 1920, Lenin reiterates: “Capitalism, if taken on an international scale, is even now, not only in a military but also in an economic sense, stronger than the Soviet power. We must proceed from this fundamental consideration and never forget it.” [11] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti01.htm#n11)

On November 27, 1920, Lenin, in dealing with the question of concessions, said: “We have now passed from the arena of war to the arena of peace and we have not forgotten that war will come again. As long as capitalism and socialism remain side by side we cannot live peacefully – the one or the other will be the victor in the end. An obituary will be sung either over the death of world capitalism or the death of the Soviet Republic. At present we have only a respite in the war.” [12] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti01.htm#n12)

But perhaps the continued existence of the Soviet Republic impelled Lenin to “recognize his mistake” and renounce his “lack of faith in the inner force” of the October Revolution?


At the Third Congress of the Comintern in July 1921, Lenin declared in the theses on the tactics of the Communist Party of Russia: “An equilibrium has been created, which though extremely precarious and unstable, nevertheless enables the socialist republic to maintain its existence within capitalist surroundings, although of course not for any great length of time.”


Again, on July 5, 1921, Lenin stated point-blank at one of the sessions of the Congress: ‘It was clear to us that without aid from the international world revolution, a victory of the proletarian revolution is impossible. Even prior to the revolution, as well as after it, we thought that the revolution would also occur either immediately or at least very soon in other backward countries and in the more highly developed capitalist countries, otherwise we would perish. Notwithstanding this conviction, we did our utmost to preserve the Soviet system under any circumstances and at all costs, because we know that we are working not only for ourselves but also for the international revolution.” [13] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti01.htm#n13)And then



Our party program is based entirely upon the international conditions underlying the October Revolution and the socialist construction. To prove this, one need only transcribe the entire theoretical part of our program. Here we will confine ourselves merely to pointing out that when, during the Eighth Congress of our party, the late Podbelsky inferred that some formulations of the program had reference only to the revolution in Russia, Lenin replied as follows in his concluding speech on the question of the party program (March 19, 1919):


“Podbelsky has raised objections to a paragraph which speaks of the pending social revolution ... His argument is obviously unfounded because
our program deals with the social revolution on a world scale.” [14] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti01.htm#n14)

And then further still



(http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti01.htm#n14)
At the Seventh Plenum of the ECCI, Stalin declared (not for the first time): “The question of the construction of a socialist economy in one country was for the first time advanced in the party by Lenin back in 1915.” [15] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#n15)
Thus an admission is here made that prior to 1915 no mention was ever made of the question of socialism in one country. Ergo, Stalin and Bukharin do not venture to encroach upon the entire tradition of Marxism and of the party on the question of the international character of the proletarian revolution. Let us bear this in mind.


However, let us see what Lenin did say “for the first time” in 1915 in contradistinction to what Marx, Engels, and Lenin himself had said previously.


In 1915 Lenin said: “Uneven economic and political development is an unconditional law of capitalism. Hence it follows that the triumph of socialism is, to begin with, possible in a few, or even in a single capitalist country. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and having organized socialist production at home, would be up in arms against the rest of the capitalist world, attracting oppressed classes of other countries to its side, causing insurrections in those countries against the capitalists, and acting, in case of need, even with military power against the exploiting classes and their governments.” [16] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#n16)I've highlighted Lenin

And so on

Source:http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#n16)


(http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#n16)

[Obs]

http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Terror-1937-1938-Political-Genocide/dp/1893638049 (http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Terror-1937-1938-Political-Genocide/dp/1893638049)
That looks unbiased.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Ah yes, the genocide Stalin conducted against the Ukrainian people because he had a deep-seated hatred for Ukrainians or whatever. Not buying it. There are many valid criticisms of Stalin, but this is just using a disastrous famine to score some cheap political points.


deportation of the Chenchens

deportation of Korean population, dumping them at Kazakhstan with no provision for work, housing, etc.

deportation and murder of Ainu people in Sakhalin
Of course, all of these peoples are now extinct. Except, no, you just brought those up because you can't actually find a "whole nation" that Stalin killed, as you claimed he had. I challenge you again to name the nation that Stalin brought to extinction.

[Raubleaux]

Here's how you win a debate with a Trotskyist :D

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/397201/2/istockphoto_397201_ice_pick_awl.jpg

[Q]

Can this thread be moderated?

As to the OP: there have been many similar questions - although most of these threads end up like this kind of crap in no time - it would be better if you used the search function.

[Obs]

Here's how you win a debate with a Trotskyist :D

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/397201/2/istockphoto_397201_ice_pick_awl.jpg
Maybe that joke would have been funny (over 40 years ago) if you'd gotten the weapon right. Mercader used an ice axe, not an ice pick.

[Q]

Maybe that joke would have been funny (over 40 years ago) ...

How would this be funny in the 1970's?

[Raubleaux]

Maybe that joke would have been funny (over 40 years ago) if you'd gotten the weapon right. Mercader used an ice axe, not an ice pick.

My bad. Honestly though, it is really pointless to rehash this stuff.

Haha the Trotskyists take out the frustrations of history on my message board rep. They are relentless.

[Obs]

How would this be funny in the 1970's?
I doubt it would have been particularly funny in the 1970's, I was just estimating that about 30-something years after a joke's relevance has passed, it stops being funny.

[Born in the USSR]

what exactly are the difference's betweens trotskyism and stalinism, a quick explanation of there theories. Permanent Revolution, Socialism in one country. and there other ideas?

Stalinism is a practice of a real socialism.Trotskyism is a practice of a revolutionary chatter.


Originally Posted by rooster
What can be said about Trotsky? War hero, a man loved by the sovietsWow,there were Soviets in Scotland!Never heard before.May be Scots really loved Trotsky,but in the USSR people worshiped Stalin.Is the opinion of Soviet people taking into account?

[Geiseric]

I always thought that stalin wanted to side with the provisional government, and after Trotsky left the Menshiviks Lenin dubbed him “the best bolshevik” anyways, stalin and trotsky had a personal rivalry after stalin messed up a battle in I think poland, commanding his troops to do something contrary to what Lenin told him to do, and trotsky called him out on it at the party congress.

Anyways, everything stalin did up till Trotsky left, stalin did the opposite and then once Trotsky was kicked out stalin did things Trotsky supported like industrializing the U.S.S.R. However the addition of supporting foreign revolutions to his agenda was left out. The ones the Stalinist comintern supported either failed, or many of the revolutions early leaders were killed. Chinese revolutionaries were killed by Chiang Kai Shek after Comintern told the communist leaders to meet with him and negotiate a treaty. The german socialists and communists were all killed because the communists had were told by comintern to have a popular front against the socialists, so the socialists were out of the picture then the communists were eventually
killed by hitler. In spain the government and the comintern communists were given arms to fight the anarcho syndicallists and the anti-comintern socialists, weakening the republican side and allowing the fascists to invade.

So basically, either the comintern is inept, or they genuinely don't want any revolutions that would possibly have a different endgame than the U.S.S.R.

[Lunatic Concept]

I think what is the difference between these tendencies TODAY is a more pressing and relevant question? Apart from different interpretations about what happened 60 years ago, are there any significant differences in their policies?! :confused:

[28350]

I think what is the difference between these tendencies TODAY is a more pressing and relevant question? Apart from different interpretations about what happened 60 years ago, are there any significant differences in their policies?! :confused:

The only significant and possibly relevant (in the future) issue is that of allocation of resources towards the strengthening of the already-established socialist state versus the allocation of resources towards the expansion of socialist revolution.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I think what is the difference between these tendencies TODAY is a more pressing and relevant question? Apart from different interpretations about what happened 60 years ago, are there any significant differences in their policies?! :confused:

Most, maybe not all ML groups tend to favor a "two stage" theory of revolution. MLs would generally say it is necessary to first support progressive bourgeois, and then work for socialism.The logic of this has led Soviet oriented CPs to ally themselves with people like Batista in Cuba and the CPUSA to become essentially an appendage of the US Democratic Party.

Trotskyists would say this is a big mistake and orient themselves to the working class.

MLs and Trotskyists differ in their orientation to Third World struggles. MLs have a tendency to be more "Third Worldist" and are somewhat more sympathetic to Third World anti-imperialist regimes, even if they are capitalist.Groups like Worker's World and the PSL carry this further and support Achmanijad and Qaddafi.

Trotskyists again would say this is a mistake. Peasants and other layers in society have a very important role to play but ultimately their struggles have to be allied and supportive to that of the working class.

You can see these differences played out in the debates over Libya on RevLeft.

I don't know exactly how differences in theory between MLs and Trots would translate into different activist approaches in situations such as Madison, Wisconsin. Trots may be more aggressive and uncompromising with the bosses.

[Rjevan]

And so on

Source:http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#n16)


(http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#n16)
The first quote by Lenin was a statement made during a most difficult period of time. It didn't look good for the Bolsheviks but nevertheless, obviously the USSR didn't perish in the next future, not even when the Nazis ruled Germany.

For the rest of the quotes all I have to say is: who ever denied this?
Lenin is basically saying that capitalism and socialism cannot peacefully coexist, that the bourgeois states present a constant threat to the USSR and that without socialist revolutions in other countries the victory of socialism in the USSR is in great danger. Did Stalin deny any of this? Trotsky wants to suggest he did but on the contrary. The quotes in my first post should be enough but if you read Stalin's "On the Final Victory of Socialism in the USSR" you'll find that some of the Lenin quotes he gives are exactly the same which Trotsky gives. I don't want to turn this thread into a "quote war" so here is the link, it's a short text and you'll have no difficulties to spot the passages I refer to: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm


Most, maybe not all ML groups tend to favor a "two stage" theory of revolution. MLs would generally say it is necessary to first support progressive bourgeois, and then work for socialism.The logic of this has led Soviet oriented CPs to ally themselves with people like Batista in Cuba and the CPUSA to become essentially an appendage of the US Democratic Party.

Trotskyists would say this is a big mistake and orient themselves to the working class.
The way you put it, especially the last sentence, makes it sound as if MLs hold that the bourgeoisie is the main revolutionary force and the working class can be neglected. This is completely wrong. The idea is that the national bourgeoisie generally supports national-democratic revolutionary movements in underdeveloped countries.

Therefore an alliance of the proletariat with the national bourgeoisie is desired as long as the latter does not restrain the first! All the time MLs have to struggle for the leading role of the proletariat in the national-democratic movement because this is the only way to complete the national-democratic revolution and only then a genuine victory of this movement can be achieved. This will of course eventually result in the national bourgeoisie going over to the reactionary camp as soon as the proletariat "goes too far". At that moment the time for socialist revolution has come. The basic goal is to mobilise the maximum of revolutionary forces and ensure a direct transition from national-democratic to socialist revolution.

It's undoubtedly both tragic and absurd if the CPUSA thinks that cheerleading the Democratic Party is the way to socialist revolution in the imperialist USA but this cannot be blamed on Marxist-Leninist theory. The concept I briefly outlined above clearly doesn't apply to the USA and it also mustn't be confused with revisionist theories claiming that the proletariat mustn't "scare off" the bourgeoisie but become it's lap dog, unconditionally support the new bourgeois rule and put back any revolutionary activity. It is also different from Maoist "New Democracy".

[Black Sheep]

I think OP's username should be [the flame war needs to start somewhere]

[Rooster]

Stalinism is a practice of a real socialism.Trotskyism is a practice of a revolutionary chatter.

It's a practice of something. I'm fairly certain that all the evidence points to it not being a real socialist society.


Wow,there were Soviets in Scotland!Never heard before.May be Scots really loved Trotsky,but in the USSR people worshiped Stalin.Is the opinion of Soviet people taking into account?

You said it.

[Obs]

MLs would generally say it is necessary to first support progressive bourgeois, and then work for socialism.

This is patently false. Are you perhaps mistaking Marxism-Leninism for the Maoist practice of supporting the national bourgeoisie in third-world nations?

[Zanthorus]

The Comintern's support for Chang Kai-Shek and the Kuomintang would appear to prove the opposite, as would the popular front governments in Spain and France, and the attempts to put the tactic into practice elsewhere.

[Gorilla]

The Comintern's support for Chang Kai-Shek and the Kuomintang would appear to prove the opposite, as would the popular front governments in Spain and France, and the attempts to put the tactic into practice elsewhere.

What was Trotsky's position on backing Mustafa Kemal over the Turkish Communists?

[Zanthorus]

I'm well aware of Trotsky and Lenin's actions with regards Turkey, but I'm not a Trotskyist, so this is not something which bothers me particularly.

[Gorilla]

I'm well aware of Trotsky and Lenin's actions with regards Turkey, but I'm not a Trotskyist, so this is not something which bothers me particularly.

I know, you shameless renegade Leftcom you! But I would like to hear what the Trots have to say.