Issues/ problems with Trotsky

[CesareBorgia]

Hi, can someone address these issues please?

1. Trotsky in 1936-37 writes that the horse is still as important in warfare as in the days of Napoleon. How do you explain such a foolish assertion?

2. Trotsky's 'prophesies'

Trotsky analysis is always filled with stuff like this; "on the one hand.... but on the other hand"

Example: (paraphrasing of course) "Stalin is looking for a deal with France and UK, Hitler is looking at UK, if they dont get it, then a deal between them is inevitable"

Well obviously there will be a deal made somewhere here, and then Trotsky can claim to have seen it all coming a mile away.

His analysis of the USSR is the greatest case-in-point; he says that either A.) there is a proletarian political revolution against the bureaucracy B.) or the bureaucracy eventually restores capitalism C.) it keeps going in its present form but eventually returns to one of the first two options.

Then option B happens and T looks like a Cassandra with his 50 year old prediction. But what other options are there?

And if T is ever wrong about anything, hes not really wrong, its just part of the method of analysis. Everything is always predicted by him, he sees everything, he can never be wrong.

I am not questioning his genius, obviously he is a genius.

But then you have to take into account someone like Conzeeleeza Rice who made a career of being a USSR 'expert' but said she could not have seen the USSR fall the way it did because nothing in her textbook gave such a possibility. She really said this I kid you not.


Thank you/

[Lorax]

As far as the collapse of the Soviet Union, I would be surprised if you could find a single scholar of any political inclination that predicted that in 1985. That chain of events took everyone by surprise. I'm not familiar with the particular Trotsky writings you're referring to- perhaps you could provide some citations? Trotsky surely said some things in his lifetime that turned out to be wrong but who hasn't? I vaguely recall some of Marx's thoughts about the American Civil War that didn't exactly pan out.

[CesareBorgia]

As far as the collapse of the Soviet Union, I would be surprised if you could find a single scholar of any political inclination that predicted that in 1985. That chain of events took everyone by surprise. I'm not familiar with the particular Trotsky writings you're referring to- perhaps you could provide some citations? Trotsky surely said some things in his lifetime that turned out to be wrong but who hasn't? I vaguely recall some of Marx's thoughts about the American Civil War that didn't exactly pan out.

...


Will the bureaucrat devour the workers’ state, or will the working class clean up the bureaucrat? Thus stands the question upon whose decision hangs the fate of the Soviet Union.


Privileges have only half their worth, if they cannot be transmitted to one’s children. But the right of testament is inseparable from the right of property. It is not enough to be the director of a trust; it is necessary to be a stockholder.


The Soviet Union is a contradictory society halfway between capitalism and socialism, in which: (a) the productive forces are still far from adequate to give the state property a socialist character; (b) the tendency toward primitive accumulation created by want breaks out through innumerable pores of the planned economy; (c) norms of distribution preserving a bourgeois character lie at the basis of a new differentiation of society; (d) the economic growth, while slowly bettering the situation of the toilers, promotes a swift formation of privileged strata; (e) exploiting the social antagonisms, a bureaucracy has converted itself into an uncontrolled caste alien to socialism; (f) the social revolution, betrayed by the ruling party, still exists in property relations and in the consciousness of the toiling masses; (g) a further development of the accumulating contradictions can as well lead to socialism as back to capitalism; (h) on the road to capitalism the counterrevolution would have to break the resistance of the workers; (i) on the road to socialism the workers would have to overthrow the bureaucracy. In the last analysis, the question will be decided by a struggle of living social forces, both on the national and the world arena.


If – to adopt a second hypothesis – a bourgeois party were to overthrow the ruling Soviet caste, it would find no small number of ready servants among the present bureaucrats, administrators, technicians, directors, party secretaries and privileged upper circles in general. A purgation of the state apparatus would, of course, be necessary in this case too. But a bourgeois restoration would probably have to clean out fewer people than a revolutionary party. The chief task of the new power would be to restore private property in the means of production. First of all, it would be necessary to create conditions for the development of strong farmers from the weak collective farms, and for converting the strong collectives into producers’ cooperatives of the bourgeois type into agricultural stock companies. In the sphere of industry, denationalization would begin with the light industries and those producing food. The planning principle would be converted for the transitional period into a series of compromises between state power and individual “corporations” – potential proprietors, that is, among the Soviet captains of industry, the émigré former proprietors and foreign capitalists. Notwithstanding that the Soviet bureaucracy has gone far toward preparing a bourgeois restoration, the new regime would have to introduce in the matter of forms of property and methods of industry not a reform, but a social revolution.


A collapse of the Soviet regime would lead inevitably to the collapse of the planned economy, and thus to the abolition of state property. The bond of compulsion between the trusts and the factories within them would fall away. The more successful enterprises would succeed in coming out on the road of independence. They might convert or they might find some themselves into stock companies, other transitional form of property – one, for example, in which the workers should participate in the profits. The collective farms would disintegrate at the same time, and far more easily. The fall of the present bureaucratic dictatorship, if it were not replaced by a new socialist power, would thus mean a return to capitalist relations with a catastrophic decline of industry and culture.


Since of all the strata of Soviet society the bureaucracy has best solved its own social problem, and is fully content with the existing situation, it has ceased to offer any subjective guarantee whatever of the socialist direction of its policy. It continues to preserve state property only to the extent that it fears the proletariat ..... As a conscious political force the bureaucracy has betrayed the revolution. But a victorious revolution is fortunately not only a program and a banner, not only political institutions, but also a system of social relations. To betray it is not enough. You have to overthrow it. The October revolution has been betrayed by the ruling stratum, but not yet overthrown. It has a great power of resistance, coinciding with the established property relations, with the living force of the proletariat, the consciousness of its best elements, the impasse of world capitalism, and the inevitability of world revolution.

[red cat]

3. Despite his severe criticism of Stalin in almost all other matters, Trotsky, as far as I know, did not make a single comment on the outlawing of abortion and homosexuality in the USSR. What does this say about him ?

[Q]

1. Trotsky in 1936-37 writes that the horse is still as important in warfare as in the days of Napoleon. How do you explain such a foolish assertion?
Back in 1936-37 this was very much a correct assertion. The most modern army of the day, the German, still heavily relied on horsepower to get to the front when it invaded the USSR.


And if T is ever wrong about anything, hes not really wrong, its just part of the method of analysis. Everything is always predicted by him, he sees everything, he can never be wrong.
This is not a very realistic approach towards humans. You're turning Trotsky into an idol with comments like this.


But then you have to take into account someone like Conzeeleeza Rice who made a career of being a USSR 'expert' but said she could not have seen the USSR fall the way it did because nothing in her textbook gave such a possibility. She really said this I kid you not.

She was hardly alone in this. Much of the left didn't see it coming. I believe the late Ted Grant only recognised capitalist restauration in Russia as late as 1998.

[9]

3. Despite his severe criticism of Stalin in almost all other matters, Trotsky, as far as I know, did not make a single comment on the outlawing of abortion and homosexuality in the USSR. What does this say about him ?


On this subject even the optimistic Pravda is sometimes compelled to make a bitter confession: “The birth of a child is for many women a serious menace to their position.” It is just for this reason that the revolutionary power gave women the right to abortion, which in conditions of want and family distress, whatever may be said upon this subject by the eunuchs and old maids of both sexes, is one of her most important civil, political and cultural rights.

[...]

One of the members of the highest Soviet court, Soltz, a specialist on matrimonial questions, bases the forthcoming prohibition of abortion on the fact that in a socialist society where there are no unemployed, etc., etc., a woman has no right to decline “the joys of motherhood.” The philosophy of a priest endowed also with the powers of a gendarme. We just heard from the central organ of the ruling party that the birth of a child is for many women, and it would be truer to say for the overwhelming majority, “a menace to their position.” We just heard from the highest Soviet institution that “the liquidation of homeless and uncared-for children is being weakly carried out,” which undoubtedly means a new increase of homelessness. But here the highest Soviet judge informs us that in a country where “life is happy” abortion should be punished with imprisonment – just exactly as in capitalist countries where life is grievous. It is clear in advance that in the Soviet Union as in the West those who will fall into the claws of the jailer will be chiefly working women, servants, peasant wives, who find it hard to conceal their troubles.

[...]

“We have need of people,” concludes Soltz, closing his eyes to the homeless. “Then have the kindness to bear them yourselves,” might be the answer to the high judge of millions of toiling women, if the bureaucracy had not sealed their lips with the seal of silence. These gentlemen have, it seems, completely forgotten that socialism was to remove the cause which impels woman to abortion, and not force her into the “joys of motherhood” with the help of a foul police interference in what is to every woman the most intimate sphere of life.

The draft of the law forbidding abortion was submitted to so-called universal popular discussion, and even through the fine sieve of the Soviet press many bitter complaints and stifled protests broke out. The discussion was cut off as suddenly as it had been announced, and on June 27th the Central Executive Committee converted the shameful draft into a thrice shameful law. Even some of the official apologists of the bureaucracy were embarrassed. Louis Fischer declared this piece of legislation something in the nature of a deplorable misunderstanding. In reality the new law against women – with an exception in favor of ladies – is the natural and logical fruit of a Thermidorian reaction.

The triumphal rehabilitation of the family, taking place simultaneously – what a providential coincidence! – with the rehabilitation of the ruble, is caused by the material and cultural bankruptcy of the state. Instead of openly saying, “We have proven still too poor and ignorant for the creation of socialist relations among men, our children and grandchildren will realize this aim”, the leaders are forcing people to glue together again the shell of the broken family, and not only that, but to consider it, under threat of extreme penalties, the sacred nucleus of triumphant socialism. It is hard to measure with the eye the scope of this retreat.

Everybody and everything is dragged into the new course: lawgiver and litterateur, court and militia, newspaper and schoolroom. When a naive and honest communist youth makes bold to write in his paper: “You would do better to occupy yourself with solving the problem how woman can get out of the clutches of the family,” he receives in answer a couple of good smacks and – is silent.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch07.htm

[KC]

Example: (paraphrasing of course) "Stalin is looking for a deal with France and UK, Hitler is looking at UK, if they dont get it, then a deal between them is inevitable"

Well obviously there will be a deal made somewhere here, and then Trotsky can claim to have seen it all coming a mile away.

His analysis of the USSR is the greatest case-in-point; he says that either A.) there is a proletarian political revolution against the bureaucracy B.) or the bureaucracy eventually restores capitalism C.) it keeps going in its present form but eventually returns to one of the first two options.

Then option B happens and T looks like a Cassandra with his 50 year old prediction. But what other options are there? That's how analysis works. You look at the current situation, and how things have developed thus far, and then make educated guesses as to how developments could unfold. Why is that so frustrating to you?


3. Despite his severe criticism of Stalin in almost all other matters, Trotsky, as far as I know, did not make a single comment on the outlawing of abortion and homosexuality in the USSR. What does this say about him ?


The mass homelessness of children is undoubtedly the most unmistakable and most tragic symptom of the difficult situation of the mother. On this subject even the optimistic Pravda is sometimes compelled to make a bitter confession: “The birth of a child is for many women a serious menace to their position.” It is just for this reason that the revolutionary power gave women the right to abortion, which in conditions of want and family distress, whatever may be said upon this subject by the eunuchs and old maids of both sexes, is one of her most important civil, political and cultural rights. However, this right of women too, gloomy enough in itself, is under the existing social inequality being converted into a privilege. Bits of information trickling into the press about the practice of abortion are literally shocking. Thus through only one village hospital in one district of the Urals, there passed in 1935 “195 women mutilated by midwives” – among them 33 working women, 28 clerical workers, 65 collective farm women, 58 housewives, etc. This Ural district differs from the majority of other districts only in that information about it happened to get into the press. How many women are mutilated every day throughout the extent of the Soviet Union?
Having revealed its inability to serve women who are compelled to resort to abortion with the necessary medical aid and sanitation, the state makes a sharp change of course, and takes the road of prohibition. And just as in other situations, the bureaucracy makes a virtue of necessity. One of the members of the highest Soviet court, Soltz, a specialist on matrimonial questions, bases the forthcoming prohibition of abortion on the fact that in a socialist society where there are no unemployed, etc., etc., a woman has no right to decline “the joys of motherhood.” The philosophy of a priest endowed also with the powers of a gendarme. We just heard from the central organ of the ruling party that the birth of a child is for many women, and it would be truer to say for the overwhelming majority, “a menace to their position.” We just heard from the highest Soviet institution that “the liquidation of homeless and uncared-for children is being weakly carried out,” which undoubtedly means a new increase of homelessness. But here the highest Soviet judge informs us that in a country where “life is happy” abortion should be punished with imprisonment – just exactly as in capitalist countries where life is grievous. It is clear in advance that in the Soviet Union as in the West those who will fall into the claws of the jailer will be chiefly working women, servants, peasant wives, who find it hard to conceal their troubles. As far as concerns “our women”, who furnish the demand for fine perfumes and other pleasant things, they will, as formerly, do what they find necessary under the very nose of an indulgent justiciary. “We have need of people,” concludes Soltz, closing his eyes to the homeless. “Then have the kindness to bear them yourselves,” might be the answer to the high judge of millions of toiling women, if the bureaucracy had not sealed their lips with the seal of silence. These gentlemen have, it seems, completely forgotten that socialism was to remove the cause which impels woman to abortion, and not force her into the “joys of motherhood” with the help of a foul police interference in what is to every woman the most intimate sphere of life.
The draft of the law forbidding abortion was submitted to so-called universal popular discussion, and even through the fine sieve of the Soviet press many bitter complaints and stifled protests broke out. The discussion was cut off as suddenly as it had been announced, and on June 27th the Central Executive Committee converted the shameful draft into a thrice shameful law. Even some of the official apologists of the bureaucracy were embarrassed. Louis Fischer declared this piece of legislation something in the nature of a deplorable misunderstanding. In reality the new law against women – with an exception in favor of ladies – is the natural and logical fruit of a Thermidorian reaction.
The triumphal rehabilitation of the family, taking place simultaneously – what a providential coincidence! – with the rehabilitation of the ruble, is caused by the material and cultural bankruptcy of the state. Instead of openly saying, “We have proven still too poor and ignorant for the creation of socialist relations among men, our children and grandchildren will realize this aim”, the leaders are forcing people to glue together again the shell of the broken family, and not only that, but to consider it, under threat of extreme penalties, the sacred nucleus of triumphant socialism. It is hard to measure with the eye the scope of this retreat.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch07.htm


Took me all of 5 minutes to find. It's obvious from your lack of effort and the idiocy of the question that you're just trolling, though, so I understand that you don't actually care what he wrote on the subject and that you were just trying to score some points.

EDIT: Boo you beat me to it, I wanted to pwn him first. :(

[CesareBorgia]

3. Despite his severe criticism of Stalin in almost all other matters, Trotsky, as far as I know, did not make a single comment on the outlawing of abortion and homosexuality in the USSR. What does this say about him ?


http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch07.htm

Yeah, he made countless comments on abortion.


The Kremlin bureaucracy, tells the Soviet woman: In asmuch as there is socialismin our country, you must be happy and you must give up abortions (or suffer the penalty). To the Ukrainian they say: Inasmuch as the socialist revolution has solved the national question, it is your duty to be happy in the USSR and to renounce all thought of separation (or face the firing squad).

What does a revolutionist say to the woman? “You will decide yourself whether you want a child: I will defend your right to abortion against the Kremlin police.” To the Ukrainian people he says: “Of importance to me is your attitude toward your national destiny and not the ‘socialistic’ sophistries of the Kremlin police; I will support your struggle for independence with all my might!”

[Sir Comradical]

3. Despite his severe criticism of Stalin in almost all other matters, Trotsky, as far as I know, did not make a single comment on the outlawing of abortion and homosexuality in the USSR. What does this say about him ?

What does that say about the actual regime that outlawed abortion and homosexuality?

[red cat]

Thanks for clarifying the abortion issue, everyone. But why is the homosexuality issue not being addressed ?

[red cat]

What does that say about the actual regime that outlawed abortion and homosexuality?

That it failed to apply the mass line properly and needs to be severely criticized for the same reason?

[RedTrackWorker]

As far as the collapse of the Soviet Union, I would be surprised if you could find a single scholar of any political inclination that predicted that in 1985. That chain of events took everyone by surprise. I'm not familiar with the particular Trotsky writings you're referring to- perhaps you could provide some citations? Trotsky surely said some things in his lifetime that turned out to be wrong but who hasn't? I vaguely recall some of Marx's thoughts about the American Civil War that didn't exactly pan out.

My political tendency did in 1976. The article isn't online but this one (http://lrp-cofi.org/PR/StalinismPR65.html) discusses it and the book (which is on the website) goes into it as well.

On the original question, there's an example in the discussion on the Transitional Program were he says "a third term for FDR is ruled out" or something along those lines. Of course FDR was elected twice more. Of course it was a discussion and not a written article, but yes, he could be wrong. For more than that I think you'll need to be more specific in terms of what you're looking for.

[Os Cangaceiros]

1. Trotsky in 1936-37 writes that the horse is still as important in warfare as in the days of Napoleon. How do you explain such a foolish assertion?


Wow, this is a criticism of Trotsky that I've never encountered before. Not one mention of his stance on Kronstadt or the Hotel Bristol, I commend you good sir.

[Per Levy]

Thanks for clarifying the abortion issue, everyone. But why is the homosexuality issue not being addressed ?

"The triumphal rehabilitation of the family, taking place simultaneously – what a providential coincidence! – with the rehabilitation of the ruble, is caused by the material and cultural bankruptcy of the state. Instead of openly saying, “We have proven still too poor and ignorant for the creation of socialist relations among men, our children and grandchildren will realize this aim”, the leaders are forcing people to glue together again the shell of the broken family, and not only that, but to consider it, under threat of extreme penalties, the sacred nucleus of triumphant socialism. It is hard to measure with the eye the scope of this retreat."

its adressed right there...

[red cat]

"The triumphal rehabilitation of the family, taking place simultaneously – what a providential coincidence! – with the rehabilitation of the ruble, is caused by the material and cultural bankruptcy of the state. Instead of openly saying, “We have proven still too poor and ignorant for the creation of socialist relations among men, our children and grandchildren will realize this aim”, the leaders are forcing people to glue together again the shell of the broken family, and not only that, but to consider it, under threat of extreme penalties, the sacred nucleus of triumphant socialism. It is hard to measure with the eye the scope of this retreat."

its adressed right there...

Where ? Where is homosexuality even mentioned ? :confused:

[Tommy4ever]

1. Trotsky in 1936-37 writes that the horse is still as important in warfare as in the days of Napoleon. How do you explain such a foolish assertion?


What an odd criticism. :p

As others have mentioned you clearly grossly underestimate the importance of the horse in WWII. Many armies still employed the horse in the frontline (more as a method of quickly moving infantry into positions) but the real importance of the horse was the same role it had always filled - as an invaluable logistical tool. I'm sorry that I don't have a link on me but I remember reading somewhere that around 90% of German supplies to the Eastern Front were carried by horses. Throughout the early part of the war horses were the main tool for keeping supply lines open for basically every army. Only later in the war did trucks start to become a more important logistical tool, bit only really for the Western Allies and only really in Europe where there were roads and other infrastructure to allow for this.

In Asia and the Eastern Front horses remained more important than trains and trucks.

So even here your strange criticism of Trotsky does really hold up too well.

[graymouser]

1. Trotsky in 1936-37 writes that the horse is still as important in warfare as in the days of Napoleon. How do you explain such a foolish assertion?
Before World War II, how do you think logistics was done? Now, certain things made horses obsolete for many military uses during WWII - I'm thinking specifically of portable radios and military vehicles such as the jeep. But even then it was not yet completely done with. And the switch over to automobiles has its own problems, of course.


2. Trotsky's 'prophesies'
To be honest, the whole "Trotsky as prophet" thing is overblown. The Old Man was wrong about a lot of things. For instance, he didn't think the Stalinist bureaucracy would last another 50 years after his death - yet it did. His underlying analysis was still solid, and it's still the only thing that explains the dynamic of growth followed by stagnation and the eventual capitulation of the bureaucracy to become part of international capital.

After World War II, quite a bit of Trotsky's work had to be revisited; Trotsky thought that another revolutionary wave would follow the war, but underestimated how thoroughly the Stalinist parties would suppress it in countries like France and Italy. Generally Trotsky's perspectives have been used more as an analytical guide by Trotskyists than as some kind of Nostradamus calendar.

[Sir Comradical]

That it failed to apply the mass line properly and needs to be severely criticized for the same reason?

Okay well played.

[Book O'Dead]

Hi, can someone address these issues please?

And if T is ever wrong about anything, hes not really wrong, its just part of the method of analysis. Everything is always predicted by him, he sees everything, he can never be wrong.



Well, he did predict the rise of despotic one-man rule in USSR saying that Lenin's "methods" lead to the dictatorship of the party, to the dictatorship of the central committee and finally to the dictatorship by one man (to paraphrase).

Unfortunately when he joined the Bolsheviks he went back on that prediction, which later turned out to be spot on.

Trotsky was a great revolutionary; a man of enormous courage, sound convictions and extraordinary intellect. That, unfortunately, did not immunize him from making fatal mistakes.