How do you think the Soviet Union would have differed if . . .

[Caj]

. . . Trotsky would have succeeded Lenin instead of Stalin?

[Nox]

. . . Trotsky would have succeeded Lenin instead of Stalin?

We would be living in a world in which there is a cold war... between Nazi Germany and the USA.

[Jimmie Higgins]

. . . Trotsky would have succeeded Lenin instead of Stalin?I don't think this could have single-handedly changed the objective problems faced by Russia with a working class that was severed from real democratic soviet-based rule and been disorganized by all the hardships after the Revolution. In the short-term things would have still remained very difficult and would not have healthy conditions for worker's power and Russia still would have been isolated in the short-term.

However, if the left wing opposition had won out over "socialism in one country" there would have been a better chance that Russia could have held on and still kept the possibility of worker's power and internationalism alive. The Comintern could have remained an organization for supporting world revolution rather than one dedicated to Russian foreign policy interests, the CPs might have also maintained a revolutionary and proletarian-democracy orientation and this could have made a difference when the depression hit and revolutionary situations re-emerged like in Spain.

Even if the world revolution never came and Russia failed to hold-out, in the long run it could have meant that the legacy of the revolution remained worker's power through soviets rather than what it became: development of a national economy through state-run nationalization i.e. socialism in one country.

[RedAnarchist]

We would be living in a world in which there is a cold war... between Nazi Germany and the USA.

Why would we, and how would Nazi Germany have survived into the 21st century, even if it had won the Second World War?

[Ismail]

. . . Trotsky would have succeeded Lenin instead of Stalin?Obviously, but this isn't really a discussion of history; it's a discussion of alternate history, especially since it covers many decades and would be filled with tons of speculation, so I don't think this thread belongs in the History forum.

Moved to Chit-Chat.

[Ismail]

The Comintern could have remained an organization for supporting world revolution rather than one dedicated to Russian foreign policy interests,I don't think there's a distinction. The Soviet Union (not "Russia") was the center of the world proletarian revolution. As Lenin said (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/feb/28.htm), "As regards the first question, the authors’ idea evidently is that it would be expedient in the interests of tho world revolution to accept the possibility of defeat in war, which would lead to the loss of Soviet power, in other words, to the triumph of the bourgeoisie in Russia....

Perhaps the authors believe that the interests of the world revolution forbid making any peace at all with imperialists? ... The incorrectness of this view (which was rejected, for example, by a majority of the Petrograd opponents of peace) is as clear as day. A socialist republic surrounded by imperialist powers could not, from this point of view, conclude any economic treaties, and could not exist at all, without flying to the moon.

... Actually, however, the interests of the world revolution demand that Soviet power, having overthrown the bourgeoisie in our country, should help that revolution, but that it should choose a form of help which is commensurate with its own strength. To help the socialist revolution on an international scale by accepting the possibility of defeat of that revolution in one's own country is a view that does not follow even from the 'pushing' theory.

Perhaps the authors of the resolution believe that revolution has already begun in Germany and has already reached the stage of an open, nation-wide civil war, that we must therefore devote our strength to helping the German workers, and must perish ourselves ('losing Soviet power') to save a German revolution which has already started its decisive fight and is being hard pressed? According to this theory, we, while perishing ourselves, would be diverting part of the forces of German counter-revolution, thereby saving the German revolution. It is quite conceivable that, given these premises, it would not only be 'expedient' (as the authors of the resolution put it) but a downright duty to accept the possibility of defeat and the possibility of the loss of Soviet power. But obviously these premises do not exist...

Twist and turn them how you will, but you can find no logic in the authors’ contentions. There are no sensible arguments to support the view that 'in the interests of the world revolution it is expedient to accept the possibility of losing Soviet power'."

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think there's a distinction. The Soviet Union (not "Russia") was the center of the world proletarian revolution. As Lenin said (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/feb/28.htm), "As regards the first question, the authors’ idea evidently is that it would be expedient in the interests of tho world revolution to accept the possibility of defeat in war, which would lead to the loss of Soviet power, in other words, to the triumph of the bourgeoisie in Russia....

Perhaps the authors believe that the interests of the world revolution forbid making any peace at all with imperialists? ... The incorrectness of this view (which was rejected, for example, by a majority of the Petrograd opponents of peace) is as clear as day. A socialist republic surrounded by imperialist powers could not, from this point of view, conclude any economic treaties, and could not exist at all, without flying to the moon.

... Actually, however, the interests of the world revolution demand that Soviet power, having overthrown the bourgeoisie in our country, should help that revolution, but that it should choose a form of help which is commensurate with its own strength. To help the socialist revolution on an international scale by accepting the possibility of defeat of that revolution in one's own country is a view that does not follow even from the 'pushing' theory.

Perhaps the authors of the resolution believe that revolution has already begun in Germany and has already reached the stage of an open, nation-wide civil war, that we must therefore devote our strength to helping the German workers, and must perish ourselves ('losing Soviet power') to save a German revolution which has already started its decisive fight and is being hard pressed? According to this theory, we, while perishing ourselves, would be diverting part of the forces of German counter-revolution, thereby saving the German revolution. It is quite conceivable that, given these premises, it would not only be 'expedient' (as the authors of the resolution put it) but a downright duty to accept the possibility of defeat and the possibility of the loss of Soviet power. But obviously these premises do not exist...

Twist and turn them how you will, but you can find no logic in the authors’ contentions. There are no sensible arguments to support the view that 'in the interests of the world revolution it is expedient to accept the possibility of losing Soviet power'."

Sheesh, you need some context here. This is not an argument for "socialism in one country" this is an argument about tactics in an ongoing revolutionary situation. Lenin is arguing in favor of making a separate peace - essentially because the alternative would be immediate war from Germany. In the very section you quote he argues FOR internationalism (see the bold part) saying that if there were an actual revolution in Germany and things hung in the balance, it would be the DUTY to risk the loss of the revolution in Russia for the chance of the revolution spreading to the largest and most important industrial country with the most mature working class in the world (Germany)!

He is making a "live to fight another day" argument essentially, not advocating some principle and the whole basis of the tactical decision is not how to make an island of socialism in Russia, but how to navigate the post-revolution situation in order to then HELP world-wide revolution.

[Nuvem]

NEP, NEP everywhere.

[gendoikari]

Why would we, and how would Nazi Germany have survived into the 21st century, even if it had won the Second World War?

It wouldn't have won WWII, period. America alone outproduced germany's ass, had we not decided to fight the japanese or left them alone from the start we could have steam rolled germany into submission. It's imporant to note that WWII was a numbers game of who could produce more, more quickly. Germany had some amazingly advanced technology but it couldn't be produced in the numbers germany needed.

Long story short. Germany didn't have the production output to win that war, and what they were producing was done to such exact specifications and tight tolerances it was sapping them of what they did have. When you are facing 5 tanks for every 1 you have it doesn't matter how big or strong they are ( well to a point, if germany had had M1A2's they MIGHT have stood a chance) your going down.

NOW on the other hand if you add in an early assasination of hitler, and a carefully slow expansion of germany, coupled with waiting a few years for germany to develope that technology and produce more of it, either in secret or in peace. They could have had a chance.

[Ismail]

Sheesh, you need some context here. This is not an argument for "socialism in one country" this is an argument about tactics in an ongoing revolutionary situation.I never claimed that it's an argument for "Socialism in One Country."


He is making a "live to fight another day" argument essentially, not advocating some principle and the whole basis of the tactical decision is not how to make an island of socialism in Russia, but how to navigate the post-revolution situation in order to then HELP world-wide revolution.The point is that the interests of the USSR were in line with the interests of all internationalists across the world. That was the point I was trying to make. You can't really separate the two.

We differ fundamentally because I view Stalin as simply continuing Lenin's foreign policy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

We differ fundamentally because I view Stalin as simply continuing Lenin's foreign policy.Except that Lenin's "foreign policy", as shown in the quote above was trying to aid international revolution in order to salvage the Revolution in Russia. Socialism in One country, conversely, used the international links set up after the revolution but to aid Russia - even to the detriment of the international revolution! The CPs during and after WWII were used to maintain the international status quo, they betrayed uprisings and popular movements in the interests of Russia, not revolution and certainly not the international working class.

[Nox]

Why would we, and how would Nazi Germany have survived into the 21st century, even if it had won the Second World War?

Because a Soviet Union under the leadership of Trotsky would never have had the strength to defend itself from Nazi Germany.

And I'm just assuming for argument's sake that it would survive. Maybe in a parallel universe Nazi Germany disbanded in 1991.

[Ismail]

Except that Lenin's "foreign policy", as shown in the quote above was trying to aid international revolution in order to salvage the Revolution in Russia. Socialism in One country, conversely, used the international links set up after the revolution but to aid Russia - even to the detriment of the international revolution! The CPs during and after WWII were used to maintain the international status quo, they betrayed uprisings and popular movements in the interests of Russia, not revolution and certainly not the international working class.I have no interest in debating this subject, which has been discussed time and time again. I don't think Stalin "betrayed uprisings" anymore than Lenin "betrayed" Turkish communists to Atatürk or what have you.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Fair enouff

[Aurora]

We would be living in a world in which there is a cold war... between Nazi Germany and the USA.
Ya man, i hear that idiot Peoples Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs Trotsky didn't know anything about war, just like that ignoramus Tukhachevsky. They had no idea about the revolutionary strategy of letting the Wehrmacht advance to Moscow, Petrograd and Volgograd.

NEP, NEP everywhere.
Lol, i'm sure your aware that it was the Left Opposition that put forward the Five Year Plan right?

[Nox]

Ya man, i hear that idiot Peoples Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs Trotsky didn't know anything about war, just like that ignoramus Tukhachevsky. They had no idea about the revolutionary strategy of letting the Wehrmacht advance to Moscow, Petrograd and Volgograd.

Stalin did make mistakes, he was only human. But his collectivisation of agriculture and five year plans won the war.

Trotsky may have been a good general, but there is no way the war could have been won for the Soviet Union without Stalin's huge industrialisation caused by his five year plans and collectivisation of agriculture.

[Nox]

Petrograd and Volgograd.

By the way, it's Leningrad and Stalingrad ;)

Not sure if that was a failed ad hom, or ignorance.

[Gustav HK]

1925: The Soviet leadership under Trotsky declares an end to NEP, and begins propagating collectivization and dekulakization. Moreover the millitarization of labour is started. Because it is so short time after the civil war, the party and state does not have enough strenght to crush the kulaks. The NEP bourgeoisie is crushed. Workers begin to protest the millitarization.

1926-1931: First 5-year plan. Uprisings against millitarization of labour and In using a great amount on the countries resources on spreading the revolution forces the trotskyist leadership to abandon the millitarization of labour.
Because of too many resources being used to spread revolution (unsuccesfully), strikes and other rebellions including the kulak rebellion the 5-year plan does not achieve its goals.

In 1927, on the 15. Congress of AUCP(B), Trotskys policy is criticized by Stalin. The Congress denounces the millitarization of labour but supports Trotskys leadership.

USSR is suffering from food shortages, leading sometimes to famine because of the kulak uprising. USSR imports grain. Many powerfull capitalist countries make laws on "semi-embargo" of the USSR (e.g. high prices on food exported to the USSR).

1930-1932: Final offensive against the kulaks. Great famine, but the kulaks are crushed.

1932: 16. Congress of AUCP(B). Trotsky and his leadership are denounced for leading the country into economic ruin and for not doing enough to combat the bureaucracy such as managers on the factories, who are using an arrogant commando-approach toward the workers leading to strikes. Stalin is elected as leader of the Party, 10. august.

Stalin holds a speech, where he protest against those, who want to expel Trotsky and his followers from the Party and he reminds the Congress participants that Trotsky managed to crush the kulaks. He also denounces Bukharin and Rykov for their pro-kulak policy, but is against expelling them from the Party.
The Congress supports Stalin.
Stalins new SiOC policy also finds support in the Congress

The day after, 11. august, Trotsky and a group of his supporters form the "Committee for the Salvation of the Revolution". They declare themselves to be "the avantgarde of the avantgarde", but they are secret.

13. august: Trotsky uses his support in the millitary to call on the millitary in Moscow to arrest his opponents in the Congress. Trotsky accuses his opponents for high treason against the world revolution. The Committee goes public.
The purged Congress reinstates Trotsky as leader of the Party.

Protest begin in Moscow and spread fast throughout the whole country. The "stalinists" find support in the people.
Local tribunals are being set up and they are arresting Trotsky´s opponents.

The USSR is now de facto a millitary dictatorship.

1933-1935: 1. part of the 2. Civil war. Trotsky defeats the "stalinists", the nationalists, and the former kulaks aswell as other old bourgeois elements.
The "stalinists" were the most popular group, and the majority of the proletariat supported the "stalinists".
The "stalinists" are totally crushed, while the nationalists and the former kulaks still continue their uprisings, although they are isolated.

But as a result a new state bourgeoisie is created from Trotskys supporters.
Trotsky admits this shortcoming but says that the most important thing now is to spread the revolution, especially to Germany, which fell to fascism in 1933.

1935-1936: 2. part of the 2. Civil war Many powerfull capitalist countries, including UK, France and Germany begin to support the nationalists, former kulaks and other counter-revolutionary elements in the USSR. Many members of the white emigré are organized in volunteer batallions against the Soviet leadership.

2. december 1936: Trotsky and other members of the Soviet leadership are arrested by the counter-revolutionaries. They declare the Russian republic.
Many other Soviet republics have already succumbed to the counter-revolution.
The USSR is replaced with a confederation. The great-russians are forced to accept it.

All the republics, especially Russia opens to foreign investment.

Germany has secret plans for attacking the Confederation.
France and UK begin to suspect Germany for wanting to attack the Confederation.
The countries of the Confederation are mostly dominated by anti-german leaderships, and thus keeping German influence on a minimum...... (the peace will not last long).

[Sir Comradical]

We would be living in a world in which there is a cold war... between Nazi Germany and the USA.

We are talking about Leon Trotsky right? You know the guy who actually built the Red Army from scratch?

[Sir Comradical]

Stalin did make mistakes, he was only human. But his collectivisation of agriculture and five year plans won the war.

Trotsky may have been a good general, but there is no way the war could have been won for the Soviet Union without Stalin's huge industrialisation caused by his five year plans and collectivisation of agriculture.

Actually, Trotsky agreed with collectivisation & industrialisation.

[Blake's Baby]

The leadership of the USSR would in no significant way have been able to alter the fact of the isolation of the revolution. Without world revolution, which Trotsky was in no better position to conjour up than Stalin was, the USSR would have been pretty much what it was in 'real' history.

[Rusty Shackleford]

1925: The Soviet leadership under Trotsky declares an end to NEP, and begins propagating collectivization and dekulakization. Moreover the millitarization of labour is started. Because it is so short time after the civil war, the party and state does not have enough strenght to crush the kulaks. The NEP bourgeoisie is crushed. Workers begin to protest the millitarization.

1926-1931: First 5-year plan. Uprisings against millitarization of labour and In using a great amount on the countries resources on spreading the revolution forces the trotskyist leadership to abandon the millitarization of labour.
Because of too many resources being used to spread revolution (unsuccesfully), strikes and other rebellions including the kulak rebellion the 5-year plan does not achieve its goals.

In 1927, on the 15. Congress of AUCP(B), Trotskys policy is criticized by Stalin. The Congress denounces the millitarization of labour but supports Trotskys leadership.

USSR is suffering from food shortages, leading sometimes to famine because of the kulak uprising. USSR imports grain. Many powerfull capitalist countries make laws on "semi-embargo" of the USSR (e.g. high prices on food exported to the USSR).

1930-1932: Final offensive against the kulaks. Great famine, but the kulaks are crushed.

1932: 16. Congress of AUCP(B). Trotsky and his leadership are denounced for leading the country into economic ruin and for not doing enough to combat the bureaucracy such as managers on the factories, who are using an arrogant commando-approach toward the workers leading to strikes. Stalin is elected as leader of the Party, 10. august.

Stalin holds a speech, where he protest against those, who want to expel Trotsky and his followers from the Party and he reminds the Congress participants that Trotsky managed to crush the kulaks. He also denounces Bukharin and Rykov for their pro-kulak policy, but is against expelling them from the Party.
The Congress supports Stalin.
Stalins new SiOC policy also finds support in the Congress

The day after, 11. august, Trotsky and a group of his supporters form the "Committee for the Salvation of the Revolution". They declare themselves to be "the avantgarde of the avantgarde", but they are secret.

13. august: Trotsky uses his support in the millitary to call on the millitary in Moscow to arrest his opponents in the Congress. Trotsky accuses his opponents for high treason against the world revolution. The Committee goes public.
The purged Congress reinstates Trotsky as leader of the Party.

Protest begin in Moscow and spread fast throughout the whole country. The "stalinists" find support in the people.
Local tribunals are being set up and they are arresting Trotsky´s opponents.

The USSR is now de facto a millitary dictatorship.

1933-1935: 1. part of the 2. Civil war. Trotsky defeats the "stalinists", the nationalists, and the former kulaks aswell as other old bourgeois elements.
The "stalinists" were the most popular group, and the majority of the proletariat supported the "stalinists".
The "stalinists" are totally crushed, while the nationalists and the former kulaks still continue their uprisings, although they are isolated.

But as a result a new state bourgeoisie is created from Trotskys supporters.
Trotsky admits this shortcoming but says that the most important thing now is to spread the revolution, especially to Germany, which fell to fascism in 1933.

1935-1936: 2. part of the 2. Civil war Many powerfull capitalist countries, including UK, France and Germany begin to support the nationalists, former kulaks and other counter-revolutionary elements in the USSR. Many members of the white emigré are organized in volunteer batallions against the Soviet leadership.

2. december 1936: Trotsky and other members of the Soviet leadership are arrested by the counter-revolutionaries. They declare the Russian republic.
Many other Soviet republics have already succumbed to the counter-revolution.
The USSR is replaced with a confederation. The great-russians are forced to accept it.

All the republics, especially Russia opens to foreign investment.

Germany has secret plans for attacking the Confederation.
France and UK begin to suspect Germany for wanting to attack the Confederation.
The countries of the Confederation are mostly dominated by anti-german leaderships, and thus keeping German influence on a minimum...... (the peace will not last long).




fucking EXCELLENT alternate history/BoP recap.

[Gustav HK]

fucking EXCELLENT alternate history/BoP recap.

Thank you :)