Am I a "Trotskyist"?

[ArseCynic]

I prefer Trotsky over Lenin and the rest of the revolutionaries from the Russian revolution. I subscribe to the works of Karl Marx, more specifically Das Kapital. I agree that Communism in one country is almost impossible.

Does this make me a "Trotskyist" and what does the steriotype of "Trotskyist" usually imply?

[Lanky Wanker]

Here we go again...

[Rafiq]

Do you just make these threads to piss me off or what?

[StockholmSyndrome]

It's his first post give the guy a break. Guy, don't worry too much about pigeonholing yourself. IMO You should not worry about whose name to call yourself by so much as the content of what you actually believe. If you want to learn about what "Trotskyism" or any tendency is/stands for, you should start out by doing some research of your own, because (and I haven't been here long, but long enough to learn this) chances are if you ask such a question on this forum you won't get much out of it.

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

[Zealot]

I don't even know where to start with that.

[Tim Cornelis]

If you don't know, you don't know enough.

Keep on readin' that literature!

[Q]

We need a subforum for "Am I a...?" questions.

Srsly.

[Lanky Wanker]

Do you just make these threads to piss me off or what?

I'm laughing my knob off at this. :laugh: It actually wouldn't surprise me if people started doing it just to get a particular reaction.

[workersadvocate]

Well, you call yourself a technocrat, so you should be right at home with the middle class left, which is where most of the "Trotskyists" are also.
Ask yourself why you consider yourself a Marxist and what is Marxism in your view. What are you trying to accomplish, and how do you aim to get from here to there?
The way people answer this, in words and deeds, reveals their class nature.

[ArseCynic]

Well, you call yourself a technocrat, so you should be right at home with the middle class left, which is where most of the "Trotskyists" are also.
Ask yourself why you consider yourself a Marxist and what is Marxism in your view. What are you trying to accomplish, and how do you aim to get from here to there?
The way people answer this, in words and deeds, reveals their class nature.

I advocate a world without any monetary system or system of trade, a world without any slavery and classism. to get there I'd say we'd have to overthrow the current systems through revolution.

[ArseCynic]

I'm not posting this to piss people off. I'm pretty sure I know what my beliefs are, but a lot of people tend to attach things to my beliefs, I'm just trying to figure out why.

I'm not as new to marxism as you think, I'm just new to the terms of isms.

[Ostrinski]

I don't know, are you? You tell us, god damn.

[Renegade Saint]

I prefer Trotsky over Lenin and the rest of the revolutionaries from the Russian revolution. I subscribe to the works of Karl Marx, more specifically Das Kapital. I agree that Communism in one country is almost impossible.

Does this make me a "Trotskyist" and what does the steriotype of "Trotskyist" usually imply?
Isn't being a technocrat a restrictable offense?

If you think "preferring" Trotsky to Lenin is the mark of a Trotskyist you're probably not one.

[ArseCynic]

By technocrat I don't mean meritocracy.

I don't think that is the mark of a "Trotskyist", I'm asking what the "mark" is.

[dodger]

Frankly I think you need to work on your SECTARIANISM a little harder. Hone it, perfect it concentrate, distil, drip, drip, drip....keep at it comrade
ONE MORE HEAVE and you will be a TROTSKYIST.

Or my name isn't Gerry Healy......it's OK, just remembered my name isn't G.H.......
Thank Fok!!!

[ArseCynic]

Frankly I think you need to work on your SECTARIANISM a little harder. Hone it, perfect it concentrate, distil, drip, drip, drip....keep at it comrade
ONE MORE HEAVE and you will be a TROTSKYIST.

Or my name isn't Gerry Healy......it's OK, just remembered my name isn't G.H.......
Thank Fok!!!

I'm not criticizing anyone. I'm just asking questions about why others do.

[Ocean Seal]

I prefer Trotsky over Lenin and the rest of the revolutionaries from the Russian revolution. I subscribe to the works of Karl Marx, more specifically Das Kapital. I agree that Communism in one country is almost impossible.

Does this make me a "Trotskyist" and what does the steriotype of "Trotskyist" usually imply?
No I'm pretty sure you are an anarcho-Maoist. The stereotype of those is that they are the most awesome people ever. No doubt.

[ArseCynic]

No I'm pretty sure you are an anarcho-Maoist. The stereotype of those is that they are the most awesome people ever. No doubt.

I'm pretty sure I'm not a Maoist.

[Sam_b]

This shouldn't really be in Theory at all.

[ArseCynic]

This shouldn't really be in Theory at all.

sorry, I'm new to this site.

[Klaatu]

Do you just make these threads to piss me off or what?

The guy is a new poster and is asking a question for christsakes... and you bite his head off.

You are starting to annoy me, comrade Rafiq, with your obnoxious responses to people you do not agree with, and are thusly making our leftist movement look bad to outsiders. We already are considered pariahs and a fringe element. Why do you proceed to make this situation worse?

[Ostrinski]

Yeah, the socialist revolution isn't going to happen because of Rafiq's attitude toward dumbasses.

[PhoenixAsh]

What do you mean by prefering Trotsky over Lenin? Do you mean ideologically or style of writing?

[PhoenixAsh]

Yeah, the socialist revolution isn't going to happen because of Rafiq's attitude toward dumbasses.

Yes, sorry...but I am going to give you a verbal warning here for personal insults.


****


This is also a general warning....no more personal insults in this thread. Next users will be infracted.

Thank you for your cooperation :)

[ArseCynic]

What do you mean by prefering Trotsky over Lenin? Do you mean ideologically or style of writing?

Ideologically and in terms of his actions/work. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against Lenin, but I think he made some bad comprimises, and a lot of his greatness was due to Trotsky.

[citizen of industry]

If you like Trotsky's works, make sure you have a thorough reading of other theorist's works before deciding. Basically read as much as you can from as many theorists as you can, then decide. Otherwise you will be getting a one-sided opinion on things.

Also, if you think you might be a Trotskyist, join a Trotskyist party. Try it out. If you like it, good, if not, then reconsider. A lot of people here say to study a whole bunch before jumping in to a party, but I digress. Stick your toe in the water. If you have a bad experience it is a learning experience.

[Klaatu]

I would like to draw attention to the politics going on (right now!) on TV. That is, the Political Right.
Just look at how these fools are tearing each other apart (Romney is the Mormon, yet it is Gingrich
that practices the polygamy!) WHAT A JOKE. Do we really want to be like them, bickering ourselves
into our own irrelevance? Hell no, we are way above that... It is we, the Socialists and Communists, that are
the mature, intellectual, educated, logical, and reasonable ones. Let us show this in our posts, comrades!
We prove to the world that it is WE that are in the right, not the people that hold the power now.

[Ostrinski]

I would like to draw attention to the politics going on (right now!) on TV. That is, the Political Right.
Just look at how these fools are tearing each other apart (Romney is the Mormon, yet it is Gingrich
that practices the polygamy!) WHAT A JOKE. Do we really want to be like them, bickering ourselves
into our own irrelevance? Hell no, we are way above that... It is we, the Socialists and Communists, that are
the mature, intellectual, educated, logical, and reasonable ones. Let us show this in our posts, comrades!
We prove to the world that it is WE that are in the right, not the people that hold the power now.As if we are even comparable to those fucks. The things we are concerned with are completely different. Some sectarian in-fighting is constructive. It allows us to practice our arguments, strengthen the strong ones, and neutralize the bad ones. It's called the dialectic method. It seems most people who complain about sectarianism want others to conform to their tendency, and scoff at the idea of doing the same.

[Ostrinski]

Yes, sorry...but I am going to give you a verbal warning here for personal insults.My apologies.

[Prometeo liberado]

sorry, I'm new to this site.

Don't apologize and don't feel bad. Take this as an opportunity to sharpen your skills. Get in the fight!

[Klaatu]

My apologies.

Oops, I was directing my tirade primarily at Rafiq, not at you. ;)

[Veovis]

Trotskyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism)

Do a little bit of reading, it will help you sort things out.

[Geiseric]

The theoretical ideas of Lenin and Trotsky were identical at the time of the Russian Revolution, so the only possible context for a Trotskyist not being a Leninist would be before 1917 when they were both sectarian, mostly insignificant assholes.

[workersadvocate]

I advocate a world without any monetary system or system of trade, a world without any slavery and classism. to get there I'd say we'd have to overthrow the current systems through revolution.

Okay, can you say why YOU advocate such a world? What made YOU want an revolutionary end to the current system (and I encourage you to reflect in this privately and with absolute honesty at least with yourself)?
Also, since it is possible that Revlefters like me have misunderstood YOUR meaning of "technocrat" (because that has had a certain specific meaning on the historic Left), could you say why you identify as a "technocrat" and what that means to YOU?

Now to the nitty gritty questions:
1) You've said what the world you advocate ISN'T but can you say in positive terms what it WILL BE. How are people compensated for their work? Who actually controls the economy? What is life actually to be like, if truly free of any form of slavery and class stratifications? I'm not asking you to pull out a crystal ball and make specific prediction, but at least for selfclarification's sake, try to develop a vision of the general characteristics of the advocated future in both positive and negative terms (i.e., know what you are pursuing til you can see it fleshed out in your mind, and can find words to effectively express this to others).
Final critical aspect of this question: what is the material prerequisite foundation for such a world? Why is such a world POSSIBLE in the near future?


2)What segments of the current population have a fundamental objective interrst in achieving this sort of world, even risking everything to make revolution against well-armed wealthy and bloodthirsty elitist ruling classes and their defending partners in order to actualize that better world? Why would any "have-some" with any slight hope of better prospects under this system put all their life's chips in on a revolutionary gamble which they could lose everything (remaining freedoms, family and friends, all positive social standing in the eyes of society's elites to the point they'd rather hire the Devil, etc) and may not even survive? Why did Marx and Engels focus on the working class as the class "with nothing to lose but its chains" as the collective agency of communist revolution...why not better educated more privileged and wealthier middle class have-some rebels instead (Marx and Engels weren't socioeconomically disadvantaged working class guys, BTW)?

3) Once you've gotten a conception about who is needed for a world-changing revolution and who has objective interests in pursuing that at all costs despite risks entailed, it is time to consider HOW revolution can be successfully accomplished such that the transition to a better world can be actualized. This is a very contentious difficult question, but lack of clarity does us no favors. HOW could the necessary revolution succeed?
Revolution implies that actual power over society and the economy is seized from the ruling class and its partners, and this actual power is taken and exercised by a fundamentally distinct class with different objective interests FOR ITSELF. So, how could this distinct revolutionary become prepared and strengthed to the point that it could actually seize power, put down any amount of enemy resistance (even to defeat and destroy the US imperialist beast), and becomes organized enough to exercise its own power throughout society and over the entire economy from each workplace and distibution center (shops) to the global level?
Middle class radical coup conspiracy?
Electoral campaigns as third parties or trying to influence bourgeois liberal/labor/social democratic political organizations from within or on their immediate periphery?
Cut -off guerrillas waging "peoples war"?
Hoping the business union bureaucracies do something, and trying to become positioned as union bureaucrats?
Becoming the most trendy political group on college campuses or on the internet?
Individualist lifestylism, radical tantrums for the lulz, and a new hippie movement?
Liberation Theology style churches?
Left sect cults?

Or something else fundamentally different from all of these things the Left has historically done?
How would an exclusively working class, internationalist, revolutionary communist Left do things differently and successfully accomplish revolution?

[getfiscal]

Having Trotskyism doesn't make you a bad person. It is very common among young people. It is very contagious, especially if you have been exposed to liberalism. Go to a Planned Parenthood and explain your situation. They have to respect your privacy. They will give you the information about clearing up your condition.

[ArseCynic]

Okay, can you say why YOU advocate such a world? What made YOU want an revolutionary end to the current system (and I encourage you to reflect in this privately and with absolute honesty at least with yourself)?
Also, since it is possible that Revlefters like me have misunderstood YOUR meaning of "technocrat" (because that has had a certain specific meaning on the historic Left), could you say why you identify as a "technocrat" and what that means to YOU?

Now to the nitty gritty questions:
1) You've said what the world you advocate ISN'T but can you say in positive terms what it WILL BE. How are people compensated for their work? Who actually controls the economy? What is life actually to be like, if truly free of any form of slavery and class stratifications? I'm not asking you to pull out a crystal ball and make specific prediction, but at least for selfclarification's sake, try to develop a vision of the general characteristics of the advocated future in both positive and negative terms (i.e., know what you are pursuing til you can see it fleshed out in your mind, and can find words to effectively express this to others).
Final critical aspect of this question: what is the material prerequisite foundation for such a world? Why is such a world POSSIBLE in the near future?


2)What segments of the current population have a fundamental objective interrst in achieving this sort of world, even risking everything to make revolution against well-armed wealthy and bloodthirsty elitist ruling classes and their defending partners in order to actualize that better world? Why would any "have-some" with any slight hope of better prospects under this system put all their life's chips in on a revolutionary gamble which they could lose everything (remaining freedoms, family and friends, all positive social standing in the eyes of society's elites to the point they'd rather hire the Devil, etc) and may not even survive? Why did Marx and Engels focus on the working class as the class "with nothing to lose but its chains" as the collective agency of communist revolution...why not better educated more privileged and wealthier middle class have-some rebels instead (Marx and Engels weren't socioeconomically disadvantaged working class guys, BTW)?

3) Once you've gotten a conception about who is needed for a world-changing revolution and who has objective interests in pursuing that at all costs despite risks entailed, it is time to consider HOW revolution can be successfully accomplished such that the transition to a better world can be actualized. This is a very contentious difficult question, but lack of clarity does us no favors. HOW could the necessary revolution succeed?
Revolution implies that actual power over society and the economy is seized from the ruling class and its partners, and this actual power is taken and exercised by a fundamentally distinct class with different objective interests FOR ITSELF. So, how could this distinct revolutionary become prepared and strengthed to the point that it could actually seize power, put down any amount of enemy resistance (even to defeat and destroy the US imperialist beast), and becomes organized enough to exercise its own power throughout society and over the entire economy from each workplace and distibution center (shops) to the global level?
Middle class radical coup conspiracy?
Electoral campaigns as third parties or trying to influence bourgeois liberal/labor/social democratic political organizations from within or on their immediate periphery?
Cut -off guerrillas waging "peoples war"?
Hoping the business union bureaucracies do something, and trying to become positioned as union bureaucrats?
Becoming the most trendy political group on college campuses or on the internet?
Individualist lifestylism, radical tantrums for the lulz, and a new hippie movement?
Liberation Theology style churches?
Left sect cults?

Or something else fundamentally different from all of these things the Left has historically done?
How would an exclusively working class, internationalist, revolutionary communist Left do things differently and successfully accomplish revolution?

I advocate such a world for a number of reasons: It seems like a more logical solution to the worlds issues oppose to slowly editing current systems that don't work(saving the environment, getitng rid of poverty, war, suffering). It would raise the quality of life for everyone, including myself, and more importantly, progress science and technology and furthering the existance of society.

By technocrat I mean a person who advocates a full-on technocracy. and by technocracy I don't mean the dictatorship of the elite scientists such as proposed in the 30s. by technocracy I mean a society in which all repetitive, mundane labour that usually requires some form of insentive to be done, is replaced by non-sentient machines.

1) This is a really long and complicated question. First I'd say that we would have transition stages, such as a marxist direct-democracy, which would eventually transform into a technocracy naturally. I don't think this will ever happen quickly in the near future, but this is what I push for. people would not be working outside of their own motivation. no one would have to work, and no one would be needed to work other than maybe a few doctors, engineers and scientists(who already do work without monetary incentive). all other labour would be replaced by machines. of course this is after this society is built. The economy would be a resource-based economy(to quote the venus project, which btw is a good example of a technocracy), no one would "control" it, it would be all scientific and clear of subjectivity. All resources would be common heritage, free and accessable to everyone. People would finally be free to do what ever they want with their lives(follow hobbies, make discoveries in science, ect.).

This is the final product of societal progression. we have the technology to do it but its obvious we aren't ready for something like this. instead I say we make a full-on direct-democracy without any monetary system.

2) what segments of the population want this kind of world? well if the proletariat and working class are aware enough, they would be in favour of this, for they are the ones being screwed over the most. the upper-working class and even the elite classes are also getting screwed over, because their quality of life, while still being above those who they are oppressing, is also not as high as it could easily be. everyone is a victum of the system, even the elite who are addicted to the system.
of course the proletariat would be a better force to push for a revolution, they trully have nothing to lose, while the upper-classes could risk falling into proletariat status.

3) to be honest I have no idea how we are goign to beat the US. spreading awareness in the proletariat seems like one of the only options right now. perhaps violently overthrow the ruling class through proletarian revolution, and establishing a direct-democracy of some form might be worth a shot. but really I think the best idea is to wait for the great crash, survive ww3, and take advantage of the aftermath.

if all else fails, automization will naturally continue and eventually create a technocracy, but really this will take too long and we would run out of resources and all die from pollution by then.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Having Trotskyism doesn't make you a bad person. It is very common among young people. It is very contagious, especially if you have been exposed to liberalism. Go to a Planned Parenthood and explain your situation. They have to respect your privacy. They will give you the information about clearing up your condition.
2/10


Anyway, welcome to the forum. You shouldn't concern yourself with ideologies and tendency names. It's always good to window-shop before you try and label yourself. Read various writers on various topics. I'm an anarchist, but I enjoy reading Marxist texts. It'll come to you after a while, but honestly: educate yourself on capitalism and how it's a bad thing.

[Zealot]

I'm not sure why you prefer Trotsky over Lenin, Lenin was the one who made him drop his Menshevism. Unless of course you're reading Trotsky's pre-1917 Menshevik writings and his post-1917 Menshevik writings I can see where you're coming from. The stereotypical picture of a Trotskyist depends on who you ask and to an Anarchist you're no better than a Stalinist.

[Lanky Wanker]

As if we are even comparable to those fucks. The things we are concerned with are completely different. Some sectarian in-fighting is constructive. It allows us to practice our arguments, strengthen the strong ones, and neutralize the bad ones. It's called the dialectic method. It seems most people who complain about sectarianism want others to conform to their tendency, and scoff at the idea of doing the same.

I agree that a sensible disagreement between two people of different (or even the same) tendencies can be helpful for learning, but weren't we on the topic of bashing newbies? That doesn't help anyone... even if it is kinda funny in an evil way. :D

[CommieTroll]

and a lot of his greatness was due to Trotsky.

Such as? You are aware that Lenin considered Trotsky as a careerist?

[Q]

Such as? You are aware that Lenin considered Trotsky as a careerist?

I have to say, you have a fitting username.

[Rooster]

The theoretical ideas of Lenin and Trotsky were identical at the time of the Russian Revolution, so the only possible context for a Trotskyist not being a Leninist would be before 1917 when they were both sectarian, mostly insignificant assholes.


I would disagree that at the time of the revolution, their ideas were indentical. They were similar though. Their ideas both stemmed from the origin, the Russian Social-Democratic Party before the split and the 2nd Internatioinal. Trotsky was arguably less insignificant than Lenin before the revolution, considering that he was a part of one of the first soviets while Lenin was pubishing a minority paper.


I'm not sure why you prefer Trotsky over Lenin, Lenin was the one who made him drop his Menshevism. Unless of course you're reading Trotsky's pre-1917 Menshevik writings and his post-1917 Menshevik writings I can see where you're coming from. The stereotypical picture of a Trotskyist depends on who you ask and to an Anarchist you're no better than a Stalinist.

Lenin didn't make Trotsky drop anything. Trotsky stood as an independent figure between the Bolshevik and Menshevik split. I'm not even sure why you are calling his writings Menshevik before and after 1917, or how you could consider them to be menshevik (when actually, when Stalin was left to flonder around with a lead, he followed the Menshevik line). The stereotypical picture of Trotsky and Trotskyists appears to be not based on reality.

[daft punk]

I prefer Trotsky over Lenin and the rest of the revolutionaries from the Russian revolution. I subscribe to the works of Karl Marx, more specifically Das Kapital. I agree that Communism in one country is almost impossible.

Does this make me a "Trotskyist" and what does the steriotype of "Trotskyist" usually imply?

As you say, socialism in one country is impossible. Trotsky also called for democracy in Russia.

Regarding Lenin, there isn't really any difference between him and Trotsky as far as I know. What differences do you think there are?


I'm not sure why you prefer Trotsky over Lenin, Lenin was the one who made him drop his Menshevism. Unless of course you're reading Trotsky's pre-1917 Menshevik writings and his post-1917 Menshevik writings I can see where you're coming from. The stereotypical picture of a Trotskyist depends on who you ask and to an Anarchist you're no better than a Stalinist.
What did Trotsky ever write that was Menshevik?


Such as? You are aware that Lenin considered Trotsky as a careerist?
Evidence please?


I would disagree that at the time of the revolution, their ideas were indentical. They were similar though. Their ideas both stemmed from the origin, the Russian Social-Democratic Party before the split and the 2nd Internatioinal. Trotsky was arguably less insignificant than Lenin before the revolution, considering that he was a part of one of the first soviets while Lenin was pubishing a minority paper.



Lenin didn't make Trotsky drop anything. Trotsky stood as an independent figure between the Bolshevik and Menshevik split. I'm not even sure why you are calling his writings Menshevik before and after 1917, or how you could consider them to be menshevik (when actually, when Stalin was left to flonder around with a lead, he followed the Menshevik line). The stereotypical picture of Trotsky and Trotskyists appears to be not based on reality.

Correct. Before April 1917 only Trotsky advocated overthrowing the Provisional Government. In October, after having convinced Lenin, who then had to arm-twist the Bolsheviks, he organised the revolution. Trotsky was more left wing than even Lenin. Also Lenin came round to Trotsky's position on the peasantry in September 1917. However Trotsky accepted that Lenin had been right on the nature of the revolutionary party.

[Omsk]

Regarding Lenin, there isn't really any difference between him and Trotsky as far as I know.


And than you write this:
Trotsky was more left wing than even Lenin.

You are contradicting youself.

Not to mention how you,in another thread,said that "Trotsky led the revolution",clearly diminishing Lenins role and his great work before,during and after the revolution.



What did Trotsky ever write that was Menshevik?

That is actually not so important,what is,is that he liked blaming other people of being Mensheviks.

For instance:

Many years later his [Stalin] official biographers were to claim that,...he had sided with Lenin even before he was deported to Siberia. This version was challenged by Trotsky, who asserted that Koba was at first a Menshevik. In actual fact there is nothing to suggest either that Stalin ever was a Menshevik or that he declared himself to be a Bolshevik immediately after the split. Probably, he refrained at first from committing himself to any group, trying to find out the facts and their meaning amid a fog of conflicting reports. His hesitations, if this be the right word for his state of mind, did not last long. A few months after his escape from Siberia he made up his mind to support Lenin. Towards the end of the year 1904 he was already zealously agitating for Bolshevism.
[Footnote:] Trotsky based this assertion on a single sentence contained in a police report written in 1911. The report is inaccurate in other points as well. It claims, for instance, that Stalin joined the Social-Democratic Party only in 1902.
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 58

This noted by Deutscher,who is hardly a "Stalinist" author.

Should i remind you of Trotskys words on Lenin?

Trotsky in turn denounced Lenin as the "head of the reactionary wing of our party" and a "dull caricature of the tragic intransigence of Jacobinism." He further observed that Lenin's conception of centralism would lead to a situation in which "the organization of the party takes the place of the party itself, the Central Committee takes the place of the organization, and finally the dictator takes a place of the Central Committee." The Bolsheviks under "Maximilien Lenin," he contended, were aiming at "a dictatorship over the proletariat."
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 49

Trotsky condemned Lenin for "sectarian spirit, individualism of the intellectual, and ideological fetishism."
Trotsky in turn wrote to Chkheidze that Lenin was a master at "petty squabbling" and that Leninism "flourishes on the dung-heap of sectarianism" and is "founded on lies and falsifications and carries within itself the poison germ of it's own decomposition.” (Souvarine pp. 131 -- 32)
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 51

[In a speech on the Trotskyist Opposition delivered at a joint plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission of the CPSU on October 23, 1927 Stalin quoted Trotsky's letter to Chkheidze in 1913 denouncing Lenin and said] Is it surprising, then, that Trotsky, who wrote in such an ill-mannered way about the great Lenin, whose shoelaces he
was not worthy of tying should now hurl abuse at one of Lenin's numerous pupils--Comrade Stalin?
Stalin, Joseph. Works. Moscow: Foreign Languages Pub. House, 1952, Vol. 10, p. 178

[Prometeo liberado]

Having Trotskyism doesn't make you a bad person. It is very common among young people. It is very contagious, especially if you have been exposed to liberalism. Go to a Planned Parenthood and explain your situation. They have to respect your privacy. They will give you the information about clearing up your condition.

I'm not trying to bait here but c'mon Arsencynic you gotta counter this. Fuckin hilarious.

[CommieTroll]

I have to say, you have a fitting username.

Thanks, I get that a lot


Evidence please?


By August 1909 Lenin was writing:

‘Trotsky behaves like a despicable careerist and factionalist. He pays lip-service to the Party and behaves worse than any other of the factionalists’.18

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv7n2/blandlt.htm

[daft punk]

And than you write this:

You are contradicting youself.

Trotsky advocated the overthrow of the Provisional Government, the Bolsheviks did not. Lenin came round to Trotsky's point of view. I am not contradicting myself at all.




Not to mention how you,in another thread,said that "Trotsky led the revolution",clearly diminishing Lenins role and his great work before,during and after the revolution.
Trotsky and Lenin were in agreement. But Trotsky was leader of the Petrograd Soviet and won the support of the armed forces, detaching them from the generals. This basically was the revolution. Lenin only came out of hiding at the last minute. However Lenin was highly involved behind the scenes, pushing the Bolshevik Party along.

Stalin:
""All practical work in connection with the organization of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the president of the Petrograd Soviet. It can be stated with certainty that the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky for the rapid going over of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the efficient manner in which the work of the Military-Revolutionary Committee was organized. The principal assistants of Comrade Trotsky were Comrades Antonov and Podvoisky." "
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1918/11/06.htm

For some strange reason this was wiped from later editions of Stalin's book.





That is actually not so important,what is,is that he liked blaming other people of being Mensheviks.
Ah, so you cant's support your claim?



This version was challenged by Trotsky, who asserted that Koba was at first a Menshevik.

This noted by Deutscher,who is hardly a "Stalinist" author.
Hardly vital stuff, whether Stalin was ever a Menshevik. Trotsky spent years trying to unite the two parties so he obviously didnt see it as a crime did he? He only gave up in 1917 I think.



Should i remind you of Trotskys words on Lenin?

Trotsky in turn denounced Lenin as the "head of the reactionary wing of our party" and a "dull caricature of the tragic intransigence of Jacobinism." He further observed that Lenin's conception of centralism would lead to a situation in which "the organization of the party takes the place of the party itself, the Central Committee takes the place of the organization, and finally the dictator takes a place of the Central Committee." The Bolsheviks under "Maximilien Lenin," he contended, were aiming at "a dictatorship over the proletariat."
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 49

Trotsky condemned Lenin for "sectarian spirit, individualism of the intellectual, and ideological fetishism."
Trotsky in turn wrote to Chkheidze that Lenin was a master at "petty squabbling" and that Leninism "flourishes on the dung-heap of sectarianism" and is "founded on lies and falsifications and carries within itself the poison germ of it's own decomposition.” (Souvarine pp. 131 -- 32)
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 51

[In a speech on the Trotskyist Opposition delivered at a joint plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission of the CPSU on October 23, 1927 Stalin quoted Trotsky's letter to Chkheidze in 1913 denouncing Lenin and said] Is it surprising, then, that Trotsky, who wrote in such an ill-mannered way about the great Lenin, whose shoelaces he
was not worthy of tying should now hurl abuse at one of Lenin's numerous pupils--Comrade Stalin?
Stalin, Joseph. Works. Moscow: Foreign Languages Pub. House, 1952, Vol. 10, p. 178

Yeah, we all know Lenin and Trotsky argued like fuck in those days, however the moment they came to agreement Trotsky was voted onto the Central Committee and came 4th in the election, and Lenin said there was 'no better Bolshevik'. Lenin also called Trotsky some names. It was a big argument which Trotsky was right on some stuff and Lenin right on other stuff. They argued loads because they were the top 2 theorists and they knew it.


Thanks, I get that a lot





http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv7n2/blandlt.htm
1909, in a private letter to Zinoviev.

Big deal, he was just vexed because he knew Trotsky was more or less his equal and nobody else was.

Zinoviev of course turned out to be a bit of a tosser, not as bad as Stalin of course.

Shall we discuss all of Lenin's battles with Stalin as he lay on his deathbed?

"Comrade Trotsky:

"it is my request that at the forthcoming plenum you should undertake the defence of our common standpoint on the unquestionable need to maintain and consolidate the foreign trade monopoly. "

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/13c.htm

In March 1922 there was argument in the party about the state monopoly of foreign trade. Lenin had won, defending the monopoly. But as he was ill, people worked to overturn it. The constant chatter damaged the position of the USSR on trade. The Central Committee overturned the decision Lenin fought for while Lenin and Trotsky were absent. The above letter is Lenin asking Trotsky to battle it out for him.

And this important battle was not the only one Lenin asked Trotsky to help him fight against Stalin towards the end.

"Top secret
Personal Dear Comrade Trotsky:
It is my earnest request that you should undertake the defence of the Georgian case in the Party C.C. This case is now under “persecution” by Stalin and Dzerzhinsky, and I cannot rely on their impartiality. Quite to the contrary. I would feel at ease if you agreed to undertake its defence. If you should refuse to do so for any reason, return the whole case to me. I shall consider it a sign that you do not accept.[3] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/05b.htm#fwV45E766)
With best comradely greetings
Lenin[1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/05b.htm#fwV45P607F01)"


one of his last memos.

[ColonelCossack]

Frankly I think you need to work on your SECTARIANISM a little harder. Hone it, perfect it concentrate, distil, drip, drip, drip....keep at it comrade
ONE MORE HEAVE and you will be a TROTSKYIST.

Or my name isn't Gerry Healy......it's OK, just remembered my name isn't G.H.......
Thank Fok!!!


I concur... specifically with that last sentence.

[GallowsBird]

You are a menshevik! :p

[CommieTroll]

Big deal, he was just vexed because he knew Trotsky was more or less his equal and nobody else was.

Now I've seen it all:laugh: And you Trots think Stalinists are bad for idle worship.


Zinoviev of course turned out to be a bit of a tosser, not as bad as Stalin of course.

Why must you be so unnecessarily sectarian?

[ColonelCossack]

Having Trotskyism doesn't make you a bad person. It is very common among young people. It is very contagious, especially if you have been exposed to liberalism. Go to a Planned Parenthood and explain your situation. They have to respect your privacy. They will give you the information about clearing up your condition.

haha quality getfiscal quality! :D

[ArseCynic]

From what I've read, Trotsky and Lenin had very similar views, but often dissagreed with eachother, but eventually Lenin almost always ended up agreeing with Trotsky and used his ideas.

[ArseCynic]

I think the mensheviks were alright at the beginning.