Trotsky coup after Lenin's death?

[Deicide]

This one of those useless ''what if'' history threads. If that frightens you turn away now! I'd primarily like an answer by the resident Trotskyites (all other tendencies and non-tendencies are welcome too).

Could he have done it? Should he of done it? Would the destiny of the USSR differed?

The names 'Trotsky' and 'Stalin' will probably end up in the same paragraph, which undoubtedly causes tendency scuffles majority of the time. It'd be nice, if just this one time, this doesn't descend into a tendency apocalypse.

[Rooster]

He did have the chance, to be fair, but turned it down in favour of party politics. He probably could have done it with support of the army but I don't think it would have changed the outcome much.

[Aurora]

'What if' history is ridiculous nonsense so perhaps it would be better suited in chit-chat where it can be treated as such.

[Deicide]

'What if' history is ridiculous nonsense so perhaps it would be better suited in chit-chat where it can be treated as such.

Do as you please.

[l'Enfermé]

Yes, he could have. Especially since the Red Army, which was his creation, was behind him. But he didn’t because like the rest of the Bolsheviks, he was afraid of Bonopartism. Which is why Stalin was able to conquer all power…he was a wholly unremarkable bureaucrat, nothing compared to other Bolshevik leaders, no one suspected that he was capable of it.

Another funny thing is how after Stalin split with Bukharin, Bukharin actually had the majority of the Party behind him and could have overpowered Stalin, but Bukharin consistently maintained that there was no inner-party struggle and did nothing at all, which gave Stalin time to remove Bukharin's men in strategic places and replace them with his bureaucrats.

Basically Stalin never showed his true vile face and from there comes the tragedy.

[daft punk]

If Lenin hadnt died, Trotsky and Lenin would have ran the show and Stalin would have been out on his arse.

Trotsky and Lenin had different policies to those Stalin adopted in the period 1924-8. They are explained in my thread on Platform of the Opposition (http://www.revleft.com/vb/platform-opposition-must-t168026/index.html). I suggest you read that, just the OP really.

In a nutshell, Lenin and Trotsky wanted:

1. Tax the rich to raise funds and to keep them from getting powerful

2. Build Industry

3. Subsidise co-operative for poor peasants, get them mechanised.

Stalin did the opposite. he did build industry a bit, but direct taxes fell in relation to indirect ones, which means the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. By 1928 only about 1% of peasants were in co-operatives.

In addition Stalin had screwed up the Chinese revolution. See my China thread. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=169176)This proved Trotsky right, but didnt help him because a defeat for the Chinese workers was a defeat for the Russian workers, and Trotsky was on the side of revolution whereas Stalin was sliding into the camp of counter-revolution.

So in 1928, after Trotsky was kicked out, Stalin soon found Trotsky being proved right in various ways as well as over China:

1. There was a shortage of grain and industry.
2. Threat of bourgeois restoration. Kulak uprisings.

Stalin was forced to collectivise. He did it too late, too fast, for the wrong reasons, and in a very brutal manner. This led to a famine which killed millions. After collectivisation Stalin launched the Great Purge and sabotaged the revolution in Spain to prevent any chance of socialism. See also my thread on the Moscow Show Trials (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=168821) and one on Stalin's foreign policy at the end of WW2. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=169188)You will notice that virtually no Stalinists have made any response to these threads as they cannot address the OPs.

sorry for the spam but I put these threads up to get basic stuff covered for people. I will put up more info on the China one assuming someone actually posts!

[seventeethdecember2016]

This one of those useless ''what if'' history threads. If that frightens you turn away now! I'd primarily like an answer by the resident Trotskyites (all other tendencies and non-tendencies are welcome too).

Could he have done it? Should he of done it? Would the destiny of the USSR differed?

The names 'Trotsky' and 'Stalin' will probably end up in the same paragraph, which undoubtedly causes tendency scuffles majority of the time. It'd be nice, if just this one time, this doesn't descend into a tendency apocalypse.
He'd run massive industrialization projects, which would massively increase the productive capabilities of the USSR. Put all that funding into the Red Army, and then with the help of his German Democratic-Socialist allies(Germany wouldn't become National Socialist because Trotsky would intervene), make an attempt for world revolution. This will lead to the deaths of millions of Red Army soldiers.

Also a well known political theorist, who is currently in refuge in Mexico, named Joseph Stalin would argue for a Marxist-Leninist revisionism. He would eventually be murdered by a POUM agent with an Ice Pick.

[Devrim]

The revolution didn't degenerate because Stalin was a 'bad man'. If the revolution had remained isolated, its defeat was certain. Who would have been at the helm, isn't really a crucial question.

Devrim

[A Marxist Historian]

This one of those useless ''what if'' history threads. If that frightens you turn away now! I'd primarily like an answer by the resident Trotskyites (all other tendencies and non-tendencies are welcome too).

Could he have done it? Should he of done it? Would the destiny of the USSR differed?

The names 'Trotsky' and 'Stalin' will probably end up in the same paragraph, which undoubtedly causes tendency scuffles majority of the time. It'd be nice, if just this one time, this doesn't descend into a tendency apocalypse.

Trotsky's military second in command, Antonov-Ovseenko, suggested something like that when Trotsky was removed from his post as head of the Red Army. Trotsky totally rejected the idea, fortunately. Ovseenko was one of the earliest and most enthusiastic capitulators to Stalin and Stalinism among the Left Opposition leaders, not surprising given what a thoroughly Stalinist idea this would have been. He oversaw the destruction of the Spanish Revolution as Stalin's representative in Spain--and then himself was shot as a former Trotskyist, to his great surprise, when he returned to the USSR.

A military coup against the Bolshevik Party by the Red Army, many if not most of whose generals were former White officers, could only have been counterrevolutionary, regardless of who was its leader.

If this had actually happened, then working class resistance would have been led by Stalin of course, and rebels against the bureaucracy would be calling themselves Stalinists, and supporters of the Soviet bureaucracy would be calling themselves Trotskyists.

And that is at best, assuming Trotsky was not then overthrown by some Tukhachevsky or other, leading directly to capitalist rule.

-M.H.-

[daft punk]

A military coup against the Bolshevik Party by the Red Army, many if not most of whose generals were former White officers, could only have been counterrevolutionary, regardless of who was its leader.

what? If Trotsky was in charge?




If this had actually happened, then working class resistance would have been led by Stalin of course, and rebels against the bureaucracy would be calling themselves Stalinists,

I doubt it





and supporters of the Soviet bureaucracy would be calling themselves Trotskyists.

And that is at best, assuming Trotsky was not then overthrown by some Tukhachevsky or other, leading directly to capitalist rule.

-M.H.-

Not really impressed tbh, stick to the actual history.

[A Marxist Historian]

what? If Trotsky was in charge?


I doubt it




Not really impressed tbh, stick to the actual history.

The whole purpose of this thread is historical "what if" speculation, if you want to stick only to what happened, you're in the wrong thread. And just what's wrong with historical speculation? Should we be afraid of the results? That is fear not Marxism. In fact, I think this kind of speculation is very valuable to clarify one's historical understanding by concretizing it.

Just putting Trotsky in charge does not settle anything, history is determined by classes and the class struggle, it's not a matter of individual heroics.

If Trotsky had seized power with a military coup as Ovseenko advocated, then he would not have been the Trotsky Trotskyists support, but just another bureaucrat, at best. His objective class role would have become the advocate of the rule of "red" military officers, not the working class.

-M.H.-

[Rafiq]

Devrim is correct, with those existing conditions, (An isolated emancipatory state), than, were it to be Trotsky, Lenin, anybody, the revolution would have degenerated regardless.

[Ostrinski]

The revolution didn't degenerate because Stalin was a 'bad man'. If the revolution had remained isolated, its defeat was certain. Who would have been at the helm, isn't really a crucial question.

DevrimPrecisely. The framework for the degeneration was in place, regardless of who held what position and who had x amount of support. This is just great man theoryism.

[Astarte]

Trotsky also had really bad colitis and gout for a lot of the mid to late 1920's so yeah... I don't think he was really feeling up to leading a coup even if he wanted to ... check out the last few paragraphs:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ch43.htm

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

Well this all depends on how long after Lenin's death, as previously stated for a short while the Red Army was behind Trotsky, so a theoretical coup d'etat could of been possible. Now have this been maybe 5 to 10 years after Lenin's death, probably no. The Communist Party of the USSR was largley behind Stalin, along with the Red Army.

[DaringMehring]

The idea of a coup at that time would have been completely counterrevolutionary. The problems of the country, including the world revolution, the dominance of the inherited bureaucratic machine, the low productive level, etc. would not have been solved by a coup. A coup would have only served to destroy Party democracy at a single stroke, rather than by slow poisoning. It would have discredited revolution and socialism more directly than even the degeneration of the workers' state.

Could it have been possible? Who knows? Maybe -- Trotsky was popular. Maybe not -- since the workers were still revolutionary and hadn't been completely beaten down by that point, and would have rightly fought back against any coup. But it would have been a lot of bloodshed and basically a disaster.

Trotsky fought the fight the right way.

[Revolutionair]

Another funny thing is how after Stalin split with Bukharin, Bukharin actually had the majority of the Party behind him and could have overpowered Stalin, but Bukharin consistently maintained that there was no inner-party struggle and did nothing at all, which gave Stalin time to remove Bukharin's men in strategic places and replace them with his bureaucrats.

Who exactly were replaced? Could you give some names, positions and sources?

[Geiseric]

He had more than the red army on his side, Trotsky was always increadibly popular with much of the working class. He had a huge role in the Russian revolution, a role that is impossible for any of us to fulfill in our lives. If he and Lenin didn't stop the bolsheviks, including Zinoviev, Kamarov and Stalin, the russian revolution wouldn't of happened. Lenin said that himself. So stop disrespecting a man who's done so much, trotsky instituted perminant revolution and that is why revolutions were supported and led by comintern organised communist parties in colonial countries, if perminant revolution isn't true than none of your beloved degenerated workers states would only be bourgeois democratic, and not a degenerated workers state. By you insisting that they are socialist, that is proving Trotsky's theory! Even though they aren't socialist, you don't realise that.

[Leo]

The fact that Trotsky chose not to do anything as such although he was able to as he saw it wouldn't change the course of events is one of the rare admirably revolutionary attitudes of his after the civil war.

Had he organized a coup d'etat he would have ended up just like Stalin did.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

No one knows-simple answer; perhaps things might have been a little different but I doubt terribly that things would have been much different (maybe in Vietnam things might have been different but worldwide without revolution the conditions of the USSR would have still been stagnant).

[KlassWar]

Trotsky's rule would have been remarkably similar to Stalin, actually.

If he'd come to power through a coup, he'd have to resort to defacto rule by Red Army political commissars. It wouldn't have been that much different than the NKVD days.

He was a super-industrialist, so we'd have seen a relatively Stalin-like Great Leap Forward of sorts. It's a given that he'd start his collectivization and industrialization program from the get-go.

Starting much earlier might have allowed him greater leeway to use incentive rather than coercion (his stated plan), perhaps avoiding some of the peasant resistance responsible for the famines in the early '30s.

Trotsky would have probably sent tanks to lead any European revollutionary attempts to victory, no matter what the cost. Odds are he would have sparked World War Two in the late twenties or the early Thirties. The fate of the Soviet Union would hinge on the result of those revolutionary wars.


Trotsky had plus sides, too:

He didn't subscribe to counter-revolutionary popular frontism. He wasn't particularly sectarian either: He supported the United Front with the Social Democrats. Had this been a coherent, constant policy, they might have been able to prevent the rise of Fascism.

He wouldn't have backed the communist-murdering KMT: Rather, he'd have supported the Chinese Communists since the very beginning. If this campaign had been successful, world revolution could have been a possibility.

Trotsky would have probably been softer towards political rivals: Shipping threatening opponents as minor-level bureaucrats to Nowheresville, Siberia, sacking them or demoting them outta the CC/Politburo, expulsions from the Party in serious cases, a few high-profile repressions of prominent rightists... But nothing as extreme as the Great Purge: Trotsky wasn't particularly fond of solving his quarrels with bullets.

[Luís Henrique]

The revolution didn't degenerate because Stalin was a 'bad man'. If the revolution had remained isolated, its defeat was certain. Who would have been at the helm, isn't really a crucial question.

This however assumes that Stalin played no role in the isolation of the revolution.

Since Stalin was instrumental at least in three huge defeats for revolution abroad Russia - the defeat of the Chinese communists in 1929, Hitler's power grab in 1933, and the defeat of Spanish revolution in 1936-39 - though, I think a more nuanced position would be better.

Luís Henrique

[daft punk]

The fact that Trotsky chose not to do anything as such although he was able to as he saw it wouldn't change the course of events is one of the rare admirably revolutionary attitudes of his after the civil war.

Had he organized a coup d'etat he would have ended up just like Stalin did.

er, yeah well he did try to fight it, but he was ill, and was fighting a losing battle. He didnt just give up, he never gave up. As you say, a coup wouldnt have been the answer even if he could have pulled it off, and it might have ended up pretty horrible. Trotsky always understood that socialism depends on the political consciousness of the masses, and that was slipping away during the period 1924-8.
Fact is, Stalin won control as soon as Lenin died, partly by scheming and partly because he represented the reality - the degeneration of the revolution due to it's isolation in a backward country.

[Art Vandelay]

This however assumes that Stalin played no role in the isolation of the revolution.

Since Stalin was instrumental at least in three huge defeats for revolution abroad Russia - the defeat of the Chinese communists in 1929, Hitler's power grab in 1933, and the defeat of Spanish revolution in 1936-39 - though, I think a more nuanced position would be better.

Luís Henrique

This is actually a much more interesting topic right here and one that is hardly ever brought up. Generally you have the one side saying the others are not materialists and that Trotsky would have made no difference; while the other side saying how it would have been a socialist wonderland if only Trotsky could have gained power. I generally side towards the materialist analysis that Trotsky could not have avoided the degeneration into Stalinism, unless he could have played a better role in helping spread revolution.

[Brosip Tito]

Russia's fate was sealed when the German revolution failed, in my opinion.

Now, would Trotsky have been so bad as Stalin? I doubt it. I would say that things would have went much better, but it would still have been extremely difficult to manage.

Speculation is damned near impossible to know who would be right. All we know is that Stalin was wrong.

[Omsk]

This however assumes that Stalin played no role in the isolation of the revolution.

Since Stalin was instrumental at least in three huge defeats for revolution abroad Russia - the defeat of the Chinese communists in 1929, Hitler's power grab in 1933, and the defeat of Spanish revolution in 1936-39 - though, I think a more nuanced position would be better.

Luís Henrique

Because this is all just a baseless discussion,and the very thread was started with a hypothetic question,the main question is without answer,or at least,a concrete one.My opinion is that things would have been worse,due to the ultra-industralization policies and the fact that Trotsky would have faced (At the time when Lenin's funeral) a big opposition,from: Stalins allies,a big part of the party,the people themselves,who were increasingly hostile to Trotsky.Than,there is the problematics of wether this 'coup' would have been possible in the first place,as Trotsky,after the death of Lenin,was far from his full power,and the full extent of his powers was long gone,and,in that period,in a complete decline.I am not the greatest fan of such discussions,and i will leave it at this.

Now,to answer your question - you are saying that Stalin had a big role in the 'isolation' of the revolution - if we are going to take a non-sectarian view,it can be said that the isolation of the revolution happened after the initial defeats of the German,and other European revolutions after WW1.

And,i must object to your notion that Stalin had the instrumental role in the rise of Hitler,that is not true,and it's an open question wether the KPD and the SPD could actually fight the Nazis,if unified.

Now,i know this topic is quite,complicated,and i would like if we could stay on the topic and not obliterate ourselves into dogmatic and sectarian debates.

[Geiseric]

Because this is all just a baseless discussion,and the very thread was started with a hypothetic question,the main question is without answer,or at least,a concrete one.My opinion is that things would have been worse,due to the ultra-industralization policies and the fact that Trotsky would have faced (At the time when Lenin's funeral) a big opposition,from: Stalins allies,a big part of the party,the people themselves,who were increasingly hostile to Trotsky.Than,there is the problematics of wether this 'coup' would have been possible in the first place,as Trotsky,after the death of Lenin,was far from his full power,and the full extent of his powers was long gone,and,in that period,in a complete decline.I am not the greatest fan of such discussions,and i will leave it at this.

Now,to answer your question - you are saying that Stalin had a big role in the 'isolation' of the revolution - if we are going to take a non-sectarian view,it can be said that the isolation of the revolution happened after the initial defeats of the German,and other European revolutions after WW1.

And,i must object to your notion that Stalin had the instrumental role in the rise of Hitler,that is not true,and it's an open question wether the KPD and the SPD could actually fight the Nazis,if unified.

Now,i know this topic is quite,complicated,and i would like if we could stay on the topic and not obliterate ourselves into dogmatic and sectarian debates.

"Secrarian Debates," aren't ok when they talk badly about Stalin, but the are OK when you call Trotsky and the purgees fascist collaborators?

The Industrialisation would of been fine if Stalin's bureaucracy didn't allow the Kulaks to become as strong they did in the time that they were allowed to grow.

The KPD didn't oppose Hitler, thus were instrumental in his rise. Stop denying it.

[Devrim]

This however assumes that Stalin played no role in the isolation of the revolution.

Since Stalin was instrumental at least in three huge defeats for revolution abroad Russia - the defeat of the Chinese communists in 1929, Hitler's power grab in 1933, and the defeat of Spanish revolution in 1936-39 - though, I think a more nuanced position would be better.


I think that there are two points here. First the events you talk of are a little too late, particularly in the case of the Spanish 'revolution'. Secondly, I don't think that Stalin undertook those policies because he was a 'bad man', but because they reflected the needs of Russia capital. The policies advocated by Trotsky in opposition would have been unlikely to be the same as those advocated by the head of a capitalist state.

Devrim

[Yefim Zverev]

Nevertheless Stalin proved strong and won. End of story.

[Grenzer]

And,i must object to your notion that Stalin had the instrumental role in the rise of Hitler,that is not true,and it's an open question wether the KPD and the SPD could actually fight the Nazis,if unified.

Now,i know this topic is quite,complicated,and i would like if we could stay on the topic and not obliterate ourselves into dogmatic and sectarian debates.

I agree with Omsk, I think people are giving way too much credit to the KPD. Are there any statistics or evidence that support the idea that they could have stopped Hitler by siding with the SPD? I haven't seen any yet. It seems like a convenient scapegoat to use against Stalin, but there has yet to be a persuasive argument to back it up.

That's not even getting into the debate over whether such class collaborationist policies are even worth it to begin with.

[Geiseric]

Nevertheless Stalin proved strong and won. End of story.

What does this even mean? Cult of personality... Would you consider Nixon a "winner," as well?

By the way KPD had 3.6 million votes in the German election in I believe 1928, even with its structural incapacities as a Soviet foreign policy machine. The SPD had still several million votes but was decaying and its members were going to the Nazis or the KPD. Regardless of rejecting a United Front, the KPD was attacking SPD members, not leadership, in the streets, as though they were the actual fascists and the Nazis were their temporary friends against the Social Democrats. "Social Fascists," was what KPD called SPD, while to their slogan towards the Nazis was "Them then us."

So there was obvious choices made in favor of Nazism, thus to German industrialists and corporations.

[A Marxist Historian]

"Secrarian Debates," aren't ok when they talk badly about Stalin, but the are OK when you call Trotsky and the purgees fascist collaborators?

The Industrialisation would of been fine if Stalin's bureaucracy didn't allow the Kulaks to become as strong they did in the time that they were allowed to grow.

The KPD didn't oppose Hitler, thus were instrumental in his rise. Stop denying it.

Daft, this is the kind of overstatement that diminishes the worth of your postings.

Of course the KPD opposed Hitler. Trotsky, up until the final collapse in 1933, supported the KPD and wanted to reform it, and Left Oppositionists who wanted to break from the KPD and create an independent party had to break with the International Left Opposition too. The KPD was the strongest party of the Comintern, which by the time Hitler took the power, had clearly more support from workers than the declining and disintegrating Social Democracy.

Social Democrats supported the hideously oppressive pre-Hitler hunger governments that pushed the German people into the arms of either Hitler or the KPD. But by refusing to call for a united workers front, the KPD made a horrible tactical blunder, leading to Hitler's victory. Be it noted that the SPD didn't want a united workers front with the KPD either, it preferred to hang desperately onto its government posts.

So yes, the KPD and its mentor Stalin bear responsibility for Hitler's seizure of power, but not because they "supported" Hitler, but because false Stalinist policies led to defeat.

Also, assuming everything would have been hunky dory in the USSR in the 1920s if Stalin had just been more hostile to the kulaks is also wrong. You can't build socialism in one country, and the situation was difficult no matter how you slice it. The path of the Left Opposition was the best path to preserve the USSR and move towards socialism while waiting for world revolution to spread. Without the spread of world revolution, a victory for the Left Opposition, even if the right way rather than through a disastrous military coup, would just have put off the inevitable.

So, Daft, be a bit less daft and a bit less punkish when you post.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Nevertheless Stalin proved strong and won. End of story.

The Soviet story ended in the year 1991, with among other things Stalin statues being knocked down all across the land. Stalin's theory of socialism in one country was disproven, once and for all.

Stalinism has landed in the dustbin of history, and it will never re-emerge, except here on the Internet.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

What does this even mean? Cult of personality... Would you consider Nixon a "winner," as well?

By the way KPD had 3.6 million votes in the German election in I believe 1928, even with its structural incapacities as a Soviet foreign policy machine. The SPD had still several million votes but was decaying and its members were going to the Nazis or the KPD. Regardless of rejecting a United Front, the KPD was attacking SPD members, not leadership, in the streets, as though they were the actual fascists and the Nazis were their temporary friends against the Social Democrats. "Social Fascists," was what KPD called SPD, while to their slogan towards the Nazis was "Them then us."

So there was obvious choices made in favor of Nazism, thus to German industrialists and corporations.

The KPD slogan towards the Nazis was kill Nazis on sight. The main activity of the KPD in the last year or two before Hitler came to power was street fights of the Red Front Fighters League vs. Hitler's brownshirts.

After Hitler us ("nach Hitler uns") wasn't a slogan, it was a vastly overoptimistic assessment. The line of the KPD was that German capitalism was collapsing, and Hitler's government would be the last desperate capitalist government, and that if the capitalists put this nutcase Hitler into power that showed how desperate they were, and was a sign that even they knew communism would inevitably win.

Did KPD'ers beat up Socialists, callling them social-fascists? Yes, they did. And socialists treated communists in the same fashion. Especially the Berlin police, who were all Social Democrats, as Social Democrat Noske was the Prussian minister of police. Beatings and killings of communists by Social Democratic policemen were particularly common in Berlin, where most workers supported the KPD over the SPD even before the Great Depression hit.

This had a lot to do with the infamous "Red Referendum" in Prussia, when the Nazis tried to recall the viciously repressive and anti-working class Prussian coalition government, in which the SPD was the dominant force. The KPD decided to vote yes on the recall, something quite popular with its working class following. A disastrous blunder, but not the same thing as wanting Hitler to come to power.

When Hitler did take power, all the Social Democratic police promptly quit the SPD and became good Nazis (except for Noske himself, the murderer of Rosa Luxemburg, who actually went left and joined the Resistance, oddly enough).

So for the KPD to call Social Democrats "social fascists" was a huge mistake, but in some ways an understandable one. The role of the KPD in Hitler's coming to power is best described in the classic French bon mot,

"That's worse than a crime, that's a mistake."

-M.H.-

[daft punk]

This is actually a much more interesting topic right here and one that is hardly ever brought up. Generally you have the one side saying the others are not materialists and that Trotsky would have made no difference; while the other side saying how it would have been a socialist wonderland if only Trotsky could have gained power. I generally side towards the materialist analysis that Trotsky could not have avoided the degeneration into Stalinism, unless he could have played a better role in helping spread revolution.

Only snag with this post is that everything in it is incorrect.

For example:
"the other side saying how it would have been a socialist wonderland if only Trotsky could have gained power"

incorrect

Why try to reduce the subject to such a simplistic black and white formula?

There is a lot more to it that just spreading the revolution, but that alone is a huge topic.

Stalin was involved in the failure of the 1923 revolution in Germany and the 1925-7 one in China. He was involved in the crushing of the 1936 revolution in Spain. And the crushing of the German workers in 1933. I could list many more examples.

In 1923 Trotsky wanted to go to Germany, he was blocked by the others. He believed there was a chance. He had personal experience of leading an actual revolution.

It was called off due to the wrong strategy of Stalin and others.

[daft punk]

I agree with Omsk, I think people are giving way too much credit to the KPD. Are there any statistics or evidence that support the idea that they could have stopped Hitler by siding with the SPD? I haven't seen any yet. It seems like a convenient scapegoat to use against Stalin, but there has yet to be a persuasive argument to back it up.

That's not even getting into the debate over whether such class collaborationist policies are even worth it to begin with.

This is a terrible post. The KPD had ruined the revolution by being too cosy with the SPD, calling the revolution off because the SPD wouldnt agree to play ball.

The two parties collaborated for years.


Then just at the exact wrong time, when fascism was on the rise, the KPD went all sectarian. I have explained the reasons for this many times.

The end result was the workers split and decimated, and the Nazis in power.

Trotsky warned in 1931:

"Germany is now passing through one of those great historic hours upon which the fate of the German people, the fate of Europe, and in significant measure the fate of all humanity, will depend for decades."

"Worker-Communists, you are hundreds of thousands, millions; you cannot leave for anyplace; there are not enough passports for you. Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory. Make haste, worker-Communists, you have very little time left!"

Leon Trotsky

For a Workers’ United Front Against Fascism



http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1931/311208.htm

Just a few months earlier the KPD had actually had a brief alliance with the Nazis!

Trotsky:

"The mistakes of the German Communist Party on the question of the plebiscite are among those which will become clearer as time passes, and will finally enter into the textbooks of revolutionary strategy as an example of what should not be done."

Leon Trotsky

Against National Communism!
(Lessons of the “Red Referendum”)

(August 1931)


http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1931/310825.htm

Trotsky predicted the defeat of the German workers, if a united front wasnt adopted, as early as 1930. He was proved right by events, tragically.

"Fascism in Germany has become a real danger, as an acute expression of the helpless position of the bourgeois regime, the conservative role of the Social Democracy in this regime, and the accumulated powerlessness of the Communist Party to abolish it Whoever denies this is either blind or a braggart."
Leon Trotsky

The Turn in the Communist International
and the Situation in Germany

(September 1930)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1930/300926.htm

Which bit of this do you not understand?

[Grenzer]

Only snag with this post is that everything in it is incorrect.

For example:
"the other side saying how it would have been a socialist wonderland if only Trotsky could have gained power"

incorrect

Why try to reduce the subject to such a simplistic black and white formula?

Of course it would be incorrect by your view because you abandon material analysis. You've been claiming that things would have been difference if Trotsky was in charge, but there is little reason and no evidence to believe that they would be.

It's ironic that you would be talking about reducing everything to "black and white" because that's precisely what you've done time and time again. Your thesis is, and has been for some time, that Trotsky was some mystical messiah and Stalin was an evil mastermind who single handedly ruined world revolution. Neither is materialist. There is more to 20th century history that Stalin and Trotsky, but I doubt you'll ever see that with your ultra-sectarian blinders on in conjunction with the cult-like admiration of Trotsky you've displayed.

[Grenzer]

So there was obvious choices made in favor of Nazism, thus to German industrialists and corporations.

So essentially what you're saying here is that a policy of class collaboration on the part of the KPD would have been less beneficial to German industrialists and corporations?

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by Syd Barrett http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2401450#post2401450)
""Secrarian Debates," aren't ok when they talk badly about Stalin, but the are OK when you call Trotsky and the purgees fascist collaborators?

The Industrialisation would of been fine if Stalin's bureaucracy didn't allow the Kulaks to become as strong they did in the time that they were allowed to grow.

The KPD didn't oppose Hitler, thus were instrumental in his rise. Stop denying it."



Daft, this is the kind of overstatement that diminishes the worth of your postings.


This was Syd, not me. But I agree with him.




Of course the KPD opposed Hitler. Trotsky, up until the final collapse in 1933, supported the KPD and wanted to reform it, and Left Oppositionists who wanted to break from the KPD and create an independent party had to break with the International Left Opposition too. The KPD was the strongest party of the Comintern, which by the time Hitler took the power, had clearly more support from workers than the declining and disintegrating Social Democracy.

Social Democrats supported the hideously oppressive pre-Hitler hunger governments that pushed the German people into the arms of either Hitler or the KPD. But by refusing to call for a united workers front, the KPD made a horrible tactical blunder, leading to Hitler's victory. Be it noted that the SPD didn't want a united workers front with the KPD either, it preferred to hang desperately onto its government posts.

So yes, the KPD and its mentor Stalin bear responsibility for Hitler's seizure of power, but not because they "supported" Hitler, but because false Stalinist policies led to defeat.

Nobody said they supported Hitler. As a footnote, the reality was a bit more complicated, with fluctuating events and policies. for example I think the KPD started to go off the Third Period in part of 1930, just at the wrong time as usual, but then went back into it again.




Also, assuming everything would have been hunky dory in the USSR in the 1920s if Stalin had just been more hostile to the kulaks is also wrong. You can't build socialism in one country, and the situation was difficult no matter how you slice it. The path of the Left Opposition was the best path to preserve the USSR and move towards socialism while waiting for world revolution to spread. Without the spread of world revolution, a victory for the Left Opposition, even if the right way rather than through a disastrous military coup, would just have put off the inevitable.

So, Daft, be a bit less daft and a bit less punkish when you post.

-M.H.-

As I say, that was Syd. But really you agree with both of us. You have to remember that when dealing with the Stalinists and 'left coms' there is little room for subtleties and you have to simplify a bit.

If Stalin had heavily taxed the kulaks and kept them from growing richer and more numerous, and used the money to subsidise the poor, things would have been a million times better. It might not be socialism but it wouldn't be famine and forced collectivisation.

[Geiseric]

The inability of the KPD to act in the same way as the Bolsheviks in the U.S.S.R. is what cleared the way for Nazism. They should have treated the SPD like the Bolsheviks treated the Mensheviks and SRs. SPD was on the decline, that is obvious by 1931. The KPD should have welcomed the workers dissillusioned with KPD once they started leaving, but the attitude was to have some kind of childish revenge policy by calling all of them "Social Fascists."

Try to work out support for a revolution with the masses of proletarians when you say that their leaders for their political existence are now fascists! This is beyond sectarianism, this would have been so divisive of the working class at a time when Nazism had twice as many votes as the Communists in Reichstag.

Obviously the SPD leadership didn't want a united front, but the idea would have been closer to forcing the lower castes of the SPD to force a united front to their leadership i'd imagine. But I don't think they were so reluctant to a united front when the KPD took the "Social Fascist," stance.

[Geiseric]

So essentially what you're saying here is that a policy of class collaboration on the part of the KPD would have been less beneficial to German industrialists and corporations?

What? No... I'm saying the opposite, that we should do whatever we can to bring those fucks down, regardless if they're petit bourgeois compradors to a proletarian movement or if they're billionairre capitalists. None of them are suitable for the demands of the proletariat.

Class Collaboration is what ruined the SPD, so why would I advocate that?

[Omsk]

The SPD was a social-democrat party.It was already in ruin.

[Brosip Tito]

The SPD was a social-democrat party.It was already in ruin.
Little tidbit of information: up until the 20's (or shortly thereafter), the term Social Democracy was synonymous with International Socialism (Marxism).

It was used by Luxemburg in most of her texts. She almost always referred to the workers' movement as the Social Democratic movement, or "the social democracy". In fact, before the Bolsheviks, the party of Lenin was the Social Democratic Party of Russia.

Now, as the SPD continued along the line of revisionism, the party itself divorcing itself from the workers' movement, the term began to lose it's ties with communism, and became a word describing revisionism (modern day social democracy).

The ruin of the SPD was, as I said, the revisionist policies and beliefs of it's leading cadre, which took the party along with it. After 1914 when the SPD, with the exception of Karl Liebknecht, voted for war credits, the leftist elements (communist revolutionaries) left the SPD and formed the Spartacus League, which became the KPD after Luxemburg and Liebknecht's deaths.

http://cdn2.hark.com/images/000/006/087/6087/original.0

[Omsk]

Yes,we all know that,but what is the relevance of your little text?We are talking about the '30 SPD and the SPD during its struggle against the workers party,led by Thalmanna nd others.

[Brosip Tito]

Yes,we all know that,but what is the relevance of your little text?We are talking about the '30 SPD and the SPD during its struggle against the workers party,led by Thalmanna nd others.
I had assumed you were saying "It was always a social democrat party".

Therefore I inserted a lil bit o learnin in here.

Sorry.

[Geiseric]

regardless, its leaders wouldn't of been able to hold back its numerous rank and file members for long. The KPD should of been accepting and even goading them to come to the revolutionary party but when the "social fascist," era came around I could see that as being difficult because of the line taken.

[Luís Henrique]

Nevertheless Stalin proved strong and won. End of story.

Rather the end of story would be Gorbachev.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I agree with Omsk, I think people are giving way too much credit to the KPD. Are there any statistics or evidence that support the idea that they could have stopped Hitler by siding with the SPD? I haven't seen any yet. It seems like a convenient scapegoat to use against Stalin, but there has yet to be a persuasive argument to back it up.

But the lack of cooperation with the SPD is not the actual problem, or it is only a consequence of the actual problem, which is indeed the growing nationalism of the KPD (and the obvious contradiction between such nationalism and the role of the KPD as an instrument of the foreign politics of a foreign State, the Soviet Union).

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I think that there are two points here. First the events you talk of are a little too late, particularly in the case of the Spanish 'revolution'. Secondly, I don't think that Stalin undertook those policies because he was a 'bad man', but because they reflected the needs of Russia capital. The policies advocated by Trotsky in opposition would have been unlikely to be the same as those advocated by the head of a capitalist state.

Maybe, and I am not one to idealise Trotsky.

However, there are differences between individuals, and such differences may play into the political lines of States and classes. Gruening was no Hitler, and Hitler was no Gruening. This meaning not that Gruening could have saved Germany from Nazism, but that the realities capitalist Germany faced in the early 1930's matched Hitler not Gruening. And certainly not that if Gruening had become dictator instead of Hitler we would have/have not the same horrors of Hitler's regime, but rather that Gruening would not have possibly become the dictator of Germany at the time. Evidently we can reason that Trotsky wouldn't possibly become the leader of the Soviet Union at the time, but this would only mean that there was no possibility that the working class could become the ruling class in the Soviet Union.

Luís Henrique

[daft punk]

The SPD was a social-democrat party.It was already in ruin.

the Bolshevik Party was also a social-democratic party (Russian Social Democratic Labour Party,

RSDLP). The SPD was a nominally Marxist party. hope that clarified.

[Ocean Seal]

This is exactly what would have happened.

1.)The Soviet Union would have degenerated.
2.) Trotsky would have become an advocate of socialism in one country.
3.) Stalin would have gone around the world creating the 4th internationale
4.) Thousands would rally around Stalin against mainstream tendency of Trotsky
5.) Daft Punk would make an account where he would constantly pester everyone who wasn't a Stalinist, calling them brainless for not supporting the holy gospel of Stalin.

[daft punk]

This is exactly what would have happened.

1.)The Soviet Union would have degenerated.
2.) Trotsky would have become an advocate of socialism in one country.
3.) Stalin would have gone around the world creating the 4th internationale
4.) Thousands would rally around Stalin against mainstream tendency of Trotsky
5.) Daft Punk would make an account where he would constantly pester everyone who wasn't a Stalinist, calling them brainless for not supporting the holy gospel of Stalin.

Too much time on your hands?

[Geiseric]

This is exactly what would have happened.

1.)The Soviet Union would have degenerated.
2.) Trotsky would have become an advocate of socialism in one country.
3.) Stalin would have gone around the world creating the 4th internationale
4.) Thousands would rally around Stalin against mainstream tendency of Trotsky
5.) Daft Punk would make an account where he would constantly pester everyone who wasn't a Stalinist, calling them brainless for not supporting the holy gospel of Stalin.

So Trotsky, the leader of the Left Opposition who advocated expropiating the Capitalists land 6 years before Stalin did, state control of industries instead of market's control, and the leading opponent against Socialism in One Country would have been Stalin if Stalin wasn't Stalin? Makes alot of sense mate.

How about you read anything he's written, like Perminant Revolution, and the stuff he wrote about Comintern while he was in a position of power, and refine your assumption.

[Luís Henrique]

This is exactly what would have happened.

1.) The Soviet Union would have degenerated.

It would. The precise forms of its degeneration would be quite different, though.


2.) Trotsky would have become an advocate of socialism in one country.


Unlikely. Rather he would have tried to expand revolution at all costs, which would have given the process of degeneration a more militaristic outlook. The ultimate outcome would likely be an earlier and more violent destruction of the SU, which would in the other hand have retained much more of its symbolism and appeal to anti-capitalists around the world.


3.) Stalin would have gone around the world creating the 4th internationale

4.) Thousands would rally around Stalin against mainstream tendency of Trotsky


Extremely unlikely. Stalin did not have the intellectual abilities to such a task. More probably he would have faded into unimportance (or perhaps made a carreer under Trotsky). The most likely Bolshevik leader to put up an actual opposition to a Trotskyist government in the SU was Nikolai Bukharin. It is also unlikely that the repression to such opposition would be in any way similar, in degree, intent or, form, to Stalin's crushing of Russian (and from other nationalities under the SU) Communists of all persuasions.

Luís Henrique

[daft punk]

It would. The precise forms of its degeneration would be quite different, though.



Unlikely. Rather he would have tried to expand revolution at all costs, which would have given the process of degeneration a more militaristic outlook. The ultimate outcome would likely be an earlier and more violent destruction of the SU, which would in the other hand have retained much more of its symbolism and appeal to anti-capitalists around the world.



Extremely unlikely. Stalin did not have the intellectual abilities to such a task. More probably he would have faded into unimportance (or perhaps made a carreer under Trotsky). The most likely Bolshevik leader to put up an actual opposition to a Trotskyist government in the SU was Nikolai Bukharin. It is also unlikely that the repression to such opposition would be in any way similar, in degree, intent or, form, to Stalin's crushing of Russian (and from other nationalities under the SU) Communists of all persuasions.

Luís Henrique

An interesting hypothesis I guess. I don't agree with it though, but of course nobody knows exactly how it would have gone down, all we know is, as you say, it would have been different.

It would have depended when and how Trotsky gained power. If it was a coup, that would not be the best way to try to establish socialism.

However if Lenin hadnt died, Lenin and Trotsky would have run the country much differently to Stalin, and it could have survived as a semi-socialist country for quite a while.

[Conscript]

Luis, you should try to accommodate some interesting variables such as a protracted life for Lenin, or a revolution in china in the 20s/early 30s. I'm curious if either would affect the outcome in your view.

[Geiseric]

A political revolution by Trotsky, if it was done by democratic methods would have been accepted by workers I'd believe. Trotsky was immensly popular, it's why they couldn't kill him untill he moved to Mexico. The only way that he was made insignificant was by Stalin assigning him to bullshit jobs.

[daft punk]

He did suffer a around 1926-7. Two reasons, one, he represented revolution and Stalin's wrecking of the Chinese revolution made things difficult for Trotsky because it created a mood of defeat among the workers. Although he was right it went against him. Second was a massive propaganda war in the media with Stalin pedalling lies against the Left Opposition. A climate of fear was created. Supporting the LO could mean not getting a job or medical treatment. The revolution was degenerating and Stalin was thriving because of that, because he put himself forward to represent the interests of the wealthy against the interests of socialism, the workers and the poor peasants.

So, Trotsky's popularity declined in this way, for these reasons. Hence Stalin was able to get him expelled in 1928.

[Luís Henrique]

An interesting hypothesis I guess. I don't agree with it though, but of course nobody knows exactly how it would have gone down, all we know is, as you say, it would have been different.

It would have depended when and how Trotsky gained power. If it was a coup, that would not be the best way to try to establish socialism.

However if Lenin hadnt died, Lenin and Trotsky would have run the country much differently to Stalin, and it could have survived as a semi-socialist country for quite a while.

Also important would be the degree to which a different leadership could have preserved collective rule.

Luís Henrique

[Omsk]

the Bolshevik Party was also a social-democratic party (Russian Social Democratic Labour Party,

RSDLP). The SPD was a nominally Marxist party. hope that clarified.

...

What is the relevance of this?

The SPD from the period before Hitler took power,the '30,and during the period then Ernst Thalmann was the leader of the KPD.In that period,they were a soc-dem party,its quite simple as that.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The revolution didn't degenerate because Stalin was a 'bad man'. If the revolution had remained isolated, its defeat was certain. Who would have been at the helm, isn't really a crucial question.

Devrim
exactly why im not a fan of the idea of 'peaceful coexistence'

[daft punk]

...

What is the relevance of this?

The SPD from the period before Hitler took power,the '30,and during the period then Ernst Thalmann was the leader of the KPD.In that period,they were a soc-dem party,its quite simple as that.

The phrase social democratic changed it's meaning from Marxist to what it is today, during this period.

The point is that originally it was a Marxist party so the workers who supported it were not fascists they were just ordinary workers, so the KPD got it all wrong, as I have explained.

[daft punk]

The revolution didn't degenerate because Stalin was a 'bad man'. If the revolution had remained isolated, its defeat was certain. Who would have been at the helm, isn't really a crucial question.

Devrim

The problem with this post is that it is wrong. You make it sound like things would have been the same if Lenin and Trotsky had remained in charge. This is a travesty of Marxism and historical record.

Starting in 1924 Stalin immediately abandoned Marxism and the policies Lenin and Trotsky had put forward.

Of course socialism was impossible if Russia remained isolated, we all know that.

Statements like yours above smack of someone who has just discovered Marxism, read about materialism, but doesnt understand that Marx actually waged war on the materialists, and brought in dialectics to make sense of things. This was his genius. And so in Marxism the role of the individual is not ignored at all, it is merely placed into context.

[Omsk]

The point is that originally it was a Marxist party so the workers who supported it were not fascists they were just ordinary workers, so the KPD got it all wrong, as I have explained.

The point is that the proto-revisionist Comintern and the KPD didn't actually get the theory of social-fascism right,and that the theory never assumed and tried to prove that the soc-dems are actual fascists.I wrote about that subject,you can read it for clarification.

[Ocean Seal]

It would. The precise forms of its degeneration would be quite different, though.



Unlikely. Rather he would have tried to expand revolution at all costs, which would have given the process of degeneration a more militaristic outlook. The ultimate outcome would likely be an earlier and more violent destruction of the SU, which would in the other hand have retained much more of its symbolism and appeal to anti-capitalists around the world.

Stalin was an internationalist for a while as well, and Stalin's ideas of socialism in one country weren't exactly what he had implemented.



Extremely unlikely. Stalin did not have the intellectual abilities to such a task.
Stalin didn't have the intellectual capacities to lead his own current? Are you sure? Because I can think of quite a few figures in our movement who have a rather large following and don't seem as intellectually capable as others.


More probably he would have faded into unimportance (or perhaps made a carreer under Trotsky). The most likely Bolshevik leader to put up an actual opposition to a Trotskyist government in the SU was Nikolai Bukharin. It is also unlikely that the repression to such opposition would be in any way similar, in degree, intent or, form, to Stalin's crushing of Russian (and from other nationalities under the SU) Communists of all persuasions.

There is nothing to suggest this.

Also its called a joke.

[dodger]

exactly why im not a fan of the idea of 'peaceful coexistence'

That sentence shocked me, Rusty, would you care to expand on it. Thanks.

[Rusty Shackleford]

That sentence shocked me, Rusty, would you care to expand on it. Thanks.
socialism is on the clock once a revolution establishes it, until the point of imperialism being defeated world wide. Until then imperialism must be checked everywhere as to weaken it internationally, and also internally it must be checked.

Imperialism has the power of exploitation, and a staunch disregard for humanity or even saving its own face. Imperialists were driving wedges betweeen socialist nations, sure there were some cracks but why did yugo and ussr break apart? china ussr? albania and the whole world? meanwhile the line of peaceful coexistence lead to a deflation of the capabilities of communist parties in the west, though arms and so on were still going to national liberation struggles (which i approve)

Im not fond of the parliamentarian line of Kruschchov at all, too.



and what he said about revolution degenerating because of time, along with my argument around peaceful coexistence, imperialism will attack in any way, at any chance it gets to weaken independent nations and socialist revolutions.

[Rafiq]

This however assumes that Stalin played no role in the isolation of the revolution.

Since Stalin was instrumental at least in three huge defeats for revolution abroad Russia - the defeat of the Chinese communists in 1929, Hitler's power grab in 1933, and the defeat of Spanish revolution in 1936-39 - though, I think a more nuanced position would be better.

Luís Henrique

Trotsky or Lenin more or less would have done the same. That's the point. Should Stalin himself have died in 1919, another Stalin would take his place.

Don't you know the Lenin lead bolsheviks gave arms to Kemalists who murdered communists in 1920? The revolution was already degenerating. Stalin was irrelivent, a puppet of the inevitable.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[daft punk]

The point is that the proto-revisionist Comintern and the KPD didn't actually get the theory of social-fascism right,and that the theory never assumed and tried to prove that the soc-dems are actual fascists.I wrote about that subject,you can read it for clarification.

Go ahead, by all means, blame the Germans. Show me how they got social fascism wrong.

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by Luís Henrique http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2399805#post2399805)
"This however assumes that Stalin played no role in the isolation of the revolution.

Since Stalin was instrumental at least in three huge defeats for revolution abroad Russia - the defeat of the Chinese communists in 1929, Hitler's power grab in 1933, and the defeat of Spanish revolution in 1936-39 - though, I think a more nuanced position would be better.

Luís Henrique "



Trotsky or Lenin more or less would have done the same. That's the point. Should Stalin himself have died in 1919, another Stalin would take his place.

Don't you know the Lenin lead bolsheviks gave arms to Kemalists who murdered communists in 1920? The revolution was already degenerating. Stalin was irrelivent, a puppet of the inevitable.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Ludicrous. Have you never read any Trotsky? He opposed Stalin's line on all three consistently.

[daft punk]

Also important would be the degree to which a different leadership could have preserved collective rule.

Luís Henrique

Lenin and Trotsky understood that socialism needs collective rule, they just abandoned it during the civil war and a couple of years after when the economy was destroyed. In 1922 Lenin warned of the bureaucracy taking over, and the dangers of red tape. In 1923 Trotsky wrote the New Course, warning of the dangers of bureaucracy within the party itself (when Lenin talked of the bureaucracy he meant the one inherited from the Tsar).

Things went the wrong way in 1923 and after Lenin died the shit hit the fan big time, thanks to Stalin. He not only didnt try to fight it, he played on it, used it, headed it, became it's leader.

[Rafiq]

Ludicrous. Have you never read any Trotsky? He opposed Stalin's line on all three consistently.

Only because he wasn't able to grab Stalin's position for himself and lived in opposition like the opportunist cockroach that he was. Switch positions, had Stalin been in opposition, he would have criticized Trotsky's show trials and alliances with Bourgeois states.

And Trotsky never opposed aid to kemalists.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

I think that there are two points here. First the events you talk of are a little too late, particularly in the case of the Spanish 'revolution'. Secondly, I don't think that Stalin undertook those policies because he was a 'bad man', but because they reflected the needs of Russia capital. The policies advocated by TROTSKY IN OPPOSITION would have been unlikely to be the same as those advocated by the head of a capitalist state.

Devrim

daft, read carefully

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[A Marxist Historian]

Trotsky or Lenin more or less would have done the same. That's the point. Should Stalin himself have died in 1919, another Stalin would take his place.

Don't you know the Lenin lead bolsheviks gave arms to Kemalists who murdered communists in 1920? The revolution was already degenerating. Stalin was irrelivent, a puppet of the inevitable.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

It's quite true that Stalin was eminently replaceable. Trotsky and Lenin however would hardly have acted like Stalin did--unless we remember the OP, the original idea of which was a military coup by Trotsky. Yes indeed, if Trotsky had seized power by such an undemocratic and anti-working class method, he'd quickly have become at best another Stalin, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

As for the Bolsheviks giving arms to Turkey, which at that point the British imperialists were trying to vivisect, that was absolutely correct.

Kemal had no need for Russian arms to repress the Turkish communists, who were far too weak to attempt an uprising. In fact I doubt if he ever used Russian arms against them at all. Whatever for? Handcuffs, billy clubs and torture equipment was what he used on them, all probably of domestic manufacture.

The arms the Soviets gave Turkey were used to hold off British imperialism, thereby if anything strengthening the political position of Turkish communists and making it a bit harder poltically for Kemal to repress them.

-M.H.-

[Devrim]

As for the Bolsheviks giving arms to Turkey, which at that point the British imperialists were trying to vivisect, that was absolutely correct.

Turkey didn't actually exist as a state at the time. Certainly there were plans to carve up the Ottoman empire though. Whether this means that it was "absolutely correct" for the Bolsheviks to arm the Turkish nationalists is a different question.


Kemal had no need for Russian arms to repress the Turkish communists, who were far too weak to attempt an uprising. In fact I doubt if he ever used Russian arms against them at all. Whatever for? Handcuffs, billy clubs and torture equipment was what he used on them, all probably of domestic manufacture.

This makes it sound like they just imprisoned and tortured communists whereas in fact many communists and workers were murdered including the entire leadership of the party. It would be very surprising if Soviet guns weren't used against workers and communists.


The arms the Soviets gave Turkey were used to hold off British imperialism, thereby if anything strengthening the political position of Turkish communists and making it a bit harder poltically for Kemal to repress them.

I hardly see how the nationalists murders of the CP central committee made it harder for Mustapha Kemal to repress them, or how it could have strengthened their position.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The problem with this post is that it is wrong. You make it sound like things would have been the same if Lenin and Trotsky had remained in charge. This is a travesty of Marxism and historical record.

Of course things wouldn't have remained the same. However the revolution was doomed if it failed to spread. If Lenin had lived longer or Trotsky would have made a coup, it wouldn't have changed that.

That is not to say that they would have ended up exactly the same as Stalin. The revolution could, for example, have been crushed by outside forces, though it seems unlikely by that stage.

If Lenin or Trotsky had stayed in power in Russia though, they would have ended up adapting to the needs of capital and the state. That much is clear. Socialism in one country is impossible.


Starting in 1924 Stalin immediately abandoned Marxism and the policies Lenin and Trotsky had put forward.

Actually Stalin adopted many of the policies particularly those concerning industrialisation from the Trotskyists.

Devrim

[Omsk]

Go ahead, by all means, blame the Germans. Show me how they got social fascism wrong.


This showed me that you don't have an idea what social-fascism is.It was never about the idea that fascism and social-democracy are the same,it was just a reminder thesis that both fascism and social-democracy are directly against the worker's struggles,and that they are similar in that segment,not that the soc-dems and the fascists are the same.And the German communists suggested exactly that.That was their mistake.

[A Marxist Historian]

Turkey didn't actually exist as a state at the time. Certainly there were plans to carve up the Ottoman empire though. Whether this means that it was "absolutely correct" for the Bolsheviks to arm the Turkish nationalists is a different question.

This makes it sound like they just imprisoned and tortured communists whereas in fact many communists and workers were murdered including the entire leadership of the party. It would be very surprising if Soviet guns weren't used against workers and communists.

I hardly see how the nationalists murders of the CP central committee made it harder for Mustapha Kemal to repress them, or how it could have strengthened their position.

Devrim

The Ottoman Empire had basically fallen apart, collapsing in WWI just as did the German and the Austro-Hungarian.

What was at issue was whether Turkey should have a right to an independent national existence, or if half of Turkey should become a Greek colony. Turkey had a right to its own national self-determination, it had a right to exist as something other than a British neo-colony in half of Anatolia. To support the Turks vs. British imperialist domination was absolutely no different from supporting the Indians or any other Third World people vs. imperialism.

Be it noted that the biggest crime of the Turkish nationalist was anti-Armenian genocide, and the Bolsheviks in fact incorporated Armenia into the USSR, providing the Armenians a safe refuge from mass murder. Something Kemal, of course, was not too thrilled about.

The Turkish Communist Party barely existed, with a few hundred people at most, and little mass support. It didn't even come into existence at all until after the Bolshevik Revolution. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had no need whatsoever for guns from Russia or anyplace else to suppress it.

Certainly strong Bolshevik support for Turkey's right to national self-determination was politically useful for the Turkish communists, though not useful enough to stop Kemal.

About the only useful thing the Bolsheviks could do for the Turkish communists, aside from sending money etc., which they certainly did do, was diplomatic representations trying to get Kemal to back off. Which were made, ineffectually unfortunately.

-M.H.-

[Devrim]

Certainly strong Bolshevik support for Turkey's right to national self-determination was politically useful for the Turkish communists, though not useful enough to stop Kemal.

What this basically reads as is "Bolshevik support for Kemal was politically useful for the Turkish communists, though not useful enough to stop Kemal".

The TKP at the time certainly didn't think it was useful:


But the point that matters to us is that all the acts of betrayal and murder were committed while in a close alliance to Russia whose help we strongly need. While representatives in Russia declared that Anatolia was communist in their long articles in the Moscow newspaper, a horde of police and soldiers chased the real communists in Anatolia. Unfortunately all the help given by Russia in the name of the Anatolian workers did nothing but to strengthen the Anatolian ruling class against the Anatolian workers


Be it noted that the biggest crime of the Turkish nationalist was anti-Armenian genocide,...

We are here talking about mass genocide. If we take into account the later massacres perpetrated by the Kemalist state, not to mention the ethnic cleansing, we are talking of millions of people, and let's not forget that the genocide in the First War was committed by the same officer corps that formed the basis of the Kemalist army. The Bolsheviks backed a genocidal ultra nationalist movement.


...and the Bolsheviks in fact incorporated Armenia into the USSR, providing the Armenians a safe refuge from mass murder. Something Kemal, of course, was not too thrilled about.

The majority of 'historic Armenia' remained inside the Turkish state, and pre-war, the majority of the Armenian population lived within the Ottoman Empire. The Bolsheviks actually also gave away a huge part of Armenia in the Treaty of Kars*.


The Turkish Communist Party barely existed, with a few hundred people at most, and little mass support. It didn't even come into existence at all until after the Bolshevik Revolution.

Even though the TKP was a small new organisation, its union organisations numbered tens of thousands of workers.


Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had no need whatsoever for guns from Russia or anyplace else to suppress it.Again it is not how the Turkish communists saw it at the time:


the government can shoot Turkish workers and peasants like rabbits now thanks to the Comintern gold
About the only useful thing the Bolsheviks could do for the Turkish communists, aside from sending money etc., which they certainly did do, was diplomatic representations trying to get Kemal to back off. Which were made, ineffectually unfortunately.

Ambassador Arlov actually turned in communists who came to him for help to the Kemalist state.


What was at issue was whether Turkey should have a right to an independent national existence, or if half of Turkey should become a Greek colony. Turkey had a right to its own national self-determination, it had a right to exist as something other than a British neo-colony in half of Anatolia. To support the Turks vs. British imperialist domination was absolutely no different from supporting the Indians or any other Third World people vs. imperialism.

No, it is not any different at all. Both of them end up in dropping class politics to support various nationalism, and both have the tendency to end up with the massacre of communists, workers, and members of (smaller) minorities.

Devrim

*There was a land exchange, and the Turks ceded Adjara, but the land ceded to the Turks was much larger, and more populous.

[Geiseric]

Of course things wouldn't have remained the same. However the revolution was doomed if it failed to spread. If Lenin had lived longer or Trotsky would have made a coup, it wouldn't have changed that.

That is not to say that they would have ended up exactly the same as Stalin. The revolution could, for example, have been crushed by outside forces, though it seems unlikely by that stage.

If Lenin or Trotsky had stayed in power in Russia though, they would have ended up adapting to the needs of capital and the state. That much is clear. Socialism in one country is impossible.



Actually Stalin adopted many of the policies particularly those concerning industrialisation from the Trotskyists.

Devrim

Actually Trotsky was advocating for Industrialisation before the Capitalists could accumulate land and power for as long as they did in the Russian countryside. As of 1923 the question of industrialisation and Nationalisation of the economy would have been a huge step foward, but Stalin let the Capitalists keep their land for longer.

There was a huge difference, and you need to read about the differences in Economic policies between the Left, Center, and Right oppositions. Their international policies were also drastically different. The Left Opposition was promoting United Fronts with other workers organizations against Fascism when the Stalinists were ultra sectarian.

[A Marxist Historian]

What this basically reads as is "Bolshevik support for Kemal was politically useful for the Turkish communists, though not useful enough to stop Kemal".

The TKP at the time certainly didn't think it was useful:

Devrim, on my computer screen I am seeing something very strange. All sorts of extremely serious charges about Soviet policy "originally posted by TKP."

Now, my impression is that the TKP in the 1920 had access neither to the Internet or to time machines, so I find it hard to believe that the TKP posted these comments.

Sources please?

If the Turkish Communist Party was really leading masses of workers in the 1920s, and denouncing the CPUSSR for supporting Kemal against them, well, I'd like to hear more, and in that case what I was arguing was wrong. But I am skeptical.

It is true that Zinoviev, the head of the Comintern, definitely deviated in the direction of supporting "Pan Islamism" as allegedly a revolutionary force vs. British imperialism. Such as in the famous "Baku Conference" in 1920, depicted not inaccurately in the movie "Reds."

I do not know what role, if any, Lenin or Trotsky played on this, or if they were even aware of this alleged breach in revolutionary internationalism. Trotsky did later criticize many of Zinoviev's similar policies as Comintern leader, in "Third International After Lenin." Many of Zinoviev's errors did point in the direction of politically supporting allegedly "revolutionary" bourgeois forces in the Third World. Like the Kuomintang in China, etc. etc. Of course Stalin was much worse.



We are here talking about mass genocide. If we take into account the later massacres perpetrated by the Kemalist state, not to mention the ethnic cleansing, we are talking of millions of people, and let's not forget that the genocide in the First War was committed by the same officer corps that formed the basis of the Kemalist army. The Bolsheviks backed a genocidal ultra nationalist movement.

The majority of 'historic Armenia' remained inside the Turkish state, and pre-war, the majority of the Armenian population lived within the Ottoman Empire. The Bolsheviks actually also gave away a huge part of Armenia in the Treaty of Kars*.


Backing Turkey vs. the British was correct. Backing Kemal "politically," if in fact the Bolsheviks did this, would have been very incorrect.

Enver Pasha, one of the butchers of the Armenians, did show up at the Baku Conference and made all sorts of revolutionary speeches, after the Kemalists kicked him out of Turkey. Letting him do this was a mistake. In 1922 he got involved with the "Basmachi" uprisings in Central Asia, the equivalent at the time of the Afghan Mujahedeen, and was killed in battle by Soviet troops, arms in hand, in rebellion against the Soviet state.

As for the Treaty of Kars, the Bolsheviks had no choice about that, any more than they did about Brest Litovsk. The Caucasus was not even fully conquered from the counterrevolutionary forces until 1921, when the Menshevik regime in Georgia was overthrown. Armenia itself wasn't Sovietized until the fall of 1920.

-M.H.-



Even though the TKP was a small new organisation, its union organisations numbered tens of thousands of workers.

Again it is not how the Turkish communists saw it at the time:



Ambassador Arlov actually turned in communists who came to him for help to the Kemalist state.



No, it is not any different at all. Both of them end up in dropping class politics to support various nationalism, and both have the tendency to end up with the massacre of communists, workers, and members of (smaller) minorities.

Devrim

*There was a land exchange, and the Turks ceded Adjara, but the land ceded to the Turks was much larger, and more populous.

[Devrim]

Devrim, on my computer screen I am seeing something very strange. All sorts of extremely serious charges about Soviet policy "originally posted by TKP."

Now, my impression is that the TKP in the 1920 had access neither to the Internet or to time machines, so I find it hard to believe that the TKP posted these comments.

Sarcasm is really the lowest form of wit. I believe it is quite common practice to place use the quote function even if it is not from another user of the forum, but from some historic text.


Sources please?

The quotation comes from a pamphlet published by the TKP in February 1922 called 'The Turkish Workers' Road to Emancipation', quoted in this instance from Tunçay, Mete. Eski Sol Üzerine Yeni Bilgiler. İstanbul: Belge Publications, 1982. p. 174.



If the Turkish Communist Party was really leading masses of workers in the 1920s, and denouncing the CPUSSR for supporting Kemal against them, well, I'd like to hear more, and in that case what I was arguing was wrong.


I didn't say it was leading masses of workers. I said the red unions had tens of thousands of members, and yes, you are wrong.



I do not know what role, if any, Lenin or Trotsky played on this, or if they were even aware of this alleged breach in revolutionary internationalism. Trotsky did later criticize many of Zinoviev's similar policies as Comintern leader, in "Third International After Lenin." Many of Zinoviev's errors did point in the direction of politically supporting allegedly "revolutionary" bourgeois forces in the Third World. Like the Kuomintang in China, etc. etc. Of course Stalin was much worse.


That the Soviets supported the Kemalists is pretty much well known historical fact. For example Wiki states:



On August 4, 1920, Ankara′s representative in Moscow—Riza Nur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riza_Nur)—sent a telegram saying that soon 60 Krupp artillery pieces, 30,000 shells, 700,000 grenades, 10,000 mines, 60,000 Romanian swords, 1.5 million captured Ottoman rifles, 1 million Russian rifles, 1 million Austro-Hungarian Mannlicher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannlicher) rifles, as well as some Martini-Henry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martini-Henry) rifles and 25,000 bayonets would be in the possession of the Turkish nationalists.[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_War_of_Independence#cite_note-Kapur-47)[page needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)]


This is not one individuals 'political support'.



As for the Treaty of Kars, the Bolsheviks had no choice about that, any more than they did about Brest Litovsk.


I wasn't actually discussing whether they had a choice, merely refuting your statement that 'the Bolsheviks in fact incorporated Armenia into the USSR', which was factually untrue.




Backing Turkey vs. the British was correct.


This is not a fact. It is an opinion. It is one that I don't share, and one which many TKP militants at the time didn't share either. There were also Greek communists who argued for a similar line:



The correct policy, in line with the interests of the proletarian revolution, would have been to call on the Greek and Turkish soldiers to fraternise, and the popular masses to struggle together, without letting themselves be stopped by national, racial and religious differences, for the republic of workers’ and peasants’ councils in Asia Minor

Devrim

[A Marxist Historian]

Sarcasm is really the lowest form of wit. I believe it is quite common practice to place use the quote function even if it is not from another user of the forum, but from some historic text.

No it isn't. The proper way to quote a historic text here is not by using the quote function, whose purpose is to quote from another posting, but to use quote marks. I've never noticed anybody else doing this, and it certainly confused me. I was not being sarcastic, perhaps overly didactic.

But whatever. This is an English language forum, and if you are not familiar with the standard English-language conventions, this is not your fault. That you now have sourced the quote properly is very helpful.




The quotation comes from a pamphlet published by the TKP in February 1922 called 'The Turkish Workers' Road to Emancipation', quoted in this instance from Tunçay, Mete. Eski Sol Üzerine Yeni Bilgiler. İstanbul: Belge Publications, 1982. p. 174.

Well, not too helpful on this forum, as I doubt anyone here can read Turkish, and even if they could getting hold of this pamphlet would be tricky. I'd like to know much more about the context of the issuing of this pamphlet.

There is a standard, generally-accepted historical source on this, which you would do well to familiarize yourself with, and it is probably available in Turkish libraries or even bookstores.

I am referring to the third volume of E. H. Carr's famous history of the Soviet Union, widely accepted as the definitive source on matters like this by Soviet historians of all persuasions.

"The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1923," Vol. 3, E.H. Carr, Penguin Books (1971 paperback reprint).

Carr discusses the TKP, the repressions, and Bolshevik relations with Kemal, etc. on pages 298-304 abnd 470-474, in considerable detail.

Carr is quite critical overall of Bolshevik relations with Kemal, he like you tends to think that Bolsheviks relations with Kemal were about the needs of Soviet foreign policy, not revolution. But on the facts, he gives a different picture than you, or this TKP pamphlet, does.

According to Carr, the arms were given to Kemal in spring 1922 as part of a deal. And one of the parts of the deal was that the TKP was relegalized and TKP prisoners were let out of prison!

The deal was signed in January 1922, and the prisoners were let out in ... March. And in between, February 1922, is when this pamphlet was published.

Quite possibly that's the explanation for this pamphlet right there!

But by the fall of 1922, when Kemal had won his war, the deal ended, Kemal broke with the USSR, and, of course, the TKP was suppressed again.

Whether signing this deal with Kemal was a good idea or not is arguable, but if Carr's account is accurate, this was not a stab in the back for the TKP, indeed quite the contrary.



...
That the Soviets supported the Kemalists is pretty much well known historical fact. For example Wiki states:

[long list of all the weaponry delivered-M.H.-]

This is not one individuals 'political support'.

You're totally missing the point. For the Bolsheviks to give Kemal weaponry to fight British imperialism and its Greek puppets, as detailed on Wiki, was perfectly principled. But if the Bolsheviks gave him any political support, that would have been unprincipled.

At least that's my opinion.



I wasn't actually discussing whether they had a choice, merely refuting your statement that 'the Bolsheviks in fact incorporated Armenia into the USSR', which was factually untrue.

Wrong. They incorporated as much of Armenia as they could. The parts of Armenia occupied by Soviet troops became the Armenian SSR, which now has its independence as the independent state of Armenia. They obviously could not do that in the parts occupied by Turkish troops. There was some territorial exchange of course.

And, for that matter, by the time the Red Army got there Armenians had been cleared out of that area and it had no Armenian population, so incorporating it back into Armenia would not have been a good idea, might have meant a reverse genocide of the Turkish and Kurdish population of the ara.



This is not a fact. It is an opinion. It is one that I don't share, and one which many TKP militants at the time didn't share either. There were also Greek communists who argued for a similar line:

[quote from Stinas-M.H.-]

Devrim

Sorry I can't keep the quotes in this posting, Revleft doesn't work that way, wish it did.

That Greek communists didn't like a political line of support to Turkey vs. England and Greece doesn't exactly prove that they were revolutionary internationalists. No patriotic Greek nationalist would like that line either, after all!

But that may not be a fair critique of Stinas. I'm not a huge expert on Greek Trotskyism, but I do know that Stinas became a Trotskyist. And I also know that he was one of the Greek Trotskyists who split from Trotskyism because he did not support the national liberation struggle of the Greek people vs. the Nazis during WWII, arguing that it was subordinated to British imperialism (rather ironic in the 1922 context.)

In fact, the Greek national liberation struggle was led by the Greek CP, who as we all know had a major falling out with Churchill after WWII, resulting in the Greek Civil War. So Stinas's line, whether during WWII or during the 1922 war, was sectarian and wrong.

Calling for "revolutionary defeatism" between Greeks and Turks in the mutually murderous Greek-Turkish war would have been correct--if that's all it was.

But the facts are that the Greeks were allied with, or rather were running dogs for, British imperialism in 1922. So supporting Turkey vs. British imperialism was correct, with or without Greek involvement, and helping Kemal inflict a blow on British imperialism was a correct revolutionary policy.

-M.H.-

[Althusser]

Say that Trotsky had succeeded Lenin and the USSR collapsed a lot sooner than it did having Stalin succeed Lenin... I think that the loss of life under Stalin's regime was not worth a few more years of counter-revolutionary "socialism in one country" nonsense that would have never dissolved into a stateless society.

Sure we will never know exactly what Trotsky would have been able to achieve, but I am 100% sure that there would have been no rise of fascism in Germany. Stalin so blatantly ignored the rise of fascism, I sometimes wonder what his intentions were...